Are Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest RPGs?

Felch · February 10, 2003, 19:57

Not to pick just those two series out, but they are the big ones coming out of Japan.

Now to make clear one thing - I enjoy playing them. Final Fantasy games and the Dragon Quest titles are some of my old school favorites, and they've maintained pretty well over the years.

However, compared to actual role playing games, both pen and paper and computer RPGs, these lack the essence of player control. In Final Fantasy you have no option to do anything outside of the script. Compare this to PnP where infinite options exist limited only by your imagination, or by CRPGs like Fallout and Planescape: Torment where a multitude of paths exist, and where consequences also exist for your actions, Final Fantasy seems to be little more than an adventure game with some cosmetic RPG aspects.

Experience points and swords are not what makes an RPG. It's the ability to decide the fate of your character, and to play a role that makes an RPG.

Just curious if anybody shares that opinion, or if there are any dissenting comments.

Sava · February 10, 2003, 20:10

While you may not like the "experience points and swords" aspects of certain RPG's, you can't simply exclude them summarily from that category because of your distaste for them. I personally don't like RPG's, BTW.

And before the newer hardware and processing capabilites, RPG's were limited by their system capabilities. And some games, like you said, are simply just following a script. But in those types of games, there's often only one ending action... one way to win anyways. And I think that going through a scripted puzzle is just as much an RPG as going through a completely interactive world.

Static Universe · February 10, 2003, 20:24

Never played Dragon Quest, but I do consider Final Fantasy to be an RPG. Think of it as Dungeons and Dragons with only one module and a handful of precreated character.

I don't think character creation or story diversity are absolutely necessary components of an RPG, but they are nice add-ons.

General Ludd · February 10, 2003, 21:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
While you may not like the "experience points and swords" aspects of certain RPG's, you can't simply exclude them summarily from that category because of your distaste for them. I personally don't like RPG's, BTW.

They don't belong in the category in the first place. Stats and equipment have nothing to do with roleplaying and, if anything, they only make it less of a roleplaying game.

Same goes for linear "story RPGs" those are adventure games, not role playing games.

Felch · February 10, 2003, 22:37

Osweld understands what I'm saying.

My point isn't meant to criticize the fun factor or Final Fantasy, but rather the ability to play a role. While I like the stats and equipment in RPGs, he's right that they aren't really needed.

As far as technology goes, FF seems to be even more tightly scripted now than ever. It's like a semi-interactive movie, where you play a role, but can't break out of the script to do anything more than kill some super-ultra-mega secret boss.

Drake Tungsten · February 10, 2003, 23:32

Of course Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest are RPG's.

Static Universe · February 11, 2003, 01:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Of course Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest are RPG's.

I agree. just because the roles and story are somewhat limited does not make them any less of an RPG.*

* Okay, very very limited in FF's case.

Kc7mxo · February 11, 2003, 02:50

Final Fantasy forces you to play a role, therefore, you're roleplaying.

Sava · February 11, 2003, 08:02

You guys realize that RPG's really started with D&D. And that game is all about experience points and swords, etc.

of all the things to argue about

Unspeakable Horror · February 11, 2003, 08:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Kc7mxo
Final Fantasy forces you to play a role, therefore, you're roleplaying.

But then any game that forced you to play a role would be RPG (Max Paine, Starcraft, Civilization)

General Ludd · February 11, 2003, 09:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
You guys realize that RPG's really started with D&D. And that game is all about experience points and swords, etc.

of all the things to argue about

Actually, role playing games start when you're 8 years old and playing cowboys and indians. The purpose of a roleplaying game is to give you a base to act out your character with, and a set of rules to give form to the roleplaying so it isn't just "pow, you're dead", "no i'm not!".

D&D isn't about experience and swords, it is about whatever you make it.

Grumbold · February 11, 2003, 09:35

I think its easier to say that there are Eastern and Western style CRPG's. Western style give you a plot structure, mandatory events and a sequence that must be followed. They usually allow you a lot of flexibility in your persona, your choice of companions and the side quests you investigate on your journey. You craft your own tale out of the many possible story elements provided by the writers. They originated on mainframes and are pretty much limited to PC's because of the complex stat, inventory, journal and spell management.

Eastern RPG's are far more story driven where you wear the persona scripted for you and are only allowed to follow the path scripted for the persona. Your job is to have fun doing the adventuring parts and finding the hidden special items while enjoying the story created for you to participate in. They are primarily found on (and suited to) consoles where everything can be driven by the game controller.

Felch · February 11, 2003, 12:50

Then Eastern RPGs aren't really role playing games. Since you don't have any choices in how the role is played, they're adventure games instead, like King's Quest or Full Throttle. In those games you control a character, and "Your job is to have fun doing the adventuring parts and finding the hidden special items while enjoying the story created for you to participate in."

That's what I'm driving at here. The Eastern RPGs are essentially in a whole other genre, and games like Diablo go into that genre with them. They don't allow you to have any control over how the role is played, so they aren't really role playing games.

However, it is nice to see that so many people have opinions about this. I'm not trying to force people to see things my way, I'm just trying to clarify what I'm saying. What genre games are really isn't as important as whether or not they're fun.

Grumbold · February 11, 2003, 13:38

Absolutely. In fact if you search Apolyton we've certainly done the "is Diablo a RPG just because some reviewers pidgeonhole it like that?" eloquently and at great length. I don't think its as easy to shrug off the Japanese games. They are fundamentally different but to the Japanese they are the true RPG's. Easier to just subcategorise them East and West

Felch · February 11, 2003, 13:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Grumbold
Absolutely. In fact if you search Apolyton we've certainly done the "is Diablo a RPG just because some reviewers pidgeonhole it like that?" eloquently and at great length. I don't think its as easy to shrug off the Japanese games. They are fundamentally different but to the Japanese they are the true RPG's. Easier to just subcategorise them East and West

Good point.

SnowFire · February 11, 2003, 18:13

Bah, definitions. Certainly, in the sense of Pen and Paper RPGs, Eastern RPGs don't give you remotely that amount of freedom. That said, if that's what you're basing it off of, Computer RPGs barely qualify either. I can think of some "Eastern" RPGs where there are plot shifts and times where your decision matters (and will change things like the ending or some future events); Computer RPGs often merely give you your choice of a bunch of subquests, which you are expected to do some of to level up; and a main quest, which occasionally gives you a few branches. I don't really think that's comparable to the ultimate freedom of Pen & Paper RPGs, where there are nigh-infinite branches and options in how to go about things. If the subquests are random "help us out things" anyway, I'd rather be doing relevant but forced quests a la Eastern RPGs, but hey, that's personal preference.

A good example might be BG1 and BG2. BG2 is frankly closer to an Eastern style game in some ways with so much of the plot already set for you to go out and do, and you can simply choose alignments and occasionally complete some quests slightly differently. There's also the subquests which are semi-optional, but you're expected to do some of (for raising 20,000 gold, for instance). BG1 seems like a more standard Western RPG, but just because there's no set order of the things to do, you're ultimately just picking some pre-packaged quests.

So in short, computer RPGs (West) are closer to console RPGs (East) than computer/Western RPGs are to true RPGs, pen and paper.

Kc7mxo · February 11, 2003, 18:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Carlos113

But then any game that forced you to play a role would be RPG (Max Paine, Starcraft, Civilization)

Yep!

Static Universe · February 11, 2003, 19:49

Quote:

Originally posted by SnowFire

So in short, computer RPGs (West) are closer to console RPGs (East) than computer/Western RPGs are to true RPGs, pen and paper.

I think computer RPGs are getting closer and closer to the diversity of pen and paper RPGs every year.

I remember playing Ultima as teen back in the 80s and no one in the world then would have questioned whether or not that was an RPG. Of course it was.

The problem is that RPGs in the computer world have been fairly slow to diversify. The latest Final Fantasy isn't that much different from Ultima I, IMO. The gaming industry has always seemed locked into the idea that RPG games have to have a fairly set story and a clear ending.

Ten years ago, I don't think there was a huge market among casual gamer buyers for the types of complex RPG games that are showing up now. Or perhaps game companies didn't see that market. Maybe the technology wasn't there. I don't know.

Certainly they didn't want to throw a bunch of money at a game that would be too complicated for the majority of their game buyers. The most complicated of all RPGs in the computer world are, and have always been the rogue-like games, which for the most part have always been free, and developed independantly of software companies.

Looking at games like Nethack or ADOM, which have such a steep learning curves and are completely unforgiving of your mistakes, I would think most average players would give up fairly quickly, even if those games had the best graphics in the gaming world.

But every year the features of games have ratcheted up little by little to the point where game developers are starting to notice the commerical interest in truly open-ended games and complicated RPGs. It's the next logical step for them.

But there will still be people who are attracted to the set characters and story of the so-called "Eastern" RPGs.

SnowFire · February 11, 2003, 20:36

Static23.. I'm not sure I see what your point is. Nethack doesn't have much of a plot, and it's mostly set assuming you actually succeed. In any case, "truly open-ended games..." perhaps I should clarify. Open-endedness in the gameplay sense is easy. I can start your character in the middle of a vast world with nothing to do but wander around the plains & forests & Mountains killing things, visiting towns, and levelling up. You can visit this world in any order you like as you explore it. However, the game I just described is totally plotless, the ultimate set story. SimCity is a great game, and gives you no real goals other than to have fun. You can attack your town however you'd like. Still, that doesn't count for an open-ended plot.

But open-ended in the role-playing, plot sense... now that is hard. Really hard. Frankly, the closest thing we have to it right now is The Sims- create whatever characters you like, and their destiny is totally what you make of it. The closest thing upcoming is Project Ego, which looks quite open-ended plotwise- but that's a console game! But in RPGs set in a world- being able to tune the plot to every action you do is nigh-impossible. Black Isle RPGs give you dialogue options that sometimes change around a few fights, and maybe have some branch points based off of alignment-style choices. Morrowind gives gameplay freedom, but there's still the array of optional subquests combined with the main quest to follow. You might be able to choose which Houses to work with, but the fundamental plot is unchanging, and no amount of finegling your character can do will change that.

Now, this isn't a bad thing, mind! But it's nothing like the flexibility of pen & paper RPGs- where astute players can break the plot in all sorts of fun ways, and the DM is far better to cope with whatever they come up with. Computer/console games cope with this by restricting what you can come up with; without a human handy, it's very hard to tell exactly what the result of random idea X is. The other way to cope is to not have much plot to break in the first place, making it more flexible; this is how The Sims (with no starting plot) and Project Ego (very little plot, although quite malleable) attack from it. It's an interesting step forward, but I'd like to be able to take on gigantic villians with intricate plots that I can actually mess with through my own actions- in other words, a combination of freedom and a strong, robust plot. Something that currently ONLY pen and paper games provide.

I'm really curious about these open-ended RPGs you speak of though, because it's a very interesting field.

Urban Ranger · February 11, 2003, 22:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
You guys realize that RPG's really started with D&D. And that game is all about experience points and swords, etc.

of all the things to argue about

Then again, D&D has been roundly criticized for its lack of the roleplaying aspect.

Urban Ranger · February 11, 2003, 22:51

Quote:

Originally posted by SnowFire
But open-ended in the role-playing, plot sense... now that is hard. Really hard.

I don't think that's possible. Not in movies, not in books, not in paper and pencil RPG's, and certainly not in computer RPG's.

To have that, you need to have a large number of plots all going on at the same time, and these actions all cause ripples that interact and influence each other, when the characters hop about the world. The bad thing about that, of course, is the characters can't make a wrong move. If they are supposed to rescue the princess but they got sidetracked, wham, the princess is very likedly to end up dead or something, because events must unfold synced to the clock, not characters actions.

mactbone · February 11, 2003, 23:40

Final Fantasy 6 at least has choices, or at least as many choices as a game like Planescape:Torment. Once the world is ruined there are only a few characters that it's mandatory to get. With Planescape, the only deal is which people you have to fight and what ending you'll get and there are only three. Neither are very open-ended.

I like RPGs for their story. I appreciate having options, but sometimes too many options doesn't go down well with me because I have certain goals and I'm not sure how to accomplish them if I have too many choices.

Granted, in the past couple years I've liked the BIS games waaaay better than the FF series, I will still remember and cherish FF6 for being a revolutionary, which it was at the time.

General Ludd · February 12, 2003, 08:40

FF6 didn't have any options. Like all those games, it sometimes presented you with an option, but no matter what you chose the outcome would be exactly the same. (Especially annoying is when they present you with an option, then keep asking you again untill you say what they want

)

Grumbold · February 12, 2003, 09:33

I don't think we're any where close to getting meaningful dynamic plot change in CRPG's.

Darklands and Daggerfall among others generate time-limited mini quests for you to accept or reject as you go along but they don't interact with the timestream of the main plot or influence its outcome except to provide you more gold, Xp and cool items.

Fallout and Arcanum include set piece side quests whose outcomes impact upon the game ending. I replayed Fallout 2 many times to see if I could achieve "optimal" results for the various settlements I had passed through and discover all the minutae hidden in the game.

Most games are lazy like the BG's and include set sidequests of little or no impact whatsoever. I certainly wasn't aware of any significant diversion points in FF VII or in FF VIII (unfinished).

mactbone · February 12, 2003, 13:15

What are you talking about? You had to get Celes, Sabin (I think), Edgar (I'm pretty sure) and Setzer - and that WAS IT. You could charge right off to the Tower of Light and take on Kefka if you wanted. Most people decided to travel the world and pick up the remaining characters, but it was by no means necessary - the ending even changes slightly to reflect which characters you picked up. Either you never played it, or you never thought about it. I've seen people try things ala OCC in FF6. They try and get as few characters as possible and beat the game.

Grumbold, there aren't really differences in any of those endings. The FF8 ending might be different depending on your relationship to the girls but I'm not sure (I never beat the game but I had an OC roommate who got everything and showed me the ending which was pretty boring and a half hour to boot).

So, by some of your definitions, a true RPG must have multiple endings that are influenced by what you do. Therefore all those hentai/manga, get a girlfreind game, are RPGs? And FF, DQ are not?

Nowhere is there a stipulation that there must be multiple endings for it to be an RPG, if that's the case every Sports game is one and even Metroid is an RPG! That's obviously not the case.

SnowFire · February 13, 2003, 03:39

To have that, you need to have a large number of plots all going on at the same time, and these actions all cause ripples that interact and influence each other, when the characters hop about the world. The bad thing about that, of course, is the characters can't make a wrong move. If they are supposed to rescue the princess but they got sidetracked, wham, the princess is very likedly to end up dead or something, because events must unfold synced to the clock, not characters actions.

Yes, and a human DM can do that. I might also add that human DMs can better compensate for various things- if the princess really needs to live, then he can generally inspire the heros to get their butts in gear, and if the heroes do diddle around, then the princess dies. The PCs fail. And the DM adapts the plot accordingly. Nobody says that the heroes get the best ending if they don't earn it. But again, nothing stops the human DM from running things based on character actions if he wants to be nice, and he certainly will be better at multiple interacting plots.

FF6 doesn't really have options in the end; like computer RPGs, you have a selection of subquests, which you may choose to do or not at your leisure. It's nice, but it's not true plot interactivity, which would be where you could aim high-explosive magic at the bottom of the Tower of Fanatics until the worshippers get too freaked out and come downstairs, collecting Strago slightly easier and avoiding some battles (just to give one example of what human players might come up with). P.S., Sabin is not required, if you're silly you can just never go to Tzen.

FF8 has no multiple endings, and the plot is pretty much on a rail. That said, console RPGs do keep things interesting by allowing you to discover more of the plot, which is certainly in FF8. Without spoiling too much, a game I've recently played has a bonus at the end a "bad guy's scenario" where you follow the villians throughout the game and get to fight a few of their battles. Sure, the history is already set, but it's really neat to find out what they knew and what they were thinking at various parts, and complete conversations that the heroes only heard the last half of, for instance. In FF8, all of the optional stuff adds to the plot, but you have no control over what it is.

FF7 does have one interesting diversion point in terms of depending on how you interact with characters for the first part of the game, a different character asks you out on the "date" at the Golden Saucer. Totally irrelevant by the end, but a nice nod.

pg · February 13, 2003, 04:51

personally even games like morrowind don't seem to have much real rpg to them. i'll elaborate if i must but basically it's all an illusion. you can pretend you are role playing in morrowind but none of your actions have real in-game(read: not just in your head) consequences. sure there are a few exceptions like stealing = bad, but overall morrowind is much worse than even eu2. eu2 is probably much more rpg like than almost all rpgs.

Urban Ranger · February 13, 2003, 05:25

Quote:

Originally posted by SnowFire
To have that, you need to have a large number of plots all going on at the same time, and these actions all cause ripples that interact and influence each other, when the characters hop about the world. The bad thing about that, of course, is the characters can't make a wrong move. If they are supposed to rescue the princess but they got sidetracked, wham, the princess is very likedly to end up dead or something, because events must unfold synced to the clock, not characters actions.

Yes, and a human DM can do that. I might also add that human DMs can better compensate for various things- if the princess really needs to live, then he can generally inspire the heros to get their butts in gear, and if the heroes do diddle around, then the princess dies. The PCs fail. And the DM adapts the plot accordingly. Nobody says that the heroes get the best ending if they don't earn it. But again, nothing stops the human DM from running things based on character actions if he wants to be nice, and he certainly will be better at multiple interacting plots.

I agree that a human referee can do that - or rather, a human referee is best equipped to do such a thing. At the very least, he can do some rough approximation of open-ended plot, twist things around, and get the PC's to go in the right direction, etc.

I wonder if there is a computer program that lets you sync events with the clock. Sort of a DM helper.

Grumbold · February 13, 2003, 08:02

Quote:

Originally posted by pg
personally even games like morrowind don't seem to have much real rpg to them. i'll elaborate if i must but basically it's all an illusion. you can pretend you are role playing in morrowind but none of your actions have real in-game(read: not just in your head) consequences. sure there are a few exceptions like stealing = bad, but overall morrowind is much worse than even eu2. eu2 is probably much more rpg like than almost all rpgs.

Mmm, I'd argue that one. Its your choice which guilds to join and jobs to do and reputations to build up. NPC's will react to you based on those choices. Sure being a CRPG there's a core quest which they make it very hard for you to derail yourself from, but that is pandering to the majority who I'm sure would tell you that they wanted to be able to finish.

How often do you want to be told "you have reached a point where you cannot complete the game. Press A to continue adventuring randomly, J to jump back top your last save or R to roll up a new character and start again". In Morrowind it happens occasionally if you choose to kill an NPC you shouldn't, but they have kept it as open as possible. In other games they straightjacket you by making those NPC's utterly invulnerable which is worse in my opinion.

Grumbold · February 13, 2003, 08:09

Quote:

Originally posted by MacTBone
Grumbold, there aren't really differences in any of those endings

Do you mean Fallout2?

To finish the core plot of the game you certainly have to kill the bad guys. I find it very interesting that it then projects what your actions have done to change the future. Is a village strong enough to defeat the raiders? Does it become democratic or totalitarian? That is far more influence your roleplaying along the way has than in most games. You picked a path and it affected the future course of the game world. Most games have you defeat Dr Evil and then dont treat how or when you did it or what choices you made along the way as important.

That to me is as good in its own way as other games which let you choose which ending occurs.