Final Fantasy fans explain what 'real' RPGs are

Truly entertaining reading:

http://www.livejournal.com/users/pennya ... 9#t3709929

This all started when someone said Halo was overrated in a Penny Arcade feed, go figure.

Fallout has pretend turn-based while Final Fantasy is real turn-based.

find me a single fan of the Fallout or Arcanum games who isn't also a D&D fan. They're also not turn based in the sense of FF [Final Fantasy], they just pretend to be in order to follow the P&P rulesets and appease the hoards of smelly little fans.

Click to expand...

LOL

This shit just makes me speechless.

Fuck, what's with all the morons today? This shit is really starting to piss me off.

God. Damn. And I don't mean it in a good way this time.

Inane comments by the "other" side:

"Fallout and Arcanum are heavily western inspired D&D bore-fests. They're far removed from the japanese orientated, turn-based RPGs of new. They're of totally different genres -- the FF games aren't even RPGs in the traditional sense."



Sorry, but FF games are EXACTLY RPGs in the traditional sense. Arcanum and Fallout may be your holy grail of RPGs, but they are NOT traditional! In fact, they are unique and a rare gem within the genre.

Hrm... I think this guy makes a damn good point at the end of the thread:

<b>chime 2004-11-08 14:03 </b>

"You have high ideals about what makes P&P RPGs somehow above console ones, but let's consider that not all P&P RPGs fit your elite criteria.

1) Especially in the original form of P&P RPGs, which is what provides the whole longevity argument, a lot of games followed that whole 'Gygaxian dungeon' pattern, where a group of people would make a party of individuals with little to no history, hear about some treasure in a tavern, and go look for it in a cave or tower somewhere, fighting a bunch of villians and monsters with little to no history. Knights of the Dinner Table, anyone? This isn't players-making-plot, this is a complete lack of plot! Does that make it "not an RPG?"

2) Okay, that above example doesn't happen as much in modern games. What does happen, however, is that a DM--by himself, usually--will make a plot. The players will play through it and will contribute to it in that sense, but they'll do very little to contribute to how it develops. If they do something unexpected, like kill a villian the DM wanted to use recurringly (flesh to stone, rock to dust, gust of wind--what have you) then the DM will often just introduce that villian's brother or his boss to fulfill the same role in the upcoming plot, and have it unfold in the exact same way. Slightly more interactivity than in console RPGs, certainly, but not exactly the huge explorable world of interactivity where the pc's actions have realistic effects rippling throughout society. Does that make it "not an RPG?"

I'm reading a book on linguistics--specifically, how the human mind deals with categorization. It discusses how not all categories are rock solid--that they're usually fuzzy around the edges, characterized by resemblence to some kind of central set of archetypal, representative members of that category. (Take 'mother,' which is a word that is normally used to describe someone's biological mother that raised them, but can also be used to describe someone's biological mother that gave them up for adoption, or someone's foster mother who raised them.) For you, the center of that category is in P&P RPGs, and you seem to tolerate very little deviation from it. For some others, it's in console RPGs, to which they were introduced first. I don't think either need be excluded from the more general 'RPG' mantle.

Linguistics arguments sort of lead me into my other point, that things are called what they are because the masses of people use those words to call them that way. Changing your definition of a table to mean "something that has a platform sitting on four legs" does not stop my six-legged table from being a table in the eyes of most of society."



Seems very much like you guys are just as guilty as the FF fanboys.

Seems like you're guilty of not comprehending his point, if you did you would have realized that his critique of our semiotic system (the English language) is uncontextual, not only that, it ignores the fluidity and negotiation involved in the speech acts that he is describing.

On a side note, I've never seen finer use of an illiterate tag.

Damn you, Seven. Beat me to it.

Seven said:

Seems like you're guilty of not comprehending his point, if you did you would have realized that his critique of our semiotic system (the English language) is uncontextual, not only that, it ignores the fluidity and negotiation involved in the speech acts that he is describing.

On a side note, I've never seen finer use of an illiterate tag.

Click to expand...

Right... ok.

Yes, fluidity and negotiation. Something you guys refuse to engage in whatsoever for the most part. For you, I'm sure, Arcanum and Fallout describe everything a CRPG should be, should have been or ever should be so no other game should be considered a CRPG. Yep, that's fluid right there!

But I'm glad the fact that you have posted more makes you better than me...

Console RPGs have never been regarded as 'Traditional' RPGs, Sarvis. They've always been regarded as 'Console RPGs' which typically convey simplistic turn-based combat with fairly little tactics, generic storylines (ChronoTrigger and Anachronox being very strong exceptions to this rule) and very little in the way of choices. There's usually a strong plot with heavy character development, but that differs from developer to developer. Most Console RPGs don't turn out anywhere as well as Final Fantasy.

That said, Console RPGs have their place but referring to them as Traditional RPGs invalidates years of Pen and Paper RPG development, of which games like Fallout and Arcanum are based on. If anything, Troika's and Bioware's titles are a lot closer to being regarded as Traditional RPGs than any Console RPG has ever come close to, hence their immense appeal to old school gamers.

Did you mean to mention Anachronox?

It was PC only, as far I as I know anyway. Or maybe you just meant it was 'console style'.

Exitium said:

Console RPGs have never been regarded as 'Traditional' RPGs, Sarvis.
They've always been regarded as 'Console RPGs' which typically convey simplistic turn-based combat with fairly little tactics, generic storylines (ChronoTrigger and Anachronox being very strong exceptions to this rule) and very little in the way of choices.

Click to expand...

Sounds like Bard's Tale to me...

Not to mention the roguelikes, and I would guess the early Ultima and Wizardry games as well. (Should be mentioned I never got the chance to play those!)

Are those not Traditional?

I think you may be confusing "Western" RPGs with Traditional, or maybe I'm reading the term wrong. I read traditional as meaning old school...

There's usually a strong plot with heavy character development, but that differs from developer to developer. Most Console RPGs don't turn out anywhere as well as Final Fantasy.

Click to expand...

I agree, but this doesn't really make them any less of an RPG.

It just makes them a different <i>style</i> of RPG.

That said, Console RPGs have their place but referring to them as Traditional RPGs invalidates years of Pen and Paper RPG development, of which games like Fallout and Arcanum are based on. If anything, Troika's and Bioware's titles are a lot closer to being regarded as Traditional RPGs than any Console RPG has ever come close to, hence their immense appeal to old school gamers.

Click to expand...

But ALL RPGs grew our of those old D&D games, even if they chose different presentations of the story. Much like that guy said, for those of us actually capable of understanding his point, the storylines in PnP could also be very linear because of a DMs inability to create drastically different content on the fly. I think Vault Dweller even made that point to me in the other thread...

At the core you find that both console RPGs and computer RPGs share the same things:stats, character development (levels and such, not personality development), decisions in combat replacing reflexes, and random factors determining success of actions rather than player skill.

Everything else is just a difference in presentation. A difference in HOW those elements are used to make the game and present the story essentially.

I think what it boils down to is the point Exitium made. Console RPGs have always been more simplistic (as a whole) than Traditional cRPGs due to the nature of the constraints the consoles have. These include such problems as low memory, simplistic controls, etc. No doubt Console RPGs have their place; that place though is not in my repertoire of games.

dojoteef said:

I think what it boils down to is the point Exitium made. Console RPGs have always been more simplistic (as a whole) than Traditional cRPGs due to the nature of the constraints the consoles have. These include such problems as low memory, simplistic controls, etc. No doubt Console RPGs have their place; that place though is not in my repertoire of games.

Click to expand...

That's not even strictly true, as some computer RPGs have been ported to consoles. Pool of Radiance was ported to the Nintendo, which was where I first played it! It suffered from one fatal bug though... you couldn't learn new spells for some reason.

As for capabilities... wasn't KoTR made for both X-box AND PC?

I think the separation between the two may be more one of taste. Most console games come from Japan, and linear RPGs are simply what they prefer over there.

At the most basic level though, both Eastern Console RPGs and Western Computer RPGs are the same. That is really my only point here.

Sarvis said:

Right... ok.

Yes, fluidity and negotiation. Something you guys refuse to engage in whatsoever for the most part. For you, I'm sure, Arcanum and Fallout describe everything a CRPG should be, should have been or ever should be so no other game should be considered a CRPG. Yep, that's fluid right there!

But I'm glad the fact that you have posted more makes you better than me...

Click to expand...

Are you totally clueless, the illiterate tag has to be *earned*, OK perhaps you didn't realize that.

As for fluidity and negotiation, well go back and reread the post because you're still missing the point.

Or perhaps you'd rather something like this: Yes, CRPG, you suck.

Do you see how stupid it is to take one or two words from some one's post and then draw unrelated or dumb conclusions?

As alot of people here at the codex know, I'm a supporter of console RPGs. I've played my fair share of them and get enjoyment out of them. I just don't gush over them like alot of people do.

The main difference between console and computer RPGs is actually rather obvious if you think about it. Console RPGs give you a character, and even if they give you the chance to develop that character the way you want to, it's still nothing complex. If the main hero starts out as a fighter, it's almost assured that he's going to be a fighter when the game ends. Did you get a chance to choose whether or not he was something other than a fighter? No. Most console RPG characters are not flexible. You're stuck with what you are given and in that sense, they are NOT traditional RPGs. But they are still RPGs.

Most computer RPGs are just the opposite. You HAVE control over what your character is to begin with. And, lately, you HAVE control over what they will eventually become. Alot more flexibility when it comes to characters. In that sense, computer RPGs are definitely more traditional.

Slightly more interactivity than in console RPGs, certainly, but not exactly the huge explorable world of interactivity where the pc's actions have realistic effects rippling throughout society.

Click to expand...

I don't know who this guy has played PnP RPGs with, if he ever has, but ever since I started playing DnD back in '79, all the GMs I've ever had allowed for freedom and had to be ready to expect the unexpected. There was never an instance of linearity in any PnP game I've ever played.

I can point out plenty of times where the GM would gives a hint about some dungeon somewhere, but then one of the characters would do something stupid and piss off the wrong person and we'd end up on some other adventure that the GM came up with on the fly, his mapped out dungeon adventure being forgotten.

Basically, to get back to the subject at hand, it boils down to traditional RPGs allowing more freedom with your characters. And in that sense, most console RPGs just don't cut it and therefore are not traditional in my eyes.

That link absolutely goes into the file cabinet of the Stupid People Comments Stuff They Don't Know Anything About-Archive.

It's really horrible, if you think about it. I like angrybabble's comments the most. Those are the salt of the sea, I tell you.

Edit: Have to say, though, that I haven't anything against console "RPG's" like FF. Some of them are even good. But to call them RPG's... Nah. An RPG to me is about character development and your own choices (crudely spoken by me on this tuesday morning...) and none of that is to be found in console "RPG's". You once get a choice to pick a dialogue option and draws the sudden conclusion that all choices boils down to being the very same choice, or just wrong so your party comments "Surely you jest, mate. You mean "Yes", right?"

I probably get bashed now. Well, it can't be helped. I'm tired and have no control over what I write for the moment. :wink:

I think it's pretty safe to say that most Console RPGs shouldn't even be referred to as "traditional" considering how little character development they offer when it comes to player choices. Games like KOTOR should certainly not be classified as "Console RPGs" because it was really a traditional style RPG released on the X-Box, unlike Grandia II, which was a console RPG released on multiple platforms including the PC.

While I don't mind Final Fantasy games and occasionally even enjoy them I don't think they should be called Traditional RPGs. Calling them RPGs is really no worse than calling Diablo or Dungeon Siege RPGs, but claiming that they belong to the traditional style of RPGs is just ludicrous and only an ignorant fucktard could come up with a claim like that.

Games like KOTOR (a traditional style RPG with a lot of limitations, but enough freedom that it can't be regarded as a console-style RPG) and Fallout have far more choices than any Console RPG. Console RPGs are as linear as they come. In most of them, there's absolutely nothing you can do to influence the storyline or even customize your character. Equipment is a binary choice that follows a linear progression. In other words, there's nothing you can do besides get an upgrade. At least Diablo and Dungeon Siege allow you a multitude of combinations of spells and equipment in order to develop your character. You may not have much effect (if any) on the game's story, but you at least have the option to customize your character. Can the same be said for any of the Final Fantasy games (not including FFTactics, of course)?

As for "Eastern" or "Western" style of RPGs, I don't think it's good to call them that considering that there are a number of Chinese and Korean RPGs with Traditional RPG gameplay, like Prince of Qin. I do not think that the creators of Final Fantasy ever intended for their game to be anything more than an interactive adventure with turn based combat and relatively meaningless stats and no choice. As I said, the stories are pretty good if you're into that sort of thing, but you'll not get your RPG fix by playing any of them.

Sarvis said:

dojoteef said:

I think what it boils down to is the point Exitium made. Console RPGs have always been more simplistic (as a whole) than Traditional cRPGs due to the nature of the constraints the consoles have. These include such problems as low memory, simplistic controls, etc. No doubt Console RPGs have their place; that place though is not in my repertoire of games.

Click to expand...

That's not even strictly true, as some computer RPGs have been ported to consoles. Pool of Radiance was ported to the Nintendo, which was where I first played it!

Click to expand...

I don't think you understand the mean of "as a whole", how about "generally" would you understand that terminology, or how about "for the most part"? In other words I didn't say EVERY RPG fell into the category, just most.

Sarvis said:

As for capabilities... wasn't KoTR made for both X-box AND PC?

Click to expand...

First of all it was made for the Xbox and then ported to PC, but that's not the important point. I truly believe the reason KOTOR (which is what I assume you were refering to with KoTR, since I don't know of a game with that acronym) got such high reviews is that it did differ from all the console style 'RPGs'. It gave people more freedoms and since that's sorely lacking for most games on consoles, it recieved a really high score.

Sarvis said:

I think the separation between the two may be more one of taste. Most console games come from Japan, and linear RPGs are simply what they prefer over there.

Click to expand...

More like linear adventure games with turn-based combat.

Sarvis said:

At the most basic level though, both Eastern Console RPGs and Western Computer RPGs are the same. That is really my only point here.

Click to expand...

I don't feel like even qualifing this with a response, though for your sake you should be glad Exitium decided to indulge you.

Exitium said:

As for "Eastern" or "Western" style of RPGs, I don't think it's good to call them that considering that there are a number of Chinese and Korean RPGs with Traditional RPG gameplay, like Prince of Qin. I do not think that the creators of Final Fantasy ever intended for their game to be anything more than an interactive adventure with turn based combat and relatively meaningless stats and no choice. As I said, the stories are pretty good if you're into that sort of thing, but you'll not get your RPG fix by playing any of them.

Click to expand...

Right on the fucking money!

Seven said:

Do you see how stupid it is to take one or two words from some one's post and then draw unrelated or dumb conclusions?

Click to expand...

It worked for Bush!

Ok, serious reply probably coming later... though I wish you'd just make your point and tell me what I am supposedly misconstruing.

<b>Seven</b>

I don't think I did miss the point. He's basically talking about how language evolves, and a word might take on new meaning as time goes on. CRPG may mean _more_ than it did several years ago.

However, and this is important, YOU are artifically restricting the usage and meaning of the word to a specific subset of what that word should mean. (Maybe not you personally, but I'm assuming so since you are arguing with me!) You take this <i>subset</i> of the RPG genre that includes only, for lack of a better term, "western" style RPGs and ignore the console style RPGs as some other meaningless genre.

This is <i>exactly</i> the same thing he was chastising the FF fanboys for doing in the opposite direction!


<b>Otaku_Hanzo</b>

An interesting point you make about console and computer RPGs. I think this has become more true than it originally was, though in some aspects you may be a bit off. I can't remember many exactly, but it seems like in many of the early console RPGs you could indeed choose your own character. In Final Fantasy you could... though it occurs to me that you never could in the Dragon Warrior series...

Some of the Final Fantasy games HAVE kept a large amount of customization available however. In FF6 and FF7 for instance you could have your main character focus more on magic, and even in FFX you can have your characters follow different paths than the regular ones on the sphere grid.

I think, for the most part though, I am inclined to agree with you.

As for PnP linearity... how would you know?

Seriously, unless the DM whined every time you made a decision he hadn't planned for you'd never know that the castle which was going to be north of you ended up west of you because you decided to turn west!

<b>Locue</b>

You are wrong.

Please don't take that as a bash or flame, but I went into great detail on this in the "definition of CRPG" thread. Maybe wanna take a look at the last couple posts, but essentially the elements which you believe "make" an RPG are absent from a HUGE number of RPGs (essentially all but 5) and could be used in ANY other style of game.

As I suggested to RGE at the end of that thread, perhaps there should be a <i>word</i> which encapsulates those ideas and can be prepended to to the genre of any game containing them.

Unfortunately I can't think of a good word...

<b>Exitium</b>

Ok, in my last reply to you I said I might be misunderstanding what you mean by "traditional" so at this point I need you to explain before we go any further...

I _thought_ it basically meant old school games such as the original Bard's Tale or Pool of Radiance, but now you are maybe using it to refer to "western" style RPGS? Or PnP RPGs?

Gotta know man...

<b>dojoteef</b>

Yeah, I think I just missed that "on the whole" thing. sorry.

My only point with KOTOR was that computers and consoles largely have the same capabilities these days. Computers may edge out in graphics IF a player has the best video card available, but since programmers write games with average cards in mind there's not that much difference. Control schemes can be different, but console controllers have tons of buttons these days and many keyboard keys go unused...

I don't feel like even qualifing this with a response, though for your sake you should be glad Exitium decided to indulge you.

Click to expand...

Both styles of games use stats, random factors, decisions instead of reflexes and character development.

The linearity of the story has no bearing on those things, and therefore no bearing on whether it is an RPG or not.

You can take a highly non-linear story and put it in an FPS, this does not make the FPS an RPG. Therefore that does not make an RPG an RPG either...

Read what I said to Locue, or the "definition of CRPG" thread for more info.

Also, come up with a good word to prepend to genres that can mean non-linear story with lots of meaningful dialog and character choices!

Sarvis, let me take this opportunity to be the resident nice guy and say:

You don't stand a chance in hell of winning this argument, just let it go.

In other news, Otaku_Hanzo is OLD.

Ok, in my last reply to you I said I might be misunderstanding what you mean by "traditional" so at this point I need you to explain before we go any further...

I _thought_ it basically meant old school games such as the original Bard's Tale or Pool of Radiance, but now you are maybe using it to refer to "western" style RPGS? Or PnP RPGs?

Gotta know man...

Click to expand...

You have to really stop calling them "Western Style" RPGs. It doesn't take a "Western mindset" to come up with a game like Fallout for the same reason it wouldn't take an "Eastern mindset" to come out with a console RPG.

The developers worked with what resource had been allocated to them, and it just so happened that Japan was much bigger on the console scene than it was on the PC scene. Developing a traditional style RPG for the console would have never worked due to the inherent limitations with the input and so forth, so they created adventure games with utterly simplistic tactical turn based combat in order to cope with the limitations.

You'll note how games like Final Fantasy Tactics, and the more recently released Phantom Brave which share similar but slightly more tactical gameplay than X-Com are selling a lot better than any Final Fantasy ripoffs currently in the market. Console gamers enjoy tactical experiences, too, and with the limitation suffered by old consoles alleviated, developers have a chance to develop games like the aforementioned ones and sell them with a great degree of success in the market. I do not think that KOEI's strategy games which were originally on the PC would be anywhere as popular as they are if console gamers were only interested in linear adventures.

There's a small number of Taiwanese turn-based strategy developers whose games sell very well in the local Asian market, and with good reason: people enjoy them more than crap like Kingdom Hearts.

While we're still on this subject, you'll want to take a look at how FF Tactics is still one of the highest grossing games on the GBA platform, short of the Pokemon titles. You should also take note of this game:
http://gameboy.ign.com/articles/562/562405p1.html - That old PC game SimTower goes to the GBA SP. I have no doubt it'll sell ridiculously well given the strategy-starved ownerbase of the GBA.

The title "Western RPG" as opposed to "traditional RPG" implies that both the asian console rpg (which started on the nintendo if i'm not mistaken) and the games entomed in our shrines are differnt but somehow also on the same footing and of equal value and history. PnP rpgs, which games like fallout and Baulder's Gate are based on, started in the 70's in north america and it is these games with a 30yr history behind them that are the traditional crpg. Just because something is different does not mean it is equaly as valid.