Disclaimer: The opinions expressed within this column are those of the participants and the moderator, and do not necessarily reflect those of the GIA. There is coarse language and potentially offensive material afoot. Would it have been too much to ask for that to come out to an even sixteen letters? Of course it would have. Don't say we didn't warn you.

If there were any doubts that Square is the proverbial 800 pound gorilla of the RPG world, those doubts have been quashed by this column, because apparently we can't even discuss the absence of Square without constantly mentioning the company. There's one heck of a topic hidden in there, but right now I'd like to take a look at an alternate reality, one where the last great RPG released in the US came from Konami, and Enix was still the unquestioned master of the genre.

Onward.

I like this letter because it smacked me upside the head with the fact that there are several quality RPG series I've never touched because they weren't from that Polygon company. I knew BoF 1 was a Capcom game, and since I'd never played one of their RPGs I gave it a miss. Having skipped the first game, I never felt the urge to get into the rest of the series, leaving me ambivalent about the PSX releases of III and IV. But from what I've heard I'm the one who's missing out.

Furthermore, wouldn't the absence of Square imply that other companies would have had room to maneuver more in the RPG genre? Capcom and Konami have both shown themselves to be excellent producers of a wide spectrum of games - perhaps BoF and Suikoden would have garnered as much respect as Street Fighter or Castlevania. It's true that FF did go a long way to opening up the US RPG market, but perhaps someone else like Enix might have stepped in instead. Sorry, Alex, but I think your car money might have been spent on games regardless.

I don't recall talking down any of those games - on the contrary, I set up this column so people could talk about non-Square games. Grandia 2 does look excellent, but at this point that's all that can be said about it, since it's only been previewed thus far. However, you're probably right that the Dreamcast (and the Saturn before it) would probably be viewed as much stronger platforms without Squaresoft on the PSX. I know my Dreamcast is probably going to get a workout this winter, between the last gasp of the Playstation and the US release of some of Square's PS2 games.

Well, you've got about as good a claim to first female RPGer as could be hoped. There may be someone else out there who played Ultima I on the Apple II, but as far as I'm concerned, you've come out on top. Hell, not only are you likely one of the first woman RPG players, but one of the first period. I myself remember the Intellivision, but never played an RPG until the NES. Good job.

Didn't catch Steve, hope he did well. But given that he was probably promoting Transcendental Blues, he probably didn't come off as well as he could have, because that album is somewhat low on stand-up rockers. If you can, track down a live performance of "Copperhead Road" or his cover of the Stones' "Dead Flowers". Great stuff.

Let me suggest an alternate scenario - maybe instead of playing RPGs you don't seem too wild about (tho I personally thought WA2 and Koudelka looked worthy) perhaps you would have started to explore... other genres! Gasp!

I think as a rule RPG fans tend to favor one flavor of games to the exclusion of others, mostly out of necessity. I'm sure there are exceptions, but by and large keeping on top of RPGs doesn't leave a lot of time for anything else, the occasional Zelda or Mario game aside. This is just a fact of life, but there are a lot of games I look at occasionally and think "if only..." Perfect Dark and Space Channel 5 among them. Of course, you may be a fan of RPGs and only RPGs, but there are other things out there. Ironically enough, sometimes I think Square may be hurting gaming as a whole, even as it does great things for RPGs, by locking people in to one favored type of game.

PC RPGs and console RPGs are different enough in their approaches and goals to make a lot of crossover appeal unlikely, but it's not impossible that people would be playing Diablo II rather than Chrono Cross. Now if you could just learn to spell...

Cool info on the Middle East, but not a lot of it surprising. The fact is, there's likely games anywhere there's electricity, and even where there's no power, some missionary's kid has probably hooked his Gameboy to the the family diesel generator.

I think we're starting to see a pattern as to the preferred RPG system once Square is taken out of the picture. And the Dreamcast could yet be a strong RPG system - arguably it's got more and better stuff in the pipeline than the PS2. I'm gonna be very interested in what a world without a strong Sony RPG platform looks like, come 2001.

It can't really be argued that Square's the only producer of quality RPG games out there, but for the US they're clearly dominant. This is good because we have at least one real pro out there when it comes to producing great titles, and other companies push themselves harder to follow Square's example. But at the same time, it must be somewhat stifling to have one company dominate so completely, no matter how good their games are. As much as anything, I have to wonder if some DQ fans aren't simply trying to break away from Square's hegemony.

You wouldn't know Square existed if it didn't exist, so you wouldn't know to hire anyone. However, anyone who put Billy Corgan and No Doubt (did I read that right? probably not, but I'm going with it anyway) to work on game music would undoubtedly make millions. I salute your thinking, sir.

Closing Comments:

I'd like to take a moment to thank everyone who sent in a letter about my dad. I'm trying to get back to my normal routine at the moment, but it's nice to know other people understand and care about what happened.

As I figured, today's topic segues well into another question - what does it mean for Square to rule the PSX so completely? Even if you don't like Square, you have to admit that their games often look and sound far superior to their competitors. And although gameplay is a fairly subjective thing, I find it telling that supporters of non-Square RPGs often praise games for how un-innovative ("traditional, old school") they are. So why has no one come forth to challenge the Square juggernaut at their level? Why is it that (formerly) puny Square is pushing grand schemes like Play Online and the all-CG FF Movie, while other gaming giants like Konami do not? And most importantly, do the benefits of the great games Square produces make up for them dominating the RPG market to the near exclusion of other players?

I'm interested in hearing what you've got to say, I think this could be very enlightening. So drop me a line, and we'll talk more tomorrow. Later.

-Chris Jones, living in fear of a Square planet