Wow, just one thing to add to RPG's in general...that's a difficult question to answer. KZ contends they should combine Front Mission with Final Fantasy, which I believe would be a recipe for disaster. Front Mission battles (and most strategy RPG battles, for that matter) take a long time, which I would think is why exploration is taken out- to keep the game from being TOO long. If you add the exploration aspects of traditional RPG's, then the game would just be ludicrous in its length and magnitude. Although, if someone could pull it off well, I would love it.

That brings me to my thoughts on what game developers ought add to RPG's. RPG's in general need DO more strategy, but I don't think overhauling their system to the degree of instituting FM3-style battling is the answer. Yes, yes, of course there are non-strategy RPG's (by strategy RPG I'm assuming games like FM3 and FFT), but traditional Final Fantasy-esque RPG's can often be really straight-forward. Most people know what I'm talking about- you know, that point in the game where in any given battle you press whatever button is execute a zillion times in a row. I can't tell you how sick I got of random battles at the end of FFVIII, because they were not very difficult.

I think something that, and I know this sounds crazy, combines the limited positioning elements of Lunar:SSSC and the aiming strategies of Vagrant Story, combined with the varying strengths of attacks as in Xenogears. In Lunar, where you position characters matters to a certain extent, as enemies can't reach you at a given distance. Perhaps RPG's should allow you to move your characters around, not in Zelda battle-style, but just use a turn to move and do another action. Vagrant Story had a good idea that I think could have been pulled off better, which is that placing a hit is important. Aiming at certain parts had different percent success rates, which I think added some realism and strategy to the game (although, I never understood why if you merely shot a guy's legs long enough, the entire creature dies- kinda like how if you snipe someone in the big toe in Metal Gear Solid, they die). Then, the Xenogears elements would just affect how quickly that character can reattack, or how likely the success of their attack is. Maybe they should make it more extreme, and make strong hits hit a lot less than weak hits, but be equivalent to say a critical hit.

Anyway, I guess that's a bit more than one thing to add to an RPG.

Okay, I'm done ranting.
-Gizmo

It's not an addition I propose, but a removal. I propose the removal of the typical level system that has been with us since the days of Dragon Quest. While FFVIII (shudder) did make a valiant attempt at reducing leveling by making it meanigless, I do not suggest that would be the appropriate way about doing things.

Why do I feel the need to remove leveling? It originates with the insane amount of idiotic fighting that's necessary in most RPGs, combined with a question that has perplexed me for the longest time. Why do all the denizens of the world seem to have a higher level (monsters, knights) the further in the story you progress? Does this make ANY sense? Why would a monster in the first area you fought be 1000 times weaker than one near the end? Surely the monster near the end would have gone on a rampage destroying everything in its path, because the knights defending a city in the beginning of the game would be utterly helpless.

Why is it that when a character switches to become your ally they're all of a sudden weaker? A good example of this is Magus in CT. He has plenty of MP and HP to spare when you're trying to kick his rear end, but when he joins your party, he's the same level as your characters, with comparable MP, HP, and spells? All this, to support a leveling system, that should have gone the way of 8-bit graphics.

If you REALLY feel the absolute need to have leveling, then maybe a solution similar to those used in D&D can be used. One way to get around the "too strong character/enemy" problem, is to shove the poor sap into another dimension, or send them somewhere blinkeringly isolated, or have them fight thousands of troops, or whatnot. Using these techniques, the higher levels don't just mean you get a cooler looking version of the same damn spell to deal with a different paletted version of essentially the same damn enemy. If you can take a dragon out with one spell, you should be able to wipe out entire cities without breaking a sweat. Why be afraid of an "evil empire" when you should be able to fry the Emperor's brain halfway across the planet? It just makes no sense. AWAY with this leveling I say!

Is it necessary to have weak characters at the beggining get that much stronger? No. Did Frodo become a superpowerful mage and blast Sauron to ashes? No, he more or less won by accident, with Gollum falling into Mt. Doom. Was Gandalf a weak wizard at first, who became stronger along the way? No, he was always strong, and used his powers sparingly. Did we go on an amazing adventure with those characters? Definitely.

If you like the concept of becoming cooler and stronger, then maybe something along the lines of the Wheel of Time might be a good idea. Sure, there are monsters, but they'll tear through anything except a huge fortified fortress. People get stronger by training, and by chance occurances with fate. If an ancient power comes after you, and you defeat them, they don't inexplicably get more powerful. They trick you into getting them some artifact or something that enhances their already great power. I'd like to see more storytelling that doesn't require a needless suspense of disbelief. I don't want to see a villiage at the end of the game, with everybody living happy carefree lives, surrounded by enemies that make your blood run cold.

I'd also like to see item buying make sense, with semi-realistic economic modelling, with large cities being more expensive, and big shops having more selection, without any connection to where you are "in the game". Where buying things in bulk might net you a discount, and when things are low on stock, the price goes through the roof. But that would just be icing on the cake.

Rant complete. I appologize for the length.

Drakonian

If a game has a suplimental feature (meaning that it doesn't really matter as far as the grand scheme of things goes and its just there to be pretty on the box), that game should have the option to turn said feature off. Example: Battle animations. Vangaurd Bandits can actually add about 20 mintues to each battle, but, in a rarely seen move, you can turn them off. Also: Controls. Go play Tail Concerto and tell me if you don't want to rip you PSX out of the wall in the last level because you can't turn off that infernal side jump. *Shudders* Basically, if its almost NEVER used in the game, I wish developers would throw in an OFF switch. Can you imagine Zelda 64 WITHOUT Navi's annoying chitter?

Also, and I won't elaborate much, but I would so adore a system like Earthbound where you are not forced into battles with ridiculously weak enemies.

-XZeLlDx, who hates being forced into battles against Level 1 enemy's.

"(...) preferring Tifa in certain situations weakens this moment (Aeris' death, red.) , because if Cloud's actually in love with Tifa, (...) it doesn't affect him or us in the same way. (...) and what do we get in return? (...) some slightly different dialog and see a different sprite in the date sequence?"

Well, Mr. Jones, as Efrate (the writer of the letter this response is for) himself already pointed out, while you may feel less at Aeris' death scene, you'll feel more in Tifa-specific scenes, like the scene that defines the game for me : Inside Cloud's Head. I think it's more a case of which character you prefer, as you seem to worship Aeris. But that is exactly the brilliance of FFVII : you could actually choose your love interest, and Tifa was certainly far more interesting than your run-of-the-mill Rosa/Aeris/Rinoa!

To the day's topic : what I thought was a brilliant feature was the archive in Final Fantasy Tactics. While far from perfect - you missed all the dialogue that took place during battle scenes - it was a godsend to be able to let everything be summarized again and again. I even got a friend of mine interested in RPG's by showing him the story scene by scene!

Sir Farren, who marvelled at all the positive FFVII-comments in yesterday's column - there's justice after all!

Maybe you have read this story earlier today - anyway it really clears up alot of misconceptions I had about Lieberman and video games. While I may disagree with his personal views about games, his public video game policy sounds great to me, although it would have meant I might not have been able to buy Metal Gear Solid without my parents when I was still in high school. Frankly, I think the ESRB rating system needs to do a better job at rating games, but that's it. From what I read, they rate games by watching a video of game footage sent to them by the publisher.

Whilst on the topic of adventure games, I'd like to bring up the point that such games, especially those done by LucasArts, do a terrific job of getting the player through a possibly violent climax without resorting to an out-and-out battle. In Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis, Indy basically tricks the villain into following improper instructions for some ancient device, which led to his demise. And in the Monkey Island games, Guybrush usually develops some (Rube) Goldberg-esqe weapon for destroying the Ghost Pirate LeChuck.

I'm not necessarily saying that RPG's need to be more like adventures; I'm saying that RPG's and battles need not go hand in hand. Of course, a game fully comprised of story is incredibly pointless when you could just watch a movie instead. However, some sort of gameplay innovation could successfully fill in the gaps left by a battle system, and even enhance the story better than killing a jillion slimes.

Andrew Egerton

Would that not ROCK SO MUCH?

Sincerely,
Robert Silvers

I guess this should've been sent in yesterday, but anyways, I noticed that not many people mentioned the resolutions to stories. I mean how the heros solve their problems, it's always the Taxi Driver ending. You get up enough craziness/ frustration/ courage, then go on a sudden violent streak, killing the symbol of the problem, and all the troubles are solved. In real life I tried this. It was 7th grade, and I'd just beat a FF game (don't remember which one) and this kid had been picking on me so I punched him in the back of the head when he wasn't looking. A fight ensued, and I won just barely (proll'y because I had a few friends helping). He never bothered me again, but I was still depressed, and without a girlfriend, or money, or a job, or respect from people older than me (or even younger than me). So how come when Cecil beats the bad guys his brother stops being hypmotized, he becomes a king, and everything becomes happy all of a sudden?

Gilbert

P.S. I also tried throwing a spoon at a bully once, the number 9999 didn't pop up above his head, he just kicked my ass. So Nintendo censorship goes beyond not making sense, it gets 5th graders beat up.