Disclaimer: The opinions expressed within this column are those of the participants and the moderator, and do not neccessarily reflect those of the GIA. There is coarse language and potentially offensive material afoot. I was a lot funnier before my head fell off. Don't say we didn't warn you.

You know, funny story. I wrote up the entire column several hours before I went to post it, at which point I realized I hadn't remembered to write an introduction. So here it is, technically the next day, and I have no introduction. And now I have to write one, too. I've probably explained this before, but around 11 PM, my brain effectively shuts off. That's why it always seems like a good idea to keep playing a game until 4 AM when I have work the next morning, or to combine paint-sniffing with ethanol-drinking. Incidentally, both of these ideas make for a horrible following morning.

So uhm, I had this thought. I really hate when movies or books negate the entire experience by having you find out in the very end that all of the preceeding happenings were just a dream, or some other state of non-reality. That's gay. How's that for an intro?

This is an interesting letter. Of course, I have absolutely no right to offer up much of a response, seeing as the only text-based game I ever played was Sleuth, and I absolutely sucked at that. I would invariably wind up getting stalked by the impatient killer, scaring me into rounding up the suspects and picking a culprit out of the bunch completely at random.

I realize that response was a complete non sequitur, but they don't not pay me to make sense.

While this letter pops open a can of worms I've pried the lid off enough times to constitute a workout regime, there is one interesting point brought up. Namely, perhaps half the reason people enojoyed Final Fantasy Tactics so much was because it had the usual strong narrative and appealing character design we'd expect form a Final Fantasy title with an entirely different gameplay engine.

In fact, it's pretty much gotten to the point where I play Final Fantasy games for everything but the battle system/exploration combo. Despite composing the core gameplay of the series, neither of these elements has changed considerably since Final Fantasy IV; if it weren't for the cool plots and likable characters, I doubt I'd still dig the series as much as I do.

Now, I'm sure somebody is going to write in to sanctimoniously point out that "if they changed the core gameplay it wouldn't be an RPG anymore," but allow me to use the Mario series as an example. Try comparing Mario 64 to good Ol' Super Mario Brothers, and it's pretty obvious that the gameplay is vastly different between the two titles. But Mario 64 still feels like nothing other than a Mario title.

Just because you change the gameplay around to keep it fresh doesn't mean you need to lose the feel of a series or genre. And frankly, if a developer is so worried about molding their title to adhere to some kind of unwritten genre guidelines, they really have no business making a game. I want an interesting title; let gamers worry about how to classify it.

Yeah, a lot of people assumed the reason I didn't like FFIX as much as the other 32 bit Final Fantasies was because of the "classical" Final Fantasy backdrop. That's a load of crap. I didn't like it as much because rather than building a unique title in a more traditional setting, the developers stole bits and pieces from earlier titles and gave them an obligatory graphical makeover.

The entire reason I was leary when I heard that FFIX would mark a "return to the series' roots" was because I was afraid the developers would assume gamers wanted to play an updated version of the same stuff they were playing 10 years ago rather than a unique title with a more traditional look. If Square had managed to do something with the medieval setting that I hadn't seen before, I would've been just fine with the game. The sad truth is that Square didn't.

In the end, any good sequel needs to offer the look and feel of its predecessor(s) without winding up a total rehash. A rehash may cut it for some die-hard fans, but most people don't want to pay for the same game they've already played before. And as with the response before this, I'm simply going to head directly to the next letter without providing any kind of segue.

Well, I would argue that any RPG worth its salt gives each lead character adequate development. As far as establishing a character's motives and reactions to the problems that have stemmed from them go, these really should be wrapped up by the end of the game.

However, I do have other ideas. First of all, just because a character was developed in a prequel doesn't mean that's the end of the story -- whose life is so simple that once he or she surmounts a single set of obstacles, everything is fine from there on out? Sure, a character may have resolved certain issues in a game, but what's to keep new moral and intrapersonal dilemmas from arising? The fact that those who've already played the original game will know the character make his or her reactions to these new issues all the more interesting. Of course, the developers would have to be careful that they didn't take for granted that everyone had played the first game in the series, but if done correctly, I think it could still work.

Then again, why not go the Persona route and place the sequel's focus on the backing characters of its predecessor? Characters who probably didn't get the same attention of development that the main characters did. This gives players a game that is at once familiar, but with plenty of room for new devices and ideas.

Of course, while either of those ideas could work, I certainly don't mind the route the Final Fantasy series takes, either. Just call me Mister Flexible.

Preferably Celine Dion. And yes, I realize picking on Celine Dion is like punching a handicapped person in the face, but I just saw a magazine giving her smarmy visage the full of the cover the other day, which has rekindled the embers of my hatred for her. Apparently when a star has a baby, it's a much more profound and soul-altering event then when a lesser, non-famous subhuman gives birth. (Who says the media doesn't educate?)

And, hey, who says this column doesn't educate?

Most people would be above diginifying this kind of letter with a response. But not me! In fact, I'm even going to use it to launch into the topic for tomorrow's column.

See, I'm broke. So I have to choose between Paper Mario and Phantasy Star Online. Those of you who own and actually play both titles please weigh the pros and cons for me.

Of course, I realize this topic excludes a good deal of you readers and is totally self-serving, so I have another letter that sends me off on another good topic-starting tangent below.

Yes, there's certainly something to be said for greater freedom on the part of the player. It always amazed me that these great adventurers, who had recently dispatched a dragon 40 times their collective height, would acquiesce to some dorkwad mayor's request for a random object which just happens to be deep within a cave somewhere across a swamp, over the river, and through the woods. Why don't they just stick the duty end of a broad sword in his damn face and demand the key (or whatever it is) that he's holding out on them over? Sure, it would be unscrupulous, but where are the games that let me be the bastard society and its darn "laws" keep me from being?

Of course, I realize there have been a few games that let you play something of an antihero, and even some games which allow for relative freedom, but these always have some kind of artificial limitations built into them. For example, the average online RPG lets you to create your own character and whatnot, but you have to jump through certain hoops if you want to play the part of a robber or attack your fellow gamers. (As an example, several games require you to log on to a specific server if you want to be able to attack other gamers.) Why can't developers, say, get rid of level building so you never become overwhelmingly powerful, and there's a chance you're going to get it should you opt to attack someone?

In other words, why not create an open-ended game with realistic pros and cons to your behavior? Sure, you have the option to stick your sword in the mayor's face, but maybe a town patrolman will shoot you in the back for doing so. Something of that nature. I don't claim to have all the ideas, and even if I did it would be defeat the whole purpose of specifying a topic if I typed up an exhaustive answer to my own question. So get writing.

Closing comments:

You have your mission; get to it!

-Drew Cosner, the legless dog