The EGG and I -
June 26, 2001 - Chris Jones
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.
"...."
Don't say we didn't warn you.
Long column today, so not much to say in intro, except for two things:
1. Nobuo Uematsu has NOT died. (If you didn't hear the rumor, do everybody a favor and don't ask about it.)
2. Your chance of getting published goes up if you sign your letters.
Onward.
| Someone brings a dictionary to the Definition Wars |
| Aloha, Chriscross.
In reference to both Eightball's letter and your response, I'd like to say one thing: You guys are all screwed up. He condemns people for neglecting to remember the definition of an RPG - A roleplaying game. He claims that in order for one to play a role, one must have absolute and total control over that role. Bullpucky. Playing a role, simply means that: playing a role. I cite Webster's Dictionary:
"Main Entry: role
1 a (1) : a character assigned or assumed (2) : a socially expected behavior pattern usually determined by an individual's status in a particular society b : a part played by an actor or singer."
A "Role" is simply a character. Actors play roles, but do they have absolute control over the factors that determine that character's personality? Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeelll no. They are given a script to work through as best they can. Personality is the writer's chore. Console RPGs are, in all likelihood, more roleplaying than any damn tabletop, pen'n'paper, hardcore RPG, because in a console RPG, the gamer is given a script to play from. If an actor deviates from the script, the character is no longer the person that the writer brought to life. The actor is smply given a few minor decisions: timing, gestures, vocal inflections, etc. These are akin to some of the unimportant yes/no questions that occasionally pop up in the game, or the decision to level up, or go directly to the next plot point.
I have no problem with freeform adventure gaming, I just wish people wouldn't confuse it with roleplaying. When one takes on a role, he becomes another person. A predefined person. Yes, this is a stupid, irrelevant matter of semantics, but I tire of people pretending to have a perfect, incontrovertible rationale based on idiocy and ignorance. As Mark Twain once said, "Get the facts first, then you can distort them as much as you like."
--The semantically perfect and easily annoyed Jabberwock
P.S. Someone once mentioned that if there was a P.S., then you're sure to get printed. Izzat true?
P.P.S. I guess if that's true, I need a real P.S. Uhmmmmmm...I'd like to see an Ender's Game...uhhh...game that was a combination of tactical RPGs, Action RPGs, and fighting games. Give it to Konami, Kojima'd know how to do it right.
|
Might want to check those semantics again, compadre. It's true that "role playing" generally means inhabiting a role, but unless you're actually an actor in a written play, you've generally got some control over the role you inhabit. And in the case of tabletop role-playing games, it really is merely a semantic issue, since most of the time you're inventing your own role... and if you're making the character up as you go along, who's to say a certain action is or isn't in character?
And by this point, from my standpoint, there really isn't any roleplaying left in most console RPGs. You're not Squall, you're not Dagger, or Hiro, or Vyse. You control their actions, for the most part, but you're not them. That's the whole bloody point: if they're interesting characters, they're going to do things that you wouldn't do in that situation, and maybe things that you wouldn't have even thought of doing. Now, whether the above characters are actually interesting is another point entirely, but I think few people would argue that console RPGs are less like playing a role (i.e. acting) than like reading a book or seeing a movie about existing, independent characters.
| Slightly closer to home |
Hardcore role-player in regard to FF8:
"If I wanted to watch a movie, I'd go rent one at
Blockbuster."
Chris Jones in regard to pen-and-paper RPG's:
"If I wanted to put thought into my characters,
I'd go write a book."
Whoops. Brain misfire. The one is not the other.
The fact that one is generally more worthwhile than
the other is immaterial.
I might as well say this:
"If I wanted to play a strategic combat game, I'd pick
up a chess board."
Given, obviously, that chess requires thought, and
electronic role playing games -- in comparison -- do
not.
Rather than insisting what console role-playing is
*really* about, maybe you should consider what they
might become. No, console RPG's aren't the same
animal as a p&p RPG, but they are adopting elements of
strategy games and of cinematic games, thereby
crossing genre lines and incorporating new ideas. The
day might come when the next big 'innovation' is the
adaptive or multi-threaded plotline, not the hourlong
cinematic sequence, or the concatenation of juggling
bubblies used instead of a STR score. And in this
innovation, console RPG's will once again owe a debt
to p&p RPG's just as they do for their mechanics.
Personally, I think you're touchy about the hobby's
roots. Escapists in imaginary houses shouldn't, well,
you know.
- JOHN FORD
|
I don't agree with your description of my statement yesterday, because there's a certain pejorative air about it - it's not that I don't want thought put into my characters, it's that, in a console RPG, it's not me who's inventing them. There's a big difference between creating characters, role playing them (as Jabberwock pointed out above), and simply viewing their adventures, even if it is as a somewhat active participant. I'm willing to see a lot more discussion about this, since it's a relatively fresh topic, but I've done all three, and from my perspective, it's pretty clear which category FF (all of them) fits in to.
As for the rest of your letter, I don't think there's that much remarkable about the first and third quotes. Plenty of people have and continued to say that about FF8... and that's their right. And there are thousands of people to whom chess (or go) is the only game worth playing, precisely because it does require so much thought, comparatively speaking.
If console RPGs do start to pick up strongly non-linear plots and environments, then yes, RPGs will start veering more towards the classic definition of "RPG". I don't see that happening though - that's not the direction they've been going in for the past several years, and I don't see anything - on the console side - that indicates they're going there in the future. I don't have any problem with pen and paper RPGs, or "true" role-playing in general, I just prefer what Final Fantasy, etc. has to offer, and think they'll continue to offer it.
| A lot closer to home |
| "Personally, if I'm going to go to the trouble of imagining my own
characters and situations, I'd just as soon go whole hog and write a story
about them, rather than getting together with a bunch of other would-be
writers for an (often, but not always) shrill, melodramatic, cliche-driven
evening of "let's pretend"."
Personally, if I'm going to go to the trouble of holding anything in my
hands while sitting in a room all by myself while staring at a television
screen, I'd just as soon go whole hog and masturbate all over myself, rather
than taking part in a bunch of would-be writers' creations for an (often,
but not always) shrill, melodramatic, cliche-driven evening of "let's play
video games." Chances are, I might have more to show for it after I'm
through as well.
Intentionally contrary but intending nothing personal,
Matthew McGee
|
Kind of a crude way to put it, but I can respect what you were going for, and the fact that you were just trying to make a point. And yeah, I can see how, hyperbole aside, someone could see console RPGs that way. All I can do is make a couple of basic counter-arguments, such as:
Even mediocre RPGs sell in the hundreds of thousands - there's nothing "would be" about these writers. You and your friends may enjoy getting together for an evening of D&D, but you're never going to be able to go pro - your scenarios most likely aren't going to go on sale at stores all over the world, and be experienced by thousands of people. This isn't just a question of popularity - games put out for public scrutiny have an opportunity for evolution and criticism that you just don't get in tabletop scenarios, homegrown or otherwise.
90% of anything is crap, and that goes for games just as much as tabletop RPGs. But because of the aforementioned reason, RPGs have a chance to get better, and with a little work you can pretty easily figure out what's not crap, and stick to that. It's a little harder to switch game masters if you have to tell your best friend that his prized "Middle Earth meets Ian Banks' Culture" scenario really sucks.
If sites like the GIA show nothing else, it's that there's a significant social aspect to gaming. You may play alone, but your experience is most likely shared across the world. There's nothing particularly solitary about it, if you don't want it to be.
| Coming 2002: LoD: A Year of Letters about the Year of Flames feature... |
| I'd like to make a statement about those people writing in about LOD.
First off, I HAVN'T played the game, don't intend to either. Time is now
precious for me...I don't have it to waste on games that only got good
reviews by paid off mags and ezines.
But that's besides the point.
I am convinced that there are three our four people in the world who liked
Ledgend of Dragoon. And these people got together and wrote THEGia about how
they and "thier friends" liked it so damn much. I'd put a large amount of
money on it that it's nothing but a 4 member cult who worship all things
SONY, whether it's good or not (None of them mentioned anything non sony
unless it was insulting, ie Final Fantasy) and these four people decided to
harass the rest of the worls with their viewpoint.
I'd also like to point out that the guy who started playing FF at the first
game and stopped at the second because it wasn't getting any better was
probably referring to the US versions, and sincec the US versions got MUCH
better(Untill 7, which in my opinion was a step down from 6, but still good)
and os his opnion doesn't count, because he's wrong and im egotistical.
Peace,
Ray
PS The main charecter's name was DART, like in sharp pointy thing you throw
at wall, and someone insisted the names were original...
|
I had pretty much the same theory - obviously Nich has good reason to think otherwise, but it's hard to accept that there were that many people driven to such extremes of bile by a simple game review. Much easier to go the conspiracy route than to believe there are that many morons out there.
But what's even more amusing is the number of people who felt compelled to read the feature and write in letters saying "yeah those people shouldn't have said that but I still think LoD deserves better than a 1 because..."
If the feature says anything, it says this:
1. We stand by our assessment of the game, and arguing about it most likely won't make any difference. You may consider your reasons why Lloyd was not a Sephiroth clone to make perfect sense, we don't.
2. You look really stupid when you don't use proper grammar.
3. STOP TALKING ABOUT IT ALREADY!!
| Interlude I |
| Is it just me, or does the new Cid have boobs?
*-LS-*
|
No, they're called pectorals, and they're very manly... frighteningly so, really. Add that to the fact that Cid's always supposed to be a wizened or grizzled old geezer, and I'm not too crazy about this incarnation... what he looks like, anyway.
| Sleep THIS off! |
| CJ,
I just wanted to express my disdain of the magic and other abilities are not useful arguement I've seen. True, they generally tend to NOT be as useful as regualr physical attacks, but if used correctly there are a LOT of things one can do to very well to suppliment or to replace combat.
I used Celes's Runic a lot, I found it helps immensely in the correct situations (mages towers, no wall rings, and berserk = virtually no damage). Mime was the most useful ability in the game. Also, in FFVI at least, Magic was the better deal than physical attacks, for while there are unlimited genji gloves, there is only one offering, and there are unlimited economizers AND gem boxes.
Status spells are admittedly pretty useless, but Death in FFVIII made a great ST-J to attack because not much can resist a critial attack from Squall with 100 deaths junctioned... bosses, rbuy dragons, and iron giants are about it. Saves ya from having to take 86000 HP offa a t-rexaur to kill it. Break had a similar usage.
Don't just not use the extra abilities, figure out how to use them and when to use them... else why doesn't someone just go play Diablo or Quake. Those games are all about mindless slaughter. Sure, you may want to play the game merely for the story, which is fine, but by just hack and slashing your way through you miss a lot the game has to offer IMO.
And, I've said it before and I'll say it again, why can we not have more non-linear stories. Or rather, less linear. Why can't I make a Robin Hood-esque character? For the record also, some of the more non-linear PC RPGs have much much much much better stories than anything on console... Planescape Torment comes to mind.
Efrate |
The problem is, even if you can do cool stuff with special attacks, it tends not to be worth it because the right combinations take an unreasonable amount of experimentation. It'd be one thing if you needed to learn how to use Runic to pass some point in the game, but if you use it five or ten times in the course of normal combat and find nothing worthwhile about it, then it might as well not exist at all. Of course, the Junction system was generally straightforward enough to make it obvious how to add interesting effects to your attacks, but even that was just a spin on the standard "fight" command, rather than something useful in and of itself.
And I'm sick and tired of talking about non-linear stories and why PC RPGs aren't covered in the column. No comment.
| Can Dateless Wonder save the world? |
| "I wouldn't mind seeing a lead character with a weight problem or acne..."
My thoughts exactly! People disfigured by acne or suffering a few extra
pounds are constantly being treated differently, even subconciously. Not
just with dating, people set us apart, they don't associate. We even do it
to each other, without meaning to. What I'd like to see is, those
difficulties in an RPG. No matter how powerful or idealistic he or she is,
would party characters jump aboard as quickly if the protagonist were ugly?
What would the love angle look like? Think of playing Fallout with 2
charisma. Or FF7 with Wedge as the main character. I think this deserves
more discussion -- what do you think about it?
Daniel Kolkena
|
Actually, I'd like to see such characters show up precisely because such things would be total non-issues. If you and your crew of rag-tag rebels are out to storm the headquarters of the heartless corporation destroying the world, nobody's going to refuse to be in Cloud's attack squad because he has dandruff issues, or cooties, or whatever. I understand the argument that game characters should all be Beautiful People because it's escapism, but personally I tend to find characters a little more worthwhile if they look and act like real people.
With all due respect, though, I definitely don't want anybody's weight or complexion becoming an issue in inter-party dynamics, because the games will end up seeming like bad sitcom episodes where the teenage son/daughter learns a Very Special Lesson about the True Meaning of Friendship.
| Interlude II |
| Tidus doesn't look like Tom Cruise in the slightest. It is an utterly
indisputable fact that he is the intended doppleganger of Meg Ryan.
Doug Erickson
|
Makes a hell of a lot more sense than Tom Cruise, I'll say that...
| Wants to be a topic, but won't be |
| See, I was going to talk about RPGs, then and now, but I decided the letter was long enough with this and what I had written before, so I just left this.
I just know you bums will use this as a topic, like my last one (which I hope you do, I want to hear people's thoughts on a new topic). In the interview conducted with Howard Lincoln, he said "One of the positive things about gaming is that when a Sony or a Microsoft enters the business, the entire business becomes more viable. It is much better to have a business where there are two or three large companies competing fiercely. It's good for the consumer, good for the retailer, and good in terms of the quality of games." He then compares this to the movie industry, saying that there are "more than one."
What the hell? How in the hell is multiple systems good for the consumer, let alone the retailer and the game quality? I'm sick and tired of having to pay SEVERAL HUNDRED dollars to get a new system to play a new game because the bastards automatically assume I will, and I do! That's my number one problem with the gaming industry, and, for that matter, the computer industry: lack of standard, lack of coherence, lack of sanity. When console X has game Y, but your console Z doesn't have a port, what the hell are you supposed to do? Either wait, buy the new system, or don't buy it at all.
So, where does the multiple console goodness come in? Of course, the retailer makes money no matter what, so what the hell do they care? Quality of games improving? I can think of no scenario for this.
Here's one idea: fine, Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo can make thier own systems. But software designers might program thier games to take advantage of each system's proposed advances. The organization would be not unlike computers nowadays: you have 266 Mhz Dell and a 1 Ghz gateway (names and speeds have no signifigance to my care for either company)processors, yet both can run your game of Counter Strike. Is console gaming so much different?
Fine, software companies are lazy. Then make systems upgradeable, damn it! This is a bit more difficult, since John Doe probably can't unscrew his system, remove a processor and memory, and install new ones. That's ok! A whole new industry could arise, where gamers took thier systems to "repair shops", if you will, and upgrade thier systems to take advantage of new game engines.
I mean, damn it, this stuff doesn't take too much damn thought, but it goes a long, LONG way! Someone just needs to get off thier fat ass and organize it.
Sabacc, who swears that one day, he will be that someone. |
You know, I could never really understand how competition helped games in general out until I went to E3 and saw it first hand: folks, game development is war, and don't ever forget it. The console developers bend over backwards to show the best and brightest and shiniest, and to emphasize all the ways that their console is totally and completely superior to all the rest. There's a very real pressure to out perform the other guy, and yes, that translates into better games for the consumer.
You want concrete examples? I couldn't shake the feeling that Miyamoto's two big Gamecube projects were direct responses to the PS2 and XBox: soft and rounded where they were hard and brittle, gentle and colorful where they were sharp and noisy, and content to just be really good games while they were intent on reinventing the medium as we know it. Of course, Sony went the opposite direction - massive wow value via in-your-face games like Devil May Cry and Metal Gear Solid 2. Maybe all of these games won't be great, but I doubt they'd have as much emphasis on innovation if various console companies weren't trying to outperform each other.
Upgradable, standardized consoles? One word: 3D0. You may be upset about the price of the PS2 now, but when Sony has to worry about making something designed to be upgradeable, rather than something it can make as a (relatively) cheap, integrated, one-shot unit, the price goes up at least a few hundred bucks. Why do you think low end PCs are more expensive than the PS2, even though they're not that far apart in computational ability?
So, unfortunately for you Sabacc, companies aren't going to start competing anytime soon - you'll just have to learn to budget your money if gaming's gotten too expensive for your wallet.
| Read all about it |
| Dear GIA,
I've heard of a novel company in Japan that writes novels for games. Books like these should be released in the states. I've already seen a picture of the Terranigma novel, one of SNES's little known gems and I can just picture seeing Metal Gear Solid, Final Fantasy and Xenogears on Best Sellers list. Lately Square has been in the red and have been churning out pathetic products to raise their profit. (Halloween Costumes? Beach Balls? ) Novelized versions of their stories could really help them. Also I am finding that the "Final Fantasy The Spirits Within" is giving many people the impression that FF is all about action, aliens, guns... I've even read articles that describe Final Fantasy as "a best selling video game franchise involving aliens terrorising the Earth..." These novels could really open non-gamers eyes about some of the incredible stories that they are missing. Please respond to this and some of my other letters, I'd like to know your opinion on this.
-The Kasier-
|
And I'd like to know the readership's opinion on this, so...
Closing Comments:
Your topic for tomorrow: RPG series as books. Good idea? Bad idea? What? Let me know, and adios for now.
-Chris Jones, wants to play JGR, but has to program Pente first
|
