Why do people like RPGs?

[myth]

The following is an excerpted and slightly edited version of my reply to a thread entitled "Why do people like RPGs?" on the Penny Arcade forums. I didn't get many responses (except for someone claiming that "the core mechanic [of an RPG] should be actual role-playing"), so I'm reposting it here. I'm interested to hear the thoughts of the (many)

Comments

[rinku]

What of RPGs which require little to no leveling? For instance, the later Final Fantasy games (anything past 4, really) require no time spent leveling before risking the next level, you just go and keep going, and you can finish the game without leveling at all. So I think to say that the core decision of RPG is whether you've leveled enough to risk the next level isn't true with regards to those games.

Also, there are non-linear RPGs that have no predetermined next level, games where the next level can vary depending on which direction you go: Baldur's Gate and Fallout are examples. So the central decision in those games is not *when* to risk the next level, but which next level to go to next.

[myth]

I haven't played Baldur's Gate or Fallout, so I'm not sure what to say about those. It's possible that the structure I'm talking about doesn't apply to PC RPGs at all. It certainly doesn't apply to tabletop RPGs which, I think, have a much less formal structure when it comes to game mechanics and what makes them fun

[jzig]

Wait, you're complaining about FF6 doing too much hand holding? Are you sure you're not talking about FF7-8, which are WAY more hand holdy? It's very easy to make a wrong choice in FF6, and it's pretty grindy (but totally worth it)

[myth]

Not that it's doing too much hand-holding. Just that it seems content to be a sort of tedious adventure game (go here, get that, give it to this other guy) rather than... um, a role-playing game. The combat has literally not presented a single challenge so far--no strategic challenge, no tactical challenge.

I kind of wish it would start doing *more* hand-holding, actually. As an adventure game, it's very poorly designed: vaguely stated goals, no clear direction in how to achieve those goals, and then the solutions seem completely arbitrary once they arrive. The fact that boring battle sequences occasionally flare up does nothing to help the game.

At this point, I'm just hoping that it's like any other contemporary(?) JRPG in that it takes 5-10 hours to get into the swing of things battle-wise.

(I haven't played FF7 or FF8, though I've heard that they're also story-centric at the cost of fun in the battle department.)

[wynand]

I got so into Final Fantasy 4 when it first came out--moreso than any other game I'd played, including Dragon Warrior--because of the total feeling of immersion it gave back then. Games like Super Mario Bros were obviously cool, fun, etc for me, but I never got like--addicted to playing them (I've still never actually beaten SMB to this day.) I got addicted to playing FF4 because for the first time you got to see what these heroic types did when they weren't in a dungeon, running through a platform maze, etc. They wandered around towns buying shit, talking to locals, having emotions. It was just so much more interesting to think that there was this world that had a history and the point of the game was to explore that history, rather than directly to reach a goal. Obviously other games do immersion better these days (GTA:San Andreas, for example), but there's still something so pleasant about a game where your central action is just going around talking to people for something like 25% of the game

[myth]

...the fact that the reward is like--closer conformity with the actual conditions of existence in an imaginary world is specifically important. [...] In the RPGs I like your mind is set on achieving goals because those goals feel like tangible thing, things that have emotional relevance to the characters or that just seem difficult to achieve.

This is insightful. I think you might be on to something...

But I still can't help but think that you can divorce the narrative content of an RPG from the game mechanics. A lot of RPGs have only the barest rudiments of a story, and no character development whatsoever... Rogue and Wizardry come to mind. Rogue especially: there's no narration in the game (ever), and pretty much the only thing that compels you to move forward after the game loads up is the affordances of the interface. On the other hand, the name of the game ("Rogue") effectively communicates the role you're supposed to play, and there's plenty of back-story to be obtained from the documentation or whatever. So I dunno.

[czircon]

This sounds pretty good, but I think you're being too quick to dismiss stat management. It depends on the game, but in the more complex ones with tons of characters or elaborate job systems or what-have-you, developing and maintaining an effective character/party can become the driving force (for me, anyway

[myth]

Yeah, you're probably right about this. Hmm. Let me see if I can kind of incorporate and rephrase

FF4

[ext_109578]

Have you played Final Fantasy 4 on the DS? I was thinking about getting it the other day, but I'm not sure...

Re: FF4

[myth]

I played the GBA port and it was awful. I mean, the game is pretty good, but that particular port was bad... the timing was all off.

I'm tempted by the DS port too (it looks amazing, I mean *looks* amazing... Square has really figured out how to milk some polygons out of the DS), but with so many other good RPGs either recently released or coming out soon, it's hard to justify buying a game I've already played.

(plus I still need to beat Shiren... and I've got another stratum to clear in Etrian Odyssey... not to mention FFVI.)