BioWare writing director Daniel Erickson made lots of noise yesterday in an interview with Strategy Informer by stating that Square Enix’s Final Fantasy XIII
You can put a ‘J’ in front of it, but it’s not an RPG. You don’t make any choices, you don’t create a character, you don’t live your character… I don’t know what those are — adventure games maybe? But they’re not RPG’s.
I agree with two of his three points. You don’t make choices or create characters in FFXIII, but I definitely enjoyed viewing things from the characters’ perspectives. The characterization is one of the game’s strongest points. That said, is FFXIII more of an adventure game than a true RPG? Or has the definition of what an RPG is evolved over time? I’d love to hear your thoughts on that matter!
I think he does have a point. I know Zelda games have loose 'RPG' elements but they are adventure games nonetheless. Leave it to Bioware to tell other people they don't make RPGs, lol. Bioware certainly created a standard for western RPGs
Ok so I'm on chapter 6 in FXIII and so far I must say it totally feels like an adventure game, the only aspects that feel RPGish are the cut scenes and the crystarium upgrades. I cant wait to play it some more this weekend though!!!!
The old days of genre-defining terminology is dead in modern gaming. There are too many games that blur the line between action/adventure/comedy/romance/FPS/TPS/horror, etc. that it makes no sense to try to categorize them as any type of archaic one-dimensional identifier.
Back in the day (late 80's) Nintendo's NES had a revolutionary way of marketing their different games by introducing genres as a tool to better communicate all the flavors that games could come in. There was action/adventure, sports, shooters, etc., and so forth. And the problem started back then as it persists now. For example, is Contra a shooter or a platformer? How about an adventure game? Is Zelda an RPG or and action/adventure game? I could make a case that Mike Tyson's Punch-Out!!! is an RPG/sports/action game.
So the only intelligent resolution is to define the genres. Let's say that I define RPG as "Role Playing Game; A game where you play out the role of the lead character and your actions and influence are directly controlled by the player." Well, by that definition, Wii Sports is an RPG because it fits the description. Let's say I expand the definition to make it more nerd-worthy and say that "all RPGs have a distinctive game mechanic where the player controlled character increases attributes as the game progresses, advancing the character beyond his/her/its starting abilities." Well, that's more like the tired-and-true RPG formula that we all know and love, but it doesn't rule out the fact that by that expanded definition, Forza 2 is also an RPG because I can buy parts for the car (I am the driver, so I am the protaganist of the game… or the car; whatever) and thus, improve the cars I have to be better by the end of the game than they were when I first bought them. Also, the game is an "action" game by definition because it is in "the process or state of acting or of being active" as per Webster's. So Forza 2 is an Action/Sports/Racing/RPG. Oh, wait, what about a "sim"? You know, a game that is a simulation like "The Sims" or "Flight Simulator X?" But then again, are ALL games a simulation of something real or imaginary (or sometimes a mix of both)? Can't you make an argument that all games are sim games because you are always in control of something in the game? Of course you can. The reality of the matter is that most games shatter any genre barriers which is why we describe games like action-RPG or third-person shooter. In our minds, those words are pre-defined to illustrate the main game play mechanics of a game, but in doing so we stereotype the game to those who don't know much like you would say, "Oh, that Mexican by the lawn mower over there…"
Any definition that you make for a genre will be able to house multiple games that you wouldn’t even think that would belong in that genre in the first place. Either that, or your definitions would have to be so specific, that it would have to exclude games that you would think would be part of that genre you are defining.
No, my friends, genres are these little columns that we create because the truth of the matter is that human beings are bombarded daily with information overload and these categorizations is our defense mechanism to stream-line the communication process. After all, are you going to tell me all of the game mechanics, mini-games, and nitty, gritty details about everything there is to do and see and experience in Dragon Age, or are you just going to tell me it's a good action RPG?
In conclusion;
REONA REWIS!!!!
(*Drools like Homer*)
-M
@Iceman Fantastic post. Thanks very much for that!
I think that by Erickson's perspective, Final Fantasy wouldn't have been an RPG series since….oh, about Final Fantasy 2 or so. Creating your own character hardly defines what a roleplaying game is. It's about the story and living out the role of the character.
In old school terms, sometimes it's kinda like going to a Con and getting a premade character from the DM. Are you not really roleplaying because all of your characteristics and stats have been predetermined for you? Or can you still live out the role that's assigned to you and have it be an RPG?
Also, I tend to feel that when you pigeon hole a genre, you weaken it as a whole. Especially w/ a genre that's so open to interpretation as the RPG. I mean, some people would argue that Mass Effect 2 is not an RPG, but a TPS. I'm sure Erickson would disagree w/ that sentiment.