Topic: Bioware: FF13 ain't an RPG.

[Pugnate]

http://www.strategyinformer.com/news/8006/bioware-you-can-put-a-j-in-front-of-it-but-final-fantasy-13-isnt-an-rpg

Talking with Strategy Informer about the upcoming release of Star Wars: The Old Republic, Daniel Erickson, Writing Director for Bioware said that Final Fantasy XIII isn't an RPG. This was in reply to a question about the main staple of The Old Republic being its story, and how the game might be affected without good game play to support it, much like Final Fantasy XIII was.

"Well, before I address the main point I just want to take a slightly more controversial route: 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." said Erickson.

Can't say I disagree with him.

You don't even have the freedom to spread your character skill points. It isn't really a tree as much as it is a circle, and eventually and quickly, you cover every skill type.

[Cobra951]

He's saying more than that.  He's saying that the Final Fantasy games aren't RPGs, not just XIII.

[Xessive]

He does bring up some valid points but I still think that when you put a J in there, making it a JRPG, the rules no longer apply and the standards change. The argument becomes more about the cultural perception of role-playing.

[MysterD]

He's saying more than that.  He's saying that the Final Fantasy games aren't RPGs, not just XIII.

FF games are more like Strategy Games anyways...

[gpw11]

I love how Bioware says this (and has said something similar before). It just makes me realize that having two-three mundane options for choices and very little actual change in story or gameplay as a result of these choices is not all that much different.  I get what they're saying, but Bioware isn't much different.  They offer the illusion of choice and consequence, little more.  Or at least that's how it's been in every game of theirs I've played. It might as well just come down to going through the left door or the right door to choose a generic ending cinematic.

My point is, the title of the genre doesn't necessary describe what games categorized that way consist of. Sure, you don't role play all that much in Final Fantasy (I guess?). But you don't in Bioware games either.

[MysterD]

My problem w/ RPG genre is so many games fall under that category - regular RPG's, ARPG's, JRPG's, Strategy-RPG's; etc etc.

Thematically, RPG's usually have two qualities:

#1. Modification Elements
Upgradable loot, skills, abilities, and character base stats for a character; changing of loot.
Most RPG's have this mechanic.

Games that are considered ARPG's like Diablo 2 and Hellgate: London primarily focus on this element in the extreme and are also VERY, VERY little focused on the next element.

#2.Decision-making Elements
Your decisions in the game shall change the outcome of the quest (main or side); the game-world itself; and the gameworld's inhabitants.
Examples: BethSoft RPG's (Elder Scrolls, Fallout 3); Fallout series; most Bioware RPG's; The Witcher; etc.

[Xessive]

For me role-playing elements really boil down to having a user-tailored experience.

Whether I'm playing Fallout 3, Mass Effect 2, or Dragon Age I'll always wind up building a character that exhibits similarities and take similar approaches to game events.

[MysterD]

For me role-playing elements really boil down to having a user-tailored experience.

Whether I'm playing Fallout 3, Mass Effect 2, or Dragon Age I'll always wind up building a character that exhibits similarities and take similar approaches to game events.

In my list of what I think are the 2 key RPG elements, I think a RPG for me has fair deal of both elements.

ARPG's are a different beast entirely - and actually, I don't think ARPG is a good title for those kind of RPG's. Element #2 (Decision-making) I think is the defining element of a RPG - that #1 (modification elements) helps make element #2 worth while.

Upgrading-Action Game sounds more appropriate to me than the title ARPG, since most of these games have little to zero decision-making elements that can change the outcome of the game's quests; gameworld itself; and its inhabitants.

[Pugnate]

He does bring up some valid points but I still think that when you put a J in there, making it a JRPG, the rules no longer apply and the standards change. The argument becomes more about the cultural perception of role-playing.

Yea that's a good point.

Though I remember watching Phil play JRPGs, and always wondering out loud what made that experience an RPG. I called them action adventures.

I love how Bioware says this (and has said something similar before). It just makes me realize that having two-three mundane options for choices and very little actual change in story or gameplay as a result of these choices is not all that much different.  I get what they're saying, but Bioware isn't much different.  They offer the illusion of choice and consequence, little more.  Or at least that's how it's been in every game of theirs I've played. It might as well just come down to going through the left door or the right door to choose a generic ending cinematic.

My point is, the title of the genre doesn't necessary describe what games categorized that way consist of. Sure, you don't role play all that much in Final Fantasy (I guess?). But you don't in Bioware games either.

I realize you are probably speaking from experience with a game like ME2 (which wasn't defined as an RPG either), but if you look at gamers like Baldur's Gate 1, Baldur's Gate 2, or even Dragon Age, you will note that the options for choices are anything but skin deep.

[Xessive]

Yea that's a good point.

Though I remember watching Phil play JRPGs, and always wondering out loud what made that experience an RPG. I called them action adventures.

Yeah, I know how you feel. That's what they usually feel like with some exceptions.

I think one fairly recent title that exemplifies this action-adventure/RPG fusion is Demon's Souls. I wouldn't call it MMO even though it does involve a distinct multiplayer aspect.

A major element that changes our definition of most of these games is time: real-time versus turn-based. When a game is turn-based it's very easy to identify it as role-playing, strategy or tactical. Yet when it's real-time it does focus more on reflex rather than pure decision making. By that structure, most RPGs are defined as games that primarily involve choices and decision making.

Funny enough, that's how I play most games, especially stealth games. For example, when I'm playing Splinter Cell my most common question is "how am I going to eliminate this unsuspecting target? What are my choices?" And the choices usually boil down to the game design features and the environment. Between the environment, my weapon, and my inventory my mind sees it like an immersive representation of a Final Fantasy battle menu.

In my philosophical pondering on the term "role-playing game" I'm inclined to define it as any game that can successfully transfer me into the role of the character. The easiest way to successfully achieve this is to let the players create their own characters.

[Pugnate]

Well, amongst the popular genre names, you've got action, adventure, role-playing, strategy, and... well sports.

If you are going to do "philosophical pondering" with the the literal meaning of those terms, then aside from the strategy genre, you are going to be left with very different assumptions than what those genre defining terms actually mean to people familiar with the gaming industry.

For example, when someone familiar with gaming thinks of an adventure game, they think of a linear puzzle solving story-based game like the classic point-and-click like Monkey's Island, or something like the Sam & Max games.

To a person not familiar with the industry, most games could be defined as adventure games.

It is the same thing with role-playing games.

What makes a roleplaying game is the mechanics of it all, where you can make significant and meaningful changes to your character's stats as the game progresses.

If you are going to go by the literal meaning however, then splinter cell too is a roleplaying game.

[Xessive]

Well, amongst the popular genre names, you've got action, adventure, role-playing, strategy, and... well sports.

If you are going to do "philosophical pondering" with the the literal meaning of those terms, then aside from the strategy genre, you are going to be left with very different assumptions than what those genre defining terms actually mean to people familiar with the gaming industry.

For example, when someone familiar with gaming thinks of an adventure game, they think of a linear puzzle solving story-based game like the classic point-and-click like Monkey's Island, or something like the Sam & Max games.

To a person not familiar with the industry, most games could be defined as adventure games.

It is the same thing with role-playing games.

What makes a roleplaying game is the mechanics of it all, where you can make significant and meaningful changes to your character's stats as the game progresses.

If you are going to go by the literal meaning however, then splinter cell too is a roleplaying game.

Haha exactly, I realize it's too general of a definition and it's not too far from what I had said the last time we had this discussion (last year or so). It is just the way I rationalize it; it helps me simplify my perspective.

One other side to this literal definition is that it will vary from player to player. The hot example being Final Fantasy games, with Bioware insisting that they are not RPGs yet so many players consider them RPGs.

[MysterD]

Haha exactly, I realize it's too general of a definition and it's not too far from what I had said the last time we had this discussion (last year or so). It is just the way I rationalize it; it helps me simplify my perspective.

One other side to this literal definition is that it will vary from player to player. The hot example being Final Fantasy games, with Bioware insisting that they are not RPGs yet so many players consider them RPGs.

As more and more games begin to blend genres, it's going to be even harder to figure out what's what. Even at times, I'm trying to figure out what game is what genre. I think since Deus Ex, I've really been noticing more and more and more games genre-hopping and genre-crossing.

Batman: AA - which primarily is a (third-person) action game - has those minor RPG elements where you upgrade your skills and equipment. Bioshock 1 and 2, which are primarily a first-person action games, ALSO has these RPG elements of upgrading and even some decision-making (at times - even more so true for Bioshock 2).

Personally, I always thought the point of RPG's was using the numbers and character stat crunching and upgrading (element #1) to TRY and really enhance the decision making elements (element #2), to make them more interesting. I feel the numbers ARE the framework for element #2.

For example, take a game like Planescape: Torment - if character-stat X isn't of a certain number, you either won't have an EXTRA special dialogue option even available to you OR you'll fail when trying to use that dialogue option (if the game opens it up to you anyways). Another example - if you don't have a certain item in your inventory, then you won't have even ANOTHER option available to you. Same goes for games like Vampire: Bloodlines, Dragon Age: Origins, Fallout series, and Mass Effect games.

Without the base-stat elements and all of that jazz, you're left w/ not a RPG. You're left with an adventure game like Shadow of Destiny or Heavy Rain. Or should I call this a pure decision-making game?

It's good to be specific - when people think of JRPG, I think of Final Fantasy series - which a basically strategy games w/ the upgrading RPG element.

When I think of say ARPG, I think of Diablo series or Titan Quest. ARPG games like Silverfall + SF: Earth Awakening expansion muddy things up here a bit. Silverfall games are first and foremost a ARPG, but it does have the decision-making aspect on most quests of deciding to go technical side or nature side - and the outcome can change the outcome of the game. Sacred 2 does this a little bit now and then, but not to the likes of say Silverfall.

[Pugnate]

There is a difference between having elements like you do in Arkham Asylum or even GTA: San Andreas and having a robust system which offers meaningful changes like you would in Dragon Age or even Diablo.

I agree the lines are getting blurred, but there is still a long way to go before I am confused by what the industry defines as an RPG and what it doesn't.

We basically have D&D to thank for what defines an RPG in the western gaming world.

[Cobra951]

Right you are.  Interesting.  I was never into wargames, though a friend of mine was, back in the early 70s.

At the risk of oversimplifying, it seems to me that you can't have a roleplaying game if you don't assume the role of a character in the game.  In so many JRPGs, you're not really being the character at all.  At times you don't even control him, or her.  They are on their own path, and you only take over some of their actions.  At other times, you bounce around different characters at the whim of the story writer and game designer.

This observation doesn't even touch on the more esoteric issue of how your character develops as you progress through the game.  It seems to me we don't need to look that deep to make some significant distinctions.

And I know we've discussed this all before.  Deja vu.

[gpw11]

I realize you are probably speaking from experience with a game like ME2 (which wasn't defined as an RPG either), but if you look at gamers like Baldur's Gate 1, Baldur's Gate 2, or even Dragon Age, you will note that the options for choices are anything but skin deep.

I'm intentionally not including Mass Effect 2 from this. To be fair, I haven't played either Baldur's Gate game, and I didn't get all that far in Dragon Age, but literally EVERY Bioware RPG I have played has had the same cut and paste template that they try to pass off as non-linearity and choice.  The ones I can think of are KotOR, Jade Empire, part of the Sonic one, ME1, and what I played of Dragon Age (but again, I'm not going to include that because it could certainly have changed later on). Of those, ME1 and Dragon Age were the closest to actually being what Bioware pretends all their RPGs are.   I argue that in KotOR, Jade Empire, Mass Effect 1, and the Sonic RPG you "don't make any choices, you don't create a character, you don't live your character".  Going by this guy's logic, they're not only not RPGs, they can't have "RPG" in the genre description at all.

Now, I will concede that there are indeed "choices" available, but no more deep in any of those games than the choices given in jrpgs like Chrono Cross, Vagrant Story, or Persona 3/4. You can make cosmetic choices such as your reactions, but the implications of that are pretty non-existent. You can choose your alignment, but it has very little effect on the story or interactive portion of the game world. You might be able to choose 1 out of 2 or 3 different resolutions for quests, but it usually just ends up being a different 5 second in game cut scene with a slightly modified completion reward. There is very little cause and effect and there is no butterfly effect (well, occasionally there is, but again....cosmetic).  No matter how I play KotoR or what choices I make, the climatic battle ends up exactly the same and I'm left with one of two results. 

I understand that this is because of technical limitations, and I'm fine with that, but this is the second time Bioware has brought this up and they're really not the ones equipped to do it. Bethseda blows them out of the water in this department, as CD Projeckt Red did with The Witcher (again, not your character, not your story). 

What it comes down to is that the guy isn't wrong about the nature of jrpgs, it's that it's a retarded statement to make...especially from Bioware. This guy didn't create the genre, he doesn't define it for anyone but himself, and he doesn't really have any authority to dictate that the public's view of it is incorrect.  He's trying to make a universal definition of an abstract concept and using that to dictate that a subgenre within really doesn't belong.  The problem is that in doing so, he cuts out a whole lot of the games he'd include.

Who's to say what an RPG is really? Pen and paper players could very well argue that electronic RPGs aren't RPGs at all because they can't fill a thimble full of role-playing, non-linearity or character creation when compared to their game of choice. People could argue that the act of levelling and damage/defence based on randomized odds calculations based on dice rolls is what defines the genre.    One could argue that genre is defined by public perception.  It's just a dumb argument and I don't know why he'd even bother bringing it up. 

The two genres are very different and there are broad distinctions between the two....that's why we add a letter to differentiate the two sub-genres. Seems pretty simple and it should probably be left at that.

[Pugnate]

WARNING: SPOILERS GALORE

I don't entirely disagree regarding the games you mentioned. I think the difference is that games like Jade Empire (the only Bioware game I thought was shit) etc are games made primarily for console gamers. But that's beside the point.

Yes games like Jade Empire only offer superficial impacts on their respective gaming worlds. But KOTOR? I thought it offered some depth. I realize that a lot of the customization is cosmetic, but I don't think that has as little impact on the 'role-playing' as you feel. Going through an epic star wars story with a character you designed to identify with makes for some great role-playing, I feel.

KOTOR also allowed you to be pure evil or good. It allowed you to save colonies or destroy them. It allowed a choice on how the game ended, and if you kept your 'love interest' from going to the dark side. It let you try and redeem for yours sins of the past life, or add to them. I do agree that the decisions had little impact in the grand scheme of things, but it was still more than FF) (edit: Reading this para again, I should say that now that I think about it, the game offered little choice on how the game actually ended, but rather on whether you were good or evil when the end happened. Yup, typical Bioware)

My sister recently finished and loved the hell out of Dragon Age. She restarted the game as an elf, and was shocked at how little impact her race made, so there are definitely limitations in Bioware titles... but really of the many FF RPGs I've seen my buddy Phil play, and of the FF13 I played so far, there is really no comparison. KOTOR, in my opinion, offers a lot more opportunity for roleplaying than any Final Fantasy.

At the same time, I have never played Chrono Cross, Vagrant Story, or Persona, so my only basis for judging these Bioware statements is Final Fantasy.

I watched a lot of Skies of Arcadia, which I thought was awesome, but again felt more like an action adventure.

The two genres are very different and there are broad distinctions between the two....that's why we add a letter to differentiate the two sub-genres. Seems pretty simple and it should probably be left at that.

That's a fair statement.

[MysterD]

WARNING: SPOILERS GALORE

...

My sister recently finished and loved the hell out of Dragon Age. She restarted the game as an elf, and was shocked at how little impact her race made, so there are definitely limitations in Bioware titles... but really of the many FF RPGs I've seen my buddy Phil play, and of the FF13 I played so far, there is really no comparison. KOTOR, in my opinion, offers a lot more opportunity for roleplaying than any Final Fantasy.

If I recall correctly, the elves were always on their talk about being severely mistreated in the Dragon Age world and it really gave you a sense that they thought they would never overcome it...

Plus, one of the major elves in the game (that can actually join your party - I forget his name and all), he's an Assassin for one of the major assassin groups...

(click to show/hide)

Spare his life and let him in your party and get to an important battle in the game and he'll turn on your so quick, it ain't even funny...

EDIT:
I think The Elves can play a more important role in The Witcher, myself (even though you can't play as one)...

[gpw11]

My sister recently finished and loved the hell out of Dragon Age. She restarted the game as an elf, and was shocked at how little impact her race made, so there are definitely limitations in Bioware titles... but really of the many FF RPGs I've seen my buddy Phil play, and of the FF13 I played so far, there is really no comparison. KOTOR, in my opinion, offers a lot more opportunity for roleplaying than any Final Fantasy.

I'll certainly agree that KotOR offers more opportunity for what this guy is considering role-playing than any Final Fantasy, but it's a very broad and general term and the split between genres reflects that.  He's taking the design goals as set out by his company when making a game and applying it to not only all the games in the sub-genre, but a somewhat related sub-genre as well.  It's almost like saying American football has more contact and teamwork than tennis an thus is more of a sport.  It doesn't makes sense and you look like an idiot.

[MysterD]

I understand that this is because of technical limitations, and I'm fine with that, but this is the second time Bioware has brought this up and they're really not the ones equipped to do it. Bethseda blows them out of the water in this department, as CD Projeckt Red did with The Witcher (again, not your character, not your story).

One thing BethSoft really has going for them against Bioware in the RPG factor is the nature of their games are open-world affairs from the get-go. Bioware often doesn't give you the entire world  - or say 90% of it - at your disposal, as soon as you start the game; while BethSoft does aim for this. Bioware often allows you to unlock an area here and there, as you go along and progress whatever the hell the main quest is. 

When it comes to the main quest, though - I think BethSoft really out-did themselves w/ Fallout 3. We've always expected a lot of great side quests form BethSoft, but damn - their main quest here was really great and worth seeing all the way to the end.

At the same time, I have never played Chrono Cross, Vagrant Story, or Persona, so my only basis for judging these Bioware statements is Final Fantasy.

Chrono Cross was great on that old Playstation.

[gpw11]

I ran across this tonight and found it funny in light of recent Bioware-related events.  Specifically, their fanbase calling them out on being giant dick-teases.