Marlon Chen (moomc@server.Berkeley.EDU
This page is dedicated to the fact that apparently I'm the only person on the face of this planet who thinks that Square's games are mediocre at best.
Why would I say something so insane, you ask? Well, I could pose the same question about the opposite opinion, but instead I'll just justify my views.
In RPGs there's always a push and pull of two ideas:
Hopefully you can understand some fundamental differences between the philosophies already, but here are some additional concerns. The more control you give to the player, both mechanical and emotional, the more likely the game will be too detached or overwhelming, and the game will be increasingly difficult to implement.
The best example I can come up with is Ultima 7 on the computer. It was very free-form, and it's even partially timed (I didn't think of going to the next city until a crucial event had already occured and been cleaned up). While it was eventually a fun game, the initial cost was extremely high. I had spent nearly a year and a half starting and quitting because I wasn't satisfied with my progress or had come back after a little while and lost my place, and eventually I had to dedicate a month or so of wandering to get a feel for the game and then vow to never take a break from playing the game again. That price of adjustment might be too much for many, and in fact, I have never been able to enjoy Serpent Isle for that very reason.
So for the most part, a linear game is not only easier to implement, but also easier to play.
Yet, the more orchestrated the game, the less room for error. Since the player is limited on how he can react, the writers must make sure the reaction they get is the right one or else the effect is destroyed.
And this is the category that Final Fantasy II falls in. True, the exploration eventually becomes less linear, but the plot is still very fixed. And the downfall is that the script is so horribly bland and disinteresting that I couldn't enjoy the game. The main character was completely unempathizable (boo hoo, he had a long lost brother, I'm almost touched), and the only characters with, well, character, Palom and Porom, lasted all of, what, 5 minutes? When I reached the end of the game, though, I thought redemption might be mine (or, rather, Square's) when I witnessed one of the best pre-final boss sequences I've ever seen, but the ending, the final impression the games leaves, destroyed all the progress that sequence had managed to scratch and claw through. Whee, more of the 1/4 inch SD figurines of the characters that I had been seeing for the past 20 hours. When I finish an epic game I want to be REWARDED. More of the same doesn't cut it.
With FFIII Square tried to fix some of these problems in FFII. They improved the quality of a good portion of their scripts and added some completely optional side-quests whose sole purpose was to take a closer look into the character's personality. These peeks into their psyches are absolutely necessary in games with such defined and scripted plots, be they optional or required, and I would have enjoyed FFII so much more if they were included, but they weren't.
Yet, for that one step forward, Square decided to take two steps back.
And of course Square retained their philosophy: "Never let 'em see you larger than a quarter of an inch."
In all fairness, FFII and III aren't BAD games. They're pretty decent. They have a good engine, great spell effects and decent OVERALL plots. But you're going to hear that everywhere else. I felt obligated to air the other side of the games because otherwise it never will be.
So you're probably asking, "If you don't consider Square to be God's gift to gaming, then who?" Well, that's a complicated question. I don't think there's anyone who could be called a gift from the heavens, but there are certainly games that come pretty close (and a hell of a lot closer than Square's). But these games can vary so widely. How can I compare them? Let me get back to the two opposite philosophies of gaming, that of complete control and complete direction.
I can't think of ANY console game that comes even close to being a free-form experience, with the exception of one: the original Phantasy Star. This game was so enchanting because you could go almost anywhere you wanted from the get-go, but it provided subtle hints as to where you should and shouldn't be (hint: If you die, you're probably not supposed to be here). And there are things that you could completely miss if you weren't looking, and you'd still be able to go on without it, albeit at a disadvantage.
The only drawback was that the game was rather poorly translated. It didn't really matter too much in Phantasy Star, though, since it had so little text (or, at least, significant text), but calling Noah a 'she' was a little much. Another thing, related to the scarcity of text, is that as a result character development was a bit scarce, so it was more difficult to role-play.
Phantasy Star II is about as close as you're going to get to free-form role-playing nowadays. The plot was pretty linear, but block-wise instead of point-to-point. You could have visited most of the southern towns on Mota before going to the dump, you could have fixed the dams in any order you wanted, etc. Once again obvious character development was scarce, but things were different in PSII. The situation was better than the original PS because you had significant events that you could role-play YOURSELF. And PSII had two things over Square's Final Fantasy.
So Phantasy Star I was mechanically a superior free-form game, but Phantasy Star II was better at being emotionally free-form.
PSI and II ran the risk of being too detached, and some people don't want to take that chance, which is why they arrange the plot the way they want it. But as long as this is done WELL, the game can be just as enjoyable.
Examples of well orchestrated games are Phantasy Star IV and the Lunar games. Excellent text and character interactions provide a solid base on which to build, and cut scenes/cinemas re-inforce the strength of the plot, making you feel like you've lived a lifetime in someone else's shoes. Even though you never once make an important decision on your own, you get the feeling that you would have made the same choices had you been given the option.
Though open-ended game models can provide a wonderfully personal experience, linear games are much easier to write and program, so I'd expect this type of RPG to be the norm in the future, especially because of the CD format. Free-forming an RPG will make it harder to distinguish sections of the game as independant to the point where 1) an independant section, if it can be defined at all, might not fit in RAM anymore and 2) the excessive reloading from CD to switch between sections that aren't apparently divided (ie, walking across a field as opposed to walking into a dungeon) will detract from gameplay. And don't think that cartridges will help the matter. True, there won't be a problem of partitioning the game into chunks, but then there's the probability that the whole cartridge won't be enough for a single chunk, much less the whole game, without scaling the world down to the point where non-linear gameplay would be almost meaningless. So all we can hope for is that the writers are well trained, because if they are we have a good chance of having as much fun with a linear RPG as we might have had with a more flexible design.
So what can I say about Square? Well, as far as I'm concerned the only thing that can even remotely justify Square's games as being hailed as the best of all time is if the Japanese versions were superbly written and Square had simply screwed the American translations.
If this is the case, Square, then get Working Designs to translate your games.
- Marlon Chen
I have two things I have to address since originally writing this essay:
The original essay is available here, as well as links to the rest of my site.