Do you NEED "great" plots in your RPGs?

[Leaping Larry Jojo]

I've been playing Earthbound, the original Phantasy Star, and Dragon Warrior 7 recently and have been wondering why I seemed to like these games better than many of the other RPGs with better plots, better graphics and "sexier" battle systems. I mean, I can't even say they're really non-linear (aside from PS1) because for the most part they aren't. But I enjoy them. I can only reason that they were enjoyable adventures and I either felt like I looked forward to the next mini quest I had to solve or what new surprises were in store for my characters. Despite the fact that all 3 of those games had almost no "character development" in the classic sense (haunted past, unrequited loves, bad childhood, blah blah blah) I still enjoyed the characters and they stick in my mind for some reason. Why does Ness, a virtually average kid who had no personality, but still stuck out in my mind more than, say, one of the various personable characters in Suikoden (okay, not a good example, but I'm sick of picking on something like FF VIII or X-2 like others do, and many of the characters in Suikoden didn't have personalities either, but the key 5 or so characters did).

Ness, a blank kid with a red baseball cap who uses a baseball bat as a weapon is more memorable to me than a young man with a super magic sword who is haunted by the guilt of rebelling against his father!

I realize that RPGs don't really need a good story, at least TO ME. I look for a great ADVENTURE.

This is not to say I don't want plots, not at all. I HATE, HATE, HATE all random battles in RPGs, and 7th Saga (a game that is basically all about levelling up and nothing more) is one of my least favourite RPGs ever. I think plots are important in giving games direction, especially RPGs. I just don't need a DEEP plot for a game to be enjoyable (though if you can put one in AND make it a good GAME TO PLAY, like Baldur's Gate II, then but all means...).

For deeper plots, I have always played point 'n click games for that. I feel those are interactive stories, whereas in my mind, RPGs don't necessarily need to be.

How about you? What are your thoughts on RPGs?

[digitalmonkey]

The only RPG i like is Pokemon. And Kingdom Hearts, but i don't consider that a full RPG.

[ohmrbill]

Well there are two different types of RPGs. For console RPG's, yes plot is necessary. It doesn't have to be super deep, but it does have to keep you guessing and give you a desire to see what happens next.

RPG's on the PC, however, I like to have less of a plot and to be more open. Freedom is the key there, and having a significant amount of plot just detracts from that and makes the game more linear.

By the way, I find it odd that you use Suikoden as your counter-example. Suikoden, to me, is the exception to the standard console RPG rule. The plots aren't deep, and are often quite predictable, but it makes up for it with its cast of fun and memorable characters.

And have you considered that maybe the only reason Ness is more memorable to you is simply because he's is one of the games you're playing right now at this current time? ;)

[Shawn Hopkins]

I know the answer! It's roleplaying!

Most plot heavy Japanese RPGs are more or less interactive storybooks. Some of the games, however, are more like computer RPGs in that they give you a chance to step into the shoes of a character and identify with them, and feel like you really are involved in what happens instead of being swept along by the plot. I am not a mopey pretty boy who needs an oversized sword to compensate for ... something, and I don't relate to one no matter how interesting his story is.

I can put myself in the shoes of the hero in the original Dragon Warrior or Ness, however, and on the CRPG side the guy or girl in Fallout. They aren't all total ciphers, but they aren't saddled with so much plot baggage I'm on the outside looking in.

Suikoden is an odd example. I definitely felt for the charcters in Suikoden and identified with the main character because he was given so much to do. I even named my castle Gremio Castle in honor of one of the characters, and played the whole game over, not just to get a perfect save, but to get a chance to resurrect one.

[Juu-kuchi]

I do not think it is necessary, but it helps. In the end, what makes RPGs is not the plot but the journey itself. For the most part, recent RPGs have enamored me in some sense of the word with story and likeable characters, but the journey is sortof lackluster, which does not make me willing enough to finish it quickly. Final Fantasy X had an interesting plot, but then again although the journey was somewhat interesting, it has not beckoned me much to come back and try to play it. Maybe I wasn't too fond of the characters, maybe I wasn't too interested in the later parts of the plot, maybe it's because Gagazet Seymour kept Lance of Atrophying me, I dunno.

Tales of Symphonia was rather standard RPG-fare that pretty much mimicked for the first part of the game FFX's storyline. But it was the first RPG I actually beat in a long time. I thought the journey was interesting enough and the characters appealing to the point that I wanted to look forward to seeing what is out there. Yeah, maybe most of the development came from little vignettes where they spoke in text around the world map or in towns through portraits with flapping lips, but gosh darn it I was interested in them even more.

Maybe it's those things as well as the journey. Mario RPG and Paper Mario may not have the best plot, but I enjoyed it all the same because of how quirky it was in both gameplay and atmosphere. Final Fantasy VI/III and Chrono Trigger (two of my most favorite games of all time) had it's share of angsting and haunted pasts, but for the most part it wasn't really developed more, but we caught a glimpse of it. We don't need to be bombarded with how dreadful their pasts was, but know what makes them the characters they are. I'll remember Locke as that "Treasure Hunter" who'd rip your lungs out if you called him a thief. They may not delve into his past that much, but the way he was portrayed more than made up for it. Sabin was a runaway prince who's a free spirit and lands a good punch. Then of course Chrono Trigger. Yeah Crono was nothing but a mute, but at least he was a strong presence that kept the game going. Characters were developed but they let their personalities make them shine instead of dwelling in their past.

But in the end, those helped the journey. The journey was what mattered. Those games had places that interested me to the point that I really wished to go wherever I desired. Symphonia made me relive that memory, unlike FFX which I found too linear. Without a good journey with good gameplay and the like, an RPG is somewhat doomed to mediocrity in a way. So essentially a journey with a healthy smattering of good gameplay, endearing characters, and a likeable atmosphere (all or at least one or two of them that are quite excellent) make for a good RPG.

And hell sometimes plot and story work against it, like in my opinion FF8. Online RPGs I agree with ohmrbill's point of view on it. The only problem is that I get rather bored with just hitting stuff and just yearn for something more. Yeah I could spend time on it, but then again those kinds of RPGs demand a hefty amount of it. However I DO want to play City of Heroes.

[Leaping Larry Jojo]

Well there are two different types of RPGs. For console RPG's, yes plot is necessary. It doesn't have to be super deep, but it does have to keep you guessing and give you a desire to see what happens next.

RPG's on the PC, however, I like to have less of a plot and to be more open. Freedom is the key there, and having a significant amount of plot just detracts from that and makes the game more linear.

By the way, I find it odd that you use Suikoden as your counter-example. Suikoden, to me, is the exception to the standard console RPG rule. The plots aren't deep, and are often quite predictable, but it makes up for it with its cast of fun and memorable characters.

And have you considered that maybe the only reason Ness is more memorable to you is simply because he's is one of the games you're playing right now at this current time? ;)

Actually I was thinking about Ness before I started playing the game again. I still can't remember the main character's name in Suikoden, however.

That is not to say Suikoden was a bad game. I remember the GAME as great, and it had some good gameplay elements (though too frequent random battles). But the story was pretty standard, and other than the main cast, the other 95 or so characters were distinct only by their abilities. At any rate, the MAIN characters are all fairly well developed, yet it didn't do THAT big an impression on me, is what I'm saying. I could note even a game I REALLY like, like FF VII, as having well-developed characters but the game as a whole was less satisfying (to me) than a less serious and "deep" game, like Grandia.

I think all RPGs, not just console RPGs, have to have a plot. At the very least the characters have to have some goal for doing what they're doing, even if all they're doing it for is for fun (like Grandia). Trust me, trudging through all these faceless D&D CRPGs in the early 90s was pretty boring for me as well.

I don't think console RPGs have to follow the tried and true formula of having DRAMATIC SOAP OPERA EVENTS happen to all of the characters.

For instance, in Earthbound there is a mini-quest where you get stuck in a reverse world ("No" means "Yes" and "Yes" means "No") and you have to get out of it. Visually everything is in a sort of neon glow in this quest. The characters don't talk, get into flashbacks about their past, or admit their "feelings" to each other in this quest (or in any part of the game, really). But it was a fun little mini-adventure to play through to get your team past that weird place.

Contrast this to the whole dungeon (actually it was outdoors) where Aeris gets killed by Sephiroth. DRAMA! EXCITEMENT! SHOCK! Right? Storywise, yes, but other than the amusement of watching a FMV of polygon Aeris get punctured by a CG sword, that little adventure in the dungeon itself was rather boring. And so it goes with MANY RPGs--lots of beautifully rendered but too-familiar dungeons with nothing to do in them but to open treasure boxes and fight random battles, punctuated by increasingly long FMV story scenes in between.

So the game itself, you increasingly find, is more about watching story sequences than adventuring or playing the game. So are we supposed to grade the story or the game?

As beautiful as many RPGs are these days, sometimes I think the stories (for me) overwhelm the adventure so that you're not as excited about going into a new area and seeing what it's like, because it's often only a pit stop for the BIG STORY SCENE...

I can't put my finger on it really. On one hand I really do like some RPGs with lots of CG and story, on the other hand I also like RPGs that are nearly storyless but is more about the adventuring itself, and I don't just mean in a non-linear way either.

[Leaping Larry Jojo]

I know the answer! It's roleplaying!

Most plot heavy Japanese RPGs are more or less interactive storybooks. Some of the games, however, are more like computer RPGs in that they give you a chance to step into the shoes of a character and identify with them, and feel like you really are involved in what happens instead of being swept along by the plot. I am not a mopey pretty boy who needs an oversized sword to compensate for ... something, and I don't relate to one no matter how interesting his story is.

I can put myself in the shoes of the hero in the original Dragon Warrior or Ness, however, and on the CRPG side the guy or girl in Fallout. They aren't all total ciphers, but they aren't saddled with so much plot baggage I'm on the outside looking in.

Suikoden is an odd example. I definitely felt for the charcters in Suikoden and identified with the main character because he was given so much to do. I even named my castle Gremio Castle in honor of one of the characters, and played the whole game over, not just to get a perfect save, but to get a chance to resurrect one.
I agree with Juu-Kuchi that maybe it's about the journey that beckons players back. I remember finishing FF VII and FF X and saying, "Wow! That was a great story and a great game." But I never had much inclination to play them over. It was like a good bestseller--you read it, had a good time, were done with it. YOu remember the story as a whole, but you don't remember wanting to go back to a place in the game that stuck out in your mind.

With FF VI, I played over several times because I wanted to play the opera house and floating continent again. I knew all the characters now, and the plot was getting tired the 7th time through but there were places I wanted to play through again, just because I liked those places. In Earthbound I wanted to go to Fourside and wander around the big city again for no apparent reason.

So maybe in the end, the journey is what brings players back. Characters should probably have just enough features in personality (or features) to make them worth following to the end. Maybe you don't have to know EVERYTHING about them, but the way they act during the adventure helps. If your main character is a cipher (insert your face here type character) then the supporting cast should probably have a little more individuality.

I guess that's my personal opinion of RPGs.

[Hurricane V1]

It's not always the most important thing, it depends. I think Legaia 2 has a crappy battle system and I don't enjoy the puzzles at all but since I started playing it, I want to see the ending so I'm going to finish it eventually. Not that I think it has a terrific plot either.

I liked the, what's it called, Georama?, system in Dark Cloud 2 and the battles are sort of fun but the plot was so lame it made me mad to continue playing. The characters are so lighthearted one minute then Monica goes "Damn, damn, damn that Griffon!" with some lame voice work.

Basically I'll keep playing either for great gameplay or a good story, and having both in a game makes it that much more memorable to me.

[ZorBrak]

I'm all about engrossing stories...KOTOR...such a damn fine game *tear*

[Captain Harlock]

I don't think the plot matters that much in an RPG to me. The focal point lies within the characterization. You look at Earthbound, and there's a typical "save the world" plot with the chosen hero. However, the characters have a unique quality about them that can make the player identify with atleast one of them. Take a game with a unique and refreshing plot, but if the characters are bland, there really is no desire to finish the game. To have interesting characters with a well-designed plot is the key to a near-perfect RPG. I say near-perfect because the battle system is important too.

[James]

While I consider FFVII to be one of the best games ever, I'm not sure I'm comfortable with it being the best RPG...

RPG is role playing with the emphasis on you creating the character. True, you build stats in the like of FF, and in the course of FFVII (what I consider to being the closest of the FF for RPG) you can to a lesser degree affect Cloud's character, but you are playing preset roles. You cannot affect the outcome of the character. There is no background to create. It's all preset.

I used to enjoy the Champions Of Krynn series on the Amiga, Dungeon Master, Mega Traveller and even Buck Rogers on the Megadrive. All were a little closer to RPG - to different degrees.

Megatraveller - based on an RPG - was the closest. Your characters were your own. You named then, created their history - their careers and their skills. The length of their careers would give them more skills, but the older they got, the weaker they became. The game was buggy, but it focused on non linear gameplay and characters built by yourself.

I do miss such games. FFX is more like an interactive story - a good one - and it lacks the elements which really make it a true RPG. However it's playability and inovation in terms of design and gameplay make up for this.

I do miss proper RPGs but while such care is being focused on creating good "RPG" games, I'm not that bothered - as long as the experience is enjoyable.

[guinaevere]

Despite the fact that all 3 of those games had almost no "character development" in the classic sense (haunted past, unrequited loves, bad childhood, blah blah blah) I still enjoyed the charactersWell, there's character development, and then there's adding unnecessary background. And to be honest, nothing disappoints me more than when you have some character (usually a bad guy) who, it turns out, is trying to take over the world in order to spite some bloke who he ran into as a youngster, and said he threw a softball like a girl.

Dude. Get over it. Do something constructive. Take up golf. Or Macrame.

I'd MUCH rather see a villian just have evil tendencies, because he's a bad guy. There ARE bad people out there, who do bad things, because they see it as an easy way to succeed or achieve their goal. Just because they see no wrong in hurting others. But I don't need everyone's life story in order for me to know who's got to be stopped.

(TOTALLY off-topic rant: That was my biggest disappointment with Cowboy Bebop. Faye was fine as she was. An agrressive, self-serving character who latched onto a good thing. Why this need to add the totally cliche story of her not being able to remember her past?! The episodes focusing on that really cheapened it for me. But... back to games.)

I've been playing RE Zero lately, and as many action games play out as less-in depth RPGs, I'll pull the Biohazard villians out for example. The original story wasn't bad. But the further along the franchise went, the more ridiculous the villians' motives and histories have become. I like the series, and play the games despite the progressively absurd writing.

Currently, the only RPG I've been playing is the US Fire Emblem. And it's, you know, pretty average. Some dopey characters. Jaffar, Nino and her Mum are the most ridiculous and cliche (aside from the main bad guy) and their story really adds about zilch to my interest in playing. But other than that, it's been okay. Level up your characters, use weapons and beat the baddies. Nothing memorable, but fun.


Ness, a blank kid with a red baseball cap who uses a baseball bat as a weapon is more memorable to me than a young man with a super magic sword who is haunted by the guilt of rebelling against his father!Definately. And you reminded me of a game from the NES that I enjoyed tremendously. Star Tropics, that was it.

Just a kid doing his thing. But that was the charm. Some everyday average kid, thrown into an unforseen, unpredictable environment. Where he didn't belong, but used what tools and skills he, as a young, average boy had, in order to defeat the odds and do what he had to.

[SSJPabs]

Actually I was thinking about Ness before I started playing the game again. I still can't remember the main character's name in Suikoden, however.Tir McDohl.

I couldn't disagree more, at least with Suikoden 3. I never played 2, but one was a lot like you say. Serviceable plot with a fun cast. Suikoden 3 though... I think I went out of my mind when I played it because I was obsessed with the story, hand-writing pages of notes on it, to try to figure out what was going to happen. Nothing really fires my imagination like the world of Suikoden, and I think thats why I like plot-heavy RPGs, they make the world rich and detailed that I can imagine side-stories or ways to fill in the gaps.

[Keiichi]

Well, there's character development, and then there's adding unnecessary background. And to be honest, nothing disappoints me more than when you have some character (usually a bad guy) who, it turns out, is trying to take over the world in order to spite some bloke who he ran into as a youngster, and said he threw a softball like a girl.

Dude. Get over it. Do something constructive. Take up golf. Or Macrame.

I'd MUCH rather see a villian just have evil tendencies, because he's a bad guy. There ARE bad people out there, who do bad things, because they see it as an easy way to succeed or achieve their goal. Just because they see no wrong in hurting others. But I don't need everyone's life story in order for me to know who's got to be stopped.



I totally agree with you. I'm sick and tired of this new breed of RPG villians that have to be evil for a reason. How I miss the old days where we had truly evil bad guys that you loved to hate like Kefka, Xdeath, Zofar etc.

[shogunthethird]

not a great plot, just something beyond "boy does something stupid, boy's hometown gets nuked, boy falls for girl, girl turns out to be something more than what she is, boy fights enigmatic badass, enigmatic badass joins party, boy meets other RPG stereotypes (pick your own) boy travels to foreign lands, meets leaders of foreign lands, kills leaders of foreign lands, meets god, kills god...the end"

[Juu-kuchi]

I totally agree with you. I'm sick and tired of this new breed of RPG villians that have to be evil for a reason. How I miss the old days where we had truly evil bad guys that you loved to hate like Kefka, Xdeath, Zofar etc.
That and they weren't loopy bishounen.

[Tanooki]

the reason earthbound sticks in my mind so well is due to the hilariousness of the game. "crazy disco dancer attacks!!!" plus, one of the kid's names was poo

but, other than that, a plot is very important to me. i want to be almost moved to tears when i play. ff6 can do this, as well as some parts of ff4

Hero

[Master Moron]

Well, I hated Earthbound, I thought it was one of the worst rpgs I've played. Part of the reason I hated it was the awful story. I've never played Phantasy Star 1 but I've played the second one and I actually liked the story. But, the gameplay was tedious. I've only played the first two Dragon Warrior games and didn't particularly care for them.

[Killtacular]

If the characterization isn't good and the plot is tired and cliched, I will NOT play the game. That's why I hate Golden Sun, all of Enix's SNES RPGs.

[Tanooki]

If the characterization isn't good and the plot is tired and cliched, I will NOT play the game. That's why I hate Golden Sun, all of Enix's SNES RPGs.how is the plot for golden sun "tired and cliched"? yes, it has a group of hero's trying to save the world but every single rpg has this. other than that, it's a story of adepts (never been done), djinni (never been done), the battle system is different from the traditional rpg. i'd hate to shoot down your point, wilson, but so far you are unconvincing

Hero

[Keiichi]

how is the plot for golden sun "tired and cliched"? yes, it has a group of hero's trying to save the world but every single rpg has this. other than that, it's a story of adepts (never been done), djinni (never been done), the battle system is different from the traditional rpg. i'd hate to shoot down your point, wilson, but so far you are unconvincing

HeroIts been a while but I forget what an adept is so forgive me but the Djinn are just summons that we've seen in countless other games and the battle system is Turned based which is used in 98% of all RPGS. So how is it different?

[William C. Maune]

Its been a while but I forget what an adept is so forgive me but the Djinn are just summons that we've seen in countless other games and the battle system is Turned based which is used in 98% of all RPGS. So how is is different?

Yes, the Djinn system is a variation on summons, but at least it is a unique variation. Setting djinn to your character changes your stats and what spells you can cast. You can choose to summon them, but you also risk a significant stat decrease, or losing spells you need, Alternatively, depending on how you plan things, by summoning djinn, and thereby changing your class, you could gain spells you need.

[Keiichi]

You could do the same thing with Guardians in Wild Arms. Equiping them to different characters altered there state. In Lunar II equping a different character with a different dragon (which could be summend) the character learned different magic spells according to what dragon was place to what character it was equped too. So what the Djinn do is nothing really we have'nt seen.

[William C. Maune]

You could do the same thing with Guardians in Wild Arms. Equiping them to different characters altered there state. In Lunar II equping a different character with a different dragon (which could be summend) the character learned different magic spells according to what dragon was place to what character it was equped too. So what the Djinn do is nothing really we have'nt seen.

I can't say I've played those games, and while they sound like similar systems, I dunno if they aren't still different from each other and Golden Sun. With Wild Arms, were those also summons that could be used in battle? Did they alter the state when used in battle? Did they give spells? What you describe in Lunar sounds more like Final Fantasy 3(6) where you were able to learn spells based on what espers were equipped.

Most RPGs use variations of the same few ideas, but many RPGs at least have some sort of unique spin on those ideas.

[mikestorm]

The last game I really identified with was ES:III Morrowind. It's not an RPG in the traditional sense, as you're not given a role to play. You're just you. You do what you want, when you want.

There's no FMV, no cutscenes, no forced plot twitsts. Things are not what they seem, but you find that out on your own at your own pace, without the "Eureka!" moments in traditional RPGs.

Secondly it is arguably the most nonlinear video game ever created in the history of humanity. Just like real life. You can become a messiah and save the world, become a vampire and kill everybody on the island, become a cleptomaniac and steal everything that isn't nailed down, or simply jump around naked all day talking to people.

It was the first time in an RPG in a long while (not since playing Zork on my Atari) where I really felt that the main character was ME. Michael Tempesta. Not Crono, Squall, Zidane or Cecil.

The downside to this type of game it's complete lack of being "Hollywood". We can watch a movie, and 30 minutes in care deeply about the main characters' lives. Game manufacturers try to infuse the same concepts in their games. Well, with this game that is completely, unequivocably absent. The danger here is you might simply not care if you win or lose.

[Keiichi]

I can't say I've played those games, and while they sound like similar systems, I dunno if they aren't still different from each other and Golden Sun. With Wild Arms, were those also summons that could be used in battle? Did they alter the state when used in battle? Did they give spells? What you describe in Lunar sounds more like Final Fantasy 3(6) where you were able to learn spells based on what espers were equipped.

First let me say its shame you have'nt played them Esp the Lunar series they're great games. You can summon the guardians but they don't help you learn any magic spells. And yeah dragons do kinda sound like the espers.


Most RPGs use variations of the same few ideas, but many RPGs at least have some sort of unique spin on those ideas.And this is exaclty the point I'm trying to make. Nothing we've see in Golden sun has'nt been done in other RPG games before. Mind you I like the game but its not as original and Hero claimed it to be.

[Tanooki]

First let me say its shame you have'nt played them Esp the Lunar series they're great games. You can summon the guardians but they don't help you learn any magic spells. And yeah dragons do kinda sound like the espers.

And this is exaclty the point I'm trying to make. Nothing we've see in Golden sun has'nt been done in other RPG games before. Mind you I like the game but its not as original and Hero claimed it to be.i said what now? i never said golden sun was "original" anywhere in my post. i just said it wasn't "tired out and cliche"

Hero

[Keiichi]

I was just reffering to you saying that the Djinn have never been done before which they have in a way and that the battle system was different than the tradtional RPG.

[shogunthethird]

I think the most original RPG plot I've seen lately were the .hack games

[Master Moron]

Why are we talking about the battle systems? I thought this thread was about the stories.

[Killtacular]

Why are we talking about the battle systems? I thought this thread was about the stories.
Because if we were talking about the stories, then there'd be no convincing argument to prove that Golden Sun isn't cliche, as the story is an amalgamation of early 90s RPG stereotypes, right up to the silent protagonist, the flat side characters with no personalities, and the extremely generic NPCs, the 'fateful' event that forces you to have to save the world zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

The only thing unique about Golden Sun is its battle system, except that I've seen and played better.

[Mynd Hed]

The last game I really identified with was ES:III Morrowind. It's not an RPG in the traditional sense, as you're not given a role to play. You're just you. You do what you want, when you want.
Heh, heh. That's kind of sad that you think so, because actually, Morrowind IS an RPG in the old old old-school pen-and-paper traditional sense, in which you create the character from scratch yourself and do what you want, when you want. I'd like to see more games like that now that technology has progressed to the point where it's easier to implement. (Only other games I can think of that gave something of the same feeling were the Fallout games on the PC.)

[AF$]

Because if we were talking about the stories, then there'd be no convincing argument to prove that Golden Sun isn't cliche, as the story is an amalgamation of early 90s RPG stereotypes, right up to the silent protagonist, the flat side characters with no personalities, and the extremely generic NPCs, the 'fateful' event that forces you to have to save the world zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

The only thing unique about Golden Sun is its battle system, except that I've seen and played better.
Agreeeeeed.

[Leaping Larry Jojo]

The most "original" (for an RPG) plots I've seen were in Planescape (it's not about saving the world, it's about finding a way to finally die forever) and some of the plots in Saga Frontier.

But overall, if the journey is good (by that I mean the adventure itself is fun to play through and look at) then it can make up for no plot. Not every RPG needs a plot to be fun, at least for me.

But you know, I played every RPG on the SNES, every one on the Genesis, and about 90% of the ones on SMS and NES and I have to say if you're looking for something with a good story, console RPGs really aren't a great place to look for them. (CRPGs are even worse--most of them didn't even have characterization until 1995) They're all pretty much the same, even the FF ones. It's just that some are more talkative than others. Almost all of the console ones involve either--Beating an evil dark force or saving the eco-system in some type of quasi-environmentalist message. Most of the characters are stereotypes, even some of the better stories.

[ohmrbill]

But overall, if the journey is good (by that I mean the adventure itself is fun to play through and look at) then it can make up for no plot. Not every RPG needs a plot to be fun, at least for me.But what makes the adventure fun to play? Plot? Battle system? Characters? Getting back to the Suikoden example (not trying to be a fanboy or anything, it's just that you using that game as a counter-example of what you're talking about confuses me), I was usually more interested in getting to the next area to find the next of the 108 characters (because it was fun) than in the overall plot itself. Maybe it's just me, but isn't that exactly what you're talking about when you say an adventure that's fun?

In the end I suppose it just boils down to the ultimate decider: personal taste.


Heh, heh. That's kind of sad that you think so, because actually, Morrowind IS an RPG in the old old old-school pen-and-paper traditional sense, in which you create the character from scratch yourself and do what you want, when you want. I'd like to see more games like that now that technology has progressed to the point where it's easier to implement. (Only other games I can think of that gave something of the same feeling were the Fallout games on the PC.)Heh, those are actually the types of games I was talking about when I said "PC RPG's", as most RPG's on the PC are like that. Well, before the barrage of online RPG's anyway.

[mikestorm]

Heh, heh. That's kind of sad that you think so, because actually, Morrowind IS an RPG in the old old old-school pen-and-paper traditional sense, in which you create the character from scratch yourself and do what you want, when you want. Right, but I was limiting my scope to video game RPGs. D&D is a whole other kettle of fish. However, to Ohmrbill's point, PC RPGs are typically much more open ended and non-linear than console RPGs.

One of my favorite aspects of Morrowind is the plot is there. In fact, it's a pretty robust and well crafted plot. However what's great about it is it impacts your gameplay only to your level of interest in the plot. There are hundreds of books, as well as thousands of NPCs that contribute to the plot, but you must read the books and ask the right questions of the NPCs. Finally, you must put it all together. It's not done for you.

On the other hand, playing console RPGs is like bowling with gutter bumpers. I'm not saying that's a bad thing (don't flame me!), it's simply different. The gamer spends more of his time enjoying the gameplay and less time saying, "Where the %^&$ am I supposed to go now?!"

I'm sure we've all played a console RPG where you're b-buttoning through a cutscene and low and behold the characters have a major revelation. However, once the cutscene is over, the dialog of every single NPC in the area changes to 1) force you to the next plot point: "What are you wasting time talking to me for? Off with you to Zanarkand to face Sin!" or changes to 2) reinforce a recently discovered plot point "So Magus is actually Janus all growed up?....wow, who knew?"

I don't mean to pick on Square games in particular, just citing examples.

[guinaevere]

On the other hand, playing console RPGs is like bowling with gutter bumpers. I'm not saying that's a bad thing (don't flame me!),May I flame you anyway? I've got this spiffy new creme brulee torch, and I'm just dying to try it out.

Actually, I just wanted to agree wit'chya.

[ohmrbill]

However, once the cutscene is over, the dialog of every single NPC in the area changes to 1) force you to the next plot point: "What are you wasting time talking to me for? Off with you to Zanarkand to face Sin!" or changes to 2) reinforce a recently discovered plot point "So Magus is actually Janus all growed up?....wow, who knew?"
I've always been a fan of Game Art's NPC's. They say a LOT of things that are usually off-topic yet quite humorous. In Lunar, they even seem to randomly change the dialogue of entire towns that you have to reason to go back and visit.:D

[Bubblegum Girl]

I like RPGs that have good graphics, a good battle system, and good stories. As for stories, I want them to make sense. Even though the original FF story didn't make sense it was still good because it's one of the first RPG ever made. My mistake was getting Tales of Destiny, I only liked it because it had great graphics, unique battle system and enjoyable music. The only problem was that it me too long to find out what was going on in the game, so I gave up on it.(Though I still have it in my room)

[Kryptonian]

Having great plot is good, and if the game has a great battle system, or some type of summoning or transformation sequence, or if the character's have a neat special move,(which is usually in most RPG's) I tend to like just those aspects, even if there may not be a strong plot.

And cutscenes are great too, it's fun to get a break in between all of the action, and listening to a good story, even if it's long or short.

[RAINMAN]

Now a days they seem to care about more long cutscens then plots in RPG`s.