Newsgroups: comp.games.development.design,rec.arts.int-fiction
Path: news.duke.edu!newsgate.duke.edu!newsfeed.mathworks.com!news.tele.dk!194.176.220.129!newsfeed.icl.net!newspeer.clara.net!news.clara.net!news-hub.cableinet.net!uunet!ash.uu.net!dfw.uu.net!ffx.uu.net!world!buzzard
From: buzzard@world.std.com (Sean T Barrett)
Subject: Re: Have we gone full circle - Final Fantasy 9
Message-ID: <G6G41D.Lro@world.std.com>
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 18:44:01 GMT
References: <Uq726.44$C23.52158@news.intnet.net> <0B826.383$4c.150241@ruti.visi.com> <3a4e2ead.49620022@News.CIS.DFN.DE> <92nssq$mu2$1@news.panix.com>
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Lines: 68
Xref: news.duke.edu comp.games.development.design:19322 rec.arts.int-fiction:81794

Andrew Plotkin  <erkyrath@eblong.com> wrote:
>It's a pacing issue. In FF, of course, the canonical thing you're
>doing -- the activity you spend most of your time on -- is fighting a
>group of monsters that pops up without warning.
[snip]
>Other console RPGs have slightly different approaches, but they still
>share the essential characteristic of pissing me off.

Notably "Chronotrigger", also by Square, in which the combats
are generally always visible in advance, and are sometimes even
avoidable--and there are therefore quite a lot fewer of them.

Nevertheless, it is true that combat is the central activity
of these sorts of RPGs, and if you don't enjoy the challenge
of trying to win those repetitive combats (in the same sense,
I think, that some people don't enjoy the challenge of playing
Tetris) then of course the game won't be your cup of tea.

Doug Church has a fairly thoughtful analysis of how & why the
squaresoft RPGs work in the article he wrote for Game Developer
magazine two years ago; in summary he writes (compare to "crossword
at war with a narrative):

  SquareSoft games are, essentially, storybooks. But to turn
  the page, you have to win in combat. And to win in combat,
  you have to use the characters and items that come up in
  the story. So the consequences of the story, while completely
  preset and identical for all players, are presented (usually)
  right after a very intentional [note: jargon term referring
  to player choice & freedom--Sean] combat sequence. The plot forces
  you to go and fight your former ally, but you are in
  complete control of the fight itself.
     (http://www.gamasutra.com/features/19990716/design_tools_06.htm)
     (that's a pointer into the middle of the article)

The central thrust of his observation here is that combats in
SquareSoft are a deeply complex simulation that allow a lot of
opportunities for players to play and "solve" the situation in
their own unique way, increasing involvement and immersion through
what he calls "intention". Compare this to IF, where the crucial
bottlenecks (puzzles) tend to be emulation-based, and even if there
are two solutions to a puzzle, they were both planned and
implemented by the author--not the player. (Metamorphoses
being perhaps a counterexample in the IF domain.) The player is
discovering, not inventing.

Thus, he is arguing that the SS games are trying to get the best of
both worlds--the world of sports simulation games where the player
has total control over the "story" and winning is entirely in
her hands, versus the world of pre-programmed story games where
there is a single fixed story where all players will experience
the exact same thing.

Of course, not every player will enjoy this approach, but
I think it's an important perspective on what it's accomplishing
and how it's doing so, and that saying "it's a pacing issue"
is not merely an oversimplification but seems to me far off
the mark. (I.e. I suspect the problem is not that it's a pacing
issue--the combats aren't poorly paced--it's that it includes a
style of gameplay that you don't enjoy. If it's really just that
the combats are too frequent, try out Chronotrigger.)

For example, it sheds light on my complaint about wandering
around powering up--a phase of the game when I am engaging in
combats without turning any pages, depriving the game of its
normal immediate consequence feedback between the two levels.

SeanB
