The role-playing genre has begun to stagnate.
It’s hardly crippled. Some giants still garner worldwide attention, such as the Mass Effect, Dragon Age, and Fallout franchises. Even after the massive spectacle of genre excess that was Final Fantasy XIII, people still anticipate the next title. But these and lesser-known RPGs are islands in a teeming sea of shooters and action titles, often on the verge of being swamped.
And yet “RPG elements” have proliferated to the point of an industry standard. Most games include at least a token narrative executed with varying degrees of proficiency. Many also include some form of level-based advancement, perks, and/or equipment. Some even include the dreaded moral choice system. In a very real sense, the original niche of role-playing games has become the dominant paradigm.
Yet role-playing games, particularly “classic” role-playing games, continue to define themselves by rigid accordance to traditional mechanics. This conservatism probably represents the greatest handicap to the genre. Just as other games have begun to adopt “RPG elements,” perhaps it’s time for RPGs and their fans to seriously consider abandoning some of their own.
Take Mass Effect’s first and second games. The first Mass Effect was a promising (though not earthshaking) science-fiction saga bogged down largely by its own tortured inventory system and point-and-click combat. Not only was the inventory clunky, the player wasn’t really offered a whole lot of meaningful choice, since the differences between one gun and another were minute at best. Advancement suffered from a very similar issue, with the vast majority of level-up bonuses providing only passive bonuses.
These flaws and others were soundly criticized, and laudably, Bioware took steps. Mass Effect 2 was lean, trim, and structured in largely the same fashion as a conventional shooter title. Its writing was better; its characters were more developed. It used weapons with striking performance differences, streamlined advancement structure, and treated linear advancement as passive upgrades. The result was a game stronger in almost every way.
And a diehard clique of RPG fans screamed bloody murder.
Why? The same storytelling quality existed, with largely the same dynamic decision-making structure and evocative writing. If anything, it was enormously improved, reaching the level of a real classic. Advancement over time still existed. Commander Shepard was still the hero of the player’s design. Aren’t these things really what defines an RPG title? Have we really clung so strongly to the past that we define “RPG” as “inventory management and stat grinding?”
No wonder so many contemporary RPGs tend to play like stripped-down MMOs. And no wonder there aren’t that many hotly-anticipated titles! Somewhere down the line, we confused role-playing for accounting!
There is no inherent conflict between compelling action mechanics and a compelling story; one actually aids in the other. Role-playing does not lie in the manipulation of numbers; it lies in the ability of the player to take part in an often-but-not-always open-ended narrative from the perspective of a character. The foremost concern of all role-playing titles should be: how can we draw the player into the game?
Navigating menus and juggling statistics are obstacles in this pursuit, not assets. The greatest obstacle to RPGs as a genre is our own reluctance to abandon these halfway measures. There’s still a place for turn-based or menu-heavy games, but that’s a stylistic choice, not an intrinsic quality, and certainly not a litmus test of true “RPG” status. And stat-grinding provides little value in the pursuit of story; in fact, it tends to detract, ruining pacing and tempo.
Why do we cling so much to outmoded gameplay mechanics? Do we fear that the shooter and action side of the industry will somehow “win” if we learn from the lessons they teach? Because honestly, if it’s about “winning,” RPG fans “won” long ago, the moment that an at least competent narrative became a necessary component to most games.
How does making Mass Effect 3 a better shooter damage its role-playing component? By all means, keep the gradual advancement of powers, but don’t make us have to jump through hoops just to keep up with the times. Leveling up and finding new items should expand the player’s arsenal, not merely keep it up to par.
There need be no opposition between exciting action set pieces and compelling role-playing. More power to the developers of Mass Effect 3. The sooner other developers embrace the expertise of other genres, the better off the genre will be.