Thursday 24 July 2008

On sidequests

I am a big fan of sidequests. Give me a lot of them, I say. The more the merrier! Well, up until a point. When it gets to the point at which the sidequests become the main quest because of the sheer amount of them (that is, when significantly more time is spent doing sidequests than the main one), or it gets to the point where you have difficulty following the main quest without first doing sidequests or even a specific one, you have a problem.

This is mainly an RPG thing. Other genres don't have nearly the amount of scope for sidequests that RPGs do. An RPG gives you an entire world to mess around in, pretty much all others don't. The developers are allowed to run wild with possibilities.

Take Final Fantasy XII, one of my latest plays, for example. The game is set in the continent of Ivalice. Continents are massive, especially when they have time and effort put into them. FF12 has approximately 50 hours of story without sidequests. According to my guidebook, there are 21 sidequests. Of these, 10 are of little consequence and don't add much time to the clock. That leaves 11 which are pretty damn big. The Rare Game hunt, hidden Espers, and the Marks Hunt especially take up at least as much as the main quest, but more likely, more. There are 45 Marks, many of which are difficult to get to and even more difficult to kill. There are 8 hidden Espers, all of which are pains to get to and take an age to defeat. And there are 89 Rare Game, of which most only appear in one area and only have a chance to show up once you fulfil certain conditions.

If you want to do the sidequests, then it'll almost definitely take you more than triple the storyline play to finish. Which falls into the first category of problematic sidequests. What about the second? Well, hardcore RPGers would tell you that if you find it hard then you're doing it wrong. But those are the people who in FF10 think that a No-Sphere Grid challenge isn't worth doing unless you add No Summons or No Blitzball or No Mix or something to it. Or something like that. But Final Fantasy 12 is hard. If you don't go on several hunts then you won't have the levels to beat stuff or the cash to buy equipment to beat stuff. Which leads to the Game Over screen. So it fulfils the second category too.

I could go on and on about sidequests in other games, but lets just say that for a genre of games that aren't known for their gameplay, it certainly puts a lot of effort into prolonging said gameplay. Which makes me think, 'What's the point?'.

Tuesday 8 July 2008

RPG Level Systems

I've been playing a lot of RPGs as of late, of several different formats and of several series'. And it occurred to me that whilst they have a lot in common, they tend to have a levelling system that's just a bit different just to set themselves apart.

Take Final Fantasy for example. Square-Enix (or even just Squaresoft) aren't content with keeping the same levelling system between games. 1 had your basic 'gain-exp and level-up' system, with added 'buy spells for each character separately'. 2 had 'beat your own characters up so they get stronger'. 5 had 'level up your characters AND level up your jobs on each character'. 6 had 'equip Espers to get more stats'. 7 had 'equip Materia before your characters can do anything'. 8 had 'equip GFs and level them up to do anything'. 9 had 'equip this weapon to learn a skill'. 10 had the 'where do I go next Sphere Grid'. 10-2 had 'ooh pretty Dress-spheres' and 12 had the intimidating Licence Grid.

So much difference in one series. And that's not the end of it, either. Mordor makes you choose a guild (or five) and every time you get enough exp, you have to go back and level manually. Suikoden tells you to go get 1000 exp to level up, and reduces the amount of exp you get per monster as you do so, and also equip some runes. Summon Night: Swordcraft story puts less emphasis on how well levelled you are and more on how good your weapon is. And the list goes on and on and on.

What I wonder is, why the need for such diversity? Why does each game find the need to make the system a little different? There are very few people who play RPGs for the levelling system. Most play it for the story, the characters, the world. They could probably care less about how their dudes level up and more that they just do. Sure, some may make it easier to do challenges, such as FF10's Sphere Grid where they go nowhere unless you say so, but is that really why they make them?

You're going to tell me, "But Spritey, if they don't make their system different then no-one will buy it!". But I call bullshit. Would any less people buy Final Fantasy if they had a bog-standard system? No, because people buy Final Fantasy for the plot. Would any less people buy Suikoden if it had a bog-standard system? No, because people buy Suikoden for the plot. People look at the box, or they look at a few internet sites, and if the story looks interesting, and if the characters look likeable (or hot), or if it promises hundreds of hours play or it says you can collect lots of things they will buy it, regardless of how samey or different the levelling system is.

I'm sick of having to learn yet another levelling system. Sometimes I just want to sit down and play without having to worry about what skills I need to give my dudes, or having to go to the menu to level them up, or what/who I need to equip/apprentice to/whatever to who to get the best stats. Sometimes I just wanna play for the plot.