Chrono Trigger - 18 Years Later

[Jmustang1968]

I was following along and can pretty much see where VF was coming from with his analysis even if I dont entirely agree. But crpgs arent rpgs? I disagree there, unless I misinterpreted...

I also think VF puts too much emphasis on combat mechanics. It isnt fair to say if you mostly like the story and characters it might as well be a visual novel. The problem with that thinking is that it isnt a visual novel. There are many aspects to an rpg. Combat system and under the hood mechanics are just a portion of the whole.

[MrPopo]

I imagine VF would really enjoy the metagaming in the Baldur's Gate series.

[Valkyrie-Favor]

I want to be done talking narrative as a defining element of the CRPG. Any kind of game may have a narrative, and it may be far more complex than that of Chrono Trigger. We can have a CRPG with no or very little written narrative, like The Legend of Grimrock. Furthermore, stories in JRPGs are almost always told with text, music, talking heads, cutscenes - no combination of these things would make a sensible definition of the genre. After that, we can write the greatest JRPG reviews of all time.

I could be wrong, so if someone's got a good case, now's the time to make it. Otherwise we should move on contrasting the "pure tactics" game and the CRPG so we can better understand its defining mechanical elements.
--------------------------
@PoPo:
I've got Baldur's Gate II on my shelf right now, but I haven't played more than the first dungeon. Thanks for the suggestion.

@isiolia
"the avatar's choices mattering" is way too broad. Besides, in Final Fantasy IV, the player has no say in where his points go. It's an archetypal JRPG but the ontogenic layer is just collecting points to unlock stuff.

@Jmustang:
I talked about combat mechanics in the most detail, but I'm really talking about all the game systems in a CRPG.

It isnt fair to say if you mostly like the story and characters it might as well be a visual novel. The problem with that thinking is that it isnt a visual novel. There are many aspects to an rpg. Combat system and under the hood mechanics are just a portion of the whole.

If you're playing a game for its combination of music, visual artwork, and prose, then you are playing it for its VN elements. If those are a game's only strengths, then yes, it would be better as a VN.

Look at Fate/Stay Night and Fate/Extra for a particularly painful example.
---
Have you ever played a traditional RPG like DnD? That's what I mean by RPG - a collaborative storytelling game in which each player controls the decisions of his character. The CRPG is far too restrictive to simulate conversation between two humans or really anything besides the mathematical part of the traditional role-playing game.

[Jmustang1968]

If Chrono Trigger were a VN I would like it a lot less than as a rpg. so even if combat isnt a strength, it does have it.

And yes ive played DnD. I thought you were talking computer rpg as in not a jrpg. You meant video game rpgs in general.

[Ack]

Have you ever played a traditional RPG like DnD? That's what I mean by RPG - a collaborative storytelling game in which each player controls the decisions of his character. The CRPG is far too restrictive to simulate conversation between two humans or really anything besides the mathematical part of the traditional role-playing game.

I have, and while I understand what you are driving at, I think it should be noted that early CRPGs are single player attempts at tabletop RPGs. The collaborative storytelling aspect comes from other human players being involved and your interacting with them while in control of a character(or more), along with your interaction with the person running the game. Dungeons and Dragons is little more than a set of rules, most of which are focused around the combat system. In a CRPG, these same rules are still applied(albeit more limited to the combat aspects), but the interaction is done only with the Dungeon Master, a rudimentary AI that rigidly adheres to specific plot devices and predefined rule definitions and statistics.

Having dealt with some players and DMs who were about as rigid and limited with their definitions of the rules as a computer, I don't believe this disqualifies early CRPGs from being RPGs. Yes, the human interaction element is gone, but if interaction is what is required to define an RPG, then few "RPG" video games are actually RPGs, but a purely multiplayer game like Pong would need to be considered, since all it is is two players interacting via the rules of its game, playing the roles of the players in a game of Ping Pong.

[Valkyrie-Favor]

@Ack - thanks for your thoughtful reply.

I did say this earlier:

No computer games are role-playing games. CRPGs arose from RPG battle rules - i.e. the minigame used to support collaborative storytelling - being turned into computer games. The name RPG is inherited, not descriptive, and for decades it's supported the illusion that CRPGs should be judged as anything besides strategy games.

So I never said "interactivity within the game rules" was the criterion for an RPG, but "collaborative storytelling." If the dungeon master doesn't let the other players make any narrative decisions, hasn't he essentially created a pen-and-paper CRPG - that is, a strategy game with the goal of surviving the dungeon?

It's actually the interactions outside the game rules that defines the role-playing game.

[Ack]

@Ack - thanks for your thoughtful reply.

I did say this earlier:

No computer games are role-playing games. CRPGs arose from RPG battle rules - i.e. the minigame used to support collaborative storytelling - being turned into computer games. The name RPG is inherited, not descriptive, and for decades it's supported the illusion that CRPGs should be judged as anything besides strategy games.

So I never said "interactivity within the game rules" was the criterion for an RPG, but "collaborative storytelling." If the dungeon master doesn't let the other players make any narrative decisions, hasn't he essentially created a pen-and-paper CRPG - that is, a strategy game with the goal of surviving the dungeon?

It's actually the interactions outside the game rules that defines the role-playing game.

Yes, but if that is the case, then likely the only actual computer RPGs would be MMORPGs, as they require a certain level of interaction within the game but also can be influenced by acts outside of it, such as players coming together to form guilds, deciding to fight certain enemies, or electing to travel to certain locales. In fact, I'd argue that if this is the narrow definition we wish to follow, then the likes of EVE is probably the truest RPG, as just as much important action occurs outside of the game as it does within it.

I'd also argue that this doesn't necessarily prevent any multiplayer game from at least conditionally being an RPG. For instance, if I play Pong with a friend, and we trash talk to anger and manipulate how the other plays, we have interacted outside of the game in such a way as to influence the game's "storyline"(ie. who wins the game and by how many points) while still following its rules.

[Valkyrie-Favor]

Yes, but if that is the case, then likely the only actual computer RPGs would be MMORPGs,

That's exactly my point. CRPGs and JRPGs aren't role-playing games at all; they're strategy games and that's how they must be judged.

I'd also argue that this doesn't necessarily prevent any multiplayer game from at least conditionally being an RPG

Fine by me; I'm not interested in properly defining the traditional RPG right now.

[Ack]

Yes, but if that is the case, then likely the only actual computer RPGs would be MMORPGs,

That's exactly my point. CRPGs and JRPGs aren't role-playing games at all; they're strategy games and that's how they must be judged.

I'd also argue that this doesn't necessarily prevent any multiplayer game from at least conditionally being an RPG

Fine by me; I'm not interested in properly defining the traditional RPG right now.

But if the purpose of this discussion is to generate criteria by which video game RPGs are judged, shouldn't we then be defining what makes a video game an RPG versus an "RPG"? And at what point to video game "RPGs" actually begin to become RPGs as opposed to just strategy games with perhaps some additional layer to change it from what we consider a "traditional" strategy game.

For instance, let us compare Chrono Trigger to the likes of Liberty or Death, Syndicate, Populous, and Super Conflict. It is the Visual Novel approach to storytelling that really sets Chrono Trigger apart from the others. Liberty or Death, Populous, and Super Conflict are too far removed from the units that populate their worlds to provide a coherent character-driven storyline. Syndicate takes a tactical view of its conflicts, enabling direct control over and the ability to equip and modify individual fighters, just like Chrono Trigger does with its equipment, stat-growth items, and party load outs. But it does not handle story exposition in the same manner. Characters in Syndicate are little more than a designation attached to a randomly generated unit upon the start of the game. Chrono Trigger also features units that are generated upon the start of the game, but these units are not random, have specific names, abilities, and overall growth assigned to them, and the storyline is generated by the progression of their actions and responds specifically in predetermined ways to those. Yes, the story is(mostly) static, but it builds upon these preset characters, as opposed to the empty shells that Syndicate provides simply to fulfill the task provided.

So, as a result of these differences, should we still consider these the same genre to be judged by the same criteria?

[Valkyrie-Favor]

We shall come up with a new name for the CRPG. Then no one will confuse them with role-playing games again. I had been using that term because it was accepted, but it's clearly more trouble than it's worth.