Chrono Trigger - 18 Years Later

[CavZee]

There's too much thought and analysis going on in here....can't...go on......

*explodes*

[SNESdrunk]

Yeah, I feel like I need to read this like 4 times to get everything, but lots to mull over here. Great thread.

[Valkyrie-Favor]

---Forgive me for paraphrasing some of your replies. My posts are long enough. If you feel you've been misrepresented, please let me know and I'll quote you exactly.

0. The Dentist's Office

Valk would say that disliking the mediocre or even average games in the genre does not mean you're not a fan of the genre.
But if you apparently *only* like the ones that are exceptional, then almost by definition I say that you don't like the genre - only the exceptions!

I suppose I'm no longer a fan of video games

It seems you're confusing my list of "games I think are well-designed" with "games I really like." While I do like those games - because they're well-designed - I've enjoyed plenty of JRPGs that don't belong in that list. I mentioned beating FFVI twice - it's by no means a good strategy game, but it was excellent cotton candy. I'm not above that. I even beat Skirting Shadows!

Can SRPGs and ARPGs be considered good JRPGs?

SRPGs and ARPGs are JRPGs; they differ from the typical (turn based, no mobility) only in the short game. The purpose of the short game never changes no matter what it is; there are even shmup-JRPGs and tennis-JRPGs.

So yes.

But if a game excels in one particular layer, should it be knocked for not providing others, such as the SRPG example given earlier?

No, especially considering that SRPGs are generally better than Dragon Quest clones.

don't...knock "cotton candy" RPGs...they are easy...Many of us simply don't have the time to spend on exceedingly deep games anymore.

Most games I listed were long, but there are good 20-hour JRPGs. La Pucelle Tactics is one.

I also think that sheer complexity does not automatically trump visual, auditory, or story presentation. I think a truly great RPG will have both excellent presentation and rewarding gameplay.

Most of the games I listed have good presentation, but what of the humble Dragon Warrior III? Our criterion here is not "personal enjoyment" but "true greatness." Are we to say a superbly designed JRPG - possibly the best "regular" JRPG in existence - is not truly great?

And what of Radical Dreamers? For argument, let's say it has all CT's good points (sound, sprites, animation, storytelling) without its flaws. Is it as fun as Chrono Trigger? If so, isn't that the same as saying Chrono Trigger was a good visual novel with some boring minigames?

I'm gonna go brush my teeth.

---------------

Hmm, a very well thought out system, VF. If you don't mind, I do have a few questions about the precepts to help further clarify them.

Thank you very much. It's a pleasure.

1. Tension based on a combination of scarcity and threat

When you say scarcity, do you mean a particular type of resource or any potential resource the game provides(?)

Anything that helps you to attain a goal. Goals certainly include "staying alive" and "defeating enemies."

Is threat acceptable as...

Any mechanic which will impede the player's progress towards a goal if not overcome is a threat. A story-related character death is definitely not a threat, but losing a soldier in Fire Emblem is.

A fork in the story isn't a threat unless it leads to a "game over." If you're determined to get the "good end" and you don't already know how, that choice might be a threat because you've chosen "good end" as a goal. If you don't get it, you've lost.

Of course, the goal of the designer - of this precept - is to make the player feel tension. More significant threats - those with higher stakes - naturally create more.

When you get down to it, "running out of potions and dying" or "never finding the plot coupon" are also threats, but anyone who's played a JRPG knows why I've phrased the first precept as I have.

2. Strategically significant options for dealing with both [scarcity and threat]

Should these options be available in multiple layers, or just one? For example, in Fire Emblem, characters can die. This affects the ontogenic and short games.

Just as threat and scarcity are often present in multiple layers, so are your options for overcoming them.

3. an expanding possibility space that continually asks more of the player as enemies and party members become more powerful

Do you mean evolving systems that become inherently more complex as the game progresses? Is there not a point where such expansion should slow as the mechanics become ingrained in the player, or should the game continually drive for more complexity even after the ideas are understood? How far can or should a system evolve?

There are many ways to expand the possibility space. Adding new mechanics is one, but more complex environments or enemy strategies may be created with mechanics available.

Increased complexity precedes increased challenge. In the strategy game, challenge rises when the player must plan and/or perform more precisely. After all the purpose of this precept is to provide increasing mental stimulation.

Exactly how to expand the possibility space should be decided on a case-by-case basis. I have no specific advice because every game has different design goals, different rules.

Is there a certain level of risk you are in favor of?

There are many levels of risk in any given game, ranging from "lose some cash" to "Game Over and delete the save file." Some masochistic game could even delete other files on your device. Or explode.

Generally more hardcore games involve more risk, more often. I am in favor of hardcore games.

[MrPopo]

You seem to approach your RPGs like English professors approach novels.

[isiolia]

Most of the games I listed have good presentation, but what of the humble Dragon Warrior III? Our criterion here is not "personal enjoyment" but "true greatness." Are we to say a superbly designed JRPG - possibly the best "regular" JRPG in existence - is not truly great?

And what of Radical Dreamers? For argument, let's say it has all CT's good points (sound, sprites, animation, storytelling) without its flaws. Is it as fun as Chrono Trigger? If so, isn't that the same as saying Chrono Trigger was a good visual novel with some boring minigames?

Perhaps something to consider is that your qualifications for a great JRPG aren't bad, but could probably be applied to pretty much any game type with growth and combat.

Having a great mechanics like that is certainly desirable, but it'd be how the game creates context for it that'd determine whether it'd even be a JRPG in the first place (something I wouldn't necessarily put SRPGs or ARPGs under). Then the presentation does the job of actually making the majority of players want to put time into learning it and so on.

Given that so many people really enjoy Chrono Trigger as a JRPG, despite it not having particularly deep combat or progression may be an indication that, for many, that's not the entirety of what makes a JRPG good.

[Valkyrie-Favor]

You seem to approach your RPGs like English professors approach novels.

That's just how I like it.

Given that so many people really enjoy Chrono Trigger as a JRPG, despite it not having particularly deep combat or progression may be an indication that, for many, that's not the entirety of what makes a JRPG good.

But are they really enjoying it as a JRPG? So far, everyone says they enjoy Chrono Trigger for its sprite art, music, storytelling, characters, charm, and nonlinear narrative. Isn't that enjoying it as a visual novel or something?

So far, none of the experienced gamers in this thread have praised Chrono Trigger for its enviornment design or battle system or anything. Dunpeal even said he wouldn't play it if the sprites and music were swapped with something less interesting.

To enjoy CT as a JRPG would be to enjoy its math. Has anyone? Speak up.

it'd be how the game creates context for it that'd determine whether it'd even be a JRPG in the first place (something I wouldn't necessarily put SRPGs or ARPGs under). Then the presentation does the job of actually making the majority of players want to put time into learning it and so on.

I couldn't parse that. I need you to make yourself clear.
-Why wouldn't you consider SRPGs and ARPGs and tennis-RPGs to be JRPGs?
-If not the structure I've outlined, what does define the JRPG?
-The game creates context for its mechanics. What exactly do you mean?
-The presentation is what makes most players want to play a JRPG.
----Are you referring to "most players of the average" or "most players of any?"
----So what?

Perhaps something to consider is that your qualifications for a great JRPG aren't bad, but could probably be applied to pretty much any game type with growth and combat.

I didn't even consider other games when writing the precepts. If you want to use them for something other than JRPG analysis be my guest, but I won't vouch for them in any other context.

[CavZee]

You seem to approach your RPGs like English professors approach novels.

That's just how I like it.

Well, you're certainly passionate about your interests.

[Gunstar Green]

So a quick comparison judging by what I've learned in this thread...

When Valk plays RPGs:



When I play RPGs:



Seriously though, some interesting perspectives in this discussion.

[Retrogamer0001]

Try the game for yourself - if you like it, finish it, if not, move on.

[isiolia]

-If not the structure I've outlined, what does define the JRPG?

RPG in general is an extremely broad term, and past threads have gone on and on about what should or should not be counted as what.

Regardless, JRPG as a category is the counterpart to WRPG, and the typically described difference between the two is in character and/or narrative customization, though many would also look at aesthetics I suppose.

-Why wouldn't you consider SRPGs and ARPGs and tennis-RPGs to be JRPGs?

Some of them I would, some of them I wouldn't. X-COM is a SRPG. Diablo is an ARPG. Neither would fall under the JRPG umbrella in my opinion.

-The game creates context for its mechanics. What exactly do you mean?

To me, RPGs (particularly) tend to be hybrid games by nature. The combat/conflict mechanics on their own don't define the genre per se. What makes them an RPG versus simply a strategy game, a tennis game, a third person shooter, or whatever, is the larger game structure.

But are they really enjoying it as a JRPG? So far, everyone says they enjoy Chrono Trigger for its sprite art, music, storytelling, characters, charm, and nonlinear narrative. Isn't that enjoying it as a visual novel or something?

Not really, as it still has the combat mechanics that wouldn't be in a visual novel. To me, that's enjoying the typical framework that'd make it a JRPG, particularly with regard to character and narrative.
Planescape Torment has pretty terrible combat as well, but the story, characters, role playing through dialogue, and so on hold it up as a WRPG.

Ideally, either game would have more compelling combat mechanics, as they can definitely add a lot, but as-is both games hold true to the conceits of their respective subgenres.