The Future of RPGs on Home Consoles

[darksnowman]

A thread dedicated to rocket propelled grenades this is not. Moreso, its one about that genre of games that just gets finer with age - roleplaying games, specifically of the Japanese variety. (From here on, unless stated, when I say RPG, I mean JRPG.)

 

This generation has seen RPGs more or less vanish from home consoles. From their humble sprite based inception, we witnessed RPGs go from strength to strength through the 16-bit years (the genres peak…?), to the 32-bit landslide when Final Fantasy VII released globally… I won't mention the 64-bit era… and went on to dominate the PS2. The jump to HD, however, dramatically stinted things.

 

What happened? Well for one thing, western RPGs have become hugely popular in the stead of Japanese RPGs. You should also factor in that, generally speaking, Japanese developers have struggled this generation, not just to create RPGs. The move to HD hasn't been a smooth transition for them. After an initial flurry of Blue Dragon, Lost Odyssey and Eternal Sonata things slowed down on the home console RPG front as the DS market exploded. A remake of Final Fantasy III tested the waters and swiftly afterwards RPGs had found their new home - the handheld market. Gamers followed, realising that traditional RPGs could be played with some non-traditional controls and enhancements. Playing these huge, sprawling adventures on a portable console, while oxymoronic, was a perfect fit.

 

Do RPGs have a future on home consoles? I think the answer to this, somewhat surprisingly, rests with Nintendo. Recently they have shown some dedication to the genre with Xenoblade and the Last Story coming more or less out of the blue. At a time when Japanese developers are low on morale, Nintendo's nurturing partnerships could help rejuvenate this ailing genre. RPGs on home consoles have become a bit of a "blue ocean," so, with Nintendo wanting the hardcore back, having the Wii U be a haven of JRPGs, could be a winning combination.

 

 

 

Discuss!

 

 

 

Sidenotes:

- Nintendo promoting Dragon Quest heavily in the west

- Japanese devs want to make western influenced RPGs instead nowadays - Monster Hunter, for example

- Will the 3DS and Vita see a glut of RPGs or are they too "high tech?" The DS prevailed due to providing a low budget outlet so the new handheld consoles could suffer the same fate as the current gen home consoles

- Maybe the genre isn't needed, when moving forward. Who has the time to play these massively time consuming RPGs any more anyway?

- 16-bit RPGs haven't aged at all, so revisiting them in the face of no new RPGs isn't a catastrophe

- Reading material: The Incredible Shrinking RPG

[Dcubed]

It depends largely on the market that the Wii U and 3DS eventually manage to cultivate. Iwata has gone on record to say that he aims to create a market on both consoles where games of all budget ranges can succeed and if he can manage that, then I think we'll be seeing a lot more RPGs.

 

Also, you have to remember that the Japanese market is dominated by handheld consoles now, a large factor in the move of Japanese developers from console to handheld. The Wii was selling well, up until around early 2009 when it all fell apart (and what little support it had dried up immediately)

 

There is a chance that you might get some multiplatform Vita/PS3 releases but I think that they'll largely flock to the 3DS anyway (budgets are lower and it'll probably be the better selling console)

 

Demand for the genre is still there, these games do still sell well and even in the west! (Look at DQ9!)

 

Outside of maybe the Wii U, you won't be seeing much support for RPGs on Sony and MS' consoles. The market is too small in Japan and the western audience for their consoles have been conditioned to accept nothing less than blockbuster AAA budgets, so that dismisses the grand majority of games in the genre.

 

Just one issue I have with what you've mentioned here. Monster Hunter isn't really an RPG. It's an action game with loot and very minor RPG elements (It doesn't have EXP or leveling up), so I wouldn't really count that one.

Edited August 9, 2011 by Dcubed

[gaggle64]

I think the problem with many RPG's & JRPGs, particularly traditional turn-based & strategy RPGs, are that these are typically big projects that take considerable time & investment to produce even on platforms with a low technology standard (eg. handheld devices) for an increasingly niche audience. Certainly there is still some demand for the genre but not enough to guarantee a safe return on the investment without putting the words "Final Fantasy" somewhere in the title.

 

Part of the problem is that RPG's by their nature can take considerable time per-session to learn & enjoy most of their content, which isn't much good for the vast majority of consumers who's time needs to be split between work, family, friends, and other non-gaming pursuits. What time they do have for gaming then needs to split between the different games they want to play with a wide choice of sports licenses, blockbuster action titles, online experiences and social networking games (eg. Farmville) available. All of these genres have proven able to provide either short-term gratification or have found audiences by attaching themselves to existing license & services like FIFA and Facebook.

 

The future of RPG's on home consoles can already be seen, but for many traditional fans the picture isn't pretty. Bioware seem to have found the path with their massively successful Mass Effect franchise, enjoying record sales despite an outcry from fans with with relatively simple action-orientated game mechanics applied to an epic science fiction story. Their attempts to apply the same thinking to the Dragon Age franchise, it's roots firmly in their renowned D&D games, is a sign of the times.

 

Traditional RPG's that refuse to capitulate to the mainstream are going to have to find ways of lowering their own costs and getting themselves directly into the hands of the enthusiasts. This is likely to prove difficult on a relatively closed platform like a home console. Digital distribution seems likely to be the way forward, abandoning the marketing expense of boxed copies and placing themselves on online services where their target audience is likely to congregate. Perhaps producing epic RPG stories episodically rather then as single huge production may be another solution, allowing the developers to create according to demand in the same manner TV producers have always done. Major blockbuster projects may have to be abandoned, running with a traditional format of 2D artwork on projects that can be run on a wide range of devices will appeal to a hardcore as much as producing large 3D worlds.

 

Ultimately I believe that the audience for major RPG projects beyond the one or two big remaining franchises is limited and home console manufacturers need to provide both the platform and the consumer base sufficient to support the genre. In my personal opinion, classic RPG's do have a future but I can't see it having "Nintendo" or any similar brand embossed on it - "Windows" or an apple seems more likely. It might even be in your pocket already.

Edited August 9, 2011 by gaggle64

[Tales]

I think part of the problem is that they just don't get released over here, I can't speak for the Japanese market. If you want an arch typical JRPG I recommend importing Ar Tonelico on PS3 from NA. But I agree the market is shrinking, I must have had 20 or so JRPG on my PS2 both PAL and imported, including varieties like KH and Suikoden though but several obscure and lesser known too.

[Grazza]

The way I look at it is: RPGs need power. They benefit from processing power just as much as any other genre. Now, I don't mind if that means it's played on my TV or handheld, but it does matter that it has top notch graphics and functionality.

 

Actually, I prefer a handheld, but only because of how good they're becoming. If handhelds were still relatively low-tech, I'd be against it, but when you consider how close the 3DS is to the GameCube, it wouldn't be too bad if RPGs were at that sort of level for a while, with the extra functionality of StreePass, of course.

 

The wild card is the tablet. If I can hold a 1080p tablet, then why would I want a TV screen? It's resolution that is important to me, not size (to an extent). At the moment there are issues with controls (ie. touchscreen only), but if you look at the Vita, that is getting very close to making the perfect solution for a gaming tablet.

 

So, if in the future I can play an RPG with an overworld and graphics engine as good as Dragon Quest VIII, with StreetPass-type functionality inspired by (but better than) Dragon Quest IX (eg. swelling and swapping armour, "lending" warriors), I'll be happy. And if that's on something with a screen as good as the Vita or iPad, I'll be even happier.

 

Viva the RPG.

[Hero-of-Time]

- 16-bit RPGs haven't aged at all, so revisiting them in the face of no new RPGs isn't a catastrophe.

 

This is so true.

 

The first time I played Chrono Trigger was on the DS and it was so easy on the eyes due to the colourful 2D sprites. I have always said that games from the 16-bit generation of consoles have aged so much better than the ones from the 32-64 era.

 

Most of the points that hae been made so far are very true. Japanese clearly favour the handheld scene due to it's popularity and low development cost. I will always prefer to have RPG's on a console rather than a handheld but having them portable does have it's benefits. It's great taking your PSP/DS to work and being able to do a spot of grinding while you're on your break.

 

The JRPG scene does seem to be pretty much dead in the water when it comes to consoles and I really can't see Xenoblade or Last Story doing big numbers in Europe. I'm hoping i'm wrong but I just can't see it.

 

The likes of Blue Dragon, Lost Odyssey and Eternal Sonata are great JRPG's but they didn't set the charts alight and the problem, I think, was the console they got released on. The 360 is a western console and as such most of it's following are western gamers. Alot of people buy a 360 for shooters and have no interest in branching out into other genres. This fact is supported with games such as Viva Pinata, a highly praised game that didn't do aswell as it should have.

[Grazza]

One thing I forgot to address (sorry) is length. Are RPGs really so long and expensive to make? Maybe the designers could be a bit more efficient.

 

For example, why do they have so many towns in them? I love towns, but why so many? Traditionally, they are a place to buy new weapons and armour. However, it might be an idea to have a shop that you return to again and again. It can make you better weapons depending on what drops you bring back, like Etrian Odyssey.

 

In Dragon Quest, by far my favourite towns are the kingdoms, the ones with the castles. I wouldn't be too bothered if an RPG had, say, just three kingdoms that you could return to. Or maybe just one perfect one, that has the perfect shop, the perfect castle etc...

 

Also, do RPGs need to be so long and have so much dialogue? A decent story is important, but all the different characters responses throughout the entire game (such as DQ's Party Talk) must make publishers think twice about translating.

 

Basically, RPGs need to fit into the current business model of successful games, whilst keeping their core charm.

[Hero-of-Time]

For example, why do they have so many towns in them? I love towns, but why so many? Traditionally, they are a place to buy new weapons and armour. However, it might be an idea to have a shop that you return to again and again. It can make you better weapons depending on what drops you bring back, like Etrian Odyssey.

 

S-E tried addressing the town problem by cutting it altogether when making FFXIII. I didn't mind this one bit as I find most towns and their inhabitants in RPG's don't offer anything in terms of storyline progression. The majority of people kicked off with this decision though.

 

I do like your suggestion off a system much like Etrian Odyssey and if people want different dialogue from NPC's then have a tavern much like the shop where different people pop in depending on where you are at in the story.

 

A point made by the cast of Roleplayers Realm was that RPG's are trying to change battle systems to move with the times and this can cause the userbase to split. Some may opt for a traditional turn-based method while others want a more open and action based experience which makes the game more inviting to newcomers.

 

When Blue Dragon arrived many western reviewers slammed the game for sticking to a turn-based method of playing. I loved Blue Dragon because it stuck to this route of playing style. It's a simple system that for me doesn't feel outdated or boring. Just look at what happened when Dragon Quest IX was announced to have got rid of this battle system, the fans kicked off and it got changed back.

 

I think most westerns who didn't grow up playing JRPG's find it really difficult to get into the turn-based system which is why we are seeing more and more changes to battle systems where RPG's are concerned. The Japanese gamers are used to this and are comfortable using it.

 

As far as I know the Dragon Quest games have always used the turn-based system and it's one of the things I love about them games. For me turn-based>>>>>>action-based.

[Magnus]

Grazza's vision of the perfect JRPG doesn't sound like a game I'd want to play.

 

 

- 16-bit RPGs haven't aged at all, so revisiting them in the face of no new RPGs isn't a catastrophe

I could do without the random encounters, though.

 

This all reminds me of the downfall of adventure games. They were massively popular in the late eighties/early nineties, but they became increasingly expensive to produce while the size of the audience stayed the same. These days, the only developers still making adventure games are smaller ones. All of the things that made adventure games special (stories, characters, puzzles...) have been absorbed into other genres, so adventures games have become pretty redundant.

 

Which is a shame if you were a fan.

 

Someone said in another thread that they were glad the 3DS and Vita are so powerful, because it means Japanese developers could no longer get away with making technically unimpressive games. I think that'd be a sad future, because it would mean we'd never get games like Radiant Historia or Trails in the Sky again.

[Grazza]

Grazza's vision of the perfect JRPG doesn't sound like a game I'd want to play.

 

Not the perfect RPG. I just meant that if they wanted to be more efficient (which may or may not be necessary) and just have one town, it should be a perfect one. I didn't mean that would make the perfect RPG.

 

Someone said in another thread that they were glad the 3DS and Vita are so powerful, because it means Japanese developers could no longer get away with making technically unimpressive games. I think that'd be a sad future, because it would mean we'd never get games like Radiant Historia or Trails in the Sky again.

 

There are always downloadable games, which can use sprites (Shantae on the DSi was fantastic). I believe this method applied to RPGs would be better than remaking/replaying the 16-bit ones, as they can appear like the old games, but in reality be much smoother, more fluid with better music, more frames of animation etc.

[Aimless]

Whilst there's a lot I could say on this subject, my number one complaint with contemporary JRPGs is that the stories haven't grown up with their original audience. I don't mean that in the sense of setting — fantasy is perfect for having us re-evaluate our own world — but in terms of characters and writing we've barely progressed at all in the last 15 years.

 

I'm sick of one-note, archetypal characters. Tired of the inevitable metaphysical bullshit that every JRPG asks me to swallow during the endgame. It's so utterly uninspiring, and the worst part is that the genre's an ideal vehicle for good writing: they're largely linear experiences, there's a huge amount of game time to work with, and it's a genre where people aren't only happy to sit through the story, they actively look forward to its advancement.

[darksnowman]

Just one issue I have with what you've mentioned here. Monster Hunter isn't really an RPG. It's an action game with loot and very minor RPG elements (It doesn't have EXP or leveling up), so I wouldn't really count that one.

 

What I meant is MH is the direction Japanese developers are trying to go in right now. Where once they would have made RPGs as we knew them, now they've abandoned that and are attempting to make these loot based MMO-esque games, if you get me?

 

I think the problem with many RPG's & JRPGs, particularly traditional turn-based & strategy RPGs, are that these are typically big projects that take considerable time & investment to produce even on platforms with a low technology standard (eg. handheld devices) for an increasingly niche audience.

 

In my personal opinion, classic RPG's do have a future but I can't see it having "Nintendo" or any similar brand embossed on it - "Windows" or an apple seems more likely. It might even be in your pocket already.

 

So, you think RPGs could find a new market on mobile devices? Doesn't that contradict a bit seeing as mobile gamers are the Angry Birds/ Cut the Rope type of people who won't necessarily want to get bogged down in learning a battle system, becoming familiar with characters and their story?

 

Episodic RPGs have been around a while in Japan for mobile phones over there. FF IV: The After Years, Kingdom Hearts: Coded and an FF VII one with the Turks springing to mind. None achieved legendary status, not that I've played them myself. An episodic approach could be interesting but the balance would be difficult to strike. Something popular could get padded out beyond belief just to milk it. Or something great could get overlooked and see no satisfactory end.

 

Actually, I prefer a handheld, but only because of how good they're becoming.

 

I think I prefer handhelds too but for the opposite reason - they have less power. Theres something about sprite based games that make them have more character. Handheld RPGs are also handy cos you can easily do something else at the same time when it comes to grinding.

 

A point made by the cast of Roleplayers Realm was that RPG's are trying to change battle systems to move with the times and this can cause the userbase to split. Some may opt for a traditional turn-based method while others want a more open and action based experience which makes the game more inviting to newcomers.

 

I prefer turnbased because its simple yet engaging. The battle systems in the Mario RPGs is also good but once it gets beyond that, into Tales of territory, it can degrade into button mashing. Developers can still do interesting things within the confines of turnbased combat, which is all I ask for.

 

I could do without the random encounters, though.

 

Random encounters have all but been phased out now, haven't they? I both like random battles and dislike them. Sometimes I just want to get somewhere in a game without having to fight my way there. However, the lottery of the random battle is something I do enjoy. I like how in Etrian Odyssey it gives you an indicator of how likely you are to happen upon a battle, other games should incorporate this.

 

On the other hand, visible enemies works well if you are looking for a particular drop from them. Its a tough call.

[Magnus]

Not the perfect RPG. I just meant that if they wanted to be more efficient (which may or may not be necessary) and just have one town, it should be a perfect one. I didn't mean that would make the perfect RPG.

If they wanted to be more efficient, they could remove the story entirely. That'd save a lot of time and money. Or why have towns at all? There are still people out there who would play a game like that.

 

I don't think there's such a thing as the perfect town. Part of the fun of JRPGs is exploring new areas and meeting new people. Even in Persona 3/4 (both of which I loved), I was dying for a change of scenery after a while, as the entire games take place in just one area.

 

It sounds like you want games that are more like Dragon Quest and Etrian Odyssey, which are more about combat and getting better equipment than they are about story and characters. Which is fine, I guess, but they're about as far as you can come in terms of fun for me.

 

 

I doubt we'll see any downloadable, forty-hour (or whatever is an acceptable length), sprite-based JRPGs on the 3DS. With a handful of exceptions, the downloadable side of the DSi has been a joke, and I don't think any developer making an RPG with the scope of something like Chrono Trigger would make their money back.

 

It may be possible for JRPGs that aren't very commercially viable to be released as downloadable titles for the Vita, though, where you can actually download full-size games.

 

 

Random encounters have all but been phased out now, haven't they?

That was my point. You said 16-bit RPGs hadn't aged at all, which is mostly true, except a vast majority of them had random encounters (and, of course, this is true for many RPGs on the PS1 and PS2 as well). That's one thing I really don't miss. One of the first things I make sure of when buying an RPG is that it doesn't have random encounters. I can live with them, but it'd have to be a really great game for me to be able to look past them.

[darksnowman]

True Magnus, 16-bit RPGs are pretty much entirely about random encounters. Looking forward, as I was trying to seeing as I didn't make this thread in the retro board, devs have been trying to eradicate random battles from home console RPGs. While still a portable title, DQ IX had visible enemies, so we can expect DQ X will continue in that direction on Wii. How do FF XIII encounters crop up? FF XII moved away from random battles. What about the Last Story, Xenoblade? Any RPGs that do appear on home consoles probably won't have random battles unless the devs are a) lazy or b) intentionally going for something old skool.

 

As for length, do RPGs need to be 60+ hour epics? Chrono Trigger is probably the most concise RPG ever, and its also regarded as the best ever. Coincidence...?

[Andyliini]

As far as I know, only one Major JRPG this gen has used random battles: Lost Odyssey. But that game was great, and many people agree with me. Many of the few who actually played Lost Odyssey thought that it was superior to Final Fantasy XIII and a real 13th part of that saga.

 

But yeah, random battles are dying, as Lost Odyssey was the only one to use them. Even Mistwalker's first big JRPG Blue Dragon didn't use them, and The Last Story seems to be completely different. I'm not sure about myself, since I'm enjoying Blue Dragon right now, but the best JRPGs for me have used random battles as their basis.

[Hero-of-Time]

How do FF XIII encounters crop up? FF XII moved away from random battles.

 

They were like DQ IX in that you seen them on the screen and ran into them if you wanted to have a fight. Blue Dragon also used this system.

 

I'm a big fan of the system I just mentioned. It allows you to avoid enemies if you want to progress the story, fight them if you want to grind and attack specific types if you are after loot. Everybody wins!

 

One of the most annoying things about random battles is when you are trying to get to the next point in the game and you keep getting attacked, just as darksnowman said earlier. One of my worst experiences of this was while playing FFIV on the DS.

 

The last dungeon was a NIGHTMARE. You had to wade through fight after fight before getting to the last boss and if you did manage to get there you were greeted with the lack of a save point! Luckly I didn't die and have to go through that torment again.

[Aimless]

Resonance of Fate features random battles to an extent: you only have a chance of running into them in unsafe hexes of the world map, explorable dungeon interiors featuring preset enemy compositions.

 

As contemporary JRPGs go the above is probably my favourite. It's certainly not afraid of trying something different, and unlike a certain perennial series it really throws you in at the deep; whilst a few more dynamics are layered on as the game progresses, you more or less have access to every mechanic from the off.

 

Annoyingly it does fall into the "metaphysical bullshit" trap, but the characters are nicely off-kilter and what I suspect to be a slightly wonky localisation adds to the compelling bizarreness of it all.

[Magnus]

As for length, do RPGs need to be 60+ hour epics? Chrono Trigger is probably the most concise RPG ever, and its also regarded as the best ever. Coincidence...?

Probably. Other RPGs that are generally considered to be some of the best of all time: Final Fantasy VI and VII, Baldur's Gate 2, Planescape: Torment. I'm sure the list goes on.

 

It's not like Chrono Trigger is all that short, anyway. A first playthrough would probably take 25-30 hours. Not as long as some other RPGs, but still pretty long overall.

 

But no, I don't think there's any reason to needlessly make RPGs long just for the sake of it. Whenever I play longer games, my interest begins to wane once I pass the thirty-hour mark. After that, it's pretty much just the story that keeps me going, as well as my need to finish every game I play.

 

That said, I don't think the people who crave more JRPGs would really be content if developers started making ten-hour RPGs. A certain amount of content is pretty much expected in the genre. It's a bit like Tales of Monkey Island, which was released episodically. Yeah, it was good and all, but it didn't compare to the larger scope of the previous games.

[Dcubed]

One thing I forgot to address (sorry) is length. Are RPGs really so long and expensive to make? Maybe the designers could be a bit more efficient.

 

For example, why do they have so many towns in them? I love towns, but why so many? Traditionally, they are a place to buy new weapons and armour. However, it might be an idea to have a shop that you return to again and again. It can make you better weapons depending on what drops you bring back, like Etrian Odyssey.

 

In Dragon Quest, by far my favourite towns are the kingdoms, the ones with the castles. I wouldn't be too bothered if an RPG had, say, just three kingdoms that you could return to. Or maybe just one perfect one, that has the perfect shop, the perfect castle etc...

 

Also, do RPGs need to be so long and have so much dialogue? A decent story is important, but all the different characters responses throughout the entire game (such as DQ's Party Talk) must make publishers think twice about translating.

 

Basically, RPGs need to fit into the current business model of successful games, whilst keeping their core charm.

 

No you're right. Most RPGs don't need to be that long at all and many clearly overstay their welcome.

 

The problem is that one of the big USPs of the genre back in the early/late 1990s is that it offered more bang for your buck with how long they were (hence why you constantly saw "OVER 60/80 HOURS OF GAMEPLAY!!!" plastered on the back of the game boxes).

 

Sadly, this has resulted in much of its audience being conditioned to expect a long game and anything that doesn't live up to those standards (read: Is overbloated with tons of filler) is instantly thought less of.

[gaggle64]

So, you think RPGs could find a new market on mobile devices? Doesn't that contradict a bit seeing as mobile gamers are the Angry Birds/ Cut the Rope type of people who won't necessarily want to get bogged down in learning a battle system, becoming familiar with characters and their story?

 

I cited mobile devices because they are open platforms with a wide user base, the central core of which likely contains an RPG's most likely target audience. On second consideration browser titles and free-to-play or modular content models (You want in this dungeon? £0.85 please!) may be just as likely a future.

 

The fact that titles like "Angry Birds" are the most popular demonstrates the desire of a majority of consumers for games that can provide short term, accessible entertainment. The problem for traditional RPGs is no matter where they go now they are always going to be a small piece of the pie. I feel their best option is to slash costs as much as possible, become as visible as possible to as many as possible, and make it as easy as possible to get into the hands of people who do want to play them.

 

Something popular could get padded out beyond belief just to milk it. Or something great could get overlooked and see no satisfactory end.

At the risk of being churlish, I may suggest that in two sentences you've just described the state of the entire genre since the release of FF7.