At what point innovation in character ability development stops being useful and becomes a novelty?

[T.G. Oskar]

While part of my biggest perk with it might happen with Final Fantasy games, I've noticed this on other games (and the examples mostly come from other games), so I decided to place this on General Gaming. Having said that:

Recently, I bought the totally revamped, pretty much remade version of Tactics Ogre for the PSP. Totally hyped by the scenes and what I managed to hear, I couldn't wait for the game to reach these shores. And, while I'm still quite excited by how the story was given a much-needed face lift and the slightly enhanced graphics, I can't say I'm just as excited by how they dealt with the class system, one of it's core perks.

In a nutshell: you level up classes, not characters, so basically your units will level up in parity, but that opens a slight can of worms. Then the restrictions (on a game that technically had very little) become quite evident, essentially blowing out some classic strategies out of the water. Fortunately, there are some changes that made less useful classes much more useful. So, in that case, I'm a bit torn by whether the change to the class system was a success or a failure.

But, that made me think of something. You see most RPGs suddenly develop systems for the development of character abilities that differ quite vastly from each other. Probably the ur-example of this is Final Fantasy, which evolved from a class system (I) to a freeform system (II), then into a slightly upgraded class system (III, IV, V. VI, with alternate improvements to each), to Materia, to GFs, to the return of class systems, to the Sphere Grid, to the License Board, to Crystarium. Each improvement certainly innovates the way the game is played, but eventually it becomes more and more complex to deal with how to improve a character for the sake of "balance" or "open development". Can't say I'm really excited with the ability development systems of the most recent FF games (save for, quite probably, FF Tactics which I find to be a pretty natural, if yet incomplete, culmination to the class system).

This doesn't limit only to Final Fantasy. While most Western RPGs follow a very similar format (Fable, Elder Scrolls, Dragon Age all follow the idea of a hero you make pretty much from scratch), Japanese RPGs have reached a point where their ability development systems are turning little more than gimmicks. Some are decent (Lost Odyssey has a mix of traditional level-based advancement and the Immortals which essentially absorb the abilities of others to advance on their own terms); others are...just... (Shin Megami Tensei: Persona, which is probably the most complex way of advancement since it involves pretty stringent negotiation skills and luck to become better, or else you get gimped pretty easily).

This concept of innovation as a gimmick, however, has spread into other games. Case in point: most recent FPS games have started to develop RPG ability advancement systems, such as Bioshock and Mass Effect, which are games that have started to blend both (and which require equal amounts of preparation and skill in any case), when in fact regardless of what you get, you still can get beaten by good ol' FPS tactics (from the unwanted such as turtling, camping and sniping to the most daring ones). Fighting games have evolved a bit less from the original formula, but some innovations may be seen by most people as unnecessary: compare the long-awaited Street Fighter IV to any of Arc System's fighting games (Guilty Gear or Blazblue), and you can see how stuff has wildly evolved (heck, since where tier systems first appeared...?) Then, you get 3D games and the clear rulers (basically Tekken), and then you get non-traditional beat-'em-ups (Super Smash Bros., Dissidia Final Fantasy).

Even tabletop games have this idea in motion, with similar results. To explain a bit further: from its very first set of rules, Dungeons & Dragons has rarely shifted from its winning formula: a 20-sided dice, comparative numbers, a set of classes and specific tactics. Generally, the transition between editions has always sparked some intrigue, generating such terms as "grognard" for those whom believe old editions or old systems are better. However, while the edition wars between the second and third editions of the game (which involved quite a deal of changes in-between) were noticed because of the advent of the Internet and the many systems meant to rescue "old-school gaming", no edition war has been more shocking that the transition between the third and fourth editions, in which the game has changed so radically from its original formula for the sake of a specific paradigm, it has spawned quite the controversy (worse, when both systems had a mid-term upgrade, with Fourth Edition having two huge shifts in their philosophy).

So, having said that: at which point innovation, specifically in terms of character ability development (which relegates the discussion roughly to RPGs, being the way your characters progress from "average guys" to "epic heroes") stops being a real innovation, and becomes little else than a gimmick? At what point it's most valuable to reinvent the formula or scrap the formula and create a new mechanism altogether? Are people so scared of the thought of so little variations on a single theme that they have to create radically new ideas that sacrifice intuition and actual development for the sake of "balance" between each class or the ability to create your own character (a trait that's most common on Western RPGs) instead of following a pre-set path (a trait that's most common on Japanese RPGs)? At what point it's best to say "enough!" and ask developers to make their own mind, not innovating for the sake of innovation but providing innovation as a part of the media?

Note: I don't say innovation is bad. However, when I compare something like the Crystarium system from Final Fantasy XIII to something a bit simpler but actually innovative such as the two-option level increase from Breath of Death VII: the Beginning or Cthulhu Saves the World!, I have to ask whether creating a new system from scratch when you already have a winning formula is really necessary, for the sake of innovation. Some systems are already winning formulas, and sometimes, innovation IS needed (case in point: the many WoW clones in existence), the idea is, at which point innovation stops being "innovative" and becomes a drag.

So, which are your opinions on the theme?

[JuzamDjinn]

Gimmicks are what sell.
They have to do something new or else people will bash the games for lack of.

Also why buy what already exists? every RPG has a unique story, yes. Essentailly an RPG is a very long film/video novel that you have to walk from place to place to 'read more'.
In games like Final Fantasy the only real "game" aspect of it is the battle/level up system. Without it many of the 'games" goals would dissapear (getting the ultimate weapons, final limit breaks, best materia, best summons, best armor, ect...), and giving us the same system over and over would not please anyone.



...and what you said

"create your own character (a trait that's most common on Western RPGs) instead of following a pre-set path (a trait that's most common on Japanese RPGs)."

I think this stems from cultural beliefes, here in the west we have a strong sence of drive and individuality (from out capitalist values?), whereas the east has history of belief in 'destiny'. Anythign produced by a specific calture will show characteristics and values of that culture.



This is a pretty complex question. And will no doubt require most of us several posts to give a complete and understood answer, gerat topic.

[SOLDIER #819]

The same can be said about other popular genres, like FPS. I've had trouble telling the difference between games within the same genre for a while now. Most of it is probably because I don't play a lot of games anymore. These minor changes, I think, are made for those who actually do play many different games and can pick apart the minor differences so that they can't say all too easily, "Oh, it's another clone of X game." It tends to work, too, or so say sales and gaming culture. But when we all get down to it we're all playing a "re-envisioning" of age old systems.

This is more or less why I gave up on FFXII before I even left the first city. It felt like FFXI with FFX's sphere grid, the former of which I had had my fill of for some time. There was a time where I'd wait a game out a bit for the story, but it's very hard to do that nowadays. Especially when the stories in games have also become quite recycled. These sorts of games just don't feel as fresh as they did all those years ago, though to be fair that goes for a lot of things.

Honestly, the idea of "character advancement", popularized by D&D and what have you, has become one huge trend or gimmick for PC/console RPGs. 25 years ago or so it was a necessity as the hardware just didn't exist to support much more than linearity and basic number crunching. With our present tech more could be done in other areas, but we instead spend our time doing what we've always done. Certain games could and have done different, but the norm hasn't changed radically in these past decades. But I suppose that wouldn't sell, particularly in super conservative Japan.