The first reading I went through is Amp Up Your Game Design: Crafting Strategy RPGs by Saotoma. This article covers the differences between Strategy RPGs (SRPGs) and other strategy-based games, what makes SRPGs unique within the strategy genre, and now immersion can be added to them.
There are two major differences between Real Time Strategies (RTS') and SRPGs beyond the turn based mechanics;
- SRPGs will commonly be based around a limited squad size, where the player can bring in a certain amount of their squad members into a single mission, and attempts to keep those squad members alive as they often cannot be replaced. RTS' have a player construct a base camp within the mission map, where players can then recruit different units to form an army, generally up to a certain population capacity, with little to no attachment to the units, as they can be replaced on the fly from the base camp.
- SRPGs deal with economy outside of the battlefield. Money will be obtained from completing missions, specific objectives, or will be found in a mission, then used by the player outside of battle to purchase items and upgrades for their units. RTS' generally have the player gather resources whilst in mission from tangible sources, which are consumed to create units for the players army, meaning the player must always keep a flow of incoming resources throughout the mission. These resources rarely carry over from mission to mission, instead the player starting from step one every mission.
With, the main differences between SRPGs and RTS', the more pressing question is what sets SRPGs apart from other turn based strategy. When the mechanics are looked at, "we see the same differences that exist between SRPGs and RTS games, except in a turn-based sphere." However, when the origins of the genres are looked at, we see a clearer split, with the majority of RTS' and turn-based strategy coming from Western developers, whereas SRPGs are almost exclusively from Eastern developers.
The origins of the SRPG genre are one of the biggest things to be taken from the comparison. As SRPGs are commonly from Eastern origins, it's important to look at the structure of standard RPGs commonly of the same origins, as they work as a base for the RPG components of a SRPG, seen in the focus on story and progression, as opposed to the more non-linear openness of Western RPGs. A good example is the Fire Emblem series, as it takes the basic elements of Japanese RPGs (JRPGs), and implements in a "more tactical and strategic battle system.". So this raises the question, what happens when you apply Western RPG elements to SRPGs?
Many JRPGs contain little actual role play, with SRPGs containing even less. While the overarching story may be fantastic, with many different strategic options, it is almost impossible to "role play" as a group of 10+ characters. The immersion and escapism that comes from avatar-based role-playing is lost among the flurry of characters the player controls in SRPGs.
SRPGs attempt to combat this by making each squad members "unique, fully fledged characters with their own motivations and stories." The role-playing elements of the game can stem from this, with players controlling the characters based on their given personality, but when it comes down to it, many players will always go for the more strategic options than the role-playing options. This dilemma is often worked around in SRPGs, by matching the character personality with their class or skillset, so, for example, a tanky, heavy hitter will commonly have an aggressive/boisterous personality that puts emphasis on a blunt, straight forward attack style. This naturally pushes players to fulfill the role-playing aspects of the game, while making that method of approach a tactically and strategically sound approach. While this is an obvious manner to tie strategy with role-playing, games such as Fire Emblem series take this further by implementing a "support system". The support system allows squad members to fight together, with further interaction strengthening their bond, increasing their efficiency when they fight together, allowing for deeper realms of strategy, whilst highlighting the role-playing aspects to a greater degree.
While you can "attempt to tack on gimmicky role-playing elements", the choice and social interaction commonly found in Western RPGs will almost always be overshadowed by "cold, logical, strategy." To make what could be considered a "truly satisfying SRPG", the format of SRPGs must be broken down into the basics, and reformed to fit the desired format. It can be argued that the rawest elements of any RPG is are choice and immersion. Choice is both easy and hard to implement. It's easy to understand that an "endless permutation" of choices and strategies would make an amazing SRPG, but to actually design and implement such a choice system is hard. Done correctly, there will never be a "best" strategy for players to follow, instead allowing every player to have a personal and unique experience, but done incorrectly, a superior strategy often emerges, leading more players to follow that single strategy.
Now that a system that balances choice and strategy has been established, we must now look at immersion. Immersion "should be a given in any video game", as it is the immersion of the game that truly draws the player in, this is commonly replaced in strategy games by obsession. Rather than focusing on how a characters story is playing out until 2am, strategy players will focus on how best to improve their units, and perfecting that strategy they enjoy using. The Disgaea series takes this route a bit more than most SRPGs, with a level cap of 9999, and stats that climb even higher. While focusing on the obsession over immersion is a legitimate methodology of crafting strategy games, it loses a lot of what it means to be a SRPG.
How can immersion be applied then, so that the player is drawn in further by the mixture of immersion and obsession? As immersion is highly difficult to achieve through the individual units, what happens when the player is given a more fleshed out commander role? Advance Wars: Dual Strike is an SRPG available on Nintendo DS. While it can be considered a more standard turn-based strategy, as players produce nameless units and generate resources in-mission, it can still be considered one of the best examples of a true SRPG, as you role-play as the commander. The commanding officers (COs) have individual ways of creating strategies and issuing orders, which is reflected in stat bonuses and penalties given to different units. As players press through the games campaign, they unlock more and more CO's to use. The CO's gain experience as players use them, generally awarded more for better scores, which are achieved by "masterfully utilizing your CO's specialties". This system not only gives players choice in how they approach each mission, but causes natural role play, as players make decisions based around their selected CO's strengths and weaknesses. The leveling and progression systems seen as standard in JRPGs are tweaked and implemented, giving Advance Wars the choice sought after from RPGs, but also the combination of obsession and immersion from the blending of RPG and strategy mechanics.
Through this, we learn the lesson that instead of just mashing two genres together, it is best to discern the elements that compliment each other, and build around them more specifically than the two defined genres. The more important lesson learnt is to look at "the basic types of engagement offered by different genres", so that mechanics can be designed around them, allowing the creation of innovative mechanics, while still catering to specific niche audiences. This principle is what "saved the dying genre of the SRPG, and remains at the core of game design." SRPGs can have as much innovation in them as they do stagnation, it's just a matter of always looking for ways they can be improved.
References
Saotome. (2015). Amp Up Your Game Design: Crafting Strategy RPGs.Available: http://blackshellmedia.com/2015/05/amp-up-your-game-design-crafting-strategy-rpgs/
Many JRPGs contain little actual role play, with SRPGs containing even less. While the overarching story may be fantastic, with many different strategic options, it is almost impossible to "role play" as a group of 10+ characters. The immersion and escapism that comes from avatar-based role-playing is lost among the flurry of characters the player controls in SRPGs.
SRPGs attempt to combat this by making each squad members "unique, fully fledged characters with their own motivations and stories." The role-playing elements of the game can stem from this, with players controlling the characters based on their given personality, but when it comes down to it, many players will always go for the more strategic options than the role-playing options. This dilemma is often worked around in SRPGs, by matching the character personality with their class or skillset, so, for example, a tanky, heavy hitter will commonly have an aggressive/boisterous personality that puts emphasis on a blunt, straight forward attack style. This naturally pushes players to fulfill the role-playing aspects of the game, while making that method of approach a tactically and strategically sound approach. While this is an obvious manner to tie strategy with role-playing, games such as Fire Emblem series take this further by implementing a "support system". The support system allows squad members to fight together, with further interaction strengthening their bond, increasing their efficiency when they fight together, allowing for deeper realms of strategy, whilst highlighting the role-playing aspects to a greater degree.
While you can "attempt to tack on gimmicky role-playing elements", the choice and social interaction commonly found in Western RPGs will almost always be overshadowed by "cold, logical, strategy." To make what could be considered a "truly satisfying SRPG", the format of SRPGs must be broken down into the basics, and reformed to fit the desired format. It can be argued that the rawest elements of any RPG is are choice and immersion. Choice is both easy and hard to implement. It's easy to understand that an "endless permutation" of choices and strategies would make an amazing SRPG, but to actually design and implement such a choice system is hard. Done correctly, there will never be a "best" strategy for players to follow, instead allowing every player to have a personal and unique experience, but done incorrectly, a superior strategy often emerges, leading more players to follow that single strategy.
Now that a system that balances choice and strategy has been established, we must now look at immersion. Immersion "should be a given in any video game", as it is the immersion of the game that truly draws the player in, this is commonly replaced in strategy games by obsession. Rather than focusing on how a characters story is playing out until 2am, strategy players will focus on how best to improve their units, and perfecting that strategy they enjoy using. The Disgaea series takes this route a bit more than most SRPGs, with a level cap of 9999, and stats that climb even higher. While focusing on the obsession over immersion is a legitimate methodology of crafting strategy games, it loses a lot of what it means to be a SRPG.
How can immersion be applied then, so that the player is drawn in further by the mixture of immersion and obsession? As immersion is highly difficult to achieve through the individual units, what happens when the player is given a more fleshed out commander role? Advance Wars: Dual Strike is an SRPG available on Nintendo DS. While it can be considered a more standard turn-based strategy, as players produce nameless units and generate resources in-mission, it can still be considered one of the best examples of a true SRPG, as you role-play as the commander. The commanding officers (COs) have individual ways of creating strategies and issuing orders, which is reflected in stat bonuses and penalties given to different units. As players press through the games campaign, they unlock more and more CO's to use. The CO's gain experience as players use them, generally awarded more for better scores, which are achieved by "masterfully utilizing your CO's specialties". This system not only gives players choice in how they approach each mission, but causes natural role play, as players make decisions based around their selected CO's strengths and weaknesses. The leveling and progression systems seen as standard in JRPGs are tweaked and implemented, giving Advance Wars the choice sought after from RPGs, but also the combination of obsession and immersion from the blending of RPG and strategy mechanics.
Through this, we learn the lesson that instead of just mashing two genres together, it is best to discern the elements that compliment each other, and build around them more specifically than the two defined genres. The more important lesson learnt is to look at "the basic types of engagement offered by different genres", so that mechanics can be designed around them, allowing the creation of innovative mechanics, while still catering to specific niche audiences. This principle is what "saved the dying genre of the SRPG, and remains at the core of game design." SRPGs can have as much innovation in them as they do stagnation, it's just a matter of always looking for ways they can be improved.
References
Saotome. (2015). Amp Up Your Game Design: Crafting Strategy RPGs.Available: http://blackshellmedia.com/2015/05/amp-up-your-game-design-crafting-strategy-rpgs/
No comments:
Post a Comment