Impressions #16: Persona 4 Arena: Ultimax: Part 1

It is a strange coincidence that Persona 4 Ultimax would be released during my so-called “Season of ATLUS.” Considering that I just finished Digital Devil Saga 2 the day before it came out, the timing could not be any better. As a massive fan of the Persona franchise, I would be lying if I said I was not predisposed to liking a new entry, even if its not a game in the main series. That was no less true when the original Persona 4 Arena was released. Even still, I am willing to stand firmly behind it even without the brand name appeal. There is quite a lot here, and much is done to appeal to every possible member of the target audience.

Fans of Persona 3 and/or 4 will be happy to note the inclusion of a story mode. Taking place after the first Persona 4 Arena, Ultimax details how the casts of Persona 3 and Persona 4 come together to uncover the truth regarding what happened. As both groups begin to start their investigations, a mysterious blood red fog covers Inaba. Both crews are thrown headlong into a new “P-1 Climax” battle tournament shortly afterward, and their captors state that the world will end if they do not succeed in winning the tournament in one hour. From there, the story goes in some pretty interesting, and surprising, directions at times. Being a canonical story in the Persona universe, it is almost required for fans to go through it at least once.
The tale is divided into episodes. First up is Episode P4, which tells the story from the perspective of the Investigation Team from Persona 4. After that is completed, Episode P3 becomes available, which retells the story from the point-of-view of the former SEES operatives from Persona 3. While the overarching story remains the same for both stories, there are significant differences between them. At the same time, there are plot elements that are only hinted at in one episode, that are explained in greater detail in the other, and vice-versa. Ultimately, the True Ending, which is unlocked by completing both episodes, makes it very clear that the P4 side to the tale is canonical, while Episode P3 serves as more of a “What If?” scenario.

Though the story itself is very well written, and an incredible job of bringing all of these characters together in a believable way, its presentation leaves much to be desired. Fans of the original Persona 4 Arena probably will not be terribly surprised to hear that, as Ultimax has the exact same style its predecessor had. The story is told in a manner similar to visual novels, where characters are represented by static 2D-artwork on top of a background image representing the area they are in. When this does not suffice to explain the action in the scene, a text description of the action is displayed on top of these elements. On occasion, these scenes are broken up by a battle, as dictated by the story. Even among fighting games, this is not a terribly unique style of storytelling.

The problem with this style, which feels even more pronounced here than it did in the first Persona 4 Arena, is that these scenes take a long, long time. It is not uncommon to spend an hour or more just watching characters talk to each other before ever participating in a battle. Because of the game's (admittedly handy) auto-advance mode for dialogue, this almost literally means that players will not be pressing any buttons at all for very prolonged periods of time. Even when fights break out, the AI for the story mode opponents is extremely stupid, so it takes almost no effort to trounce them with little more than a few combos and throws. Should even that be too much effort, the game even offers an “Auto Mode” which will make the AI fight for the player. Yes, this would literally mean that the player is watching the game play itself on the scant few moments that the story gives them a moment to interact with it.

And that transitions nicely into another thing I noticed when playing Ultimax. While Persona 4 and Persona 4 Arena both had very long cutscenes (even Persona 4 is infamous for having three hours worth of scenes before players ever got to fight a monster), they had an interesting way of keeping players engaged through that process. Persona 4 offered dialogue choices throughout all of these scenes. While those choices rarely, if ever, had any significant meaning, they kept the player's attention by giving them a chance to both think about what transpired in the game, and express their views on it, even if those views mean nothing in the grand scheme of things. Persona 4 Arena also offered choice in terms of which character they used as a viewpoint character and in what order they were played in.

In either case, these kind of “meaningless choices” would serve to greatly improve the end user-experience for Ultimax. It almost seems like the writers forgot that they were making the script for a video game. Usually, the only choice players have is in which character in their current group gets to fight the upcoming battle. Aside from that, the only dialogue choice made is right before the final boss, and is one of the most obvious choices I have ever seen in a Persona game. The game's presentation would have benefited from some interactivity in order to keep players more engaged during the story section. Some people are going to hate it, others will tolerate it in the name of a good Persona story, but I hesitate to say that anyone is going to “like” the presentation.

Unfortunately, I appear to be a little too long in the tooth for this article. As I was writing it, I realized that I was quickly approaching 2000 words. I sincerely doubt many of you out there would be comfortable reading all of this in one sitting. As a result, I decided to break this up into two parts. We will leave off here, since I have finished discussing story and presentation. Next week, I will discuss mechanics, characters, and new additions to the game.

Impressions #1: Persona 4 Golden

So, it has been far too long since I have written anything about video games. In order to remedy this, I am going to stop holding myself to the standard long-form Press Start to Discuss articles you have all come to expect from me. I still hope to produce those on occasion, but in order to make sure something gets produced at some point in time I will start trying to post articles discussing game-related things that are on my mind. These articles will not need to be tied into a specific overall theme, presented in a more “stream of consciousness” style. With that said....

Lately, I have spent an inordinate amount of time playing Persona 4 Golden, the Vita remake of the original Persona 4, released on the PS2. This new version of the game added a lot of new features and almost totally changes that game. I decided to spent this article detailing the biggest of those changes and how they affect the overall experience of the player.

One of the biggest new additions to the game come in the form of changes to the Persona Fusion system, a mainstay of the franchise. In vanilla Persona 4, when players fused personae together to create new ones, the resulting persona would inherit skills from its “parents” based on an algorithm that took the skill list of the parents' and the child's affinity for different skill types into account, with a degree of randomness thrown in. The Golden version changes this in a very fundamental way. Instead of an algorithm determining what skills get inherited, the player gets to make the choice directly. When the player selects personae to fuse together, the result will be displayed as always. Based on the affinities of the “child” persona, a list of possible skills to inherit is created, and the player selects from the list what skills will be passed on.

The end result of this change is alleviating many of the frustration that were built into the original system of fusing personae. Before, it was quite common for players to spend literally hours of time canceling and reselecting fusions in order to ensure that the child persona received, if not an ideal, than a decent set of skills from its parents. This would cause undue frustration on the player's part because often the algorithm would favor skills that players had no use for, like status ailment skills. Even worse was when a lot time would be spent to get the right skills, but a fusion accident resulted in a different persona than intended. Many hours of time could be wasted thanks to scenarios like the ones listed above. Now that inheritance is a choice made by the player, these problems are no longer an issue.

The addition of Skill Cards, which were present in Persona 3 Portable on the PSP, also adds to this streamlining of persona creation. Each skill card has a specific skill imbued on it. Using a Skill Card on a persona will give that persona the ability associated with it. Taken with the above addition of inheritance choice, persona creation seems to be moving away from the random chance in favor of player choice and consequence. If a fused persona ends up being useless in the new system, then it is the player's fault for making poor choices, not the fault of the random number gods.

Going on with this theme of reducing the random chance element in the game, another big change is the new Shuffle Time. In both versions of Persona 4, when players do particularly well in a battle, the game awards them with Shuffle Time. Vanilla P4 presents persona cards, blank cards, and penalty cards to the player, and then makes them pick one via a mini-game. These mini-games can take the form of picking a card as they are moving, face down, in a circular pattern, a type of concentration-esque game where players keep the first matching pair they find, and a slot machine. Picking a persona card would let players keep it for use in combat or fusion. A penalty card would take away all the rewards from the battle, and a blank card does nothing.

Golden replaces this with an entirely new system. During Shuffle Time, the game creates a hand of cards for players to select from, each with their own reward like extra money/experience, healing, a skill card, or a new persona among other effects. Once they select their card, shuffle time comes to an end and they win the rewards obtained during the selection. However, there are also penalty cards that would encourage players to forfeit certain rewards in exchange for being able to pick more cards. (For example, picking “The Tower” will reduce the money earned in a battle to 0 in exchange for allowing the player to pick 3 more cards from the hand.) Drawing all the cards in a hand will guarantee that the next battle will result in a Shuffle Time, and allows players to select 3 cards from the next Shuffle Time instead of only 1.

This new Shuffle Time encourages players to make choices instead on using their reflexes to get the best results. It is now important to consider the options available during Shuffle Time to try to maximize the potential gains. Players have to look at the trade-offs and think about whether taking certain penalties in exchange for multiple benefits and/or more chances to draw from the next Shuffle Time hand. There is a degree of randomness involved, as the hand generated might not always be beneficial to the player, but it is an interesting way to force players to make bigger considerations during an otherwise small element of the game.

Another guiding philosophy that presents itself in Persona 4 Golden is online social integration with other players. This is not the usual kind of social interaction like pointless Facebook integration and other social networking features common in big name games. Rather, the game use the internet for two new features that allow users to passively interact with each other in new, interesting ways. The first of these features is the “Vox Populi”. When players are exploring the town on their in-game off days, they can access the Vox Populi, which will show the 5 most popular uses of that in-game period of time, on that particular day. Once a player finishes their day, and they are in Online Mode, their activities are added to the Vox Populi for that day. This forms a sort of guide that new players can use when they are confused about how to use their time in-game, letting them see the options they may have available. Later in the game, this is less useful because other players may have different social links unlocked, but it is very handy in the early game.

The other new social feature in the Emergency SOS system. When players are online and exploring dungeons, they are able to use this system to send a request for aid from other players. Every player that responds to this request before the start of the next battle will restore 5% of every party members HP and SP once the battle actually begins. Sending and responding to requests costs nothing in-game, so there is no reason not to constantly request and give out aid to other players. Having played with this system a lot before my own HP/SP restoration became too high to bother with it, this system creates a Journey-esque mutual cooperation where players are not directly communicating with each other with words. However, they are aware of each other's presences and work together to build up enough HP/SP to climb higher in the dungeons than any one of them could by themselves. Though both of these features are completely optional, they add a new layer of depth to the game never seen before.

Overall, it seems like Persona 4 Golden is a sign that even now, ATLUS is continuing to refine their craft despite being masters at it. None create JRPGs in quite the same way they do, and despite that they still do their best to improve the design of their games. I look forward to seeing if these changes will be reflected in Persona 5 when it gets released. It is fascinating to think about how only a couple of changes can dramatically affect the overall experience. And these are only a few of the many things added to the Vita version. Despite this, while it is clear that Persona 4 Golden is the definitive version of the game for fans and newbies alike, it may not be enough to justify the purchase of a PlayStation Vita by itself. Still, it goes a long way, especially for series fans.

#69: SEES and the Investigation Team: A Tale of Tone and Scale

One of my favorite JRPG franchises has to be the Persona sub-franchise in the Shin Megami Tensei series. Although I have played through all of the games in the franchise, Persona 3 and 4 are the ones that really captured my heart. I was talking with a friend about the two games, and we disagreed on which of them had a better cast of characters. They preferred the Specialized Extracurricular Execution Squad (SEES) that made up the main cast of the third entry in the series. However, I connected more with the Investigation Team of the fourth game. This lead me to think a bit more about why I have this preference, which will be the subject of this post.

One of the biggest reasons I think for my preference is the difference in scope between the two stories. In the third entry of the series, the stakes are raised fairly quickly. In the first half of the game, players are introduced to monsters called shadows, which cause havoc during this extra hour in the day in which normal, non-Persona-users are sleeping in coffins. Both the player and the main characters are told that unless the shadows are stopped, they will destroy the world. Although the plot and its twists and turns stop this from becoming another standard save-the-world story, it is hard for audiences to really comprehend the stakes for which they play. When players are out participating in story events, it is very difficult to fully understand that if they fail, then X amount of nameless, faceless people will suffer for it. Not to say that players are stupid, but rather that the human mind is not really equipped to process such high risks, when so many people are on the line (doubly so when it is a work of fiction, and not a real event).

This is in fairly stark contrast with Persona 4, where the risks involved with failure are much easier to understand. The plot to that game is not a tale about saving the world. Rather, it is a story about a serial killer in a small town. Despite the supernatural elements to the plot (since it is a Persona game and players will need to use personae to fight in some capacity), the story is actually very grounded and on a much smaller scale than its predecessor's. Every victim and potential victim of the serial murders has a face, name, and personality which players are introduced to before they become the next target. It is much easier for me to comprehend that “If I fail, my classmate Yukiko will die” then “If I fail, innocent people will die.” This is not to say that larger scope stories are invalid, but rather that the smaller scale of Persona 4 let me really understand why my characters were out doing the things they do. That difference in understanding helped me relate a lot more to that cast as a result, especially since the majority of the cast joined the team because I saved them.

Another reason that the cast of Persona 4 appeals to me more is that the personal issues that each of the cast members are dealing with are much more relatable to me than those of Persona 3's cast. In the third game, most of the main characters have very dark personal histories. Out of all nine of them, six of them are dealing with trauma related to the death of a loved one as major parts to their story arc. Two of the other three are dealing with major issues involving their parents and the last one is a robot who is coming to grips with her growing sense of humanity. Again, all of these are valid and worthwhile backstories to explore, but the sheer darkness of it all makes it very, very hard for me to personally relate to them. These are issues that people do deal with, but not so much so that it becomes a dominating force in the way they live their lives like the cast of Persona 3. It often feels like there is a barrier between me and the cast as a result.

On the other hand, the kind of issues the members of the Investigation Team in Persona 4 go through are more resonate to me. Every single member of the group has something about themselves that they do not like and refuse to admit. In order to save them, players have to defeat their shadow selves and convince each cast member to accept whatever baggage is dragging them down. Many of these issues are much smaller ones that most people can understand and empathize with. One person secretly resents moving from the city to a small town with comparatively less to do. Two best friends have to confront that deep down, they are jealous of each other. Another party member is insecure about his favorite hobby because, to others, it is not very “manly.” These are all issues that people deal with on a day-to-day basis. I can understand these kinds of pains because I personally feel them more often than I would care to admit. Although I have only had loved ones die a small number of times in my life, these other issues are some that I and most people confront regularly. This creates much more empathy and understanding of the cast of Persona 4 than it does for Persona 3.

Lastly, I suspect that a contributing factor to the popularity of the Investigation Team over that of SEES is that Persona 4 was a lot easier to play than Persona 3 was. Transitioning from Persona 3 to 4, Atlus added two major additions to the combat system. The first was the “Guard” command, which replaced passing turns from Persona 3 and allowed players to reduce that damage from powerful skills that bosses used. The second was “Direct Command”, which allowed players to take control of other party members, besides the protagonist, in battle instead of leaving it to the AI. While I am sure this was a contributing factor for many people in increasing the likeability of the Investigation Team, this was not the case for me. When I played Persona 3, I played the PSP version of the game, which brought in the above improvements from Persona 4. Despite not playing a major part in affecting my enjoyment of both groups, I am sure it was a contributing factor for many others, so I opted to mention it here for completion's sake.

When it comes down to it, Persona 3 and 4 are actually quite different games in terms of tone, scope, and style of writing, despite being nearly identical in the gameplay aspects. This makes them useful for a case study in how writing can affect the overall takeaway of the player from a game. Of course, I have to stress that this is extremely subjective and I fully expect people to disagree with my preferences. Further, both games are solid and worth playing if you are a fan of JRPGs. I might have been a little critical of Persona 3's storytelling, but it is a very well-written and fun to play game. And who knows? You might be like my friend and prefer SEES to the Investigation Team. Regardless, make sure to reflect on how the differences between the two games make you feel differently about them, despite them being very similar.

#56: The Timeless Question: What is an RPG?

Most of you out there know that I love to talk about video games. I derive pleasure from discussing what makes certain games work, where they go wrong, whether or not their stories make sense, and so on. Out of all of the questions related to video games that one could asked, there exists two that I dread seeing. These two are “What is a game?” and “What is an Role Playing Game (RPG)?”. This week, I will be discussing the latter because the topic came up on Twitter the other day and the realization dawned on me that I would be unable to answer that question in a series of 140-character posts. The fact is that there are so many games under the umbrella term of RPG that a definition that is broad enough to include all of them, yet narrow enough to exclude other types of game. With that in mind, coming up with my own definition and then working it around all the kinds of games in the genre would be impossible. Instead, I think it would be best to analyze all the games, from Mass Effect, to Fallout, to Final Fantasy, to Kingdom Hearts, that people mostly agree fit under the term and create a definition of “RPG” based on what all of them have in common.

The first of these characteristics that I notice in all RPGs is an overall sense of progression. By that, I mean that as the game goes on, there is generally a sense that the protagonist is growing and getting better at certain feats. Most of these games accomplish this through an experience/leveling system. As players accomplish objectives and dispatch enemies, they gain experience. After enough experience, they level up and gain stats and/or skill points used to purchase abilities. This model is one of the most common, appearing in Final Fantasy, Persona, The Elder Scrolls, and many similar games. Other franchises like Fallout add perks to this to further a sense of growth. While this is the most common method of instilling a sense of progression, it is by no means the only way to go about it. Both Deus Ex and its modern sequel, Deus Ex: Human Revolution, employed different systems. The original Deus Ex gave players Ability Points directly, after completing objectives or finding certain locations, which they could spend on skills from different types of weaponry to more passive skills such as First Aid, Lockpicking, or Swimming (which I would not recommend). Deus Ex: Human Revolution had experience, but instead of ability points which increased certain skills, they allowed protagonist Adam Jensen to unlock the cybernetic augmentations he is equipped with. Regardless of what systems are in place to encourage it, an RPG always has some way to make the player feel like his/her character is growing in either skill or power.

Another very common characteristic in RPGs is that designers tend to place a very large focus on the world and its inhabitants when making them. If players take the time to talk to people and explore in an RPG, they can expect to learn about economies, cultures, society, geography, political struggles, and more regarding the world or region that it takes place in. Games like The Elder Scrolls and Fallout (both older and newer titles) can boast a very rich and detailed world just waiting to be explored. That is one of the biggest draws of those games, and a topic I have written about before. Also, Bioware games like Mass Effect, Baldur's Gate, or Knights of the Old Republic serve as good examples. Like it or hate it, a major part of what makes the Mass Effect franchise so popular is that Bioware took the time to envision and develop a very vivid lore that most of the fans fell in love with. Learning about all of the various races, their cultures, and beliefs is half the fun of the game to some players. This is also true for the Japanese side of the RPG moniker. While games like Final Fantasy and Persona do not necessarily need to have very detailed background information due to how linear those games tend to be, players of them are often treated to pretty interesting worlds like the land of Spira in Final Fantasy X or the rural town of Inaba in Persona 4. The people and places all have there own story. The church of Yevon and the story of its creation and internal corruption are as fascinating as the discovery of a world inside the TV and all of its mysteries. When it comes down to it, all RPGs have deep, interesting worlds to learn about and/or explore.

The last element that I have noticed in all Role Playing Games to some extent is a feeling that the player has some element of choice in how the player character/party develops. Admittedly, this one is going to be a bit of a hard sell, so hear me out. In most western-style RPGs, this characteristic is pretty obvious. Usually, the player gets to choose what skills the protagonist has and/or how they develop. This is usually tied into the development system, similarly to the sense of progression. Players can often be asked at the start what class they wish to play as, a tactic employed in Alpha Protocol and other games. This can either be used separately or in combination with a system that gives players Ability Points to spend on skills as they rank up. Another well known system in Western RPGs is Skyrim's system where skills develop as they are used. From the other side of the coin, in JRPGs, this characteristic may be less noticeable, but I feel that it is still present. Games like Final Fantasy usually have characters evolve on static and fairly predictable paths, at level X they acquire ability Y. However, all of these games have some form of customization. The very first Final Fantasy allowed players to choose their character classes at the start of the game. The second had abilities level up upon using them. The third and fifth had job class systems that allowed players to experiment with different classes and truly customize their characters to their own playstyle. And most others allowed players to pick their party from a very large group. All of these games have some element that allows players to pick their own way to play through the game. The other notable JRPG, Persona, is also extremely well known for this thanks to its system where the player character and hold and use different personae while the rest of the party can be chosen from a diverse cast of character, although earlier games in the franchise allowed all party members to switch personae. Every RPG allows for players to think for themselves and play through them in their own way.

To me, all of these elements are what separate an RPG from other genres of video games. A strong sense of progression and customization along with a detailed world are ultimately what binds all of the games under this heading together. While this is the definition that I have reached, I will not claim that this definition is absolute by any means. Feel free to dispute and criticize my opinion on this subject all you like. I would welcome the conversation gladly. Whatever your own opinion is, I encourage you to discuss and share it with others.

#41: The RPG Cultural Divide: East Versus West

It is no secret that there is a huge cultural divide between Western and Eastern styles of video game development. Due to the way each region of the world developed on similar, yet fundamentally different, lines over the centuries, the games developed by each regions cater to wildly different tastes and demographics. The most obvious divide we see is the one between Role Playing Games developed between the two regions of the world. Though both derive from the same RPG systems (like Dungeons and Dragons), they each took those systems in wildly different directions indicative of their cultures. We are all at least somewhat aware of this since we distinguish between Western style and Eastern Style RPGs, but what really separates the two? This week will be dedicated to answering that question.

The first key difference between the two styles of RPGs is that while Japanese RPGs generally tend to emphasize being part of a team, Western RPGs have a higher focus on the individual. We see this manifest in a variety of ways. In Eastern RPGs, like Final Fantasy, the player rarely takes the role of a single protagonist. Instead, they play as a group of people who are working together towards a common goal. While there is often a very clearly designated “lead character,” (Cecil in Final Fantasy IV or Cloud in Final Fantasy VII) they were always just the head of a group and not a significant figure that can do everything by themselves. Even in the later games of the Persona franchise, which borrows many tropes from Western RPGs, the player character is the team leader. Though exhibiting great power in their own right, they have party members and teammates to rely on. Their powers are even a direct result of connecting with others and forging bonds, still indicative of the team aspect of many Eastern RPGs. Compare this to RPGs developed in North America and Europe. In games like The Elder Scrolls or Mass Effect, the player is placed squarely in the center of the action. They are directly responsible for doing things. It is not a small team of individuals completing objectives and advances the plot, but rather one person. Even when the designers give the player squad-mates (like in Mass Effect) or companions (like in Skyrim or Fallout), the protagonist is clearly the driving force, the strongest character in the game, and the one who takes control at key story events. The lead character's individual contribution to the plot is highly valued over the contribution of other characters.

Another way in which Eastern and Western RPG design are separate is in the way they allow players to interact with the plot of the game. In an Eastern RPG, developers generally have a very tight reign on the narrative. There is a plot to the game, yet the player has limited ability, if any, to influence it. When they are given agency, it is only with regards to minor details. A good example of this is the blitzball tournament near the beginning of Final Fantasy X. The player is technically able to win the tournament. However, if they do, they will only receive a slight reward for it. Otherwise, the plot advances as the same way regardless of whether the player won or lost, and it is never mentioned again past that point. This is not a criticism of the game, but merely an observation of what JRPG developers expect of their players. On the opposite side of the world, Western RPGs have a very strong focus on player choice and how that choice influences the narrative. Players are given a higher degree of freedom to poke and prod. Developers ask players to look around, gather information, and make decisions that will directly affect the game experience, if not the overall plot of the game. While absolute freedom is impossible, since games are just programs and thus have constraints, they try to loosen the reigns as much as possible. The ability to make choices that affect the events of the plot is best exemplified in some of Obsidian Entertainment's latest works like Fallout: New Vegas and Alpha Protocol. These games force the player to choose between several factions, each with their own views on the events at hand, and pick sides. Another example of choice in games is the Mass Effect series, despite my criticisms. The plot itself will generally remain generally the same, but the player can impact events and change many of the series's key events in significant ways. Choices have consequences and the franchise forces the player to live with them. In essence, Eastern games took a few liberties with the concept of role playing while Western games tried to stay truer to the concept. Both are valid tactics, it all comes down to the designer's preference.

The final point I will make with regards to the difference between Eastern and Western RPGs is the JRPGs tend to be of a generally slower pace than their Western counterparts. Though there are exceptions to the rule (like the Star Ocean franchise), JRPGs are usually turn-based or semi-turn-based. Battles focus on taking in all the relevant information and making good moment to moment decisions into order to win. The speed and flow of battle is intentionally slowed in order to give players time before committing to certain actions. Tactical thinking and good strategy is much more important in these games than speedy inputs or reflexes. The Final Fantasy series is very well-known for this. They pioneered the Active Time Battle system that has become a staple of the franchise and one of the most enduring examples of turn-based gameplay. For a while, the West used turned based systems as well. They worked well for the isometric RPGs of old (and still do). Though even back then, those turn-based games had a faster pace than their Eastern counterparts. Now that we have come to modern gaming, Western-style RPGs have become more action-oriented. Instead of being an outside force directing a group of people in a turn-based fight, games like The Elder Scrolls and Mass Effect have the player actually play as the main character in a three-dimensional space, moving around and engaging enemies directly instead of being some omnipresent overlord directing from over the shoulder. While they are not always as quick and visceral as shooters and action games, Western RPGs were always significantly faster and more direct than their Eastern equivalents: It has just become more pronounced now. It is the player themselves, as the Dovahkin or Commander Shepard, who goes through and defeats hundreds of enemies. However, it is worth noting that this one is even less of a hard and fast rule than my previous two points. It is more of general trend and there are multiple games that deviate from it.

I must once again stress that this is not meant to criticize the style of either region. Like my earlier comparison of Fallout 3 to Fallout: New Vegas, it is more of a compare/contrast between development styles. Depending on the goal of the video game, be it in mechanics, plot, etc., both of them have benefits and drawbacks inherent to their design. Though unlike the Fallout comparison, these two styles could effectively be considered separate genres entirely because they are that different from each other. It is fascinating that two groups can take the exact same inspirations and achieve different, yet equally viable results from them. This speaks to the cultural differences between us all. It is not a bad thing by any means. In fact, I think it is to be celebrated. That is why games are treated as forms of expression and speech. They speak to us and to our sensibilities. All these different people and philosophies brought together by a love of entertaining the masses. Truly, I can think of few things better than that. :)

#1: Random Encounters in RPGs

I have been playing RPGs for a very long time. It is one of my favorite genres. Recently, I bought Final Fantasy V on the PlayStation Store and decided to play it for the very first time. I had heard that the game is one of the most beloved Final Fantasy games to series fans. After playing it, I have come to understand why. The job system allows for great customization of the characters, the story is amusing (not very deep, but interesting and a good excuse for dungeon crawling), and it harkens back to old school game design philosophies budding game designers can learn from. However, one of the well established tropes of this old school philosophy is one of the reasons this game is a hit-or-miss for many people: Random Encounters.

As I played through FF5, I noticed that I was becoming increasingly annoyed by the shear amount of random encounters in the game. It seemed like I could not advance very far without fighting another group of monsters of varying levels of difficulty. It made me think about other RPGs and how random encounters were killed sometime in the middle of the PS2 era. At first, I was thankful for the change, but then I thought about another example of random encounters, one that I did not seem to mind so much.

In September of this year (2011), Atlus released a remake of Persona 2: Innocent Sin for the PSP. Instead of updating it for modern gamers, Atlus decided to leave the game mostly unchanged with the exception of a few graphic updates. This meant the random encounters were left in the game. While my excerpt from Final Fantasy V would suggest that I would dislike this, I ended up loving P2 and now consider it one of my all time favorite games. I wondered why this difference would exist because random encounters are one of the few things that annoy me about old school RPGs. After carefully pondering this, I eventually found an answer.

It has less to do with the system of getting into battles and more to do with the rewards for participating in the system. In Final Fantasy V, the reward for winning a fight is experience, money, and ability points used to advance in your party's chosen jobs. The only real benefit to gain experience is a level up, which leads to an increase in stats, and while ability points advance the character's job, the advances eventually become so infrequent that it becomes less a reward and more of a “About TIME!!!” in the player's eyes.

On the other hand, in Innocent Sin, while the rewards are a little different. Depending on whether or not you won the fight through combat or persuasion (which, admittedly, also might contribute why the random encounters seem less bothersome) the player will be rewarded with either experience points or tarot cards that the player can use to purchase new personae. While leveling also gives the player characters an overall stat boost, it also unlocks new personae for the player to purchase and use. This both encourages the player to change-up their strategy (persuading one group while fighting off another) and makes rewards more frequent over all. Players are given new personae at a rate slow enough that they do not feel like they are constant trading out personae, but fast enough so that the player never feels like the game is beginning to hold out on rewarding the player. By the time this cycle of trading personae and growing in power begins to lose its charm, the game has already reached its final act and the player has become enthralled in the storyline.

The overall point of this is to realize that a game's overall quality is not determined by what mechanics are being used as much as how these mechanics are being implemented. The overall package must also be considered. To clarify, I think that both games are excellent in their own right and would recommend both to RPG fans. This was more of an analysis than anything else.