Re-Classifying: Role Playing Games

I am dissatisfied with the way video game genres are conceived.

• They are often based upon superficial features which actually don't meaningfully unite the games, such as aesthetics or the simplest aspects of gameplay.
• Conversely, they are often also too strict to allow serious creative spins.
• The narrative elements are usually not considered as a factor in genre-naming.
• The general marketing buzz is making meaningful naming harder.

Role-playing games has been hit quite hard by this. In this essay, I will first discuss the history of term "role-playing game" and the many ways it is understood today, try to unpack what constitutes a genre and then attempt to construct a terminology which can communicate what people try to achieve words like "RPG", "JRPG", "action-RPG" etc. more clearly, using examples along the way.

Eastern and Western RPGs

Although role-playing games had originated from board games, they found their way into video games in mere couple of years: The first edition of Dungeons&Dragons was released in 1974. In 1979, first true adaptation of D&D mechanics, Akalabeth was released. In the following years, Ultima(1981-1999)[*] and Wizardy(1981-2017) series took off and they shaped what's known as "Western-RPG" today. "Computer-RPG" was also born as a synonym, since before mid-2000s, Western RPG developers often prefered PC as their main platform.

Folks in Japan also quickly fell in love with role-playing games, and they wanted some of that action themselves. Among the first, there was Dragon Slayer(1984). However, unlike RPGs at the time the game used real-time combat. Hylide(1984), similarly had a "crash into enemies" combat, and featured a lot of mechanics that would influence Legend of Zelda(1987). Thus, Action-RPG hybrids were born. However, in many ways, the true milestone game was Dragon Quest(1986), proved to be so popular and spawned so many clones that it ended up defining much we think of as "JRPG", "Eastern RPG" or " Console RPG", as these games were usually designed for and are still usually released to consoles.

Regardless how much they have might make sense when these terms started to gain acceptance, nowadays their usefulness are dubious at best. When people say "JRPG" or "WRPG", do they simply talk about the game's country of origin? No, they do not. Rather, they attempt to communicate a collection of somewhat unrelated ideas with a single word.
When the word "JRPG" is used, depending on the speaker's age, it can either mean "16-bit games of Square" , sometimes also including "PS1 era of Square games". Animesque visuals and character design, turn-based combat, a mixture of medieval and futuristic fantasy, linear stories instead of "role-playing" and so on. And there is certainly some truth to this stereotype, a lot of it can be directly traced back to Dragon Quest(1986) itself. Unfortunately, stereotypes alone are not very good when it comes to classification, and are often misleading.

• Visual novels and anime have a clear influence on Japanese games; just like Hollywood, Western fantasy and sci-fi literature have in the West. However, this is by no means restricted to RPGs and there are just too many exceptions and subversions to make it meaningful for categorization. (If anything, AAA Japanese game scene is overall more diverse in terms of visual presentation than Western one)
• Turn-based battles stereotype is also misleading as not only trend started in Japan, many prominent and long-running action RPG titles and series are of Japan origin. Tales(1995-2016), Ys(1987-2016), Dragon's Dogma(2012), Bloodborne(2015), World of Mana(1991-2003), Kingdom Hearts(2002-2019), Xenoblade(2010-2017), and of course Legend of Zelda(1986-2018). (More on this later) By comparison, it took quite a while to have action-RPG titles which are commonly praised for their battle mechanics.
• Sometimes, it is said that the only true RPGs are the ones that allows the player develop a character with choices in a deep story and well-developed world. However, this is an ahistorical definition. Digital RPGs were always primarily about imitating the mechanics of tabletop games, character stats, levels, battle mechanics, monsters, dungeons; not characters and plots. This criteria is mostly applied to exclude Eastern RPGs, but it also leaves out a good portion of Western releases. If anything, the former was once again quicker when it comes to complex plots, and "real computer RPGs" as known today was a product of late 90s.
• "Computer RPG" today means "this game resembles late 90s RPG releases", but looks awkward in everything else and "Console RPG" is self evidently outdated and non-descriptive today.

My purpose is here is not to say "Ha! People are so wrong!" No, they have understandable reasons, but insufficient vocabulary. For example, Dark Souls(2011), despite being a Japanese title, is not commonly referred as a JRPG. Even TV Tropes lists it under "Western-Style Action RPGs". When Western devs make games directly insipred by JRPGs, Undertale(2015) for instance, the games are sometimes referred as JRPGs, or "Japanese style". By this rationale, Megami Tensei(1987-2019) series, or at least all pre-2000 releases, should be also called "Western-style", because they are heavily inspired by Wizardy series. In fact, there are Wizardy games developed by Japanese devs after the original Western series had ended. So are they JRPG or WRPG? Computer RPG on consoles? Despite being heavily embraced among Japanese gaming culture, are these games still "Western Style?"
Eastern and Western role-playing games have a shared history and always have mutually influenced each other. Terms which simply refer to their continent of origin are too shallow to be useful to describe any consistent and meaningful differences, let alone to define a genre. However accurate they were in 80s, now they are in clear need of replacement.

Action RPGs and "RPG mechanics"

After arcade gaming blew up in 80s, the word "arcade" came to describe a certain style of games: Instinct-based gameplay, fast, loud, shiny, and often quite difficult, providing both instant gratification and a good sense of challenge. Many of these games came to be refered as called "action" games later, a term derived from films with similarly high-noise content. RPGs were popular as they are because they offered a direct contrast, suited for a home environment. A sense of adventure, gradual gratification, a feeling of achievement gained by perseverance and good planning. However, as we discussed before, hybrid games appeared rather quickly, attempting to combine both styles' strengths. And so, Action-RPGs came to existence and today they are used, in theory, for games where the skill is as important as the character stats.
The first problem with this term lies in the word "action" itself. As problematic as the words like "JRPG" are, at least they are just coherent enough to provide a little common ground. "Action games" are simply way too wide of a genre: It covers any game with melee fighting, simple sword combat, using vehicles, shooting, stealth, with their myriad variations and combinations. This is why we treat to most of these as separate genres. The mere uniting point is that the game involves controlling a character and having combat. When combined with "RPG" moniker, it just means "Player does not pause to select moves during combat." Is this a really helpful umbrella? Are Diablo(1996), Demon's Souls(2009) and Dragon's Dogma(2012) played for similar reasons? No, usually not. Tales of Xilla(2011) features real-time combat, where the player chains combos, block, dodge etc. but outside of battles the game is quite similar to any number of games in the Dragon Quest structure. If Baldur's Gate featured a combat-style closer to a mouse-clicking real-time combat style, it would change the game a lot, but would that be to a degree where it's no longer Baldur's Gate? Classifying games as "Action-RPG" is misleading as it centers the combat too much, regardless of whether this is actually right for the game in question, and obscures other fundamental similarities and differences.
[gallery ids="1270,1271,1272,1273" type="square" columns="4"]
The second problem lies in "RPG mechanics with non menu-based combat" definition. With popularity of the RPGs exploding in late 1980s, many other games started to outright copy mechanics from these games: Quests, progression systems, inventory management and resources, more dialogue, elaborate plots, games overall becoming deeper and more suited to be played in longer sessions. Role playing games had such a widespread influence that, especially after the golden days of arcade had ended, many of such elements were fully normalized in general culture of games, no longer considered in the domain of RPGs.
This raised a question. Which "RPG mechanics" make a game Action-RPG? It's somewhat arbitrary. Legend of Zelda(1987) isn't called an RPG despite being clearly designed with RPGs, especially Hylide, in mind and attempts to hit similar notes: Adventure, gradual empowerment, secrets, a living world, dungeons, cool weapons and so on. Nowadays, this is even more confusing. Almost every large publisher action title has skill, item, character stat progression systems, conversely several RPG franchises have become more action-like. One wonders whether there is even a meaningful difference between an "Action-RPG" and "An action game with RPG mechanics" anymore.
Whatever the differences are, it's clear that neither "Action-RPGs" nor "RPG mechanics" are adequate terms to explain them.

What Is A Genre?

Well-defined names for genres provide an umbrella for the core feelings of similar works while creating room for enough diversity so that it doesn't pressure future works into being each other's clones. For movies and fantasy literature, that was quite easy; because the subjects of stories alone shape their themes, structures, tropes, so "What's this "film/book about " is usually a sufficient question for placing it under certain genres.
Being such a new medium like gaming has its quirks. Video games have always been grouped by their most immediate and noticeable qualities: Jumping, shooting, flying, playing ball, on the computer, has a lot of text, three-dimensional etc. Just like the creation of RPGs, video game genres very consistently born from attempts at simulating and gamifying real life activities in different ways. When the clones get diverse enough but still retain a common set of goals,  it becomes a genre.
Sometimes, the immediate qualities are good answers to "What's this video game is about?"  as they really speak to the core of the experience. For example, "platform games" are a very well-defined genre. They can be fast or slow, may or may not involve combat, can be linear, can require tight controls or prioritize a sense of journey, can be linear or focus on collecting things, can incorporate many different ways to interact with the world, can even successfully tell a narrative; but at their core, all platform games are mainly about giving the player a good sense of movement. It's quite possible that, despite how obvious that actually is, it is seldom questioned the fact that the player can jump several times their height and control their movement mid-air in platform games, literally no video game have even tried to make sense of it; because unlike a lot of video game clichés, it feels so natural. That's how much a basic interaction can define an entire genre.
Unfortunately, digital role-playing games are too complex for this method. All the stereotypes we use about RPGs are just attempts to reduce it into something very obvious and basic. The very word of "RPG" itself is usually just a shorthand for "This game has a leveling system for the characters". This is why Legend of Zelda is not called an RPG while Dragon Slayer is, the real mechanical difference the latter has a leveling system, the former does not.
If we want to define a coherent genre, we need to earnestly and thoroughly answer the question "What is at the core of an RPG?"

The Core of RPGs

Let us go back to the beginning. What was so fun about sitting in front of a small black-and-white screen, looking at plain text to simulate a battle is going on and pretend crudely drawn shapes are monsters and dungeon walls? It could not be any more different from playing on a table, surrounded by people, using extensive sheets and rulebooks, making the player's imagination go wild as they actively participate in the world and story dungeon master creates. This is our answer: Participation! Even with basic pixels and ASCII characters, the monsters they faced, the battles they survived, the dark and unforgiving corridors they conquered with great perseverance all felt real. Perseverance! No need for the motor skills and the strength of an actual warrior, no matter how powerful the foes are; no matter how unlucky the player is, they can steadily and surely will improve and their efforts will give fruit.
These are what all role-playing games have been always about. players are at the center of an adventure, a campaign, a journey. The games are built upon the transformation of the characters. If we take "magic" as an example subject, RPGs are not just toys to make magic, set pieces where magic happens, attempts to capture the feeling of being a witch or workshops to craft and maintain systems of magic and witchness. They can include all that, but they are mainly about taking the role of a witch in a specific place and time, not an abstract simulation of witchness. And this requires the witch to change, to grow, in positive or negative qualities, to make their existence materialized in the conflict, and player becomes the catalyst with their personal input.
Of course, there is a fundamental difference in board games and video games. It's not the fact as the latter is digital, you can host RPG sessions in a completely digital environment. No, in the former the author is alive, in the latter the author is dead. The former is actively created and re-created infinitely during experience, the latter is only created as an experience in the player's headspace, otherwise plays within the confines of pre-destined combinations . In this way, role-playing video games are not so much role-playing in a live setting but rather performing a role as an actor. The game world, with its total mechanical and narrative existence, is the audience,. As the player acts their role as the pirate, the highschool student, the thief, the spawn of demon god, or the destined hero they repeat their lines over and over, their acting improves, they are connected to their role and the game world is connected to the player more and more. Usually repeating lines isn't enough, they need to perform other talents, other ways to connect to the audience. Thankfully the game world is a rather patient audience. It will watch the player's every mistake, and clap exictingly any time the they get their act correct. Players are also allowed to improvise their roles, and even encouraged in many ways depending on the game.

Defining RPGs

So far, we have tried to find answers questions like "What draws people to RPGs over over other games?", "What are the shared feelings RPGs try to achieve?", "What are the core ideals of RPG". Now that we have decent idea a more formalized definition for RPGs is doable. In order to do this, instead of giving an encyclopedic definition, we will attempt to define high and low value factors for RPGs. This allows a better focus on the possibility and convenience of calling a game RPG instead of excluding it over rigid rules.
High value factors: The more decisive factors to call a game RPG. not every factor must absolutely be correct, as deciding a genre is not a simple true/false question, but the more factors it checks, more meaningful "RPG" moniker feels.

• The player is represented in the game world by at least one concrete character. No abstract godlike entities.
• A progression system to connect the player to the representative characters. Progression systems as merely as rewards for desired outcome, as a means to lengthen the play time or incentivize purchasing content, and progression which player have absolutely no control over do not count.
• The progression either occurs to the player characters, the tools they use, or the subordinates they are in control of.
• The progression systems are interconnected with other game mechanics, the setting and the narrative. More connected it is, the stronger role-playing gets.

Low value factors: These are not strictly required, nor really unique to RPGs but usually utilized to enhance the player's ability of role-making.

• A realized setting that exists outside of player's existence.
• Well-written characters that have an existence outside of serving as tools to player.
• Player are able to give their own characters depth or the characters should be written in a way that players can connect to them.
• Players are given opportunities to shape themselves, with classes, customization, crafting etc.
• Players can shape their character and narrative with dialogue choices.
• Randomized elements to solidify connection to the game world: Encounters, certain enemy statistics, the factor of chance during battles etc .
• An appropriate escalation of encounters and their rewards
• RPGs can contain many other systems for player expression: Tactical battle areas, shooting mechanics, platform elements, bullet dodging mechanics, anything can be thought of. When they are harmony with progression systems, they can enhance the role-playing.

Non factors: The world RPG should not be used to suggest the following.

• Specialness, deepness, or uniqueness compared to other games
• A particular degree of quality
• A particular battle mechanic or having battles at all
• A particular system of party, class, experience, weapon etc
• Whether the player characters are blank state, shaped by dialogue or has a full independent character.

That's not all. As can be seen, RPG is rather intended to be used as an umbrella, but we still need terminology to explain sharp differences between many RPGs. Here tabletop RPGs provide a method once again. Role-playing in a board game happens in many layers: The games mechanics which simulates characters their actions, the player input which breathes life into the characters, the lore and storylines put out by the dungeon master, and the social layer that is built by the players and DM. Because table top games are a medium where all participants are both authors and the audience, in what layers players are supposed to connect to the games are freely decided, so layers co-exists and feed into one another in the every second of play. Video games however are post-author experiences, the interactions will be limited and thus the role-playing must be directed by the game. Developers should decide whether the player character stands for the player, a character shaped by the player or an original character written by them. as a result games prioritize one of those layers over another.  Thus, those layers are quite convenient to divide RPGs into subgenres.

• Player RPG: The old school RPG. Literally dungeons and dragons. The mechanical connection is emphasized over others. The player character primarily functions like an avatar of player, solidifying player's direct existence in the setting.
• Character RPG: The "Western RPG" stereotype. The game is concerned with allowing the player to shape the characters and the setting throughout a story in a well-realised setting.
• Story RPG: The "Eastern RPG" stereotype. The game emphasizes telling a story the most, the player's role as an actor is more well-defined, with player characters having independent identities.
• Social RPG: Massive-multiplayer games, multi user dungeons, co-op play; really anything that involves more than one player.

Categorizing art, like art itself, is subjective, and a work of art can fit in more than one genre, or even one medium. The goal here is not to force things into rigid boxes. Whether calling a game RPG feels meaningful or not is more interesting than declaring "this is definitely not an RPG.".

Applying Categories

It is waste of time to argue whether games that are already embraced as quintessential RPGs are actually RPGs, such as Baldur's Gate(1998) or Final Fantasy(1987). More interesting are the cases where the line between simulating a character and acting one is thin. Emphasis on progression helps us specifically in such cases.
In God of War(2005-2010) series, PC is Kratos, a guy who is always mean and angry. With his mighty blades and strong hands, he breaks, cuts and smashes everything on his path. As the games progress, he slays stronger and stronger creatures and eventually gods themselves, enemies, allies and bystanders alike. There is an experience system, but it is not really tied to the character, Kratos is the perfect warrior and he ends up being a God but the system is pretty much unconnected, and does not even affect gameplay all that much . The reason why "ordinary person rising to be hero" stories are so convenient, they set up an easy justification for the player. Here, the game does not even try to cast a slightest of doubt on Kratos's victory, he is too angry to lose. The game does not connect the player to his desire of. revenge, because player is not Kratos. Instead they are effectively his body, his muscles, his blades, the vessel which channels his wrath. In turn, his story is mainly a justification to make the player indulge in action and gore. This is not a condemnation of the game, quite the contrary, the series are beautiful in their commitment to destruction and not in a "mindless" way either. This just means that player does not exist in the game, except for simulating the destruction.
By contrast, a series such as Legend of Zelda is firmly about making the player part of the world. Not with a narrative usually, but primarily through mechanics. Weapons, gadgets; all Link uses to interact with Hyrule evolve as the adventure deepens. The player's role being the hero of Hyrule, Link is the costume, the tools are the player's lines and Hyrule is the stage. The games my lack some common mechanics of RPGs but they are still solidly player RPGs. Link is the literal link between the player and the game. The "player RPG" title demonstrably is not a judgement of the story of the games, in fact, they are often viewed as succesful on that front too. The terms show that it shares the same basic goals with more traditional series like Dragon Quest. When looked at this way, it is no surprise Breath of the Wild came to exist. It was not following the trends of big budget titles, but the logical conclusion of the series' principles in 2018.
When we look past the superficial differences we can see that Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim shares a lot of core ideals with Legend of Zelda and classical Japanese RPGs. Simplified battle mechanics compared to their predecessors, centering player's agency, dungeon exploration with puzzles, a living and changing "overworld", towns primarily offering  functional value over narrative value. Dragonborn is very similar to Link or Light Warrior, or Jim in the sense that the game is aggressively uninterested with them as a character. Dragonborn is only important insofar it makes the player obtain dragon powers, collect flowers, be an assassin, shoot fire balls. All narrative choices are essentially serve to determine what the player earns in gameplay: Be a vampire or a hunter, get a new companion or a demonic staff, choose between the red team and the blue team. There is a real effort to make the world feel alive and believable, and this effort serves to create a world where player gets to be a Dragonborn. Notice how this separates the game from the likes of Far Cry 4(2014), Grand Theft Auto: Vice City(2002) or Just Cause 3(2015), where the game world is just a sandbox for the player but the PC is almost entirely separated from the player. Such action games, just like in God of War, are chiefly about simulating things. Skyrim on the other hand, is in a lot ways a very traditional player RPG. The game has certain problems to present itself as one, but the game is usually very open and clear about its goals. As a result of the bloated meaning the word "RPG" carries, there was at least a vocal group among fans and critics who were disappointed about game's lack of narrative depth. How we classify games clearly shape player expectations.

Linearity and openness in games have multiple dimensions: Level design, combat, puzzles, narrative and so on. Player RPGs have often open gameplay with linear stories. Character RPGs on the other hand focus greatly on the narrative agency, even when it comes at the expense of player's own freedom. Certain quests will block others, the player can't win over every NPC nor they can't just attack an NPC just because they feel like it and expect nothing happens. Another common method is to limit the character building options: The player does not have free access to every spell, ability, weapon etc. and for the course of a play through, must choose for the character.  Permanent choices are the main engine for progression. That makes this sub genre easy to spot. Many works of Obsidian and Bioware can be categorized as such. So instead, let's look at a non-obvious example. Bioshock 2(2010). (Spoilers ahead)
The game is mostly linear structurally and narratively. The only character decision in the game is to ability to spare Little Sisters and certain enemies. This is connected to the mechanical progression system, where sparing the girls means the player has less ADAM to unlock skills. It's a very simple choice system but it does create an avenue for building a character. The Subject Delta can be the strongest Big Daddy: Uncaringly crushing everything to find one and only Little Sister they care for. Or, he can be something more, a truly failed prototype,with an intact humanity. There is yet another dimension to the choices,  they also directly influence Delta's daughter. With choices simple as they get, the player essentially builds two characters. In a very basic and pure sense, Bioshock 2 is a character RPG, and a good one at that. More so than the first game, the game is quite responsive to player choices, both in the story and the gameplay. The endings are varied and giving up powers actively creates a difficulty spike.
There is a common phrase in-game criticism: "Telling story through mechanics". Story RPGs are notable because they do the reverse.  In Final Fantasy 4(1991), in order to stand against evil Cecil must become a true hero in every sense of the word, so he gives up his dark powers and rises up as a paladin. At Level 1. It is not exactly the most fun thing for a while, but that's part of the role player takes when acting as Cecil. The volume of story is not enough to make a game story RPG, the mechanics should be informed by the narrative. This is why "the phoenix down" is memefied: "Why the characters can't revive the dead now?", the player asks. "Because that's what only player does, the item doesn't actually exist in the narrative's setting", the game answers. In those moments, the game quits being a story RPG. Story and gameplay being separate is fine for a player RPG, or a non RPG, but it is more noticeable in story RPGs. The problem is not game being unrealistic, it is that the player is forced to break their act, or worse, doesn't really act like a character at all. This is why Trails series(2004-?) is very consistent about this: no matter how over the top the battles are, no human character ends up in grave injuries in the end and so when someone seriously gets in the trouble, the games can justify that the items are not enough. Such are little details, but they add up in a long way to make sure players exist as real characters, not just through avatars or worse, in possession of bodies.
Strategy games in particular highlight this difference. In these games, players often only exist in the game world in the most abstract sense: The games might refer to player as a leader or pretend they are represented by someone in the game, but that's merely window dressing. The players are too omnipresent, can both control on a macro scale and every little behavior of individual units. Civilization series(1991-2019) are about progression of your faction in size, might, wealth, knowledge etc. In Warcraft 3(2002), there are units which can gain experience, unlock skills, carry items. These progression systems don't create any connection with the player, just like a chess piece being upgraded suddenly doesn't make it alive. In latter case, there is a story progression as well, but this isn't really connected to the gameplay beyond justifying game levels and objectives.
Starcraft 2: Heart of the Swarm(2013) is marketed as a regular strategy game, and looks like one at first glance. However, it is deeper than that. The game follows Kerrigan as she regains her place as the queen of Zerg swarm and gets her long-waited revenge. Zerg are a hive-mind species, their whole will is connected to Kerrigan. They can mutate and breed fast, and don't really do much else besides killing, morphing and expanding. In other words, they work like just as if they are in a real-time strategy game and on a character scale, it makes perfectly sense why she is able to command as if she is playing a RTS game. The game has two progression systems for Kerrigan. A skill tree for her psychic abilities and the growth of her swarm. As she grows in power, she starts to see the Zerg as a natural part of herself, and the Zerg , and the player, grow as the manifestation of her emotions. They truly become one. Regardless of its writing quality, structurally the game is a solid story RPG strategy title, resembling less the rest of Starcraft(1998-2015) series and more the likes of Final Fantasy Tactics(1997).

"Story RPG" doesn't imply complete lack of agency in narrative, but rather the agency doesn't serve character building. In Trails games, there are various optional side quests but the decision of completing them doesn't say anything about the main characters, these quests are canonically part of their adventure, it just means player are free to not experience them. Similarly, there are various dialogue choices in many quests, but there are obvious rights and wrongs in their choices. The player is allowed to improvise if they forget their lines but the script is very clear, they are not playing their roles as well as they are supposed to do.
Sometimes, the creative freedom of the player isn't so obvious. Persona 3(2006) is such one case. On the one hand, the main character is a silent protagonist, can engage in various relationships as player desires. Such relationships enhance his character build and can be affected positively or negatively by dialogue options. He can even choose different endings. On the other hand, he is not completely devoid of personality. Being usually silent is part of that personality, he is calm and unfazed. Although he can be very sociable, he also enjoys being alone. Furthermore, it can be argued that abstaining from social links is not choice that builds a personality, and when you get people angry in social relationships it doesn't affect the narrative at all. So, depending on how much one projects themselves into the main character, the game can be thought as both a character RPG and story RPG. Genres serve better as groups to highlight common patterns rather than boxes to fit media in after all.
Classifying can get really complicated when the game in question is confused about its focus though. This is usually the greatest flaw of Bethesda games, and Fallout 4(2015) in particular. Bethesda wants to eat the cake and have it too. They have some design philosophies a lot of people enjoy. Yet they still want to stay faithful to Fallout name a little, and also want to catch up with current AAA trends.  As the game begins, the player is introduced to a main character with a very clear background, lifestyle, relationships, motivations and even their own unique voice. The main core of the game however is a classic "explore, fight, get loot and xp" loop with crafting on top, directly contradicting what the PC wants to do. And sometimes, the game suddenly decides player should have agency in narrative, but not a lot. It is an end up uneven mix of story, character and player RPG where the ingredients don't really complement one another.
Undertale stands as a good example of a unique hybrid. (Incoming spoilers) Depending on player's actions, the relationship between the player and the player character dynamically change. A normal run has many endings, and the personality of PC is shaped by whom the they kill. They might be "a fight everyone in your path" person, they might spare some people because they feel close to them or think death might be unjust sometimes. In this way, the game is a character RPG.
In a genocide run, the presence of "the player" as an entity becomes the most vivid, with each kill the PC becomes a little like an empty vessel for the player's "adventure". Sans makes it clear: the player fights them because they can. They are curious, they want to complete, they want to overcome the challenge. This is one of the most underlooked points of Undertale, the point here is not condemning the player for killing fictional monsters, it is commenting on the fact that player doesn't have a personal connection to the game universe, and as a result the player plays the game like a classical RPG. The difference here is that the genocide run has no self-justification from the game world, no excuse plot, no sense of grandeur, it doesn't even foster greed or malice. The more player progresses, the game world erodes into a hollow shell, In the end, the monsters. the setting, dialogue, even battling all become meaningless. As the universe completely ends, the only thing you see is just pixels and numbers.  Chara has motives, reasons and relationships and even they end up ultimately meaningless, as after they destroy the universe, they are aware the player can still best them, by deleting save file, because they are just data after all. When those things matter to player even a little, they don't enter a genocide run, because they have an emotional attachment to the universe. Genocide run is a player RPG in the purest sense possible, player defeats enemies, becomes strong and defeats all who stands in front of them.
In the pacifist run, the player agency shrinks and PC grows as their own character. After they enter the lab, PC won't attack anyone, because "despite everything, this is you". That's who Frisk is. The silent and aloof kid who doesn't like fighting. By playing in a particular way, the player becomes an actor of Frisk's story. After the game ends, the characters explicitly ask the player to not reset the timeline again, so the player can either respect the story and restrain their agency for the story, or decide that they are what really matters.
Player can reset again and again, load different saves, delete existing ones; and thus alcan be considered both as a participator, and a dungeon master to the character they are role-play as, in their own single player campaign. In this way, Undertale approximates tabletop experience from angle most RPGs don't. It is both a mix of a single player RPG experience and something unique as a synthesis.
Single player isn't all there is to it of course. From Multi User Dungeons, MMOs, co-op mode in Divinity: Original Sin 2(2017), competitive and collabatory multi-player of Souls series to weird not-really-social gameplay of Fallout 76(2017) social RPGs are a huge world which I don't feel qualified to analyze in-depth. Instead, here is an exercise for the reader: If multi-player games you are playing have progression systems, do they serve to the player or to artificially make the game longer?
Further sub categorization is possible. Couple of examples: Dungeon-crawlers. Games heavily focusing on conquering mazes or dungeons. Rogue-likes: Characterized by permanent death and heavy focus on randomness. Metroidvanias: Where player's growth is much about their ability to exploration. And much more... They are not covered here in-depth because the they are not directly about role-playing, and this article is long as it is now.

Last Words

Genres matter, they influence how games are developed and perceived, intentionally and unintentionally, as they don't exist in a vacuum. Better analysis of genres helps us to understand where the game resides on the cultural sphere. Good genre naming requires  to look past superficial similarities, marketing buzzwords and presumptions and instead look at what's at the heart of the games and how it differs from the games who offer similar experiences. Dogmatism doesn't help, it's likely a game can be categorized in multiple distinct and equally acceptable ways. While I will use my "method" forward, the main purpose of this article was to encourage the reader about the words we use without much second thought.
This article is written thanks to my dearest Patrons and special thanks to: Acelin, Alexandra Morgan, Emelina, Laura Watson, MasterofCubes, Makkovar Otakundead and Spencer Gill.

Terminology about Pokémon

I want to make Project Pinkmoon as friendly as possible to all those who play Pokémon games. However, some terminology related to competitive battling is extremely useful, since Pokémon changes will be designed around those concepts. Therefore, this is a guide to any term you might come across in my article

Balance

A team archetype that utilizes offense and defense together. This style favors having a good response to a lot of a variety of threats. Tanks are commonly used in these teams.

Check

It is like countering a Pokémon in a certain conditions. Instead of reliably winning one on one ach time, A Pokémon's checks usually rely to force it to switch out. Alternatively it can't switch in to that mon's attacks easily but can outspend them.

Cleric

Mon who have moves like Wish and Heal Bell that can heal your team.

Core

A group of mon that covers each other's weaknesses and often chosen in same teams. Can be defensive or offensive. Celesteela and Toxapex for example together form CelePex, a good defensive core.

Coverage

A Pokémon's ability to hit neutral or super-effectively it on many Pokemon as possible. For example if a mon has a strong Ice and Electric attack together, it can hit a lot of Pokemon neutrally.

Counter

A Pokémon that can completely stop and win against another mon in most match-ups. They can switch in to their attacks safely and beat them on 1-on-1. For example Florges is a good Hydregon counter. Not same as from the move named Counter.

Hazard

Refers to battle hazard, moves that gets set up on opponent's side of field like Spikes or Stealth Rock. Hazard-setters are Pokemon who are specialized in setting up those.

Lead

Mon who are dedicated to sent out first in battle. Hazard setters or strong offensive mon are usually chosen for the moment. Has variants like Suicide-Lead, who cleans the field after setting up by sacrificing itself and Anti-Lead, leads who are dedicated to beat other leads.

Momentum

Being able to have the correct mon at the field at the right time. If the opponent brings out an advantageous mon safely, then it is said that you are losing momentum.

Movepool

Mon's entire arsenal of available moves.

Moveset

Mon's current selection of moves.

Offensive

A team archetype whose main strategy is just hitting hard and a lot to opposing team. This team style does not like passive Pokemon a lot. Hyper-offense teams, purely focus on overwhelm the enemy with constant offensive pressure at the cost of being defensively weak.

Phazing

Making the opponent's mon switch-out by moves like Roar and Dragon Tail.

Pivot

Mon that can switch into Mon and then can be used for bringing the advantageous ones safely.

Revenge-killer

Mon who come for defeating the opposing mon after your your previous mon is fainted. Hence, take revenge.

Scouting

Stalling a turn to figure out the opponent's moveset. Usually done with Protect.

Screens

Refers to moves as Reflect and Light Screen. Mon who use them are said to set up screens.

Spinner

Mon who have Rapid Spin and dedicated to remove hazards from the field.

Stall

A team archetype where the team primarily depends on walls and passive damage like status effects and battle hazards and some slow setup sweepers to clean up. Has a variance called Semi-Stall, where the tam brings a little more offensive pressure but still relies on indirect damage mainly.

Stallbreaker

A mon who is specialized in obstructing the opponent's stall team. Different from wallbreaker's that these mon focus on shutting down opponent's healing and ways to inflict passive damage.

Support

Mon who support your team. It's cleric support with healing moves, weather support with weather-setup moves etc.

Sweep

The Pokémon equivalent of Damage Per Second. Their role is to eliminate multiple members of the enemy team, usually after they have been weakened. Has many variants such as: Late-game sweepers refers to mon who sweeps in late-game, rain-sweeper refers to mon who specializes sweeping under Rain, setup-sweeper refers to using a setup Move such as Calm Mind. It's a very common role among Pokémon.

Tank

A mon who can take hits well but also can give them as well.They are more active than walls but usually not as dedicated to constantly take hits. Tangrowth is a good example.

Trapper

Mon who blocks other mon from switching out with a move like Mean Look or an ability like Shadow Tag.

Utility

A Mon with various moves that can be useful for the time. Hazards, spreading status, phazing, spinning etc.

Wall

A mon with strong defensive capabilities whose main role is soak up hits and basically stop enemy Pokémon from wrecking your team. The difference from a tank is that, walls really in more passive methods or damage, like Status effects. Skarmory is an iconic example.

Wallbreaker

A mon who specializes in destroying walls with devastating attacks. They differ from sweepers that they are not expected to take on many different mon. Heracross is a great example.

The Worth of Morality: Fallout New Vegas

(The following article contains major spoilers for Fallout: New Vegas, but the game's plot isn't really founded on any major twists or surprises either.)
Games judging your morality usually gets negative reception from critics, at least the in recent years. Complex moral choices obviously can't be just represented by numbers on a binary scale, life does not play on clearly calculated rules. Yet, video games -- especially RPGs -- want players to feel their choices matter and their personality is represented in the game world, so they don't exactly stop trying either. The two approaches which are frequently used to achieve a morality system seem to be:

• The game presents complex moral choices but developers decide what's the better choice beforehand anyways and guides the player into following that.
• Give the player basic enough choices that good and evil can be easily separated.

This happens when developers don't actually think enough about a situation and assume abstract rules are good enough to make ethical choices or they face the limitation of the numerical morality system and can't think any way to get past it. For example, many games have blanket "stealing is bad" rule. It doesn't matter why you steal and whom you steal from, it is bad and you can't ever be a truly good character. This points to two things. Either, developers themselves hold such a view thus think it is actually a basic moral choice-- which is common -- or computer indeed needs predetermined rules to calculate a score. Both can be easily seen in "killing people is bad" rule which is filled with a lot of exceptions but those exceptions still needs to be predetermined and handpicked by developers, which means they have to enforce their own answers to questions which has supposed to be no easy answers.
There is nothing wrong with developers having opinions and desiring to represent them by itself. However,  if they actually want to give "there are no truly good or evil options, you win something by losing something else" fell into choices they create, then they should commit to that, which usually is best solved by just not having a morality system at all. Shin Megami Tensei is very good at this: Any time the endless struggle between Law and Chaos results in an apocalypse, the player is made to choose. You can bring absolute order, you can destroy all order in the universe or you can restore the universe back into what it was and let humanity and the eternal struggle continue. The game doesn't tell or even hit whether you are doing anything good or wrong. It's just your choices.
There is also a wrong way to achieve complexity however. If you make the choices too similar when attempting to gray them out,  they just end up being equally bad choices with almost purely aesthetic changes. Like in Skyrim, (I really can't escape Skyrim in these articles...) you can choose between Racist Blue Team and Imperialistic Red Team and the war only will end up make the realm weaker. It's all "grim and so complex.", right? No, if anything you do makes no tangential difference, then it is the opposite of player agency. If every option is absolute failure, then what you have is not a tough choice but mere helplessness.
This is why I have come to enjoy the second option much more, even though"black and white morality" is usually found immature and unrealistic. Bioshock for instance is sometimes critiqued as a low-effort attempt at giving player a choice. "You want to save the kids or kill them for power, what a 'heavy' choice, haha?" so the usual criticism goes. But, I can't ever think why this is really an issue. Video game marketing and focus-groups acting like basic moral choices are deep, complex or original is actually an issue, but giving basic choices itself is not and it can be done right. In Bioshock, saving the kids is great, not only for catharsis of doing the good thing but also it is an expression of your humanity. Conversely, killing kids just shows you are indeed an enslaved beast; it is not just a moral choice, you really determine who you are in that game. A basic morality system can be more impactful than "You helped 5 people and have 100 Goodness points. You are a hero!"
I don't believe every single choice in life is so complex either, sometimes things really boil down to binary choices. "Should we resist the people who are fundamentally against the existence of certain minorities?" or "Should people die of preventable diseases because they don't have enough money?" are not complex questions, despite what anyone tries to sell these as "tough realities of life". As basic as Fallout 3 gets with its "Should you nuke a town or not?" question for example, I much rather have it that way over a "Well, actually, you can't really know if using mass destruction weapons are bad?" or "Sure, you might nuke a town but you were also nice to some people so that makes a complex gray character."  nonsense. There is nothing insightful about being indecisive in the face of clear injustice, nothing challenging or new about equating tyranny of oppressors and the resistance of the oppressed, nothing gray about the worst monsters in the world being presentable, "loving" and "respectable". These narratives existed in both in fiction and real world long enough, and frankly no one needs them anymore. People rightfully mock how much mileage Blizzard gets out of "this character does a little genocide" plot point as to make characters "gray"er, but it gets less funnier when you see the same mentality in media talking about John McCain, the most recent example at the time of writing this.

(Source)

Curiously, Fallout: New Vegas attempts at both a complex and a simplistic morality systems and becomes succesful at both. For more complex decisions with greater impact, the game doesn't try to judge your morality directly and instead lets the player express themselves in a multidimensional Reputation system, where your actions are supported or opposed by factions of actually different ideologies. For smaller acts, there is a linear-scaling Karma system, where things like killing dangerous monsters and rejecting money as a reward of certain quests pull you towards Good while basically being a thief, bully or randomly murdering innocent people pulls you towards Bad. At first glance, Karma system seems unneccessary, its effect on game is mostly minimal -- which makes sense as a strange cannot know about your ethics or your random decision on an encounter -- and a far more complex system already exists.
However, the way Reputation and Karma interact in the endings is quite brilliant and adds to the game a lot. In this way, the Karma stops being a number of morality and but instead indicate a general reputation and legacy of PC. It becomes doubly meaningful with the fact that the game does put a "Everything is equal and so gray" narrative. While it gives a few POVs where Caesar's Legion can be seen anything other than monsters, the game does not shy away from treating them like fascists they are. You can get the ending where the Legion is victorious and it is clear that it is a really bad time for super-majority of people, but the real interesting part comes with Karma. You can have Good Karma, which means the Legion's worst excesses will be trimmed down a little and it can put a more respectable face. The game doesn't say you are a good person, it just acknowledges you might have some noble purposes for the path you have chosen and your moderate approach makes things a little better but doesn't pat you in the back for that. You still did something that hurt and will hurt countless amount of people. And if you have Bad Karma while supporting the Legion, you basically are a hell spawn. It is actually kind of uncommon where a game allows you to become an evil incarnate and also making it feel that dramatic.
Mr. House endings are just as interesting. He is a genius CEO, who has a bright mind, high ambitions for the humanity, a high opinion of himself and low opinion of most other people. In his endings, you basically become his right-hand. You can become one with sincerely good ideals about science and the advancement of humanity, but it won't still change that New Vegas will shine at the expense of poverty in rest of Mojave, a lot of good people will suffer in Mr. House's ruthless authoritarian pursuit of his utopia. The Bad Karma on the other hand allows you a heartless prick who enjoys the wealth of his empire.
The NCR endings are where things get grayer. New Californian Republic is a replication of old USA. It has founded with good intentions, has many supporters who are genuinely good people, they bring security to land and a lot of NCR soldiers are just there to fight an existential threat. It gets a fair deal of sympathetic portrayal but also gets a lot of criticism, especially if you listen the right people. It has standard liberal ideals of statecraft, law and order. As soon as it gained actual power though, it has already started to replicate the mistakes of USA; rampant corruption, expansionist policies, burdening taxes that only gets spend in said expansionist policies, re-introducing prisons on Mojave... NCR ending's will bring stability but it also bring old problems back. If you have Good Karma, you can be someone who is genuinely heroic and believer of peace and prosperity, but with Bad Karma, it shows that the system of NCR allows cruel people like you to be powerful.
The Independent ending is also very impactful. Basically, you allow no faction to take over Mojave, it will remain stateless. If you have Good Karma and also have good Reputation with various small factions, you can still bring peace and defend Mojave from outside threats, while believing in freedom as the highest value. The Bad Karma allows you to be someone who just hates most people besides themself, rendering Mojave in a perpetual state of chaos.
In some specific moments, Karma system is even more effective. In all endings besides Mr. House one, you must kill him, or leave him to die very slowly. For this act, rhe game gives you negative Karma, regardless of method you choose. What the game is judging here? Your contempt for his deals? Your lust of power? Your cruelty? Your personal dislike of Mr. House? You can mean all that when killing him but what the game primarily cares there is simply your will to get your hands dirty for your goals. There are very good reasons to think Mr. House as a despicable man, but what you did is still killing someone who was on life support. It can be righteous but it isn't innocent, nice or conventionally heroic. This instance really stands out as a moment where the game uses a basic score system to successfully reflect a complex situation.
The only area where Karma system fails at is Neutral options. In all endings, you basically become a gun for hire who only looks after for themself. If you play the game long enough, it is actually difficult to maintain a Neutral score, you have to do weird stuff. It resembles fail "gray characters" I complained about, you do some nice things but also steal from them for getting rich or kill some innocent people for no reason. But, the thing really bothers me is the implication being a gun for hire or only caring about yourself has no ethical issues or consequences surrounds it. It's a shame that a mature game like F:NV didn't actually explore those and relied on old D&D alignment-archetype. Honestly I also can't blame them for having a neutral score too much in the end, your Karma changing to Good to Bad in a single point wouldn't be good.
Video games, like all other mediums have limitations and need to work around them. A major one is the need of representing everything in the game world as numbers. Some concepts are just too vague for that, like morality. But a good game can create systems that hints at vague concepts rather than trying to represent them directly.
This article is written thanks to my dearest Patrons and special thanks to: Acelin, Alexandra Morgan, Laura Watson and Spencer Gill.

Presenting Themes 2: The Comparison of the First Hour in 3D Fallout Games

In the previous article we compared the opening cutscenes of 3D Fallout games and discussed the ideas they convey. Building on this, we will discuss how the first one or two hours of the each game (roughly the amount of time passing before you are in the crust of the game) decides to introduces itself, what they show and don't show.
Fallout 3 begins with...life. As, in the player character's literal birth. Then you play through the bits of your childhood, your teenage years, then suddenly you find your dad is gone and almost everyone who lived with you for 20 years in the same place is trying to kill you now.

(I need to admit, there are not much video games where you see from a baby's POV)

There are a couple of problems with this opening. First, while it's mildly interesting to play as a child, it is slow and boring. Second, if they wanted to give the feeling of childhood and teenage years, this is too short to actually achieve this. Third, it is completely detached from and antithetical to the gameplay for the most part, in more ways than one.

• While you occasionally visit vaults and closed-places, majority of the game takes in open areas, the fights that take doesn't have the feeling the rest of the game has.
• The game's primary strength is wandering around a metallic wasteland, encountering wacky stuff and truly be immersed in a postapocalyptic world. And the game is actually really good at this but you can't experience this for the first hour.
• It is designed as a tutorial area to give you a taste of the character you created but there is not much opportunity to do this, Speech checks feel irrelevant. There are no Barter checks. There are no explosives you can use. Science and Lockpicking feels irrelevant because you can get what you want without them anyway.
• The player is encouraged to play the game multiple times by the way of different character builds and different endings but opening is very counter-initiative to this, it feels like a chore you have to do before start playing the actual game.

These alone would make the opening merely tedious to play. However, it is also bad from a writing perspective. After seeing bits of your childhood, you get to the present day and informed your dad is missing. After you exist your room, you see a security officer of in front of you. He is hostile and will attack you without end. The only options are killing him or running away. You can't attempt to converse with him at all. That's right, the guy who literally watched you growing up will kill you without a second word.

(He is hit)
There is a good opportunity that is missing here, a Speech check would be really good for example. Actually showing player that there are sometimes  alternatives to violence. This would also have the benefit of making the officer feel like a human being instead of turning into yet another faceless enemy you fight.
Why would developers do this? Because this is supposed to be a mystery story. Main story is supposed to be mysterious, so you would  be curious about what happened to your dad. This is why the prologue cutscene says so little and this why everything feels so sudden and out of no where.
Of course, a mystery plot doesn't actually fit to a game that encourages player to play more than once. Furthermore, this brings back us to the second problem. The opening is too short to establish a real bond with the father character and player. There is little reason for player to feel any tension at all.
While the opening fails to capture the feel of the good parts of Fallout 3, it absolutely achieves a good demo for the main story. They are both very linear and player doesn't have much agency save for some token choices. It's actually funny that following your dad in the opening is so similar to following the Liberty Prime, a giant robot, in the main quest and makes me almost think that it was intentional.
The opening didn't have to be like this. When you leave the Vault 101, the first town you will likely encounter is Megaton. By its aesthetics and quests it contains it is a much better introduction to Fallout 3, it feels like a beginner town too. By this way, developers themselves implicitly admit the opening isn't that great.
Now, let's look at opening of Fallout: New Vegas, made by Obsidian .After you are shot, you wake up in kind Doc. Mitchell's house, in the town of Goodsprings. The brilliant piece sets in, establishing the unique mood. You build your character by answering some questions, he gives you items relevant to skills you have chosen. And there you go, after you leave his house, you are now ready for your adventure.

(when you even eat the food in a fatherly way)

Well, it needs to be said that by the world structure, Fallout: New Vegas is more linear than Fallout 3. You are encouraged to follow certain routes for a while by the way of putting high-level enemies in certain areas. So it is not that fair to say F: NV Yet even then, in a micro scale, F: NV feels so much freer than F3.
The opening fixes every problem with Fallout 3's opening. Character creation is short and friendly to replays. Even the tutorial quest feels like an actual quest and it is optional. In less than one hour, you can initiate a quest that will change the fate of the town and you affect the game world with your skills. Certain things will not be available if you don't have the right skills, the combat in the quest just feels like a regular fight. and you will be quickly introduced to the Reputation system. and the town Goodsprings itself just fits "post-post apocalyptic wild west" theme quite well.
All and all this opening is really good. I can't stress enough how it seemlessly teaches you the game, because it really doesn't feel different from rest of the game: Impacting the game world by the skills you are good at.

(not mıch to say here, just an opprtunity post cute dogs)

So, did Bethesda learn anything from F: NV, in Fallout 4? Unfortunately no, not in the opening at least. It has every problem that F3 opening had, arguably worse.
You find yourself in your suburban home, along with your happy family. Then a person comes in and says you are accepted into Vault 111 and this way, you create your character. Then, the news announce full nuclear war occurring in US, you escape into the Vault, just mere seconds after nuclear bomb hits. You and your spouse is taken to cryogenic suspension chambers and put into stasis. After a while you awaken and see your spouse murdered your child kidnapped. After that, you awaken again, but this time due to system malfunction and escape the Vault.

As you can see, once again we start with something detached from the rest of the game. Bethesda got progressively worse about this in each of their Elder Scrolls and Fallout titles. In Morrowind, you just disembark from a ship, create your character, then get a task you don't need to hurry. In Oblivion, you escape from the prison along with the king, it's fairly long but at least it's a decent tutorial and doesn't feel too detached. Then we have Fallout 3, After that, we get the disaster that is Skyrim's opening, and then finally, this... It's almost amazing in a way to watch a studio get worse at something with such consistency.
Pre-war environment has the exact same problem with childhood sequences. It's mildly interesting but a chore to replay and fails at what it is trying to do. If developers wanted us to explore the pre-war US, 10 mins before the apocalypse is way too short. Just like F3, all we can get is a mere glimpse.
Before that however, we have to face with an obvious problem. The opening clearly favors the male character:

• The prologue narration is done by the male voice, the first thing you see in the game is his face.
• The male PC is a veteran soldier, which explains how he is capable of combat but female PC is a law student graduate, which fails to explain that. This wouldn't be a great problem if player chose skills like in older games but skills are removed win Fallout 4. Now you can easily master all weapons in a short amount of time.
• If you play as female PC, your husband will be the one the carry the baby into the Vault, the baby stays in his arms when he enters the cryostasis chamber and the baby is kidnapped from his arms. While this is a unreasaonable situation, it is a little weird that the mother doesn't ever take back the baby as mothers generally keep their babies close to them. Obviously, it would be difficult to devise a situation where baby is taken from your arms and husband still dies. This is a minor point but it still signals the game is designed for male MC first.
• Trailers and advertisement material show the male MC as well. This isn't be a problem on its own but it adds to the feeling that female MC is an afterthought

Why A game that is advertised as a role-playing game limits your options to roleplay in the first five minutes. While discussion of the roleplaying in F4 is out of the scope for this article, this still leaves a sour taste if you wanted to play as a woman.
After we play several minutes of 50s nostalgia, we run to the Vault and nuclear bomb falls. The problem here is that people can't look at a nuclear explosion without going blind, they can't get away without being injured or at the very least getting poisoned heavily by radiation. This is a minor nitpick but it does create problems with the story which I won't spoil here.

(Yeah, I don't think this is very accurate...)

When you wake up and escape from your cryostasis chamber, you find your spouse dead and your child kidnapped. Again, just like F3, there is a lack of tension from the player POV, why they should feel anything for a character they had dialogue for 3 minutes. This time it's even worse because the PC is voiced, which expresses deep pain from the death of their spouse. At this point, the opening clearly signals the PC isn't really the player's character, but that's true. In reality, the PC just occasionally gains independent thought from player, creating a weird limbo where PC is not a character on it is own nor it is a character that is shaped by player.
The part where you wonder in the abandoned vault is actually decent. The atmosphere is good. The player isn't being railroaded by fake tension anymore. Just you, a few radroaches, the cold and empty vault, a few computer entries. The environmental story telling is on point. This makes me think that, if the game started right after you get out of from the cryostatis chamber it would make a much better opening. It would actually set up the mystery Bethesda wanted without wasting the player's time.

(Let it go, let it gooo)

Unfortunately when you leave the vault, it doesn't get much better. It really takes a quite a while before you reach a town and can speak with an actual character and get quests. Instead, you engage in a lot of combat inside abandoned towns. At this point, it is actually accurate for the rest of the game. It is just not very appropriate for a Fallout game, or a game that is marketed as an RPG.
I like the opening of Fallout:New Vegas the best, in terms of player-friendliness and presentation, but all three openings say a lot of about their respective games.

• Fallout 3: The opening is a completely linear and railroaded series of quests detached from the openness of the rest of the game.
• Fallout New Vegas: The opening is an open-ended questline where your choices and the character you build impact the world and the way you play.
• Fallout 4: A confused presentation and plot that ultimately exists to serve the combat and exploration.

The opening of the game is often a microcosm of the whole experience. The idea that you need to play a long amount of time or even finish a game to be able to critique it well is false. I myself held such an opinion for a long time, but no, you shouldn't have to play a game for hours just to find something enjoyable, especially in the age where you can play small games that offer you much more in the same amount of time. Respecting players time should be a fundemantal objective for all game designers.
(Source for Fallout 4 screenshots, here )

(Source for Fallout 3 screenshots: here )

(Source for Doc Mitchell screenshot: here)

(Other one is my screenshot)

his article is written thanks to my dearest Patrons and special thanks to: Acelin, Alexandra Morgan, Laura Watson and Spencer Gill.

Presenting Themes: A Comparison of Openings in 3D Fallout games

First impression matters. A game might have peaks and lows but the first hours of a game actually says a lot its design. Even its prologue, the time between you select "new game" and the first time player is able to interact with the game matters, it can be cool, it can set up a mood, it can be really powerful. In this article, we discuss how 3D Fallout games set up their themes, what they prioritize and what feelings they want to instill in the player.
Let's start with Fallout 3. I recommend watching them yourself first.







https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_xQdnyTcio
A shot of a devastated city, old-music with a heavy focus on post-apocalyptic mood and ends with a soldier full in metal, which belongs to one of the main factions in games and they were always important in isometric Fallout games too. They are easy to recognise as a part of Fallout brand.
Then narrator starts talking about how humans have always waged wars,nuclear war coming, people hiding under Vaults and you are from Vault 101 but this Vault is supposed to be never opened.
Overall we can learn that Fallout 3 sets in a post-nuclear-warfare world, the situation is cold and unforgiving. You live one of the Vaults, which won't ever open unlike others.
Now let's look at Fallout 4:







https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=We50I8fNFCE
As the game starts before the nuclear war, the game goes into detail about pre-war situation, leaning heavily in 1950s white American nostalgia. Once again, Bethesda chose to go with a mystery plot, so this opening is mostly about tone than setting up a plot or giving information.
Now, let's watch the intro of Fallout: New Vegas:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpNw4BXUHOo
It opens with a new Vegas, standing proud in middle of the wasteland. We can see Mr. House's robots, a New California Republic soldier, a gang member and Caesar's Legion soldiers. It's sets up the tone and all major players in a couple of a minute. Then, the narrator starts to talk with "War, war never changes". Notice that he mentions the nuclear war very briefly. The opening is primarily about "now", what the conflicts of this new world is and who you are as the player character. It shows us Benny, another central character to the plot. It ends with you getting shot and opening your eyes,  at where looks like a clinic.
Between the three openings, I like New Vegas's opening best. It gives the most information about the world, it establishes the mood well, it sets up a strong hook. While it is the longest of all three openings, it feels like it wastes my time less than others, because everything it tells is very relevant to player, unlike generic lines about how "people have always killed each other" or the WW2 memories of someone we don't know.
The presentation in other two openings aren't actually bad in on themselves. They just have very different concerns than Fallout:New Vegas's opening. Fallout 3 and especially Fallout 4 in particular is very concerned with making sure a person that have never played the series before gains the background from the cutscene. Both Fallout 3 and Fallout 4 have plots about disappearing family members, so they are entirely silent about the political factions in the game.
All three cutscenes signal the themes of the three stories. Fallout 3 pulls from past imagery and concerned about post-war present, Fallout: New Vegas is firmly about  post-post-war future. Fallout 4 is very interested in looking at past. They are all a microcosm of direction and writing in their respective games.
Stay tuned with next article, where we will explore how first hour of gameplay signal the direction of game design in 3D Fallout games.
his article is written thanks to my dearest Patrons and special thanks to: Acelin, Alexandra Morgan, Laura Watson and Spencer Gill.

Trails in the Emotional Connection

Growing Disconnect

A temple at the top of a hill. A light breeze, green leaves dancing gently. No voice of a living being. An old wise woman sitting in absolute silence.
Eventually, the wind stops and the woman opens her mouth:
"Should video games always have to be fun?"
An angry mob of people rushes to the hill, armed with blessed swords, runes, bottles of holy water and the burning hatred of demons. They speak of a witch who cast an unforgivable curse, summoning of an unholy monster, whose name cannot even be uttered A monster that will destroy all fun in any video game it will touch. They say, it is the smallest sibling of the demons , each possessing an unfathomable curse. The middle sibling would give Dark Souls an easy mode. And the eldest demon would force people to think about basic feminist theory in every video game.
The woman stands up and confronts the angry mob, unfazed: "I have summoned no demon. If a monster exists, it only resides inside your hearts, remember when you wished games like Fallout 4 didn't sacrifice storytelling for more combat loops. Yet you deny yourselves, dismissing anything that is not conventionally fun as bad design. Haven't you ever felt sad at a video game?"
She shakes her head: "You are spoiled brats; you want games to be full of emotions yet also demand to gameplay to be fun regardless of any context. If you don't feel what players characters feel, is it really succesful interactive storytelling? There are lots of many games with sad narratives where gameplay is designed for maximum level of fun? Does this disconnect never make you uncomfortable?"
The mob is anxious: "Cease your lamentations! The demons are hearing you. We don't want to be forced into playing tedious video games."
The woman grows impatient. "No one will force you into doing anything, you are not the only people who play games!"
The woman lifts her arms wide to sky. A vision appears in front of the angry mob, a string of letters can be seen. It is read as:
"TRAILS IN THE SKY THE 3RD"

Re-connection

Games take various approaches at the emotional disconnect. For example, the first two Call of Duty games fully acknowledge the disconnect, accept that the games don't represent the real WW2 experience and remind the player that using anti-war quotes on death screens. On the other end, there is Undertale, which responds to player action so perfectly there is almost no such disconnect.
For a lot of JRPGs, this tends to be problem due to the usual detachment between turn based battles and story. However, turn based battling actually have an advantage here, because they lack in high immediate engagement, it is actually easier to establish a certain tone to battles. Still, tthe fact that you are enjoying the battles while the world is getting destroyed usually doesn't change, often it doesn't get serious enough to felt by player on a personal level. This problem can even be encountered in Trails games, despite amazing music and good design helping to alleviate it to a certain degree. But in Trails in the Sky the 3rd, this changes a lot.
The plot of the 3rd is about being trapped an alternative plane and confronting deeply personal issues, somewhat similar to Persona 3: The Answer. This leads a story where characters clash out of sheer necessity rather than enmity. Characters usually express satisfaction and even some delight in battling, no hard feelings, no conflict aside of the one which created the whole situation in the first place. It feels just right to enjoy the battles, at least most of the time, sometimes it is even openly encouraged by the story.
However, the opposite of this also exists. Uncharacteristic to Trails games, there is a one area where I found battling actually tedious.
One of the side-stories, Star Door 6. It is about the grueling training process of Ruan delinquents; Deen, Rais and Rocco. You have no access to magic, just a set of crafts. You can only get a few items, your only option of recovery is at the beginning of the dungeon, which requires a lot of backtracking. If you play this on Nightmare difficulty, there is no option but to grind as much as you can. Enemies are able to freeze you, which you can do nothing about and boss battles involve a good level of luck. There are few tactics that can make the process easier but overall you just have to be patient, grind, force your way through and pray to Aidios that you won't get frozen or Agate won't go too hard on you.

(not my screenshot, but I definitely had similar situations)

When I was playing the section, I became somewhat bored and even got angry. There isn't even much actual plot in this side-story, it's mostly about an endurance test.... Then it dawned on me, it is indeed an endurance test. It was tedious for me, but it was tedious for the characters too. By sacrificing the immediate satisfaction, the game delivered a better video game narrative.
It needs to be said that this is likely not intentional. The devs most likely wanted to craft a different type of challenge, taking the player from their comfort zone, not to make things intentionally tedious. When strictly viewed at this perspective, this is indeed bad design. However, whether by accident or not, this ended up connecting the player and player characters emotionally, which is important for interactive storytelling. This is why, even if I am not looking forward to play this part again in the future, I started to appreciate it a whole lot more. I have enjoyed the dungeon design of Persona 3 in a similar manner.
Obviously, no one is forced into liking anything. But before dismissing everything, ask yourselves: If you find video games a good place to tell stories, isn't there more potential than just gameplay and story being presented seperatetly? Is there truly nothing wrong when gameplay and narrative trying to elicit opposite emotions from player? There are even ethical concerns; like games using real life struggles for cheap feel-good moments, Detroit: Become Human being the most recent example.

This article is written thanks to my dearest Patrons and special thanks to: Alexandra Morgan, Laura Watson and Spencer Gill.

Experimental and Streamlined Shadows: Persona 3 vs Persona 4

There are two arguments that are kind of accepted as a common wisdom when talking about P3 and P4.

1. The gameplay of these games is not relevant, and can be even considered as low points of the games, they are just "dumbed down" version of a "real" battle system, game is actually just "visual novel dating simulator".
2. Persona 4 has better gameplay, mainly because you can "control your characters".

Both points are quite wrong. And here we will look at why:
First one is a weird one. Persona games can easily take more than 60 hour of your life and most of it is spent on not "visual novel" part, but dungeons and battling. It is also so strange to think that same developers that made Shin Megami Tensei 3: Nocturne were somehow uncaring about the gameplay of games that was directly built on top of it, especially when large amount of Personae was used as a marketing point.
If you took out battling from both two games ,plot would be tiresome and wouldn't be as impactful. This is generally missed from "visual novel" argument, Persona games need  time between events sink in, battling is too central to events - both thematically and narratively , and much of the emotional impact comes from spending enough time with the characters. That's why anime adaptations had to be written very differently to be effective. The time you spend in dungeons is very important, and how two games handle that ends up creating very different experiences. Spoilers ahead.
Tower vs Hub Network

Tartarus, the singular dungeon of Persona 3 is a massive, vertical dungeon that you need to climb to the top at the end of the game. You are totally free to explore at your leasure before the end.. You are encouraged to visit there by design, such as bosses in Tartarus preparing you for the Full Moon bosses, and side-quests that demand to be completed at certain dates.
Inside Tartarus, the design is basic, but works just well enough for Persona 3. With the help of music and the low-key creepy aesthetics from stains of blood in walls to lifeless patterns in floors, it's somewhat uncomfortable place to be in. This is also supported by narrative and gameplay too, as the place is uncomfortable for characters too and they actually start to get tired if you stay too much there.
While there is a startling atmosphere, Tartarus can be surprisingly forgiving. Ambushing or dodging shadows is pretty easy, there are literal high places where shadows can't reach. While game-over state breaks the gameplay pace a little too much, it's not hard to heal. Just returning to first floor heals you completely and with fairly frequent portal areas, it's not hard to pick up where you left off.
it's not hard to climb fast if you want so either, and in fact you are encouraged to do this as well, as if you stay in one floor too much, the Reaper - a shadow which is manifested from fears of death -  starts to chase you. This furthermore adds to the uneasiness to be in Tartarus. What's better is you can beat the Reaper if you are strong enough. In this way, an enemy is both used as a gameplay mechanic and an optional boss at the same time, which player has personal reasons the fight. It is brilliant.

And the reward of beating it is an optimal dungeon, which is a hard end-game dungeon you can really grind and optimize your Personae, and you can actually reach the maximum level without much pain. This also gives you something to do in your last nights as well. This is an important function of the dungeon, because grinding makes you more than prepared for the last boss, but for me, the real reward is being able to visit Tartarus once again before the game ends. Even dungeon's look parallels the first couple of level's look, and the music that plays in the first floors plays there, it feels somewhat nostalgic after almost 100 hours.
Overall, Tartarus feels eerily, exciting, sometimes tough, sometimes like a breeze. But you are never bored or feel forced to get through. It feels fully integrated to everything else in the game - while I am not a big fan of this phrase too much - it really feels iconic.

Midnight Channel, couldn't be more different. Dungeons are all separated and have all very distinct themes, aesthetics and music, which is entirely related to the boss itself.  At the surface, this is promising: It works well, dungeons individually are more memorable than Tartarus blocks or its individual floors themselves. However, the moment-to-moment action in dungeons, and the Midnight Channel itself as a whole is much less memorable.
This is because the game can't just set up a good rhythm. Dungeons are way too large for their own good for one, which doesn't seem like a big deal in itself, but parts of dungeons are closed to you by doors, which makes you explore the entirety of dungeons in the search of keys, and checkpoints are much less forgiving as well, you have to walk entirety of the dungeon until you reach the checkpoint near the story boss.
Shadows themselves are much more annoying as well, they made ambushing dependent on correct timing instead of positioning, but hit detection is not robust enough to pull this off well. They are more aggressive, chase you for longer, and dungeons are designed so that escaping them gets much more difficult. The game is much more interested in punishing player in general; in its Arcana Card mini game and in its punishing boxes. Also your SP reserves are much more limited too and you can't heal yourself freely as you do in Persona 3. It doesn't compliment the atmosphere, it doesn't make the game more challenging, just more annoying.
It is also so strange that Midnight Channel is much more central to Persona 4 than Tartarus to Persona 3, while feeling much more disconnected to everything else at the same time. The narrative makes it clear that you have to hurry to save the next victim, especially with some of the victims, tension is really high, but it is has no gameplay feedback whatsoever. You can save the victim on the first day, or anytime until the last day, the rescued will rest until the predetermined date regardless of your choice, and you can just romance with people or casually fish near a calm lake while who knows what happens to victim. This was a corner game pushed itself to for no reason. For example, they could make you go to dungeons on only certain days, depending on weather or other events on story. Or parts of dungeons could be restricted from access fin certain days. There must had been a more elegant way to handle this than the game did.
The last dungeon is the worst. The tension is absolutely zero, it looks dull, the enemies are unnecessarily difficult, you can't even have fun grinding to your heart's content and even BGM doesn't do anything to make things a little more exciting. I don't need to feel relaxed, I want to get worked up a little, I just get tired instead.

Thinks vs Tanks

Shin Megami Tensei series really got into shape with Press-Turn battle system, and it's variation comes back in Persona 3. You can exploit the enemy's elemental weaknesses and chain your attack and even just destroy them in one swoop. With the excellent battle theme, the animations, and verbal communication between characters makes the battles really satisfying and fluid.
Boss design is pretty amazing as well. At least In Hard difficultly, Tartarus bosses really makes you think about which Personae to bring, your commands and whether use fusion spells or not. Full moon bosses are usually playful and creative, has good thematic weight behind them and their difficulty is adjusted to fact that sometimes you can't bring just anyone you want. Strega bosses are more important for narrative than anything, as such they are appropriately easy. All of them are accompanied by appropriate battle themes of course. The end-game boss  is probably one of the best bosses in history:  With Its aesthetics, the amazing musical theme, how wraps up everything in the narrative and all the game's themes: its memorable monologue; It is pure excellence.

Persona 4 has the same energetic combat at its core, you can even say it is improved. However, it is really bogged down by both dungeons and the boss design. While, normal enemy design is alright, bosses really stink. Midway dungeon bosses are simply unremarkable, the optional dungeon revisit bosses feel extra, even poor Reaper is a mere easter-egg that can be only reached in 2nd playthrough now.
I cannot ever understand that how Atlus made the bosses so dull while having just a few of them. The only boss that is any fun is Shadow Yukiko. You need to actually be clever and use the mechanics you have well. The beginning ones are alright, but they too show a problem that plagues this game.
The bosses are just hit sponges. Post-Yukiko bosses have sophisticated attack patterns, their animations are usually too long, their designs are interesting but you just end up saying "Die already!" after a while. They simply survive for too long after they have exhausted their gimmick. The last boss is the worst, even its BGM doesn't seem to care(It's not bad music, just lacks the punch), I had a mood of "Why even we are having such a long fight" It's last moments are good, but doesn't make up for all the slogging through you had.

Command vs Control

Persona 3 is an experimental game is in many aspects, alongside with its Battle Command mechanic. You don't directly control characters but select a couple of commands to influence how AI will behave. Selecting correct command even figuring out your party members' behavior patterns is a puzzle in and itself. WHICH MEANS YES MARIN KARIN MEME IS COMPLETELY PLAYER'S FAULT, YOU CAN EITHER USE 'FULL ATTACK' OR 'CONSERVE SP' TO AVOID THAT EASILY, I USED MITSURU ALL GAME HOW DO YOU EVEN ~
Ahem... You may not control characters, but command them. Except for rare instances, commands do work well, and characters behave fairly straightforward, they even talk about how they behave in battles. And this makes Persona 3 battles truly unique.

• Battle rhythm benefits from it. The other characters besides player doesn't really have a huge movepool, it really is simply "Healing", "Physical", "Magic" or "Do nothing" in 99% of the time. Automating this actually makes the game faster.
• The bosses are designed with that in mind too, the difficulty player might face is intended, you are still supposed to give them the correct commands. It seems quite unfair to me that people complain about not being able to control and expect AI do their job for them.
• Indirect control allows for more characterization. Characters put forward their personalities a little more. The very first Tartarus post is a great example. If, Yukari acted 100% correct way strategically, that boss would be nothing. The real struggle of battle is Yukari overcoming her anxiety. A surprising amount of characterization  is achieved just by the gameplay itself.
• Most importantly, it gives the protagonist and the group as a whole a lot of weight. At the beginning of the game you are given leadership, simply because you are the only one eligible. Yukari is too anxious and Junpei is too brash. However, as the group successfully climbes Tartarus and defeats Full Moon Shadows, you prove your leadership, they trust you more and you get more complicated commands. SEES members trust each other more too, you can see their camaraderie hardened by battles they go through, because other than that, they exactly don't spend time with each other that much. It's a simple but very effective harmony of mechanics and narrative.

Is it a perfect system? Obviously not. An improvement from top of my head would be separating healing and other support moves. It is a bit too difficult to make AI use its buff moves, which makes the protag. a little busier than they should be. They also could make the behavior patterns a little more clearer, there was a couple of times AI acted differently than I expected. But by no means it's a broken system, it functions well most of the time and when it does so it adds the game a lot. You don't have to like it of course, but there is a difference between critiquing something on how well it succeeded at its premise and having a personal problem with the premise itself, a difference that unfortunately gets ignored too often in the discourse of turn-based gameplay.
Persona 4 would have benefitted even more for having auto-commands, considering how slow dungeon crawling and battling can feel. It has some, but they are not well-thought out like Persona 3 commands. And this partially explains why I don't really connect to the protagonist that much. Despite being actually quite passive in main story, the game sets him up as this cool and outgoing guy, and a natural leader. He just solves anything, even though we don't actually see that ability grow in a naturalistic way. P3 protagonist was good at a lot of things too, but that felt sort of relatable instead of being absurd.
And what does "being able to control" the characters really bring? Persona 4 overall has less strategic depth than Persona 3. There is really not much to gain from increased micro-management. It's combat is already bare-bones, but it can't even be a relaxed experience because the game is too interested in punishing you. Why then, a lot of people asked developers to take away a unique flavor?
Because from Persona 3 onward, the series gained a lot of fans who don't have a categorical attraction to dungeon-crawling turn-based combat, so when anything seems complicated, they react badly and just search for easiest path possible. And the fans of usual difficulty of Shin Megami Tensei series are not already satisfied with the challenge the game offers. This is sad because Persona 3 has combat mechanics and a difficulty which creates perfect for the rhythm of the game. Its dungeon design also wonderful and achieves what it wants to do. Combat is in near perfect harmony for the narrative. It's not a "visual novel", but it's not a classic punishing JRPG either. It has found a unique delicate balance, which sadly Persona 4 could not.
Seemingly so similar on the surface, the gameplay of Persona 3 and Persona 4 results in massively different experiences. I can personally feel the difference ; I finished P3:FES three times, in one campaign I played on hard and try to complete almost everything had to offer. I finished P4 once, on Normal, but didn't want to pick it up ever again. Not because of the story mind you, I am even mildly curious about Social Links I didn't complete, but the thought of going through Midnight Channel again brings similar feels to doing homework. Even I can just play on Easy and the make the game truly trivial, the time I spend on there isn't trivial, a game feels truly awkward when I just want to get over near half of it. Yes, I am a weird person that actually cares about the gameplay of Persona 4 so much. I am that person, over-nerding all the other nerds....