I think a take is best served cold, so I'm ready to talk about JRPG design now. I see you already reaching for the door. Leaving so soon? It seems you've forgotten about the revolver concealed in my purse. Why don't you have a seat, and let's discuss this in a civilized manner.

Oh yes, I more than agree that guy what's-his-name had a terrible take. I'm sure the two of us could while away the hours naming JRPGs with sophisticated, strategic combat systems without resorting to timing minigames or real-time action, that meet the arbitrary yardstick some guy posting on a dead website made up. Games like Etrian Odyssey, Etrian Odyssey II, Etrian Odyssey III, Etrian Odyssey Nexus...but listen to me go on. You already know how I feel about Etrian Odyssey, just as you already know how I feel about game design (it's not real) and the player (always wrong).

But that's where the trouble starts. Some of my favorite games meet the western AAA consensus of what "good" "game" "design" is. But what about the rest of my favorite JRPGs? What about the rest of YOUR favorite JRPGs? Go down that list, please, and if there's even one Final Fantasy there, one Xenogears, one Valkyrie Profile or Vagrant Story or what have you, you'll find a game beloved to you with a combat system that you'd be hard pressed to say meets any definition of "good" "game" "design" as defined by what was it, "sequencing power growth and resource management"? Those sure are words that sound like they're supposed to mean something, but if I wanted game design like that I'd play some ex-Blizzard dev's roguelike deckbuilder.

I have a simple question for you, detective. Is this definition of "good" "game" "design" actually good? Are these the most important qualities for a JRPG to have? Are there other goals, agendas, and artistic pursuits that might also be important to these games? Do they not count as game design? You think an addiction loop you've played a million times before is "interesting" game design? Why do numbers always have to be "strategic"? Why can't systems design be about VIBES, for chrissakes?!

Sorry darling, that wasn't one question, and none of them were simple. Too bad I'm the one with the revolver. So here's one last question: If the take is bad, why use its measurement?

I understand why, of course; one can't help but look at the many, many past and present examples of excellent JRPG game design and feel so insulted by their dismissal you want to prove how excellent they are. But that's not enough for me. I want to burn away the very idea that JRPGs need to fit this definition of "good" "game" "design" at all. The reason why many JRPGs have not found a 'solution' to this 'problem' is because for many games it is absolutely not a problem and there is no need to solve it.

You can play a JRPG for the story, or the vibes, or the incoherent systems design, and you can MAKE a JRPG for those reasons alone. Is it not proper to consider the game design to serve the story, rather than the other way around? Whether flawed and experimental or successful and intentional, is it not more important for the systems to feel right, for them to express that story, than for the game to succeed at this very narrow definition of what makes a game "good". Why should that be anyone's highest priority as a developer in any genre, for that matter?

JRPGs are structured to move the story forward, as stories generally do. They contain a structure for exploring a world, and they use numbers to signify how their characters grow and change over the course of that story. The original Dragon Quest was made with an emphasis on that sense of progression and growth, and if the numbers and systems and math of that game were created to support anything, it is that journey. The illusion of the story is more important that the illusion of the combat's meaningfulness; the combat already has meaning because the characters and their growth and their story have meaning. The bad take we're discussing has fundamentally misunderstood the cause and effect, what's fundamental to the genre and what's peripheral. Numbers are there for storytelling first.

It would be enough if JRPGs were, like Visual Novels, simply an excellent and accessible vehicle for storytelling. But I also love them because they're one of the most innovative and experimental genres, full of ideas that are interesting even when they don't work (sometimes because they don't work). After all, a JRPG is nothing but a Visual Novel that uses numbers alongside art, sound, and writing. Math is another storytelling tool, and I'm attached to the genre because so often it was bold and experimental and prioritized creativity and expression with their systems regardless of ultimate success. If the genre didn't have such a strong, simple foundation that's easy to replicate, none of this innovation or experimentation would be possible. It's also perfectly valid to duplicate the most boring version of JRPG combat and spend one's limited time and budget on something else. Games like OFF or Wadanohara wouldn't exist if this wasn't an option.

Today, the availability and accessibility of RPGmaker engines allows for more niche and experimental games than ever before. JRPG design supports going in ANY direction, even if that direction means ignoring combat systems design entirely. Could we really see such bold and strange and wonderful games as we do, including games with 'good' or 'better' game design, if all they cared about was 'finding the fun' like some guy on the internet who's watched a couple of GDC lectures thinks we should? Dethrone gameplay. Let someone else be queen for a change.

Perhaps you now understand me a little bit better. Why I've become such a bitter old woman when I hear you talking about "good' "game" "design". Why I've come to despise it for representing a single way to be good that artists are expected to prioritize above all else. I want to have fun too, you know. But there are things in this world more important than fun and I want them so much more.

There's my ride. This was a fun little chat, wasn't it? Maybe we'll see each other again. I don't hate good games, you know. But 'good' could never make my heart beat like this.