Welcome to another week of GameSpotting, where the wizard needs food. Badly.

　　Do you like games? We sure do. We like them a whole lot. We like games so much that we'll happily trudge through hundreds of hours of fetch quests, random encounters, rubber-band AI, and horrible underwater levels, just for the opportunity to play something exceptional. When we're not playing games, we're thinking about them, talking about them, and writing about them, and GameSpotting is where we get personal about them. So jump on in and enjoy our semicoherent diatribes about beat-'em-ups, the Game Boy Advance, Q1 2004, and how saving the world is stupid. Do you like what you see and want to help the cause? Pitch in with your own GuestSpotting column, or just start a discussion about how smart/good-looking we are in the forums.

　　Saving the World Is a Weak Goal

　　Jeff Gerstmann/Senior Editor

　　"Why are so many games bent on putting the world in danger? Well, it's certainly an easy button to push."

　　See You Next Year

　　Andrew Park/Senior Editor

　　"This was supposed to be the year that PC games made an incredible comeback."

　　I'd Rather Be Using My GBA

　　Greg Kasavin/Executive Editor

　　"These days, I somehow find myself particularly drawn to my GBA. My three GBAs."

　　An Open Letter to Abobo

　　Tyler Winegarner/Associate Producer, GameSpot Live

　　"This business of making newfangled brawlers, complete with levels that last more than 20 minutes, with the same environment and the same disposable enemies, gets stale quickly."

　　Evolving

　　Ricardo Torres/Senior Associate Editor

　　"I feel like original ideas are tougher sells, especially if you're a developer known for a certain type of game."

　　GameSpot OWNS U!

　　Ryan Mac Donald/Executive Producer

　　"I was a little nervous, since the opposing team had Dave Geffon, who, as I was told, is considered one of the best CS players in the world."

　　RPG Shortcomings/RPG Renaissance

　　Casey Wills/GuestSpotter

　　"Unlike most games, there is almost no skill required in RPGs--no hand-eye coordination, no button-timing. So then, why do we play RPGs?"

　　Where Gamers Go to Mouth Off

　　Number One Donkey Kong Jr. Math Fan/GuestSpotter

　　Anyone can hop on a forum and declare Donkey Kong Jr. Math the greatest game ever conceived, but it takes strong writing chops to make people want to read such an insane diatribe. If you think you have what it takes, read our GuestSpotting FAQ, and submit your own column for possible publication in this glorious feature.

　　Saving the World Is a Weak Goal

　　You know, as game players, we're a pretty heroic bunch. Think about it. How many times have you saved the world this year alone? I don't know about you, but I'm tired of saving the world.

　　It seems like every game these days follows the same progression: You start out on a nice, small, contained quest. But once you've solved that small problem, it twists and spirals out of control. Oh no! What we thought was just a small, localized problem is actually a lot deeper! Armageddon cometh! We're doomed, unless I can take this sword/gun/wrench/whatever I've got strapped to my back and use it to beat the crap out of everyone involved--then, and only then, will the world be a safe place for me and my posse. Sound familiar? I think that's been the rough outline for, like, every single Final Fantasy game ever made, right? Not to mention recent releases like Wind Waker, Ratchet & Clank 2, and tons of other games, new and old.

　　Here's a brief excerpt from a conversation I just had with Ryan "Rage" Davis:

　　Me: Quick, give me a list of recent games you've played that force you to save the world, but only after making you think you're on a much smaller quest.

　　Him: Um...all of them.

　　Me: Exactly!

　　If that isn't conclusive proof of this issue, then I don't know what is.

　　I'm not sure, but I think this translates to 'Wanna go save the stupid world with me?'

　　Why are so many games bent on putting the world in danger? Well, it's certainly an easy button to push. The concept of everyone in the entire game dying is, usually, enough to at least make you understand why you're getting involved in the first place. But more often than not, it's just a cheap way to add a climax to a game. All the writer has to do is create a "bad guy behind the bad guy," who's been pulling the strings all along and, of course, intends to blow up the entire planet/galaxy/universe with some sort of evil plot. This even has the added bonus of giving you a boss fight...then another, real boss fight against the true evil one, if the game is the sort of game that takes great pleasure in throwing bosses at you.

　　So I guess my question is: Do game stories actually matter? We've been getting by for years on substandard game stories, and there doesn't appear to be any end in sight. Right now, I'd say that this isn't really that big of a deal. Most of us are playing games because of how they play, not because of the story they tell. We've been dealing with dull twists and contrived narratives for years without much trouble. But as this industry attempts to grow bigger and bigger, it's going to run into a mainstream audience that isn't so willing to shuffle through yet another cookie-cutter story. Even the ones that don't directly deal with the impending end of the world aren't particularly well done when compared to other mediums.

　　Games are really starting to get better about including better dialogue, and game scripts appear to be getting better, as well. Because of this, I'm hopeful. Someone, someday, is going to wake up and realize that the game they're working on deserves more than just another "world on the brink of disaster" job, and they're going to do something about it. The only question is when.

　　See You Next Year

　　This was supposed to be the year that PC games made an incredible comeback. The console market has gained tremendous momentum in the past three years, but the general lack of high-profile console games in great quantities, along with some very highly anticipated PC game releases this year, was supposed to turn the tide. While there were some standout games released this year, many of the most promising games have been pushed back to next year. It's disappointing, but hopefully the developers are using this time to add further polish and make sure that these games run smoothly and have a lot to offer once they're done.

　　News flash! This game isn't coming out this year. Film at 11.

　　Looking ahead at next year, we see the most obvious, and probably the most highly anticipated, PC game this year: Half-Life 2. As everyone knows by now, the game was originally announced for a September 30, 2003, release by developer Valve Software, but the game was later announced as delayed, then Valve was subsequently attacked by hackers. As a result of the attack, part of Half-Life 2's code base was stolen, so in addition to finishing the game, Valve needs to essentially rewrite the stolen code so that it can't be used by hackers for other purposes in the final game. The last release date we had heard was April 2004, but the developer still seems to be working on damage control, so that date is clearly subject to change.

　　The next obvious game is Doom 3, which has looked good each time I've seen it and seemed to run well enough in an unoptimized multiplayer test, as well as in an impressive single-player demonstration. Doom 3 has been delayed several times, and every time he's publicly spoken about the game in the past six months or so, id Software president Todd Hollenshead has stated that Doom 3 will be done "when it's done," though the company is targeting a 2004 release. From what I've seen, id is done with the engine and has a clear sense of what the game is supposed to be--it seems quite far along and should make it out for the PC next year.

　　You wouldn't think that Chernobyl would be a place you'd want to visit.

　　Another PC game I'm looking forward to is S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Oblivion Lost, a very promising and very intriguing game based on a Russian horror movie and a Russian horror novel and inspired by the real-world reactor meltdown at Chernobyl in 1986. S.T.A.L.K.E.R. has looked better each time I've seen it, and if nothing else, the game's X-ray engine seems extremely sound; as the ECTS demonstration showed, it provides for rag-doll death animations, explosion shockwaves, and full vehicle modeling. Its environments are rendered with incredible detail, reportedly with the help of more than 1,000 photos shot at ground zero by the development team. We've seen extremely brief demonstrations of the game in action from its first-person perspective, and there's a good chance that S.T.A.L.K.E.R. will make it out in 2004.

　　I think this image more or less speaks for itself.

　　And though I'm looking forward to a whole bunch of other games, I'd say that along with these three, I'm also most looking forward to Battlefield Vietnam--not just because I really enjoy Battlefield 1942, but also because of the new vehicle radio system that will let you kick off a strafing run in a Huey helicopter by blasting Creedence Clearwater or, if you're an Apocalypse Now fan, "Ride of the Valkyries." As we've most recently seen, the new game will also include various graphical improvements like normal-mapped character skins and more-visible ammo and health cabinets, as well as jungle cover for on-foot operations, but I imagine I'll be wasting plenty of time just riding around and blasting music, even if it does make me a sitting duck. Battlefield Vietnam is scheduled for release in early 2004, and it's looked very far along each time I've seen it--the game will almost certainly make its release in that time frame.

　　These four are probably the PC games I'm most looking forward to for next year, but fortunately for all of us, there are plenty of very promising PC games in addition to these on the horizon--and most, if not all, of them should make it out by the end of that year.

　　I'd Rather Be Using My GBA

　　The Game Boy Advance is rapidly solidifying its position as one of my all-time favorite game systems, right up there with the NeoGeo and the Super Nintendo Entertainment System. As I frequently switch between playing games on all the other major platforms these days, I somehow find myself particularly drawn to my GBA. My three GBAs.

　　I hate to be the third wheel, but I'm going to come along for this ride.

　　OK, it's possible I'm a little obsessed, but it's really not that bad. I bought the original Game Boy Advance as soon as it came out. I seemed to be one of the few people who actually didn't mind the lack of a backlit screen--the 20 hours of battery life more than made up for that--but as soon as the Game Boy Advance SP was announced, I knew I had to have one. In fact, I got two, for reasons that aren't easy to explain, and the silver one I keep at home, and the cobalt one I keep at work. And the only reason I haven't yet picked up one of those new red ones or black ones is...I can't decide which of the two I'd rather have. Maybe I should get both?

　　I admit that it's positively ridiculous that I don't take advantage of the portable aspect of the Game Boy Advance. You should see me heading home at night lugging an Xbox, PlayStation 2, and GameCube, along with a bag filled with video-capturing equipment. Meanwhile, the GBA stays put. I wouldn't want to scratch it.

　　Recently I found myself amazed by something, which then made me feel stupid: I don't need to carry my GBA around as long as I carry the game cartridges around and have access to another GBA at wherever it is I'm headed. It's been so long since I've played any other game system featuring a save system embedded in the game, as opposed to the game system or an external memory card, that I'd completely forgotten how convenient this was. Think about it--there's just something highly intuitive about having your saved-game data tied to each individual game, rather than to some mislabeled memory card buried in your shelf somewhere.

　　You have no idea how much I love Double Dragon.

　　But obviously, the main reason I love my GBAs is for the collection of games I've amassed for them. On the one hand, the Game Boy Advance has a huge number of junk titles available for it. Head to your local game store and scan the GBA section, and you'll see a cavalcade of crap--games that are overpriced and watered down. On the other hand, if you're like me, you have ways of easily singling out the good from the bad. In fact, my ever-growing GBA library doesn't have a single bad game in it.

　　The GBA is like a refuge for various genres of gaming that are still by all means great but that are no longer popular and are therefore nearing extinction. Just throw in PC-style flight simulations (heck, there's already a GBA version of Wing Commander Prophecy), wargames, and traditional point-and-click adventure games, and the collection will be complete. Already, though, you've got arcade-style beat-'em-ups, including Final Fight One and the great, new Double Dragon Advance; there's even a version of Golden Axe as part of the Sega Smash Pack, though it's not as good as it should have been. You've got 16-bit-era role-playing games, such as the excellent Golden Sun series and the terrific, new Fire Emblem. You've got strategy RPGs, including Final Fantasy Tactics Advance, last year's Tactics Ogre: The Knight of Lodis (which was one of my favorite games of 2002), and now Onimusha Tactics. You've got turn-based strategy games, namely the incomparable Advance Wars series. You've got classic platformers in the Super Mario Advance games. You've got arcade-style racing games, side-scrolling action adventure games, shooters, fighting games, and more.

　　Onimusha Tactics combines ninjas, samurai, flintlock rifles, zombies, demons, and turn-based strategy. If that doesn't sound like the greatest game of all time, I don't know what does.

　　Sign me up. That's a much better variety of games than any other current gaming platform has to offer. Here's the other thing: GBA games can't usually get by on their fancy graphics. Nor do developers of GBA games feel the pressure to spend all their time and resources putting together those fancy graphics and 3D engines. Instead, they get to concentrate on the gameplay.

　　Now there's a thought. I'm by no means one of those cynics who think that games these days are all style and no substance; but many games do fit that description, and most games are short. Meanwhile, on the GBA, you've got these epic-sized games like Tactics Ogre and Fire Emblem, which are not only wonderful to have on the go, but are just flat-out great to play. There's no bad voice acting or poorly edited cutscenes to dampen the storyline--like in the good old days, you have to use your imagination a little to fill in some of the blanks, and you're left with some really memorable, personal gaming experiences when all is said and done.

　　When I was a kid, I used to have a fear of flying. Some of it is still there--when there's turbulence on a flight, I instinctively clutch at my armrests, my tray table, whatever. But, in the past couple of years, my fear of flying has all but completely vanished thanks to my GBA. I don't travel very often anymore, but when I do, my GBA keeps me in good company from start to finish, and, to be perfectly honest, the flights to and fro end up being some of the highlights of my trip. Those are the times when I have no reason not to just hunker down with my favorite GBA games for hours.

　　This holiday season means I get to spend even more time than usual playing different games. Once I'm through with most of the new releases, though, you'd best believe I'll be shutting off the monitor and the television and getting cozy with a freshly charged GBA and a copy of Fire Emblem.

　　An Open Letter to Abobo

　　Dear Abobo,

　　I know it's been a long time since we last spoke, and our last words to each other weren't particularly kind--I think we both said things that we regret, but I don't really want to bring that up. It's in the past, and that's where it belongs. I won't try to say that it's been particularly easy getting on without you, but I don't doubt for even a moment that we made the right choice, separating. Sometimes things just have to end, you have to move on, and it's sad, but you just appreciate the time you had together, learn what you can from it, and move on. Let the past die, and grow to accept newer and greater things.

　　At least, that's what I'm talking about when it comes to brawlers. Don't get me wrong, some of my fondest memories from gaming in my teens and younger are of being in front of games like Golden Axe, Double Dragon, Streets of Rage, and Final Fight, as well as pumping quarters into machines like The Simpsons, X-Men Arcade, and so many others. So much was great about them--the lightly technical combat, the magnificently stupid AI, the collection of turkeys or sandwiches picked up off the street to regain health, and the satisfaction of trouncing a foe easily twice your size and three times your weight.

　　I love this game but I don't think I ever want to see its likes again...

　　But let's all face it together--these games are things of the past, and dressing them up to bring them out in the present doesn't really make them any better. The core design of the gameplay is ultimately flawed for modern gaming. Players want long games, plain and simple. They want a game that will be challenging without being punishing and that won't force you to replay the same segment over and over and over again to get it just right so you have enough health to spare when you fight the boss. They want gameplay that doesn't get stale after an hour or two of playing.

　　...OK, maybe like this...

　　Yet game designers these days seem to be making a big push to bring brawlers back to the forefront. I think it's great that Atlus is bringing both Double Dragon and River City Ransom to the Game Boy Advance, but this business of making newfangled brawlers from the ground up, complete with levels that last more than 20 minutes, with the same environment and the same disposable enemies, gets stale quickly. Moreover, far too often the only reward for playing through the level is to increase your character's abilities through an experience system, which doesn't seem like an appropriate way to pad these games out.

　　...but not like this.

　　So, Abobo, that's pretty much all I had to say. I hope it didn't come across sounding like "I don't want your kind around here anymore," but I just think it's time that you moved on. You, as a character, are capable of so much more than what you're doing--you just have to be willing to leave the past behind and move on. Perhaps a tactical role-playing game might suit you?

　　Evolving

　　Now that the current generation of consoles is well under way, it's really interesting to see the games that have been coming from the established game creators. Like most artists trying to hone their craft while making a living, some creators have continued to challenge themselves and their audience, while others have taken the easy way out and played it safe. I'm not going to point fingers at who's playing it safe, because we can tell who's coasting. What I would like to do is elaborate on something I mentioned in my recent preview of Beyond Good & Evil. I said that the game was a step in Michel Ancel's maturation as a developer, which I think is something we don't see enough of. By and large, the industry tends to favor repetition and imitation. Have a look at all the sequels hitting this season if you're doubtful. The growing masses of gamers tend to favor familiar things. Don't get me wrong--I'm not bagging on sequels. I love them as much as anyone, but I feel like original ideas are tougher sells, especially if you're a developer known for a certain type of game.

　　Isn't this little guy a cute way to kick-start a career?

　　Being pigeonholed is hardly a new thing. Once you've struck gold with a game you'd be a fool not to think, "Hey let's stick to what works!" While such thinking may be good short-term business sense, it ultimately hurts the creativity in the industry and sends a disappointing message. At the end of the day the only way the medium is going to grow is if developers challenge themselves. And I don't mean from a technical standpoint. While technology is a big part of growing in this industry, I don't see any massive revolutions happening for a bit on that end of things for a while. The leap to 3D offers developers plenty of unique ways to challenge themselves--if they're up for it. The key to growth now really lies in developers with a vision who can show that it's possible to try something different. This all brings me back to Ancel, a man who could have probably spent the rest of his career coasting on variations of Rayman 2. However, rather than stick with something safe, he chose to try something different. Beyond Good & Evil is a weird hybrid of a lot of different gameplay elements seen in platformers and action adventure games. While some are obviously inspired by Ancel's work on Rayman, others are very different--borrowing a page from games such as Ubisoft's own Splinter Cell and Metal Gear Solid. One of the most intriguing elements is BG&E's story, which deals with some pretty weighty themes for a video game. The game actually has something to say about the nature of the media and, in its own way, encourages critical thinking, which is pretty cool. The message, and the way it's delivered, may not be everyone's cup of tea, but it's not something you see every day, and it's certainly not something you'd expect from someone with Ancel's track record, which is probably why I've been so impressed by it. Developers can often fall back on an established bag of technical and design tricks when they're coasting. It's a lot harder to walk away from everything you're comfortable with and do something different.

　　This is a far cry from Rayman, which is a good thing.

　　Sadly, the growth of the industry has made it far more difficult for anyone to take a chance. Developers are understandably freaked at the prospect of devoting cash and time to creating a title that may not have mass appeal. Meanwhile, consumers just want to make sure they get their money's worth. The combination of the two doesn't exactly say, "Do whatever you want, it'll be fine!" to a game designer. Even so, I think it's something that has to keep happening. Without the visionaries who try something different and inspire imitation or refinement of their work, games are going to get real boring. Who wants that?

　　GameSpot OWNS U!

　　I must admit, I really love competitive game tournaments. I've always been competitive in just about everything. I guess that's why I'm such a big fan of online gaming. Over the years, I've been in a lot of tournaments, ranging from home run derbies to a full-blown team-based single-elimination tournament of Bomberman '93. I actually helped win both of those, though I've had my defeats too, like when I lost to Greg Kasavin at a Tekken 2 tournament or when Jeff beat me in an NFL Blitz tournament.

　　When it comes to this job, I've always thought it somewhat important to be the very best at what I do. The way I see it, if I were on the receiving end of this equation, I'd want advice from an expert in the field, someone who had proven prowess--though, at the same time, I wouldn't want advice from a braggart. In any event, we here at GameSpot do actually win our fair share of competitive press tournaments, and I wanted to tell you all about a recent tournament I was lucky enough to take part in for Counter-Strike on the Xbox. The tournament was a fairly quick showdown between two teams on the Dust 2 map. I was a little nervous, since the opposing team had Dave Geffon, who, as I was told, is considered one of the best CS players in the world. But I felt confident, since I had John Jensen, who may be better known as the "rizzuh" from CS-Nation, on my team.

　　Video

　　Check out this video clip from the tournament.

　　As I've been prone to mention to just about anyone who will listen, I am a huge Counter-Strike fan, and for a long time I've wanted to take my CS game to the next level and compete for cash in the CPL. So, like for any armchair quarterback, this little tourney was a huge deal for me. It was simultaneously one of the most laid-back and one of the most nerve-racking little tourneys I've been a part of. Everyone was low-key and cool beforehand, but once we got into the match, the excitement started to rise. The team that reached 13 wins first would be the team to go home as champions. Luckily for me, my team had some skill with an Xbox controller, and we managed to get an early lead as counterterrorists. Once we reached the halfway point, we switched sides and commandingly sealed the deal as terrorists. It was a fun tournament and was probably the most official form of Counter-Strike competition I've ever been a part of. My teammates and I communicated well, and we had some sound strategies. Perhaps we can all get together and take people out on Xbox Live when the game ships. There is even talk that Microsoft is trying to get a CS Xbox league started with the Cyberathlete Professional League, which could mean that the best of the best will actually play for money, just like the PC players.

　　This man really gets paid to play games for money.

　　On a completely different topic, why am I finding The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King so hard, even on the normal difficulty setting? I feel like it shouldn't be, as though my years of action gaming experience should be enough to overcome the marauding Uruk-hai. I mean, I was battling my way through the similarly themed Gauntlet and Golden Axe back when The Lord of the Rings was still just a book! In all seriousness, I was surprised by the challenge offered in some of the levels in Return of the King. I was especially interested in the game's online co-op mode, which I figured would be an easier way to get through the levels I was having trouble with. But much to my surprise, every single person I connected with was 10 times worse at the game than I was. I think many of the people I hooked up with online just wanted to see what it was like and ran into trouble immediately. I did manage to connect with a couple of people who at least had some experience online, but they were struggling as well. I ended up pulling through it by myself, and so far I've made it as far as I can with Gandalf. I'm a fan of the films, and seeing the footage from the final chapter a little bit early has been a big treat.

　　And that's what's happening in my world this week. I hope you're all well and don't get the wicked flu that's going around. Until next time, shoot straight and take your vitamin C!

　　RPG Shortcomings/RPG Renaissance

　　The RPG is the most peculiar genre of games, simply because it carries the least amount of actual game attributes. Unlike most games, there is almost no skill required in RPGs--no hand-eye coordination, no button-timing. So then, why do we play RPGs? Do we want to be entertained with clever dialogue and an interesting story? Do we want to test our intelligence with strategic challenges? Do we want a warm fuzzy feeling of accomplishment after solving a creative puzzle? Oftentimes a critic will refer to one of these reasons to explain why an RPG is either good or bad, but these really are not the reasons why we play RPGs. In each of these categories (story, strategy, and puzzles) RPGs are inferior to other alternatives.

　　Story

　　For a good story, you are usually better off reading a book or watching a movie. Some RPGs have great storylines, but few can compete with the best that the silver screen has to offer, and most RPGs are downright tedious and redundant compared to film. You may say "But RPGs are longer and have more depth than films!" Well, if depth of story is important to you, then why not pick up a good book? The only advantage the RPG has in terms of story is the illusion of player participation. You feel as though somehow your decisions are making a difference and in some meaningful way affecting the storyline. This can actually be true in a good RPG, but this is rare. Normally, there is only one ending to an RPG, and your decisions only affect how long it takes you to reach that ending.

　　Strategy

　　If strategy is your highest concern, then you are better off playing a strategy game, not an RPG. If you want an intense half hour of strategic combat, any number of current real-time strategy games will deliver a better fix. If you prefer a slower pace to your gaming, give turn-based strategy a try with games like Civilization III, Korsun Pocket, or Galactic Civilizations. If you like tactical combat you can play Commandos or Laser Squad Nemesis. The problem with the strategic decisions required in most RPGs is that they are made blindly. For example, your character must decide whether or not to specialize in swords or axes, but there is just no way of knowing at the outset of the game which skill set will be more effective, fun, or compatible with your play style. Perhaps a very powerful sword will be found later on in the game, but how are you to know? Perhaps your character is better suited to axes, but how are you to know? Only after you have played through the entire game can you truly understand the ramifications of all your decisions. Only when the game is over are you prepared to play it from a strategic perspective. Picking swords or axes is not strategy; it's gambling. If you want to gamble, the best games for you are seven stud or Texas Hold 'Em.

　　Puzzles

　　Adventure games usually have a good storyline, but for the most part they focus on puzzles. Games like Myst, The Longest Journey, and Grim Fandango offer numerous challenging puzzles within a narrative structure, much like an RPG. In fact, they are very similar genres, since neither involves much twitch gameplay. If you added some statistics-based combat to Grim Fandango and the "leveling-up" inherent in those sorts of combat systems, then you would essentially have an RPG. But by leaving out that element, the game designers had more time to spend on creating devious and clever puzzles, which no RPG can compete with. Creative puzzles are usually the worst feature of the standard RPG. Fetch quests and key quests have become pathetically ubiquitous. If I want to fetch and deliver, I can do chores for my family, and I bet they'd appreciate it more than the generic citizens of Morrowind.

　　I don't think it's hard to see that, as a genre, RPGs are inferior to other kinds of games in several identifiable ways. But I'm not suggesting that you should abandon RPGs. I, for one, certainly won't. What draws me back to RPGs over and over again is the sense of power and accomplishment that comes from seeing your puny character grow from a weakling into an ass-kicking machine. The sheer joy of building up a character is something any RPG player can relate to. Character building is the bread and butter of the RPG, and game developers know it. It is the driving force behind all the current MMORPGs, and for a good reason--it can become quite addictive. It's really not too surprising that one MMORPG is commonly known as EverCrack.

　　With the biggest strength of the RPG genre identified and isolated, some game developers are refining the genre and stripping away the garbage. The best examples of RPG improvements are seen in Freedom Force and Star Wars: KOTOR. In both of these games, if one of your party members reaches zero health, he is just knocked out of the fight, not killed outright. This unrealistic but wonderful improvement results in better gameplay, because now the battles are more evenly matched, and you can keep fighting, even if you are down to just one man, instead of reloading every time the weakest member of your party gets killed. In most RPGs, a character that is lost in a battle is lost for good, and so reloading can be painful, frequent, and frustrating. No one likes reloading--it's an admission of failure, which, even if it's just subconsciously, is a little embarrassing. Another huge improvement that these two games offer is the universal leveling-up of all NPCs in the game, not just the active party members. While this is also very unrealistic (how can characters earn experience while sitting on their ass?), it is essential to creating enjoyable gameplay. It gives you the flexibility to use certain characters and then switch them in and out as it suits you, without worrying about crippling another character's development. You no longer have to decide at the beginning of the game which characters are right for you. It's also fun allocating skill points to an NPC, even if you will rarely use that character.

　　While numerous improvements are taking place in the RPG genre, the greatest RPG renaissance is occurring in other game genres that are starting to include RPG elements in their game structure. These "hybrid RPGs" have much promise. For example, some first-person shooters are starting to incorporate upgradable skills and character classes, like System Shock 2 and Deus Ex. These hybrid shooters have all the intensity of a classic FPS and also the depth of character creation usually only in an RPG. Many tactical strategy games, like Jagged Alliance 2, have also incorporated character building. Even some sports titles, like Madden 2004, have a skill point allocation system allowing players to upgrade their favorite athletes. Hybrid RPGs are popping up everywhere. Game developers are starting to realize that almost every game can include and would benefit from RPG elements. Maybe Grand Theft Auto IV will give you the choice between improving your outlaw's shooting skills or his driving skills. It's just a matter of time.