1.29.2000» There have been a lot of letters lately about the over-abundance of apocalyptic RPGs: it seems that in almost every RPG nowadays, you end up saving the world.

The most recent well-known RPG of this type was the million-plus selling Final Fantasy VIII. One person complained on RPGamer's letter column that the game would have been much better if it had just been about two nations at war, rather than having to end up saving the world.

I happen to disagree with this stance in general, and so do many of my RPG-playing friends. The reason is very simple:

I think a non-apocalyptic RPG might have the effect of leaving the player feeling like there was something unfinished if they didn't save the world.

Maybe what people are really tired of is not saving the world, but solving all the worlds problems at the same time. Why do we not only kill whoever it is threatening the world, but seem to cure every disease, help every poor person, answer every question, and basically make the game world a utopia. Did all the worlds problems disappear with the defeat of Germany and Japan in World War 2? No, we still had a lot of problems that we had to deal with.

Anyhow, it all goes back to being bad-ass. Most people aren't bad-ass in real life -- most of us (myself included) are fairly average. We don't regularly pilot giant mechs, walk into a hostile fortress armed only with a pistol, or take on enemy helicopters with AK47's.

If we did, we probably would play games about going to get some milk at the corner market, because games are an escape from reality, not just a simulation of it. We all want to play the hero, to get fame, fortune, and companionship, and RPGs provide some sembalance of it.