Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

A lot of games come from both sides, Americans and Japanese. Which side do you think makes the better games?

Depends on Genre and the Audience.

I'm rather fond of american gaming.. they take more risks and always push the limits of the available tech

japanese just like to beat stuff down til its old stank and tired

Honestly? My main stain is Fightin' Games. Cuz of that, I enjoy Japanese games more. But cuz I'm American I'm gonna ride for my star spangled brothers.

America! PHUCK YEAH!!!

Originally posted by SaTsuJiN
I'm rather fond of american gaming.. they take more risks and always push the limits of the available tech

japanese just like to beat stuff down til its old stank and tired

I think Japan has American developers beat when it comes to who pushes the technology to it's limits. Actually, that might be an understatement.

I personally, don't care. As long as the game is fun and in English i'm all good. I do like how Japan actually incorporates it's culture and beliefs into their games. The only problem i have Japanese games is that their games never make ay sense. Maybe, i'm saying that wrong. Most Japanese games are fooking insane, mind-warping stories. I like consistency and coherence in my story lines.

You kidding me?

American, or European developers easily push the technology to its limit than Japanese.

Japanese gaming has hit a rut. Outside of Nintendo, and Capcom, who are starting to become more of an American developer anyways the majority of games coming out of Japan seem to be the same thing.

When Square is starting to use the Unreal engine for some of its game, it shows that American's are pushing the limits. Considering some of the best graphics are coming out of Europe and America also shows how those developers are pushing engines.

Originally posted by Smasandian
You kidding me?

American, or European developers easily push the technology to its limit than Japanese.

Japanese gaming has hit a rut. Outside of Nintendo, and Capcom, who are starting to become more of an American developer anyways the majority of games coming out of Japan seem to be the same thing.

When Square is starting to use the Unreal engine for some of its game, it shows that American's are pushing the limits. Considering some of the best graphics are coming out of Europe and America also shows how those developers are pushing engines.

QFT.

Most of the enjoyable games i played were anything but american.

I guess it all depends. But probably ****ING AMERICA BABY!


But being the Otaku nerd that I am, I crave to play imported japanese games. I wish that shit came over here. They have all the fun anime games.

I'm going to go with "depends on the genre".

My favorite game genre would be RPGs. Of those, I vastly prefer turn-based RPGs. Those are mostly Japanese-made. I tend to get extremely bored/put off by Western-made RPGs.



Are American games really any different, though? How is "generic shooter after generic shooter" any different?

As of now I think American/European companies have beat out Japanese when it comes to sheer quality and innovation by a pretty significant margin. The only ones that the Japanese still hold a commanding grip on is fighting and maybe plaformers.

Even RPG's, Japan's long standing trademarked genre is being taken over by Americans and Europeans, using new and innovative ways to enhance the genre and move it forward (look no further than Fallout 3 or Fable II, both having infinite more new ideas than any Japanese RPG since FFX).

Think of the best games of the last few years - Bioshock, Fallout 3, The Orange Box, Left 4 Dead, Call of Duty 4, Gears of War, World of Warcraft, Guild Wars, Company of Heroes. All western games.

It's also of course going to depend on who you ask and where they live.

Originally posted by BackFire
Think of the best games of the last few years - Bioshock, Fallout 3, The Orange Box, Left 4 Dead, Call of Duty 4, Gears of War, World of Warcraft, Guild Wars, Company of Heroes. All western games.

Well you totally ignored the Wii games, Super Mario Galaxy and Twilight Princess, both Japanese and great.

that's two and neither of those games were considered "ground breaking" or even slightly innovative to my knowledge

Two games.

Western games are ultimately of greater innovative creativity, quality, and are just plain better.

Even the RPG market is being Western dominated now. Mass Effect, Fallout 3, Fable 2, etc., Western RPGs that have done things JRPGs have not.

Japan does still have the Fighting Game market however.

But look at the games Backfire posted, those are pretty much among the best games out lately(along with Mass Effect of course ), all western.

Originally posted by Morridini
Well you totally ignored the Wii games, Super Mario Galaxy and Twilight Princess, both Japanese and great.

Twilight Princess was good but it's simply Ocarina of Time with better graphics and a larger world. No innovation there.

But Galaxy, yes a masterful and original game that made the Wii worth owning just for it alone.

Of course I'm not saying there aren't any innovative or original Japanese games out there, just the volume isn't nearly as high as western developed games, at least for the time being, I feel.

Originally posted by Peach
I'm going to go with "depends on the genre".

My favorite game genre would be RPGs. Of those, I vastly prefer turn-based RPGs. Those are mostly Japanese-made. I tend to get extremely bored/put off by Western-made RPGs.



Are American games really any different, though? How is "generic shooter after generic shooter" any different?

I'm talking about the complete disregard for trying something new and refreshing.. gears created something refreshing.. as lame as halo can be, it brought refreshing elements to the genre..

Diablo series ?
Half-Life / 2 ?
Elderscrolls IV ?
Unreal Series ?
Crysis?

..hell.. Quake III?.. japan cant even MAKE a decent FPS.. let alone spam them

None of these are similar in any way, as opposed to listing FF with Pokemon with even Dissidia.. they're all awesome in their own right.. but they share far too many similar elements..

(I'm actually pissed that dissidia wasnt for a non-portable console.. as I really wanted to see what a versus fighter would be like with the Crisis Core / Dissidia style engine)

japanese have their own market (Fighting / Beat-em-up, and Turn Based RPG).. but when it comes to breaking the barriers.. america is tops, IMO (FPS, RTS, Action-RPG,.. and things like A.I. , Simulations, etc)

thats why I'm glad america has their own console now.. so we dont have to give a damn "what the japanese are into" to determine what gets the "thumbs up" for release here.. crap is annoying as hell..

did you know the eternal champions sequel got canned by sega, "because it would compete with virtua fighter" ?.. gross..

Japanese have awesome games too like Metal Gear Solid, Resident Evil, Silent Hill, and Steet Fighter. Are any of these games from the side of Japan lame? No (except for that one Silent Hill game called Homecoming).

Originally posted by SaTsuJiN
but when it comes to breaking the barriers.. america is tops, IMO That's not an opinion.

It's a fact.

I really can't choose out of my top 10 favorite games it's split right down the middle 5 for the west and 5 for Japan but if i had to make a choice probably the west as I play there games more

Originally posted by Nemesis X
Japanese have awesome games too like Metal Gear Solid, Resident Evil, Silent Hill, and Steet Fighter. Are any of these games from the side of Japan lame? No (except for that one Silent Hill game called Homecoming). well the interesting thing all of those series share is that they didnt really do the same thing over and over.. ('cept street fighter.. /sigh..)

Americans, definatley.
While I enjoy playing the Final Fantasy series, you have to admit the gameplay is a bit overrused and sort of stale,
in the U.S.
RPGs range from: Fable, World of Warcraft, (the upcoming Star Trek one), Fallout 3, Oblivion, and many many more.
All of these plots are completely different - the standard Japanese rpg plot is some young boy who is out to save the world, etc.

Also, look at some of the other games the States have produced.
The Halo trilogy, Gears of War, the GTA series,
It's sort of an easy view point for someone to see the quality.
However,
The Japanese are not short when it comes to creativity.
Less known games like Yume Nikki are incredible and produce (odd) yet interesting takes on gaming.

Though, I believe in the long run and in the current state of things - American Games are just so much better than Japanese ones - plot, graphics, and gameplay really make a difference and the States know how to make games that work.

Originally posted by SaTsuJiN
('cept street fighter.. /sigh..)

If it an't broke why fix it....

I would also say it depends on the genre, though I do hope there would be more non-Japanese games, other than Mortal Kombat, in the fighting game genre. There were some back in the 90s but there should be more this generation. At least that Capoeira Fighter 3 looks good.

But I gotta say, I definitely agree with these comments:

Originally posted by Smasandian
You kidding me?

American, or European developers easily push the technology to its limit than Japanese.

Japanese gaming has hit a rut. Outside of Nintendo, and Capcom, who are starting to become more of an American developer anyways the majority of games coming out of Japan seem to be the same thing.

When Square is starting to use the Unreal engine for some of its game, it shows that American's are pushing the limits. Considering some of the best graphics are coming out of Europe and America also shows how those developers are pushing engines.

Originally posted by BackFire
As of now I think American/European companies have beat out Japanese when it comes to sheer quality and innovation by a pretty significant margin. The only ones that the Japanese still hold a commanding grip on is fighting and maybe plaformers.

Even RPG's, Japan's long standing trademarked genre is being taken over by Americans and Europeans, using new and innovative ways to enhance the genre and move it forward (look no further than Fallout 3 or Fable II, both having infinite more new ideas than any Japanese RPG since FFX).

Think of the best games of the last few years - Bioshock, Fallout 3, The Orange Box, Left 4 Dead, Call of Duty 4, Gears of War, World of Warcraft, Guild Wars, Company of Heroes. All western games.

It's also of course going to depend on who you ask and where they live.

Originally posted by SaTsuJiN
japanese have their own market (Fighting / Beat-em-up, and Turn Based RPG).. but when it comes to breaking the barriers.. america is tops, IMO (FPS, RTS, Action-RPG,.. and things like A.I. , Simulations, etc)

thats why I'm glad america has their own console now.. so we dont have to give a damn "what the japanese are into" to determine what gets the "thumbs up" for release here.. crap is annoying as hell..

I'm glad there are people here who view American games in a positive way.

Originally posted by Kazenji
If it an't broke why fix it....

I think the problem is that even though they play good, it kind of grows old and almost makes buying the next game pointless.

Originally posted by Kazenji
If it an't broke why fix it.... just because it works doesnt mean it should stay the same until we're all 80 years old and senile

though I will say SF3 series was a nice refresher.. but even then they couldnt help themselves and went n made some sequels to that lol.. oh well

Depends really, I think the yanks are better for things like shooters but for things that are more fantasy/story based (like RPGs) the Japanese probably prevail.

Not anymore.

JRPGs are mostly the same shit over and over again.

And in terms of plot, nowadays the Americans generally trump the Japanese.

Originally posted by SaTsuJiN
just because it works doesnt mean it should stay the same until we're all 80 years old and senile

Street Fighter is'nt the only that does that...........King of Fighters

Originally posted by ThunderGodEneru
Not anymore.

JRPGs are mostly the same shit over and over again.

And in terms of plot, nowadays the Americans generally trump the Japanese. I dislike western RPGs, not played one I've enjoyed.

Originally posted by Smasandian
You kidding me?

American, or European developers easily push the technology to its limit than Japanese.

Japanese gaming has hit a rut. Outside of Nintendo, and Capcom, who are starting to become more of an American developer anyways the majority of games coming out of Japan seem to be the same thing.

When Square is starting to use the Unreal engine for some of its game, it shows that American's are pushing the limits. Considering some of the best graphics are coming out of Europe and America also shows how those developers are pushing engines.

I meant overall through out history.

Originally posted by ThunderGodEneru

And in terms of plot, nowadays the Americans generally trump the Japanese.


Yeah, definitely. It helps when the plot actually makes sense though

The only Western RPG's i've like so far are the Diablo games and Sacred.

Western RPGs completely lack the charm and magical quality of Japanese RPGs, and that my friends, is a fact. RPGs are fundamentally about storyline; you get games like Oblivion or Fallout 3, the stories of which are overly heavy and slow moving, with little real direction throughout the game, with a vast emphasis on gameplay and traversing the world map; games like Mass Effect or Knights of the Old Republic that don't appear able to actually depict a captivating Sci-Fi setting (it could take some serious tips from the Star Ocean Series for that), that ultimately ends up looking quite simply gloomy, with a typical Sci-Fi storyline that completely lacks creativity or originality to boot; you get MMORPGs like World of Warcraft which have absolutely no plotline or direction; and then you get games like Fable that ultimately don't know how to tell a good story and try to make it unique by placing a large emphasis on player choice, that doesn't even present that large a storyline variance in the first place.

The only exception to my knowledge would be Secret of Evermore, and even that was presented in a very distinct Japanese style and developed and published by a Japanese Company (but by American Developers), making it an arguable JRPG anyway.

I seem to prefer Western games, especially RPGs.

Well, the only video genres I play are fighting, rhythm, and sports.

I guess Japanese since most of the games I play originate from there.

Originally posted by Kazenji
Street Fighter is'nt the only that does that...........King of Fighters to be fair.. kof added neat gameplay elements that kept it from becoming stank.. until the 1999-2006 era... then it was gross

-Dodging
-Running
-Lv.2 Supers having both different graphics and new way of behavior
-Super systems themselves varied quite a bit (from the charge system to the diamond break, which granted your character higher damage for a brief period)
-In KOF 96, the entire cast (30+chars?) got all new sprites, all new moves, and each of those new moves (or in some cases complete reworks of old moves) acted in a completely different way

this is why I dont like to compare kof to sf :/

Finally, i found someone else who doesnt like mass effect. every time i say that i usually get pummeled with profanity why dont you like it?

Basically, there was nothing about it that I liked. Didn't care for the plot, didn't like the gameplay or the controls, didn't care for the contrived and clunky character interaction...I just plain disliked it.

I must admit, I don't think Mass Effect is a masterpiece either. Though it's still much better than any JRPG I've played.

edit

Most, if not all, the games I enjoy the most are the Japanese ones.

IMHO, Japanese games have better storylines, better character designs, better music, better replay value, better graphic designs... just downright better than any American game I have played, with few exceptions like GoW, GTA, The Curse of Monkey Island, etc.


Here are some great Japanese game titles/franchises:

Metal Gear Solid, Resident Evil, Legend of Zelda, Super Mario, Chrono Trigger, Chrono Cross, Final Fantasy, Tales of Eternia, Legend of Dragoon, Bushido Blade, Tekken, Street Fighter, ICO, Shadow of The Colossus, Sonic The Hedgehog, Star Ocean, Dragon Quest, Metroid, Devil May Cry, Silent Hill, Kingdom Hearts, Castlevania, Xenogears, Vagrant Story, Pokemon, Mega Man, Okami

Originally posted by occultdestroyer
Devil May Cry This is where your post lost all credibility.

DMC is the most overrated pile of shit in gaming.

Originally posted by Retired Debater
Western RPGs completely lack the charm and magical quality of Japanese RPGs, and that my friends, is a fact. RPGs are fundamentally about storyline; you get games like Oblivion or Fallout 3, the stories of which are overly heavy and slow moving, with little real direction throughout the game, with a vast emphasis on gameplay and traversing the world map; games like Mass Effect or Knights of the Old Republic that don't appear able to actually depict a captivating Sci-Fi setting (it could take some serious tips from the Star Ocean Series for that), that ultimately ends up looking quite simply gloomy, with a typical Sci-Fi storyline that completely lacks creativity or originality to boot; you get MMORPGs like World of Warcraft which have absolutely no plotline or direction; and then you get games like Fable that ultimately don't know how to tell a good story and try to make it unique by placing a large emphasis on player choice, that doesn't even present that large a storyline variance in the first place.

The only exception to my knowledge would be Secret of Evermore, and even that was presented in a very distinct Japanese style and developed and published by a Japanese Company (but by American Developers), making it an arguable JRPG anyway. No, you're wrong.

Originally posted by ThunderGodEneru
No, you're wrong.

Yeah, Jap games don't have any magic or charm on me.

Originally posted by Peach
I'm the same way. I like Guild Wars, but that's an MMO and doesn't really count, and Fable 2 was enjoyable but not great. But for the most part, western RPGs I've played have ranged from mediocre to "bored me to tears and I quit in less than three hours". Didn't like KOTOR all that much, greatly disliked Mass Effect, Oblivion was the biggest waste of time ever, etc. In my opinion, Bioware is one of the most over-rated companies to exist.

Also doesn't help that I just very, very dislike that style of gameplay.

Western RPGs also tend to have claims of "your actions can change the game!" but this is never actually true. No matter what you do, you're still locked into a specific course of action. Maybe two. MMOs are still RPGs.

KotOR is overrated, I admit, but it still has more plot and depth than most JRPGs, which, other than a few exceptions, are just the same things over and over again. FFVII, VIII, and IX are all nearly the same in all ways other than story(cause VIII's was bullshit fail). Mass Effect had better gameplay than most JRPGs, and a far better plot than all but a few exceptions like Tales of the Abyss or Legend of Dragoon. Oblivion a waste of time? Why?

2. What style of gameplay?

3. I'll give you this, I was very angry at Fable 2 for its bullshit claims that you can change the game in so many ways when you...Can't.

Originally posted by ThunderGodEneru

3. I'll give you this, I was very angry at Fable 2 for its bullshit claims that you can change the game in so many ways when you...Can't.

Well it did have the most epic boss battle EVAR!

Originally posted by Wei Phoenix
Well it did have the most epic boss battle EVAR! I am not amused.

Originally posted by ThunderGodEneru
I am not amused.

Well take some slimfast and LIGHTEN UP! You get it?

Gothic's still the best game ever in existence and that's German, so **** you America, **** you Japan, we own you!

I disagree.

Earnest Evans is the greatest game to ever be created.

Originally posted by ThunderGodEneru
This is where your post lost all credibility.

DMC is the most overrated pile of shit in gaming.
Well, can you name me any American RPG/VS game that can trump any of those legendary titles that I mentioned?

BTW, I do agree that DMC is overrated, but it's still bloody fun!

Originally posted by occultdestroyer
Well, can you name me any American RPG/VS game that can trump any of those legendary titles that I mentioned?

BTW, I do agree that DMC is overrated, but it's still bloody fun!


World of Warcraft

Originally posted by ChakraStrings


Also, look at some of the other games the States have produced.
The Halo trilogy, Gears of War, the GTA series,


GTA was made in Dundee initially and now in Edinbugh...both in Scotland.

Although DMA Design (The original creators) were taken over by a US company, the games are still made in Scotland.

Originally posted by King-Fingolfin
World of Warcraft



WoW is SHIT.

Don't ever compare shit with great Japanese classic RPGs.

Originally posted by King-Fingolfin
World of Warcraft

Originally posted by ThunderGodEneru
is the most overrated pile of shit in gaming.

Originally posted by occultdestroyer
WoW is SHIT.

Don't ever compare shit with great Japanese classic RPGs.

You can call it shit all day, if you want. However, that doesn't translate to real world.


Why do so many millions continue to play it if it is so shitty? Why is just about every last person in my college program playing it except me?


Even if they call it shit, it's got the right shit to make them stick. 313

Originally posted by Retired Debater
Western RPGs completely lack the charm and magical quality of Japanese RPGs, and that my friends, is a fact. RPGs are fundamentally about storyline; you get games like Oblivion or Fallout 3, the stories of which are overly heavy and slow moving, with little real direction throughout the game, with a vast emphasis on gameplay and traversing the world map; games like Mass Effect or Knights of the Old Republic that don't appear able to actually depict a captivating Sci-Fi setting (it could take some serious tips from the Star Ocean Series for that), that ultimately ends up looking quite simply gloomy, with a typical Sci-Fi storyline that completely lacks creativity or originality to boot; you get MMORPGs like World of Warcraft which have absolutely no plotline or direction; and then you get games like Fable that ultimately don't know how to tell a good story and try to make it unique by placing a large emphasis on player choice, that doesn't even present that large a storyline variance in the first place.

The only exception to my knowledge would be Secret of Evermore, and even that was presented in a very distinct Japanese style and developed and published by a Japanese Company (but by American Developers), making it an arguable JRPG anyway.

You are wrong. There is nothing in the definition of the RPG that requires the story to be the primary focus. The primary focus of an RPG is staying completely in a role of a character throughout the course of a game. Which is why many argue that games like Fallout 3 and Oblivion and even to some GTA games are more of an RPG than many Japanese RPG's, which tend to be more of an interactive movie.

Also, JRPG's have a different method of storytelling than American ones. You are right in that American ones do tend to be darker and bleaker, but that's not inherently bad. Japanese RPG's are extremely melodramatic, even the best ones, they are over the top while American ones tend to be much more grounded.

The focus is simply different. American RPG's like Fallout 3 is focused not on melodramatic storytelling but sheer exploration of its world. Its heart and soul is in the world it built, rather than the story, where as in JRPG's their soul is in their story rather than the world they built or exploration.

Frankly I pity those who call themselves RPG fans but can't enjoy a game that focuses more on exploring a world infinitely more detailed and nuanced than any game world any JRPG has ever created. Both types of games can be extraordinarily satisfying.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You can call it shit all day, if you want. However, that doesn't translate to real world.


Why do so many millions continue to play it if it is so shitty? Why is just about every last person in my college program playing it except me?


Even if they call it shit, it's got the right shit to make them stick. 313 Well, if you equate popularity with non shittiness then yeah. Though personally I don't tend to do that.


Not that I think WoW is shit. It's quite fun as far as I recall.

WoW absolutely isn't shit. It's not for everyone, some people just don't like the style of MMO's, but the game certainly has quality there, it's world is the most complete and purely explorable world of any MMO out there and its attention to detail is simply amazing. And as far as storytelling goes, it's what you make of it. It does have some great story told through questlines that are pretty damn good. Frankly I think the only people who really complain about the lack of story is the ones who simply close the quest dialogue without reading it, just noting the objective, and then wondering why all the quests are boring.

Originally posted by ThunderGodEneru
MMOs are still RPGs.

KotOR is overrated, I admit, but it still has more plot and depth than most JRPGs, which, other than a few exceptions, are just the same things over and over again. FFVII, VIII, and IX are all nearly the same in all ways other than story(cause VIII's was bullshit fail). Mass Effect had better gameplay than most JRPGs, and a far better plot than all but a few exceptions like Tales of the Abyss or Legend of Dragoon. Oblivion a waste of time? Why?

2. What style of gameplay?

3. I'll give you this, I was very angry at Fable 2 for its bullshit claims that you can change the game in so many ways when you...Can't.

MMOs are a different breed of RPG, is what I meant.

KOTOR had depth? You're joking, right? It really didn't. It was just the same basic plot that's been done in SW EU time and time again. There really was nothing deep about the plot at all.

I don't like the sort of open action-RPG gameplay that most western games use. I'm more used to the sort of turn-based thing, and that's what I prefer. It always feels like it works better to me. If the game itself is enjoyable enough, then I can deal with the crappy gameplay (Fable 2 kept me entertained enough to play), but I'm not going to prefer it.

Oblivion was a waste of time in that I have never been so bored in a game before. I don't like how it was completely open-ended. I hate that in games. That's part of why I greatly dislike most MMOs, btw - and part of why I like GW, in that it's not, there is a definite plot and end to that plot.



They can be, but that doesn't mean they will be. Pointless exploration just for the sake of it bores me. I play RPGs for the story, and how it's presented. Just wandering around exploring a world is not in the least bit engaging to me, and is just tedious and boring.

As said, it's going to depend on the quality of the world they built. Just as a Jrpg will be garbage if the story falters, since gameplay is an afterthought for most storybased Jrpg's.

WoW is a good game. It's an abomination to the Warcraft lore, yes, but as a game, it's great.

Originally posted by Peach
MMOs are a different breed of RPG, is what I meant.

KOTOR had depth? You're joking, right? It really didn't. It was just the same basic plot that's been done in SW EU time and time again. There really was nothing deep about the plot at all.

I don't like the sort of open action-RPG gameplay that most western games use. I'm more used to the sort of turn-based thing, and that's what I prefer. It always feels like it works better to me. If the game itself is enjoyable enough, then I can deal with the crappy gameplay (Fable 2 kept me entertained enough to play), but I'm not going to prefer it.

Oblivion was a waste of time in that I have never been so bored in a game before. I don't like how it was completely open-ended. I hate that in games. That's part of why I greatly dislike most MMOs, btw - and part of why I like GW, in that it's not, there is a definite plot and end to that plot. 1. Only in that they are more massive in scale(generally) and allow interaction with real people.

2. And how is that? Same basic plot as SW EU? You are either A. Wrong or B. Oversimplifying. Having the same core elements does not make it the same.

3. And you bash Metal Gear Solid for being an "interactive movie?" Because essentially, that is what the gameplay of a turn-based RPG is. Crappy gameplay? Turn-based gameplay no matter how they try to pretty it up is always the same, Legend of Dragoon being one of the few rare exceptions to that, games like Fallout 3 or Mass Effect have far more thought and depth to the gameplay than most if not all turn-based RPGs.

4. Don't like more freedom in games? I must disagree.

Originally posted by BackFire
You are wrong. There is nothing in the definition of the RPG that requires the story to be the primary focus.

It actually is in the very definition... In the context of a video game with an already established storyline, the term "Role-playing game" would quite literally translate into a game with the focus being placed on the role your character takes in the game world (i.e. the storyline). The storyline that the game presents is ultimately the primary emphasis.



That would be more of a characteristic... and not just of an RPG, but any character based video game.



I can't say I really get what you're saying here; the huge emphasis on the storyline that the vast majority of JRPGs adopt only adds to how easily you can escape into the role of your character, which is the entire point of the genre. Making the plot, characters and setting as captivating as possible, making you literally want to step into the role of your character.



A superior one. One that constantly drives you through the storyline, with a minimal emphasis on gameplay, drawing you into the role of your character with far more effectiveness that any WRPG.



Being dark? No. Bleak or gloomy? Yes, those are inherently bad traits for an RPG (a game that's ultimately supposed to draw you into the role of your character; not too easy when the entire game world around you is ultimately depressing to look at). You can make something dark and captivating at the same time, and it's something that these WRPGs fail miserably at.



Really? In what way?



Sheer exploration of the game world without the storyline driving your character through it simply means that you are not escaping into the role that your character takes in the game world, but rather are using your character as an avatar through which you (as in the real world person) explore the world that the game presents you with. That style of gaming has absolutely no place in an RPG.



Right, because mindlessly exploring the game world rather than actually having a plot drive your character through it totally qualifies as taking on the role of your character...

Originally posted by occultdestroyer
Most, if not all, the games I enjoy the most are the Japanese ones.

IMHO, Japanese games have better storylines, better character designs, better music, better replay value, better graphic designs... just downright better than any American game I have played, with few exceptions like GoW, GTA, The Curse of Monkey Island, etc.


Here are some great Japanese game titles/franchises:

Metal Gear Solid, Resident Evil, Legend of Zelda, Super Mario, Chrono Trigger, Chrono Cross, Final Fantasy, Tales of Eternia, Legend of Dragoon, Bushido Blade, Tekken, Street Fighter, ICO, Shadow of The Colossus, Sonic The Hedgehog, Star Ocean, Dragon Quest, Metroid, Devil May Cry, Silent Hill, Kingdom Hearts, Castlevania, Xenogears, Vagrant Story, Pokemon, Mega Man, Okami

^Awesome list, I'd also add the Suikoden, .hack, Golden Sun, Xenosaga, Ys, Lunar and Lufia (as well as the other games in the Tales series) series.

Originally posted by Retired Debater
It actually is in the very definition... In the context of a video game with an already established storyline, the term "Role-playing game" would quite literally translate into a game with the focus being placed on the role your character takes in the game world (i.e. the storyline). The storyline that the game presents is ultimately the primary emphasis.

Lies. The traditional definition of an RPG is with the main focus on character, as in, taking on a role wholly and completely and never ever leaving that character.


Originally posted by Retired Debater
That would be more of a characteristic... and not just of an RPG, but any character based video game.

Not true, many games you aren't in full control of what the character does, you can't control their choices or where they ultimately end up, which is obviously going to be a key aspect of an RPG. After all you can't fully fall into the role of a character if you ultimately can't have some bearing on the choices they make.



Originally posted by Retired Debater
I can't say I really get what you're saying here; the huge emphasis on the storyline that the vast majority of JRPGs adopt only adds to how easily you can escape into the role of your character, which is the entire point of the genre. Making the plot, characters and setting as captivating as possible, making you literally want to step into the role of your character.

A fair point but one that is very arguable. Many argue that the emphasis on story and plot over the world and exploration and freedom actually hinders the Role playing aspect of the game because you are not in full control of what occurs, as I mentioned above. Personally I enjoy both types equally if they're done well, and it is folly and pretentious to imply that one is factually better than the other.



Originally posted by Retired Debater
A superior one. One that constantly drives you through the storyline, with a minimal emphasis on gameplay, drawing you into the role of your character with far more effectiveness that any WRPG.

Or you could be drawn into the character THROUGH the gameplay and the world and have the full free to go and create your OWN storylines and memorable adventures, rather than having them completely predetermined - thus taking any semblance of choice out of the experience, which is again a very important aspect to the RPG.



Originally posted by Retired Debater
Being dark? No. Bleak or gloomy? Yes, those are inherently bad traits for an RPG (a game that's ultimately supposed to draw you into the role of your character; not too easy when the entire game world around you is ultimately depressing to look at). You can make something dark and captivating at the same time, and it's something that these WRPGs fail miserably at.

For you maybe, but Fallout 3 engaged me and sucked me into its world in ways no other game ever has, all while having one of the bleakest and despairing worlds to ever exist within a video game. Attractive qualities can exist in a bleak world - detail, immersion, nuance, and most importantly, power. Which is why many of the greatest works of fiction, regardless of medium, have bleak settings. They can work just as well as traditional 'pretty' settings can.



Originally posted by Retired Debater
Really? In what way?

Extreme circumstances, exaggerated emotions, and simply worlds that are not grounded in any semblance of reality.



Originally posted by Retired Debater
Sheer exploration of the game world without the storyline driving your character through it simply means that you are not escaping into the role that your character takes in the game world, but rather are using your character as an avatar through which you (as in the real world person) explore the world that the game presents you with. That style of gaming has absolutely no place in an RPG.

1. I never said these exploration based games didn't have storylines, simply that it wasn't their initial and main focus. Their world was. The storyline was born from the setting, not the other way around.

2. Of course exploration based games have a place in RPG's, it's how RPG's have been since Dungeons and Dragons. Create a world and explore it as you want, the storylines are often optional and what you make of it.


Originally posted by Retired Debater
Right, because mindlessly exploring the game world rather than actually having a plot drive your character through it totally qualifies as taking on the role of your character...

And now you misrepresent what I said. Nowhere did I say mindless exploring some empty world without any plot at all was great. Exaggeration and misrepresentation is often the strategy of the weakest of debaters.

1. Alright what you appear incapable of fundamentally grasping is that the manner in which you take on the role of your character varies with the format in which the RPG is working under. Take the role-playing section here at KMC for example; here, taking on the role of your characters truly is about creating your own story, making the character's decisions etc... However, under the Video Game format, where there is already a predetermined storyline programmed into the game, you ultimately don't get to create your own story; at best you might get to influence which path your character takes, but even that is predetermined, and all you get to do is follow through with it, you don't ultimately get to dictate what happens. Which is why, under the VG format, taking on the role of your character is about "escaping" into the role of you character and storyline that the game presents you with, as that is ultimately the only way in which you can truly identify yourself with your character under the mentioned format without being able to truly dictate what actually happens and the choices your character makes.

2. You appear to be equating the word "bleak" with "dark," which by deifnition would literally translate into "depressingly dark," meaning it is dark in such a way that you find it depressing, which doesn't allow for it to be engaging in any shape or form.

3. Could you give some examples of all those things you mentioned as being melodramatic about those JRPGs? The voice acting with some of the newer games has in some cases been notoriously bad which might make character emotions appear unrealistic and exaggerated etc... but that's just bad localisation (bad translations would come under that as well), and given the Fantasy nature of the majority of JRPG settings, the game worlds are not supposed to be realistic. Anyway, post some example, because as a real veteran of the RPG genre, I haven't come across any such notable cases in JRPGs any more than I have in WRPGs.

4. In your very own words:

"The focus is simply different. American RPG's like Fallout 3 is focused not on melodramatic storytelling but sheer exploration of its world."

"Sheer exploration," by definition, would be exploration in its purest form, literally exploration not driven by anything (storyline would come under the umbrella of "anything" but its own desire, which is fully about the player's own personal enjoyment in exploring the area, it's not about escaping into the role of the character and being driven by the storyline through the game world itself. From a storyline perspective, that would render the exploration purposeless, which is why it has absolutely no place under the Video Game format of the RPG.

And yes, based on what an RPG is designed to be, WoW would qualify as "shit." Its plot couldn't be any less detailed or driven, there's absolutely no direction as far as where the storyline's taking you, it doesn't really go anywhere and there's no real end-point to the storyline.

1. That is because there is no rule inherent to video gaming that states that the story MUST be the absolute driving force behind the game, which is what you seem to be implying. Just because there is a predetermined storyline in the game does not mean that you don't have choices to make beyond said storyline. Sure, when it comes to the 'main quest', your choices are often limited and the game is linear, but some games allow for very drastic choices that can alter some pretty important aspects of the game, from the death of several main characters, to removing a city entirely. Keep in mind this type of game is still very much in its infancy and just now getting around to really fulfilling some of the potential, but the progression of this type of game is very real and the choices and consequences within the game are only going to get more and more drastic and meaningful.

2. I'm not. I used them both to describe certain game worlds because that's what they are. And right here your second statement doesn't necessarily follow the first. Something that is depressing can also be engaging. Proven by the fact that depressing books, movies and even games have engaged me.

3. Screaming for the sake of adding some heightened emotional reaction when it doesn't necessarily seem like a reasonable or realistic reaction at all is one thing many do, such as Final Fantasy X. Voice acting is a problem as well, but this goes beyond that. Also, a characters death or another event accompanied by booming loud music to communicate its importance. The games simply aren't as subtle as some of their more recent American counterparts.

4. The focus being sheer exploration doesn't mean that nothing else can exist in the game aside from exploration. There are still plots and storylines but they are not the focus of the experience, that is all that means. If that wasn't clear then I apologize, and now it's clarified: Games based on exploration and having an enthralling world are just as much RPG's as those that are based in plot, and they can be just as good, just as powerful, and just as enjoyable to me and many others.

And no, you think WoW is shit simply because it doesn't fit what you THINK an RPG should be. Doesn't make it anything more than your opinion. Compared to single player games it is simply not possible to have a storyline as constant or enthralling as a single player game because those single player games involve YOU being the lone/main hero and saving the world, where as in an MMO you are one of many heroes within the world so your importance will never feel as great. Wow's plot could be much less detailed; go play other MMO games that don't even have any story at all. Wow may not have a single storyline that is there throughout the experience, but it instead has many different stories and seperate archs that you experience throughout your progression.

Originally posted by Peach
KOTOR had depth? You're joking, right? It really didn't. It was just the same basic plot that's been done in SW EU time and time again. There really was nothing deep about the plot at all.

Lemme guess, The Godfather sucked, Dark Knight was too linear, and The 6th Sense was too predictable?

And then there's reality. I guess it won game of the year beause it was just like every other game out there, right? And when thousands of people talk about how great the story was and how awesome the shock was, they are just idiots, the lot of them, right?

Originally posted by Peach
I don't like the sort of open action-RPG gameplay that most western games use. I'm more used to the sort of turn-based thing, and that's what I prefer. It always feels like it works better to me. If the game itself is enjoyable enough, then I can deal with the crappy gameplay (Fable 2 kept me entertained enough to play), but I'm not going to prefer it.

Oh, well, in that case, an amalgamation of the two, such as KOTOR, is something you could actually like, right?

Originally posted by Peach
Oblivion was a waste of time in that I have never been so bored in a game before. I don't like how it was completely open-ended. I hate that in games. That's part of why I greatly dislike most MMOs, btw - and part of why I like GW, in that it's not, there is a definite plot and end to that plot.

We overwhelmingly agree on this point. Every last point captures my thoughts even better than I could express them.



Originally posted by Peach
They can be, but that doesn't mean they will be. Pointless exploration just for the sake of it bores me. I play RPGs for the story, and how it's presented. Just wandering around exploring a world is not in the least bit engaging to me, and is just tedious and boring.

Exactly. It is "role" playing for a reason. Well, I can see why exploring a world could be quite fun when it is complex, the characters are immersive, and the side quests are fun and not linear.


It would appear that we agree on RPGs except for KOTOR. I like turn base ones as well. However, I like Fable and KOTOR very much too. Did you like Chrono Trigger?

A good RPG should have a good storyline.
And this is where most WRPGs horribly fail at.

And it's not only WRPGs that suck.
Western video games, in general, suck.
With a few exceptions, of course.

Name me one Western Versus game title that can rival Street Fighter, Tekken, Soul Calibur, King of Fighters?
NONE.

The only genre Western game developers are good at are FPS.
They should just stick to that, and leave the RPGs and Versus games to the Japanese.

Originally posted by occultdestroyer
Name me one Western Versus game title that can rival Street Fighter, Tekken, Soul Calibur, King of Fighters?

That's easy. Mortal Kombat.

Originally posted by SmashBro
That's easy. Mortal Kombat.
Still subpar compared to those I have mentioned.

And have you played the more recent MK releases?
The latest one, MK vs DC, was 100% shit.

And here we go again...

SF4 may not be as enticing than SF2 or 3, but the graphics and gameplay were much more superior than MK vs DC. Far superior.
Proof that Japanese games can still live up to their name.

MK's been going downhill since MK3

Originally posted by SmashBro
That's easy. Mortal Kombat. Hahahaha no.

It is true that Japan does dominate the gaming market.

And Occultdestroyer, stop being a weaboo please.

Mass Effect alone has a better plotline than any JRPG short of their very best.

Originally posted by BackFire
to removing a city entirely. Fallout 3 is a fun game.

Originally posted by occultdestroyer
SF4 may not be as enticing than SF2 or 3, but the graphics and gameplay were much more superior than MK vs DC. Far superior.
Proof that Japanese games can still live up to their name.

MK's been going downhill since MK3
Nah. Deception was pretty good, but other than that, yeah.

And the graphics of MKvsDC and SF4 looked pretty much the same to me. By no means though am I calling MKvsDC a good game.

Originally posted by ThunderGodEneru
Hahahaha no.

It is true that Japan does dominate the gaming market.

And Occultdestroyer, stop being a weaboo please.

Mass Effect alone has a better plotline than any JRPG short of their very best.

Japan does not dominate the gaming market. Far from it.

More developers in Japan are turning to American, and European ways of developing. That's why were seeing alot more games like Dead Rising, an Americanized Silent Hill, No More Heroes and Killer 7, Lost Planet and more.

Originally posted by Smasandian
Japan does not dominate the gaming market. Far from it.

More developers in Japan are turning to American, and European ways of developing. That's why were seeing alot more games like Dead Rising, an Americanized Silent Hill, No More Heroes and Killer 7, Lost Planet and more. Typo, meant fighting game market.

Originally posted by occultdestroyer
Well, can you name me any American RPG/VS game that can trump any of those legendary titles that I mentioned?


Fallout 3, Oblivion and mass effect and i played the majority of Final Fantasy to add to that, i personally felt as far as gameplay mechanics go, western RPG's dominate Japanese RPG's.

But hey thats just my personal opinion man.


While i think JRPG's are good, they lack the freedom that western RPG games have and one thing i realise is that western RPG's story seems to be much darker and sometimes(some western games) has a more compelling story than JRPG's but at the same time i have to agree that Japanese RPG's usually are one step ahead of western RPG's when it comes to story(there are excemptions like i have mentioned)

So IMO WRPG > JRPG.

Originally posted by BackFire
1. That is because there is no rule inherent to video gaming that states that the story MUST be the absolute driving force behind the game, which is what you seem to be implying.

1. It's how the genre has been established to be in the industry and by the developers.

2. It's the only logical approach. Ultimately, when the element of choice is placed into an RPG, it rarely, if ever, yields truly long lasting, significant changes, and the choices themselves are predetermined and the players only get to pick between them, they don't actually get to choose exactly what action the character takes. Those two reasons completely prevent the player from fully taking on the role of the character in the way you're saying. The only manner in which you can do so under the Video Game format is by escaping into the role of the character that the story presents. As such, storyline is fundamentally the most important aspect of a VGRPG.



Ignoring your wild predictions about this new breed of game, the fact that everything in the game (variable and invariable) will always be predetermined, the only way in which you can fully take on the role of your character is through escaping into the storyline, not by making choices. Choice will always take a back seat to escaping into the role of your character when everything is already predetermined.



Something that is ultimately depressing cannot ultimately be engaging at the same time. One denies the other, they're mutually exclusive. One can have elements of the other, but ultimately cannot be both at the same time.



Could you give specifics? Please tell me you're not talking about the Tidus-Yuna scene.



Examples are fun. The most notable character death, by far: Aerith's death scene, was accompanied by her soft sounding musical theme. It set the mood of the scene perfectly, in fact, that's something that JRPGs are known to excel at.



So now it's abouts subtlety and not realism in the drama?



I wasn't saying as much, I was just explaining that exploration that isn't driven by the plot has no place in an RPG, it's not an RPG element, ergo you saying that these games have more of an emphasis on sheer exploration (something that isn't an RPG element) simply means that you're either confused or that the developers have purposefully made an RPG that doesn't properly follow the format.



No, they are not as much of an RPG, as sheer exploration of the game world isn't an element that draws you into the character as the character itself isn't being driven through it, rather you, the player, are doing it for your own desire.



It doesn't fit what the term has been ESTABLISHED to mean.



Ignoring the fact that you're wrong (I'll get to that later in this paragraph), all that would mean is that the plot wouldn't be as individual or as personal as a single player RPG; what does that have to do with how driven or detailed it can be? Not to mention, while you are just one of many heroes in the World, as far as what the story (through the quests and such) presents you with, your character is intended to be the lone, important hero that's single handedly doing all these tasks throughout the world. As an example, when you kill Van Cleef and destroy the Defias Brotherhood, as far as the story is concerned, it was your character who did it, he alone, and as far as the story's concerned, while the existence of the other heroes is recognised, your character is the one made to feel important and great etc.. The quests, as unoriginal and poorly detailed as they are, are designed to be personal and individual.



No, I'd rather play The FFXIs of the MMO market that actually has a plot.



Many different story archs that have absolutely no real relevance or relation to each other. That's not a good thing, it makes the storyline experience of WoW completely lack purpose or direction when there is no single underlying plot point that the story drives you through. As such it completely fails at drawing the player into the role of the character, and that would be why it fails, and is shit.

1. WoW isn't shit.
2. There's quite a bit of plot, try reading the quest descriptions.
3. There is an underlying plot: to stop Yogg-Saron and the Lich King. As I said, try reading the quests next time. Just because its plot doesn't hold your hand all the time and guide your every single step, doesn't mean it doesn't have one. It's an MMO, remember?

1. It's shit among shit.

2. I have, I wouldn't even know anything about Van Cleef or the Defias if I hadn't, and the plot is minimal, unoriginal, and doesn't provide any real direction. There's absolutely no real relation between the different "story archs" (if you can even call them that) and the vast emphasis of the game is on the gameplay.

3. There is no underlying plot throughout the entire course of the game. A real plot is supposed to grip you from beginning to end by providing the player with direction and purpose. WoW completely fails at that, it does not draw the player into the role of the character, and as such fails at what the genre itself is designed to do.

Originally posted by Retired Debater
1. It's shit among shit.

2. I have, I wouldn't even know anything about Van Cleef or the Defias if I hadn't, and the plot is minimal, unoriginal, and doesn't provide any real direction. There's absolutely no real relation between the different "story archs" (if you can even call them that) and the vast emphasis of the game is on the gameplay.

3. There is no underlying plot throughout the entire course of the game. A real plot is supposed to grip you from beginning to end by providing the player with direction and purpose. WoW completely fails at that, it does not draw the player into the role of the character, and as such fails at what the genre itself is designed to do.

1. It's a gem among shit.

2. Of course there may not always be related: it's a vast world with many different people from all walks of life who have their own problems. Helping them and "ascending the ladder" is part of the fun. E.g from killing simple thieves and bandits to slaying dragons and gods... I mean, it's *FUN*.

3. WoW is a MMORPG and it sure as hell does not fail its genre. It wouldn't hold 63% share of the MMO market if it did.

With regards to Final Fantasy as an RP game- No disrespect to the franchise at all, which I find very enjoyable (but still 'over-ruled' as it were)... I am definitely sympathetic to the idea that is is no longer a role-playing game series. It really is more of an interactive story. It's almost impossible to genuinely fail at it unless going for bonuses and you aren't really propelled into the idea of identifying with a character, instead the charcters just often play out as if watching a film or reading a book. When seeing what happens in the story has become more important than assuming the role of a character (a character you have almost no control over at all), then the semantics of 'role-playing' have become so debased as to be meaningless.

I am very interested in the psychology behind this approach to gamng, the genuine 'story in game format' that seems to be a very Japanese thing, but I really do hesitate to call it an RPG franchise even with the video game definition of the term.

And as RP supremo around here, I should point out that when it comes to non-computer game role-playing, (that is the old fahsioned table-top pencil and paper style that we do in the RP areas) the Japanese have a very different conception of that too. In Japan, RPing is actually more akin to putting on a play. People act out their roles but the major events are often pre-determined. It is more about the acting than it is about storyline discovery. I think understanding this mentality towards RPing in Japan is important when looking at all of this.

Whilst in the west, role-playing varies between D&D style (go out, kill stuff, get treasure, become more powerful, act out al bits concerneds) which is really the basis of computer RPGing (Dungeon Master, Bard's Tale, the original Final Fantasy) to what these days is called the World of Darkness style (not because that series invented it but it caused the renaissance in it) where it is all about character, relationships, storyline and the massive development of each, where characters do gain power but the idea of dungeon raiding for it looks ridiculous. That's more the style I like to use- even with my Star Wars games- but it has never translated well to computer gaming because it so very much depends on an intelligent mind guiding it.

Ironically, I find the first type of pencil and paper RPing actually works better in computer gaming, where the computer can handle all the mathematical crunching involved. I also prefer games where your character is a blank slate rather than a built-in role (hence Baldur's Gate being great, KOTOR good though not so great, and Final Fantasy having to work hard to get me to like it, which is testamemt to it I suppose).

Guild Wars is really a 3d Diablo game pretending to be an MMO. And again don't get me wrong here, because I think GW is freaking awesome, but any role-playing in it is being improvised by friends playing together. I am hard put to actually describe it as genuinely RP based; ultimately it is 3d Gauntlet with more detail and a storyline. Does that really an RP make? I'm not convinced. It has a lot of the tropes of computer RPGs, from character advancment to looting etc but I think the sum of its parts more says 'action game' then RP.

(On that point, I feel this correllation between character advancment and RPGs is ambiguous and open to wildly different interpretation between people that causes a lot of confusion, but that's another debate).

Err... in conclusion I guess I am favouring Western games here. But I do think what we call JRPGs these days are becoming such a distinct thing of their own that perhaps a direct comparison is not fair.

This topic is not restricted to RPGs only.

Anyway, I think both countries have different expertise when it comes to video games.

Americans are good in FPS, D&D-style RPGs, and sports games.

Japanese are good in RPGs w/ full storylines, side-scrolling, versus, and adventure games.

When it comes to non 'RP' games (using the term in a broad sense now to cover... all of that we were talking about) then probably my preference is still Western,. Yes, Mario 64 and Zelda OoT are some of the best games ever made and so on, but my eventual preferences- decent RTS games, the likes of Civilization, compter space sims (where has this genre gone??!) and so on have always been totally dominated by the west.

Most of the greatest games made for each console are dominated by the Japanese.

Super Mario
Metroid
Metal Gear Solid
Final Fantasy
Street Fighter
Tekken
Chrono Trigger
Chrono Cross
ICO
Mega Man


All of these are top-rated by expert reviewers and user reviewers alike. And most of them are in the Top 10.

Well, I just named a load of non-console genres, didn't I? So if that is what I like...

Originally posted by occultdestroyer
MK vs DC was 100% shit.

QFT

Originally posted by occultdestroyer
Still subpar compared to those I have mentioned.

And have you played the more recent MK releases?
The latest one, MK vs DC, was 100% shit.

MKvsDC was one of the best in the series. It was a great improvement over the last three games.

Originally posted by ThunderGodEneru
Hahahaha no.

It is true that Japan does dominate the gaming market.

If some fans just appreciate more American games and stop claiming they're "overrated" all the time and stop being afraid to point out flaws in Japanese games, then maybe they'll see some equality. I know there's been more Japanese games in the market but there are some American games that are just as good.

Originally posted by occultdestroyer
SF4 may not be as enticing than SF2 or 3, but the graphics and gameplay were much more superior than MK vs DC. Far superior.
Proof that Japanese games can still live up to their name.

MK's been going downhill since MK3

Absolute bull. Sure MK was at it's best with MK2 but that doesn't mean it went downhill since. Heck, some fans consider UMK3 or MKT to be just as good.

I could say SF went downhill after SF2 just like you're doing with MK.

SF4 is more balanced than MKvDC but the graphics sure wasn't better and it sure didn't bring anything new, like MKvDC did. MK has always been way more fun to play than SF for obvious reasons.

Originally posted by Nemesis X
QFT

Nemesis X, the only reason you're saying that is because of it's T rated. That's pretty much your only complaint with the game.

Originally posted by SmashBro
Nemesis X, the only reason you're saying that is because of it's T rated. That's pretty much your only complaint with the game.

You're saying like I forgot why I hate it.

It's just sad how you agree with people when they say something bad about it all because of that.

What? I dislike MKvsDC because I like MK and turning it into something T rated is ridiculous. You think I'm hating it because other people hate it? What the heck kind of person do you think I am?

That's the thing. He obviously had a different reason for hating it, yet you still agreed with him.

I just think the game is crap. He says it's crap so I agree. Whatever he said about the game other than it being crap I forgot so I don't agree with whatever he just said. If he did say the game is crap because of it being T rated then yeah I agree.

Originally posted by Retired Debater
1. It's how the genre has been established to be in the industry and by the developers.

2. It's the only logical approach. Ultimately, when the element of choice is placed into an RPG, it rarely, if ever, yields truly long lasting, significant changes, and the choices themselves are predetermined and the players only get to pick between them, they don't actually get to choose exactly what action the character takes. Those two reasons completely prevent the player from fully taking on the role of the character in the way you're saying. The only manner in which you can do so under the Video Game format is by escaping into the role of the character that the story presents. As such, storyline is fundamentally the most important aspect of a VGRPG.



Ignoring your wild predictions about this new breed of game, the fact that everything in the game (variable and invariable) will always be predetermined, the only way in which you can fully take on the role of your character is through escaping into the storyline, not by making choices. Choice will always take a back seat to escaping into the role of your character when everything is already predetermined.



Something that is ultimately depressing cannot ultimately be engaging at the same time. One denies the other, they're mutually exclusive. One can have elements of the other, but ultimately cannot be both at the same time.



Could you give specifics? Please tell me you're not talking about the Tidus-Yuna scene.



Examples are fun. The most notable character death, by far: Aerith's death scene, was accompanied by her soft sounding musical theme. It set the mood of the scene perfectly, in fact, that's something that JRPGs are known to excel at.



So now it's abouts subtlety and not realism in the drama?



I wasn't saying as much, I was just explaining that exploration that isn't driven by the plot has no place in an RPG, it's not an RPG element, ergo you saying that these games have more of an emphasis on sheer exploration (something that isn't an RPG element) simply means that you're either confused or that the developers have purposefully made an RPG that doesn't properly follow the format.



No, they are not as much of an RPG, as sheer exploration of the game world isn't an element that draws you into the character as the character itself isn't being driven through it, rather you, the player, are doing it for your own desire.



It doesn't fit what the term has been ESTABLISHED to mean.



Ignoring the fact that you're wrong (I'll get to that later in this paragraph), all that would mean is that the plot wouldn't be as individual or as personal as a single player RPG; what does that have to do with how driven or detailed it can be? Not to mention, while you are just one of many heroes in the World, as far as what the story (through the quests and such) presents you with, your character is intended to be the lone, important hero that's single handedly doing all these tasks throughout the world. As an example, when you kill Van Cleef and destroy the Defias Brotherhood, as far as the story is concerned, it was your character who did it, he alone, and as far as the story's concerned, while the existence of the other heroes is recognised, your character is the one made to feel important and great etc.. The quests, as unoriginal and poorly detailed as they are, are designed to be personal and individual.



No, I'd rather play The FFXIs of the MMO market that actually has a plot.



Many different story archs that have absolutely no real relevance or relation to each other. That's not a good thing, it makes the storyline experience of WoW completely lack purpose or direction when there is no single underlying plot point that the story drives you through. As such it completely fails at drawing the player into the role of the character, and that would be why it fails, and is shit.

And altering the norm is how progression and creativity is born. If devs just followed the predetermined outlines of previous games and were too afraid to make large changes to the platform and genre we'd see no improvement. The element of choice being predetermined doesn't matter, it's about creating the feeling that you are making game change decisions, and you are. Just because you can't do things that weren't programed into the game doesn't mean they aren't choices or that they can't be important.

Having a detailed, nuanced and engaging world can also draw you into your character by making it feel like you're actually walking through a real place and actually a part of said world.

Again, I've been engaged by depressing stories. You can sit there and say it's impossible, but you just look foolish, trying to tell someone whether or not THEY were or were not engaged by something.

I mention subtlety because that is an aspect that is very different between the methods of stortelling and communication in western rpg's and japanese rpg's. The japanese ones are big and epic and self important, where as the western ones are quieter and more subtle and somber and get their message across through the details of their world that you come across while exploring. Example: While playing Fallout 3 I was exploring one of the desolated neighborhoods, I went into one of the houses looking for rations and ammo but found none. I went into one of the room and while looking around I noticed an empty bloodstained crib, lying next to it on the floor was a lone teddy bear, as if abandoned. It was an incredibly powerful moment and it's not even essential, you experience it not from the main quest but from just exploration. It's those kind of things that separate Jrpgs from Wrpgs.

You get the backstory and details from the setting and environment directly, where as in a Jrpg such a thing would be communicated to the player through dialogue or a cinema. It alters the tone of the game, and while neither style is better than the other, they both hold power in different ways. As it was in Fallout 3 that scene was extremely haunting and dire and left it up to the player to imagine the details in their head, where as the japanese version may have been more dramatic and cinematic.

And as far as WoW goes, I'd like to know how far you got in it.

Also, the quests don't treat you like you're the only one doing anything. They're constantly referencing other adventurers and while yes they obviously do treat you like you are important and making a difference, there's nothing implying that no one else is out there doing these things to make a difference as well. Really it just comes down to scope, it's smaller than that of single player RPG's. The focus isn't on big storyline, but rather developing your character and having him/her be a part of the larger world and community.

And if you consider what FFXI had as a storyline then I guess WoW has one too. It does have a constant presence of a greater evil throughout the game leading you to the final confrontation with Arthas that will be implemented in the near future. There are quests detailing him and dealing with his minions throughout the game. But either way, the story will never ever be the main focus of an MMO. Doesn't need to be. But if you want to ignore all the things WoW does extremely well because it doesn't have a storyline to rival a single player Final Fantasy game, then that's your deal. WoW's doing fine by focusing on the world, the dungeons, character balance and making it simply fun to play on a minute to minute basis. Not your thing, that's fine.

Some peeps brought this issue up earlier and I was gonna make a thread about it.

But is it me or are Japanese VG companies churnin' out "Americanized" games? I mean as long as the games are good I don't mind. I think this just prooves my point that the Japanese gamin' market has hit hard times.

Heh, if I'm not mistaken the current CEO of SONY is British-American.

Originally posted by BackFire
Twilight Princess was good but it's simply Ocarina of Time with better graphics and a larger world. No innovation there.

Well, in its defense, that's kind of what it was going for in the first place: taking the basic elements of the 3D Zeldas and "modernizing" it as well as could be while sticking to the formula of the series. They just went with refinement over innovation for making the "last Zelda of its kind."

A good example of western vs japanese I think, is

Super Metroid vs Metroid Prime..

people were like omg this games gonna crash n burn..

and then it turned out to be a hit series.. hell.. even I thought it was gonna blow chunks..

the west has just as good.. if not better ideas than japanese gaming IMO..

patching vs releasing a "new version" is another thing that irritates me about japanese

america's just like "patch that crap, its broke".. japanese are just like.. "we'll patch it... and then re-release it as super turbo hyper deluxe! "

Ah, now that's a good example if I do say so myself. Ironically, I had the same first impressions about MP as well, but eh...

Originally posted by SaTsuJiN
patching vs releasing a "new version" is another thing that irritates me about japanese

Guilty Gear XX Accent Core Plus anyone?

When it comes to storylines and game music, nothing beats the Japanese.
Some are so moving, that it affects the player's emotions.

Americans are excellent in MMORPGs and FPSs, no doubt about that.
I like the emphasis they put on the gameplay aspect of the game. Fun and addictive.


Character design? It depends entirely on the player's preference.
As for me, I prefer the unique, androgynous designs from the Japanese over the Americans.

Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
When it comes to storylines and game music, nothing beats the Japanese.
Some are so moving, that it affects the player's emotions.


My favourite music and storyline both come from western games. And whether you get moved by a game or not depends on the person. For example, usually scenes that are supposed to be moving in Japanese games make me cringe.

EDIT: As for androgynous characters: they are good in very, very small amounts.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
For example, usually scenes that are supposed to be moving in Japanese games make me cringe.
What scene made you cringe?

Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
What scene made you cringe?

The last one was in DMC4 when Nero's cardboard cut-out girlfriend gets stuck in the Savior and Nero fails to get her out of there. This sad music plays and you can see a tear running down his face. It was so goddamn stupid I wanted to headbutt my monitor.

So now that Dragon Age is out.....

Everything remains the same. Dragon Age brings absolutely nothing new to the table. Its a failed recreation of the original Baldur's Gate at best.

Originally posted by Weltall
Everything remains the same. Dragon Age brings absolutely nothing new to the table. Its a failed recreation of the original Baldur's Gate at best.
Fail.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
The last one was in DMC4 when Nero's cardboard cut-out girlfriend gets stuck in the Savior and Nero fails to get her out of there. This sad music plays and you can see a tear running down his face. It was so goddamn stupid I wanted to headbutt my monitor. Using DMC as a basis for Japanese gaming quality is... Stupid.

Dragon Age is the best game to come out this year IMO.

While it's true that Dragon Age hasn't really revolutionized anything, it's not necessarily a bad thing.

Baldur's Gate is the best series of RPG's ever IMO. Epic dialogue, interaction, story, and gameplay. Shame they don't update it with a good sequel.

The Baldur's Gate games aren't even the best RPGs that the Western World has to offer. System Shock, System Shock 2, Bioshock, Deus Ex, Deus Ex Invisible War, Fallout and Fallout 2 are all far superior.

Dragon Age is the best game to come out this year IMO.

I loved KOTOR because the plot was good, better than the prequels, had a legit plot twist I didn't telegraph 2 hours into the game. It also felt like a real Role Playing Game to me. Until KOTOR I had only played Final Fantasy "RPGs" and believed that was all there was to it. Though I could relate the emphasis on story to role play...kind of. Then I played KOTOR, didn't really care about the gameplay when it came to fighting, and was hooked on the limited choices you could make. Because eventhough they were not as many choices as I would've wanted, they were still there and far more credible then the ultra thin interactivity I had in the 5 ff games I played before KOTOR.

I mean hell my favorite moment in KOTOR, besides finding out you're a badass, was when the Jedi Council sent me to investigate and deal with a feud between families in the planet. Instead of making everything right and peaceful I manipulated them with lies, and a bit of the force(heh) and watched as they ended up killing their families in a bloody carnage. Then I made my way back to the council and flat-out lied to them about the exchange.

FF games, as good as they are, have never been able to give me a moment like that.

Originally posted by Weltall
The Baldur's Gate games aren't even the best RPGs that the Western World has to offer. System Shock, System Shock 2, Bioshock, Deus Ex, Deus Ex Invisible War, Fallout and Fallout 2 are all far superior. No they weren't. They might have had some updated graphics. The storyline, depth, complexity, and dialogue can't compare at all. Not to mention interparty NPC dialogue.

Originally posted by NemeBro

Dragon Age is the best game to come out this year IMO.
IMO is correct.

I can't believe something so bland and generic "is the best game to come out this year".

This game is like WoW or CS.. In a scale of overratedness, I'd give it a 10.

Nobody's mentioned Planescape: Torment.
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
No they weren't. They might have had some updated graphics. The storyline, depth, complexity, and dialogue can't compare at all. Not to mention interparty NPC dialogue.
Amen.

Deus Ex > Baldur's gate?

I can't stop laughing.

I've always been a console gamer, so my experiences come from them. Having said that I believe America >>> Japan during the current gen. Japan >>> America during the PSX/64 era; and America=Japan last gen.

Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
IMO is correct.

I can't believe something so bland and generic "is the best game to come out this year".

This game is like WoW or CS.. In a scale of overratedness, I'd give it a 10. You have long established yourself as a raging weaboo.

Why do you try to make your own opinion come off as even remotely important to anything?

Forgot to mention Planescape, there's another WRPG that far outshines Baldur's Gate. I'd probably add The Elder Scroll games and Fallout 3 as well, and possibly Knights of the Old Republic 2.

And if I might be giving the impression that I rate those games especially highly, I don't. They're the best of a bad bunch, and yet there isn't a single Bioware game that even approaches them.

Originally posted by Kris Blaze
Nobody's mentioned Planescape: Torment.

Amen.

Deus Ex > Baldur's gate?

I can't stop laughing. I doubt most people have even gone above and beyond and modded their game to their liking. I myself am a retro gamer, I just mod the games I play to the max. BG had an awesome story, awesome villains, feel, weapons, you had Drizzt, and Elminster, interparty romances, you had voice acting from David Warner. You can control and edit every single aspect of the game from top to bottom. They are all good games, but I have to say BG was highly underrated, and needs a sequel. Games like Diablo are really just the McDonalds verison of the same game.

BG does have a high learning curve, so the average gamer might find it too complex/ or be bored with it. But that is why I like it, it *isn't* for the average gamer. Things that "everyone" like tend to be massively watered down or dumbed down. WOW is fun for a lot of people, but it would lose its appeal if they made it a really complex game. So you have little choice but to McDonald's it down. That's the same thing with music and everything else. The paying fanbase won't pay for those certain things that hardcore enthusiasts like, so they make their money off of the large fanbase, something which others might consider "selling out" but it is a business.

Diablo, there's another one.

Diablo's better than BG? Reported for trolling.

Originally posted by NemeBro
You have long established yourself as a raging weaboo.

Why do you try to make your own opinion come off as even remotely important to anything?
Oh yeah, I forgot about that...
Rule 44 of teh internetz.

Only reason why people bought Dragon Age is either:

a. Western superiority complex

b. It was developed by BioWare


When I choosing between Demon's Souls and Dragon Age, I tried both games...
I have to say, Dragon Age didn't meet my expectations...
Baldur's Gate was way better.

I never actually played Baldur's Gate, so I cannot comment on which was better.

Western superiority? Lol. Please, Japan is the most overrated country in gaming, hell, in alot of things actually, but I digress. If you think a substantial amount of people bought the game for that, you truly are a deluded weaboo.

BioWare makes pretty good games, so yeah.

How was Demon's Souls by the way?

Haven't played through it yet... though I did try it out in the shop.

It's similar to Dragon Age. Bought it since I expect it to have a more decent storyline compared to DA. And way more challenging.

I'll have to finish Half-Minute Hero and Tekken 6 first on my PSP before trying it out.

i love this site. half the members on here suffer from some of the most severe cases of pretentiousness and delusions of grandeur i have ever seen in my life.

Originally posted by Weltall
Everything remains the same. Dragon Age brings absolutely nothing new to the table. Its a failed recreation of the original Baldur's Gate at best. Nobody cares what u think nebaris.

Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
Oh yeah, I forgot about that...
Rule 44 of teh internetz.

Only reason why people bought Dragon Age is either:

a. Western superiority complex

b. It was developed by BioWare


When I choosing between Demon's Souls and Dragon Age, I tried both games...
I have to say, Dragon Age didn't meet my expectations...
Baldur's Gate was way better.


I can assure you I didn't get DA due to any kind of complex.

And yes, BioWare inspires faith in me that the game will be good.

Characters have depth and were well written. The dialogue in general was well written. Right down to the banter that party members have amongst each other. I.e.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o30kABPuSL4



I actually got emotional over Morrigan and her relationship with the main character.

Combat, while a bit tedious, was something I learned and appreciated for its tact. I.e. traps and combat tactics.

Other than nostalgic feelings and being multiplayer, Baldur's Gate is not superior to DA.


Baldur's Gate was a watered down Diablo. Ironically it was the simplified system that made me enjoy it more than Diablo. It was linear, but fun. Nothing complex about it, just playing the class. And the thing that made it so much fun (little depth) is what it lacks as an RPG.

DA offers a story, choices, in depth characters and everything else Baldur's Gate has going for it (customization and combat).

If you want more Baldur's Gate, go get Marvel Alliance or any of the X-Men Legend games. They're practically the same.



Oh, and American.

I couldn't wait, so I just played through Demon's Souls a few minutes ago.

Contrary to the reviews, it isn't as hard as they say it is.. although I see novices and beginners struggling.

Controls are well-laid out.. love the camera angle.. graphics are very well-detailed.

Even the weakest of enemies can kill you with 1-4 hits, especially on the most critical parts of the body.
Realistic HP.


I'm itching to play the game now xP
Must... control... urge.
Have... to finish... Tekken 6... and Half-Minute Hero first.

Originally posted by geshien
I can assure you I didn't get DA due to any kind of complex.

And yes, BioWare inspires faith in me that the game will be good.

Characters have depth and were well written. The dialogue in general was well written. Right down to the banter that party members have amongst each other. I.e.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o30kABPuSL4



I actually got emotional over Morrigan and her relationship with the main character.

Combat, while a bit tedious, was something I learned and appreciated for its tact. I.e. traps and combat tactics.

Other than nostalgic feelings and being multiplayer, Baldur's Gate is not superior to DA.


Baldur's Gate was a watered down Diablo. Ironically it was the simplified system that made me enjoy it more than Diablo. It was linear, but fun. Nothing complex about it, just playing the class. And the thing that made it so much fun (little depth) is what it lacks as an RPG.

DA offers a story, choices, in depth characters and everything else Baldur's Gate has going for it (customization and combat).

If you want more Baldur's Gate, go get Marvel Alliance or any of the X-Men Legend games. They're practically the same.



Oh, and American. Nah, BG1 and BG2 were way more complex. More party members, more spells, more depth about the spells (hell the instruction manual was several hundred pages because of it), you have reputation, romances, everything.

Dual class, multi-class, custom class, kits. The first Diablo had like, 3 classes. Baldur's Gate allowed you to summon Genie's, NPC's had their own quests. You had so many optional quests you could play forever. It went on and on. In Diablo you could potentially go forever in character levels (so they say), but you can mod BG to do that too.

No way is BG more watered down. In Diablo, you moved and hit. Diablo two had a little more depth, but the simplicity is also why people liked it too. But it wasn't more complex than BG. No way no how.

Also had better music: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCXMXflff8s&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZoBXppWfAwA&feature=related

And Dialogue:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hk0sOGVSAP4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wdy-k_qLdQg

Originally posted by Tha C-Master

Also had better music: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCXMXflff8s&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZoBXppWfAwA&feature=related

And Dialogue:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hk0sOGVSAP4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wdy-k_qLdQg



Baldur's Gate series has some of the best dialogues in the history of RPGs

22Ki7yp2XL0

Godly voiceovers is Godly.

The original badass, Sarevok, who is a playable character later...

vvQqIM_zRN4

Dream sequence...

J6hPHtzrfCQ

023oEmZi6BI

I don't know why people are comparing BG with Diablo. They are actually very different games.

Yeah but Diablo is better.

Originally posted by Weltall
Yeah but Diablo is better.

That's arbitrary. I, personally, prefer Diablo. However, I wouldn't dare to argue that Diablo has better RPG elements.

Yea, they are different, I'm not sure some would consider Diablo a true RPG, more like arcade. Dunno. I actually really like Diablo though.

It has a far better and less generic storyline, which is the most important roleplaying element of all in a video game.

Yea, hero stop the big bad evil, vs hero who finds out the man who raised him is his foster father and he is a demigod around in one of Alaoundo's darkest prohpecies. The storyline in BG1 and 2 is epic and on par with novels. To say otherwise makes me think you haven't played the game or are just trolling for a response.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Yea, they are different, I'm not sure some would consider Diablo a true RPG, more like arcade. Dunno. I actually really like Diablo though.

Its more a action role playing game.

Originally posted by Kazenji
Its more a action role playing game. It does have more of the "pick up and play" to it. BG starts off slower. One thing I do like about Diablo is you can start it on the fly. I generally save in my favorite fights in BG and warp wherever I please.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Nah, BG1 and BG2 were way more complex. More party members, more spells, more depth about the spells (hell the instruction manual was several hundred pages because of it), you have reputation, romances, everything.

Dual class, multi-class, custom class, kits. The first Diablo had like, 3 classes. Baldur's Gate allowed you to summon Genie's, NPC's had their own quests. You had so many optional quests you could play forever. It went on and on. In Diablo you could potentially go forever in character levels (so they say), but you can mod BG to do that too.

No way is BG more watered down. In Diablo, you moved and hit. Diablo two had a little more depth, but the simplicity is also why people liked it too. But it wasn't more complex than BG. No way no how.



I do not recall BG being that deep at all.

A few spells and talents, but I don't remember too much of questing. Everything wrapped together towards the main plot.

I never played BG 2 so no comment.

BG2 was built a lot more on the same formula. Much more freedom and quests. You should give it a shot.

BG1 had more areas, but less quests. BG2 had loads of them, and then some. You could also mod both games as well.