Originally posted by Peach1. Only in that they are more massive in scale(generally) and allow interaction with real people.
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.
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.
The primary focus of an RPG is staying completely in a role of a character throughout the course of a game.
That would be more of a [given] characteristic... and not just of an RPG, but any character based video 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.
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.
Also, JRPG's have a different method of storytelling than American ones.
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.
You are right in that American ones do tend to be darker and bleaker, but that's not inherently bad.
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.
Japanese RPG's are extremely melodramatic, even the best ones, they are over the top while American ones tend to be much more grounded.
Really? In what way?
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.
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.
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.
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 [given] 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 [b]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.[/B]
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.
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? 😖hifty:
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
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 👇
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 SmasandianTypo, meant fighting game market.
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.