Americans or Japanese?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

The games simply aren't as subtle as some of their more recent American counterparts.

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

4. The focus being sheer exploration doesn't mean that nothing else can exist in the game aside from exploration.

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.

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.

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.

And no, you think WoW is shit simply because it doesn't fit what you THINK an RPG should be.

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

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.

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.

Wow's plot could be much less detailed; go play other MMO games that don't even have any story at all.

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

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.

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
And altering the norm is how progression and creativity is born.

Which is a great thing when it’s done successfully in a way that actually works. As it stands, developers have not managed to use choice based mechanics to draw the player into the role of the character, the entire approach is simply far too limited to allow for as much. The choices are never especially varied, don’t usually result in significant long lasting changes, and being predetermined, you would have to be of an abnormally passive nature to really feel like you’re taking control of the character with decisions and actions that don’t actually originate from you but are laid out before you by the game, where you simply get to pick your most preferred option. For that reason alone, no matter how varied the choices are and how varied the changes, you would realistically never truly be able to feel like you’re the driving force behind your character when all his potential decisions and actions are simply presented before you, and not actually coming directly from you.

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.

Not at all, you can still make improvements while sticking to the current format. Telling a better story, designing a better game world, designing better characters, developing the story at a better pace etc... would all see to improvements while sticking to the format of the genre.

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.

It absolutely does matter and I’ve explained why. Choices that don’t actually originate from you but the game itself will never truly feel like your own, at best the feeling will be that you’re slightly influencing the storyline and characters.

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.

I realise, and even stated as much.

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.

I’d even go on to say that the setting is absolutely fundamental in drawing the player into the character and into the game world.

What I was taking issue with was the idea that sheer exploration of the game world is an RPG mechanic, and that added emphasis on that makes a game as much of an RPG as a game with added emphasis on the plot.

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.

There again seems to be some kind of miscommunication based issue. I’m not saying that something that is ultimately bleak can’t have its own engaging aspects. It can, but if something is as a whole bleak, it cannot ultimately be captivating at the same time. One denies the other in that sense. An indivisible aspect of the setting can also not be both at the same time. At their core, one denies the other.

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.

As someone who’s played a nice range of RPGs from both regions, you get both elements in both regions. Highlighting isolated instance doesn’t really do anything to represent the regions as a whole.

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.

I fail to be too overwhelmed. It’s not like such imagery hasn’t been explored before, the teddy bear image itself in that context has been way too overused; there’s even a moment in Tales of the World: Radiant Mythology which is virtually identical, where after a large group of the townspeople had been kidnapped, and you’re wandering through the area where they’re believed to be held, you stumble across a lone teddy bear lying on the ground with a very similar implication. It’s as dramatically powerful and subtle as the instance you’re describing.

It's those kind of things that separate Jrpgs from Wrpgs.

As someone with extensive experience with both, I’m personally not seeing it, and highlighting isolated instances does nothing to support that.

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.

There’s only so much detail and backstory you can get by simply looking at the scenery around you. Dialogue has far more potential for dramatic effect, given how it can expand on such simple things like images or ideas, while at the same time possessing the subtlety or mystery or artistry that an image may contain.

It alters the tone of the game, and while neither style is better than the other, they both hold power in different ways.

As explained, emphasis on visuals rather than dialogue is far more limiting and possesses considerably less dramatic potential.

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.

Still not seeing it, and as said, there’s a virtually identical scene in a JRPG, not that highlighted isolated instances actually represent the entire genre.