IGN: Top 10 Ways to fix JRPG's

[BRP]

@BRP: The tldr version is 3-fold. 1) Your Street Fighter viewpoint is flawed, at least if you're going to claim that SF does something innovative that FF does not. They're actually very similar through the years.

I never mentioned "innovation" nor did I bother to claim Street Fighter has more innovation than Final Fantasy(why would I make such an obvious claim lol). Go reread my posts because you seem to only be grasping bits and pieces.

2) JRPGs haven't received the scrutiny that they deserve, but that scrutiny is irrelevant as the JP mindset is NOT to change things based on public complaint or criticism.

Horseshit. The only reason JRPGs continue to exist is that people continue to purchase them. Games like Dragon Quest are Japan's Halo. (Well the part about JRPG not receiving criticism is true, highly valued magazines like Famitsu gives 10s out based on brand names.)

3) Replay value has a lot to do with innovation in terms of successful series.

More horeshit. (Horseshit completely unrelated to what I was talking about at that.)

[Beckwin]

problem here is that jrpg or wrpg critics will abuse labels to suit their arguments. I'm waiting for BRP to tell Domon that Tales games aren't really JRPGs because they have real-time combat or whatever.

the subgenre distinction here is regionally based, yet there are definitely some recognizable traits very common throughout games from their respective regions. aesthetics, themes, character stat progression, largely exclusive handfuls of basic battle styles, etc. However it's important to recognize that many games will not meet all criteria for their region, but that doesn't necessarily make them not JRPGs/WRPGs.

That out of the way, the article is pretty bad. BRP agrees with that, yet he's deriding people for criticizing a bad article... folks, you're being trolled. Rather than making his own criticisms and/or commenting on yours, he's simply making a bunch of broad, vague statements about what (J)RPGs are and then talking about fighting games (which is the go to for those professing to be hard-core gamers in the know: fighting games are infinitely difficult due to pvp and have all kinds of cred hailing from the arcade glory days). Having strong opinions and criticisms is fine, but if you can't express them effectively, you might as well just give everyone a copy of <insert JRPG> to waste their time instead.

But anyhow, the article is weak for several reasons, many of which have been pointed out. Basically, it's pretty easy to think of various JRPG titles that defy the articles generic criticisms... easy enough to come to the conclusion that JRPGs have quite a bit of variety, which is contrary to the whole premise of the article: that JRPGs are all boring, bland, and stale (and need to be like Oblivion/Fallout3 or Mass Effect/KOTR/Dragon Age...).

A lot of the aesthetics issues are just that- aesthetics. "cardboard cutouts" indicative of a lack of quality? No; I'd say it has more to do with the illustrated tradition of storytelling and the kind of quality illustrations used. It's very fair to point out the awkward closeups featured in games like FO3 (as someone did) as not being some sort of improvement- the reality is aside from the aesthetic choice, we currently don't have the tech (or maybe funding) to make every generic townsperson/merchant/etc look and animate like Nathan Drake.

I think the save point issue raised by the article might be the most valid one, although it isn't so simple as presented. Save points can be a limitation that creates some difficulty (surviving a bunch of consecutive encounters while navigating a mazelike dungeon... forcing endurance strategies, etc), but the ability to put the game down is certainly appreciable for players. It also lets the player experiment with choices instead of having to replay the whole game again (which is some serious filler if it doesn't involve a substantially different style for a replay). I think though, as the genre starts shifting away from sparse save points, we'll see more stuff like Demon's Souls (oh god not truly JRPG!) and ff13- more punishing game systems (easy to be killed/(certain character) not allowed to be killed) to compensate for more convenient saving.

[Lucavi]

The main question I have is what would happen if people suddenly began criticizing games with their wallets. What we typically see are companies folding under when sales are sluggish or poor, at least if they're smaller ones. It's always said that if you as a consumer don't like a product, or the way a company is going about their business, don't buy the product.

Would that actually work in the gaming world, though? Is there any true way (besides bantering on forums and sending in laughable online petitions) for the consumer in the gaming industry to leave their mark on the truly juggernauts of gaming companies? I'm speaking more aimed towards the Japanese, but I guess even American companies like EA could suffice here.

[BRP]

I'm waiting for BRP to tell Domon that Tales games aren't really JRPGs because they have real-time combat or whatever.

(Combat like a belt-scrolling beat em up, but I know what you mean.) Pretty sure I have at one point or to kiara. Though I am not entirely sure because all I've seen is Youtube videos lol. Anyway they are referred to Action RPGs which are not JRPGs, at least not in the same group as Final Fantasy, Dragon Quest, and etc. To me it is like saying beat em ups with grinding, so there is little misunderstanding. (To say that JRPGs should be like them is like "best way to make a JRPG is to not make a JRPG" or however it goes. Which is something I agree with!)

he's simply making a bunch of broad, vague statements about what (J)RPGs are and then talking about fighting games (which is the go to for those professing to be hard-core gamers in the know: fighting games are infinitely difficult due to pvp and have all kinds of cred hailing from the arcade glory days). Having strong opinions and criticisms is fine, but if you can't express them effectively, you might as well just give everyone a copy of <insert JRPG> to waste their time instead.

Brought up one fighting game series which were put into parenthesis as examples. Choose Street Fighter II because it is rather notorious for its minor updates and yet it eventually made a big leap with 3. I wanted to illustrate that small or big updates didn't really matter to what I was saying. Just because my peer is completely oblivious to that doesn't mean I plan to continue talking about fighting games. (For a series that only does minor, but mostly none degenerative updates I am going to do a total asspull and say Advance Wars.)

I don't know if I am being too vague with JRPGs, but I constantly mention strategy combat system with grinding which need to be improved by being better systems and have less grinding.

I guess being a third party is bound to look like trolling especially if you are against both groups rather than neutral.


EDIT: Less autosaving and such also adds a lot of tension and risk. Which is a good thing as it leads to more enthralling experience.

[Beckwin]

Now now BRP, the thing is, I agree with you (in spirit) about a few things within this topic. I'm just trying to urge you to make a better argument instead of using Tyven's schtick behind a vidya curtain.

again though, by limiting JRPG to Final Fantasy and Dragon Warrior (and a small handful of other games), you're ignoring the common usage of the word and isolating too much to really have a worthwhile discussion. you should just be criticizing FF and DQ, in that case. although with entries like 12 and now 13 offering some significant changes, I have to wonder about some criticisms, esp the IGN ones (not saying your's and IGN's are analogous). tbh I haven't played DQ, but from what I can tell it's the bastion of early 90s style turn-based random encounter playstyle. maybe criticisms for that are appropriate, but you're basically down to criticizing 1-4ish series. there's a lot more going on in the genre.

[Cephius]

The problem with BRP is he thinks people can't use their own opinions (that are to him, misguided) to argue a point. And then he turns around and uses his own "superior" opinions in his counter arguments. For example:

Grinding is fake depth, which gives the illusion of player growth through uninteresting task. So all those levels, stats, monster entries, and so on may be complicated, but not in a way that makes the game deeper.

JRPGs is not so much a genre as a collection of shitty games

JRPG is not and never has been a proper subgenre and it gets an enormous amount of leniency on criticism

What you have with most JRPGs is a rotten tree that continues to grow and produce rotten fruit

So, BRP, if you are not trolling (and don't get me wrong, I believe you are - consciously or subconsciously - simply because you do not like JRPGs) please at least recognize that people can, in fact, have opinions and that yours is no more valid than theirs.

tl;dr BRP thinks only his shit don't stank.

[Correction]

there's a lot more going on in the genre.

Will BRP take the bait?

Wait, of course he will.

[BRP]

I've already written out the logic behind calling games good or bad, which you quoted part of. Has nothing to do with individual opinions of a game.

[Beckwin]

I'm also gonna have to disagree about JRPGs getting leniency in criticism. That would be a comparative statement unless you meant to say that pretty much all games get leniency in criticism.

[BRP]

Use of "comparative statement" confuses me slightly...

People tend to compare JRPGs only to JRPGs, so things like grinding and boring pacing are accepted with fanfare. (A game without grinding wouldn't ever be called a JRPG, no matter how we define it!) In published criticism(which was mainly what I was talking about) this results in games getting high marks even if the review pointed out all these flaws. If the JRPG was compared to other strategy games where there is no filler, there is no way it would rank so high. (Or when they do rate a JRPG low, probably because the music/story wasn't good lol, it probably should have gone lower that it did.)

So while there is certainly a bunch of random leniency in published videogame criticism, this sticks out as separate issue. There are exceptions to this trend(if that's what you meant by comparative statement). To go back to the paragraph where I said this, it is fuel for the fire for those who think these games suck.

[Beckwin]

you're comparing JRPG criticism to criticism of other genres. by saying JRPG criticism is unduly lenient, you're implying that other genres are generally judged more fairly or harshly.

So while there is certainly a bunch of random leniency in published videogame criticism, this sticks out as separate issue.

uh, I wouldn't call it random. what you're saying is that JRPGs get a sort of pass on gameplay because of their genre, but there are several otherge genres where you typically see similar passes given- sports and shooters stand out in that regard.

but I think the deeper issue is how certain titles/series get passes, due to their reputations and hype (and on the seedier underbelly, their powerful publishers putting pressure on lots of major review outlets). I pretty regularly see generic JRPGs get slapped with average or below average scores (Cross Edge is a semi-recent one that comes to mind which reviewed poorly), but on the other hand, titles like Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest are all but guaranteed 90%+, even though they may have some significant flaws. Similarly, you've got your Halos, Maddens, etc that get similar treatments. that's not to say they're all bad games, but maybe more of them warrant B grades than A grades.

[Lucavi]

There were plenty of "innovative" JRPGs in terms of combat styles or even plot-lines. I like to think of Legend of Legaia as a pretty innovative RPG because it blended beat-em-up combo play style with traditional RPG settings, characters and motives. It received average reviews.

BRP you always go back to grinding, and I'll agree that sometimes it is a pain in the ass, but sometimes it isn't. Diablo II isn't a full-blown RPG, but the "grind" in that game is highly enjoyable. Stacking a group of 4-8 people together with their different abilities and buffs and debuffs to plow through a predictable pile of enemies (with little variation other than uniques with effects on them) was a truck-load of fun. I'd argue again that while not traditional innovative in the "kill mobs and get loot" sense, the innovation instead came from the player-base, who discovered (often times by accident) new combinations of abilities that worked and new ways to get through the stages.

Again, I don't think innovation is something that has to simply be packaged on the back of a box with bulletpoints in front of it as "new features".

You can call it horseshit, but it isn't. Your examples of innovation are merely to "improve on existing systems". You rarely mention how. Taking the high road and shooting down ideas and viewpoints may be fun, but its hardly constructive.

[Beckwin]

To expand on grinding, it seems like a number of JRPGs are breaking that stereotype... I can think of quite a few titles that don't really require much leveling to beat, or that can be beaten at low level for a variable increase in challenge.

FF8- levels weren't really needed; grinding was for maxing out characters
FF12- can be beaten with no level gain. game was pretty easily beatable on a standard playthrough with no level grinding.
Demon's Souls- getting levels just makes things easier; doesn't seem to be the case that egregious grinding is necessary to complete the game
Valkyria Chronicles- didn't require much in the way of grinding; basically you just wanted to upgrade the classes but that's easy to do in the course of a normal playthrough
Rogue Galaxy- levels don't seem too important other than equip requirements. skill and strategy can compensate for lower levels

and so on. I think maybe a problem here is that we've still got memories of the 16 and early 32 bit days clouding our perceptions of where the genre is now. I'll definitely concede that the older FFs, BoFs, Earthbound, SMRPG, Suikoden, etc seem to overemphasize grinding for levels, but I think that's changed.

Basically, I feel that if the experience you accrue from battles or quests on the course of a normal, fairly straight-through play is enough for a reasonable potential to complete the game, it's not too grindy. The exception here is if the normal straight-through play it too littered with obnoxiously/excessively long dungeons that are chock full of encounters to the point of unenjoyability.

[Julian]

and so on. I think maybe a problem here is that we've still got memories of the 16 and early 32 bit days clouding our perceptions of where the genre is now. I'll definitely concede that the older FFs, BoFs, Earthbound, SMRPG, Suikoden, etc seem to overemphasize grinding for levels, but I think that's changed.

Suikoden was incredibly anti-grindy, and built in a way that didn't require you to really grind at all. You can take a character that's extremely low level, take him to your most recent area, and get him caught up to everyone's average level in like 5 fights maybe

[Beckwin]

Yes, but you couldn't really do well in the game by not leveling anyone. Not to mention that with a lot of those older games, there's a fair criticism of too-damn-many-random-encounters.

[Cephius]

Admitted bias: I love Suikoden.

Blasphemy. The only good RPGs are Fallout 3 and Oblivion, clearly.

[Howard Roark]

has no one read brp's views on the idea that true rpg's do not and cannot (yet) exist? I don't want to put words in his mouth but with this frame of mind, I see zero trolling on brp's part

he doesn't accept your definitions or classifications, this is not trolling

[Beckwin]

then was derailing an entire discussion just because he refuses to use the common term for something.

it'd be like talking about music and complaining that pop isn't a genre just because by the most literal definition, anything with a degree of widespread popularity is pop music, rather than just accepting the definition that allows you to discuss things.

[Celeras]

has no one read brp's views on the idea that [snip]

I'm sorry, you must be new here. If you read gaming threads, BRP is on ignore. If you read political threads, Leif is on ignore. If you read NFL threads, all the Cowboy fans are on ignore.

Glad I could clear this up.

[Araelus]

TL;DR: Not everyone likes studying Ancient Egypt, not everyone likes playing a JRPG.
But if you sign up for a class "History of Ancient Egypt" you know to expect certain content.
If you buy "a JRPG" do you know what to expect?

The term "JRPG" is either not an acronym or it is a misleading one.

then was derailing an entire discussion just because he refuses to use the common term for something.

What if someone wants to argue the common definition/category/term is wrong, or misleading? "inflammable" and "flammable" are synonyms - stupid linguistic decision since it is a case of "in" functioning not as a prefix but appearing as the result of one of two usable Latin roots. Or look at the flamewar between pop psychology and neuroscience.

Unfortunately "JRPG" doesn't have a nice fixed definition or terms of use. Right now it means anything from "an RPG made in Japan" to a game that fits a specific rubric of game design choices. (In which case any country can make a JRPG.)

Bottom line is the IGN article treats "JRPG" as a rubric and disagrees with that rubric. So they list a few of its main points as something that should be "fixed" (static towns, random encounters from a worldmap, grinding, repeat-a-boss challenges, similar and familiar plotlines, limited save points).

Thus the replies of "oh so make JRPG like WRPG" + agree/disagree. It is just debating whether to "keep making the mistakes of the past or start making the mistakes of the future."

There are some people who like the "classic" JRPG format and don't want it to change. There are some people who don't like it outright and want that kind of game to vanish.

I'm in the camp for picking bits of the staid JRPG games and some of the action-y JRPG games (e.g. later Tales, Valkyrie Profile II) and part of the "WPRG" goal of an interactive world, and part of fighting or FPS games' control interface (to reward pattern recognition and learned combat behavior) and part of some puzzle game and somehow put it in control of a referee like ... well, tabletop RPGs and .... dammit.

So the term "JRPG" is useful for answering "will I like this game's general format or not?" only if it remains a fixed definition. Only if it doesn't evolve or whatever to earn that "RPG" part (here is where BRP gets accused of trolol I guess).

"JRPG" is not a natural kind. If we want to use the term we either have to make it a fixed definition or a resemblance predicate. That is, the term can mean a group of games which all have the same n properties or become an indicator of a group of games which all share one or more core properties and in addition have other bits which make them "anotherletter+JRPG".

As it stands right now the misleading label of "JRPG" can misapplied to games such as Valkyria Chronicles. The linguistic issue - because that's what it is - needs to be settled one way or the other. Before people can productively discuss (read: argue) what kind of games we ought to be making and playing they need to agree on what kind of games we are making and playing.

has no one read brp's views on the idea that true rpg's do not and cannot (yet) exist? I don't want to put words in his mouth but with this frame of mind, I see zero trolling on brp's part

he doesn't accept your definitions or classifications, this is not trolling

That's right, thanks for mentioning it - and I agree with BRP on the point of "what is an RPG" (as people who read that thread will remember) so I think his line of inquiry/criticism is useful. At least, I'd say there are no video game RPGs - there are things we refer to as "JRPG" and "WRPG", obviously. (The term RPG attached to them is detached from other uses of RPG, I am uncomfortable with such a situation.) There are some non-electronic RPGs.

From this perspective JRPGs can be improved by moving closer to the ideal state of actually being RPGs. Cue retread of "what is an RPG"

Parting shot:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2714/...ac3ae437_o.png

"De gustibus non est disputandum."