IGN: Top 10 Ways to fix JRPG's

[Cadsuane]

Neither is pointing out a shitty parody apparently. Cry moar about big werdz

[ArchDizzle]

What the fuck has happened while I have been away from gaming 8( I do not like these new tards.

[Kyo]

Jesus Christ, you're one dense motherfucker aren't you?

hmmm. Chari I may need to borrow your iron, mines being repaired this morning.

[Cephius]

Uh, right back at you(se), I think? What am I missing?

Admission of preference for a particular JRPG like it's a guilty pleasure (haha) and then a caricature of WRPG fanboyism begetting the anti-JRPG argument... which is legitimate but lame as fuck and misses the entire point when you put shit like Oblivion on a pedestal. WRPGs have been categorically better than JRPGs at least since Baldur's Gate came out.

You seriously fail. I'll spell it out for you - what you quoted was OBVIOUSLY me making a joke referencing the OP article that compares everything to Fallout 3 and Oblivion.

[Cadsuane]

You seriously fail. I'll spell it out for you - what you quoted was OBVIOUSLY me making a joke referencing the OP article that compares everything to Fallout 3 and Oblivion.

ohhh. Good one. I agree.

[ArchDizzle]

ohhh. Good one. I agree.

Stop with the words!

[Kyo]

So I decided I will fist fight a tornado.

[BRP]

BRP, I never understood your grading schema for games and it always seemed a bit arbitrary to me. What's your verdict for a game like Planescape: Torment that seems to defy your criteria for depth of gameplay but ends up being a cult classic for game-art snobs like me?

Torment has some of the best atmosphere ever in a game, so it stands out. I can't really give it a grade unless I replayed it, because I am bound to give it more than it is due. (It would definitely get average or above, because the exploration factor alone.)

[ArchDizzle]

So I decided I will fist fight a tornado.

It's sad, the first thing that came to mind was an Elvaan Monk TPing in Str gear and I haven't played that game in years. =(

[Kyo]

The good ole days.

[Cadsuane]

It didn't seem like you were making a provision for things like atmosphere whenever you talk about what a game needs to do to be good. Torment is the best example I can think of of a piece of art using a new medium to accomplish things that books and movies can't, and hence can't be evaluated as just a game. Productive criticism for JRPGs can't take place by the same token if the critic refuses to look at anything but battle mechanics etc.

[Beckwin]

Araelus raises some interesting points. It's very worthwhile to point out the reasons for playing and/or completing a game. Cadsuane's expansion on this gives a fair explanation of why we can't just judge some games on their combat alone (although it most definitely should be judged as a component, and I think it's safe to say that one terribly executed component can drag down a whole game).

I think I'm going to disagree with Araelus about Valk Profile and Valkyria Chronicles not being JRPGs though. You can peg them in different subgenres than DQ/FF, but I'd say they still fall under the JRPG umbrella. Aesthetics, style(mostly linear narrative)/presentation of story, use of characters, game structure, and so on.

WRPG is a pretty large umbrella as well; Fallout 2, Diablo, Baldur's, Oblivion, Mass Effect, and Fable are all pretty diverse games but fall under it, thanks largely to: Aesthetics, style(mostly non-linear/multiple-choice narrative)/presentation of story, use of characters, game structure, and so on. You should be able to spot that Diablo games are an exception to the non-linear narrative, but as I said earlier, that alone doesn't necessarily push it out of the genre.

Anyhow, if we want to criticize specific elements or specific titles, we should just stick to that instead of failing like IGN.

[Cadsuane]

Araelus raises some interesting points. It's very worthwhile to point out the reasons for playing and/or completing a game. Cadsuane's expansion on this gives a fair explanation of why we can't just judge some games on their combat alone (although it most definitely should be judged as a component, and I think it's safe to say that one terribly executed component can drag down a whole game).

I agree. Torment doesn't get perfect marks for that reason.

[BRP]

It didn't seem like you were making a provision for things like atmosphere whenever you talk about what a game needs to do to be good.

Productive criticism for JRPGs can't take place by the same token if the critic refuses to look at anything but battle mechanics etc.

Atmosphere is a part of the game. So are graphics, sound, and plot(though atmosphere is mostly a sum of these). They must be given some sort of attention if the intent is a complete review of the game. But... they are just secondary and should be treated as such.

If a game makes exemplary use of these secondary features then it is certainly worth checking it out.

Your last sentence is silly, because you ignoring the fact that there will still be viable criticism... for the battle system. Which is more important than criticism of anything else in a JRPG. So if you wrote a whole review, but only quoted the portions talking about the battle system, you would still have "constructive" criticism.

What this means for this article, which is preoccupied with fluff more than half the time, is that you are not going to be doing much fixing even if you followed the list.

[Araelus]

I think I'm going to disagree with Araelus about Valk Profile and Valkyria Chronicles not being JRPGs though. You can peg them in different subgenres than DQ/FF, but I'd say they still fall under the JRPG umbrella. Aesthetics, style(mostly linear narrative)/presentation of story, use of characters, game structure, and so on.

Ah, my fault, I meant I'd say V.Profile is a JRPG and V.Chronicles is not. I should have placed more focus on my use of "both" vs. "either" in that section.

Then again, I suppose although Chronicles is a strategy game its aesthetics are entirely based on a JRPG format, as you described. It can be played for the story (which needed less sudden STOP ... continue! breaks) whereas I played it for the battles. That's a blurry boundary (cf. Disgaea, FFTactics, Ogre Battle). How many subgenres are there? (And where is the 40k version of V.Profile...)

Araelus raises some interesting points. ... (I think it's safe to say that one terribly executed component can drag down a whole game).

Thanks. And you're right, any one bad component can spoil a game - the electronic format requires solid combat mechanics especially as you pointed out, in part because combat (and/or stealth) is one of the two gross types of player interaction with the game world - as opposed to dialogue/shops/crafting. Yet that electronic format sometimes makes an otherwise bad combat system palatable, in Planescape: Torment, for that matter - the computer takes care of the THAC0 stupidity in the background.

Torment has some of the best atmosphere ever in a game, so it stands out. I can't really give it a grade unless I replayed it, because I am bound to give it more than it is due.

Torment was one of those computer games that had so much content and possibilities in the setting that it felt like we were going to have fully electronic RPGs sooner rather than not yet. Granted, Torment used a developed tabletop setting but it was released in the Year of Lavos.

[Cadsuane]

Atmosphere is a part of the game. So are graphics, sound, and plot(though atmosphere is mostly a sum of these). They must be given some sort of attention if the intent is a complete review of the game. But... they are just secondary and should be treated as such.

If a game makes exemplary use of these secondary features then it is certainly worth checking it out.

Your last sentence is silly, because you ignoring the fact that there will still be viable criticism... for the battle system. Which is more important than criticism of anything else in a JRPG. So if you wrote a whole review, but only quoted the portions talking about the battle system, you would still have "constructive" criticism.

Yes, but the point was that it would hopelessly limited in scope, like reviewing a horror game and leaving out whether or not the game managed to scare you.

JRPGs aren't intolerable for their battle systems (which are entirely adequate on occasion), they're intolerable because they're weeaboo fests of shallow (or non-existent) themes and puerile writing, plus a few million bucks worth of graphical splendour with no substantive underpinning. Improving the battle system in a stereotypical JRPG would still leave you with a shitty game which defies the notion that atmosphere and story telling are secondary features. The battle system is merely the "game" aspect of an RPG, and only things like tetris and chess are just games.

[Mayareira]

they're intolerable because they're weeaboo fests of shallow (or non-existent) themes and puerile writing

Not really, not all JRPGs are the same.

Define weeaboo. First of all, it is a <J>RPG and calling everything japanese a "weeaboo tool" is a recent annoying trend.

plus a few million bucks worth of graphical splendour with no substantive underpinning

Actually, majority of JRPG's are lacking in technical aspects.

Improving the battle system in a stereotypical JRPG would still leave you with a shitty game which defies the notion that atmosphere and story telling are secondary features. The battle system is merely the "game" aspect of an RPG, and only things like tetris and chess are just games.

Battle system of a rpg is one of the most important aspects of it. Most recent RPG's are suffering more from poor game mechanics than story-related problems.

[Araelus]

JRPGs ... [are] intolerable because ...

I agree that the story is important. I disagree in that the storyline of an RPG is supposed to be a game as well, but usually in a JRPG it isn't. It's a mildly interactive story. In some JRPGs there is no story at all, or the story is a chain of plot coupons.

TL;DR: This issue of bad plots is really what needs to change, and has changed considerably from the days of no plot at all, now to a fixed plot. Need to move from a fixed plot to an actual RPG plot. Fun Japanese battle systems exist. Interesting Japanese plots exist. Interesting interactive plots??

Anyway, the ur-example, FFI, was basically Dungeons & Dragons* except the guy running the game could only give your party fetch quests. So hilariously this hugely popular change in the JRPG market waybackthen™ was the mechanic of allowing the player to choose from different character classes, compared to the almost completely static Dragon Quest series. A notion from ... the West's most popular tabletop RPG.

Gameplay itself was 99% random battles. The rest was guessing what all the AB.WORD meant.

*I mean it, compare the monster list of FFI with the old D&D manuals, then consider the elemental strong/weak calls were bugged so the game's combat mechanic consisted entirely of hit/crit/spell/miss over and over and over.

The sequel, Final Fantasy II, included a system where you could memorize key phrases and then use these to ask NPCs for more dialogue options, adding at least some story-based puzzles... or just checking every possible dialogue line, making it much more of an RPG-ish thing. There were no levels - you got more HP by getting hit in battle, gained weapon/magic skill through use - sounds like FFXIV huh. Only later games introduced solid storylines and battles that were interesting to fight (mostly, sometimes, maybe).

What I am hearing from BRP is that he treats the storyline of JRPGs as set in stone one way or another - makes sense to me, that is usually the case and remember Sturgeon's Law - so it's not an RPG, it's a strategy game with Japanese words attached. This was how I saw V.Chronicles - the story is not a mystery, it's totally predictable, but the battles are YES AWESOME. Is this satisfying? YES AWESOME (but this this and this could be better...)

I approach video games with the attitude that it either needs an enjoyable story or it needs an enjoyable combat system and the enjoyable portion needs to be the focus of the game, or why am I playing it? Both story and combat would be great but ... rare.

Crawford's Corollary: Should you ever find that less than 90% seem to be crap, your standard is set too low and should be adjusted.

The Theorem Of Narrow Interests: The more constrained the thing you're looking for, the fewer good examples exist.

[Cadsuane]

Not really, not all JRPGs are the same.

Define weeaboo. First of all, it is a <J>RPG and calling everything japanese a "weeaboo tool" is a recent annoying trend.

No. If you can't figure out what standard anime plot and character archetypes are or why they're ridiculed then I have no desire to discuss it with you.

Actually, majority of JRPG's are lacking in technical aspects.

Qualify that. Even if it's true, Japanese art design is always slick and distinctive enough to be a surefire way to identify whether or not a game is Japanese in the first place.

Battle system of a rpg is one of the most important aspects of it. Most recent RPG's are suffering more from poor game mechanics than story-related problems.

I didn't say it wasn't. Qualify that.

[Cadsuane]

I agree that the story is important. I disagree in that the storyline of an RPG is supposed to be a game as well, but usually in a JRPG it isn't. It's a mildly interactive story. In some JRPGs there is no story at all, or the story is a chain of plot coupons.

What, like an RPG needs dialogue options and player determined plot decisions? I disagree with that too. I don't think story telling has to be interactive, I just think that however it's done, it should be effective. A plot that happens entirely out of the players hands could still be a very good one.

What I am hearing from BRP is that he treats the storyline of JRPGs as set in stone one way or another - makes sense to me, that is usually the case and remember Sturgeon's Law - so it's not an RPG, it's a strategy game with Japanese words attached. This was how I saw V.Chronicles - the story is not a mystery, it's totally predictable, but the battles are YES AWESOME. Is this satisfying? YES AWESOME (but this this and this could be better...)

My approaching to video games is it either needs an enjoyable story or it needs an enjoyable combat system and the enjoyable portion needs to be the focus of the game, or why am I playing it? Both story and combat would be great but ... rare.

Crawford's Corollary: Should you ever find that less than 90% seem to be crap, your standard is set too low and should be adjusted.

The Theorem Of Narrow Interests: The more constrained the thing you're looking for, the fewer good examples exist.

Sure, that sounds quite reasonable.