IGN: Top 10 Ways to fix JRPG's

[Araelus]

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.

This is where I would go into a rant about what RPGs are, so yeah. No worries.

[Lucavi]

If RPGs need dialogue options and player determined plot decisions, then every RPG might as well be a Fallout clone. Even if that was the golden standard, it doesn't guarantee a fun game.

If Fallout 3 was enjoyable (and it was in many respects), it was not because you had the obligatory "nice guy", "neutral guy", and "fuck you" response to it, especially when throughout most of the game, those choices really didn't amount to much of a difference. Raiders still hated you, Talon mercs still hated you, Muties still hated you, and you still had to fight the enclave and work with project purity to beat the game.

Now, had some of those choices broken up multiple paths, such as getting to work WITH Raiders, Talon Mercs, or hell, even immersing yourself with FEV and joining the ranks of the Super Mutants, trying to either reform them from within or mutate the rest of the wasteland -- THOSE are real choices I can get behind. But if RPGs are going to be defined as the Western trend of having 3 different text bubbles to squeeze out some semblance of a choice in a game where regardless of your words, your actions will ultimately still be the same, then what's the point of branding it as such? Sure, you're playing a role, but you're still being coddled towards a pre-determined singular ending. Heck, the only time the ending changes is right at the FINAL point in the game, where for once, your asshole or heroic choices make a difference. That's not enough "role playing" for me to distinguish from a silent protagonist that goes where the game leads him.

[Araelus]

If RPGs need dialogue options and player determined plot decisions, then every RPG might as well be a Fallout clone. Even if that was the golden standard, it doesn't guarantee a fun game.

Don't put text in my posts. Er, words in my mouth. I didn't say Fallout (3) is an RPG either. It's a "WRPG".... which mocks the mutability of a tabletop game with the lame 3-option format you mention.

Now, had some of those choices broken up multiple paths, such as getting to work WITH Raiders, Talon Mercs, or hell, even immersing yourself with FEV and joining the ranks of the Super Mutants, trying to either reform them from within or mutate the rest of the wasteland -- THOSE are real choices I can get behind.

That's more like it. How about a human being in charge of the game world who asks: What do you do next? And you can do anything.

But if RPGs are going to be defined as the Western trend of having 3 different text bubbles to squeeze out some semblance of a choice in a game where regardless of your words, your actions will ultimately still be the same, then what's the point of branding it as such?

This, this is why BRP and then I in turn say they're not RPGs. But they're called RPGs. So...

It's the compromise we make to play (usually single-player) video games that utilize some of the mechanics of the pen and paper game. The subgenres of video game named ___RPGs just use different bits and pieces of the games that used to only require an inventive imagination, your friends, and some kind of random number generator (e.g. dice) as filtered and influenced by East/West visual storytelling culture and technology/business markets.

(Those live action people are screwed up though.)

[Lucavi]

Didn't mean to put words in your mouth. That comment was more in regards to this IGN list wishing for some terraforming of JRPGs into WRPGs

[Elcura]

While what you say would be nice, that game would likely take forever and a half (with an equal budget to boot) to make. I'm sure people want to make games where the choices you make have such a significant impact, but it just isn't realistic to do (or cheap) so all we get is mockery. Or Fable.

[BRP]

While what you say would be nice, that game would likely take forever and a half (with an equal budget to boot) to make. I'm sure people want to make games where the choices you make have such a significant impact, but it just isn't realistic to do (or cheap) so all we get is mockery. Or Fable.

Actually if you made all choices pertain to one "story" or set of scenarios instead of aiming to create a sandbox, it becomes more possible. Well, you will be able to get farther with the idea.

[Lucavi]

BoF II did many things right, and the music in that game was incredible for its time. I miss games that really made you think in an age where all you needed for a "save the world!" plot was a single townsperson telling you to do so.

There was a lot of tragedy, a lot of dealing with sins, and a sense that even though you guys are the heros, you weren't coming out of the journey unscathed. Hell, once you find out that the beginning of the game was basically a complete mindfuck to mess with Ryu, I mean, the game was just ahead of its time for the plot.

[Beckwin]

Y'know, with the perspective that this topic is granting, it's kinda seeming that there isn't as much of a huge story difference in terms of "open ended-ness" between as J and W as much as is commonly perceived/assumed. You basically just take away the jerk ending and dialogue puzzles and you get a JRPG. Granted, the dialogue puzzles do add a lot to atmosphere and feeling like you can more directly influence a world, but still.

I mean really, if we're gonna claim "RPG!" and "NOT RPG!" based on pen and paper/LARPing shit, we're doing ourselves a disservice for discussion. We should, I think, be talking about narrative interactivity and what kinds of changes we can create or cause as players.

just to get this shit out of the way, let's assume "RPG", when referring to videogames, roughly means: Story and character driven game featuring strategy-oriented gameplay/combat and quest based structures. I think this definition rules out MGS/etc because most other genres are driven by (hand-eye) action/reaction gameplay, and adventure games don't really have combat nor do they emphasize characters so much. suggest tweaks for this definition if you need to, but goddam let's try to move on.

But anyhow, a key difference that really doesn't affect the combat/highly interactive portions of any game are the way characters are handled. In JRPGs, its extremely common for players to take the role of highly pre-defined characters. This bucks the traditional western notion of a player creating and making large amounts of choices for the character's story/personality development, but you're still, in a lesser/different sense, still playing the role of a character through a story.

Quality of story/scenario is worth considering and comparing. But to throw a wrench in the works: how do you feel about many successful WRPGs basically just picking up the lore/world of pre-established works versus the typicality in themes of many JRPGs?

[Isiolia]

Y'know, with the perspective that this topic is granting, it's kinda seeming that there isn't as much of a huge story difference in terms of "open ended-ness" between as J and W as much as is commonly perceived/assumed. You basically just take away the jerk ending and dialogue puzzles and you get a JRPG. Granted, the dialogue puzzles do add a lot to atmosphere and feeling like you can more directly influence a world, but still.

Part of the impression I get with WRPGs is that greater narrative interactivity is the goal. It's not necessarily present in current games for a number of reasons (production costs, possibly lack of technology, etc), but actually having a custom character and the option for asshole/saint dialog n' all are baby steps to getting there.

I don't think we'll get away from major plot points being the same regardless of alignment, etc anytime soon basically because developers are probably not keen on spending a whole lot of money on parts of a game that not everyone will see.

Not sayin' that it's good enough as-is. I hope to see far more variable games than we have now.

Quality of story/scenario is worth considering and comparing. But to throw a wrench in the works: how do you feel about many successful WRPGs basically just picking up the lore/world of pre-established works versus the typicality in themes of many JRPGs?

I dunno, setting aside D&D based games, I kinda see things as similar between the two. SE has multiple games set in Ivalice, there's your Star Oceans or your Valkyrie Profiles, Personas, etc that share the same or similar worlds.
I don't see that as far removed from things like the Elder Scrolls or Ultima IPs, and there are (so far) one-off worlds like those of Jade Empire as well.

D&D is an oddity, in some ways, because it's made to be a system for making up your own stories. Plenty of games that don't explicitly say "Advanced Dungeons and Dragons" in the title still often owe a fair bit to it in their bestiary, magic list, and so on, including JRPGs.

[Beckwin]

It's not just D&D; you've got Star Wars properties and then franchise rebirths like Fallout 3, not to mention other games which use established tabletop worlds. And in a much more general sense, you've got a lot of games pretty heavily reliant on the general aesthetic Tolkien put together (D&D lore is heavily involved here).

[Isiolia]

Well, I don't disagree that you have a number of prominent games with a D&D license. Or that western fantasy in general is still heavily influenced by Tolkien and the like.

I just see that there are quite a number of JPRGs that are part of a series/franchise as well. Some based on licensed properties too (Magic Knight Rayearth, Record of Lodoss War, etc).

While Fallout 3 may be a sequel of sorts, the Fallout IP in general is still it's own thing. Granted, not one that Bethesda created, but it's an RPG series from the start. That a lot of releases are sequels is the trend across basically every genre.

At the same time, Bioware has put out several new IPs over the past few years in form of Jade Empire, Mass Effect, and now Dragon Age. Black Isle Studios came up with Fallout, and the core staff (as Troika) did Arcanum.
Of those, DA: O is the only one that's really D&D/Tolkien.

So perhaps it's less that it's a general rule for WRPGs, and more that some of the better development houses in recent years held the D&D license, making those releases prominent. Same with KoTOR.

[Beckwin]

I'd say there's a lot more story/setting variety and/or individuality in JRPGs though, by a long shot.

[Kuya]

I'll just leave this here.

http://i48.tinypic.com/x1g9cg.jpg

[Beckwin]

-thou art a lone warrior setting out to rid the land of evil
-thou shalt complete a D&D character stat sheet
-thou shalt crawl through caves, forests, castles and dungeons killing fauna and trolls
-thou shalt collect gear
-thou shalt add numbers to that gear
-thou shalt fetch many things for many people
-thou shalt kill the same end boss whether you are good or bad

[Kuya]

Well at least you don't look like a bitch while doing so.

[Elcura]

What if you play a bitch?

[Lucavi]

I'll admit, I'd play that RPG, Kuya, if for nothing else but to party with that Bad ass and fight the first form of the end boss. Platform shoes.

[Kuya]

What if you play a bitch?

That is why FFXIII is such a great JRPG.

[Isiolia]

I'd say there's a lot more story/setting variety and/or individuality in JRPGs though, by a long shot.

Well, I think too that there are also just plain more of them. WRPGs have been a somewhat niche, primarily PC genre that hasn't seen nearly as many releases in recent years.

[Beckwin]

I think it's more or less that obscure-ish WRPGs don't get the net fandom that obscure-ish JRPGs get.

That could have something to do with "looking like a bitch" being generally a bit more appealing to most than being some anonymous medieval type in a bland Tolkienesque world.