The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Extra Credits: Season 4, Episode 5 - Western & Japanese RPGs (Part 3)
Sterica
YesRegistered User, Moderator mod
YesRegistered User, Moderator mod
Posts
I haven't played a Final Fantasy since part 10, but from what I understand part 12 had an auto-combat system you can setup. So technically yes?
How did Final Fantasy 13 play out?
FFXIII-2 lets you stick with a 'main' pack, only really requiring customizing for specifically hard battles.
I dunno if I agree with the way they've defined JRPGs. I think it lay more with that word.. ablefation... or whatever. When I think of JRPGs I think of shameless, merciless grinding-based gameplay. Like Monster Hunter and PSU. If I were in any way partial to JRPGs, I think I'd be mildly offended by the way they characterized it.
Since when has Western RPG's been in dominance? Last I checked, it was extremely rare for a WRPG to sell even close to the amount of the big JRPGs do. Final Fantasy XIII, none of the Mass Effect series haven't even broke half of what that sold. Dragon Age sold even worse, and throw in the more obscure stuff like Kingdoms of Amalur and whatever else is out there, it's not even really a contest. The only WRPG I know that is even notable in terms of sales is Skyrim (Oblivion had horrible sales, though), but if you're really going to tell me that game has a good combat and story narrative, well, I must disagree. Everything else in the video is just opinion. If people are voting with their wallets as the end of the video says, I think they're still favoring JRPGs as a whole. Or really, shooters like Call of Duty which have zero story and people only buy to play multiplayer and do stuff which is probably why Skyrim is so popular compared to story-driven WRPGs like Mass Effect. I don't think western gamers are into story as much as he suggests, they just go for the more 'do stuff' aspect, which Skyrim definitely has over JRPGs and other WRPGs. But I'm confident story isn't part of the equation.
Menu based gameplay is still in Dragon Quest and the Megami Tensei games. Pretty much always has been except for a few oddities (Devil Summoner was more action based)
Probably one of the major JRPGs without mainly menu based combat has been the Tales series and Star Ocean (both of which sprouted from the main creative team many years ago). Ys too I believe though I haven't really gotten into it. Odd that none of them got a mention...
I think another consideration in how JRPGs have been dropping from the limelight in the west is presentation. As graphics improved, the inherant, well I guess will call it "Japan-ness" of JRPGs become much more apparent.
At first to a lot of people this probably felt really new and interesting, but as time went on I bet it became a bit alienating, and a bit of a barrier to those who aren't already into that kind of stuff.
By what metric are WRPGs more successful than JRPGs, given that there are tons of JRPGs being published constantly while, at best, only a few WRPGs are published each year? By what metric are turn-based menufests lacking when compared to other combat systems?
The one thing this series got right is roleplaying VS narrativism.
In western RPGs you take on a role of a person other than yourself and act it out. The goal is immersion. The narrative is emergant.
In japanese RPGs you guide your party in combat, but are otherwise a viewer. The narrative is pre-defined and as a result often has a much more cinematic quality.
@Aspiring Emperor: I am not sure where you are coming from on the sale numbers. Dragon Age, Mass Effect and Oblivion all sold very well. Perhaps not as much as Generic FPS #351, but then Final Fantasy didn't sell nearly as much either. Perhaps it was not the case in your region, but it is globally.
Quantity does not equate to performance/success or quality.
To me, it seems pretty arbitrary to call one genre better when it just comes down to personal opinions. Oranges don't need to be more like apples if most people prefer apples to oranges. Let those who like apples eat apples and those who like oranges eat oranges. If you try to make the orange be more like an apple you are only losing out on diversity.
Also, the forums are bugging out so hard for me lately. Half of my previous post was devoured. Hopefuly its fixed now.
Mind, I am a WRPG man, but I know that back in the day when I still enjoyed jRPGs what drew me was the turn-based combat they condemn.
I mean, I agree with them on an gut-feeling level and I have read some reviews of console-exclusives that made the games sound disappointing, but for the sake of the argument presented in this Extra Credits it would be better to define the metric.
I was speaking globally, actually. Googling around it seems ME sold about 2.5 million while ME2 about 4 million as of late 2011.. Assuming the report is trustworthy, of course. ME3 has shipped under 2 million so far.
And yes, it probably says a lot when generic FPSs outsell them all as well. But I would say you have to look at demographics at that point. People who play CoD and BF don't necessarily have to be gamers, just maybe people who pick the up to play with friends and frag some people for fun. Similar to how "Just Dance" selling over 10 million probably isn't representative of gamers as a whole and attracts the non-gaming parents/grand parents and similar casual Wii games. RPG fans tend to be more niche in both categories of WRPG and JRPG.
As for the combat, it's up to preference I think. I think a good turn based combat system is more challenge than a game like Mass Effect or Elder Scrolls. ME was stupidly easy since all you had to do was hold down the trigger and pop Immunity and nothing could kill you; and personally I hate shooters so all the WRPG with shooter-type gameplay doesn't appeal to me. Skyrim's combat was boring as well. If I can just stand there tapping the attack button on a dragon and pausing the game and drinking one of my 2000 health potions so I never die, it's not very engrossing or enjoyable to me. Plus I think when you have as much 'variety' as you do in Skyrim, the combat suffers.. magic is horribly useless compared to weapons since it doesn't scale, and any stealth archer can kill mobs in a few hits. Once I focused on archery and stealth I was untouchable. But that's just my opinion, I'm sure someone will say they hate 'taking turns' and like to attack in real time.
We could, but we won't. Even if we ignore metacritic and reviewers in general being bought out by publishers and therefore their opinion is untrustworthy, or review embargos and how they weigh and favor some reviews more than others, you have to factor in bias. Those reviewers are all Westerners, which will more often than not prefer Western sensibilities, given all those reviews which bash Japanese games for having Japanese culture in them (I can think of a few noteworthy examples). Sort of like how WRPGs sell like garbage in Japan, and since they don't like WRPGs very much, to the point they maybe sell 20,000 if they're lucky, you might as well say WRPGs are all garbage which would have just as much merit as the opposite. That's one of the biggest hurdle, culture difference.
Hey, just because that fucker at GDC said "JAPANESE GAMES ARE SHIT" doesn't mean we all think like him!
EDIT:
@Emperor Hope: Sorry if I was unclear. I meant that the companies that made the games consider them to be huge successes, even though they did not sell as well as certain other games, or sell well worldwide.
Also, and this is my unsupported opinion, but the idea that metacritic is unreliable because its aggregates have been bought out is ridiculous. Whatever you think of their judgement in a general sense, they're all still journalists.
Just because it's their job to talk about video games, doesn't make critics and journalists opinions any more informed or valid. Seen far too many either be ignorant about a feature in a game. You'd think after the Kane and Lynch 2 fiasco with Gamespot people would realize reviews and meta scores are completely bogus and it's just numbers at the end of the day. Especially arbitrary numbers like what makes a 87 different from an 86? Can you actually explain?
The best reviews I find are ones that don't offer a numerical or letter score, the ones that make you critically think rather than just look at a number. Sadly, fanboys and publishers need those numbers to validate themselves.
I am not sure one can have an expert opinion when it comes to a field that is based around something that results in differing subjective experiences (like art or music). Opinions are not factual by their very nature. Trying to present them as such is what I view as problematic.
Reviewers serve a valuable function, but ultimately their role is 'Hey, if you share the same set of tastes as I do, I think you might like/dislike this game I played'. Nothing makes their thoughts more worthwhile than those of, say, your friend.
Ultimately, just like with any other artform, I think we need to accept that you can't easily judge how 'good' a game is. Only whether we and people who share our likes and dislikes enjoy it. Analyzing this is what I feel Extra Credits has done best. I'd hate it to drop the clinical approach to the game industry and instead support its own One True Way.
I don't think you really need this explained to you. You know you are not an expert.
The quality of an art piece is not something inherent to the universe, but arbitrary meaning invested in it by a human. Were there no humans, notions such as these would be undefined.
You can say that a game sold well, or that it appeals to a certain set of aesthetics that is common to certain groups, but you cannot objectively state that a game is 'good' or 'bad'. How many people believe something or who believes something has no impact on the weight of the idea if it is not backed by empirical evidence.
If Extra Credits said that WRPGs sell better and if JRPGs wish to sell better they need to do this and that, then there is some sort of an objective metric to what they mean by 'successful'. I do not get the feeling that was their intention, however.
EDIT: You posted while I was typing, Avraham. I'll append a response shortly.
When it comes to art, I firmly believe all opinions are born equal. As art is a purely human phenomena that does not exists independntly from us we cannot provide external evidence. There is no well-defined goal-post for what makes something objectively 'good', simply because whatever definition we will give shall be arbitrary as well. Your opinion cannot be tested, unlike, say, having an opinion on which horse is going to win the race or what material you should build that bridge from. One can only argue objectively if they can base their words on objective measurements (such as, say, sales. But I am sure many will disagree with this being the proper definition).
EDIT: Ack. Sorry about the double post.
I also think it's dumb to think there are very few "WRPGS" released as previously said. Open steam and you will find hundreds in RPG, Action, and Adventure (and also under Indy and Casual) that fit into the core engagement desires. There is more to the genre than Fable and Dragon Age, thinking otherwise is rather odd.
I don't think every piece of art should try to make as much money as possible. Nothing stifles creativity as financial pressure.
If you accept this definition, however, then their advise is perfectly valid, if a bit heartless. A bit in the spirit of remaking X-COM as an FPS.
I also really enjoyed this other 2D western JRPG called "3 Stars of Destiny" by Aldorlea Falls. & RosePortal's "Whisper of a Rose," though it's badly in need of a bugfix.
Which is what? All I heard were opinions in the video.
"Menu-combat" is not a numeric value that can be used to measure quality any more than "cover based shooting" does.
He should first cite tangible facts like sales and then make an educated opinion guess on why those facts are as they are, but as it stands, he made a sweepling generalizaton on how WRPGs are dominate, with no actual statistics or figures to back it up. It doesn't matter if his opinion is "more valuable because he's a journalist" he is still held to the same standard as anyone else in a debate; that is, to not make logical fallacies or baseless claims. Otherwise, lawyers would not need to present facts in a court hearing because "he's a lawyer, clearly his opinion means more and he doesn't need any factual evidence to back up his statement"
The part about the over reliance on graphics is kind of a strange thing to say too. How does that apply to any prominent JRPG dev out there excluding Square? I don't recall Atlus, Level-5, Nippon-Ichi, Monolithsoft ect. putting attention to graphics to a fault. And what about the countless great JRPGs on handhelds, which put emphasis on gameplay mechanics, experimenting and narrative to counter the reduced graphic fidelity? Does being on a handheld somehow invalidate it's existence? Honestly, the criticism here seems to be more focused on Square-Einx, not the JRPG genre as a whole.
And do you want modern Square making a new Chrono game? Cause I sure as hell don't.
Cross was a disappointment since it was tangibly related at best to the first game. It didn't even involve time travel for Pete's sake, you only had the 'real world' and 'alternate world'. Remove a few name drops of Lucca and Schala and it could be it's own standalone game, which I wouldn't be surprised if it originally was meant to be it's own thing.
Final Fantasy XIII-2 is probably the best choice you have for a new time traveling adventure RPG. I really enjoyed it and it was very fun, going to all the different time eras and trying to find a way to save humanity and changing their fate by altering and discovering the past. Really great.
JRPGs have been very innovative this gen, they're just not talked about often because it's popular to rag on the genre. Some simple (non Final Fantasy) examples: 'Eternal Sonata' has the light/shade battle system, 'Enchanted Arms' has strategic map placing, White Knight Chronicles is real time, Magna Carta II is real time with a cool down system that encourages you to switch teammates to chain, 'Last Remnant' is turn based however you're controlling squads, 'Infinite Undiscovery' is real time with a huge roster, and 'Blue Dragon' mixes up the classic turn based system multi-class management.
As for Final Fantasy, each game since VII has been incredibly experimental, none of them play the same, even though they're mostly turn based.
I agree that FFXIII-2 is a fanastic game, which surprised me, given I didn't enjoy XIII. The classic image of the crazy haired youngster with a big sword and too many buckles is always a callback to Final Fantasy VII. The image doesn't represent modern JRPGs (except, yes, they are usually under 21, which shouldn't surprise anyone, given the gamer demographic in Japan), and I so wish gamers would give them a chance to prove how versatile the genre is.
Make a new Bushido Blade.
Sincerely,
The Internet
Video games are, first and foremost, a money making venture. The companies that produce them are trying to make money, and the studios, even the best and most artistic ones, are trying to support their artists. You can wish this wasn't true, and wish Video Games worked like other art mediums, but the fact is they don't. It's ultimately about selling a product. I would argue that is part of Squarsoft's problem, too much focus upon the visual elements and artistic detail and not enough on engaging the player or presenting a coherent narrative (especially compared to their earlier titles which balanced these two areas substantially better.
Money is audience and vice versa. Your post implies this is bad somehow, why? Each person buying the product is seeing the product of the artist's work. You can make money with a brilliant concept, cheap cost, and a small niche market (like Minecraft or Bastion), or money with something watered down, expensive, and huge (like most current FPS titles), but both are ultimately successful by how many people they can touch with their message via how many people purchase the ability to play the game.
Artists with not a lot of capital can still make money and be successful, even without sacrificing their artistic capabilities, even the JRPG. Ico, for example, I would argue fits more in the line of a JRPG as it's core engagement of telling a narrative, and did so in an interesting and fantastic way. Menu based games JRPGs can do so easily also, look at Valkyeria Chronicles or even casual titles like Puzzle Quest. However the mainstays of the genre have not been successful monetarily and are no longer as safe of an investment for their companies as they once were, and I think Extra Credits covered why pretty well.
First off, this is their soapbox you are watching. People sent them a question, and they answered why from their perspective as game developers. If you disagree with their opinion, or mine, that's fine. Don't watch the videos if they make you this upset?
Second, the problem with JRPGS right as a whole (though, again, not individually) is that the majority are not making the money they historically did. Menu systems and such are not necessarily the problem, they say as such in the video, but the lack of focus on the core engagement of the game in favor of things that just don't sell as well. I think the guy who brought up Pokemon in this thread hit the nail on the head that menu-systems can still be fantastically profitable if the core engagement is there. That's the purpose of Pokemon, the menu based combat and the collecting and playing with the stats of the various critters. The core engagement is tied to the menu system, so even when they do an overhaul of the secondary things (visuals, narratives, etc) it ultimately still leaves the player with the purpose they are playing the game for: fighting and collecting pokemon.
Whereas the latest FF titles have been more about flash and spectacle than telling a meaningful or coherent story, at least in comparison to their previous titles. Are the games still interesting and did I buy them anyway? Sure. But did they make the money for the studio in relation to their operational costs like FFX and previous did? Certainly not.
I'm a huge fan of JRPGs in many of their forms. The trend to shift to mobile gaming as the primary platform recently and the summary retirement of many flagship series (for example, Sukidoen and Tales) as being exported to an international market greatly saddens me, but I'm honestly not surprised. There is probably a lot more to it than this episode, and the previous three, could cover but I think for having the short windows of these episodes they pretty much hit the topic head on.
Just remember, it's not a personal attack on you the JRPG enthusiast. It's a diagnosis of a common problem that is slowly causing the games we love to be shgelved for more popular genres like dance/family games and FPS titles.
Turn Based Combat is bad.
If you want to get good RPGs, you should vote with your wallet. Thankfully, voting with your wallet has led to the current scenario of "Final Fantasy outsells pretty much everything else day one." So we should totally keep doing what we've been doing and maybe things will turn out differently. What's another word for trying the same thing over and over and expecting the same results?
Insanity.
Yeah, let me go sound the "everything's fine" alarm.
I'm not upset, I'm merely correcting people and pointing out all the fallacies and misinformation on the subject.
Funny, I thought FFXIII had too much story from what haters said. Not enough freedom, too much story and narrative.
That might have more validity if the comparison actually was to FPS and Dance games, and not WRPGs which suffer from the said problem even more than JRPGs do. If it really is about 'narrative' and 'coherent story' then the fact you have no main character in a game like Fallout and can miss tons of stuff should be even worse than 'pretty graphics'. In Fallout 3 you can go straight from exiting the vault to your dad in 3 minutes; bypassing hours of junk quests in Megaton and Rivet City since all you need is to know to go to the vault he's in. Some narrative if you can skip all that, let alone the ending people hated so much and they needed Broken Steel to fix.