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.
Please vote in the Forum Structure Poll. Polling will close at 2PM EST on January 21, 2025.
[PATV] Wednesday, March 14, 2012 - Extra Credits Season 4, Ep. 5: Western & Japanese RPGs (p
Dog
Registered User, Administrator, Vanilla Staff admin
Registered User, Administrator, Vanilla Staff admin
This week, we conclude our series on Western RPGs and JRPGs.<br /> Come discuss this topic in the <a href="http://extra-credits.net/episodes/western-japanese-rpgs-part-3/#discuss" target="_blank">forums</a>!
Dog on
0
Posts
But at the same time, this halfway informative opinion sort of failed at being properly done. The reason is as simple as you use the term "failing" when its irrelevant for the content, while you at the same times fail to draw a comparison to similar events in history, such as the US video game marked crash of 1983. As far as the opinion goes, the message is not "jRPG could suffer a crash due a stagnation", when your real target is SQUARE-ENIX for being stale about Final Fantasy.
I don't bristle at saying the combat system is one of the worst parts of JRPG because, for me, that's absolutely the biggest reason I don't play them so much anymore, but I disagree at saying that it is objectively the worst part. A lot of people like the turn-and-menu-based system, because it makes for a thinking game, rather than an action game. It's chess, rather than tennis, or Tetris. And the modern JRPG tendency to move away from tedious menu systems -annoys most JRPG fans I know- because the menu system is why they played.
Personally, I vastly prefer games like Star Ocean: The Second Story, with it's real-time/pausable-for-menus system. Although that's unfair, because it's pretty much perfect and I've never seen another JRPG do what it does. But I accept that what's right for me isn't right for everyone.
Not really expression anyway. JRP's for me are an emotional thing but they don't give you the same choice traditionally that WRPG's. You can't really express yourself through the characters anywhere near as much as a WRPG, classically.
Shame most the rest of the game was so very badly designed and could rightly be called a corridor simulator outside of Gran Pulse.
As for Persona 3 I didn't much care for it because I felt as if it was 90% a boring day planner, 10% JRPG, and if you didn't look up and follow a guide for what you were supposed to do each day, you got screwed out of a ton of content. The S-Link system was a godawful burden. At no point when playing a game should the player feel that they're being deprived of the vast majority of the content simply because they don't know what arbitrary requirements are expected of them. Persona 3 was GameFAQs: The Game.
I'm a completionist and if I miss something even moderately cool it just grates on me like nothing other. I had to restart Chrono Cross because I found out I'd missed out on Glenn, who you can lock yourself out of by making choices that have nothing to do with him.
I'm trying to think of other games that felt that way, but I'm drawing a blank. But I know I've had that "screw this, I don't want to have to read an FAQ or replay the game ten times to randomly stumble upon most of its content" feeling before from a few other JRPGs.
Septerra Core is probably one of the only JRPG(western developed, though) that I actually beat, only because the story and world was so cool (the old style combat system was the worst part of it).
I don't think this topic, even in three videos, quite worked as a whole, but it was definitely an interesting one to think about and explore.
1) Success in the video game industry has evolved past the outdated parameters this video is using. The vid is defining success as appearance on home consoles or revenue in the United States. The real revolutions in JRPGs are happening right now on handheld titles that are absolute hits in Japan. That's why the vid's statement that JRPGs have recently wasted money on better visuals reveals just how little the creators know about the genre today. It means they haven't played Radiant Historia or Valkyria Chronicles 2.
2) The idea that menu based combat inhibits the experience is beyond preposterous. Hardcore fans of JRPGs play them because of the depth of menu-based combat, not despite it. It allows for a much more meaningful manifestation of the character customization decisions the player has made. And while WRPGs allow you to create an avatar, JRPGs do a far better job at allowing the player customize their characters' stats and abilities throughout the entirety of the game experience. Some of the best WRPGs still utilize menu-based combat, they've just gone lengths to allow you to automate them (Dragon Age Origins) or hide them on the keyboard (Guild Wars 2).
3) The idea that JRPGs have declined because gaming as a whole has only *just now* caught up to them in narrative makes me question if the creator only started gaming this generation. We could easily point to dozens of PlayStation/N64 non-RPG titles that did fantastic jobs of narration. Have the staff of Extra Credits ever heard of a game called Ocarina of Time? Or Metal Gear Solid? Ico and Shadow of the Colossus are games that were able to create powerful emotional experiences by getting rid of narrative entirely, and those are *last generation* games.
This is the problem when journalists try to make academic investigations into gaming. They end up revealing how little they know about the subject matter.
On the point of combat system--I think jRPGs are much more varied than wRPGs. Whether you're talking about Mass Effects, Dragon Age, or Skyrim, the combat is much more traditional. Sure, you have different perspective (not really--all games are moving to 1st person/behind the shoulder 3rd person). You fling fireballs that ignites a target, you fling ice bolts that slows them down, and electric ball that stuns them. Then you swipe them with swords. Or if you're using a knife, you stab them from behind. The flavor might "feel" different, but the core is very much the exact same thing.
jRPGs, on the other hand, are very different. Suikoden3 uses a weird pairing system that modifies your attack based on your party members (and who you are paired with). FF12 has an MMORPG-ish thing, while FF13 is pretty much arcade button masher. Star Ocean and Tales are basically fighters, and SMT are something else entirely. Even Pokemon is mixing it up with pair/team battles/contests.
But on handhelds? They're THRIVING.
The same thing is bringing down Nintendo, which is made up of 6 old farts and 1 youngish guy who is trying so desperately to point the company in the right direction but always gets outvoted by the elders who think they know what audiences want. They don’t. Their experience comes from a time when gaming was new and novel and they have never taken the time to evolve and understand the changing needs of gamers these days. The big issue in all cases if the loss of sight/perspective.
I see a bit of hope recently for Japanese RPG’s, but I wish there was more I could do to steer them in the right direction. Final Fantasy VII is the game that made me decide as a child that I would definitely make games for a living, and I would definitely work on Final Fantasy games. Now I am. I trained in programming from that day, I made a Final Fantasy VII 3D screensaver, I got into the industry, and I moved half-way around the world to work on Final Fantasy games. Yet it feels so empty now. This is not what I had in mind when I was a child. What happened to their greatness? Final Fantasy VII changed my life and I beat Chrono Trigger 17 times. To which game can I turn for that kind of motivation and satisfaction these days? I can’t even turn to the very games I am making, even with the added motivation that my name is in their credits. Sorry but nothing recent coming out of Japan does it for me anymore. The magic is gone. They’ve lost sight.
It was always my dream to live and work in Tokyo and I am doing it. I just hope that things can get back to what once was my reason for wanting to live here.
L. Spiro
I agree with a lot of commenters here that I enjoy a good menu-driven game, because it's more chess and thinking and planning than real-time reflex or button mashing. I also agree with comments that the real difference is in story-telling between the two cultures. Japanese and European stories don't necessarily lead to Hollywood feel-good endings leaving you the hero. I think Japanese society is very constrained, so those kinds of stories feel more real and resonate with them more. American hero-making stories aren't necessary compelling for everyone either, so who's to say which is the better? Why can't both co-exist? The whole American individualism, acting alone based on your own moral compass or your own "heart" type of story can be just as played out.
Also, if you're really playing for "abnegation", I don't consider that role-playing. Role-playing is about expression and creativity. Abnegation means you want to passively watch something happen while you participate in a sort of trance-like state, not having to make choices. Having a great story unfold before you is better for this than role-playing, which should really require your active participation in creating the story that you live. And there's nothing wrong with enjoying a story being told either, just a different experience.