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.
A discussion of the RPG Genre (Fanboy bile from all sides highly likely! :D )
Sheep
Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
Context: Sales thread got a bit off topic. Specifically regarding J and W RPGs. The conversation usually revolves around the seemingly dwindling market for JRPGs in the US, versus the always non existent market for WRPGs in Japan.
Now, this thread could easily turn into a list wars thread, but please don't make it so! I figured after Lunker's warning in his linear RPG thread, and the discussion occasionally popping up in the sales thread, this could be a good topic of conversation. Meaning, which RPG is your favorite, and why. Like mentioned in the spoilered quotes below, two fellas think Planescape Torment has the best writing/story ever. I'd like to know why. I'd also like to know why one feels that the WRPG genre has been in decline.
Examples:
I actually dislike Baldur's Gate 2. Gameplay itself was fine, story was fine, but just walls and walls of text.
Granted, it's been about 9 years since I played it...
I think Bioware does a decent job. I thought Mass Effect had a pretty awesome premise, and managed to get it's point across without me having to just accept some things and move on. Some (SOME!) of the side missions had really cool subplots to them as well. Really liked the ones about AI, especially the Luna mission. Also liked the one about Space Madness and the soldier who was experimented on. It also managed to present the story well with it's dialogue trees, which was a big focus of the developers.
I'd also like to bring up the difference I find between Bethesda and Bioware.
Both companies nail their overall presentation. As mentioned in the above quotes, story plays a big part in RPGs. I agree with corin that it's not the defining quality in an RPG. If it were, I'd probably enjoy every JRPG I play considering that they're pretty heavy handed with the plot.
I've enjoyed every Bioware game I've played. Baldur's Gate will be further down the list simply because, as I remember it, there was way too much text for me to take in everytime a story segment came up, which goes with my disdain for JRPGs. Constantly being interrupted with long bits of story just doesn't work it for me.
Bioware's working on it. I never found the story side of Mass Effect to be too long winded, it managed to have a good story and tell it well without me ever having to simply take things as they're presented. However, Mass Effect kinda sucks when it come sto the gameplay side. You have to work your way around the inventory system and there were more than enough cookie cutter dungeons.
Bethesda is pretty much the opposite for me. We all know the main storyline in Fallout 3 sucks. I couldn't even tell you the main storyline in Oblivion. That's because where Bethesda drops the ball in story, they make up for gameplay. Both Oblivion and Fallout 3 are incredibly engrossing games that let you play them how you want to play them. Story comes second. Hell, it doesn't even really matter if I'm able to strike out and do things on my own.
As some know, I really dislike most JRPGs. Not all. Just most. I loved Lost Odyssey until the story went to pieces. Not to mention the completely useless castaway characters. I tried to give Infinite Undiscovery a chance, but it just didn't click with me. I really liked Eternal Sonata, but being a music nerd, the Chopin lessons helped keep it interesting.
I'd definitely like to try Tales of Vesperia. I really enjoyed Symphonia on the Gamecube. Valkyria Chronicles as well, if I ever get a PS3 (but some of you probably wouldn't consider it an RPG, which is fine.).
Another JRPG (if you could consider it one) that strikes my interest is that Demon's Soul game on the PS3. While not traditional RPG, that's really what I'm trying to get away from when it comes to RPGs from Japan.
Now, JRPGs that I do like? Etrian Odyssey was really cool. So was Izuna: The Unemployed Ninja. That Clover/Platinum game from SEGA, Infinite Space, is one that I'm super hyped for. And I'll definitely be picking up FFXIII.
Anyway. I've rambled enough. What are your thoughts?
Now, this thread could easily turn into a list wars thread, but please don't make it so! I figured after Lunker's warning in his linear RPG thread, and the discussion occasionally popping up in the sales thread, this could be a good topic of conversation. Meaning, which RPG is your favorite, and why. Like mentioned in the spoilered quotes below, two fellas think Planescape Torment has the best writing/story ever. I'd like to know why. I'd also like to know why one feels that the WRPG genre has been in decline.
Examples:
I am sorely disappointed by its failure to surpass BG2
I actually dislike Baldur's Gate 2. Gameplay itself was fine, story was fine, but just walls and walls of text.
Granted, it's been about 9 years since I played it...
Bioware blandness and Bestheda's ham-handed attempts are not well-written plot.
I think Bioware does a decent job. I thought Mass Effect had a pretty awesome premise, and managed to get it's point across without me having to just accept some things and move on. Some (SOME!) of the side missions had really cool subplots to them as well. Really liked the ones about AI, especially the Luna mission. Also liked the one about Space Madness and the soldier who was experimented on. It also managed to present the story well with it's dialogue trees, which was a big focus of the developers.
cloudeagle wrote: »
I know, I know.
Even if we did want to focus on quality wtf are you talking about? I mean when I was playing Mass Effect, Fallout 3 and the The Witcher I at no point was thinking to myself how did this genre get so shitty. It was more like holy fucking hell the bar has been raised.
I'm looking at writing quality, not graphics or accessibility.
The WRPG is my actual favourite genre.
I am sorely disappointed by its failure to surpass BG2 or PS:T or VtM:B in terms of storytelling. KOTOR 2 is the nearest we've come anytime lately.
Bioware blandness and Bestheda's ham-handed attempts are not well-written plot.
It is interesting I actually think we have similiar taste in games and yet I feel completely different about WRPG genre right now.
Writing quality in itself is not indicitive of a "good" RPG W or otherwise. It is simply one facet of what makes up a game. That said all three of the games I mentioned had great stories and well done dialogue even if they weren't your cup of tea. While Bethesda's writing in general was probably the weakest of the three the radiant AI lets it play out in a very unique way which more than makes up for it imo. The genre is hardly in decline just because you haven't enjoyed it lately. Sales are way up and a lot of us, probably even the majority, feel quality is as well.
If a game is going to have surpass the writing in PS:T for you to enjoy it... well you might well and truly be fucked. It is still my favorite game of all time btw and something tells me the story might never be surpassed. Oddly the only story in a game that I have enjoyed as much since is The Darkness. Not for the story itself but because of the way in which it was told.
Eh, interesting conversation. However within the context the thread I think it is fair to say that the WRPG genre isn't in decline at all but rather seems to be hitting its stride.
I'd also like to bring up the difference I find between Bethesda and Bioware.
Both companies nail their overall presentation. As mentioned in the above quotes, story plays a big part in RPGs. I agree with corin that it's not the defining quality in an RPG. If it were, I'd probably enjoy every JRPG I play considering that they're pretty heavy handed with the plot.
I've enjoyed every Bioware game I've played. Baldur's Gate will be further down the list simply because, as I remember it, there was way too much text for me to take in everytime a story segment came up, which goes with my disdain for JRPGs. Constantly being interrupted with long bits of story just doesn't work it for me.
Bioware's working on it. I never found the story side of Mass Effect to be too long winded, it managed to have a good story and tell it well without me ever having to simply take things as they're presented. However, Mass Effect kinda sucks when it come sto the gameplay side. You have to work your way around the inventory system and there were more than enough cookie cutter dungeons.
Bethesda is pretty much the opposite for me. We all know the main storyline in Fallout 3 sucks. I couldn't even tell you the main storyline in Oblivion. That's because where Bethesda drops the ball in story, they make up for gameplay. Both Oblivion and Fallout 3 are incredibly engrossing games that let you play them how you want to play them. Story comes second. Hell, it doesn't even really matter if I'm able to strike out and do things on my own.
As some know, I really dislike most JRPGs. Not all. Just most. I loved Lost Odyssey until the story went to pieces. Not to mention the completely useless castaway characters. I tried to give Infinite Undiscovery a chance, but it just didn't click with me. I really liked Eternal Sonata, but being a music nerd, the Chopin lessons helped keep it interesting.
I'd definitely like to try Tales of Vesperia. I really enjoyed Symphonia on the Gamecube. Valkyria Chronicles as well, if I ever get a PS3 (but some of you probably wouldn't consider it an RPG, which is fine.).
Another JRPG (if you could consider it one) that strikes my interest is that Demon's Soul game on the PS3. While not traditional RPG, that's really what I'm trying to get away from when it comes to RPGs from Japan.
Now, JRPGs that I do like? Etrian Odyssey was really cool. So was Izuna: The Unemployed Ninja. That Clover/Platinum game from SEGA, Infinite Space, is one that I'm super hyped for. And I'll definitely be picking up FFXIII.
Anyway. I've rambled enough. What are your thoughts?
Sheep on
0
Posts
The WRPG has had a lot of gems lately, but it's just as capable producing a bad game as Japan is(see: Two Worlds).
I'll admit that a lot of JRPGs have really sucked as of late. I don't have a 360 or a PS3 yet, but what I've seen of Eternal Sonata and Star Ocean 4 looked laughably awful(in story terms).
Only the Shin Megami Tensei games leave me with any hope for the future, since I haven't played a bad one yet.
Old-school Megatenists tend to get up in arms about how much Persona's popularity has changed the gameplay from its core SMT origins, but they're still fun to play, have good stories, and continue to force players to think out side the box for strategy, and that's what matters.
As for favorites, my favorite JRPG is SMT: Nocturne.
My favorite WRPG is VTM: Bloodlines.
I've tried the Tales series (Symphonia was good and I'd be willing to give the series another shot), Shadow hearts, every FF there is, as well as western RPGs like Baldur's, Oblivion, Fable. Nothing suits my fancy at all. I have high hopes for XIII, though. It looks whimsical and fun, with a nice spin on the battle system.
I have Persona 4. Unplayed.
I no longer have a PS2.
There's part of the problem. Most people who say the JRPG is losing steam aren't familiar with SMT.
Every game from core to spin-off continues to innovate, both in gameplay and story.
I played the Persona game that was released on the PSX years ago. Don't remember much of it. Didn't spend much time with it IIRC.
I've largely been turned off of Persona due to the actual people who tend to play it. Unfair to the game, I know, but I tend to ignore bands, movies, and games, when I notice that large number of a specific type of person recommends it.
On the technical side, their environments do tend to look good, that is true, but everything else is lacking. Characters still don't look right, animations are terrible, voice work is still hovering around mediocre in its best examples. As far as presentation goes, Bethesda still has a long way to go. They're extremely lacking in a lot of areas they seem to shovel a lot of money for little benefit.
And on the gameplay side, they tend to be pretty awkward. Can you play them any way you want? Yeah, I guess. There's a large number of kinds of characters to play, generally, but what is there really to do in these large, wide open worlds Bethesda creates? Nothing, really. You can wander around and interact with poorly written NPCs and do boring side quests, but what difference does it really make if you're doing it in a large wide open world or if you're doing it in a small closed in area? Well, one involves more tedious travel.
Their combat is always pretty awkward too. VATS made it tolerable and even sometimes fun in Fallout 3, but the shooting without it felt off. Oblivion was a slight improvement made over Morrowind, but it still felt very inept. Morrowind's combat was just an abomination.
So really, I'd hesitate if not outright refuse to call Bethesda a developer that really epitomizes the genre in any way. They're too bad at everything. I know there's not that many other developers out there doing it, but still. They're Bethesda.
Obviously that hasn't stopped you from playing Final Fantasy.
More in-depth character development is sorely needed. So many flat and static characters. Both sides of the Pacific are guilty of this.
In games like Puzzle Quest, FFIX, and Growlanser II when the protagonist has a backbone, vocal is always better.
Fable 2 had the same problems that I had with Fable 1, basically. There have been some improvements, but the core of the game is fairly similar.
As for JRPG's, which is my preferred genre, I think the efforts that have all come about this generation have been pretty poor overall (excepting Tales of Vesperia, which I haven't played yet). Not having the premiere JRPG show up yet is likely part of the problem, also.
-- Bioware's characters really annoy me sometimes. Every game I've played of theirs has characters that I absolutely loath and wish that I could kill, just to make them go away. But unfortunately, these characters are almost always tied to story and therefore are impossible to get rid of. Using KotOR as an example since I'm playing it right now -- Carth Onasi is just about the worst character ever with Bastila as a close second. I would fall to the darkside in a heartbeat if it meant that I could permanently remove these characters out of the game.
-- Bioware tends to be very dialogue heavy. Every encounter has a dialogue tree. I understand that this is their attempt at adding a bit of roleplay flavor to the game. But the problem is, I'm never satisfied with the dialogue choices they give me. Again, using KotOR as the example, the Light Side choices are almost always too goody goody, and the Dark Side ones don't seem like Dark Side. They just seem like dick things to say. Darth Vader was a sith lord, yet he wasn't an asshole when he talked to people. He just choked the ones he didn't like. Why can't *I* just choke the ones I don't like and be done with it.
There are a few things Bioware does do really well. In all the games I've played: Baldur's Gate, KotOR, NWN, Jade Empire, and Mass Effect, the combat in all these games is a ton of fun. Generally, the overall story is pretty good too. Just because I hate the dialogue doesn't mean I don't enjoy the overall story. And as stated above, those are merely examples from KotOR because it is fresh in my mind right now since I'm actively replaying it. But there are characters that I hate in all of their games. In Baldur's Gate it was Imoen. In Jade Empire it was that one really chatty bitch that wouldn't shut the hell up about god knows what.
Well, I'm a role-playing snob, so I always prefer being able to craft my character through their speech.
There are, of course, limitations to this because in the end we're still selecting pre-made dialogue options, but if you're making the character your own with few pre-conceived notions on the part of the developer on who your character should be, that's far more like role-playing than just watching the character the developers created run around talking to people and doing things in awesome cutscenes.
And silent protagonists don't really feel like they fit in the genre to me perhaps with the exception of the Fables, which I've had fun filling in the blanks in.
Considering that I haven't enjoyed one since VII, I would say I'm a masochist.
Have you played Lost Odyssey? Similar premise to Planescape with tons of backstory provided by text based dream sequences.
But, then, as mentioned, the game goes to hell at around the second disc.
Talk as.
Not a requirement, though.
The game story was a bit cliche, but those sequences did a good job of providing some development. Not good job, great job. I really got to see what kind of person Kaim was. That needs to happen way more often.
So you're avoiding a series that's consistently good just because of the people who recommend it? That makes no sense. It's not as if they're badly reviewed.
But if you're dead set on avoiding Persona, then just play Nocturne. It even has some WRPG elements, like an alignment system.
Chrono Trigger, Final Fantasy II (IV), Final Fantasy III (VI), Secret of Mana, Super Mario RPG, Earthbound, Breath of Fire 1 & 2, Secret of Evermore.
Those are the games I cut my teeth on in gaming. I prefer the turn based battles and very little dialogue trees over the real time options of many Western RPGs.
Also, playing the story of Tidus or Chrono, or whoever might be a very narrow RPG perspective, but at least this way the stories are consistent and the game isn't bogged down with "karma scales" like many of the western RPGs.
I just feel like the JRPGs are much more streamlined and simple, while WRPGs tend to be very bloated with alignment systems, extraneous number crunching, and character min/maxing that just doesn't happen in most JRPGs.
Eh. Don't really trust reviews either. Example, I thought TWEWY was a really uninteresting game.
I'd play Persona 4 if I had a PS2.
Bloodlines was the game I wound up getting a new PC for.
(Of course, I'm into V:TM, so, bias)
The World Ends With You has demonstrated that there is still plenty of room for creativity.
As far as characterization goes, critics should look toward gems like Persona 4. The majority of the characters were really well developed.
I had Zelda on my NES too.
XBL/PSN/Steam: APZonerunner
See, that's my problem. I love the SMT series, but I still feel like the genre is stagnating. The problem is that there's no real progression with the genre: individual games do a lot of things right, but then those ideas are cast aside and not built upon.
Steam ID : rwb36, Twitter : Werezompire,
I think Obsidian beats them on that point by a good margin. Meeting the Jedi Masters in Kotor 2, the trial in the NWN2 OC, the conversations you had with various beings in MotB, were much meatier than almost anything you went through in a Bioware game.
While a lot of WRPGs use very familiar medieval Europe-like settings, I don't think most JRPGs are all that different.
Japan has its own take on medieval fantasy and it doesn't seem to change very much from interpretation to interpretation from JRPGs to anime. Then you have generic anime near future and Japanese tecnofantasy.
Not every JRPG falls into this, but most seem to. Clinging to three generic looks doesn't seem all that much more inspiring.
But I've really been enjoying WRPGs a lot recently. I love Oblivion, and Fallout 3 is one of the best games I've played in years. Mass Effect was pretty great, as well.
Overall, I like both genres, but WRPGs appeal to me more at this point.
I think both Mass Effect and Fallout 3 are prime examples of Western RPGs attempting to break away from the traditional fantasy mold.
Although the game is mostly a shooter, I would say Bioshock has some underlying RPG elements with the whole plasmid and splicing aspects of the game. And the way the story is delivered in Bioshock is also really well done. I actually felt like I was in the role of the protagonist, which doesn't happen a lot for me in shooters. Bioshock felt like an RPG/FPS hybrid to me.
Edit: As a follow-up thought, Bioshock and Fallout 3 feel very similar to me, with Bioshock being more on the shooter side and Fallout 3 being more on the RPG side.
The sheer amount of options available to you, whether it be starting character (which altered both the story and gameplay), dialogue choices, or discoveries, were staggering. This meant that the game was always throwing meaningful stuff at you to do as opposed to the traditional "fight X guys while making your way through a cave." The game was well written, and the plot wasn't completely obvious until it was meant to be. Replayability is something that can't be discounted when talking about RPG's either, and this game has it.
JRPG's offer a completely different experience. Your choices affect things globally more often than locally and the choice wasn't usually yours to make in the first place, which has the effect of making you feel like the world revolved around you (more or less). I don't like this as much as feeling like a cog in the greater machine.
In both J and WRPG's, the combat system has a lot to do with my enjoyment of the game as well. If the game is purely statistical, then leveling up will mean the world. If the game relies on pure strategy/tactics, then all the leveling up in the world will mean nothing. This is obvious, but a game that strikes a nice balance between the two extremes is my favorite. I feel that FFTactics has a great balance between the two (not minding the unbalanced character builds or special characters), and the combat kept me interested the whole way through. Play like a douche, no matter what level you were, and you would see the game over screen. Progress your characters in a way that isn't useful at all, and you'd also see the game over screen no matter how tactfully you played.
Dialogue choices, or quest choices, that are meaningful are important. In Fallout 3 it was asked near the beginning of the game: Destroy or save Megaton. This choice is meaningful and has a direct consequence on the rest of the game. More choices like this, without making the player feel lost (too many choices) is the right way to go as well. I feel Baldur's Gate 2 struck the right balance between too many and too little meaningful choices.
I'm just blabbering now. I'll stop.
The problem I have with western RPGs is they almost always try to let you make your character how you want, but it is impossible for you to fully realize your character. It's not like Dungeons and Dragons where you can have all the control you want. In western RPGs, you're always going to be limited simply because of the limitations of the medium. Like in Mass Effect, I can't just be a normal dude with non-military parents who decided to join the army. Either I've had a horrible childhood trauma, my parents were both in the military, or I was some street urchin. Well, okay, you've given me choice but it's still pretty limited.
I'd much rather play a fully realized, pre-made character with a planned character arc like in a JRPG than a half-realized custom character that gets shoehorned into Good Character Arc or Bad Character Arc. And if you're playing a Bethesda game then your character is also unable to look like anything other than a hideous troll.
Also, and this is mostly an issue with Bethesda, I don't like the whole 'open world' thing. To me it feels like the devs don't want to do any work. They're telling me, "okay, we don't want to bother making the character, you can make it up and come up with the backstory and the personality. Alright, now, it's kind of hard to care about pacing the story, so we're just going to give you this big open world where you can try make your own fun. There'll be some quests I guess, but they'll be boring fetch quests or dungeon crawls like from an MMO, except you're on your own so it's not as fun as playing with your friends. Also, all the NPCs look like shit and have terrible dialogue and voice acting. You might as well not even care"
This was less of an issue with KOTOR and Mass Effect because while you could pick the order to do things, it was much quicker to get where you needed to go. There was no useless travel time like in Oblivion and Fallout 3 (even with fast travel it's like a half hour to walk to the next location you need to find).
I really don't mind linearity at all if it's done well because I feel it's a far better story experience. FFX was hella linear, but the story was engaging the whole way through, in my opinion at least.
FO3, though, I can't care about anything. Everything's just so boring in that game. Even FO1 and 2, I didn't have any attachment to the story or characters although they were much better games than 3.
Do... Re... Mi... So... Fa.... Do... Re.... Do...
Forget it...
I think it's better if you CAN'T do everything.
I think min/maxing happens on a lot any RPG if you want it to and your stats are controllable.
I really hate the practice (which I think tends to happen in JRPGs, but certainly isn't limited to them) of putting bosses that are essentially "you must be this level to pass" tests, which inevitably leads to running around looking for monsters to grind while the bad guy (assuredly) is running amok. Its these kind of situations that pull me out of the RP aspect of these types of games. Its not that this automatically makes the game bad, the gameplay maybe terrific, but it certainly hurts the RP aspect I think.
I think one of the great aspects of the PS:T is that it didn't rely on you saving the world. So when you went on side-quests, or just roamed about exploring, I didn't get the feeling that I was somehow breaking character or leaving the bad guy to run amok. Unless *you* were the bad guy running amok, then its ok.
Steam ID : rwb36, Twitter : Werezompire,
There's quite a few games like that. I don't know about short, but Growlanser II, Bloodlines, and Langrisser II all have key points in which dialogue options alter the course of the game.
As far as talking VS talking as VS silent it depends on the game I'm playing. If there are "moral" choices that affect the outcome of the story or tons of dialogue I prefer "talking as." If the game is telling a story that I am a part of (as the main character) yet have no impact on (as the player) then I prefer "talking" or "silent" depending on how strong the personality of the main character is. Generally, if the main character has a default name then I prefer talking while if they have no predetermined name in the instruction manual I prefer silent.
Short is key. I'm talking about a game that takes, say, 2-3 hours to beat in a single playthrough, but has maybe 40-50 hours worth of gameplay due to dozens of varying story paths & variations. Something like Langrisser is nice & all, but you'd have to be really hardcore to see more than 1 or 2 of the variations due to the game's length (and the only reason why they could add the paths that they did was because the game is a Strategy/RPG so it's mostly a matter of writing some extra story text & changing the enemy layouts).
Steam ID : rwb36, Twitter : Werezompire,
Isn't Oblivion beatable in 4 - 5 hours if you go straight through the main quest?
Do you really think that a time frame that short is really long enough to develop characterization, emotional attachment, or even more than a basic plot?
I mean, 3 hours of game time equates to maybe 1 hour of actual stuff. You would not be able to get any more detailed than a television episode.
And then you have games like Blue Dragon and Lost Odyssey which are in many ways too old-school for their own good.
It doesn't help that a lot of the RPG franchises are either dead or in serious decline. Which forces teams to create new franchises out of whole cloth.