At Destructoid and StrategyInformer.
I like Bioware (and admit to being a fan of both JRPGs and WRPGs, and I actually don't like FF13 either), but I don't know how to feel about this. It seems kind of arrogant to dismiss an entire genre like that--and talking about 'fake' choices and forced plot, do you want to partner with Cerberus and fight the Reapers, or do you want to partner with Cerberus and fight the Reapers?
It seems like a lot of people base their definition of RPG off of tabletop games, which is a flawed, because 1) a mass-produced video game will never, never have the kind of depth of choice and repercussions that a good DM can give you, and 2) it limits the definition of RPG to 'something like DND', and of course a Japanese or even European RPG won't be like that, because tabletop RPGs were biggest in America/Canada (40k aside, and even then it was a collector thing before it was a war game).
Thoughts?
Bioware slams JRPGs
Débuté par
enormousmoonboots
, mai 13 2010 06:04
-
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
#2
Posté 13 mai 2010 - 06:29
MrNose
-
- Members
- 567 messages
Well getting to DND, the biggest feature of DND was STATS, STATS, AND MORE STATS. To me, that's what constitutes a basic RPG experience. That's why games like Borderlands and Torchlight can call themselves RPGs.
The whole notion of "fake choices" in an RPG bothers me. The first videogame RPGs had no real choices, and most of the dominant RPGs up until 2000, including the FF series, have never had real choices. They were still RPGs.
I'm fine with people being proud of their own work, but these comments go too far imo.
I also agree that this has a sense of arrogance. Fake dialogue options? How about: "No matter how I talk to my ME1 squaddie on Horizon, they always storm-off"? Why cannot I not send them a reply email when they send an email to me?
Do I actually have an issue with the above limitation? No I do not. I love ME2, and I understand why the limitations are there. I do have a problem when someone creates a game and expects us to understand the limitations imposed on it but doesn't accept the limitations which are on other games. I love BioWare and I love Mass Effect, but I'm not a fan of what this.
I'm also not a fan of the JRPGs are "this way" stereotype. which generally ends up in Final Fantasy (which has always been an RPG, has always used "fake choices", and is not suddenly no longer an RPG) being the only example given. Even many old JRPGs like Star-Ocean have employed multiple endings and real choice-based systems.
The point that's being missed here is that JRPGs aren't "stagnant", they provide specific gameplay tropes which you either like or don't like. Tons of people still like Pokemon, and would probably be pretty angry if they didn't get the choice of three starters at the beginning of their game. Has the game had huge changes? Not really, you can play the first game and play the latest and still get going pretty fast, but I'm guessing the people who like the current playstyle wouldn't like any big changes. I don't play it, because I don't like it, but the fact that I don't like it doesn't mean that it should change.
The whole notion of "fake choices" in an RPG bothers me. The first videogame RPGs had no real choices, and most of the dominant RPGs up until 2000, including the FF series, have never had real choices. They were still RPGs.
I'm fine with people being proud of their own work, but these comments go too far imo.
I also agree that this has a sense of arrogance. Fake dialogue options? How about: "No matter how I talk to my ME1 squaddie on Horizon, they always storm-off"? Why cannot I not send them a reply email when they send an email to me?
Do I actually have an issue with the above limitation? No I do not. I love ME2, and I understand why the limitations are there. I do have a problem when someone creates a game and expects us to understand the limitations imposed on it but doesn't accept the limitations which are on other games. I love BioWare and I love Mass Effect, but I'm not a fan of what this.
I'm also not a fan of the JRPGs are "this way" stereotype. which generally ends up in Final Fantasy (which has always been an RPG, has always used "fake choices", and is not suddenly no longer an RPG) being the only example given. Even many old JRPGs like Star-Ocean have employed multiple endings and real choice-based systems.
The point that's being missed here is that JRPGs aren't "stagnant", they provide specific gameplay tropes which you either like or don't like. Tons of people still like Pokemon, and would probably be pretty angry if they didn't get the choice of three starters at the beginning of their game. Has the game had huge changes? Not really, you can play the first game and play the latest and still get going pretty fast, but I'm guessing the people who like the current playstyle wouldn't like any big changes. I don't play it, because I don't like it, but the fact that I don't like it doesn't mean that it should change.
Modifié par MrNose, 13 mai 2010 - 06:31 .
#3
Posté 13 mai 2010 - 06:36
Seagloom
-
- Members
- 7 094 messages
Greg Zeschuk has said as much in at least one past interview, but I can't remember for the life of me which site it was with. Either way it also spawned a thread back then. I understand where he is coming from. Those are issues I recognize older JRPGs having. I stopped playing JRPGs after the PS2 era and have no idea what they may be like now.
In short, I disagree with him. On some level he is correct. There are companies such as SquareEnix that are content with battle system changes and otherwise do not try reinventing the wheel. There are also companies that do experiment a little more, however, but they rarely receive mainstream recognition. That was the case with Atlus for years. It was only late in the last console generation that people began to notice the quality of the Megaten series and games such as Odin Sphere.
WRPGs definitely have their own share of hidebound conventions and BioWare hasn't tried to stretch the genre boundaries much since Neverwinter Nights. Their games all have realtime with pause combat, a good and evil dichotomy, and romances. Those are the major similarities that immediately spring to mind. That doesn't make their games bad. Hell, seeing familiar conventions is why I keep buying their games. What it does mean, is they are not innovative. Okay, combat differs from game to game. However, the same can be said for most JRPGs. None to my knowledge use an identical combat system; not even the Final Fantasy series.
Perhaps WRPG developers are trying harder to shake things up than their Japanese counterparts, but it's a long way for me to agree JRPGs are stuck in quicksand while WRPGs are sprinting ahead in the arena of new ideas.
In short, I disagree with him. On some level he is correct. There are companies such as SquareEnix that are content with battle system changes and otherwise do not try reinventing the wheel. There are also companies that do experiment a little more, however, but they rarely receive mainstream recognition. That was the case with Atlus for years. It was only late in the last console generation that people began to notice the quality of the Megaten series and games such as Odin Sphere.
WRPGs definitely have their own share of hidebound conventions and BioWare hasn't tried to stretch the genre boundaries much since Neverwinter Nights. Their games all have realtime with pause combat, a good and evil dichotomy, and romances. Those are the major similarities that immediately spring to mind. That doesn't make their games bad. Hell, seeing familiar conventions is why I keep buying their games. What it does mean, is they are not innovative. Okay, combat differs from game to game. However, the same can be said for most JRPGs. None to my knowledge use an identical combat system; not even the Final Fantasy series.
Perhaps WRPG developers are trying harder to shake things up than their Japanese counterparts, but it's a long way for me to agree JRPGs are stuck in quicksand while WRPGs are sprinting ahead in the arena of new ideas.
#4
Posté 13 mai 2010 - 06:39
enormousmoonboots
-
- Members
- 1 657 messages
Yeah, this, so much. People who go BAW JRPGS NEVER HAVE CHOICES have only played Final Fantasy, and while it's popular, it's not the be-all and end-all of the genre (judging by my friend's reaction to the game, it's a bit like if someone played MW2 and went ALL SHOOTERS ARE TERRIBLE). I believe Shin Megami Tensei games have always had multiple endings and alignment systems, and that series is going on what, 20 years?MrNose wrote...
I'm also not a fan of the JRPGs are "this way" stereotype. which generally ends up in Final Fantasy (which has always been an RPG, has always used "fake choices", and is not suddenly no longer an RPG) being the only example given. Even many old JRPGs like Star-Ocean have employed multiple endings and real choice-based systems.
Modifié par enormousmoonboots, 13 mai 2010 - 06:39 .
#5
Posté 13 mai 2010 - 06:40
MrNose
-
- Members
- 567 messages
Follow up: Based on this information, I'm guessing that BioWare is going to put forward a big evolution in their game for their next RPG right?
Like, we won't have a linear opening, followed by several missions we can do in any order, followed by another linear mission, followed by a few more choices and then another linear mission? And the morality system will no longer be about Min/Maxing?
I actually like the above systems (morality still needs work, but that's a tough one to get down anyway), but you have to admit, BioWare has a formula.
Like, we won't have a linear opening, followed by several missions we can do in any order, followed by another linear mission, followed by a few more choices and then another linear mission? And the morality system will no longer be about Min/Maxing?
I actually like the above systems (morality still needs work, but that's a tough one to get down anyway), but you have to admit, BioWare has a formula.
#6
Posté 13 mai 2010 - 06:44
MrNose
-
- Members
- 567 messages
enormousmoonboots wrote...
Yeah, this, so much. People who go BAW JRPGS NEVER HAVE CHOICES have only played Final Fantasy, and while it's popular, it's not the be-all and end-all of the genre (judging by my friend's reaction to the game, it's a bit like if someone played MW2 and went ALL SHOOTERS ARE TERRIBLE). I believe Shin Megami Tensei games have always had multiple endings and alignment systems, and that series is going on what, 20 years?MrNose wrote...
I'm also not a fan of the JRPGs are "this way" stereotype. which generally ends up in Final Fantasy (which has always been an RPG, has always used "fake choices", and is not suddenly no longer an RPG) being the only example given. Even many old JRPGs like Star-Ocean have employed multiple endings and real choice-based systems.
Yep. Shin Megami Tensei games are another example of a series which utilizes real choices. In fact, that game series manages to fuse linearity and choice in a masterful way that many should look at taking elements from. I'm guessing people who make these comments haven't played them though.
#7
Posté 13 mai 2010 - 06:48
ObserverStatus
-
- Members
- 19 046 messages
I can totally relate to what he's saying. Pokemon is a perfect example of every title being the same as the last. The games would be far more interesting with dialogue trees, and when the gym leaders start giving their long winded speeches it feels like a renegade interrupt option would be helpful.
#9
Posté 13 mai 2010 - 06:59
Busomjack
-
- Members
- 4 131 messages
This interview makes me love Bioware even more if that were even possible. It's nice to see developers with the guts to tell it like it is.
I'm glad they brought up Demon's Souls as an exception. Indeed, Demon's Souls is a outstanding game.
I'm glad they brought up Demon's Souls as an exception. Indeed, Demon's Souls is a outstanding game.
Modifié par Busomjack, 13 mai 2010 - 07:03 .
#10
Posté 13 mai 2010 - 07:01
enormousmoonboots
-
- Members
- 1 657 messages
Yes, that is the quote from the article I linked to. Congratulations, you go to Kotaku.
#11
Posté 13 mai 2010 - 07:03
CRISIS1717
-
- Members
- 1 597 messages
I wouldn't have expected such an ignorant comment to come from someone at Bioware.
I love Bioware's games because of the freedom and choice in the game, but character creation and making plot choices or conversation options is not what defines an rpg.
Also aiming it squarely at a franchise with what is well established in making rpg's and has created cult classic games, is kind of like a puppy telling a dog how to bark.
I love Bioware's games because of the freedom and choice in the game, but character creation and making plot choices or conversation options is not what defines an rpg.
Also aiming it squarely at a franchise with what is well established in making rpg's and has created cult classic games, is kind of like a puppy telling a dog how to bark.
#12
Posté 13 mai 2010 - 07:04
Busomjack
-
- Members
- 4 131 messages
*looks forward to reading the comments from all the butthurt weaboo anime nerds who still cling to their JRPGs religiously*.
#13
Posté 13 mai 2010 - 07:05
Loerwyn
-
- Members
- 5 576 messages
Truth be told, for the reasons Seagloom outlined, BioWare are one of the last companies who should be seen to criticize others for not "reinventing the wheel".
The Dragon Age skill system is effectively a dumbed down Dungeons & Dragons/d20/whatever you want to call it system, and whilst it did turn a few fantasy stereotypes upside down, for the most part it was no different to any other RPG. It claimed to be mature, yet pales next to games such as CD Projekt's The Witcher.
And as for choices, just look at Mass Effect or KotOR. Whilst you had various dialogue trees, the end result is generally the same or the only choices that differ are minor or unknown scale ones (girl on the Ebon Hawk, end of ME2, just as examples).
In a way I can see why choice is limited. Look at, well, Dragon Age. How many game/story affecting choices does that game have? Many. And if BioWare were to continue with that time line then each game would have to be more and more like a tell-your-own-adventure series and it would just end up as a complete mess, especially as not every DA player will have Awakening or all/any of the DLC.
The Dragon Age skill system is effectively a dumbed down Dungeons & Dragons/d20/whatever you want to call it system, and whilst it did turn a few fantasy stereotypes upside down, for the most part it was no different to any other RPG. It claimed to be mature, yet pales next to games such as CD Projekt's The Witcher.
And as for choices, just look at Mass Effect or KotOR. Whilst you had various dialogue trees, the end result is generally the same or the only choices that differ are minor or unknown scale ones (girl on the Ebon Hawk, end of ME2, just as examples).
In a way I can see why choice is limited. Look at, well, Dragon Age. How many game/story affecting choices does that game have? Many. And if BioWare were to continue with that time line then each game would have to be more and more like a tell-your-own-adventure series and it would just end up as a complete mess, especially as not every DA player will have Awakening or all/any of the DLC.
#14
Posté 13 mai 2010 - 07:15
chiliztri
-
- Members
- 1 983 messages
I disagree, and to me, it's just another person jumping on the "I hate JRPGs since FFXIII came out" bandwagon. Though, I cannot comment on whether I like FFXIII or not as I do not own a PS3.
JRPGs are called JRPGs for a reason. They are made for the Japanese populace and conform to different social norms and expectations. Not to mention that there are plenty of JRPGs that haven't been translated into English, so judging the whole JRPG genre based on a few games seems like an overgeneralization. Like Seagloom said above, there are some companies that do not change their formula much and continue making games without much innovation, but labeling and denouncing a whole genre is pretentious.
If we took that same mindset and attitude, and applied it to first-person shooters, we'd have the same criticism.
JRPGs are called JRPGs for a reason. They are made for the Japanese populace and conform to different social norms and expectations. Not to mention that there are plenty of JRPGs that haven't been translated into English, so judging the whole JRPG genre based on a few games seems like an overgeneralization. Like Seagloom said above, there are some companies that do not change their formula much and continue making games without much innovation, but labeling and denouncing a whole genre is pretentious.
If we took that same mindset and attitude, and applied it to first-person shooters, we'd have the same criticism.
#15
Posté 13 mai 2010 - 07:19
CRISIS1717
-
- Members
- 1 597 messages
Busomjack wrote...
*looks forward to reading the comments from all the butthurt weaboo anime nerds who still cling to their JRPGs religiously*.
Actually I'm not a fan of Jrpg's and I think Bioware's games are great, but like I said I think this guy was getting ahead of himself, saying it's not an rpg based on how close to the style you work with is foolish.
#16
Posté 13 mai 2010 - 07:22
Busomjack
-
- Members
- 4 131 messages
JRPGS are made for people who care less about gaming and more about cheesy, melodramatic, anime plot lines that consist of adolescent girls and boys who look like girls saving the world by jumping into the air with impossibly large swords and creating huge explosions when they land amongst other implausible things.
It really didn't start to get bad until Final Fantasy X. That is when they got rid of the world map and basically forced players to follow one linear path. There is no sense of adventure in any of these games, it's just move, watch cutscene, fight battle, repeat.
In Bioware games, my opinion actually matters and my behaviour changes people's opinion towards me. That gives the game much more depth and replay value than any JRPG I have ever played.
Bioware is right. No matter how well polished a turd is, it's still a turd.
It really didn't start to get bad until Final Fantasy X. That is when they got rid of the world map and basically forced players to follow one linear path. There is no sense of adventure in any of these games, it's just move, watch cutscene, fight battle, repeat.
In Bioware games, my opinion actually matters and my behaviour changes people's opinion towards me. That gives the game much more depth and replay value than any JRPG I have ever played.
Bioware is right. No matter how well polished a turd is, it's still a turd.
Modifié par Busomjack, 13 mai 2010 - 07:23 .
#17
Posté 13 mai 2010 - 07:23
Pacifien
-
- Members
- 11 527 messages
There's a bandwagon now? I thought the JRPG versus CRPG versus tabletop RPG debate had been going on for a couple decades now.chiliztri wrote...
I disagree, and to me, it's just another person jumping on the "I hate JRPGs since FFXIII came out" bandwagon. Though, I cannot comment on whether I like FFXIII or not as I do not own a PS3.
#18
Posté 13 mai 2010 - 07:23
ObserverStatus
-
- Members
- 19 046 messages
Busomjack wrote...
JRPGS are made for people who care less about gaming and more about cheesy, melodramatic, anime plot lines that consist of adolescent girls and boys who look like girls saving the world by jumping into the air with impossibly large swords and creating huge explosions when they land amongst other implausible things.
It really didn't start to get bad until Final Fantasy X. That is when they got rid of the world map and basically forced players to follow one linear path. There is no sense of adventure in any of these games, it's just move, watch cutscene, fight battle, repeat.
Bioware is right. No matter how well polished a turd is, it's still a turd.
#21
Posté 13 mai 2010 - 07:37
ObserverStatus
-
- Members
- 19 046 messages
I don't think JRPGs are going to drastically change anytime soon becaused they are still selling very well in Japan. Changing the formula would be bad business. Despite being exactly the same as it's predecessors, the latest pokemon game has sold 7.3 million copies. To put that in perspective, ME2 has sold 1.7 million copies and DA:O has sold 1.6 million.
#22
Posté 13 mai 2010 - 07:38
HoonDing
-
- Members
- 3 012 messages
Pot calling kettle black.enormousmoonboots wrote...
Thoughts?
#23
Posté 13 mai 2010 - 07:40
Busomjack
-
- Members
- 4 131 messages
The American market is too large for an JRPG developer to ignore. If America stops buying JRPGs, things will change. Not saying they'll copy Bioware but hopefully they'll stop this railroad style RPG where you have no freedom whatsoever like in Final Fantasy XIII.
Final Fantasy XIII was an absolute disgrace. They created this huge beautiful world and it was all entirely superficial. For all of it's beauty, none of it actually mattered because you were restricted to one path. Might as well have just been wallpaper.
Final Fantasy XIII was an absolute disgrace. They created this huge beautiful world and it was all entirely superficial. For all of it's beauty, none of it actually mattered because you were restricted to one path. Might as well have just been wallpaper.
#24
Posté 13 mai 2010 - 07:42
Jalem001
-
- Members
- 683 messages
I used to love JRPGs, but bioware is 100% right, they don't evolve.
Compare NWN to Dragon Age, or even Oblivion to Fallout 3. As time goes on the WRPG seems to adapt and change slowly. They take elements that work, try a few new elements, and then advance from there. No you shouldn't expect massive changes as some of the posters here are implying.
Until the biggest JRPG names (in the West) change their style it's going to continue to be less and less popular. The JRPG isn't so much an RPG as it is watching a story. Not much in the way of control.
Compare NWN to Dragon Age, or even Oblivion to Fallout 3. As time goes on the WRPG seems to adapt and change slowly. They take elements that work, try a few new elements, and then advance from there. No you shouldn't expect massive changes as some of the posters here are implying.
Until the biggest JRPG names (in the West) change their style it's going to continue to be less and less popular. The JRPG isn't so much an RPG as it is watching a story. Not much in the way of control.
#25
Posté 13 mai 2010 - 07:43
chiliztri
-
- Members
- 1 983 messages
Pacifien wrote...
There's a bandwagon now? I thought the JRPG versus CRPG versus tabletop RPG debate had been going on for a couple decades now.chiliztri wrote...
I disagree, and to me, it's just another person jumping on the "I hate JRPGs since FFXIII came out" bandwagon. Though, I cannot comment on whether I like FFXIII or not as I do not own a PS3.
IMO, yes, there is a bandwagon. It's not a bandwagon to debate JRPGs vs WRPGs vs tabletop RPG, it's just a bandwagon of people saying that JRPGs suck. Since the release of FFXIII all I've really heard about JRPGs is that they all suck. Overgeneralized statements such as that are in quite a few topics in this forum and, as we have seen from the articles linked in this topic, in the gaming media too.
I agree with most of the critisms against certain JRPGs to an extent, but I really do dislike overgeneralizing the whole genre based solely on a few games.
