105 réponses à ce sujet

[Tooneyman]

Something to everyone to ponder.

Bestheda we make fun of JRPGs even though the story to our games suck. JRPGs comeback, Lets make another "Final Fantasy!" Oh wait we did, We made 13 and look it sold more than fallout and oblivion combine have sold in one day than in two years. JRPGs OWN!

[Wolverfrog]

addiction21 wrote...

nimzar wrote...

Wolverfrog wrote...

Is comparing a First Person shooter to a Third Person shooter any different than comparing a Western RPG to a Japanese RPG?

I think not.

I would argue that that comparison is probably closer than the comparison between wRPGs and jRPGs. 

But Shallow was not comparing moderwarfare 2 and gears of war. Shallow wa making a point. A point that Wolverfrog clearly missed.
You could make the arguement that MW2 and GoW2 are aimed at similar audiances on are provided on the same plateforms.
Pokemon and Bethesda games are not. Apples to Oranges and all that.

You could also argue that WRPGs and JRPGs as a whole aren't aimed at the same audiences. Of course, there are people who enjoy both -- such as I -- but more often than not gamers tend to occupy one niche or the other.

[addiction21]

Wolverfrog wrote...


You could also argue that WRPGs and JRPGs as a whole aren't aimed at the same audiences. Of course, there are people who enjoy both -- such as I -- but more often than not gamers tend to occupy one niche or the other.

First bolded part: Then what was the point of making that comparison between Pokemon and Bethesda games if as you said they are aimed at different audiances?

Second bolded part: Got anything at all to back that up? It might just be anedoctal but ever hardcore and casual gamer I have ever met and talked top like more then just one "niche" and play more then one genre. They might prefer some over other overs but they still go out of thier comfort zone and play different games of different genres.

[Archdemon Cthulhu]

I tend to stay away from most JRPGs in recent years, but I do owe them a lot. Grandia, Pokemon, and FInal Fantasy VII/X were the games that got me into RPG's when I was a bit younger, so without them I don't even play WRPG's. I tend to enjoy WRPG's more now, but I still play Pokemon. I would argue both genres need a swift kick in teh behind. WRPG's need to get out of the Dungeons and Dragons cloning. Less High/Dark Fantasy games please. Mix up the genres. JRPG's seem more creative at first glance, but then have a slew of stereotypes that are seen in all of them and even then their wildly different worlds end up blending together in the mind due to similar art direction.



I think both sides of the pacific need to be a bit more daring and innovative in story/setting/gameplay.

[MerinTB]

Leinadi wrote...
It's a good thing they are "mocking" it or drawing attention to it if you ask me. In my mind, there is simply no defense for RPG stories that offer no choice to the player. Even story-heavy RPGs should give power to the player in terms of affecting the storylines. Why? Because it's a game and it's supposed to be interactive, developers should strive towards that.
That said, I'm not exactly impressed with how most western devs handle this either. Perhaps New Vegas will deliver on it, it does seem they're pushing a lot for choice. Hopefully that will be the case.

I also think that there are things that jRPGs are much better at generally speaking. Their settings in particular are often waaaay more creative and colorful than the western counterparts. Even if they sometimes overstep rather a lot, it's better than how awfully bland many western RPG settings are.

Wow, BioWare really has changed terms and controlled messaging for RPG fans, haven't they?

Hint: cRPGs are NOT about choice.  Choice is nice - but you have choice in adventure games, too (Blade Runner, Noctropolis, Phantasmagoria) and in flight sims (Wing Commader series) and in RTS games (Total War series) and in FPS games (Bioshock) - and by choice I mean story choices that affect the story and/or game world.  Choice has not historically even been considered an element of cRPGs.  Ultimas, SSI D&D, Wizardry, Bard's Tale... their stories are linear, there are no multiple endings, there are not great choices to make outside of spell selection, party member names, and weapons you use.  You could skip a room in a dungeon.  But you either won the game or lost it.
Honestly, story choices is an ADVENTURE GAME element.  All the way back to good old text adventures, even.

This isn't ancient history or anything - cRPGs have only been around for, at most, 50 years (depending what you'll qualify as cRPG.)

Stop claiming that cRPG's need choice.  Maybe, for you, games need choice.  But you are less valid in claiming that cRPGs need choice because Bethesda does open sandbox and BioWare does adventure game story-telling than I would be in demanding that cRPGs need a party of adventurers to be considered a cRPG - at least I'd have mountains of precedence going all the way back to the earliest of early cRPGs.

Sheesh.

JRPGs have no less story choice than MOST OF THE HISTORY of western cRPGs.

[Gamman]

Ah... this has also reached here as well. I like both type of role-playing games. Although I've been playing more WRPG's nowadays than the Japanese ones, I always have room for both in my collection.

I've posted my own thoughts on this on my own site here, if anyone cares to read it, that is. >_>

There's actually just one reason why I've been playing WRPG's more nowadays: Character Creation. Which actually is something not mentioned in that ad. It's one of the features of WRPG's that sometimes tip me over to that side of the role-playing game spectrum. I really like feeling a sense of personal attachment to the character I'm role-playing, and to me nothing beats a character that one has created on his/her own.

But really though, both types of RPG's are different, and so I like them both in different ways.

As for the ad, here's an excerpt from my entry: "...personally, I wouldn’t have gone with it. Sure it will spark debate, but
I’m not sure if it’s a good idea to try and convince Japanese players to
try a western game by criticizing the type of RPG they already know and
love. But that’s just me."

Just my summarized thoughts on the matter.   Nothing more... moving on.

[HTTP 404]

is EA in charge of Bioware's marketing?

[Leinadi]

Wow, BioWare really has changed terms and controlled messaging for RPG fans, haven't they?



Hint: cRPGs are NOT about choice. Choice is nice - but you have choice in adventure games, too (Blade Runner, Noctropolis, Phantasmagoria) and in flight sims (Wing Commader series) and in RTS games (Total War series) and in FPS games (Bioshock) - and by choice I mean story choices that affect the story and/or game world. Choice has not historically even been considered an element of cRPGs. Ultimas, SSI D&D, Wizardry, Bard's Tale... their stories are linear, there are no multiple endings, there are not great choices to make outside of spell selection, party member names, and weapons you use. You could skip a room in a dungeon. But you either won the game or lost it.

Honestly, story choices is an ADVENTURE GAME element. All the way back to good old text adventures, even.



This isn't ancient history or anything - cRPGs have only been around for, at most, 50 years (depending what you'll qualify as cRPG.)



Stop claiming that cRPG's need choice. Maybe, for you, games need choice. But you are less valid in claiming that cRPGs need choice because Bethesda does open sandbox and BioWare does adventure game story-telling than I would be in demanding that cRPGs need a party of adventurers to be considered a cRPG - at least I'd have mountains of precedence going all the way back to the earliest of early cRPGs.



Sheesh.



JRPGs have no less story choice than MOST OF THE HISTORY of western cRPGs.

Which is completely beside the point I was making. Like I said, I'm not claiming that most wrpg's deliver on this front either. I've never said that Bioware did it right, in fact I thought it was hilariously ironic when they criticized jrpg's in that interview a while back. Nor have I said that Bethesda have done it right (in fact, I said pretty much the opposite in my second post) so stop putting words in my mouth. Generally speaking, I am not a fan of either company's games.



I also don't think choices are part of the genre per say but it (and this is my point) *should* be, because these are games and the player should not be reduced to watching story-elements play out with very minor input and then be "activated" again only when ye good ol' "slaughter enemies" segments shows up in the middle of the plot segments. How one can defend a completely linear storyline, with no player input to affect it, in this day and age is saddening but I suppose not surprising.

[Loerwyn]

Wolverfrog wrote...
Comparing JRPGs to RPGs is pretty bad, I would argue. They're both incredibly different.

And yet you did it in one of your posts, so I'm not sure what you're on about with this and subsequent posts. Don't believe me?

Wolverfrog wrote...
And yet HeartGold/SoulSilver have sold 10 million units to date.
I don't think any of Bethesda's games can claim that.

Source

HTTP 404 wrote...
is EA in charge of Bioware's marketing?

More than likely.

Gamman wrote...
There's actually just one reason why I've
been playing WRPG's more nowadays: Character Creation. Which actually is
something not mentioned in that ad. It's one of the features of WRPG's
that sometimes tip me over to that side of the role-playing game
spectrum. I really like feeling a sense of personal attachment to the
character I'm role-playing, and to me nothing beats a character that one
has created on his/her own.

Agreed. Even if it's on a small level like Divinity 2, or a larger level like Dragon Age, or even only as far as stats such as Drakensang, it's still something a lot of WRPGs have. You build your character, within reason, how you want to. If you want to gimp your character by giving him melee-based gear but magical attacks, that's your choice (Ignoring Arcane Warriors, of course, they're one of the very few exceptions). If you want to have a beautiful Elf or an incredibly repulsive human, again, it's your choice. Nothing beats having your character - the one you designed and built - defeating the big bad guy.

[joriandrake]

Divinity 2 had a terrible character creator, but it did show me what Bioware games lack, never did I realize before how much swimming, jumping, flying, or even simple normal walking/running add to a game. That levels had height made many things more enjoyable, and there were many interesting puzzles attached to it too, and the game had the feel of being a free roam world as Oblivion but in fact it was just as straightforward as any Bioware game, the territories were just bigger and well created so that the player didn't have the thoughts about being forced into a direction that much.

[Loerwyn]

joriandrake wrote...

Divinity 2 had a terrible character creator

Limited =/= Terrible.

joriandrake wrote...
but it did show me what Bioware games lack, never did I realize before how much swimming, jumping, flying, or even simple normal walking/running add to a game. That levels had height made many things more enjoyable, and there were many interesting puzzles attached to it too, and the game had the feel of being a free roam world as Oblivion but in fact it was just as straightforward as any Bioware game, the territories were just bigger and well created so that the player didn't have the thoughts about being forced into a direction that much.

I'd take a thousand Divinity 2s over a BioWare game, and I'm not afraid to say it. As I've said a few times, Divinity 2 has charm. BioWare's recent games don't. ME2's good, sure, but it doesn't have that spark JE or KotOR did.

[joriandrake]

OnlyShallow89 wrote...

joriandrake wrote...

Divinity 2 had a terrible character creator

Limited =/= Terrible.

joriandrake wrote...
but it did show me what Bioware games lack, never did I realize before how much swimming, jumping, flying, or even simple normal walking/running add to a game. That levels had height made many things more enjoyable, and there were many interesting puzzles attached to it too, and the game had the feel of being a free roam world as Oblivion but in fact it was just as straightforward as any Bioware game, the territories were just bigger and well created so that the player didn't have the thoughts about being forced into a direction that much.

I'd take a thousand Divinity 2s over a BioWare game, and I'm not afraid to say it. As I've said a few times, Divinity 2 has charm. BioWare's recent games don't. ME2's good, sure, but it doesn't have that spark JE or KotOR did.

This I have to agree with, even ME1 was more lively than ME2 in certain aspects.

[MerinTB]

Leinadi wrote...
I also don't think choices are part of the genre per say but it (and this is my point) *should* be, because these are games and the player should not be reduced to watching story-elements play out with very minor input and then be "activated" again only when ye good ol' "slaughter enemies" segments shows up in the middle of the plot segments. How one can defend a completely linear storyline, with no player input to affect it, in this day and age is saddening but I suppose not surprising.

The same way I can enjoy a novel that doesn't have the words "Choose Your Own Adventure" on the cover. 

The same way I enjoy a tv series that isn't called American Idol.

The same way MILLIONS of gamers enjoy Halo, Gears of War, Left 4 Dead, Plants vs. Zombies, Uncharted 2, God of War, and the VAST MAJORITY OF GAMES where the game's story is ABSOLUTELY LINEAR with NO MULTIPLE ENDINGS.

Step outside of your niche box and sense of elitism... games are about HAVING FUN, BEING ENTERTAINED, not about WRITING YOUR OWN STORY.  Having choices in the game that affect the outcome of a story is great, it is actually a PREFERRED element of mine... but it does not define "good" games, just games that have that element.

Seeing you say this is like reading someone say "any game that doesn't use a motion controller in this day and age is just sad" or "any movie that isn't in 3D is just sad."

[joriandrake]

MerinTB wrote...

Leinadi wrote...
I also don't think choices are part of the genre per say but it (and this is my point) *should* be, because these are games and the player should not be reduced to watching story-elements play out with very minor input and then be "activated" again only when ye good ol' "slaughter enemies" segments shows up in the middle of the plot segments. How one can defend a completely linear storyline, with no player input to affect it, in this day and age is saddening but I suppose not surprising.

The same way I can enjoy a novel that doesn't have the words "Choose Your Own Adventure" on the cover. 

The same way I enjoy a tv series that isn't called American Idol.

The same way MILLIONS of gamers enjoy Halo, Gears of War, Left 4 Dead, Plants vs. Zombies, Uncharted 2, God of War, and the VAST MAJORITY OF GAMES where the game's story is ABSOLUTELY LINEAR with NO MULTIPLE ENDINGS.

Step outside of your niche box and sense of elitism... games are about HAVING FUN, BEING ENTERTAINED, not about WRITING YOUR OWN STORY.  Having choices in the game that affect the outcome of a story is great, it is actually a PREFERRED element of mine... but it does not define "good" games, just games that have that element.

Seeing you say this is like reading someone say "any game that doesn't use a motion controller in this day and age is just sad" or "any movie that isn't in 3D is just sad."

Your argument would perhaps have more merit and support if you would have used RPG-s as example in this RPG related discussion, and if you wouldn't have shouted half the time.

[MerinTB]

joriandrake wrote...

MerinTB wrote...

Leinadi wrote...
I also don't think choices are part of the genre per say but it (and this is my point) *should* be, because these are games and the player should not be reduced to watching story-elements play out with very minor input and then be "activated" again only when ye good ol' "slaughter enemies" segments shows up in the middle of the plot segments. How one can defend a completely linear storyline, with no player input to affect it, in this day and age is saddening but I suppose not surprising.

The same way I can enjoy a novel that doesn't have the words "Choose Your Own Adventure" on the cover. 

The same way I enjoy a tv series that isn't called American Idol.

The same way MILLIONS of gamers enjoy Halo, Gears of War, Left 4 Dead, Plants vs. Zombies, Uncharted 2, God of War, and the VAST MAJORITY OF GAMES where the game's story is ABSOLUTELY LINEAR with NO MULTIPLE ENDINGS.

Step outside of your niche box and sense of elitism... games are about HAVING FUN, BEING ENTERTAINED, not about WRITING YOUR OWN STORY.  Having choices in the game that affect the outcome of a story is great, it is actually a PREFERRED element of mine... but it does not define "good" games, just games that have that element.

Seeing you say this is like reading someone say "any game that doesn't use a motion controller in this day and age is just sad" or "any movie that isn't in 3D is just sad."

Your argument would perhaps have more merit and support if you would have used RPG-s as example in this RPG related discussion, and if you wouldn't have shouted half the time.

It's meant as emphasis as there is no actual volume for it to be shouting, but point taken.

And I don't see the point in listing RPG examples as someone will just respond "those aren't RPGs" but here goes -

no choice in story endings in the following cRPGs:
Ultima 1-9
Wizardry 1-8
Bard's Tale 1-3
Alternate Reality series
Might and Magic series
all SSI cRPGs (about a dozen D&D, 2 Buck Rogers, Wizard's Crown, Phantasie series)
Wasteland
Fallout 1 & 2
X-Men Legends and Marvel Ultimate Alliance
Freedom Force 1 & 2
Baldur's Gate 1 & 2
Icewind Dale series
... just about every cRPG out there with few exceptions outside of BioWare, Obsdian and Bethesda.

The multiple endings thing has become something of a thing now, sure, but that's like saying all games need open sandbox play because Bethesda has it and you like Bethesda games best.

If you mean non-linear as in you can choose where you go, regardless of story / world impact, whenever you want, that's open sandbox and not non-linear storytelling.

If mean "order of events" in story as non-linear or linear, to what degree?  Does it count that in Village A I can choose which side of the village to explore first, who I talk to first?  In Dungeon B does it count if there are side rooms I can skip or go through in any order?  Does it count as linear if I have to clear quest A before quest B is even available?

---

As for the using "non-RPGs" as examples, my friend, it's called an analogy.  It's commonly used in discussions.

[Loerwyn]

I thought Fallout 1+2 had multiple endings?

[MerinTB]

OnlyShallow89 wrote...
I thought Fallout 1+2 had multiple endings?

*ponders*

You are right about that - it has the Marvel Ultimate Alliance kind of "if you did X, it affected the world in X way" kind of ending.  So it might not fit in that list.

I was just remembering that there's a set bad guy, and you beat the set bad guy or the game isn't won.  It's not like many more open ended games where the bad guy can be different each playthrough, or where you can side with the bad guy in the end, or where the bad guy can be caught, killed, or escape but you can still finish the game - that kind of thing.

But, yes, Fallout 1-3 have the "your choices had these impacts" ending sequence.  My bad.

[joriandrake]

Just to point out that multiple endings is nothing new, it is a core idea behind PC RPG-s as they try to simulate pnp RPG and the various choices/decisions a player there could do in certain situations.

[MerinTB]

joriandrake wrote...

Just to point out that multiple endings is nothing new, it is a core idea behind PC RPG-s as they try to simulate pnp RPG and the various choices/decisions a player there could do in certain situations.

No, it isn't nothing new.  It was a staple of many adventure games.

However for every DM / GM out there who let's his players guide the story and follows them whereever they may roam and crafts the adventure that way, there are ten who either play a prepackaged module or have a campaign with a set story and a set ending in mind.  So that comparision is weak, too.

cRPGs can have multiple endings or not - but either way is NOT an element of a cRPG.  Multiple endings is an element of adventure games.

[Astranagant]

I think Bethesda's success in the Japanese market is mostly due to the fact that their games are fully dubbed in Japanese and they vigorously market and publicize their games, although there are Japanese hardcore WRPG fans out there.

OnlyShallow89 wrote...

I thought Fallout 1+2 had multiple endings?

They do. Technically F3 does, too, but they don't really matter except for a line or two of the epilogue narration. F1 especially had dramatic differences. It also had epilogues covering all the quests you did in every town and how that town fared as a result of your actions. Not to mention being able to betray your people to The Master.

Modifié par Astranagant, 05 août 2010 - 06:07 .

[joriandrake]

MerinTB wrote...

joriandrake wrote...

Just to point out that multiple endings is nothing new, it is a core idea behind PC RPG-s as they try to simulate pnp RPG and the various choices/decisions a player there could do in certain situations.

No, it isn't nothing new.  It was a staple of many adventure games.

However for every DM / GM out there who let's his players guide the story and follows them whereever they may roam and crafts the adventure that way, there are ten who either play a prepackaged module or have a campaign with a set story and a set ending in mind.  So that comparision is weak, too.

cRPGs can have multiple endings or not - but either way is NOT an element of a cRPG.  Multiple endings is an element of adventure games.

and both cRPG and adventure genre originate form the torn apart pnp RPG roots

[MerinTB]

Adventure games are NOT from table top RPGs.

Adventure games, like King's Quest, Space Quest, Maniac Mansion, Full Throttle, Myst, Blade Runner, Syberia, Still Life...
those are not RPGs in the least.

Modifié par MerinTB, 05 août 2010 - 09:37 .

[Loerwyn]

MerinTB wrote...

Adventure games, like King's Quest, Space Quest, Maniac Mansion, Full Throttle, Myst, Blade Runner, Syberia, Still Life...
those are not RPGs in the least.

They're more from "mystery" novels, IMHO, and similar books. The story is generally set and you have to put the pieces together. I see them as being able to translate into books and vice versa - After all, some of the better selling adventure/point 'n' click games in the UK are based upon existing authors and their works - Sherlock Holmes, Agatha Christie (there's a Poirot series out), etc.

But certainly not from RPGs. I highly doubt Dungeons & Dragons inspired, say, King's Quest in terms of mechanics. It may be referenced in a pop culture way or inspire the setting, but not the gameplay. I can't imagine a halfling rogue trying to interact with a switch using a slightly rotten turnip, to be honest.

Well, come on, we've all been there in adventure games.

Modifié par OnlyShallow89, 05 août 2010 - 10:04 .