86 réponses à ce sujet

[MerinTB]

Fexelea wrote...

Whilst I love MUA 1 and 2 like any decent Marvel fan would, they really don't quite make it into the rpg bag.

And yes, the OP was being absurd, which makes make a point about how absurd the anti Jrpg claims are.

By their own definition and the definition of game sellers and game critics, they are action rpgs.  Wikipedia lists them as action RPGs.

You level up characters, gather loot, progress through a story in which you make decisions that affect the outcomes of the story... while you don't get to make your characters, you can choose your characters and level them as you see fit.  I fail to see what MUA 1 & 2 are missing from the CRPG category other than swords and magic (oh, wait, Dr. Strange has magic and Blade has a sword...)

[Gandalf-the-Fabulous]

Baracuda6977 wrote...

if any WRPG tried to break away from the "this army is invading us, cus of a super bad guy" plot line, it would blur into JRPG and limit player choices because they have to pick a motivator that any player would choose. in a JRPG, the main character can go after the one he loves because he is his own persona, not the one you made for him

imo, the labeling between WRPG and JRPG is polorizing the genre and they dont want to take ideas from each other for fear of being branded as the other since players only play one or the other mostly

Actually WRPGs can still have a more personal motive for your character and still have a number of different player choices in the game, not all WRPGs are about an evil army trying to invade the good guys and your character must stop it.

Take a look at the Baldurs Gate series and Planescape Torment, these games show that you can have a game with tough moral choices and still have a plot that focuses on the motivation and story of the main character.

[Fexelea]

The first game didn't have any epic decision making, you didn't really affect the world with your actions anymore than you would playing Devil May Cry. There are no classes, just an abundance of characters with different but still similar powers



I think the marvel series are action/adventure with rpg elements, rather than an rpg that is action based, like Demon's Souls would be. The second game has the option to chose a side of the story, but it still doesn't make it enough to classify as that, at least in my opinion. The game can be described and marketed as many things, but the core depth that would make an rpg seems to be lacking.

[mattp420]

Fexelea wrote...

I think this thread has popped up because there were some people "hoping that FF XII fails in US" and "Jrpgs are immature" (In Wrpg music thread) etc.

I like both takes. I do not think that Jrpgs are random. There are cultural references and sub-culture jokes hidden behind what seems like random design choices. The amusingly cute enemies, the unweildy swords, even the spiky hair all reference aspects of the real Japan, just as the enchanted runic armor references aspects of real medieval times.

It is probably because the references are so engrained in our respective cultures that we cannot see sense in the other. Japanese gamers find Wrpgs monotonous. Western gamers find Jrpgs random. When in truth both are creative and imaginative takes on our societies and what makes a protagonist. There is no need for all the hate either way.

Bumping this post, although Fexelea's post will probably be ignored again.

[Fexelea]

^ most likely. I have been informed the internets require you to check any logical thinking at the door. haha

[AmstradHero]

I studied Japanese. I get some of the cultural references. I still don't like JRPGs.

Also, Demon's Souls isn't an RPG. (It's also unbelievably overrated, but that's another matter entirely) Diablo isn't an RPG.  At least not in the classic sense of the word.  They're action games with a levelling system which is now considered a RPG-element in game design.  I seriously don't consider them RPGs at all - though I like the Diablo series.

The reason I don't like JRPGs is because it doesn't feel like I have the control over the story and my character that I do in WRPGs. Even in Mass Effect, where I'm always playing Commander Shepard, I still have choices I can make that will have a significant impact on the gaming world in which I'm playing.  I don't generally feel I get the choices in JRPGs - at least the ones I've played. And at the risk of starting a flame war... the things I don't like about JRPGs: I generally find the NPCs a little bland; (Seriously, Sephiroth is the best you can do?) Music: It just doesn't do it for me - again picking on FF: Nobuo Uematsu = yawn, IMHO. Art direction: I like anime, but I really find I can't take a JRPG seriously. They all just look too ridiculous.

But the OP's point (albeit a little bit badly made, no offense intended, OP) is that the rampant hating without logic on JRPGs is stupid.  Hating on JRPGs simply because they are JRPGs is dumb.  And some of the faults that people are pointing out in JRPGs exist in WRPGs.  It appears the OP was exaggerating in order to make a point, which some people have interpreting as just baselessly hating on WRPGs, which I do not believe was the intent from subsequent posts.

I don't actively want to see JRPGs fail, but I'm not interested in playing them myself.  If they start taking away the market from WRPGs and stop them from being produced, I'll want them to fail. But for now, I'll leave them alone if they leave me alone.

Modifié par AmstradHero, 28 février 2010 - 09:10 .

[Noilly Prat]

On a side note, I think it's no accident that I enjoyed Lost Odyssey more than any other JRPG I've played in years. After all, half of the main characters are a thousand years old.



I have this theory that the quality of a JRPG is directly proportional to the ages of its protagonists. But don't try putting my theory to the test or anything, as it's obviously a crap theory.

[Fexelea]

Like or dislike is up to the player. However qualifying jrpgs as immature or random without considering there is a cultural gap to be accounted for is uncool, which is why this thread appeared I think.



Demon's Souls is an rpg and it is a great game for me.

[Arbiter Libera]

Noilly Prat wrote...

I have this theory that the quality of a JRPG is directly proportional to the ages of its protagonists. But don't try putting my theory to the test or anything, as it's obviously a crap theory.

Now THAT would explain the current state JRPGs are in.

[Mordaedil]

Arcanum. It has elves, but it's steampunk. So you play an elf with a steam-powered gun instead.



That's kinda original.

[medlish]

GOTHIC SERIES

RISEN



caps because important. You don't forget to mention Gothic. Never. (Well it has orcs... but no elves or dwarves)

[Baracuda6977]

why does everyone attack the age and hair of JRPG protagonists? its EVERYWHERE in their culture. for us, adulthood is freedom, for them, apparently highschool is (the hair is just awesome though)

[Funkcase]

Not all WRPGs are fantasy ( Europe is part of the west anyway) the Fallout series aint fantasy at all and Mass effect is a space RPG. Plus JRPG's are all the same thing over and over again same game mechanics and you always have to have that annoying little kid on your squad for comic relief and they aint even funny. Plus JRPG's rarely have a decent bad guy.

[MerinTB]

Fexelea wrote...

The first game didn't have any epic decision making, you didn't really affect the world with your actions anymore than you would playing Devil May Cry.

No epic decision making?  There are numerous endings to the game, almost all of them OPTIONAL (meaning if A or B happen, it's because of a choice you made or something you did or didn't do) which is more than a lot of "rpgs" - I could list you dozens of CRPGs where the only real difference in the ending (besides what characters you created/teamed with) is whether you made it to the end and won OR not.
Here - http://marvel.wikia....timate_Alliance - go to the part that reads "Future" and you'll get all the major outcomes you can affect by choices you make.  Here's a sampling of the nearly dozen different events:
-curing the Legacy Virus or letting it run rampant
- sacrifice Nightcrawler or Jean Grey: one leads to the assassination of Prof. X and the disbanding of the X-Men, the other leads to the creation of Dark Phoenix
- if you save the Skrull homeworld, Earth and the Skrull form an alliance and the Skrull defend Earth from a Kree invasion, otherwise the weakened Skrull end up in a galactic war with the Kree that costs the lives of millions across the galaxy
I'd call those major.  You affect not just the world, you affect other worlds!
Cause and effect.  Decision making.

There are no classes, just an abundance of characters with different but
still similar powers

No, there aren't classs but CRPGs do not need classes.  There were no classes in Fallout, no classes in Wasteland, no classes in Freedom Force.
Similar powers?  Wow, cause when I played the Hulk he sure seemed to play different and do different things than Wolverine, who seemed very different than Spider-man, who was nothing like Silver Surfer, who seemed very different than Mr. Fantastic, who failed to do anything like Ghost Rider, who'se abilities worked very much unlike those of Iceman...
Now, if you want to say "they either punched, used weapons, blasted energy, or somehow slowed/froze enemies in place" uhm, what about fantasy games where it's either weaons or magic?

I think the marvel series are action/adventure with rpg elements, rather than an rpg that is action based, like Demon's Souls would be. The second game has the option to chose a side of the story, but it still doesn't make it enough to classify as that, at least in my opinion. The game can be described and marketed as many things, but the core depth that would make an rpg seems to be lacking.

It may not be an RPG to you by your own defintion - but to most people who played it, to those who made it, to those who reviewed it, and to those who sold it, it's an action RPG.

It's an RPG to me every bit as much as Ultima or Planescape or Mass Effect.

EDIT = I forgot to mention: CRPGs do not have to have decisions, that's not what makes a game a role-playing game.  Sometimes a CRPG (heck, sometimes a table-top RPG) has a story that the PCs move through and try to survive and isn't about the players deciding what they want to do and where they want to go.  The "decisions" aspect ot CRPGs is fairly new, historically speaking.

Modifié par MerinTB, 28 février 2010 - 05:17 .

[Baracuda6977]

i'll give you that within a company that they don't change their games at all, but each series plays out rather uniquely in JRPGs imo, there isn't a japanese equivialant of Bioware to my knowledge though



i don't under stand the 'decent bad guy' bit, you usually fight some sort of army, and just kill the guy at the top... or some crazy guy who turns into half an angel, AGAIN which is usually rather amusing

[Armchairsquid]

Funkcase wrote...
 Plus JRPG's rarely have a decent bad guy.

!!!!DA:O spoilers!!!

What how can you say sephiroth isnt a decent bad guy not only does he kill one of your party members but he also kills one of your summons, that equivlent to the Archdemon coming into camp killing alexander then going into the fade and killing the spirit wynne is binded with. which would have been cool actually.

[valkyrie0]

Turns out WMessage Boards are also uninspired and unoriginal. It always has to be "this sucks" or "this is better than that". How about we move away from the genre-bashing and talk about what each game does well? e.g. Depth of Mass Effect's universe

[Fexelea]

Merin, what I meant is that there is no "epic" decision making but rather a bunch of happenings or small choices that result in things. You can chose to save Jean or Nightcrawler, yes, and that has an impact in a future that you are told is not immutable at all. It has no effect in what is the "main arc" of the story itself.

MUA2 does not allow you to have any control over your player stats beyond 4 abilities common to all characters that make very little difference if you just always keep them balanced or if you only ramp up one (I did both ways on Super Heroic and legenday, Ms Marvel kicks ass either way). That would be considered a binding element of crpgs, but you do not see the "requires level x" when entering an area, or getting a character or anything, so the system might as well not be there and there would be no difference. Only bosses drop loot. You can equip only 1 item. The powers for every character follow linear and predictable paths that are not that different from each other in terms of output (of course animation etc is). The game is very action oriented, and for me it has crossed the line.

I have no statistics to either agree or disagree with the "most people who play it thought" comment. I have, however, read plenty of reviews that highlight the lack of rpg elements and others that call it an over simplified attempt at a genre that begs for more or state that at its heart Ultimate Alliance is still a beat-em-up (that) still gets most of its DNA from games like Final Fight. MUA2 also gets the "superhero beat-em-up with flashes of Diablo RPG mechanics" comments and satisfying beat-em-up action summaries.

So I don't think I am alone in thinking that the scale tipped towards the action on this title. You are free to disagree based on your opinion, however what the game is marketed as is not necesarily what the game is, nor what everyone perceives it to be. As evidenced by the links above, plenty of people think the rpg part is more or less an add-on to an action/beat-em-up game.

[AngryFrozenWater]

AmstradHero wrote...

Even in Mass Effect, where I'm always playing Commander Shepard, I still have choices I can make that will have a significant impact on the gaming world in which I'm playing.

What significant impact are you talking about? They are merely cosmetic: Shepard gets an e-mail, or there is a dialog line chance, or at best there is a cameo. In the end choices do not make any difference to the main story. Every choice you make ends up with a rationalization to keep the main story on track. Even killing characters doesn't make much difference. If Wrex dies on Virmire in ME1 then you'll get the same mission interactions from another krogan clan leader in ME2. Nothing changed at all and another character with a slightly different dialog takes over.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 01 mars 2010 - 05:53 .

[Joshua Hawkeye]

Are there ANY Fantasy-WRPGs that do NOT have Elves and Dwarves and Orcs and Dragons or some thinly-veiled variation thereof?

Fallout. Planescape: Torment (!!!, possibly the most awesome RPG EVER), Mass Effect (that one was not so hard, was it?). Then there's Battletech (personal oldie favorite of mine), and...

WRPGs where even games with a clear intention of breaking apart from the D&D paradigm, only end up being a clone of it at best, such as in Dragon Age.

Again: Fallout. And just about every modern RPG game not made by Bioware. It has to do with BG.

Is there ANY WRPG character-system that does not draw a substantial influence from Dungeons & Dragons?

FALLOUT (1)!
Just about every game before Bioware's Baldur's Gate came along, I geuss. That game was enormously succesfull, so you get clones of it. I don't know much about those older RPG's (except Battletech: Crescent Hawk's inception). Then there are the Elder Scrolls games who have their own unique system.

with Elves. Tolkien.

Elves != Tolkien. Elves have been around in stories for thousand of years, especially in Scandinavia. Tolkien's elves are also vastly different from 'other' elves. Not by looks, but by their role in the world.

Now I realize that everything I said has already been said in this topic, but I didn't realize that as I was responding directly to OP. OP, feel free to ignore this.

Modifié par Joshua Hawkeye, 01 mars 2010 - 06:29 .

[orpheus333]

I believe its a culture thing, while JRPGs may seem innovative to you its simply the difference in culture an asthetic that translates into originality. While i like JRPGs (i haven't played on in a while though) there are loads of Pen N Paper RPGs from western developers that brake the mold and do something different. Like Orpheus or Unknown Armies...hell even Wushu. So its not as if Game Developers don;t have a wealth of pretty interesting and uniwue setting material to work with. In terms of actual games i don't know, i don;t think either genre are particularly more or less innovative than the other. Vampire: Bloodlines dispite its flaws was probably the most different RPG in terms of setting that i've played in the last few years or so.

Modifié par andyr1986, 01 mars 2010 - 07:54 .

[AmstradHero]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

AmstradHero wrote...

Even in Mass Effect, where I'm always playing Commander Shepard, I still have choices I can make that will have a significant impact on the gaming world in which I'm playing.

What significant impact are you talking about? They are merely cosmetic: Shepard gets an e-mail, or there is a dialog line chance, or at best there is a cameo. In the end choices do not make any difference to the main story. Every choice you make ends up with a rationalization to keep the main story on track. Even killing characters doesn't make much difference. If Wrex dies on Virmire in ME1 then you'll get the same mission interactions from another krogan clan leader in ME2. Nothing changed at all and another character with a slightly different dialog takes over.

Sticking with Mass Effect... so the fact that humans rule the galaxy alone instead of with other races isn't significant? The Krogan either being reformed under Wrex or continuing to kill each other into extinction means nothing?  The fact that the Rachni are killed off entirely or exist in the outer reaches of space once more is cosmetic? What about curing the Genophage? Destroying the Geth Heretics?

Yes, there are elements of the story that remain the same, but that's
because developers can't create an entirely new game based on decisions
in ME1. But seriously, the impact I'm having on the universe in Mass
Effect is huge.  We can't expect two new games based on my decisions previously, heck the game already comes on two discs as it is!

I'm talking about roleplaying here. To demonstrate, let's bring other games into the equation.  Let's compare to Demon's Souls, where I get to kill thousands of enemies. Whoopee. That's not playing a role, that's killing and levelling up. Oh, wait, I also get a thin plot by which to do it. That's not what I consider roleplaying by even the largest stretch of the imagination I can come up with.

Or say FF7 (I only pick on it because it's paraded around as the highlight of JRPGs), where I do exactly the same things every time.  Aeris always dies. Sephiroth always dies.  Yes, in BG2, you always kill Bodhi and Irenicus.  But it's the little decisions, whether you tread the lines of good or evil, whether you side with the Silver Dragon and help her destroy Ust Natha or do you betray her and assist the drow, do you doom the Sauhagin, and so on. Do you become a good/evil God/Goddess or give up your divine spark?  These are the things that make a great roleplaying game, in my opinion.

[Sl1pst1ck]

I personally think Dues Ex was about as close as anyone has come to making a True RPG.

Modifié par Sl1pst1ck, 01 mars 2010 - 08:26 .

[Sl1pst1ck]

Why do i say this. Well i think most WRPG's and JRPG's are Strategy games labeled rpg's. Take Dragons Age , you control a party of 4 people . You decide what they do, say and how or what they fight sure but its still strategy and tactics, oh ill give you the "well we make moral decisions" crapt but really when u boil it down all dragons age is is a pretty RTS with alot of dialog.

Modifié par Sl1pst1ck, 01 mars 2010 - 08:36 .

[Noilly Prat]

Sl1pst1ck wrote...

Why do i say this. Well i think most WRPG's and JRPG's are Strategy games labeled rpg's. Take Dragons Age , you control a party of 4 people . You decide what they do, say and how or what they fight sure but its still strategy and tactics, oh ill give you the "well we make moral decisions" crapt but really when u boil it down all dragons age is is a pretty RTS with alot of dialog.

It's got a strategic combat system, but that doesn't mean it has much in common with the genre most of us know as RTS.  I'm not really sure what you're getting at here.  By the same token, I could say Deus Ex is pretty much an FPS with a lot of dialogue.

Not that I am saying that...  Deus Ex is one of my favorite games of all time.  But what elements, precisely, make it an RPG while disqualifying Dragon Age from the same classification?