Xilo Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 Yes, exactly! Now you get it. JRPGs don't want the player to become so immersed in the character that they can't separate the two. JRPGs have the player pretend to be controlling someone else that they can watch from a bird's eye view. That is the difference. I highly disagree. With WRPGs, the character is very 2 dimensional. The story is often lacking and non-immersive. The character really has no personality, real history, or anything to make me become attached to them. Events in the game really don't affect the character in any way. There are some exceptions like the stock Shephard in ME. But there's just still something lacking about them. JRPGs focus on developing characters with more personality and history. They experience a direct impact from events that happen in the game. As such, it's much easier to become attached to the character. I play JRPGs for the stories and immersion. I like dialogue. I like cutscenes. When you can become attached to the character, the game becomes much more immersive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Flash Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 Times have changed (for me at least), western rpg's have been getting better while Japanese rpg's have been using the same old formula for a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soniqstylz Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 I just commented that it didn't make sense to me because he's trying to compare JRPG's to Western RPG's by using Hitman and Tomb Raider, which are not Western RPGs nor RPGs at all. But like I stated I thought it was because of licensing issues, but since this is from a powerpoint from GDC, Licensing isn't an issue. That's why I'm wondering if it's a translation error, or that he's just out of touch It wasn't a translation error, I can say that much. There were a few translation errors (particularly at one point when the translator couldn't keep up), but that's pretty much what he said. I have it referenced in the main thread. It seemed to be more about perspective of active 3rd person v. omniscient 3rd person, ie., I'm playing as Lara Croft in this story v. I'm playing a story that features Lightning. But I get what you mean by not a WRPG, but to some extent, people try to relate to the characters even in action games. Have you ever put yourself in the place of a chacter of a game you're playing when talking about it, ie., "holy **** did you just see the jump I made?" I highly disagree. With WRPGs, the character is very 2 dimensional. The story is often lacking and non-immersive. The character really has no personality, real history, or anything to make me become attached to them. Events in the game really don't affect the character in any way. There are some exceptions like the stock Shephard in ME. But there's just still something lacking about them. JRPGs focus on developing characters with more personality and history. They experience a direct impact from events that happen in the game. As such, it's much easier to become attached to the character. I play JRPGs for the stories and immersion. I like dialogue. I like cutscenes. When you can become attached to the character, the game becomes much more immersive. But that's the point that he's getting at: WRPG (and character-focused action games like Tomb Raider and Hitman) have blank slate archetype characters that you can fill in with your own experience -- you're playing AS Lara Croft, or Agent 47. In JRPG, you're still playing archetypes, but you're playing the story more than the characters. For instance, in White Knight Chronicles, you can create your own character, but your character is hardly referenced and is barely a part of the story. It's more about Leonard and the princess than about you or how your avatar relates to anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soniqstylz Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 Jim Sterling wrote an interesting article about JRPGs on Destructoid today that caught my attention. The article was written about the requirement of grinding in JRPGs, but this introductory piece really sums it up. http://www.destructoid.com/get-me-results-how-to-solve-the-jrpg-grind-167062.phtml IMHO, he's wrong. The idea of RPG is that you create your own playstyle for characters, which is why games like Bioshock are considered to have RPG - elements: you're handed a ton of possible **** to use, and how you use it is up to you. In FF games in general, the ideas of mage / warrior / rogue / healer exist in some odd Japanese fashion, but they exist and are interchangable on any character (generally speaking), so you do have some creative role-playing input on how the story progresses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massiveterra Posted March 18, 2010 Author Share Posted March 18, 2010 So if he's talking about a first person "western" perspective vs a japanese 3rd person "omniscient" perspective, what does it have to do with cultural differences? Because hasn't a personal perspective been used in non-RPG games in Japan? like Ninja Gaiden, Resident Evil, Metal Gear Solid, Yakuza? I really don't see a cultural difference in that. And as far as a 3rd person omniscient perspective, I would consider this more prevalent in Real Time or Turn Based Strategy games or Strategy RPGs If cultural differences are raised, then I would have to say it has more to do with how Western players and Japanese players approach character. Western players are more about character development. And shaping narrative. This is usually why the main protagonist is often "cold" or silent but their decision affect the other characters and narrative around them. And if there is any character development happening to the main character, it usually happens to the player themselves and reflects the decisions they make rather than have that development reflected in the player's avatar in the game. I guess western players are more about player agency, or the illusion of it. I see Japanese players more about character building. Not necessarily about moral or personal choice, but more about building an army from frail beings to nearly invincible beings. And this is done by grinding, collecting resources/loot, and customizing inventory. Both ways can tell incredible narratives, I guess it just depends on the execution. But these differences definitely reveals things about each culture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gunslinger Posted March 18, 2010 Share Posted March 18, 2010 Western RPGs -> JRPG's. This used to be the other way around, but technology helped WRPG's become more plausible and fun to play. JRPG's in general seem to be stuck in the old fashioned turn-based style of play with many many cut scenes you can't do anything in but watch, which just doesn't make sense. If it's all about immersion why are you constantly taken out of it? In games like Fallout 3 you never lose control of your character. I tend to agree...I used to love JRPGs, but they never seemed to evolved from their old mechanics. Chrono Trigger was brilliant, and I hoped that Square would have used that battle system, but they stuck with their legacy systems. I havent played the latest ones, so my comments are up to FFX :) Mass Effect 2 is a Western Role Playing Game that uses shooter mechanics. I see Mass Effect 2 as more of a shooter that uses a bit of RPG elements to extend its length. Mass Effect 1 on the other was a pretty decent RPG. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solid Knight Posted March 18, 2010 Share Posted March 18, 2010 But again, the problem with FFXIII has nothing to do with being a JRPG. Did Square suddenly forget about how immensely popular FFVII is? Perhaps they should realize that they just made a boring game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrArifPatel Posted March 18, 2010 Share Posted March 18, 2010 I personally can't stand "western" rpgs (ElderScroll, Fallout3 etc) ditto, i've tried enjoying them, but it don't happen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carmatic Posted March 18, 2010 Share Posted March 18, 2010 arent the Final Fantasy series more like interactive movies than RPG's ? just like , you know, Bioshock is actually an RPG more than it is a shooter... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rudy Posted March 18, 2010 Share Posted March 18, 2010 ditto, i've tried enjoying them, but it don't happen Same, I got Elder Scrolls 3 with a videocard I purchased a long long time ago and to be honest I was hoping it was going to be better. When you read about the game it sounds cool (can kill anyone, free to do whatever you want etc etc) but it doesn't translate into a fun game for me.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massiveterra Posted March 18, 2010 Author Share Posted March 18, 2010 IMHO, he's wrong. The idea of RPG is that you create your own playstyle for characters, which is why games like Bioshock are considered to have RPG - elements: you're handed a ton of possible **** to use, and how you use it is up to you. In FF games in general, the ideas of mage / warrior / rogue / healer exist in some odd Japanese fashion, but they exist and are interchangable on any character (generally speaking), so you do have some creative role-playing input on how the story progresses. I guess where I agree with the article is that JRPGs are more like strategy games rather than Role Playing Games. And that the confusion comes from the title of the genre, that honestly I think there would be less confusion or less polarization about them. Because to me, a game like GTA4 has more RPG elements than a JRPG. Like for example, if JRPGs were to be called Japanese Narrative Strategy Games (JNSG) then there would be a lot less confusion, right? Because if you look at the roots of the Role Playing Game (tabletop) I think of things like creating your own character, creating your own class, forming a guild/team, a dungeon master, and statistics such as HP and MP. And having yourself help shape the narrative within the confined rules of the game. Aside from the statistics part, I see JRPGs having less to do with an actual Role Playing Game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rudy Posted March 18, 2010 Share Posted March 18, 2010 Because if you look at the roots of the Role Playing Game (tabletop) I think of things like creating your own character, creating your own class, forming a guild/team, a dungeon master, and statistics such as HP and MP. And having yourself help shape the narrative within the confined rules of the game. Aside from the statistics part, I see JRPGs having less to do with an actual Role Playing Game. JRPGs did start that way (look at Final Fantasy 1) but they evolved into something different, that's why we call them JRPGs and not RPGs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RPDL Posted March 18, 2010 Share Posted March 18, 2010 It's pretty shocking that these notorious jRPG devs have never played (since they don't seem to have a clue about them) wRPGs, unlike most North-american or European developers who have no doubt played at least classic FF games when it comes to jRPGs. Just think of the effect this must have had on the evolution (or lack thereof) of jRPGs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pablo2008jedi Posted March 19, 2010 Share Posted March 19, 2010 I prefer jRPGs than regular RPGs, I'm not a huge fan of Fallout 3, bioshock etc.. and prfer the Final Fantasy way of doing things. I enjoy a good story in a game, not constant action. :whistle: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts