Slashdot Mirror
RPGs - East Versus West?
Thanks to GameSpy for their Spy/Counterspy column discussing the relative advantages and disadvantages of Western and Japanese RPGs. According to GameSpy editor Benjamin Turner's less-enthusiastic view of Japanese RPGs: "I want to create my own characters instead of playing someone else's; I want to explore a world at my own pace rather than being shuffled through a pre-planned, linear progression. Most of all, I want to be able to replay a favorite game and have a very different experience." However, editor Christian Nutt's rebuttal suggests: "While there are entertaining elements to Western RPGs... the way that all of the design elements of a great Japanese RPG work in concert to offer a truly engaging experience as a whole is what really excites me the most."
In terms of sheer depth, scope, variety, and detail U7 is still king in my mind. The ability to do almost anything silly makes me so happy.
As for western RPGs... well, we're kinda limited in our choices. Want to play in a fantasy setting? Great! Pick from five (in the last couple of years). Steampunk? One choice. Sci-fi? Sorry, out of luck.
Condemnant quod non intellegunt.
The first guy had extensive experience with both JRPG and CRPG games. He stated his positive and negative experiences with JRPGs, then explained why he later learned to love CRPGs more.
The second guy admitted that he had no experience with CRPGs: "I'll admit that my experience with Western RPGs is comparatively limited." What the hell? Then he launches into a mushy rant where he describes the strong points of some JRPGs he has played, and hardly even mentions how CRPGs compare in those areas. Well, I guess he can't, since he hasn't played any. (He seems to admit that he fooled around with KOTOR a bit, or maybe just watched it.)
The very idea that a "Western" RPG can't have an engaging storyline is complete bollocks. Certainly Morrowind doesn't have the most engaging plot, but what about Planescape Torment or Fallout?
Maybe some people just can't get immersed in a good storyline if they have to make decisions in it (i.e. Role-Play). That indicates a certain lack of imagination, IMHO.
[PowerPoint] is a tool for capitalist presentation
As someone else said, to many rpgs are nothing more than interactive movies to me, and most seem to have very little on the interactive side. I've always been one of those few final fantasy haters and with each release my hate for them just seemed to get worse. 20mins of movie, 5mins of game play. This does not appeal to me at all. To many action games are taking this idea way to far as well (Metal Gear Solid 2), but thats another story. When I play a game, I want to play a game, not watch a movie. Now don't get me wrong, I have no problem with well placed video sequences to progress the story or even for cool "WOW, LOOK AT THAT" scense, but when the majority of the game revolves around this, I just can't handle it. I guess the first rpg that really got me interested was Morrowind. The sheer freedom was amazing. Right now I'm addicted to Knights of the Old Republic. Great game, and even though there is quite a bit of video, it's short, revolves directly around the choices you have made and don't seem to try to take over the game. The final fantasy series and similar games just seem to be pretty video first, every thing else last, at least in for me. Release it as a movie and I'll watch, but surounded in short, random game elements, I'm not interested.
Teach someone to use the net and they won't bother you for weeks; show them Slashdot and you may never see them again.
First of all, I'll come out and say im a Japanese RPG fan, so you know where I'm coming from.
Im just playing through Star Wars: KOTOR for the second time... The first time through I was the perfect hero in every situation, and the story arc basically followed a Japanese RPG. Your character is selfless, etc, etc. With the Evil character though, I was really dissapointed. You have freedom, but it was very very limited. You become the most evil and powerful sith in the galaxy, and people will still refer to you as a member of the republic, etc. There are lots of faults with consistency and what "makes sense." Fallout did a much better job with this, I think. Western game's freedom is just another variable that can be pulled off very well or not so well. Once games get ambitious enough to really let you do anything (*crossing fingers for Fable*) I think Eastern RPG fans will be more pleased. Personally, I would rather have a completely linear story than something that is only partially open ended. You have to ask yourself, if you have freedom with THIS, why not freedom with THAT? If things get open ended enough though, and do so with a decent story line, that would be great.
Well, yes, but one of his negative points WRT JRPGs was bad translation. Negative for FFVII: the translation was nearly sub-literate. Positive for Wizardry VII: wonderfully written text. The translation is hardly the fault of the game. In fact, a bad translation can completely ruin the main reason to play JRPGs- the storyline.
That's just a sidenote, though. The main beef I have w/ this article is that it's not a point/counterpoint. The second person is supposed to take the arguments of the first and refute them. (For example, take the point about lack of character customization in JRPGs and trot out Final Fantasy Tactics as a counterexample. Or counter the claim of Most of all, I want to be able to replay a favorite game and have a very different experience. with the example of Seiken Densetsu 3.
As it is, this article suffers from the main problem of point/counterpoint as it is written by amateurs, namely that the two sides talk right past each other so it's less like a debate and more like two, unconnected rants. I definitely think that the difference between Japanese and Western RPG design makes an interesting topic of discussion, but I imagine there will be more insightful comments here on /. (like this one, if you're reading, moderators :) ) than there were in this drivel.
Sono koro, bokura wa, sore ga sekai no shinjitsu da to shinjite ita.
Deus Ex, arguably.
Freelancer definately.
Anachronox too.
Anarchy Online technically fits the bill.
System Shock 2, Fallout Tactics, Neocron, Wasteland, Earth and Beyond.
Heck, I'd say there are at least as many sci-fi Western RPGs as there are Eastern ones.
[PowerPoint] is a tool for capitalist presentation
It's got the whole Japanese elements of the cutesy anime graphics and predeteremined plot lines.
The Western elements are that you choose what your character uses and by using certain skills, they develop into other skills. You also determine how the world is rebuilt and what order you choose to do side quests. You can even tell the NPCs to screw off if you want and thus end a plot line. And if you do one set of events before another, they are no longer available.
The replay value of this comes from discovering the various plot lines you miss the first time, and you will miss some.
So each time you play, the world comes out a little different and your character comes out a little different but the overall plot is still followed.
Any other hybrids between the 2 styles?
Yeah, choosing a ROLE to PLAY in a GAME sucks. Who wants to PLAY a ROLE in a GAME when the developer can choose for you. I'd rather watch a movie about myself too.
Freelancer is not an RPG, any more than Privateer was. It's a great game, but it's closer to an action game than an RPG.
Anachronox was great, but it's how old now? Besides, it was greatly (and obviously) influenced by JRPGs, as was Septerra Core, so much that I'd call them Eastern RPGs developed in the West.
Anarchy Online is an MMORPG; strictly speaking, not a CRPG. (This gets fuzzy, but one could argue that MMO games are in a genre by themself -- I'm not sure that the tactics used in an MMO qualifies as "role playing.")
System Shock 2: FPS with RPG elements.
Fallout Tactics: Tactical strategy set in post-apocalyptic setting, some RPG elements.
Neocron, Earth & Beyond, not sure... aren't these MMORPGS?
And Wasteland.. well, yes, there is Wasteland.
Fallout 1 and 2 were absolutely fantastic, but I've played them *how* many times since they were released?
You have to admit that this is a pretty short list, and most of these games aren't true CRPGs. The Fallout games are, Anachronox comes close, Deus Ex is fuzzy in the background, but the rest are lumped amongst action or MMO games.
All I'm saying is, what's going on here? Paradise Cracked is coming out soon, and again it's a tactical strategy game with RPG elements, but at least it's sci-fi, and Restricted Area (which might actually be, *gasp*, a sci-fi RPG!) is still quite a ways off from seeing the light of day.
Condemnant quod non intellegunt.
As I was reading the article and the responses here, I just couldn't help thinking "what about pen & paper RPGs?" I know, I know, it's not technology, it's not computers...but it could be, in the game. That's the whole point of "actual" RPGs, they can be anything and everything you want them to be. Don't like a rule the people who made the game came up with? Don't use it! Make up your own! Why not? Do whatever is the most fun for you and your friends. I dunno. Maybe I'm just a geek.
Palaces, barricades, threats, meet promises
Actually I agree with you on the battle systems.
I have yet to play a WRPG that has a half-decent battle system. They all seem to spawn from the D&D ruleset, which, to be honest is boring.
Nothing gives you the options of a good JRPG I find.
It's a Japanese RPG, with all the elements you expect (linear main plot, cuteness in spades). However, character recruitment and development is more open than in many JRPGs.
(Heehee, the first time I tried to type "JRPG", it came out as "JPEG". Fingers on autopilot!)
At the beginning of the game, you choose whether to play as the male or female lead. Some events play out differently depending on your choice. At least one secondary character is only recruitable if you play as the girl.
Recruiting some characters closes the door on others. If you recruit Ashton, you can't recruit Opera. And unless you recruit Opera, you can't recruit Ernest. Furthermore, the characters aren't just given to you; you have to explore a bit and pay attention to NPC hints in order to find some of them.
When you enter a town, the characters all split up to go shopping. You control only the lead character, and can wander around the town looking for your friends. Sometimes, an extended conversation happens which can affect the relationship between the two characters. This can ultimately affect the game's ending. (There's no guarantee that the male and female leads end up as a couple).
You can also teach skills such as cooking, alchemy, metalworking etc. to different characters. That's not compulsory; you could forego that aspect of the game completely and just concentrate on battle skills if you want. It just adds another dimension to the character customization.
-Stephen
Seriously; I love well told stories and interesting plot developments, hence, I love the good JRPGs, such as Phantasy Star 1/2/4, Chrono Trigger, PANZER DRAGOON SAGA, and some FF games.
When I want a very customizable dungeon crawl/quest-oriented game, CRPGs fit the bill. The shortcomings with these are the exact opposite of JRPGs; weak stories most of the time (there are some notable exceptions such as Fallout and Planescape: Torment) and more of an emphasis on character stats.
It really has to do with the roots of the genre; CRPGs borrow heavily from traditional role playing and dice throwing, while JRPGs.. well, don't. Honestly, to me, they're practically separate genres. It's like comparing sports games and sport simulation games.
The only real problem I have with CRPGs is the idiotic tendency to lean towards fantasy settings, most of which I consider incredibly boring. Give me a nice sci-fi or original setting. How many times do I need to hear pseudo-british like accents and cast fireballs? Heaven forbid someone come up with a cool idea transplanted into a modern day setting!,
Games like Balder's gate or Morrowind are absurdly long, 60 hours plus
Somebody hasn't played Dragon Warrior VII - I'm 60 hours in and I still have at least 10 hours before I can beat it. DWVII also features interesting character customization abilities - not too different than FFV or FFT - though it would easily take 200+ hours to master all the classes for everyone.
For comparison, I beat morrowind in around 40 hours and baldur's gate in 60 hours (and I did every single quest in baldur's gate too).
Final Fantasy tactics rocks too - i like games that make me think and the controversial (if your catholic) plot was a nice change from "kill the foozle" (well, you do kill a foozle in FFT, but anyway). We need more like it.
Robots are everywhere, and they eat old people's medicine for fuel.
Your dialogue options varied depending on your skills and your stats. If you were highly intelligent, you could talk circles around people. If you reduced your Int stat to one, your dialogue options would be reduced to "Ungh", "Gah", "Hrrrngh", and "Die".
If you ran around killing children in towns, you'd be labelled a childkiller, and townspeople hundreds of miles away would have heard about you and think you were a freak. You could be a hero, a slut, a pornstar, and get what you want via good or evil, or sleeping with the mobster's wife. But none of it felt meaningless because for everything you could possibly do, the developers had thousands of lines of scripted dialogue waiting to accommodate your actions.
Of course, most of the people I've gotten to play it have given up because of the game's immensely slow startup into the story, but once you're in, you'll love it.
Well, I don't want to get into an argument about the definition of "RPG", because nobody ever reaches a consensus on it. I was just grokking a list of sci-fi games that could be loosely-defined as an RPG, and not limiting myself to the classic definition of CRPG.
Also, does changing the perspective and battle system of an RPG suddenly mean it's not an RPG anymore? If Deus Ex is not really an RPG, then neither is Ultima Underworld. Yes, there is some action, but JRPGs mix in action all the time -- Star Ocean, Tales of Destiny, Secret of Mana, etc.
I haven't played Freelancer, but I have heard it is like an RPG. "Diablo in space" is actually what I heard. Yes, I am aware of Diablo's questionable status.
MMORPGs are, arguably, more RPG-like than any of your Fallouts or Final Fantasies. In an MMORPG you can gain an actual reputation among actual people. MMORPGs (and the MUDs that preceeded them) are much closer to the genre's pen-and-paper roots.
There are some I left out, also. There are lots of games that mix sci-fi and fantasy, like the Might and Magic series, and the early Ultimas.
I believe we also forgot to mention a little Western RPG called "Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic."
[PowerPoint] is a tool for capitalist presentation
One of the most important parts of the game has someone ask you "What can change the nature of a man" while the answer is open it nonetheless feels very important to answer it correctly.
The game itself made little difference on how you behaved, but it made you feel that the choices you made where nonetheless important. Very well done.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
I don't have a problem with more interactive games being developed, as long as there are still "normal" CRPGs around. In effect, i'll agree with your original statement if by "games should be striving for fully interactive plotlines" you mean some games, and by some games, you mean some RPGs.
Framing your position as being "interested in elaborate storylines" is a little misleading, because I think gamers on both sides of this debate want elaborate storylines. The difference is the desired level of interactivity. And to suggest that a storyline's quality declines as interactivity rises, well... I can't agree. I think there are ways to approach this problem which haven't been explored yet. Ion Austin and Rockstar North are definitely heading in the right direction.
I wouldn't really consider it misleading because i see the detail of the storyline and the amound of interactivity with the storyline as being almost diametrically opposed.
Without the presence of a human GM to decide what effect the actions of the player have, the developers have three options that i can see, they can limit the actions the player can take, they can limit the detail of the plot so that the player's actions can be incorporated into it, or they can allow nonsensical behavior to occur.
This problem is further compounded of course because the developer has to make these decisions in advance, and predict what important decisions the player will want to make and choose to allow for them or not, and if allowed, spend time detailing what happens as a results of those actions.
To take a stereotypical example, the king summons the player's party to his castle and tells them a great evil is upon the land, yadda yadda. The players decide the king is a bore, and attack him and kill him. If that's allowed, the developer then has to have a whole plot set out around the player being evil and what happens in that case. Since the divergence happend right at the begining, in effect two entire plots have to be constructed in the same amount of time as was original allocated for one plot, and thus we'd expect each plot to have about half the detail that the original would have had.
That's obviously an exagerated case, but i believe that the same is true in microcosm. The more possibilities the designers have to consider the less detailed the resulting plot will be, due to both time and resource constraints, and due to preventing conflicts from appearing if the player makes certain choices.
We've already seen this issue rear it's head in a limited form with the transition from catridge based games to cd-based games, and the coinciding inclusion of pre-rendered cutscenes. For example, Final Fantasy 5, FF6, and Chrono Trigger all had ways in which the ending of the game could be altered. FF 7 and 8 and Xenogears did not. Since i wasn't on the development team i can't say for sure why that was the case, but i can make a pretty good guess.
Chrono Trigger had more than 12 endings (exact number depends on how you count) which the later games to do similarly would have required 12 different cutscenes, something that would have been prohibitively expensive both in money/rendering time and in disk space. (I believe that for the PSX remake they left all the endings in rather than face a fan-revolt, but only two got the pre-rendered cutscene treatment.)
FF5 and 6 varied the ending based on which characters were killed in the final battle, or which characters were never rescued respectively. This was acomplished both by playing alternate scenes in some areas, and by swaping out which chracter sprites were playing in others (a little of this was done in Chrono Trigger as well, especially as r
This Space Intentionally Left Blank