Bethesda (Makers of such hits as Oblivion and Fallout 3) Says That WRPG's Are More Realistic Than JR
- Thread starter Phoenix_XIII
- Start date
Recommended Videos
No matter how you define realism, be it either:Phoenix_XIII said:
- more coherent within their own world
or
- more plausible in the real world
Western RPGs have always strived to be closer to both. This is owed to CRPG's predecessors, PnP-RPGs like Rolemaster, which has insanely detailed rules for every circumstance, just like ADnD and others. In Japan, Pen and paper RPGs never really existed, and this CRPGs became their own, detached genre.
Dear OP, what the hell is going on with your rage here? Yes, western RPGs are closer to the European middle ages that actually happened, while japanese RPGs make up more of their setting. So, where's the problem? This has been known and true for ages, it's just the reason why they are different genres. I like both, as long as their world is consistent and fun and their story exciting (I am looking at you, FFX *cough*).
Video games are supposed to be realistic? Since when? This is something I think we need to get away from. As fast as humanly possible. Video game realism has led to crap like dying in 2 shots and everything being a dusty mess.
I've probably been ninja'd with this several times, but I can't be assed to read through 13 pages of posts, so:
As long as the game is fun, who cares if it's realistic?
As long as the game is fun, who cares if it's realistic?
Teens with long pink hair with huge eyes and swords ten times as big as their bodies with breasts as big as their head and mini skirts going "uguuuu" everytime they get hit plus them taking turns hitting eachother like they have to stop and ask if their opponent is alright before she takes another swing vs a dark elf with a flaming and somehow icy at the same time sword fighting a demon lord with 4 arms that came through a portal from hell while a dragon comes down from the sky and obliterates the demon lord then turns to stone.
Wow, tough choice. Though I hate JRPGs for THAT reason I mentioned.
Wow, tough choice. Though I hate JRPGs for THAT reason I mentioned.
It's mostly for gameplay effect, that way if you like selling prisoners you have a way that always guarantees they will be alive.Odinsson said:
i'm confused? is said exactly that realism have everything to do with reality and since nothing in either WRPGs nor JRPGs is gonna turn up in reality neither is realistic.DigitalAtlas said:
familiar? yes realistic? hell no.
unless you can point me in the direction Albion i will not stand for your repeated use of saying that fallout is set in a location that actually exists and thus is realistic. they used a real world setting then made a fan´tasy explantion of why it's like is now that defies multiple rules of reality. it's not realistic. but as good little gamers we close our eyes to that and that's okay. it's what we are suposed to do. this is not the real world and we should nto treat it as such. but it's not realistic.
my objection is nothing more than realistic is the completly wrong word to use.
but all that happens in another world. the rules of reality no longer aplies. you don't get to call it unrealistic because we have no conection to reality anymore. if you demand that person come up with a realistic explanation for this i demand you to tell me how fireball from hand works in oblivion. it's no more realistic but that one you gobel up as totally okay because he's a wizard. new rules are in play and they don't foloow those from reality. no JRPG's are not realism. but don't tell me anything in WRPGs are so much more realistic because i for one have never seen wizards or dragons.
and i understand this. fair enough the way most JRPGs are set up does not sit well with you no big deal. but that doesn't make them less realistic.
horribel example. you just took a case where the problem is that the real protaganist was tossed aside and claimed the problem was that a teenager was introduced instead. yes vaan sucked. but it had nothing to do with him being a teenager it had to do with being a non-charcter. also following you ideal that teenagers saveing the world make a game unrealistic means fallout is unrealistic i hope you realise?
Realistic:Jazzeki said:
2.
pertaining to, characterized by, or given to the representation in literature or art of things as they really are: a realistic novel.
In terms of describing art forms, actually... yes, it is exactly the right word to use. WRPGs tend towards realism, depicting things that are within real experience. Yes, there's magic, but there's also horses, and castles, and things that exist in the real world without great modification. JRPGs tend towards antirealism, instead you have riding yellow birds, and fortresses shaped like nautiluses and steam-powered robots.
A good example of wastern anti-realism would be World of Warcraft, which is filled with a world where most things are fantastic.
This doesn't mean that there can't be swords and sorcery and stuff like that... realism in terms of the fantasy genre refers to the mundane elements.
If you're familiar with D&D, you have some campaign settings where you travel by horse through dark wilderness relying on wits and survival against creatures like 'tigers' and 'bears.' In others, you travel by airship through electric demon storms relying on wits and survival against creatures like 'firetigers' and 'tentaclebears'.
I imagine they meant believeable.
Western RPG developers seem to go further out of there way to make you believe the world could possibly exist.
Western RPG developers seem to go further out of there way to make you believe the world could possibly exist.
you have not played very many JRPGs if you think they are all like that.DracoSuave said:
it's not fair to only use final fantasy as an argument.
again i find neither dragons nor wizards any more realistic than i find a world inside the TV where shadow monsters lurk. heck if i was forced to bet i'd call the later far more realistic.
Pah! Dwarf Fortress is more realistic than either!
No, really. Toady mapped friggin blood vessels in every creature.
Anyway, he's right. WRPGs have more realistic gameplay and environment elements. For example, severe lack of turn based combat and flying ship things. I'm not saying those things are bad, just that it's how things are.
Also, none of the NPCs have crazy ass hair color. Only the main character when the player feels like trolling the game.
No, really. Toady mapped friggin blood vessels in every creature.
Anyway, he's right. WRPGs have more realistic gameplay and environment elements. For example, severe lack of turn based combat and flying ship things. I'm not saying those things are bad, just that it's how things are.
Hair dye vs natural hair color.Phoenix_XIII said:
Also, none of the NPCs have crazy ass hair color. Only the main character when the player feels like trolling the game.
Mesozoic Renaissance. Dinosaurs would throw cheap plastic balls which would release the essence of captured humans from 10 billion years in the future. Their addiction proved to be their downfall.King of the Sandbox said:
My experience of JRPG gaming predates the PlayStation, so I'm a fairly decent judge of where their tendencies.Jazzeki said:
Also... there's a difference between tendencies, and blanket statements about the entirety of something. Obviously, they are NOT all like that. But we're not talking about universalities, but generalities.
Of course not. But it's also not fair to ignore the Lufia, Luna, Tales, SaGa, Shining, Mother series not made by Square. Then you have Lennus/Paladin's Quest, Breath of Fire, Ys... and that's before you get to things like Shadow Covenent, MegaTen, .hack...
It's not about the big shit tho. It's about the stuff in between. Persona's one of the few series that tends towards realism... half the time. The rest of it is surrealism. And Persona is unusual for MegaTen in that it has that half-realistic angle. Most of the rest completely ignore realism.
It's not about whether it has fantasy elements, it's the level at which the interactions with the world are fantastic or are non-fantastic. Realism, in these terms, doesn't mean 'nothing that is not real' but refers to a level of realistic elements in the game. It's not an absolute, it's a comparative.
As gaming is a form of entertainment, it is a fundamental failure when a game is not fun. The purpose of any form of entertainment is to amuse or entertain the audience. There are very few, if any, video games that can accomplish that without being fun. Fun is the point of playing games. If you want to play Captain Bland's Bland Adventure, now with 100% less fun, you are welcome to it, but the majority of gamers are looking for fun.DigitalAtlas said:
Aside from that, gameplay is not the only contributing factor to fun. If a story is fantastic, even with crappy gameplay one can still have fun playing it. I think your definition of fun is flawed. Where did I say that ONLY gameplay can make a game fun? There are tons of different aspects of a game that make it fun to play, but the connecting feature is that they are fun.
in that case once again i declare that JRPGs are the more realistic ones.DracoSuave said:
as i said earlier at least in them i fell like i'm in a full well rounded world with the defined if slightly more made up rules. sure anything goes but at least it all seems to come together.
i've never felt my interaction in a WRPG felt real. i'm allways very much aware of the fact that i'm playing a game. that it's all designed. in JRPGs i fell like i'm being told a story. it's still not me in chartge but nobody is trying to give me that illusion either.
also if a romanticised version of reality counts as realism then once again most stuff in JRPGs does too. don't tell me you belive the middel ages were as grand as the standard fantasy setting.