BioWare Co-Founder Accuses JRPGs of Stagnation

[high_castle]

You know, it's been said lately that BioWare games fail to evolve, which seems to be the ironic point this little stub is trying to make. Except, here's the thing. Yes their games touch on familiar themes and archetypes. But BioWare continues to place these set pieces in new and exciting roles, they continue to offer characterization amongst NPCs and choices for PCs, and they continue to write stories as emotionally gripping and moving as any decent novel or movie. I haven't seen that same delivery from, say, Square Enix in longer than I can count. I don't understand the recent chastizing of BioWare. Their last two games, Mass Effect and Dragon Age, have been emotionally gripping, compelling narratives. What more do we really want?

 

[boholikeu]

Exactly, that's what half life was but I always hear some fanboy yelling about how it had all these choices; it was an illusion, nothing more. And being able to walk away from a character during a cutscene isn't innovation, it's a way for the impatient to not hear and/or care about the narrative.

I would say that Xenosaga has a storyline about 20x deeper than mass effect or even DA:O.

Play through the trilogy and then form your opinion

Yeah I was sad about that. I LOVE cross edge

If "being able to walk away from a character during a cut-scene" is what you think I'm referring to, you really need to play HL2 again. Here's a hint: if HL2 were a JRPG, the entire first stage would have been a cut-scene.

And Xenosaga... Ah Xenosaga, if there were ever a game that needed to learn how to better infuse interactivity into the narrative... =) I tried getting through that game, but it's one of the worst offenders of narrative/gameplay disconnect. Cut-scenes are fine and all, but no game should be completely un-interactive for that long. It really had me questioning why they didn't just make it an Anime to begin with. After all, when I play a game I want to, you know, play it, not watch it.

As such, I can't comment on the story so much except that it seemed more complex than deep, and the Biblical/philosophical allusions seemed to be more about setting the tone than adding actual meaning to the story. I could be wrong though, and so if the story actually makes use of those references feel free to explain what it does with them.

 

[Doug]

You know, it's been said lately that BioWare games fail to evolve, which seems to be the ironic point this little stub is trying to make. Except, here's the thing. Yes their games touch on familiar themes and archetypes. But BioWare continues to place these set pieces in new and exciting roles, they continue to offer characterization amongst NPCs and choices for PCs, and they continue to write stories as emotionally gripping and moving as any decent novel or movie. I haven't seen that same delivery from, say, Square Enix in longer than I can count. I don't understand the recent chastizing of BioWare. Their last two games, Mass Effect and Dragon Age, have been emotionally gripping, compelling narratives. What more do we really want?

Well said; though I do think there is room for evolution in the Bioware style RPG, I think shy of an AI or system to actually dynamically alter the story sensibly as you go, and the technology to generate dialog on the fly without just having sections, I don't see how they can bring it closer to the very interactive levels I'd like - though Deus Ex did a good job at that

 

[Helba1984]

Exactly, that's what half life was but I always hear some fanboy yelling about how it had all these choices; it was an illusion, nothing more. And being able to walk away from a character during a cutscene isn't innovation, it's a way for the impatient to not hear and/or care about the narrative.

I would say that Xenosaga has a storyline about 20x deeper than mass effect or even DA:O.

Play through the trilogy and then form your opinion

Yeah I was sad about that. I LOVE cross edge

If "being able to walk away from a character during a cut-scene" is what you think I'm referring to, you really need to play HL2 again. Here's a hint: if HL2 were a JRPG, the entire first stage would have been a cut-scene.

And Xenosaga... Ah Xenosaga, if there were ever a game that needed to learn how to better infuse interactivity into the narrative... =) I tried getting through that game, but it's one of the worst offenders of narrative/gameplay disconnect. Sparse cut-scenes are fine and all, but no game should be completely un-interactive for that long. It really had me questioning why they didn't just make it an Anime to begin with. After all, when I play a game I want to, you know, play it, not watch it.

As such, I can't comment on the story so much except that it seemed more complex than deep, and the Biblical/philosophical allusions seemed to be more about setting the tone than adding actual meaning to the story. I could be wrong though, and so if the story actually makes use of those references feel free to explain what it does with them.

Xenosaga was supposed to be SIX games.

Their funding got cut and the story was already written, so they had to find a way to get it all in there with the number of approved games they had (half as many as were planned).

If they'd made you play through all those cutscenes arbitrarily, the game would have been about that long, but I like the story and I really don't mind cutscenes anyway - I kind of see them as a reward and a sign of progression in a game.

Edit: Actually Philosophy and Mythology DOES feature heavily and is more than a thematic element. You just probably didn't get far enough to see

 

[boholikeu]

Xenosaga was supposed to be SIX games.

Their funding got cut and the story was already written, so they had to find a way to get it all in there with the number of approved games they had (half as many as were planned).

If they'd made you play through all those cutscenes arbitrarily, the game would have been about that long, but I like the story and I really don't mind cutscenes anyway - I kind of see them as a reward and a sign of progression in a game.

Edit: Actually Philosophy and Mythology DOES feature heavily and is more than a thematic element. You just probably didn't get far enough to see

Like I said before, if you you have that many cut scenes and so little plot progression in the actual gameplay then I don't see why they didn't just make it into an Anime. As it is the "game" part of Xenosaga is totally superfluous.

Can you explain to me how the philosophy and mythology comes into play? I've asked that question on other boards before and people didn't really seem to have an answer besides "it quotes Nietzsche and Nietzsche is deep stuff!". Don't worry about spoiling the plot for me cause I'll probably never finish the series (though of course put it in spoilers for the other readers here).

 

[Helba1984]

Xenosaga was supposed to be SIX games.

Their funding got cut and the story was already written, so they had to find a way to get it all in there with the number of approved games they had (half as many as were planned).

If they'd made you play through all those cutscenes arbitrarily, the game would have been about that long, but I like the story and I really don't mind cutscenes anyway - I kind of see them as a reward and a sign of progression in a game.

Edit: Actually Philosophy and Mythology DOES feature heavily and is more than a thematic element. You just probably didn't get far enough to see

Like I said before, if you you have that many cut scenes and so little plot progression in the actual gameplay then I don't see why they didn't just make it into an Anime. As it is the "game" part of Xenosaga is totally superfluous.

Can you explain to me how the philosophy and mythology comes into play? I've asked that question on other boards before and people didn't really seem to have an answer besides "it quotes Nietzsche and Nietzsche is deep stuff!". Don't worry about spoiling the plot for me cause I'll probably never finish the series (though of course put it in spoilers for the other readers here).

Alrighty then....

Spoiler: SPOILER ALERT

khabbalah and related symbology explains the existance of the Gnosis, Gnostic beliefs and texts are featured prominently... The head of the ambiguous corporation is actually a "god" trying to prevent the universe from imploding on itself and resetting time, KOS-MOS has the spirit of mary magdelene, Zarathustra is an ancient piece of technology, but essentially exists to promote Nietzsche's concept of "eternal return", the more traditional christian "God" or as I and other Gnostics would call him, the Demiurge, is actually the villain, and *HE* is using the Gnosis to try and destroy Zarathustra and allow said universal destruction to take place.

the Zohar are named after and reminiscent of the effect of the christian apostles, and the "original zohar" might be thought of as a path to enlightenment (and in this case, combined with those zohar emulators, rather awesome power as well).

Everything from the names and motivations of characters and even ships and organizations exists to illustrate interaction between Gnostic religious principles and Nietzschean philosophy, and in the end to be quite honest as a Neo-Gnostic it's a very newcomer-friendly crash course in our philosophy as much as it is a compelling narrative.

Oh, and at the end, you KILL GOD.

Edit: Also, it was made into an anime, at least the first two games were. But it's hard to find via "Legal" methods.

 

[boholikeu]

Alrighty then....

Spoiler: SPOILER ALERT

khabbalah and related symbology explains the existance of the Gnosis, Gnostic beliefs and texts are featured prominently... The head of the ambiguous corporation is actually a "god" trying to prevent the universe from imploding on itself and resetting time, KOS-MOS has the spirit of mary magdelene, Zarathustra is an ancient piece of technology, but essentially exists to promote Nietzsche's concept of "eternal return", the more traditional christian "God" or as I and other Gnostics would call him, the Demiurge, is actually the villain, and *HE* is using the Gnosis to try and destroy Zarathustra and allow said universal destruction to take place.

the Zohar are named after and reminiscent of the effect of the christian apostles, and the "original zohar" might be thought of as a path to enlightenment (and in this case, combined with those zohar emulators, rather awesome power as well).

Everything from the names and motivations of characters and even ships and organizations exists to illustrate interaction between Gnostic religious principles and Nietzschean philosophy, and in the end to be quite honest as a Neo-Gnostic it's a very newcomer-friendly crash course in our philosophy as much as it is a compelling narrative.

Edit: Also, it was made into an anime, at least the first two games were. But it's hard to find via "Legal" methods.

Ah, you were totally right then. The story does sound pretty deep after all. Maybe I'll check out the anime or at least try to find the rest of the cinematics on youtube.

 

[Helba1984]

Alrighty then....

Spoiler: SPOILER ALERT

khabbalah and related symbology explains the existance of the Gnosis, Gnostic beliefs and texts are featured prominently... The head of the ambiguous corporation is actually a "god" trying to prevent the universe from imploding on itself and resetting time, KOS-MOS has the spirit of mary magdelene, Zarathustra is an ancient piece of technology, but essentially exists to promote Nietzsche's concept of "eternal return", the more traditional christian "God" or as I and other Gnostics would call him, the Demiurge, is actually the villain, and *HE* is using the Gnosis to try and destroy Zarathustra and allow said universal destruction to take place.

the Zohar are named after and reminiscent of the effect of the christian apostles, and the "original zohar" might be thought of as a path to enlightenment (and in this case, combined with those zohar emulators, rather awesome power as well).

Everything from the names and motivations of characters and even ships and organizations exists to illustrate interaction between Gnostic religious principles and Nietzschean philosophy, and in the end to be quite honest as a Neo-Gnostic it's a very newcomer-friendly crash course in our philosophy as much as it is a compelling narrative.

Edit: Also, it was made into an anime, at least the first two games were. But it's hard to find via "Legal" methods.

Ah, you were totally right then. The story does sound pretty deep after all. Maybe I'll check out the anime or at least try to find the rest of the cinematics on youtube.

Yeah. And it was intended to be more interactive, and to explain the concepts better, but that had to be cut short because they were retroactively granted approval for HALF as many games as they'd planned to flesh the story out properly.

 

[HyenaThePirate]

Exactly, that's what half life was but I always hear some fanboy yelling about how it had all these choices; it was an illusion, nothing more. And being able to walk away from a character during a cutscene isn't innovation, it's a way for the impatient to not hear and/or care about the narrative.

I would say that Xenosaga has a storyline about 20x deeper than mass effect or even DA:O.

Play through the trilogy and then form your opinion

Yeah I was sad about that. I LOVE cross edge

I wouldnt actually call over-complicated, needlessly complex philosophically difficult concepts convoluted by scattered story-arcs that lack a clear and decisive progression "deep".

Just because something is written in such a way as to confuse just about everyone except the writer doesn't make it DEEP.. it just makes it CONFUSING!

This is where I think people start losing the Jrpg vs. Wrpg argument... Sometimes people just want to know what the hell is going on without having a Master's degree in Psychology. It's why Xenosaga (to use your example) was so hit and miss with Rpg lovers.. That game got to a point where I had no clue what the frak was going on, and worse, had ceased to care.. worse the game did a TERRIBLE job of transitioning between cut movie (I won't refer to those half hour long visual epics as "scenes") and actual game play.

When ever I get a cut film and instinctively know to put down my controller and grab my popcorn, there's something wrong with your game design.
When i want to watch anime, i WATCH anime.
When I want to play a game, I play it.

Thats the difference between Xenosaga and Mass Effect. Mass effect, i FELT like Shepard. I felt like I was making decisions, exploring the galaxy, and facing a crisis that while admittedly wasnt exactly "unique" in the pantheons of literature, did a hell of a good job of making ME feel like the hero.

IN Xenosaga, I felt like all I was doing half the time was navigating through an incredibly complex DVD menu, walking down a hallway just to advance the movie.

Worse, the Xenosaga story got so out of hand it began to fall in itself halfway through the series. With mass effect I was eager to keep playing, pushing the mission, excited about what mission going to this new planet might give me, listening to my crew, threatening people, negotiating with diplomacy, etc.. In Xenosaga, I had to force myself to come back and play some more every time i turned off the game.. it took MONTHS to get through Xenosaga I.. not because it was "long", but because I got BORED with watching cut scenes and fighting half-assed skirmishes every so often, as if the creators kept forgetting that there was supposed to be a "Game" in there somewhere. Then, when they remembered this was a "game", the game mechanics weren't unique or inventive... it was just a slight update from what Final Fantasy IX and Xenogears did, and even then it was generic as hell. Sure the cinematic presentation might have been slick, but ultimately the game let more rpg lovers down as a complete package than it inspired loyalty to the series.

The Dot Hack games were years and away better than Xenosaga.

 

[boholikeu]

When ever I get a cut film and instinctively know to put down my controller and grab my popcorn, there's something wrong with your game design.
When i want to watch anime, i WATCH anime.
When I want to play a game, I play it.

Thats the difference between Xenosaga and Mass Effect. Mass effect, i FELT like Shepard. I felt like I was making decisions, exploring the galaxy, and facing a crisis that while admittedly wasnt exactly "unique" in the pantheons of literature, did a hell of a good job of making ME feel like the hero.

IN Xenosaga, I felt like all I was doing half the time was navigating through an incredibly complex DVD menu, walking down a hallway just to advance the movie.

Worse, the Xenosaga story got so out of hand it began to fall in itself halfway through the series. With mass effect I was eager to keep playing, pushing the mission, excited about what mission going to this new planet might give me, listening to my crew, threatening people, negotiating with diplomacy, etc.. In Xenosaga, I had to force myself to come back and play some more every time i turned off the game.. it took MONTHS to get through Xenosaga I.. not because it was "long", but because I got BORED with watching cut scenes and fighting half-assed skirmishes every so often, as if the creators kept forgetting that there was supposed to be a "Game" in there somewhere. Then, when they remembered this was a "game", the game mechanics weren't unique or inventive... it was just a slight update from what Final Fantasy IX and Xenogears did, and even then it was generic as hell. Sure the cinematic presentation might have been slick, but ultimately the game let more rpg lovers down as a complete package than it inspired loyalty to the series.

The Dot Hack games were years and away better than Xenosaga.

Yup, I pretty much quit playing it for the same reason. No matter how deep the gnostic themes in Xenosaga are, Mass Effect is still the better game because it actually uses the medium to further the story.

 

[Helba1984]

Exactly, that's what half life was but I always hear some fanboy yelling about how it had all these choices; it was an illusion, nothing more. And being able to walk away from a character during a cutscene isn't innovation, it's a way for the impatient to not hear and/or care about the narrative.

I would say that Xenosaga has a storyline about 20x deeper than mass effect or even DA:O.

Play through the trilogy and then form your opinion

Yeah I was sad about that. I LOVE cross edge

Spoiler: very long

I wouldnt actually call over-complicated, needlessly complex philosophically difficult concepts convoluted by scattered story-arcs that lack a clear and decisive progression "deep".

Just because something is written in such a way as to confuse just about everyone except the writer doesn't make it DEEP.. it just makes it CONFUSING!

This is where I think people start losing the Jrpg vs. Wrpg argument... Sometimes people just want to know what the hell is going on without having a Master's degree in Psychology. It's why Xenosaga (to use your example) was so hit and miss with Rpg lovers.. That game got to a point where I had no clue what the frak was going on, and worse, had ceased to care.. worse the game did a TERRIBLE job of transitioning between cut movie (I won't refer to those half hour long visual epics as "scenes") and actual game play.

When ever I get a cut film and instinctively know to put down my controller and grab my popcorn, there's something wrong with your game design.
When i want to watch anime, i WATCH anime.
When I want to play a game, I play it.

Thats the difference between Xenosaga and Mass Effect. Mass effect, i FELT like Shepard. I felt like I was making decisions, exploring the galaxy, and facing a crisis that while admittedly wasnt exactly "unique" in the pantheons of literature, did a hell of a good job of making ME feel like the hero.

IN Xenosaga, I felt like all I was doing half the time was navigating through an incredibly complex DVD menu, walking down a hallway just to advance the movie.

Worse, the Xenosaga story got so out of hand it began to fall in itself halfway through the series. With mass effect I was eager to keep playing, pushing the mission, excited about what mission going to this new planet might give me, listening to my crew, threatening people, negotiating with diplomacy, etc.. In Xenosaga, I had to force myself to come back and play some more every time i turned off the game.. it took MONTHS to get through Xenosaga I.. not because it was "long", but because I got BORED with watching cut scenes and fighting half-assed skirmishes every so often, as if the creators kept forgetting that there was supposed to be a "Game" in there somewhere. Then, when they remembered this was a "game", the game mechanics weren't unique or inventive... it was just a slight update from what Final Fantasy IX and Xenogears did, and even then it was generic as hell. Sure the cinematic presentation might have been slick, but ultimately the game let more rpg lovers down as a complete package than it inspired loyalty to the series.

The Dot Hack games were years and away better than Xenosaga.

I actually really hated Mass Effect, and I wanted to like it.

It's a SHOOTER, it's not an RPG. it uses RPG elements but at its core is a shooter wearing a rather elaborate mask.

As to Xenosaga, maybe you just don't like deep plots? I don't have a master's in psych although I am a Gnostic and have studied Philosophy for many years; the plot isn't convoluted, it's just what happens if you take a story the equivalent of 6000 pages of text and try to cram it into 2-3 thousand, some things are never explained well or are only explained by inference.

And frankly the battle system in each of the games was varied and enjoyable.

Also, I happen to love .HACK// (if you can't tell by my avatar?) but they aren't RPGs, they're action-RPGs thus why I did not include them in my recommendation list as he asked for pure RPG recommendations.

 

[HyenaThePirate]

Exactly, that's what half life was but I always hear some fanboy yelling about how it had all these choices; it was an illusion, nothing more. And being able to walk away from a character during a cutscene isn't innovation, it's a way for the impatient to not hear and/or care about the narrative.

I would say that Xenosaga has a storyline about 20x deeper than mass effect or even DA:O.

Play through the trilogy and then form your opinion

Yeah I was sad about that. I LOVE cross edge

Spoiler: very long

I wouldnt actually call over-complicated, needlessly complex philosophically difficult concepts convoluted by scattered story-arcs that lack a clear and decisive progression "deep".

Just because something is written in such a way as to confuse just about everyone except the writer doesn't make it DEEP.. it just makes it CONFUSING!

This is where I think people start losing the Jrpg vs. Wrpg argument... Sometimes people just want to know what the hell is going on without having a Master's degree in Psychology. It's why Xenosaga (to use your example) was so hit and miss with Rpg lovers.. That game got to a point where I had no clue what the frak was going on, and worse, had ceased to care.. worse the game did a TERRIBLE job of transitioning between cut movie (I won't refer to those half hour long visual epics as "scenes") and actual game play.

When ever I get a cut film and instinctively know to put down my controller and grab my popcorn, there's something wrong with your game design.
When i want to watch anime, i WATCH anime.
When I want to play a game, I play it.

Thats the difference between Xenosaga and Mass Effect. Mass effect, i FELT like Shepard. I felt like I was making decisions, exploring the galaxy, and facing a crisis that while admittedly wasnt exactly "unique" in the pantheons of literature, did a hell of a good job of making ME feel like the hero.

IN Xenosaga, I felt like all I was doing half the time was navigating through an incredibly complex DVD menu, walking down a hallway just to advance the movie.

Worse, the Xenosaga story got so out of hand it began to fall in itself halfway through the series. With mass effect I was eager to keep playing, pushing the mission, excited about what mission going to this new planet might give me, listening to my crew, threatening people, negotiating with diplomacy, etc.. In Xenosaga, I had to force myself to come back and play some more every time i turned off the game.. it took MONTHS to get through Xenosaga I.. not because it was "long", but because I got BORED with watching cut scenes and fighting half-assed skirmishes every so often, as if the creators kept forgetting that there was supposed to be a "Game" in there somewhere. Then, when they remembered this was a "game", the game mechanics weren't unique or inventive... it was just a slight update from what Final Fantasy IX and Xenogears did, and even then it was generic as hell. Sure the cinematic presentation might have been slick, but ultimately the game let more rpg lovers down as a complete package than it inspired loyalty to the series.

The Dot Hack games were years and away better than Xenosaga.

I actually really hated Mass Effect, and I wanted to like it.

It's a SHOOTER, it's not an RPG. it uses RPG elements but at its core is a shooter wearing a rather elaborate mask.

As to Xenosaga, maybe you just don't like deep plots? I don't have a master's in psych although I am a Gnostic and have studied Philosophy for many years; the plot isn't convoluted, it's just what happens if you take a story the equivalent of 6000 pages of text and try to cram it into 2-3 thousand, some things are never explained well or are only explained by inference.

And frankly the battle system in each of the games was varied and enjoyable.

Also, I happen to love .HACK// but they aren't RPGs, they're action-RPGs thus why I did not include them in my recommendation list as he asked for pure RPG recommendations.

And Xenosaga is an animated movie, not an RPG. it uses RPG elements, but at it's core, it's a movie where occasionally you have to move a character from "point a, to Point b two rooms over" in order to advance the storyline and to reassure the game that you didnt fall asleep.

Not to say the story was BORING, or BAD, but it was... it just tried too hard. Perhaps yes, you can run with the "it was an epic story squished into a few hours of game play" like the Silmarillion condensed into Reader's digest or something, but that doesnt excuse the glaring flaw that people buy games to play games and buy books to read books, and while Jrpg's have been fantastic at marrying the two, one needs to remember as a developer that at it's core, you are making a GAME, not an interactive novella. Xenosaga smacks of a property where the creator fell too in love with his own words and thoughts and was so concentrated on posing forth his ponderances and waxing on philosophically about high-minded ideas that he forgot that people wanted to fight aliens and press buttons to make characters smite things.

Mass effect was not just a shooter with RPG elements, it was more of a very smart hybrid of the two.. basically they took an RPG and gave the controls of the ACTION back to YOU, the Player. They could have just as easily made the game a turnbased RPG with "guns", but that wouldn't have been quite as much fun and wouldnt have been as immersive. In Mass effect, i felt like that really was ME, with shotgun in hand, dealing with a galactic threat, talking to people, and deciding how i would 'behave'. THAT is role playing.
Xenosaga was more "kinda choose your own adventure" except it left out the "choose" part.

I think maybe a better "pure RPG" example would be Persona.
That is a series that gets just about EVERYTHING right, every time.

 

[Helba1984]

Exactly, that's what half life was but I always hear some fanboy yelling about how it had all these choices; it was an illusion, nothing more. And being able to walk away from a character during a cutscene isn't innovation, it's a way for the impatient to not hear and/or care about the narrative.

I would say that Xenosaga has a storyline about 20x deeper than mass effect or even DA:O.

Play through the trilogy and then form your opinion

Yeah I was sad about that. I LOVE cross edge

Spoiler: very long

I wouldnt actually call over-complicated, needlessly complex philosophically difficult concepts convoluted by scattered story-arcs that lack a clear and decisive progression "deep".

Just because something is written in such a way as to confuse just about everyone except the writer doesn't make it DEEP.. it just makes it CONFUSING!

This is where I think people start losing the Jrpg vs. Wrpg argument... Sometimes people just want to know what the hell is going on without having a Master's degree in Psychology. It's why Xenosaga (to use your example) was so hit and miss with Rpg lovers.. That game got to a point where I had no clue what the frak was going on, and worse, had ceased to care.. worse the game did a TERRIBLE job of transitioning between cut movie (I won't refer to those half hour long visual epics as "scenes") and actual game play.

When ever I get a cut film and instinctively know to put down my controller and grab my popcorn, there's something wrong with your game design.
When i want to watch anime, i WATCH anime.
When I want to play a game, I play it.

Thats the difference between Xenosaga and Mass Effect. Mass effect, i FELT like Shepard. I felt like I was making decisions, exploring the galaxy, and facing a crisis that while admittedly wasnt exactly "unique" in the pantheons of literature, did a hell of a good job of making ME feel like the hero.

IN Xenosaga, I felt like all I was doing half the time was navigating through an incredibly complex DVD menu, walking down a hallway just to advance the movie.

Worse, the Xenosaga story got so out of hand it began to fall in itself halfway through the series. With mass effect I was eager to keep playing, pushing the mission, excited about what mission going to this new planet might give me, listening to my crew, threatening people, negotiating with diplomacy, etc.. In Xenosaga, I had to force myself to come back and play some more every time i turned off the game.. it took MONTHS to get through Xenosaga I.. not because it was "long", but because I got BORED with watching cut scenes and fighting half-assed skirmishes every so often, as if the creators kept forgetting that there was supposed to be a "Game" in there somewhere. Then, when they remembered this was a "game", the game mechanics weren't unique or inventive... it was just a slight update from what Final Fantasy IX and Xenogears did, and even then it was generic as hell. Sure the cinematic presentation might have been slick, but ultimately the game let more rpg lovers down as a complete package than it inspired loyalty to the series.

The Dot Hack games were years and away better than Xenosaga.

I actually really hated Mass Effect, and I wanted to like it.

It's a SHOOTER, it's not an RPG. it uses RPG elements but at its core is a shooter wearing a rather elaborate mask.

As to Xenosaga, maybe you just don't like deep plots? I don't have a master's in psych although I am a Gnostic and have studied Philosophy for many years; the plot isn't convoluted, it's just what happens if you take a story the equivalent of 6000 pages of text and try to cram it into 2-3 thousand, some things are never explained well or are only explained by inference.

And frankly the battle system in each of the games was varied and enjoyable.

Also, I happen to love .HACK// but they aren't RPGs, they're action-RPGs thus why I did not include them in my recommendation list as he asked for pure RPG recommendations.

And Xenosaga is an animated movie, not an RPG. it uses RPG elements, but at it's core, it's a movie where occasionally you have to move a character from "point a, to Point b two rooms over" in order to advance the storyline and to reassure the game that you didnt fall asleep.

Not to say the story was BORING, or BAD, but it was... it just tried too hard. Perhaps yes, you can run with the "it was an epic story squished into a few hours of game play" like the Silmarillion condensed into Reader's digest or something, but that doesnt excuse the glaring flaw that people buy games to play games and buy books to read books, and while Jrpg's have been fantastic at marrying the two, one needs to remember as a developer that at it's core, you are making a GAME, not an interactive novella. Xenosaga smacks of a property where the creator fell too in love with his own words and thoughts and was so concentrated on posing forth his ponderances and waxing on philosophically about high-minded ideas that he forgot that people wanted to fight aliens and press buttons to make characters smite things.

Mass effect was not just a shooter with RPG elements, it was more of a very smart hybrid of the two.. basically they took an RPG and gave the controls of the ACTION back to YOU, the Player. They could have just as easily made the game a turnbased RPG with "guns", but that wouldn't have been quite as much fun and wouldnt have been as immersive. In Mass effect, i felt like that really was ME, with shotgun in hand, dealing with a galactic threat, talking to people, and deciding how i would 'behave'. THAT is role playing.
Xenosaga was more "kinda choose your own adventure" except it left out the "choose" part.

I would actually probably have liked it if they HAD made it turn based. I like front mission for that reason too, sci-fi RPG.

Fact is I don't care whether it's ME or not, I care whether I progress in the storyline. I'm neutral to whether that character is some equivalent to me with muscly arms or an androgene with a big sword, as long as the character fits and the narrative is solid.

You're still playing a role in the story, it's just a role the developer picked for you. They decided the perspective you have in viewing the story instead of granting you license to run around like a fucktard for hours and not DO anything to progress.

 

[Arisato-kun]

I personally don't mind the whole JRPG stagnation since using tried and true mechanics allows them to flesh out the story and characters. I also mainly play games for story so that is my primary concern. Plus I would think that games in a series would tend to use the same system that would allow you to know what kind of game you were getting into. Some reviewers have even said, for example, that the failing of Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles: The Crystal Bearers was the fact that they tried to do something different with the battle system. If they had stuck to the old Crystal Chronicles formula it would have been awesome.

Also I really love the turn based battle system and do not want to see that concept vanish from the face of the earth. >_<

 

[HyenaThePirate]

I would actually probably have liked it if they HAD made it turn based. I like front mission for that reason too, sci-fi RPG.

Fact is I don't care whether it's ME or not, I care whether I progress in the storyline. I'm neutral to whether that character is some equivalent to me with muscly arms or an androgene with a big sword, as long as the character fits and the narrative is solid.

You're still playing a role in the story, it's just a role the developer picked for you. They decided the perspective you have in viewing the story instead of granting you license to run around like a fucktard for hours and not DO anything to progress.

Again, which essentially makes EVERY game an "rpg" by definition, since every single game you play is the developer simply picking your "role" for you...

 

[boholikeu]

I actually really hated Mass Effect, and I wanted to like it.

It's a SHOOTER, it's not an RPG. it uses RPG elements but at its core is a shooter wearing a rather elaborate mask.

As to Xenosaga, maybe you just don't like deep plots? I don't have a master's in psych although I am a Gnostic and have studied Philosophy for many years; the plot isn't convoluted, it's just what happens if you take a story the equivalent of 6000 pages of text and try to cram it into 2-3 thousand, some things are never explained well or are only explained by inference.

And frankly the battle system in each of the games was varied and enjoyable.

Also, I happen to love .HACK// (if you can't tell by my avatar?) but they aren't RPGs, they're action-RPGs thus why I did not include them in my recommendation list as he asked for pure RPG recommendations.

Last time I checked RPGs were defined by role-playing, not their combat systems. Good luck trying to argue that a turn-based system makes for deeper role-playing than a shooter system.

And Xenosaga is an animated movie, not an RPG. it uses RPG elements, but at it's core, it's a movie where occasionally you have to move a character from "point a, to Point b two rooms over" in order to advance the storyline and to reassure the game that you didnt fall asleep.

Not to say the story was BORING, or BAD, but it was... it just tried too hard. Perhaps yes, you can run with the "it was an epic story squished into a few hours of game play" like the Silmarillion condensed into Reader's digest or something, but that doesnt excuse the glaring flaw that people buy games to play games and buy books to read books, and while Jrpg's have been fantastic at marrying the two, one needs to remember as a developer that at it's core, you are making a GAME, not an interactive novella. Xenosaga smacks of a property where the creator fell too in love with his own words and thoughts and was so concentrated on posing forth his ponderances and waxing on philosophically about high-minded ideas that he forgot that people wanted to fight aliens and press buttons to make characters smite things.

Mass effect was not just a shooter with RPG elements, it was more of a very smart hybrid of the two.. basically they took an RPG and gave the controls of the ACTION back to YOU, the Player. They could have just as easily made the game a turnbased RPG with "guns", but that wouldn't have been quite as much fun and wouldnt have been as immersive. In Mass effect, i felt like that really was ME, with shotgun in hand, dealing with a galactic threat, talking to people, and deciding how i would 'behave'. THAT is role playing.
Xenosaga was more "kinda choose your own adventure" except it left out the "choose" part.

I think maybe a better "pure RPG" example would be Persona.
That is a series that gets just about EVERYTHING right, every time.

Heh, loved that opening paragraph.

And hopefully we can all just agree that if all JRPGs were more like Persona Japan would reclaim its title as king of the genre.

Edit:

I would actually probably have liked it if they HAD made it turn based. I like front mission for that reason too, sci-fi RPG.

Fact is I don't care whether it's ME or not, I care whether I progress in the storyline. I'm neutral to whether that character is some equivalent to me with muscly arms or an androgene with a big sword, as long as the character fits and the narrative is solid.

You're still playing a role in the story, it's just a role the developer picked for you. They decided the perspective you have in viewing the story instead of granting you license to run around like a fucktard for hours and not DO anything to progress.

Again, which essentially makes EVERY game an "rpg" by definition, since every single game you play is the developer simply picking your "role" for you...

Heck, he's making it sound like anime could be considered an RPG if you flipped on the PSP and played some tactical battles game during the commercials.

 

[Helba1984]

Spoiler: TRUTH SANDWICH

I personally don't mind the whole JRPG stagnation since using tried and true mechanics allows them to flesh out the story and characters. I also mainly play games for story so that is my primary concern. Plus I would think that games in a series would tend to use the same system that would allow you to know what kind of game you were getting into. Some reviewers have even said, for example, that the failing of Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles: The Crystal Bearers was the fact that they tried to do something different with the battle system. If they had stuck to the old Crystal Chronicles formula it would have been awesome.

Also I really love the turn based battle system and do not want to see that concept vanish from the face of the earth. >_<

THANK YOU. Why don't other people seem to *get* this?

 

[Helba1984]

I actually really hated Mass Effect, and I wanted to like it.

It's a SHOOTER, it's not an RPG. it uses RPG elements but at its core is a shooter wearing a rather elaborate mask.

As to Xenosaga, maybe you just don't like deep plots? I don't have a master's in psych although I am a Gnostic and have studied Philosophy for many years; the plot isn't convoluted, it's just what happens if you take a story the equivalent of 6000 pages of text and try to cram it into 2-3 thousand, some things are never explained well or are only explained by inference.

And frankly the battle system in each of the games was varied and enjoyable.

Also, I happen to love .HACK// (if you can't tell by my avatar?) but they aren't RPGs, they're action-RPGs thus why I did not include them in my recommendation list as he asked for pure RPG recommendations.

Last time I checked RPGs were defined by role-playing, not their combat systems. Good luck trying to argue that a turn-based system makes for deeper role-playing than a shooter system.

And Xenosaga is an animated movie, not an RPG. it uses RPG elements, but at it's core, it's a movie where occasionally you have to move a character from "point a, to Point b two rooms over" in order to advance the storyline and to reassure the game that you didnt fall asleep.

Not to say the story was BORING, or BAD, but it was... it just tried too hard. Perhaps yes, you can run with the "it was an epic story squished into a few hours of game play" like the Silmarillion condensed into Reader's digest or something, but that doesnt excuse the glaring flaw that people buy games to play games and buy books to read books, and while Jrpg's have been fantastic at marrying the two, one needs to remember as a developer that at it's core, you are making a GAME, not an interactive novella. Xenosaga smacks of a property where the creator fell too in love with his own words and thoughts and was so concentrated on posing forth his ponderances and waxing on philosophically about high-minded ideas that he forgot that people wanted to fight aliens and press buttons to make characters smite things.

Mass effect was not just a shooter with RPG elements, it was more of a very smart hybrid of the two.. basically they took an RPG and gave the controls of the ACTION back to YOU, the Player. They could have just as easily made the game a turnbased RPG with "guns", but that wouldn't have been quite as much fun and wouldnt have been as immersive. In Mass effect, i felt like that really was ME, with shotgun in hand, dealing with a galactic threat, talking to people, and deciding how i would 'behave'. THAT is role playing.
Xenosaga was more "kinda choose your own adventure" except it left out the "choose" part.

I think maybe a better "pure RPG" example would be Persona.
That is a series that gets just about EVERYTHING right, every time.

Heh, loved that opening paragraph.

And hopefully we can all just agree that if all JRPGs were more like Persona Japan would reclaim its title as king of the genre.

Edit:

I would actually probably have liked it if they HAD made it turn based. I like front mission for that reason too, sci-fi RPG.

Fact is I don't care whether it's ME or not, I care whether I progress in the storyline. I'm neutral to whether that character is some equivalent to me with muscly arms or an androgene with a big sword, as long as the character fits and the narrative is solid.

You're still playing a role in the story, it's just a role the developer picked for you. They decided the perspective you have in viewing the story instead of granting you license to run around like a fucktard for hours and not DO anything to progress.

Again, which essentially makes EVERY game an "rpg" by definition, since every single game you play is the developer simply picking your "role" for you...

Heck, he's making it sound like anime could be considered an RPG if you flipped on the PSP and played some tactical battles game during the commercials.

I am reminded of a titular PennyArcade article.

http://www.penny-arcade.com/2006/9/6/

Spoiler: Article text follows

I don?t read game reviews. I honestly don?t see any reason to. It?s not hard to rent a game and see for yourself if it?s any good. I don?t know why I should care what number someone I don?t know and will never meet has attached to the latest game. I picked up Enchanted Arms the day it came out because I?m a fan of classic turn based RPG?s. Now there are a lot of bad games in this genre but there are also some real gems. Series like Shadow Hearts and Shin Megami Tensei are proof that the genre has grown beyond just Final Fantasy. I?m happy to say that Enchanted Arms is another of the good ones. I?ve been hooked on it since I dropped it into my 360. Robert also grabbed a copy and we have little chat sessions every morning about how awesome the game continues to be. Tycho happened to hear one of these Enchanted Arms lovefests and was actually surprised. He told us that for the most part all the reviews of the game said it?s pretty bad or at the very best only okay. I was really surprised that reviewers could have gotten this one so wrong so I hit gamerankings to see for myself. I found the Games Radar review especially bad.
Cameron Lewis kicks off his review by applauding the fact that the 360 finally got a game of this type. One would assume that he was a fan of turn based RPG?s since he?s apparently happy to finally see the genre represented on the Xbox. Then he goes on to say that Enchanted Arms is:
??precious little more than a color-by-number exercise in tired RPG traditions.?
It?s good to finally get a traditional Japanese turn based RPG on the 360. Too bad it?s such a traditional turn based Japanese RPG. Cameron admits that the graphics are hot and he?s not wrong about that. The game really is a stunner. This is about the only good thing he has to say about the game as he goes on to lay into the battle system:
?Battles feature a marginally interesting divided grid system, where different attacks and support measures affect seemingly arbitrary ranges of squares. Trouble is, there's nothing intuitive about how they're laid out, and you'll constantly find yourself undoing decisions as you try to get into a useful position.?
So it?s traditional but not intuitive? Okay. If an ability called ?shot? that uses a gun goes out and hits enemies in a straight column of squares starting at the space in front of me I call that intuitive. If you don?t like undoing decisions in an effort to find better positions then I?d say the strategy battle genre is not for you.
Saying that the attacks and support measures affect ?arbitrary? ranges of squares makes absolutely no sense. It?s more accurate to say that each ability affects a predetermined and consistent pattern of squares. When you acquire a new skill you?re shown a large map of the battle grid with the new skills range relative to your position highlighted. If he?s trying to say that you don?t get to determine the effective range of your abilities I suppose that?s true. You also don?t get to determine the shape of pieces in a puzzle. That?s sort of the game man.
Next on his hit list is the ?linear? story. He says:
??the real ennui source is the strictly linear "exploration."
Hey look he knows a French word. The game is indeed very linear. It starts at the beginning and doesn?t stop until you get to the end. The story itself is actually pretty good and the fact that they tell it to me rather than make me stumble through a hundred different branches until the original tale is completely obfuscated is fine by me. This genre is practically defined by well designed but linear stories. Games like Enchanted Arms or Final Fantasy X are not built to give you the same experience as a game like Oblivion. If you bite into an apple and expect it to taste like an orange you?re going to be disappointed.
He drops a couple more snarky comments like:
?Equipment upgrades top out at synthesizing a new weapon now and then.?
And
?the skills you can purchase don't make enough of a difference in the field.?
It?s true that upgrading your equipment tops out at the ability to create new weapons. I guess that?s enough for me. He doesn?t mention that all your characters stats such as their direct attack power, ranged attack power, support abilities and a bunch more are all completely customizable through the allocation of SP points earned in battle. So you can still customize a characters stats, you just don?t do it with gear.
If the skills you purchase aren?t helping you in battle then you?re not using them correctly. When I gain the ability to slice through a row of monsters three squares wide and two squares deep or move a character to any space on the grid, well I find that useful.
The most interesting line in the entire review is this one:
?The characters - the dunce leader, the incredibly effeminate sidekick, the quiet protector - are little more than one-note cardboard cut-outs in this supposed epic.?
I find it interesting because those aren?t the characters. Or at least they aren?t after about the three hour mark. I don?t want to spoil the game for anyone but the characters he?s described here are only a part of the relatively short ?tutorial? phase of the game. The other fifty plus hours of gameplay are spent with a completely different crew and one that can be constantly augmented by the addition of various golems. That?s something Cameron never really touches on. If you don?t like the characters don?t play with them, use a team of collectable, customizable robots.
Obviously I don?t know how long he played the game. Maybe he played the entire thing but choosing to mention those characters is very odd if that?s the case. Especially considering that he could have made the same point and used the actual characters that you play the majority of the game alongside. C&C music factory might label this as the sort of thing that makes you ?go hmmmmm.?
Personally I?m at about the eight hour mark. Robert on the other hand is somewhere around hour thirty-seven. I don?t know if this link will work but I think you can see our gamer cards here. Obviously between the two of us we have a pretty good idea of what Enchanted Arms is all about. I?m not saying reviewers should post their cards along with a review but it might be helpful.
Regardless of how long he played Enchanted Arms it?s a worthless review. He didn?t like it for all the reasons I like it. At the end he attaches the number five like that?s supposed to tell me anything useful. For me it just proves why I don?t read reviews. Had I seen that write up before I purchased Enchanted Arms I might have believed some of his bullshit and skipped over what I think is an extremely good game.
-Gabe out

 

[boholikeu]

I am reminded of a titular PennyArcade article.

http://www.penny-arcade.com/2006/9/6/

Spoiler: Article text follows

I don?t read game reviews. I honestly don?t see any reason to. It?s not hard to rent a game and see for yourself if it?s any good. I don?t know why I should care what number someone I don?t know and will never meet has attached to the latest game. I picked up Enchanted Arms the day it came out because I?m a fan of classic turn based RPG?s. Now there are a lot of bad games in this genre but there are also some real gems. Series like Shadow Hearts and Shin Megami Tensei are proof that the genre has grown beyond just Final Fantasy. I?m happy to say that Enchanted Arms is another of the good ones. I?ve been hooked on it since I dropped it into my 360. Robert also grabbed a copy and we have little chat sessions every morning about how awesome the game continues to be. Tycho happened to hear one of these Enchanted Arms lovefests and was actually surprised. He told us that for the most part all the reviews of the game said it?s pretty bad or at the very best only okay. I was really surprised that reviewers could have gotten this one so wrong so I hit gamerankings to see for myself. I found the Games Radar review especially bad.
Cameron Lewis kicks off his review by applauding the fact that the 360 finally got a game of this type. One would assume that he was a fan of turn based RPG?s since he?s apparently happy to finally see the genre represented on the Xbox. Then he goes on to say that Enchanted Arms is:
??precious little more than a color-by-number exercise in tired RPG traditions.?
It?s good to finally get a traditional Japanese turn based RPG on the 360. Too bad it?s such a traditional turn based Japanese RPG. Cameron admits that the graphics are hot and he?s not wrong about that. The game really is a stunner. This is about the only good thing he has to say about the game as he goes on to lay into the battle system:
?Battles feature a marginally interesting divided grid system, where different attacks and support measures affect seemingly arbitrary ranges of squares. Trouble is, there's nothing intuitive about how they're laid out, and you'll constantly find yourself undoing decisions as you try to get into a useful position.?
So it?s traditional but not intuitive? Okay. If an ability called ?shot? that uses a gun goes out and hits enemies in a straight column of squares starting at the space in front of me I call that intuitive. If you don?t like undoing decisions in an effort to find better positions then I?d say the strategy battle genre is not for you.
Saying that the attacks and support measures affect ?arbitrary? ranges of squares makes absolutely no sense. It?s more accurate to say that each ability affects a predetermined and consistent pattern of squares. When you acquire a new skill you?re shown a large map of the battle grid with the new skills range relative to your position highlighted. If he?s trying to say that you don?t get to determine the effective range of your abilities I suppose that?s true. You also don?t get to determine the shape of pieces in a puzzle. That?s sort of the game man.
Next on his hit list is the ?linear? story. He says:
??the real ennui source is the strictly linear "exploration."
Hey look he knows a French word. The game is indeed very linear. It starts at the beginning and doesn?t stop until you get to the end. The story itself is actually pretty good and the fact that they tell it to me rather than make me stumble through a hundred different branches until the original tale is completely obfuscated is fine by me. This genre is practically defined by well designed but linear stories. Games like Enchanted Arms or Final Fantasy X are not built to give you the same experience as a game like Oblivion. If you bite into an apple and expect it to taste like an orange you?re going to be disappointed.
He drops a couple more snarky comments like:
?Equipment upgrades top out at synthesizing a new weapon now and then.?
And
?the skills you can purchase don't make enough of a difference in the field.?
It?s true that upgrading your equipment tops out at the ability to create new weapons. I guess that?s enough for me. He doesn?t mention that all your characters stats such as their direct attack power, ranged attack power, support abilities and a bunch more are all completely customizable through the allocation of SP points earned in battle. So you can still customize a characters stats, you just don?t do it with gear.
If the skills you purchase aren?t helping you in battle then you?re not using them correctly. When I gain the ability to slice through a row of monsters three squares wide and two squares deep or move a character to any space on the grid, well I find that useful.
The most interesting line in the entire review is this one:
?The characters - the dunce leader, the incredibly effeminate sidekick, the quiet protector - are little more than one-note cardboard cut-outs in this supposed epic.?
I find it interesting because those aren?t the characters. Or at least they aren?t after about the three hour mark. I don?t want to spoil the game for anyone but the characters he?s described here are only a part of the relatively short ?tutorial? phase of the game. The other fifty plus hours of gameplay are spent with a completely different crew and one that can be constantly augmented by the addition of various golems. That?s something Cameron never really touches on. If you don?t like the characters don?t play with them, use a team of collectable, customizable robots.
Obviously I don?t know how long he played the game. Maybe he played the entire thing but choosing to mention those characters is very odd if that?s the case. Especially considering that he could have made the same point and used the actual characters that you play the majority of the game alongside. C&C music factory might label this as the sort of thing that makes you ?go hmmmmm.?
Personally I?m at about the eight hour mark. Robert on the other hand is somewhere around hour thirty-seven. I don?t know if this link will work but I think you can see our gamer cards here. Obviously between the two of us we have a pretty good idea of what Enchanted Arms is all about. I?m not saying reviewers should post their cards along with a review but it might be helpful.
Regardless of how long he played Enchanted Arms it?s a worthless review. He didn?t like it for all the reasons I like it. At the end he attaches the number five like that?s supposed to tell me anything useful. For me it just proves why I don?t read reviews. Had I seen that write up before I purchased Enchanted Arms I might have believed some of his bullshit and skipped over what I think is an extremely good game.
-Gabe out

Don't really see how that article applies to me. I never minded linear stories, nor do I have a problem with turn-based battles. I was only complaining about games in which there is a large disconnect between the story and the gameplay.

If anything, you'd do well to look at some of your own comments in the context of that article. Derogatorily claiming that action or first person RPGs aren't "real RPGs" just because they aren't turn based is much closer to what Gabe is complaining about than anything that I've said.