BioWare Co-Founder Accuses JRPGs of Stagnation

[Helba1984]

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. Rather I was 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.

However I never said one or the other was better or worse other than in the context of my own opinion, rather that I think clear distinctions should be made or at least recognized so that genre confusion does not lead to false assertions of popularity or unpopularity.

Action-RPG is a game just as any other and there are some I really love, but I hate seeing them grouped in with the games I grew up on and that I truly love. Those I term real RPG because they are what started the genre, and even now I still buy games like that because it's one of the genres I love the most.

I never said they were bad or to burn them all or anything equally fascist, rather I was defending them against the fascist tone of the Bioware letter itself.

The article I brought to bear because I thought it represented not your own opinion but the inherent bias of western gamers against anything from japan or anything more traditional in general. It was not aimed at you but rather something related to this discussion and rather cutting at the letter which this thread is in response to as well.

 

[boholikeu]

However I never said one or the other was better or worse other than in the context of my own opinion, rather that I think clear distinctions should be made or at least recognized so that genre confusion does not lead to false assertions of popularity or unpopularity.

Action-RPG is a game just as any other and there are some I really love, but I hate seeing them grouped in with the games I grew up on and that I truly love. Those I term real RPG because they are what started the genre, and even now I still buy games like that because it's one of the genres I love the most.

That's fine and all, but if you really want to make a distinction most people use the term "turn-based RPGs" to refer to what you're describing. Saying they are "real RPGs" carries the implication that action RPGs are knock-offs or inferior in some way.

I never said they were bad or to burn them all or anything equally fascist, rather I was defending them against the fascist tone of the Bioware letter itself.

The article I brought to bear because I thought it represented not your own opinion but the inherent bias of western gamers against anything from japan or anything more traditional in general. It was not aimed at you but rather something related to this discussion and rather cutting at the letter which this thread is in response to as well.

I don't know if you can really argue that western gamers have an "inherent" bias against Japanese things. I see just as many people enthralled with Japanese culture as I do people that cringe at anything anime.

Even the article quote isn't really criticizing any staple of JRPGs; it's just calling them out on lazy design.

 

[Guitarmasterx7]

What he says is very true. Though I would say bioware has some character archetypes they rely on, their storylines are different and their gameplay for the most part evolves from game to game. And yes, choices are important in an RPG. They make you feel connected to the main character. JRPGs are generally very samey in gameplay and story, and most of the time the main character is an unlikable dildo who you can't relate to, and this is amplified immensely when you really don't influence their actions or appearance at all.

 

[Always_Remain]

You can complain all you want about how persistent JRPG is with making a choice, or mentioning their linearity, but at least I'm not being bombarded with text options that take more than 10 minutes to get thru for one trivial conversation.

I'm sorry, but when I think of RPGs in general, the leveling and stats are the only things that come to mind. And with story coming runner-up, the fleshing out of your own character's personality falls flat because half the time it doesn't matter what your opinion is in the game.

. . . story and characters are at the heart of every form of media. They no runner-up. They are the MOST important thing. Definitely in RPGS! And the whole choice thing, yes games do stay the same but I feel that the whole "choice fad" is going to open up a new type of game were your choices change the game's story ENTIRELY. Different plots lines, mission, etc. Be open minded.

 

[Cyberjester]

Bioware isn't exactle the most inventive RPG-maker itself...

While I don't like most JRPGs, and there are certain aspects of JRPGs that I believe should have been left behind a long time ago, I strongly disagree that a lack of progression is the genre's main offense. Sure, there are many classic elements that almost every JRPG clings to, but the same goes for WRPGs and in fact every other genre. It's what makes the genres recognisable.

And as much as everyone claims to love innovation, the truely innovative and potentially genre-changing titles are most often all but ignored by the public.

*checks Mirrors Edge sales figures*

*recites MW2 sales figure*

Conclusion: We really don't care about innovation.

 

[PopcornAvenger]

Rather amusing, given Dragon Age's lack of innovation in everything save graphics.

 

[destroyer2k]

*checks Mirrors Edge sales figures*

*recites MW2 sales figure*

Conclusion: We really don't care about innovation.

But the sequel will have better sales so innovation DOES sell it just need some time. And if you are comparing cod compare cod 1 to cod mw2 sales and you will see the same goes for cod.

 

[Jaebird]

You can complain all you want about how persistent JRPG is with making a choice, or mentioning their linearity, but at least I'm not being bombarded with text options that take more than 10 minutes to get thru for one trivial conversation.

I'm sorry, but when I think of RPGs in general, the leveling and stats are the only things that come to mind. And with story coming runner-up, the fleshing out of your own character's personality falls flat because half the time it doesn't matter what your opinion is in the game.

. . . story and characters are at the heart of every form of media. They no runner-up. They are the MOST important thing. Definitely in RPGS! And the whole choice thing, yes games do stay the same but I feel that the whole "choice fad" is going to open up a new type of game were your choices change the game's story ENTIRELY. Different plots lines, mission, etc. Be open minded.

Story is runner-up, in my opinion. How did I come to this conclusion? Because most recent games, with the exception of Dragon Age (which I have not played), haven't met my expectations when it comes to the length of the story as a whole. I could give a flying toss about being forced to go back to find the nooks and crannies. I remember a day when I played a game for weeks on end just to get through the story; no unnecessarily needed side-missions/quests and no alternate endings that end in black or white.

With the budget of new games being released getting higher and higher, my feelings for singularly longer stories might as well be a scuffed up homeless child on the sidewalk with douche-bags like Bioware prancing about with their rectum full to the brim with money.

I agree with you about the "choice fad." That's what it is; a fad. Sooner or later a game with the most compelling storytelling will come along that will not include choices that determine whether a game ends in five different kinds of black and white. And the "choice fad" will be left in the wake to shrivel up and be force-fed with Bioware's feeding tube.

 

[Doug]

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.

Same here pretty much, in every JRPG and alot of J game in general (Mario, for example, keeps it simple). The J games seem to take the view of 'this is my story and you will watch it' whilst throwing you a bone of gameplay every so often. Also, I have to agree - having a long, convolved story with twice as many scenes as necessary is not good story telling. Its one of the few let downs in Deus Ex for me - though the story is epic and grand, I think they tried too pull off too much story in one game. A minireview of sorts I read suggested you could have stopped half way through, gone off for a week or so, and returned, pretending the rest of the story was some sort of expansion pack because there was too much for 1 'sitting' if you will.

As for WRPGs, yeah, ultimately, they are constrainted by the limits of technology too, and can't provide ultimated choices, but they do take more of a "this is my story, but have fun exploring it" approach.

I do remember a very good RPG that DIDN'T have any real choice at all in it at all, and was still fun - Anarchonox. The appeal of that was that it managed to combine a good story, with sci-fi wonderings, and comedy... I don't think I've played any other game where one of your party members is a minitured planet controlled by an overly beaucratic democratic race (Who have to vote on EVERY issue).

 

[Doug]

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.

Very true. I think alot of people try and write off non-tactical or non-turn based RPGs because they prefer turn based RPGs, and then try to justify it with "Well, RPGs are tactical/turn based."

Its like all the whining from the No Mutants Allowed crowd about how "Fallout 3 isn't a Fallout game" because it doesn't ape the originals completely. Or because it wasn't from Interplay. Or any other reason they can think of.

 

[ryuutchi]

JRPG fans, I think, are looking for something slightly different out of their games than WRPG fans. Or, at least, when I play a JRPG, I'm expecting something out of it that's rather different than what I look for in a WRPG. J games are interactive anime, for the most part. It's why I enjoy them. I get a story, and then I get to pretend to be the characters and beat people up, which is what I daydream about half the time anyhow. Since that's all I want out of a JRPG, it doesn't bother me that that's what I get.

 

[Negatempest]

Finally someone says something about the "but thou must" senario.

I just lost a load of respect for you... I love the thought that if someone says to go somewhere YOU MUST GO THERE! and if someone says don't go somewhere YOU MUST GO THERE... maybe I am oldschool like that

I find they do mix things up in jrpgs but I like the same formula thats what makes them enjoyable but people will never be happy change the game and people will complain for it being different leave it the same and people will complain its not different enough

all in all I like the jrpg formula as long as they have different stories to tell and fun combat they will never get old to me

No, no, you completely lost sight of the issue with the qoutes. Let me put it in a clearer perspective just in case you got it a little wrong.

There is an PSone game by the name of "Legend of Legaia". (May have misspelled that). When you are "given" the option of getting your second party member, you are asked to take her along with the option of yes or no. If you choose "no", you minion/guide says to not be so mean to her and just take her along. You can choose the "no" option many times, but the option will never change. You have no choice in the matter but to take her along.

So why give us the option of saying "No" if the game demands a "yes"? Bioware does it a few times as well, BUT you have the option of replying that you do not like the choice of the character joining. In short, you may be "let on", but not to try to sugar coat it like it is a choice you want like MANY JRPG do.

P.S. If there was a proper response before, I apologize, but don't wanna read 9 pages worth of comments.

P.S.S. I too am tired of jrpg fashion of taking turns to hit. Its not a freakin chess game, there are very little stragedies in an rpg other than "Kill him before he kills you" There is no proper placement to be during a fight, your going to get hit by that attack that is taking the boss 5 minutes to charge. Though I do love quite a few jrpg stories. But the "Pure good triumphs over pure evil" gets tiring after awhile. Mass Effect gave you that very nice grey area ending that Jrpg seem to skim over quite a few times.

 

[Snotnarok]

Actual choice would really bring JRPGs to a whole new level. It is really annoying when they ask then you have to do it anyway. Or like yahtzee said in his TWEWY review, they'll give you a hit, then you'll go TALK ABOUT IT and they'll TELL YOU. Making it a JRAG, Japanese Reading Adventure Game, because all you seem to have a choice in is the combat.

I still love a lot of JRPGs but that's perhaps because they're either really well told or they just "work" and that's how I like them.

 

[Bluttaube]

With WRPGs and JRPGs you´re still comparing apples to apples. Why? There always is a plot and it is always linear. You start at point A with your lvl1 Char and the game is more or less over when you reach point Z, which is the end of the narrative plot.
It´s a matter of personal preverence what kind of combat someone likes, whether it´s FPS-like, turn-based, strategic or some mixture.
That´s not what defines RPGs nor has something to do with narrative storytelling.
I´m an avid RPG-player, both W/J-RPG and classic pen&paper stuff, and, truth be told, the plots are all interchangeable. You could, for example, have the whole Fallout3 experience as an JRPG without changing the overall plot, as well as play lost Odyssey in a dragon Age style.

I stand by my earlier assumption and clarrify some more on it:
Western RPGs try to integrate your (the players´) wishes into the overall experience, trying to integrate what you do. This could be done be details (like it accepts that I, as a magic-user, wouldn´t kill someone with a sword in a cutscene and rather uses my fav spell) or with some overachign changes like accepting that i´m really playing the evil guy building my own empire of darkness and reacting accordingly.
Japanese style games simply ignore this, it´s a simple as this.

 

[Zefar]

Lets take a look at Bioware games list then.

Baldur's Gate series. Fair enough I'll give em credit for that.

Neverwinter Nights + Expansion. Honestly, I think it played like Baldur's gate except that you didn't need to pause the game. The game was fine what I remember but it really wasn't much other than, Click on monster and hope you kill it.

Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic: I liked this game, but then again, this didn't differ that much from Neverwinter Nights. Think about it.

Sonic Chronicles: The Dark Brotherhood: Watched a video and it's the typical turn based RPG system. No innovation there.

Dragon Age: Origins: Now I haven't played this but looking at the review of Gametrailers, I don't expect anything to be really THAT innovated. Looks like NeverWinter Nights to me but with a buffed spell system.

Mass Effect: I liked the game, will get the 2:nd one. Story was fine but not gripping in any kind of way. I didn't care for any characters other than the humans and Tali. But it was by no means revolutionary. It was a standard Console shooter with RPG elements.


So yea, Bioware shouldn't complain about Square Enix lack of innovation when they have re used some old formulas several times.

As for turn based system. It's fine when you can control each character alone. People who like it will buy it and they probably won't complain.

Why fix/change something that people love? :/

One game that Square Enix made, The Last Remnant, wasn't that popular. Probably because you stacked 1 to 5 people into one group and only to have one of them being able to use a skill all the time. Unless you saved up points where a few more might use a skill. Still it was rather random unless you locked skills. Also the characters lacked style too. Well most of them.

The game is fine though.

But it probably wouldn't hurt Square Enix to make a game like Tales of Abyss but with a much smoother battle system and active battles. Right now I play Tales of Abyss and it's awesome. This is with Japanese with English text. >.> I can't stand the English voices in that game.

 

[kawaiiamethist]

SE tried to be innovative with FFXII and got a bad reaction. It's like with sitcoms, deviate from the formula the audience is familiar with and they become scared and confused. As a JRPG fangirl, I will always play these games and while I like a little innovation (and they do deliver on this), too much and it becomes another genre.

 

[Bobbovski]

Even if they let you wander around the land like a fucktard, WRPGs still have a developer-set narrative.

The only difference is the illusion that what you do changes anything in the long term.

Your point = epic fail.

Despite the snottiness of this post, the guy's got a point.

We shouldn't pretend that WRPGs aren't linear. They are. However, this isn't anything bad - all fiction of any kind has a beginning, middle and end. Why are people slighting Japanese RPGs for following the laws of fiction?

The difference is that usually, the linearity of WRPGs is YOUR CHOICE. You can drop and pick-up the main plot at your convenience. Are there any JRPGs that let you wander about doing sub-quests, that allow you to deviate from the overarching quest for awhile? Most of the JRPGs I've enjoyed recently are ones like Etrian Odyssey, I haven't played one with heavy plot for a long time.

I won't comment on JRPGs since I've never really played one. But many(?) or at least several WRPGs let you decide allot of the storyline and what happens in the game... Also multiple possible endings aren't that uncommon. Who do you befriend? Who do you help or kill? Are you good or evil? In western RPGs details and sections in the game might change depending on how you answer those questions with your character. In Mass effect there are four(?) very different endings depending on certain choices you make. In Fallout 1 & 2 your actions have a ton of different consequences that you'll find out about in the end of the game and there's probably several other examples that I can't think of right now.

Actually FFX-2 had choices and differing story outcomes, and the entire western gaming world seemed to piss on it nonstop. It was also more of an open-world game too.

I'm sure you're correct, but I wouldn't know since I haven't played it. I'm just saying that allot of Western RPGs aren't very linear. I'm not talking about JRPGs, I'm sure there are non-linear JRPGs too. I just disagree with you and Jonahhex that all WRPGs are linear.

 

[Carlston]

They do have a point, this goes back to the Ultima 3 days.
Over world to explore no connect the dots games...

Then Final Fantasy and Dragon Warrior all level up connect the dots games where your forced into a linear story and can only explore the world right before the end boss battle.....and always on a airship.

With a git named Cid.