BioWare Co-Founder Accuses JRPGs of Stagnation
- Thread starter Logan Westbrook
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I have sort of the opposite opinion from Bioware's founders. I think that too much innovation is killing Western RPGs for a lot of RPG fans. Looking at my father for example who is the one who got ME into RPG video games, and the fact that he can't stand most modern RPGs with their obsession with real time, MAYBE a single customizable character that is "you" (as opposed to making your own party), and inserting action elements. My dad hates JRPGs with a passion (I play them however), he likes WRPGs, but in general feels that pretty much all of the current ones over the last decade or so have blown chips. Dragon Age: Origins (ironic since I'm responding to comments made by Bioware) being one of the rare exceptions, but honestly that interested him MORE by going back to the basics on a lot of things, than because of any of it's "innovations".
See, a lot of the appeal to RPGs has always been in the thinking that goes into them, mind before twitch so to speak. The various "innovations" we've seen have been successful in pulling a more "common" kind of player into the genere, with things like "action RPGs" that are twitch fests with minimal statistics, but some RPG-like customization (think Borderlands). When you get people saying "I hate turn based, and don't like too many numbers that are going to make my head hurt, but I like RPGs" I think it kind of shows that really RPGs are losing themselves rather than innovating so to speak.
I think JRPGs continue to have the audience they have always had, and probably a bigger one than ever before in absolute terms, but the number of customers reached has not been constantly expanding which to many seems like a failure where success is seen as growth and expansion as opposed to catering to the same, stable demographic which I think JRPGs do for the most part.
By the same token I figure that if some game develeopers wanted to go back to old school type play with new technology/graphics, say someone deciding to resurrect "Wizardry", singe player "Ultima", or "Might and Magic" (prior to that "Heroes Of Might And Magic" series) they would find a dedicated, consistant, audience. However it would not be the kind of success big game producers are aiming for. The idea being that the lower the common human denominator you can aim at, the more money you can potentially make.
So far Bioware has managed to put out a couple of games that seem to walk the fence between old school and new school fairly well, but I think they misunderstand some of their own success, while at the same time criticizing those who are content with a stable niche market and fanbase.
-
As far as moral desicians go, well I will simply say that I don't think we're liable to see the kind of desician making and such people want to see in RPG games until society grows up a bit more, and can drop a lot of the political BS.
For example, a lot of very good points can be made in defense of taking slaves and such at a low tech level. The choice being in many cases between putting everyone to the sword, or enslavinng the survivors or whatever. However you start inserting that into a game in anything less than a modern, politically correct, entirely black and white fashion and people are going to freak out to a point that most game developers aren't willing to risk it no matter how many units they move.
Just imagine a reaction to a game based around say "Gor" with the player in an equivilent role to a Lord Of Ar (arguably the good guys). Even if you insert enough "earth mentality" into the game to cast doubts on the slave system, the idea of someone being able to rule/conquer that way and take slaves while still being good and honorable (as opposed to a demonic, puppy kicking jerk) is too much.
Thus moral desicians in games are going to remain totally good or totally evil. Not only is it easy to track, but the stereotypes also prevent "misunderstandings". We're a long way from a game that can properly allow one to portray some of the "anti-heroes" and "dark heroes" in fantasy properly in anything resembling a sandbox RPG format. I don't even know if something like that could be tracked, but even if it can it's not just a question of implementing it, but also reaction. When a game industry is unwilling to defend simple things like violent content in opposition to guys like Michael Atkinson, I can't see them developing things that are going to be just as touchy, if not more so.
See, a lot of the appeal to RPGs has always been in the thinking that goes into them, mind before twitch so to speak. The various "innovations" we've seen have been successful in pulling a more "common" kind of player into the genere, with things like "action RPGs" that are twitch fests with minimal statistics, but some RPG-like customization (think Borderlands). When you get people saying "I hate turn based, and don't like too many numbers that are going to make my head hurt, but I like RPGs" I think it kind of shows that really RPGs are losing themselves rather than innovating so to speak.
I think JRPGs continue to have the audience they have always had, and probably a bigger one than ever before in absolute terms, but the number of customers reached has not been constantly expanding which to many seems like a failure where success is seen as growth and expansion as opposed to catering to the same, stable demographic which I think JRPGs do for the most part.
By the same token I figure that if some game develeopers wanted to go back to old school type play with new technology/graphics, say someone deciding to resurrect "Wizardry", singe player "Ultima", or "Might and Magic" (prior to that "Heroes Of Might And Magic" series) they would find a dedicated, consistant, audience. However it would not be the kind of success big game producers are aiming for. The idea being that the lower the common human denominator you can aim at, the more money you can potentially make.
So far Bioware has managed to put out a couple of games that seem to walk the fence between old school and new school fairly well, but I think they misunderstand some of their own success, while at the same time criticizing those who are content with a stable niche market and fanbase.
-
As far as moral desicians go, well I will simply say that I don't think we're liable to see the kind of desician making and such people want to see in RPG games until society grows up a bit more, and can drop a lot of the political BS.
For example, a lot of very good points can be made in defense of taking slaves and such at a low tech level. The choice being in many cases between putting everyone to the sword, or enslavinng the survivors or whatever. However you start inserting that into a game in anything less than a modern, politically correct, entirely black and white fashion and people are going to freak out to a point that most game developers aren't willing to risk it no matter how many units they move.
Just imagine a reaction to a game based around say "Gor" with the player in an equivilent role to a Lord Of Ar (arguably the good guys). Even if you insert enough "earth mentality" into the game to cast doubts on the slave system, the idea of someone being able to rule/conquer that way and take slaves while still being good and honorable (as opposed to a demonic, puppy kicking jerk) is too much.
Thus moral desicians in games are going to remain totally good or totally evil. Not only is it easy to track, but the stereotypes also prevent "misunderstandings". We're a long way from a game that can properly allow one to portray some of the "anti-heroes" and "dark heroes" in fantasy properly in anything resembling a sandbox RPG format. I don't even know if something like that could be tracked, but even if it can it's not just a question of implementing it, but also reaction. When a game industry is unwilling to defend simple things like violent content in opposition to guys like Michael Atkinson, I can't see them developing things that are going to be just as touchy, if not more so.
the guy speaks the truth!FoolKiller said:
OT: I'm a jrpg fanboy, admittedly I have never played a bioware game EVER and as such I'm probably one of few that can't really criticize there games but from my experience I didn't play JRPG's because the combats good or reasons like that. I played them because of the story (though having great gameplay surely helps).
why would JRPG's cater to ideals and standards of a completely different genre? JRPG's found a system that works and to us fans we wouldn't want it any other way.
and on another note innovation doesn't make a game good it just makes the game innovative and besides don't all genres follow there own thing?
Driving games - well......you know.....driving?
FPS - shooting things and BFG's
RTS - ZERG RUSH!!!11!1!...joke
Hack & Slash - take a wild guess.
This is the first time I've ever wanted to punch someone from Bioware. I love KOTOR, and Mass Effect was a good game. But I love most JRPGs better and I'm pretty sure this guy is letting his ego go to his head.
Sure, storyline wise, Jrpgs are very similar. Most of them have you and your motley crew travelling the world and have the ultimate goal of killing God. To be honest, how many Western Rpgs are made along the same vein. How many of them are based around you killing some evil wizard, overthrow a brutal government, or save the world?
What was the ultimate goal of Oblivion? What was the goal of Fallout 3? How about Dragon, Mass Effect, Sacred 2, Two Worlds and so on. RPG's in general have to evolve.
Actually, RPG's in general need to get their identity back. All of the things that were rpg staples, such as leveling up, gaining better weapons, and becoming more powerful, side quests and so on.
What was the ultimate goal of Oblivion? What was the goal of Fallout 3? How about Dragon, Mass Effect, Sacred 2, Two Worlds and so on. RPG's in general have to evolve.
Actually, RPG's in general need to get their identity back. All of the things that were rpg staples, such as leveling up, gaining better weapons, and becoming more powerful, side quests and so on.
The JRPG defence:
1. He does the same thing. - That doesn't refute his point at all.
2. I like JRPG's the way they are. - Good for you cupcake.
3. Nu-uh - In 30 years of rpgs what percentage of JRPG's have strayed from the turn based random encounter system?
WRPG's on the other hand are radically different as can be seen by contrasting Mass effect, Fable 2 and Fallout 3.
1. He does the same thing. - That doesn't refute his point at all.
2. I like JRPG's the way they are. - Good for you cupcake.
3. Nu-uh - In 30 years of rpgs what percentage of JRPG's have strayed from the turn based random encounter system?
WRPG's on the other hand are radically different as can be seen by contrasting Mass effect, Fable 2 and Fallout 3.
Jade Empire - Dark beings from the spirit world come to wreak havoc on the heavens and the world it governs. Only a person from a specific birthline can save them (Spirit Monk).Flamezdudes said:
KotOR - Dark Jedi from across the galaxy come to conquer it for themselves. Only the knowledge of one person can save them (SPOILER).
So yeah, their stories are quite formulaic. But that hardly makes them bad.
And his point wasn't about the cliche of JRPGs, but more about the cliche of game mechanics. And in that respect, Bioware are the creative masters of their field.
They are only 2 types of systems for any game, turn based or real time, all else are just variations of them, and before anyone mentions it action RPG are real time (except the ones that are turn based.)hypothetical fact said:
Also all turn base systems are not the same, you can also create interesting hybrids of the 2,which most games now day's are.
But off of the top of my head games that don't completely fit under both those very broadly defined concepts.
Growlancers 2 (This one has divergent plot threads to, different paths, different endings.)Growlancers 3, Growlancers 5, Al- tonelico 2, Valkyria Chronicles, A good chunk of the Atelier series doesn't fall under that category, Final Fantasy 12 (as much as I hate the game.), odin sphere, Persona 4, Persona 3, Devil summoner, Devil Summoner 2, Sakura Wars 5, Xenosaga 1 and 2.
That's off the top of my head, not counting some tactical rpgs I'm uncertain would fall outside of that category, despite how dramatically different they are, or games not released in north America.
I never got why people called them Japanese Role Playing Games.
Since you don't really... play a role.
You just play a set character.
You don't make him/her/it/pineapple special in any way, you just... We really shouldn't call them JRPGS.
We should call them JPBS.
Japanese Pretty Boy Simulators.
Since you don't really... play a role.
You just play a set character.
You don't make him/her/it/pineapple special in any way, you just... We really shouldn't call them JRPGS.
We should call them JPBS.
Japanese Pretty Boy Simulators.
Would people please leave out the story element, this is about the gameplay.
JRPGs have more in common with each other than WRPGs. For me thats not even a criticism, its an observation.
The most memorable JRPG for me personally is Valkyria Chronicles and the gameplay had more in common with Hogs of War haha!
JRPGs have more in common with each other than WRPGs. For me thats not even a criticism, its an observation.
The most memorable JRPG for me personally is Valkyria Chronicles and the gameplay had more in common with Hogs of War haha!
You know JRPG makers would say the same thing about Western RPGs. Its kinda of weird that this kind of statement is coming from Bioware, who, when they release a game, its the same game they've always released going back to NWN (I haven't played DA:O yet so don't know about that one, but still looks the same). I mean updating graphics and changing characters and plot points around a little is not something Bioware is above.
Although this is all beside the point. JRPGs are popular in Japan and western RPGs are popular in the west and their isn't much overlap. I personally know a guy born in Japan who hates all western RPGs because (get this) they are all the same.
Regionalism at its best.
Although this is all beside the point. JRPGs are popular in Japan and western RPGs are popular in the west and their isn't much overlap. I personally know a guy born in Japan who hates all western RPGs because (get this) they are all the same.
Regionalism at its best.
There really is no difference between the two. In JRPGs the role is filled for you. Which in all honesty I prefer JRPGs because sometimes I don't feel like fiddling around with those goddamned face sliders for 3 hours trying in vain to make my character look like it hasn't been hit in the face with the ugly bus.Mercanary57 said:
Other than that the difference is nil.
Yeah JRPG's are a bit of a mire. But Bioware is guilty of rehashing, I'm not saying they're worse or whatever, it's just JRPG's have been doing it longer and SERIOUSLY how many innocent sweet looking little girls/ young boys who turn out to be girls do we need? *insert list of reuseable JRPG character archetypes and plot devices*
I wasn't necessarily talking about how your character looks, I was talking about play style.matrix3509 said:
I don't think many JRPGS have the ability for you to be able to encounter one situation in multiple ways (diplomacy, sneak around it, blow it up, shoot it, slice it up, teleport it away, etc.) as they all seem rather linear.
You'll just have to do the same thing over, usually.
Almost everyone that doesn't like when people disagree with them points out that the opposing view is invalid because it is widely accepted.MarsProbe said:
If you hate halo, and I like halo, you are wrong because you are on the halo hating bandwagon.
If you hate harry potter, and I like harry potter, you are wrong because you are on the harry potter hating bandwagon.
If you hate pie, and I like pie, you are wrong because you are on the pie hating bandwagon.
In each case the justification is the same, in each case the person is merely trying to make a point by showing that the other person shares a similar view with the persons in the thread. This strategy is extremely popular because it requires no talent and no thought. You merely make a blindingly obvious observation and report on it.
In every single thread where a group of people share their distaste with something, and assuming that thing has any sort of following, someone points out that everyone is just on the bandwagon of hating the threads topic. Without realizing the humor that they themselves are just part of a similar bandwagon, one I dare to say is far more annoying more often than not because it provides as much substance as a celery stick provides energy.
Not to mention you make your avatar hate bandwagon point right after Movie Bob made the point that it isn't funny, and that people who point it out aren't clever. (Lots of pointing apparently)
Which I'm sure you see bothers me. Because by making that blindingly obvious observation I have become a hypocrite. Which I suppose means I'm part of a altogether larger bandwagon that includes the entire population of the humanity. I suppose I should be happy.
FloodOne said:
Jonesy911 said:Your opinion is quite literally, exactly the same as mine
I think the main problem (and what Greg Zeschuk is referring to even though he doesn't state so in the article) is that JRPGs haven't evolved their storytelling methods since the PS. Enjoying the story of a JRPG isn't like watching a movie, it IS watching a movie. For the most part, plot development only occurs during non-interactive sequences (like cut scenes), and the gameplay is just tacked on with little regard to what's actually happening in the story. Let's see, we're against an oppressive government that's destroying the world through their greed, and the only way to restore peace and balance is by massacring every living thing in our way? Wha? Making a linear story is one thing, but at least find a way to make the gameplay feel like it's part of the narrative rather than just a barrier between each plot sequence. Even FPS games do a better job of this than most JRPGs I've played recently.FoolKiller said:
After all, if the best part of a JRPG is its story and that story is pretty much exclusively told through cinematics, what's the point in playing the game when I can just watch it on youtube?
Actually the most common complaint from Japanese consumers isn't that WRPGs are all the same, it's that they are too open. Japanese players don't know where to go or what choice to make, and so they get bored because they don't think anything meaningful is happening.matrix3509 said:
I hope you realize that you just did the same thing that you want the JRPG fans to stop doing.Spitfire175 said:
i.e.
To add:Nazrel said:
The entire Tale series of games: the gameplay changes in some way every game. Early games were almost street fighter like in gameplay and now it's more action rpg. Tales of Legendia actually allowed a 2nd player to help the first player in combat.
Gurumin: an action rpg with fully voiced characters. Harvest Moon has to be weirdest rpg... oh wait I forgot about the Dark Cloud Series where you build your world.
On the western front: Torchlight and Diablo series practically caters to JRPG fans.
They're two different things. It's like comparing the 'choose your own adventure' books with normal ones. two different things for two different demographics expecting two different experiences out of it. If you were asked to use a DVORAK keyboard instead of QWERTY I bet you wouldn't like it as much as the qwerty, as you're not used to it and it takes longer to get anywhere. And vice versa. The same goes for rpg's; just because they have the same name doesn't mean they are for the same demographic. If it weren't for jrpg's then there would be a void among the infinite sea of choose your own adventure (within limits of course) wrpgs.boholikeu said:FloodOne- said:Jonesy911 said:Your opinion is quite literally, exactly the same as mineI think the main problem (and what Greg Zeschuk is referring to even though he doesn't state so in the article) is that JRPGs haven't evolved their storytelling methods since the PS. Enjoying the story of a JRPG isn't like watching a movie, it IS watching a movie. For the most part, plot development only occurs during non-interactive sequences (like cut scenes), and the gameplay is just tacked on with little regard to what's actually happening in the story. Let's see, we're against an oppressive government that's destroying the world through their greed, and the only way to restore peace and balance is by massacring every living thing in our way? Wha? Making a linear story is one thing, but at least find a way to make the gameplay feel like it's part of the narrative rather than just a barrier between each plot sequence. Even FPS games do a better job of this than most JRPGs I've played recently.FoolKiller said:
After all, if the best part of a JRPG is its story and that story is pretty much exclusively told through cinematics, what's the point in playing the game when I can just watch it on youtube?
Actually the most common complaint from Japanese consumers isn't that WRPGs are all the same, it's that they are too open. Japanese players don't know where to go or what choice to make, and so they get bored because they don't think anything meaningful is happening.matrix3509 said:
Of course I get sick of some of jrpg's cliches but if I want something different I go back and play fallout and ME.