IGN's Top 10 Ways to Fix JRPGs...

[dreadedcandiru99]

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/106/1060139p1.html

So I thought I'd bring this to the attention of anyone over here who hadn't seen it yet, just to see what people thought of it. I think they make some fair points, with the definite exception of #4: not everything needs online multiplayer, goddamnit. (And personally, as I've pointed out once or twice in the past, I think the surest way to save JRPGs is to let players actually role-play in them a la Mass Effect or Dragon Age, rather than just having us wheel the characters along from one cutscene to the next--but that's me.)

 

[Dr. Wily III]

The only thing I can think of is removing the fucking turn based / Active Time Combat.. (btw: Active Time is atleast a little tolerable, but an Terranigma Style combat is much more fun.)

Also, yeah, I agree, Multiplayer was an stupid idea.

 

[flaming_squirrel]

Some kind of interaction with the enviroment would be nice, in every JRPG I've played it's just been a pretty backdrop while you run along the pre-planned route, which is strangely enough exactly the same as the character interaction...

Nuts to multiplayer though, it's in no way necessary to make a great game.

 

[Julianking93]

Remove turn based combat is really the only thing I'd change in JRPGs.

And IGN needs to stop cumming over everything that has multiplayer and shitting on everything that doesn't

Fuck multiplayer.

 

[Axolotl]

It's a pretty bad list to be honest (and Bethesda worlds feeling alive?) most of their compliants are things WRPGs are no better at, some that WRPGs are far worse at.

 

[BlindMessiah94]

I think this article broadly generalizes too much. Sure there are a lot games that follow formulas, but no more than your average sandbox game of any other genre does.
What may work for some RPG's may not work for others. Not every game needs to have character animations in order to be "good".

 

[sylekage]

Multiplayer is good sometimes and dreadfully bad at other times. Get rid of the turn based system, get rid of the guys that look like chicks in the games, And make good stories that make sense in the first ten minutes.

 

[Onyx Oblivion]

That list just blows, I think everyone here can agree on that.

I like turn based combat, sometimes. Like in Blue Dragon, where you have dynamic turn orders based on speed and the attack you chose to perform.

It's more about the anime style storylines for me. I mean, I fucking love me some JRPG action, but dear god, the last one with a really good story was Lost Odyssey and that was Q1 2008.

 

[The DSM]

Two of the way to fix gaming reviews:

1. IGN be shut down.
2. Useage of "compelling" and "cinematic" leads to death by Superman 64.

JRPGs are fine for me, its just the only series anyone mentions is Final Fantasy, give the Tales of Series some love damn it...

 

[lozfoe444]

Role playing would be nice. It is a ROLE PLAYING game after all.

 

[Spectrum_Prez]

I saw this earlier and started reading the comments on the page... and stopped when I realized that there were 400+.

Having not played any JRPGs since Pokemon Yellow I can't judge the genre much, but it does seem as if the authors of that article failed to convince readers that they were fans themselves. The argument that they're just trying to make JRPGs into WRPGs isn't really all that biting; afterall neither subgenre is stylistically monolithic. Still, its interesting (and LOLingly hilarious) to see the backlash they incurred.

 

[Onyx Oblivion]

Two of the way to fix gaming reviews:

1. IGN be shut down.
2. Useage of "compelling" and "cinematic" leads to death by Superman 64.

JRPGs are fine for me, its just the only series anyone mentions is Final Fantasy, give the Tales of Series some love damn it...

I love Tales of Vesperia. And of Destiny. And of Phantasia. Of the World sucked, though. as they mixed the characters from all the games together.

 

[FactualSquirrel]

Why do people not understand that certain people like JRPGs, it's like a consoletard saying that oblivion needs guns and a better shooting aspect.

 

[VashDaBest]

I agree to some of the points on the fixing, but when I play an RPG, I play it alone. Playing a Role-playing game with other people just doesn't sit right. Borderlands had a 4 player Co-Op basis, so I understand it there, but I don't think FFX would've been better if someone from Xnay country was Yuna while I was Auron. (Although, didn't 9 have a Co-Op function where someone could play as other characters with the second controller?)

 

[Space Cowgirl]

I kind of agree with the turn based combat thing. I believe the only place where it really worked was in FFX. I also say nuts to multiplayer. But a majority of the stuff on the stuff on the list I totally agree with.

 

[Axeli]

It is nice to see "different" still translates to "worse".

I think the surest way to save JRPGs is to let players actually role-play in them a la Mass Effect or Dragon Age, rather than just having us wheel the characters along from one cutscene to the next--but that's me.)

That's the last thing to do. Why?

While it is in a interesting and "new" (as most people seem to think) narrative form, so was the utter lack of exposition in Shadow of the Colossus. Yet I would not want every game to have the same style of narrative as SotC.
The cleverly inserted Mary Sueism is a cool storytelling trick, but it should not be overused to repetition too soon (something that Bioware is admirably achieving by themselves).

We need variation in the styles of storytelling we see in RPGs or games in general. The so called "role playing" in Bioware's games, while good entertainment, places far too many limitations for the narrative to be considered an universal way of presenting a plot.

 

[Onyx Oblivion]

Save Points are actually a damn good thing. Where's the challenge in a JRPG without them?

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/106/1060139p1.html

So I thought I'd bring this to the attention of anyone over here who hadn't seen it yet, just to see what people thought of it. I think they make some fair points, with the definite exception of #4: not everything needs online multiplayer, goddamnit. (And personally, as I've pointed out once or twice in the past, I think the surest way to save JRPGs is to let players actually role-play in them a la Mass Effect or Dragon Age, rather than just having us wheel the characters along from one cutscene to the next--but that's me.)

You do know that players do roleplay in them just differently as in you are given set roles which makes JRPGs JRPGs. How do JRPGs need saving?

OT: Most of those points are complete bullshit like most of what comes out of IGN I could make a similar list of how to save WRPGs both genres are fine and don't need saving but they might soon.

 

[Internet Kraken]

I agree and disagree with some for their points. They certainly at least have reason behind them, so we can't just say this is blind JRPG hatred. However I will admit that in recent years I have not played many JRPGs. None of them have really grabbed my interest recently. Though maybe that's because to many of them suffer from the problems this article mentioned.

One thing I think JRPGs really need to get rid of is random encounters. I simply can't think of a reason for them in modern gaming. They are nothing but an annoyance.

It's a pretty bad list to be honest (and Bethesda worlds feeling alive?) most of their compliants are things WRPGs are no better at, some that WRPGs are far worse at.

I don't think that's a reason to discredit what this article said. After all, they didn't say that every WRPG did these things better than every JRPG. I'd say that some WRPGs share these problems. For example, I think #7 is a problem that exists within Dragon Age: Origins.

And IGN needs to stop cumming over everything that has multiplayer and shitting on everything that doesn't

Fuck multiplayer.

I do agree that a game does not need multiplayer to be good. But it doesn't seem like they do either, since they mentioned Fallout 3 as a good example of a WRPG many times. Though perhaps they just want some JRPGs to just try it.

Save Points are actually a damn good thing. Where's the challenge in a JRPG without them?

Eh? Are you saying that the challenge in a JRPG comes from the inability to save at any point? If that's true, then could you please explain? I don't understand how it contribute to anything other than false difficulty.

 

[Blanks]

Am i the only one who thinks RPG's are fine as they are?