Poll: Which do you prefer JRPGs or WRPGs?

[Realitycrash]

WRPG, because WRPG have Fallout.

 

[Anachronism]

There is a lack of cohesion in Final Fantasy X, and in the cinematic RPG itself. The story and gameplay have become two entirely separate mechanisms, operating independently of each other. In Final Fantasy X, half the time you're playing a game, and half the time you're watching a CGI movie. They never overlap. When you reach a certain point in one, Final Fantasy X switches over to the other. What the player does when he's at the wheel has no impact whatsoever on what happens when the game goes back on autopilot. This isn't a role-playing game.

This [http://socksmakepeoplesexy.net/index.php?a=ff10] sums up my problems with JRPGs. The Final Fantasy series, for instance, aren't bad games. The gameplay is solid, the characters are (mostly) likeable and the stories are good. The problem is that the player has absolutely no impact on the story. All you do is move the characters from one cutscene to another. They aren't role-playing games, they're role-watching games; yes, the characters grow and develop, but the player has absolutely nothing to do with it. Pretty much the first thing Tidus says in FFX is "This is my story", and he's right: it's his story, not the player's. The player has nothing to do with it.

To me, this pretty much defeats the entire point of a role-playing game. Frankly, the games industry, by and large*, seems to have forgotten what role-playing is. A role-playing game shouldn't be about stats and spreadsheets, XP and levelling up, but about embodying a character, and experiencing and affecting the world through them. Don't get me wrong, I like stats and XP in my games, but, as Shamus Young has said, it's got to the point now where RPG and role-playing game are pretty much two distinct genres.

But that's how RPGs started out. JRPGs got their name from their gameplay mechanics, which were similar to pen and paper RPGs at the time. They weren't called that because of their "nonlinear" nature.

I didn't mention linearity at any point in my post. I don't have any issue with linearity whatsoever; frankly, I think open-world gameplay will inevitably cripple the story by eliminating any sense of pace or urgency; see Oblivion for why. Games like Baldur's Gate II, which allow the player some freedom to do side quests but still have a clearly defined, linear story, tend to be much more enjoyable for me.

And yes, I know CRPGs started out by emulating tabletop RPGs (for the record, I really enjoy tabletop RPGs and am currently involved in a sort-of-weekly D&D campaign), and I know that, by and large, an RPG is still defined by stats and levelling, but isn't it so much more satisfying when you actually get to play a role? To continue to use tabletop RPGs as an example, I firmly believe the quickest way to ruin a game of D&D is to stick too close to the rules. It's much more fun if you let the players play their characters without having to worry about tripping up over numbers. It's for this reason that, even though many of the "RPG elements", in this case meaning numbers, have been cut out of Mass Effect 2, I still think it's a truer role-playing game than any Final Fantasy you care to mention: because you actually play a character, rather than just follow one.

 

[kingcom]

I prefer jRPGs over wRPGs and it's mainly because you never ever do anything awesome in a wRPG.

I found a man who was broken, he killed his wife and daughter in a murderous rage, he abandoned the guards when they needed him most and left a village to their fate. I convinced him that maybe, somewhere in this vast world there is a tiny sliver of hope where he can atone for what he had done, looking to the future to do something better.

Thats the most awesome thing thats ever happened to me in a wRPG. A big boss fight is uninteresting.

There is a lack of cohesion in Final Fantasy X, and in the cinematic RPG itself. The story and gameplay have become two entirely separate mechanisms, operating independently of each other. In Final Fantasy X, half the time you're playing a game, and half the time you're watching a CGI movie. They never overlap. When you reach a certain point in one, Final Fantasy X switches over to the other. What the player does when he's at the wheel has no impact whatsoever on what happens when the game goes back on autopilot. This isn't a role-playing game.

This [http://socksmakepeoplesexy.net/index.php?a=ff10] sums up my problems with JRPGs. The Final Fantasy series, for instance, aren't bad games. The gameplay is solid, the characters are (mostly) likeable and the stories are good. The problem is that the player has absolutely no impact on the story. All you do is move the characters from one cutscene to another. They aren't role-playing games, they're role-watching games; yes, the characters grow and develop, but the player has absolutely nothing to do with it. Pretty much the first thing Tidus says in FFX is "This is my story", and he's right: it's his story, not the player's. The player has nothing to do with it.

To me, this pretty much defeats the entire point of a role-playing game. Frankly, the games industry, by and large*, seems to have forgotten what role-playing is. A role-playing game shouldn't be about stats and spreadsheets, XP and levelling up, but about embodying a character, and experiencing and affecting the world through them. Don't get me wrong, I like stats and XP in my games, but, as Shamus Young has said, it's got to the point now where RPG and role-playing game are pretty much two distinct genres.

But that's how RPGs started out. JRPGs got their name from their gameplay mechanics, which were similar to pen and paper RPGs at the time. They weren't called that because of their "nonlinear" nature.

I didn't mention linearity at any point in my post. I don't have any issue with linearity whatsoever; frankly, I think open-world gameplay will inevitably cripple the story by eliminating any sense of pace or urgency; see Oblivion for why. Games like Baldur's Gate II, which allow the player some freedom to do side quests but still have a clearly defined, linear story, tend to be much more enjoyable for me.

And yes, I know CRPGs started out by emulating tabletop RPGs (for the record, I really enjoy tabletop RPGs and am currently involved in a sort-of-weekly D&D campaign), and I know that, by and large, an RPG is still defined by stats and levelling, but isn't it so much more satisfying when you actually get to play a role? To continue to use tabletop RPGs as an example, I firmly believe the quickest way to ruin a game of D&D is to stick too close to the rules. It's much more fun if you let the players play their characters without having to worry about tripping up over numbers. It's for this reason that, even though many of the "RPG elements", in this case meaning numbers, have been cut out of Mass Effect 2, I still think it's a truer role-playing game than any Final Fantasy you care to mention: because you actually play a character, rather than just follow one.

I cant say what other people like and dislike in a game but RPGs have always followed one simple rule. Choice. They need to involve choice. Some people believe that only needs to include putting numerical values together, they want a mathematics simulation. Personally I find that dull. I myself like human interaction and its choices. Notshall illusion of choices we see in many video games. Simple things. Do you act kindly to with hositlity? It doesnt need to have any long term, main-plot critical influence. Just make me feel like I am making decisions.

People criticise Mass Effect for not allowing choice. Extra Credits explained one of the strongest scenarios it gave you but that still isnt the best. I described a choice earlier in this post but it still isnt the best. The bset decision I ever saw was one which took place in a Dark Heresy game. The players were infiltrating a cult and they were ordered to prepare dinner to nobles who were dining there (the players were going to see who they were then arrest them later). The players were guards and found several pity where they were bbqing animals with a mounted flamethrower. They got to their pit until they found it wasnt filled with animals but children, looking up hopelessly at the players above. They had a choice, burn the children alive and preserve their cover and untimately end the cult before it caused too much damage or let them go and let the cult spread undue terror and damage throughout the planet.

Thats choice. Thats a role being played. In the context of a game. Hence role playing game.

 

[Anachronism]

I myself like human interaction and its choices.

Frankly, it sounds like you're agreeing with me. I can take or leave the stats and levels, and I never spend more than about 10 minutes working out my character's appearance, but plausible interaction between characters is a must for me. This is one of the reasons I was somewhat let down by Jade Empire: the companion characters simply weren't that interesting, and I never felt like I got to know them anywhere near as well as I did the characters from Baldur's Gate and Dragon Age.

They had a choice, burn the children alive and preserve their cover and untimately end the cult before it caused too much damage or let them go and let the cult spread undue terror and damage throughout the planet.

Thats choice. Thats a role being played. In the context of a game. Hence role playing game.

I know. That's pretty much exactly what I said in my post. There's no need to spell it out to me like that; we both have the same opinion here: role-playing > numbers.

MAJOR EDIT: sorry, didn't read the details of the choice thoroughly enough. That's actually a damn good moral dilemma. Far better than what you see in most games. Dragon Age: Origins had some good ones, but I don't think it had anything quite like that. The resolution of the Redcliffe questline could have been like that, if there hadn't been a third option available.

Spoiler

Your options were: kill the boy to destroy the demon; sacrifice his mother to kill the demon without harming the boy; go and get help from the mages and harm nobody. The last choice needed to have some kind of caveat, a reason why you wouldn't choose that one; as it is, it undermines the decision you have to make quite a lot.

 

[Rofl-Mayo]

I personally prefer JRPGs. They have some decent stories and I love the Final Fantasy series.

 

[-Dragmire-]

#1. snes-ps2 era jrpg
#2. current wrpg
#3. current jrpg

 

[Jegsimmons]

jrpgs piss me off, wrpgs are fine with me, they allow a bit more freedom and less confusion.

 

[l3o2828]

There's some things i like about WRPGS.
but WRPGs are just too generic, usually with incredibly simple stories, and as i said, generic settings such as Tolkien esque middle ages or F-*bleep* *bleep *bleep* Space Marines.
SO yeah JRPGS are usually my thing more because they are unpredictable and definetly more interesting than *takes a deep breath* space marines and Tolkien esque middle ages...

 

[cgentero]

What do Action RPGs and Tactical RPGs count as cause I usually like them over the standard WRPG\JRPG mechanics.

 

[Defense]

I didn't mention linearity at any point in my post. I don't have any issue with linearity whatsoever; frankly, I think open-world gameplay will inevitably cripple the story by eliminating any sense of pace or urgency; see Oblivion for why. Games like Baldur's Gate II, which allow the player some freedom to do side quests but still have a clearly defined, linear story, tend to be much more enjoyable for me.

Sandbox games aren't necessarily nonlinear either. In fact, I'd say sandbox games are much more linear than people think.

?but isn't it so much more satisfying when you actually get to play a role?

Maybe in some cases, but it's much harder to play a role in a game when you don't have a choice, hence why I mentioned it.

To continue to use tabletop RPGs as an example, I firmly believe the quickest way to ruin a game of D&D is to stick too close to the rules. It's much more fun if you let the players play their characters without having to worry about tripping up over numbers.

But giving the player a role offers for more nonlinearity, and every other aspect of the story usually suffers from it. I find it easier to become immersed in a game when the storytelling is top notch, rather than having a choice of X scenarios all with lower quality.

It's for this reason that, even though many of the "RPG elements", in this case meaning numbers, have been cut out of Mass Effect 2, I still think it's a truer role-playing game than any Final Fantasy you care to mention: because you actually play a character, rather than just follow one.

Well, now we're talking about what role-playing games are now, and I'm not going to open that can of worms just yet.

 

[wooty]

JRPG's, theyre usually always a lot quirkier and strange, which is a main attraction to me.

 

[Cridhe]

I like both. JRPGs (Final Fantasy IS an RPG whether you want it to be or not, sorry haters), for deep characters and story. WRPGs for customizability and sandbox approach many of them take.

It takes a real special game on either side to get my attention though. I'm really liking DAO right now (yeah I'm finally getting around to it), but really it reminds me of the combat stylings of an MMORPG, mixed with the story telling of an average (although epic) JRPG.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

What do Action RPGs and Tactical RPGs count as cause I usually like them over the standard WRPG\JRPG mechanics.

Stuff like Other games such as Orphen: Scion of Sorcery (2000), Ephemeral Fantasia (2001), Deus Ex: Invisible War (2003), Tales of Symphonia (2003), Vampire: The Masquerade ? Bloodlines (2004), Radiata Stories (2005), Steambot Chronicles (2005), The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion (2006), Odin Sphere (2007), Fallout 3 (2008), White Gold: War in Paradise (2008), Alpha Protocol (2010), and the Gothic, Way of the Samurai, Drakengard, Fable, Yakuza, Devil Summoner and Mass Effect series is considered ARPG but some could be argued are WRPGs and Tac RPGs are like FO1-2 and FF tactics.

They are a separate subgenre of RPGs. If that is what you are asking.

 

[UnderCoverGuest]

Play as malnourished scrawny pencil necked stupid haired cocky anorexic etcetera, or go wrestle ogres and punch out bears with my fists. Hmm.

 

[TheFinalFantasyWolf]

I'm usually more fond of JRPG's....but none of that turned based battle stuff (I can't seem to enjoy that)....If I didn't love FF stories and characters so much, I wouldn't have the patience for the combat.

 

[Knight Captain Kerr]

I have to say I like WRPGs more, I like making a character. To be honest they are different genres and I haven't played many JRPGs.

 

[Estocavio]

WRPGs.

I rather dislike most games that doesnt make things veritably believable/realistic.
JRPGs pretty much go against all that.

 

[Wuvlycuddles]

Endless amounts of tripe on both sides and plenty of pure awesome on both sides too, although i haven't seen a good console JRPG in a long while (played some damn good DS JRPGS though), but then there aren't that many WRPGs on the DS soooo....

But I'll have to go with WRPGs, there never seems to be any jrpgs for pc, except shoddy ports from console.

 

[Zhadramekel]

JRPG's. I'm frequently not very good at them (Final Fantasy springs to mind) but I still love them (TWEWY springs to mind)

 

[BreakfastMan]

Honestly? I love both. If I said "WRPGS", I would be ignoring my love for FF6, Earthbound, Chrono Trigger, FF8, Xenosaga, and the Persona series. If I said "JRPGS", I would be ignoring my love for Mass Effect 2, Fallout 3, Kotor 1+2, Baldur's Gate II, The Elder Scrolls, Mount & Blade, and Divine Divinity. I just love good games, regardless of genre.