This thread has shown me I really need to start playing JRPGS. Now, if only 90% of them weren't exclusive to consoles or portables...
Why are JRPGs so much longer than WRPGs?
- Thread starter endtherapture
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Amusing, considering how many times WRPG fans have felt the need to remind me that games like Oblivion and Skyrim have bigger worlds than most JRPGs. I'm not sure where this 'quantity' is coming from as, like other players above, almost every JRPG I've played can be completed in under 40 hours, whereas I often hear about Elder Scrolls players who have >100 hours logged into their games. The only JRPGs I've heard of with similar amounts of play might be some of NIS's SRPGs like Disgaea, but that's never because of the main quests, rather because those games have limitless leveling/grinding and can generate random dungeons ad infinitum. At that point, the player is approaching the game like a player of arcade shmups (i.e. like somebody playing a game like Ikaruga hundreds of times and gradually increasing the difficulty) and it's almost certain that the 'time-played' doesn't matter anymore.Diesel- said:
I'd say a lot of this is spot on. Funnily enough, the RPGs of both genres that I rank as my favorites strike a good middleground of sandbox and story. E.g. my favorite JRPG ('Golden Sun') has a strong focus on narrative, but still a large overworld to explore. Whereas my favorite WRPG ('Mass Effect') has many explorable planets, but with a core narrative that's easily followed. It's probably why I couldn't get past the first few hours of WRPGs like 'Fable' or 'Fallout 3', where the sandbox aspects felt like they were at the expense of story. Granted, extreme linearity would be a potential problem too, but I can't cite personal aspects for that (though I often 'Final Fantasy XIII' as an oft cited example of that).
I really can't agree with that kind of reasoning. I don't mind people not liking the style, but you can't claim that one is of better quality than the other. As GabeZhul said, they're two different beasts, catering to people with different tastes. It's the whole comparing apples to oranges thing, it's just silly.Diesel- said:
I agree. everyone have different taste and i respect it but i rather play thisKarmaTheAlligator said:
Badass game over this
Cartoony, childish or girly game. no offence.
Eh, I'd need to see some solid statistics before making a generalization like one genre being longer than the other... Just relying on anecdotal evidence and examples isn't going to do much.
Assuming it's true, I think the main reason is that in WRPGs, the player has more choice in whether to do non-main story stuff, while in JRPGs almost everything is forced into the main narrative, even if it doesn't do much to advance the narrative itself. A WRPG says "here's the door to the next chapter, but you can stay a while in this area and bring this kid some flowers, if you feel you want some more XP". A JRPG says "here's the door to the next chapter, but wait! A child is crying that it wants some flowers, you can't progress without that! You want to go through and deprive a child of joy?"
And this is why...
My point is, without some kind of "standard measure" we don't even know if the main assumption is true. Wasn't there a website where people logged their completion times for various titles? Averages from that could be useful.
On a slight off topic, why does everyone keep calling Valkyria Chronicles a JRPG? It's a squad-based tactical game, like XCOM or Jagged Alliance. Is it because of the anime-ish style?
Assuming it's true, I think the main reason is that in WRPGs, the player has more choice in whether to do non-main story stuff, while in JRPGs almost everything is forced into the main narrative, even if it doesn't do much to advance the narrative itself. A WRPG says "here's the door to the next chapter, but you can stay a while in this area and bring this kid some flowers, if you feel you want some more XP". A JRPG says "here's the door to the next chapter, but wait! A child is crying that it wants some flowers, you can't progress without that! You want to go through and deprive a child of joy?"
And this is why...
... you need to specify how you calculate this stuff. You say Skyrim is 90 hours long, but Spoiler Warning did a playthrough in about 20 hours. You say Dragon Age: Origins is 50 hours, but my complete playthrough took me 67. On the other hand, you make a broad statement about "standard JRPGs", but I remember Star Ocean: The Last Hope being around 30 hours at most.endtherapture said:
My point is, without some kind of "standard measure" we don't even know if the main assumption is true. Wasn't there a website where people logged their completion times for various titles? Averages from that could be useful.
On a slight off topic, why does everyone keep calling Valkyria Chronicles a JRPG? It's a squad-based tactical game, like XCOM or Jagged Alliance. Is it because of the anime-ish style?
See, that's not the problem, different tastes and all that, the problem is you were saying one genre is better quality than the other and that JRPGs just go for quantity, when you get something like Skyrim being hailed as the best thing since sliced bread and it's a buggy mess saved only by mods.Diesel- said:
A question, have you even played Tales of Zestiria, to call it childish or girly? Or are you judging a book by its cover?
Probably already been said, but WRPGs are more about the environment and exploration while JRPGs are more about the characters and the story. As such, JRPGs (which I dont play many of, mind you) do tend to have fluff in place to pad out the length. WRPGs... while most of a WRPG game is fluff, but most if not all can be considered optional.
I calculated it based on how long I spent playing it...my complete DA:O runthrough was 55 hours long including the expansion pack.RyQ_TMC said:
And because I asked what JRPGs I should get on PS3 and everyoen said Valkaryia Chronicles.
I supposes Western developers would rather use the resources to add more choices to the game, rathen than to lengthen the campaign. If you try to see all the possible alternatives, it'd take as long as a JRPG.
Most early JRPGs also have grinding and such.
Most early JRPGs also have grinding and such.
I'm a huge JRPG fan (not saying I dislike other genres) and I will echo the sentiments of many in this thread and say that JRPGs have a main-quest story driven experience, while WRPGs seem to have incredibly short main quests and focus on side questing and exploration.
Of course there are outliers in both genres. People saying they spent 80-90 hours in Skyrim/Fallout 3 whatever just need to think back to how many of hours were spent walking across the terrain doing absolutely dick all. Bethesda love their exploration but I could hardly call that gameplay, I spent about 30 hours in fallout 3 and enjoyed my time, generally, but at least 5 hours of that was just walking.. and doing nothing really; I don't often get the feel I'm doing nothing in a JRPG.
I hate the whole "childish" or "anime" graphics vs. realistic debate that always seem to go on. People really need to open their minds and not instantly judge.
I can go back to my gamecube and play Baten Kaitos, or Tales of Symphonia, or Wind Waker, and still think they look beautiful, they still hold up graphically today; The same cannot be said for any "realistic" game of the time.
The graphics and art style lend themselves to better performing games, and help to further the universe they are trying to create. JRPGs are rarely (if ever) set on earth, or even an earth like planet. They have entire wacky universes with things that just wouldn't be possible in an earth like world; I mean.. where is fallout set? Earth, post apocolyptically, but that is by design. Where is Skyrim set? Might as well be earth sometime in the past. Where is the Witcher set? might as well be earth. Where is Fable set? might as well be earth with magic.
Disclaimer: I am not by any means saying WRPGs are bad, I tend to enjoy JRPGs more because I like story driven games, but that isn't to say I haven't had my fair share of fun in WRPGs, I like a majority of them (besides Skyrim which I hated).
Of course there are outliers in both genres. People saying they spent 80-90 hours in Skyrim/Fallout 3 whatever just need to think back to how many of hours were spent walking across the terrain doing absolutely dick all. Bethesda love their exploration but I could hardly call that gameplay, I spent about 30 hours in fallout 3 and enjoyed my time, generally, but at least 5 hours of that was just walking.. and doing nothing really; I don't often get the feel I'm doing nothing in a JRPG.
I hate the whole "childish" or "anime" graphics vs. realistic debate that always seem to go on. People really need to open their minds and not instantly judge.
I can go back to my gamecube and play Baten Kaitos, or Tales of Symphonia, or Wind Waker, and still think they look beautiful, they still hold up graphically today; The same cannot be said for any "realistic" game of the time.
The graphics and art style lend themselves to better performing games, and help to further the universe they are trying to create. JRPGs are rarely (if ever) set on earth, or even an earth like planet. They have entire wacky universes with things that just wouldn't be possible in an earth like world; I mean.. where is fallout set? Earth, post apocolyptically, but that is by design. Where is Skyrim set? Might as well be earth sometime in the past. Where is the Witcher set? might as well be earth. Where is Fable set? might as well be earth with magic.
Disclaimer: I am not by any means saying WRPGs are bad, I tend to enjoy JRPGs more because I like story driven games, but that isn't to say I haven't had my fair share of fun in WRPGs, I like a majority of them (besides Skyrim which I hated).
Yeah, lest we all forget that using a video game controller to maneuver some dark-and-edgy shadow knight with chain mail and scars is totally more adult and manly than using it to maneuver a set of Japanese anime characters. Shouldn't we be talking about the gameplay?Diesel- said:
I don't really thing this is a matter of the development style. An average Wizardry 8 go takes 80+ hours (and that's *not* a sandbox game - sure enough there are sidequests but nearly all of them factor in main plot), I have 50+ hrs in Div:OS (and counting, doesn't seem to end anytime soon), but on the other hand Mars: War Logs was over quickly, as was STALKER (if we want to go there and call it an RPG). On the far eastern front, we have the classic hundreds-of-hours Dragon Quest grind-everything expreiences and short and sweet things like Live-A-Live (one of my personal favourites). Some games are short and some games are long, making it about the design philosophy, at least at this particular division, is simply misunderstanding the situation.
As the discussion has shifted somewhat...
As the discussion has shifted somewhat...
But main plot alone is hardly the actual content. If anything, it's the oposite, the main plot informs you what you should do to END the experience and the actual content is everything else - crafting, fighting, and the hundreds and hundreds of sidequests. You're right on money though in saying it's the design style and not place of origin: one of my favourite examples would be calling the classic western titles, Anachronox and Albion, jRPGs (yeah, there are easier targets like Sudeki and Septerra Core, but those two are actually good games).TheKasp said:
I'm with you on having never given a crap about the realism or 'immersion' factors of Western video games (or the Japanese games that have been aping them recently). To me, it just seems like a supply/demand swirling black hole in which (a.) the game developers are embarrassed that they're making toys instead of epic Hollywood films or the VR experiences we were promised in the 1990s and/or that (b.) gamers are embarrassed that they're helplessly addicted to these toys and barely spend any time hiking/mountain-climbing/hunting/fighting/etc... in the real world, and so have to do these things vicariously through their games. I wouldn't care so much, except that for me, all sense of 'realism' collapses under the weight of the first reality-shattering fireball or ice spell that shows itself in those games. It's the same feeling I got when, after watching a whole bunch of Game of Thrones stuff and being reasonably impressed by the show's aesthetic design, there suddenly appeared a goofy-looking CGI assassin insect or some adorable cartoon dragons (can't remember which appeared first, but both were jarring because they were fantasy creatures), yet I still have to listen to tons of dude-bros talking about how it's 'better than Lord of the Rings because it's more like real life..' and blablabla...Whatislove said:
The example of Baten Kaitos actually lays bear the reason I like JRPGs and that's the fact that the best JRPGs have intricate and interesting stat systems that make the games seem like very decked-out (no pun intended) card games. My favorite titles (i.e SMT Nocturne) generally do a good job of keeping high levels of risk/reward throughout the gaming experience. It occasionally sucks when the risk/reward mechanics are too easily overcome or broken with some overpowered character attack, etc..., but I've only dealt with a small handful of games where that's easy to accomplish.
It's not even a realism issue, it's blatant ignorance. It's the ignorance spurned from people seeing animation and instantly thinking of it as childish in the US.Whatislove said:
Japanese games lack this problem, they don't have any connotation like that. A game with anime graphics is just a game with anime graphics, it's not "cartoony" or "childish" any more so than a game like the Witcher. It's just an art style which people like and can have any kind of themes you wanna put in your game.
You might have not played a Tales game but you're confusing colors, brightness and positivity with childlike traits. No, these are just that, happy adventures. There's a whole lot of darkness too but it's not all-consuming. There's actual variety. There's nuance. There's actual characters who like to have fun and enjoy themselves and live their life. Not just a kill/destroy quest with no meaning.
Finally, if you don't think there's anything "epic" in a Tales game, you really really have not played any of them for 3 minutes. Hell, just the intro animation is epic enough!
This stuff is goose-bump levels of hype!
Admittedly the 70 hour play through was on the first one and I visited every single planet and marked every single resource and interactive thing on them because there is obviously something wrong with meendtherapture said:
I got 50 hours on each of the other 2 though by being a completionist