Dragon Age

[schild]

I bet you also have random battles that just pop up while you're travelling that then go into turn based "I shoot the foozle", next, "I heal" gameplay, right?  Yeah, JRPG's suck.

I'm not gonna defend the gameplay of JRPGs here, but this is exactly what western RPGs are except they require more clicking and more navigation through frightening GUIs.

Not really.

The Witcher: After this Combo, I need to Heal. Ok, healing. Ok, back to combos.
Infinity Engine: Gotta pause to fire off the mage's ability at the right time.
Aurora (or whatever the NWN Engine was called): Same thing as above.

All of which had inconsequential mobs all over the place, except MAYBE Planescape: Torment. But even then it had places like the Modrom Cube filled with random battles.

If we're talking about Action RPGs, we're really talking about Action games with stats. At which point I would like to point out that it is A DIFFERENT GENRE.

[stray]

If you have a problem with, like, anime or kawaii stuff, there's none of that here. It's a bleak, challenging game.. with plenty of old, balding guys.  

And almost certainly an incomprehensible plot filled with unnecessary angst from a taciturn, but deep down good-hearted protagonist, yeah?  

I bet you also have random battles that just pop up while you're travelling that then go into turn based "I shoot the foozle", next, "I heal" gameplay, right?  Yeah, JRPG's suck.

I'm talking about Demon's Souls... It doesn't really get into storytelling much. I don't know if my character is a good hearted protagonist or not. Probably not.

Anyways, it's got more of a Western atmosphere than anything I've seen from JP before. Gameplay otoh is neither "western" RPG or typically JRPG. Maybe even not even Action RPG, since it's a helluva lot more punishing. More like Ninja Gaiden with stats.

[Velorath]

I bet you also have random battles that just pop up while you're travelling that then go into turn based "I shoot the foozle", next, "I heal" gameplay, right?  Yeah, JRPG's suck.

I'm not gonna defend the gameplay of JRPGs here, but this is exactly what western RPGs are except they require more clicking and more navigation through frightening GUIs.

Not really.

The Witcher: After this Combo, I need to Heal. Ok, healing. Ok, back to combos.
Infinity Engine: Gotta pause to fire off the mage's ability at the right time.
Aurora (or whatever the NWN Engine was called): Same thing as above.

All of which had inconsequential mobs all over the place, except MAYBE Planescape: Torment. But even then it had places like the Modrom Cube filled with random battles.

If we're talking about Action RPGs, we're really talking about Action games with stats. At which point I would like to point out that it is A DIFFERENT GENRE.

I'm not talking about action RPGs.  Western RPG's (Baldur's Gate/NWN probably being the best example to use) don't play the same as JRPG's.  To start with, Western RPG's generally don't have a lot of random combat (it typically occurs if you're trying to rest).  Even the inconsequential mobs are typically set in certain places. 

There's also usually a heavier strategical focus in Western RPG's in that combat actually takes into account where your party members are, where your enemies are, area of effect abilities (and in some games friendly fire due to aoe abilities), line of sight, etc...  You can't just tell your healer to cast cure on party member x and then wait for the spell to go off.  They actually need to run over to where the injured party member is, possibly setting themselves up for several attacks of opportunity along the way.  I could go on and on, but yeah, not the same at all.

[schild]

So, like I said, more clicking.

Of course, in action, they're different. But not liking JRPGs because they're turn-based and have random battles is a terrible premise for an argument for Western RPGs.

That said, Demon's Souls is not a JRPG. Period. (This was obviously not directed at Velorath.)

[Velorath]

So, like I said, more clicking.

Of course, in action, they're different. But not liking JRPGs because they're turn-based and have random battles is a terrible premise for an argument for Western RPGs.

That said, Demon's Souls is not a JRPG. Period. (This was obviously not directed at Velorath.)

I'm not making a qualitative statement on one kind of RPG being better than the other.  Just saying that they don't play the same.  Doesn't matter much anyway as there are very few Western RPG's these days that aren't some sort of action hybrid like Fallout 3 or Mass Effect.

[schild]

I'm not making a qualitative statement on one kind of RPG being better than the other.  Just saying that they don't play the same.  Doesn't matter much anyway as there are very few Western RPG's these days that aren't some sort of action hybrid like Fallout 3 or Mass Effect.

Which is awesome since now we can say none of the western companies make Action RPGs as well as From Software.

[Zane0]

This is a broad and difficult generalization, but I like Western RPGs for their long tradition of empowering the player, I suppose. It isn't just the possibility of having one or two different endings; it is an inherent part of the world design, class mechanics, conversation systems, and party dynamics that typically come out of the Western World. Every element is made to provide a set of 'choices' that eventually (if well designed) culminate in a unique and personal experience for the player. JRPGs, though I've been out of that loop for a very long time, seem to give a lot of superficial choices (typically relating to the tactical combat model) that contribute measurably less to the overall gestalt. When I play Final Fantasy, for instance, I feel like I'm playing an adventure game with a combat model tacked on; I feel like a passive observer in a strange, uniquely Japanese, aesthetic experience--not an actor in a provisional world.

These are, I think, *ideals* that have seen a lot of variance, though. Baldur's Gate II had relatively few 'story' branches, but its PC and NPC selection were crucial determinants for the overall experience (this is my preferred model). I hated The Witcher for the WoWification I think it uses to string its gameplay out. I know that Persona does a bit of branching but I can't be bothered to grapple with its bizarre cultural sensibilities.

Etcetera. That's the best I can do for now.

[Kageh]

The quintessential difference between JRPGs and western RPGs, to me, is the way JRPGs set you up for the monumental story and how heavily the story is tailored to push you towards something epic, while western RPGs very often start with some generic party of nobodies slowly working their way towards something epic. To my defense, I'm a guy that grew up with Eye of the Beholder, the Krynn series, Lands of Lore and that stuff. Ultima was "epic storytelling" as far as western RPGs go, and even that had a lot more action feeling to it than regular RPGs.

Maybe I'm old, but to I lump "D&D" games from SSI and later from Bioware into the "western RPG" land, and even though there have been a few that deviated from this formula (Ultima for a more epic take, Ultima: Underworld as the grand-daddy of action RPGs), most of them were "1d6 longsword hits AC0 or not".

Also, on a rather superficial note, there's also lots of art direction and style stuff that sets JRPGs apart from western RPGs. From the anime-faces and spiky hair cuts or cutesy chibi and chocobo stuff to the exaggerated weapons and spell effects. Western RPGs tend to 1.) take place in some sort of medieval/Middle-Earth-esque setting (Dragonlance, Faerun, Britannia etc.) and 2.) be a lot more "historicaly accurate" and less over-the-top and flashy.

And that brings me back on topic to Bioware and DA and why I have high hopes for this: because Bioware were the guys that brought storytelling and plots back into the focus of western RPGs, at a time where I was still thinking the western RPG genre had peaked with Ultima 7 and was in a steady decline. No, I didn't like the original Fallout and Crusader that much, before you ask. I also think Deus Ex was a good game but already drifting lots in the direction of an action game.

The only Bioware game I didn't really enjoy so war was NWN1, I thought that to be too formulaic and uninspired, more of a demo of the toolset than a real game. But everything else has had very ambitious content scope and has been pretty good, from BG1 and 2 to KOTOR, Jade Empire and Mass Effect.

[Merusk]

The quintessential difference between JRPGs and western RPGs, to me, is the way JRPGs set you up for the monumental story and how heavily the story is tailored to push you towards something epic, while western RPGs very often start with some generic party of nobodies slowly working their way towards something epic.

This is the difference between Japanese culture and its heritage of ancient stories and myths vs Western/ American culture with it's culture.  We have a history that's very much about how a man can change his fortunes and counter fait with enough focus.  I do not believe this is the case of the Japanese heritage.  Men have their fate and place in life, and they don't know what it is.  It's all about how they face their lot in life.


The choices offered for not just the hero but the entire party and the superficial choices within the story (after all, you're not going to get to decide "I give up my fate and go become a farmer" no matter how many good/ evil endings there are)  are what always marked the difference between JRPG and WRPG for me.   

[Velorath]

I'm not making a qualitative statement on one kind of RPG being better than the other.  Just saying that they don't play the same.  Doesn't matter much anyway as there are very few Western RPG's these days that aren't some sort of action hybrid like Fallout 3 or Mass Effect.

Which is awesome since now we can say none of the western companies make Action RPGs as well as From Software.

On a gameplay and polish level I'd agree, although it remains to be seen if From can do it on any sort of consistent basis.  People interested in story though aren't going to find much in Demon's Souls in that regard, not that I'm complaining (I liked that it gave just enough backstory to set the atmosphere and didn't get bogged down in cutscenes or dialog).

[stray]

The quintessential difference between JRPGs and western RPGs, to me, is the way JRPGs set you up for the monumental story and how heavily the story is tailored to push you towards something epic, while western RPGs very often start with some generic party of nobodies slowly working their way towards something epic.

This is the difference between Japanese culture and its heritage of ancient stories and myths vs Western/ American culture with it's culture.  We have a history that's very much about how a man can change his fortunes and counter fait with enough focus.  I do not believe this is the case of the Japanese heritage.  Men have their fate and place in life, and they don't know what it is.  It's all about how they face their lot in life.

While that may all be true, I think it's overstating it a bit. Japan is so heavily influenced by Dragon Quest that every developer just wants to make their own version of it. Pretty much! I think that's where the formula really comes from. But the whole "thrust into an epic because of fate" thing could very well apply to Lord of the Rings too, which also had a villain threatening the end of the world, and an unsuspecting character who couldn't walk away from his responsibility to defeat it.

As for character customization.. Japanese developers just like be involved in creating characters, and not have you fuck around with it too much. I mean, that's where they're real pride is.. Whether they can craft a story with emotional impact, whether they can create iconic/memorable characters, etc.. I don't think that's without western parallel either. You can't really futz around too much with those Marvel Universe RPG's either... where the point there is not customizing Spider-Man or Captain America, but identifying with him. In that game too you're there to play through a story, not necessarily create your own. I don't think that's a bad thing. So long as the story is good. And some JRPG's aren't good, I'd admit that.

[Big Gulp]

You can't really futz around too much with those Marvel Universe RPG's either...

Those are RPGs?  I thought they were just updated versions of Gauntlet.

[schild]

You can't really futz around too much with those Marvel Universe RPG's either...

Those are RPGs?  I thought they were just updated versions of Gauntlet.

Agreed. Poor imitations in terms of mob count at that.

[Velorath]

You can't really futz around too much with those Marvel Universe RPG's either...

Those are RPGs?  I thought they were just updated versions of Gauntlet.

Not just RPG's.  They're classic RPG's.

[stray]

They are RPG's, more or less. That isn't the point though. It's just the first thing off the top of my head that's western + not very customizable. I'm sure there's plenty of others.. I just happened to see an ad for the new one before I wrote that.

[Azazel]

RPG (western ones at least) have now really started to spread out a lot more, or at least their elements have. Witness Fallout 3, Borderlands, etc. Even those Marvel action games are a form of simple action RPG. Simple, yes, and yes they are updated Gauntlet games as well, but they're also hybrid RPGs.

While playing through Saints Row 2 in co-op on the weekend it really struck me how similar it is to an (single-player) MMO like WoW in a lot of ways. The huge sandbox is there, lots of missions/quests, character customisation, you can buy clothes and vehicles, earn money, get weapon upgrades both through mob drops (they drop weapons and cash) and also as quest rewards (complete level 3/6 of an activity and get this or that weapon). Buying "cribs" (player housing!) and decorating them, buying businesses that earm you more cash..

Still haven't played GTA4, but San Andreas (SR's precursor) had a lot of the same RPG-customisation in it, right down to weapon and driving skills, body deformation, and much of the same stuff that SR1/2 did later on.

The only thing really that stops SR2 (and the GTAs) being generally regarded as a Western Action RPG is the modern "gangsta" setting and lack of D&D levels. Which is apparently the thing (along with dialogue trees) that makes F3 an "RPG".

If the SR1/2 protaganist was dressed in plate armour, barbarian-furs, a chainmail bikini or a wizardly robe and running around a western-fantasy sandbox it'd be called an action-rpg by all and sundry. It'd be Zelda, (or Beyond Good & Evil) almost. Hell, look at Fable.

There's more RPG in a title like this than in something like Marvel UA or a level-up beat-em-up on rails like Wolverine or Heavenly Sword or (broken sword? the PS3 game with the redheaded chick in it), let alone GoW or it's slew of imitators. But those games are also at least slightly hybrid RPGs.

But yeah, the lines in western RPGs are blurring bigtime and the genre's elements are leaking into a lot of other game genres.

[FatuousTwat]

I haven't played any JRPGs for a while, I think the last one I played was Lost Odyssey, so excuse my generalizing.

With what I feel is a typical JRPG, I've always felt like I am just reading a book, with a "press butan" combat system tacked on that really adds nothing to the story at all, and provides no options except on how many levels I should grind out so I can face the next boss more easily. There are usually no dialog options and no real equipment options either. It feels like the entire game could have just been replaced by a 40 hour long cutscene.

With WRPGs, I feel like I have some options. You can actually fuck up a conversation with an NPC and it will make a difference. You wont get this piece of loot, you wont get a quest, whatever. You can avoid a boss, talk him down, or kill him. You can choose if your character is evil or good. With the "typical" JPRG, I don't feel like I have those options, and if I wanted to observe a world, and not interact with it, I would be reading a book or watching a movie.

[Rasix]

Game will still have you needing to complete A -> B-> C-> D to complete the game.   You can do all of the window dressing you'd like, but there's still the progression along with your typical "good" or "evil" ending. 

I like a good RPG regardless of it's style, but they stopped making good JRPGs with the PS2.

[stray]

I thought you liked Valkyria Chronicles? Or do you not consider that a JRPG (I know it isn't typical at all, but whatever)..

[Rasix]

I wouldn't.  It's more akin to a SRPG like Disgaea.  There's a distinct difference between JRPGs and SRPGs imo.

[schild]

Valkyria is most definitely an SRPG.

[FatuousTwat]

Game will still have you needing to complete A -> B-> C-> D to complete the game.   You can do all of the window dressing you'd like, but there's still the progression along with your typical "good" or "evil" ending.  

I like a good RPG regardless of it's style, but they stopped making good JRPGs with the PS2.

With JRPGs, it feels so much more like you are on rails. You have to do A one certain way in order to get to B while with WRPG you get to choose how to actually accomplish A. Am I just too behind the times, and JRPGs have improved upon this point without me playing the "right" ones?

Anyway, if I'm not, that window dressing makes all the difference to me.

[stray]

Game will still have you needing to complete A -> B-> C-> D to complete the game.   You can do all of the window dressing you'd like, but there's still the progression along with your typical "good" or "evil" ending.  

I like a good RPG regardless of it's style, but they stopped making good JRPGs with the PS2.

With JRPGs, it feels so much more like you are on rails. You have to do A one certain way in order to get to B while with WRPG you get to choose how to actually accomplish A. Am I just too behind the times, and JRPGs have improved upon this point without me playing the "right" ones?

Anyway, if I'm not, that window dressing makes all the difference to me.

I don't think you're necessarily behind the times, but I think you're taking the distinction to the extreme. Just because a JRPG wants to tell you a specific story doesn't mean it's like "reading a book". There's still party configurations, different skill trees to train those characters in, NPC's you gain favor/disfavor with, etc.. Just because some of your choices are not world altering doesn't mean it's completely static or something.

[Velorath]

Game will still have you needing to complete A -> B-> C-> D to complete the game.

I have every faith that Heavy Rain will change how we think about storylines and completing games.

[FatuousTwat]

Game will still have you needing to complete A -> B-> C-> D to complete the game.   You can do all of the window dressing you'd like, but there's still the progression along with your typical "good" or "evil" ending. 

I like a good RPG regardless of it's style, but they stopped making good JRPGs with the PS2.

With JRPGs, it feels so much more like you are on rails. You have to do A one certain way in order to get to B while with WRPG you get to choose how to actually accomplish A. Am I just too behind the times, and JRPGs have improved upon this point without me playing the "right" ones?

Anyway, if I'm not, that window dressing makes all the difference to me.

I don't think you're necessarily behind the times, but I think you're taking the distinction to the extreme. Just because a JRPG wants to tell you a specific story doesn't mean it's like "reading a book". There's still party configurations, different skill trees to train those characters in, NPC's you gain favor/disfavor with, etc.. Just because some of your choices are not world altering doesn't mean it's completely static or something.

I think I might be also fixating on the older stuff as well, where you didn't really have a skill tree, you just kind of leveled up, and the only difference in favour with and npc were a few very minor dialog changes late in the game.

Also, just if I came off wrong about the "reading a book" thing, I think anyone can see by my posts in the books thread that I love reading, it's just I'm playing games for a different experience.

[tmp]

With what I feel is a typical JRPG, I've always felt like I am just reading a book, with a "press butan" combat system tacked on that really adds nothing to the story at all, and provides no options except on how many levels I should grind out so I can face the next boss more easily. There are usually no dialog options and no real equipment options either. It feels like the entire game could have just been replaced by a 40 hour long cutscene.

I think something to keep on mind here would be, the "typical JRPGs" are just a sliver of what they develop, and a number of games which are considered separate genres there could be considered "RPGs evolved" on the western market because they work around stats-based characters, development of these stats, playing certain roles, branching storylines with multiple outcomes etc.

[OcellotJenkins]

Kotaku (yeah, so what) has an interesting bit about Dragon Age that I've not read before about "four ways to play the game."  Here is the part that caught my eye:

The fourth and deepest way to play is to emulate the most hardcore way of controlling Final Fantasy XII. The Square-Enix RPG had a "Gambit System" that allowed players to collect and apply preferences to the artificial intelligence routines of partner characters. An example of a collectible gambit would be a script that would tell an ally to cast a healing potion on herself any time her health points drop below 30% of the total.

Silverman explained that Dragon Age offers an even deeper version of that Final Fantasy system, minus any need to collect the scripting preferences. Opening a menu in the game, he showed rows of options that represented the configurable artificial intelligence scripting options. The roster of choices, which made the screen dense with text, was stunning. Every line was configurable,via drop-down menus that apply, nouns, verbs and even numerical values to the partner character behaviors. For example, any character could be assigned to respond to a ranged attack with a certain move; or behave a certain way against one enemy type and a different way against another.

[Rasix]

Game will still have you needing to complete A -> B-> C-> D to complete the game.

I have every faith that Heavy Rain will change how we think about storylines and completing games.

Is this serious or snark? I don't know much about Heavy Rain other than gorgeous scenery and QTEs.

[AutomaticZen]

Kotaku (yeah, so what) has an interesting bit about Dragon Age that I've not read before about "four ways to play the game."  Here is the part that caught my eye:

The fourth and deepest way to play is to emulate the most hardcore way of controlling Final Fantasy XII. The Square-Enix RPG had a "Gambit System" that allowed players to collect and apply preferences to the artificial intelligence routines of partner characters. An example of a collectible gambit would be a script that would tell an ally to cast a healing potion on herself any time her health points drop below 30% of the total.

Silverman explained that Dragon Age offers an even deeper version of that Final Fantasy system, minus any need to collect the scripting preferences. Opening a menu in the game, he showed rows of options that represented the configurable artificial intelligence scripting options. The roster of choices, which made the screen dense with text, was stunning. Every line was configurable,via drop-down menus that apply, nouns, verbs and even numerical values to the partner character behaviors. For example, any character could be assigned to respond to a ranged attack with a certain move; or behave a certain way against one enemy type and a different way against another.

Finally.  I can set my retard party members to 'hide behind cover when people shoot you' and 'don't use any special abilities or items until I tell you'.  Hopefully they move this system over to Mass Effect.

[Velorath]

Game will still have you needing to complete A -> B-> C-> D to complete the game.

I have every faith that Heavy Rain will change how we think about storylines and completing games.

Is this serious or snark? I don't know much about Heavy Rain other than gorgeous scenery and QTEs.

This is serious.  I'll throw up some spoiler tags here and go into some minor detail since schild is completely avoiding any information on the game right now, but if you look up some of the demos and listen to some of the interviews with David Cage you'll get an idea of what they're doing.

[Margalis]

Back on the subject of Dragon Age, apparently if you want the amazing feature known as "permanent inventory space" you have to pay $7 for DLC.

Ha. Kudos to Bioware. It takes real balls to leave out major gameplay features so that you can gauge people for them separately.

[schild]

Haha what?

[Sheepherder]

New features - a base of operations with party storage. Inventory full? Stash new items as well as loot from the main Dragon Age: Origins campaign.

 

[FatuousTwat]

Back on the subject of Dragon Age, apparently if you want the amazing feature known as "permanent inventory space" you have to pay $7 for DLC.

Ha. Kudos to Bioware. It takes real balls to leave out major gameplay features so that you can gauge people for them separately.

Source? Because I have no idea wtf you are talking about. If Sheepherder is correct and that is what you are talking about, I don't see what the big  moment is with having a stash that is separate from your inventory to cram more shit in to.

[stray]

Hmm... I guess I'm with Fatuous here.. Because if you think about it, umm.. Well, actually, I don't know/remember. Most games don't have a permanent inventory, do they? Definitely not bank spaces and stuff, like you'd see in an MMO (and even that isn't permanent). So maybe the pricing is justified..


THEN AGAIN, I'd say it'd be nicer if... you know... special features and shit were unlocked BY PLAYING THE GAME. That's the old school way of doing things. So in that sense, fee based DLC still doesn't sit well with me.