279: United We Stand
- Thread starter Joe Myers
- Start date
Ultra-mega-fail.Joe Myers said:
We're not looking at literature here, we're looking at video games. Commander Shepard is intended to be interesting to play as the main character of a video game, not as a character to be read about in static media.
If we want video games to be taken seriously as art, we need to stop defaulting to looking at them through the perspective of other media. We need to be analyzing them as their own media against their own standards.
Interesting, but the article ignores the western RPGs out there that also rely on strong supporting characters. BioWare games in particular are defined by their companions. Dragon Age was very memorable because of Alistair, Morrigan, Zevran, and the others. Many companions--Zevran, Sten, Leliana, and Shale--were completely missable or killable. Seeking them out, fulfilling their personal quests, and getting to know them in general provided new insights into the world of Thedas and their own backgrounds. They are well-written, well-rounded, dynamic characters.
The article also makes the mistake of comparing the player character Shepard with supporting characters like Yuffie. In a WRPG, the PC will always be less-defined. That's because WRPGs have their roots in D&D, where role-playing is about customization and the main character can be played anyway the player wants. This is the greatest strength of WRPGs, because it allows for a story that can unfold in several ways. Look at Alpha Protocol. For as buggy as the game was, it allowed the protagonist to reflect several different personalities. And the choices he made affected the game in wildly different ways. This isn't something you see in JRPGs, which play more like squad-based action games IMO.
I just don't think you can say that the difference between JRPGs and WRPGs lies in an "I" versus "We" mentality, not when plenty of WRPGs also emphasize companions and group-dynamics. I do agree that WRPGs place more importance on the PC, though. And perhaps this lies with the Western emphasis on the individual, or maybe it's just a way of tapping into wish fulfillment. Since on some level we're supposed to be badass Commander Shepard, wouldn't it be awesome if we're the coolest, toughest, most important person in the galaxy?
The article also makes the mistake of comparing the player character Shepard with supporting characters like Yuffie. In a WRPG, the PC will always be less-defined. That's because WRPGs have their roots in D&D, where role-playing is about customization and the main character can be played anyway the player wants. This is the greatest strength of WRPGs, because it allows for a story that can unfold in several ways. Look at Alpha Protocol. For as buggy as the game was, it allowed the protagonist to reflect several different personalities. And the choices he made affected the game in wildly different ways. This isn't something you see in JRPGs, which play more like squad-based action games IMO.
I just don't think you can say that the difference between JRPGs and WRPGs lies in an "I" versus "We" mentality, not when plenty of WRPGs also emphasize companions and group-dynamics. I do agree that WRPGs place more importance on the PC, though. And perhaps this lies with the Western emphasis on the individual, or maybe it's just a way of tapping into wish fulfillment. Since on some level we're supposed to be badass Commander Shepard, wouldn't it be awesome if we're the coolest, toughest, most important person in the galaxy?
Definite second of this point.BloodSquirrel said:
For all their depth and 'flawed' nature, J-RPG characters are written as literary characters, and unfortunately they rarely stack up in that measurement.
Character development in, the example given, Mass Effect was self-generated by choice. Your Commander Shepherd was not my Commander Shepherd - they may not have even been the same gender. Cloud, by all accounts, is Cloud, as the writers wanted him to be.
The supporting character in Mass Effect tell you their stories through conversations and interactions, personal missions and vendettas. Although there are cutscenes they are far less common and generally quite brief.
It seems to me that the JRPG style of character development is based on sitting back and being told a story of how they respond to the events of the game. In Mass Effect, and the better WRPGs in general, the game is about how you - in the boots of a blank slate hero - react to the events of the game.
One is passive the other is active. JRPGs ruled when interactivity was limited to a point, merely being able to take part in a grand story was a joy. Now days we want to be the story.
~~~
As an example, playing Fallout: New Vegas - I cam across the town of Nipton which had been raised to the ground and its inhabitants slaughtered by Caesar's Legion. One of the Legion challenge me to make something of it if I didn't like it - so I did. I killed the Legion in the town, I travelled to their riverside town - killed them and freed the slaves, then travelled into Caesar's camp and killed everyone and everything.
I choose to make him my enemy and kill him - I hadn't spent much time talking with the NCR at that point and no one had told me to do it. My, and by proxy, my character's choice.
Probably how you define an RPG different than how i define RPGs.
The way i see RPG is, the main character might have a name, probably some backstory but that's it, how he behave and react is up to me, so yes that character is me not someone with pre-written personality and behaviour. So the way i see RPG is i'm not thinking what would Commander Shephard do in this situation, but what would i do in this situation
The way i see RPG is, the main character might have a name, probably some backstory but that's it, how he behave and react is up to me, so yes that character is me not someone with pre-written personality and behaviour. So the way i see RPG is i'm not thinking what would Commander Shephard do in this situation, but what would i do in this situation
I have a mixed reaction with this article.
You see, I wouldn't mind playing as one of the protagonists in any of the JRPGs and despite that I dislike most of them not because how well characterized they are as a bad person or a magnificent bastard but most characters I see are literally a joke and the entire game story is too. What game should be taken seriously? RPG #138 or an angst person who has amnesia?
Most JRPGs architecture is linear. Because you are not playing as you. You are playing someone that is set in stone. From I - XIII is same archetype (work as a group, we stand as one) since via 1980's only with different experiences. Almost 30 years of the same archetype but with different experience. Some players actually don't care about how teamwork. Unless it's the whole crux of the story, then why should players care about them?
Thankfully, some JRPGs show exposition and some don't even show. Final Fantasy XIII doesn't exposition well and most players that don't know what just happen will go "Huh?" and seeing that datalog needs reading. And happening to read all of the datalog completely overshadows the JRPG experience. Would it be pleasant for me if I haven't read the datalog? Maybe but it's poor exposition either way.
You see, I wouldn't mind playing as one of the protagonists in any of the JRPGs and despite that I dislike most of them not because how well characterized they are as a bad person or a magnificent bastard but most characters I see are literally a joke and the entire game story is too. What game should be taken seriously? RPG #138 or an angst person who has amnesia?
Most JRPGs architecture is linear. Because you are not playing as you. You are playing someone that is set in stone. From I - XIII is same archetype (work as a group, we stand as one) since via 1980's only with different experiences. Almost 30 years of the same archetype but with different experience. Some players actually don't care about how teamwork. Unless it's the whole crux of the story, then why should players care about them?
Thankfully, some JRPGs show exposition and some don't even show. Final Fantasy XIII doesn't exposition well and most players that don't know what just happen will go "Huh?" and seeing that datalog needs reading. And happening to read all of the datalog completely overshadows the JRPG experience. Would it be pleasant for me if I haven't read the datalog? Maybe but it's poor exposition either way.
I have to say that you're not judging the main characters of WRPGs fairly. Sure, the interactions allowed are fairly limited, because there are a limited number of writers and a limited amount of time for them to write, but the whole point is that your character can be as blunt or as subtle as you want, they can be complex, or they can be simple. They can be motivated by their own personal goals and desires, or they can be motived by experience points and stats.
It's all up to you. If you do nothing but tweak your character and party so that they can most efficiently slaughter their enemies, that says more about you than it does about WRPGs.
It's all up to you. If you do nothing but tweak your character and party so that they can most efficiently slaughter their enemies, that says more about you than it does about WRPGs.
For me the difference between the games doesn't matter one bit, the difference that matters is with the players. Whether they want to project onto their games narrative/whatever or absorb their games narrative/whatever. Both are desired in the market therefore both are created, in both countries.
People may have problems with specific games and that's fine, but to extrapolate specificity to the wider industry is doing noone any favours.
People may have problems with specific games and that's fine, but to extrapolate specificity to the wider industry is doing noone any favours.
The idea that there is somehow more inherent value in a character which is, for all intents and purposes, a blank slate, a tabula rasa if you will, for the player to project his or her values onto than a pre-defined character or a silent protagonist needs to stop. If you are so self-absorbed that you cannot bear the thought of carrying someone else through a journey that may not even be about the character you control, then I find that scary indeed.
WRPGs and JRPGs offer different takes on a similar concept. There is no need for animosity here; there is room enough for both.
WRPGs and JRPGs offer different takes on a similar concept. There is no need for animosity here; there is room enough for both.
I find the group-vs-individual part misleading - it's simply a question of what "role" means in RPG. In a JRPG, it's like being an actor - hit your marks, get your lines right, and you win based on how someone else wrote it to be. If the story itself is compelling and the fights well-done, you will likely enjoy it (though if the story blows and the characters terrible, so does the game). But in a WRPG, it's about pretending to be someone else, and the illusion of free will and control is not only essential, it's the whole point of the game. To pretend to be someone else, come up on a set of challenges and then find a way to defeat them. And since pretending to be multiple people is hard, of course the secondary characters fade to the background some, and their petty issues remain, well, petty.
So while a linear story is fine or even a plus in a JRPG, in a WRPG, it's failure. You're promising free will and then punishing the player for trying to use it. In the west, the writer's precious, timeless masterpiece about hippies and revenge and magic crystals isn't that important (especially once we're old enough to realize how awful most game stories really are). What matters is escapism, and again, the illusion of free will. Whereas free will in a JRPG is a design flaw.
So while a linear story is fine or even a plus in a JRPG, in a WRPG, it's failure. You're promising free will and then punishing the player for trying to use it. In the west, the writer's precious, timeless masterpiece about hippies and revenge and magic crystals isn't that important (especially once we're old enough to realize how awful most game stories really are). What matters is escapism, and again, the illusion of free will. Whereas free will in a JRPG is a design flaw.
Not quite sure what you're disagreeing with here. I'm simply agreeing with an earlier poster who pointed out that the hard-and-fast differences between Western/Japanese RGGs explored in this article just don't hold up to closer inspection. I then postulated that the author started with a (rather stereotypical) perspective on the differences between the West/Japan and then went hunting for examples in RPGs to support that assertion, ignoring any evidence to the contrary. In other words, I'm not taking issue with the examples chosen; but rather with the many counter-examples that are never discussed.MatsVS said:
I am disagreeing with the notion that drawing the following conclusion: Western RPGs = Individualist is an assumption at all, and that to prove said notion, one would have to cherry pick. I'd argue that it's the other way around, that what we have established here is a clear trend, which has prompted WRPG apologists/defenders to find examples of the contrary and presenting them as evidence as such, despite said examples being exceptions rather the norm. Gee, unwieldy sentence...craddoke said:
I am troubled by this article, and it surprises me that nobody has addressed the issue what I had with it.
Mr. Myers says that WRPG cast members aren't there to ask you how your day went. That's all well and good, except that his core WRPG example isn't Fable, or Fallout 1. It's Mass Effect, where the side characters might just ask how your day went.
Mr. Myers says that WRPG cast members aren't there to ask you how your day went. That's all well and good, except that his core WRPG example isn't Fable, or Fallout 1. It's Mass Effect, where the side characters might just ask how your day went.