279: United We Stand

[Eric the Orange]

I'm not gonna do any quotes 'cause I don't want these people any attention. But alot of people seem to have a blind hatred for JRPGs. Read this article for example and some of the comments, that read like "JRPGs are for fags". How is that necessary or relevant to the discussion at all.

I mean I'm not a big fan of the FPS genre. But if an article was written talking about, for example, the use of world war 2 in FPS games, I'm not going to comment "FPS are for stupid frat boys". Not only because I don't believe that, but even if I did it's not relevant to the topic at hand.

Also this hate seems like a blind hate. I don't play a lot of FPSs, so I wouldn't spout about why they suck because I don't have the experience to do so. At most I would say that I tried them and they are just not my thing.

 

[LockandKey]

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.

I dunno. I felt that point was that you can't actually be as subtle or complex as you'd want there is no be passive-aggressive option choice it's usually be good, be evil, be neutral. There's no be manipulative choice, or when there is it's carried out in a way that makes you think "lol nobody IRL would be that easily fooled, hell even this NPC shouldn't be that stupid". In a way the freedom they give can also feel limiting. Why is there never a "serve the evil guy, but not because your weaker or need his power but because you just don't like being in charge", or "Kill bad guy, save world, destroy evil artifacts...etc., the go on to take over the world yourself without using a method used by the bad guys of the game"

I'm not saying I dislike WPRGs or that I even disagree about the characters having depth.
I just saying I disagree with what how you interpreted the piece.

 

[Manji187]

I agree with this article.

JRPGs come from a background of putting all before the one. While WRPGs come from a more solitary centered background. There's a bunch of different things I can point to for this but I'm just going to say, doors. The Japanese had thin paper doors that would barely be granted the title of privacy curtain. While English countries have always had large sturdy wooden doors. That quite nicely sums up the difference in our cultures there. So the I before we thing yeah I'd say that rings pretty true.


Another thing I see is the whole linear vs nonlinear thing. JRPGs have their roots in manga, folklore, and stories. They enjoy structure and this shows in their games. With a JRPG you're not so much playing a game as you are playing out a story, and before you say "yeah that's why they suck" just stop and go look up egocentrism. JRPGs are essentially graphic interactive novels.

WRPGs on the other hand have their roots in D&D. So naturally they have the structure of this is you, make him how you want him, and make your own story. This can be fine and good but often leads to a significant lack in character development and side characters designed to just fill a certain niche role. I'd say WRPGs are essentially graphic choose your own adventure books.

Combat in particular stresses this. Where JRPGs will rely more on stats and allow control over the whole team, WRPGs will allow for more skill and you usually just focus on one person. For example: You're playing a JRPG and one of your guys goes down. You're essentially looking at it from more of a strategist approach since all the characters are under your direct control, and usually if any of them go down the battle gets significantly harder.
On the other hand in a WRPG lets say one of your teammates goes down, it typically doesn't effect you that much unless you needed their specific skillset. You're directly controlling the main character and it wasn't your fault the person died it was the AIs fault. So now you gotta be the badass and take care of everything yourself. Both are fine and dandy and appeal to different types of people.

When it comes down to it if you don't like JRPGs then they're not for you, if you do then that's good too. The same goes for WRPGs.

The most sensible set of arguments I've read so far. I salute you.

 

[snave]

Haven't played Betrayal at Krondor. Good?

Amazingly good. Even moreso when you consider when it was made. Get yourself a copy of it and have a go, it was released freeware by the developers so it's easy to track down. May require DOSBox to run (else you have to disable your audio card in the snow levels).

It definitely does stand as a massive counterpoint to this article.

 

[Ipsen]

That's why we Western RPG'ers use our imagination to fill in the gaps. I get to write my own story in my massive euro-centric head, rather than have it spoon-fed "bad soap-opera style" to me. It engenders empathy when you get to "be" the person, rather than watch the cut-scene. Of course, the more innate your powers of empathy, the better the experience. Maybe that's the real difference between JRPGs and WRPGs. The level of empathetic participation required to experience the organic elements is more demanding in WRPGs.

I don't necessarily agree. On the topic of empathy, "being" a person doesn't exactly engender empathy, from self, or from others. I also don't think one goes around seeking emotions to feel or relate to (especially not a manly-man like yourself) for the hell of it, and not when there are things to do (which one often does, in real life and in WRPG's). Granted, the only feelings one should feel towards their own character are ones stemming from survival.

When I'm playing Fallout 3, I'm not exactly worried, or proud, or sad about my character; I could, but that takes me out of the game, and there are things to do IN the game. I am more worried about the actions of killing that asshole of a scientist, however.

In JRPG's, empathy can be felt towards any of the characters, since they all have their scripted personalities, circumstances, interactions, etc. What's a bit different between the two RPG types is that it's easier to create a more genuine sense of empathy to the 'main' character of a JRPG (if there is one), because, as there are differences between yourself and your puppet, there can be similarities as well.

 

[MasterChief892039]

Commander Shepard just isn't capable of surprising the player with his personality

Yes, it's easy to like Shepard, but it isn't because he was a fully developed character, but because at some level he is the player.

Now, there's no denying that Commander Shepard is a badass, but from a literary perspective, who's more interesting? The guy who gives it all at face value or the one who you get to see develop over time?

Oooo that strikes a nerve with me. Why is Shepard always assumed to be male? Why does the box art show a white, male character when Shepard is customizable and could potentially be female and/or non-white? I realize that the majority of the audience is male, but it bothers me when customizable characters are depicted on box art (hey, Fable), considering that that image presented will not correlate with the actual character for most people (and that includes white males who have customized their Shepard).

 

[Worgen]

Urkh, since when did J-RPG's have new character casts? Oh thats right. There is only 1 cast, and its a bunch of crying, whining angsty emo-teens and some creepy old guy who for some reason hangs around with them.

wow you must have played a whole 2 final fantasy games to come up with that, oh who am I kidding, you probably just heard about someone who played them since you were too busy playing manly games like marine shooter 27

I would like to have seen the article give some perspective on the silent jrpg char since they still show up now and then and it always annoyed me

Shepard is certainly a more boring char from a story stand point since most jrpg chars tend to develop as the game goes on, Shepard is more.... random, I mean Shepard could spend the whole game being nice, always going for peaceful solutions and being a general goody two shoes but then suddenly changes and become an ass with no story explanation for it, just the player decided to switch play styles. From a story perspective that is crappy writing but from a player perspective its.... empowering I suppose

 

[Gildan Bladeborn]

At this point any comment I might choose to leave would feel all but completely superfluous - there's hardly a response to be found that doesn't point out that the examples used to support the supposed disparity of characterization between party members present in Western and J-RPGs are, at best, exceedingly cherry-picked, and at worst just downright dishonest.

Yes, Commander Shepard is mostly a blank slate for the player to inhabit, but the rest of the characters the game surrounds you with? They tend to be very well-written and interesting as a general rule - something the tone of the article strongly implies isn't the case. And using Fable of all games as an example of typical Western RPG side characters? The Fable games were never bastions of good writing or strong character development, they play more like amusingly satirical action-RPGs with loads of ultimately pointless features (like buying houses, bigamy, and getting fat/emaciated). Heck, Fable II had a story so improbably awful that Shamus spent a great deal of time excoriating it. Oh yes, and you have a "party" in the sense that you don't.

For an article that admits that J-RPGs are almost universally populated with stereotypical character archetypes that many people find annoying, I find it interesting that the underlying support for the argument that Western RPGs are all about the player character and your party members are relegated to little more than "bipedal weapon holsters", while J-RPGs are all about the group, is grounded in flat out ignoring the myriad counter examples present in Western RPGs.

Is there a greater focus on the player character as the motive force in Western titles? Quite possibly, but it's hard to take the author's claims of such seriously when they give every indication of willfully ignoring any Western example that might weaken that argument (to name just one, Planescape: Torment). Also there is something to be said regarding the virtues of offering a blank-slate for the players to inhabit versus presenting them with fully-formed characters whose personality and choices they can do little if anything to individualize, when those fully-formed characters have the unfortunately all too-frequent tendency to be exceptionally annoying wankers - pick the most angsty and unbearable character in a J-RPG, and that is probably supposed to be you.

I'll take Mr. Blank Slate over that any day.

 

[metal eslaved]

not much to say really but great article. I agree one of the strengths of JRPG is the cast around you. They either make (Persona series) or break (goddamn you Vaan) the game.

Interesting fact: vaan wasnt in the original idea of the game,bashe was gonna be the main caracther until square said that he was to old and that the main audience for final fantasy(teens)woulnt relate with him,and that why we ended with vaan.

 

[m00buddycj]

I think there is a flaw in logic. This is more a comparison of turn based rpgs, where you have a group to travel with since only having one character in turn based combat would be dull; and action rpgs where you can only fully control one character at a time and the character you control would be the center of the game (who would want to play as the side kick?). Since one character isn't raised over the others as much, turn-based games can flesh out a larger cast and with more characters it allows for a more involved story, often relying more cut-scenes. Action rpgs is more about the player forming the story themselves through dialog choices(sometimes) but mostly by their actions and how they play the game, so story is less explicit than turn-based ones, since it isn't always as spelled out. Genres aren't confined to one nation or another.

Japan has focused more on turn-based rpgs and seems to be holding to the conventions of them even as they move into more action oriented rpgs, but that doesn't mean that it is a Japanese thing, more a turn-based thing. Just look at Link as one example that the silent hero isn't wholly Western. American rpgs seem more derived from table top games and those a lot of the time focus on each player having their one character they develop. As mentioned several times, Mass Effect and Dragon Age are good examples of developing a group of characters instead of just one. Why we haven't seen this before is most likely due to technical limitations. They're different genres, each made to tell different stories in different ways.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

On the other hand in a WRPG lets say one of your teammates goes down, it typically doesn't effect you that much unless you needed their specific skillset. You're directly controlling the main character and it wasn't your fault the person died it was the AIs fault.

I know I'm taking this out of context, but I want to address this. I WRPGS, losing a team member can be just as crushing as in any JRPG. If you play Dragon Age, you know that losing your Tank is going to cripple your team. In ME2, while your teammates aren't as effective, they do draw fire away from you, and use their powerful abilities to back you up. If they go down, more bullets come towards you.

 

[ZodiacBraves]

When I'm playing Fallout 3, I'm not exactly worried, or proud, or sad about my character; I could, but that takes me out of the game, and there are things to do IN the game. I am more worried about the actions of killing that asshole of a scientist, however.

Exactly the point I was trying to make. You have little empathy ergo you get less emotional experience from your WRPG. You are in control of your choice to feel or not to feel and no JRPG writer is trying to force you to feel a certain way.

In JRPG's, empathy can be felt towards any of the characters, since they all have their scripted personalities, circumstances, interactions, etc. What's a bit different between the two RPG types is that it's easier to create a more genuine sense of empathy to the 'main' character of a JRPG (if there is one), because, as there are differences between yourself and your puppet, there can be similarities as well.

Not really, genuine empathy comes from an embodiment of observation. I feel that there is more potential for empathy when you create a character from scratch and live it.... provided you are an empathetic person.

I have to disagree with you, maybe you have a skewed definition of what empathy is. You can feel empathy towards characters in both JRPG and WRPG genres. However, if you create your own character and live it, you are less likely to experience empathy towards the main character.

When you play a character (like bethesda/bioware games) in which you control your responses and choices, you aren't experiencing empathy towards your character. Empathy involves understanding the emotions of others, so when you transcribe your own emotions on a character, you are not empathizing with him/her.

 

[Nutcase]

Depressingly bad article (as expected from Escapist, of course). All the writer is capable of is kitchen psychology using cultural stereotypes, and addressing only the superficial, most easily apparent features of the games instead of the fundamentals where the true differences lie.

The real deal here:
http://insomnia.ac/commentary/on_role-playing_games/

 

[BloodSquirrel]

Ultra-mega-fail yourself, since you completely missed the point.
He's complaining about Shepherd's lack of depth as a character, lack of development, lack of arc, etcetera which is made clear by his comparison to the JRPG character who evolves in personality.

I know what he's complaining about. What you have completely failed to understand in your rush to accuse of missing his point is that it is his entire premise that I am objecting to.

Shepard's "lack of depth as a character" is because Shepard is a proxy for the player. That is how the game is designed. That is how all of his interactions, reactions, and behaviors are designed.

When you start talking about Shepard as if he is supposed to exist as a character without the player, you are completely missing the developer's point. You have stopped analyzing it as a video game and have started analyzing it as something else.

That is a failure. It is an epic, disastrous failure.

 

[pneuma08]

Counterpoint: Persona 3 or 4, Earthbound, or basically any "JRPG" game with a mute protagonist. It's really just a design decision, not even a part of the low-level differences between Western and Eastern RPGs, a tradeoff between (potentially) drawing the player into the role of protagonist more and making the protagonist fully fleshed out.

 

[Phillip Birmingham]

OT:

"Dad being from a city in Arkansas that you can't say without having people look at you funny"

Bald Knob?