Bethesda (Makers of such hits as Oblivion and Fallout 3) Says That WRPG's Are More Realistic Than JR

[BarbaricGoose]

It's all relative, which is something a lot of people seem to be forgetting. He wasn't saying WRPGs are realistic, he's saying they're more realistic than JRPGs. There's a difference.

I agree with Bethesda. You seen some of those cut scenes in JRPGs? Yes? I rest my case.

 

[L4hlborg]

Ahhhhh... Coming back from a few month break from the escapist forums this whole thing is such a great read. Almost as good as the chess troll (the unsolvable puzzle that got solved by nonexistant rules that got 30+ pages of replies) last summer. So many people not reading
a) the op
b) the article like the op kindly asks
c) eachothers posts
Almost makes me wanna cry. Or it would if I was trying to have a good conversation on the topic. As a reader it is kinda funny.

Actually reading the article, the point is not that a slightly different looking fireball is more realistic than the other one.

I understood that the point is, that even though radiation doesn't make ants shoot fire irl, the situation makes some sense and you don't really think about the science behind it. I mean you are trying to get along in a post apocalyptic wasteland, and that may or may not require killing a bunch of stuff to get supplies/money. Then going to JRPG, at least in my limited experience, crazy shit just seems to happen and the game seems to just tell you to deal with it. If I have to try to rationalize something and it doesn't intuitively make any sense I think it's less realistic than something that intuitively makes sense.

This has been true to me. Of cource some people might feel that teenagers doing a variety of world saving stuff makes more sense than a dude getting by in a nuclear wasteland (and occasionally saving some people if you feel like it). I personally enjoy WRPGs more, but this has never really been a question about quality.

But actually going to the which fantasy is more realistic arguement... C'mon guys. Oblivion isn't realistic. Or maybe it would if all the weapons where made out of wood. And magic existed. But compare it to every jrpg I've ever played (FFXIII, tales of something on gamecube) everything seems completely normal. The world is one whole reality and not going between 3 shatered dimmensions of combat, traveling and cutscenes. And the swords. And guns. And hair. You really can't argue that you could imagine to see any of that shit at any point in the past, present or future of reality (unless you are at an anime convention).

Oh my god this post is long. TL DR: Do what the OP says, don't hate on shit you don't know about, read a bit, blue hair, teenagers saving the world and shit out of proportion cannot really be explained scientifically or in any way and western games usually intuitively make more sense to a western mind (in a cultural sense) than a japanese game.

 

[Fizzly182]

I've noticed that in Western RPGs like Fallout and Mass Effect. There is some attempt to back it up with some science. Like the stealth boy, "It generates a modulating field that transmits the reflected light from one side of an object to the other making the bearer almost invisible to the untrained eye." Or Element Zero in Mass Effect. In a JRPG, I hardly see an attempt at explaining how a girl with a teddy bear can own my entire party! (Chrono Cross)

>Chrono Cross takes place in a place with magic.

>The girl with a Teddy Bear is skilled in magic.

>Those in a place where magic is power tend to want to master that power.

>Girl has probably trained in magic very hard. EDIT: Or is naturally gifted at magic.

>Girl owns team.

Not everything needs to be explained. Some things are supposed to be left up for you to think up. Thus, Braid.

But you see how people can get turned off by this sort of thing right? It's just so different and it's unlike anything else. Like how after seeing a spaceship in Star Wars and not questioning the sounds they make in space or the gravity. We just become used to it. Similarly, when one thinks of magic it's usually a tall wizard with a flowing beard and a pointy hat. When we see a little girl with a teddy bear having the same power as the wizard, we may call it unrealistic, but really we're just not used to it. It probably is just xenophobia, but that's just the way we think. I could never get past those aspects when playing a JRPG. Now in a Western RPG, the developers (at least in Fallout 3 and Mass Effect) try to back it up with something we know, science. It may not be completely plausible, but it sounds realistic and therefore, familiar. Familiarity makes playing a game more enjoyable. Like 3D Dot Game Heroes and Minecraft evoking a feeling of nostalgia. That's just one reason why I automatically stay away from JRPGs.

 

[DigitalAtlas]

That's Persona 3. I will admit it takes a visit to crazy town on Orca Boat 719 but the point is, it actually takes place in a actual real setting (not the town but the country) and takes a lot from real life. IT EVEN FORCES YOU TO LEARN THINGS.

..Except in P3 and P4 you gain stats by sleeping in class and goofing off with your friends?

Case and point: Fable takes place in a fake world of Albion, but it comes off as much more realistic than any JRPG as far as location goes. Persona takes place in Japan and is bonkers.

Again, I believe you are mixing actual realism and the feel of believing the universe.

Also, you mentioned WRPGs have you running through fantasy town 87958485 or something similar which begs me to ask.... Have you played a JRPG? FFVII and Tales of Symphonia are two of the most JRPGs and the goal of both games is to run from town to town and solve every problem because they just so happen to be on the way of finding the main villain. Fallout 3 had four towns. Mass Effect 2 had two. Fable III has five. Yeah, sorry bro. A lot of points you made are completely invalid.

I think this whole need to make video games "realistic" is what is destroying the industry. Rather than worrying about whether or not the physics behind your sword swings more closely mirrors real life than generic competitor B (This also goes for FPS as well), why not focus on making the game... I don't know... fun?

Who says a game has to be fun?

This is a backwards way of thinking. Gameplay doesn't have to be the star of the show if it really isn't.

The point is simple: A game should focus on completing its objective. If the objective of the game is completed by story, narrative, atmosphere, etc, fun is not a factor.

In the words of Anthony Burch: Fun isn't enough.

 

[Jazzeki]

Have you ever played a JRPG? nothing against them but, well they are the definition of unrealistic.

Persona. That is all I have to say.

And WRPG's aren't any more realistic.

The more you try to defend your argument with Persona,the more you fail in doing so.It is not realistic at all,despite being set a real-life-like setting.Try Parasite Eve.It's plausible (that is,plausible if you have no idea about biology),it's set in f-ing New York,and you play a cop.Ok you play a magical-blonde-japanese-but-in-truth-totally-american cop,but still.And it's still borderline insane compared to Fallout,even though it's much more plausible.

i'm sorry but i really feel like the same should be said about fallout. you think fallout is realistic? seriosuly? i know comic books for generations have told us otherwise but radiation is in fact not this magical force than can do bloody anything. if you get hit by a nuke you die you don't get turned into an imortal zombie. and no it doesn't mutate freaking everything. fallout's "realism" is laughable.
you say persona doesn't make sense? why? because it doesn't follow the rules of a world you allready know? because a group of teenagers can save the world? since when did we get an arbitary age limit on world saveing? and why is it more plausibel that random guy survives a freaking head shot only to the becomeing the deciding force in a fullscale war that can even end in him declareing himself king? what made the courier so special that you don't bat an eye when he becomes the greatest person ever but the second it's a teenager who should be in school he simply should not be able to do shit. heck in persona at least we have something makeing the children in question special. there's a reason they can do the stuff they do. but it's not realistic to you because you need to have the setting explained because it's new rather than simply guess everything because you have seen it before. as i've said earlier it's not more realistic it's more relatable.
final note on this i love both fallout and persona but if anything i'd call persona realistic. at least everyone i meet there act like humans even if a bit weird.

 

[DigitalAtlas]

Not everything needs to be explained. Some things are supposed to be left up for you to think up. Thus, Braid.

>Saying Braid doesn't explain things.

Good sir... Did you finish Braid? At all? They literally play a cutscene that explains the narrative then give you text to read that explains the meta-narrative. I love Braid, but Braid comes right out and says Tim takes over the world.

 

[nuba km]

I think people are taking my first post a bit the wrong way.

My main point of this was:

BETHESDA said this. That's all I'm really saying. BETHESDA.

1. they don't mean it as an insult
2. they aren't saying their games are realistic but saying that WRPG's are slightly more realistic then jrpg (and it is never said in a negative manner
3. bethesda's main game serious has skill system were you get better at a skill by using it, that is pretty realistic and a game were your character needs to eat, drink and sleep to stay alive.
4. fantasy games shouldn't really try to be realistic but rather be more fantastic and creative
5. excluding magic and mythical creatures which both rpg sides have in most wrpg's your character can only use certain weapons and armour and weapons and armour that are based on real weapons and armour and have limit space to carry stuff. in jrpg's you can carry in you can carry enough stuff to create a country with in your pocket, have armour that either is over the top or barely covers their body and weapons that are larger then the person using them with no problem.
6. mentioning persona as an example for jrpg's being more realistic isn't accurate as it is more realistic then most jrpg's and as a counter I have the s.t.a.l.k.e.r. series.

 

[sb666]

and this is the reason i like jrpgs more then wrpgs because i find them to be more of a fantasy rather then a medi evil simulator

 

[Raziel_Likes_Souls]

Every Elder Scrolls game: Get out of prison, be hero!
Oblivion: Break out of jail, be hero! Get arrested for touching an apple.
Fallour 3: Break out of Vault, be hero! Inject 50 syringes of morphine in order to prevent my limbs from flying off.
JRPG's: An ancient evil has awakened. Allowed to steal everyone's shit without any repercussions. Be Hero!
Yeah, Bethesda's games aren't the face of WRPG's, but still.

Yeah, nothing that undermines the point, Mr. Howard. Both genres are unrealistic, man.

 

[DigitalAtlas]

So, I happened to look at the OP's gamertag where it showed that he did not even play Braid. In fact, his XBL profile revealed he has only played TWO JRPGs this gen. Neither of which he seemed to get more than five minutes into. Also, his PSN account is only a level three. So, I'm noticing a similar pattern.

So, the answer here is obvious: I see here the OP loves Persona 3 and 4, but has a distaste for current gen JRPGs even though he wants to love them.

My advice? Play some games before you make a ridiculous thread such as this as your massive participation with no education into the current world of RPGs has ruined all your credibility and has besmirched a topic that has probably deserved some attention.

TL;DR- OP has no credibility to talk on such a topic and is pulling out the popular Persona name more than Yahtzee pulls out Silent Hill 2

I advise reading this post so we can end thread quickly

 

[Tim Mazzola]

More realistic? Ya. By much? No.

 

[maturin]

And this is why Oblivion was do disappointing. They wanted to make it so realistic, they went and made medieval Maryland.

 

[Fizzly182]

So, I happened to look at the OP's gamertag where it showed that he did not even play Braid. In fact, his XBL profile revealed he has only played TWO JRPGs this gen. Neither of which he seemed to get more than five minutes into. Also, his PSN account is only a level three. So, I'm noticing a similar pattern.

So, the answer here is obvious: I see here the OP loves Persona 3 and 4, but has a distaste for current gen JRPGs even though he wants to love them.

My advice? Play some games before you make a ridiculous thread such as this as your massive participation with no education into the current world of RPGs has ruined all your credibility and has besmirched a topic that has probably deserved some attention.

TL;DR- OP has no credibility to talk on such a topic and is pulling out the popular Persona name more than Yahtzee pulls out Silent Hill 2

I advise reading this post so we can end thread quickly

Please, I'm on your side but don't do that. Your post is fallacious and insulting. As if this debate really requires you to completely play through every game to get an understanding of the game's realism. I could spend 5 minutes on wikipedia and have a general understanding of the game. I have opinions on games that I have merely played once, twice, or not even at all. Everyone is welcome to an opinion.

 

[DigitalAtlas]

So, I happened to look at the OP's gamertag where it showed that he did not even play Braid. In fact, his XBL profile revealed he has only played TWO JRPGs this gen. Neither of which he seemed to get more than five minutes into. Also, his PSN account is only a level three. So, I'm noticing a similar pattern.

So, the answer here is obvious: I see here the OP loves Persona 3 and 4, but has a distaste for current gen JRPGs even though he wants to love them.

My advice? Play some games before you make a ridiculous thread such as this as your massive participation with no education into the current world of RPGs has ruined all your credibility and has besmirched a topic that has probably deserved some attention.

TL;DR- OP has no credibility to talk on such a topic and is pulling out the popular Persona name more than Yahtzee pulls out Silent Hill 2

I advise reading this post so we can end thread quickly

Please, I'm on your side but don't do that. Your post is fallacious and insulting. As if this debate really requires you to completely play through every game to get an understanding of the game's realism. I could spend 5 minutes on wikipedia and have a general understanding of the game. I have opinions on games that I have merely played once, twice, or not even at all. Everyone is welcome to an opinion.

So, a chemistry major should be writing theories on biology? A movie critic should have an opinion on games?

If you lack any real education into something, you shouldn't pretend to have it. Fact.

Clearly five minutes on wiki didn't help as he had no clue of the ending of Braid, nor did he seem to remember how bonkers Persona was. Hell, he hadn't played ANY WRPGs. At all.

This is clearly a thread of BIAS. Bias does not hold any intellectual discussion.

 

[Fizzly182]

So, I happened to look at the OP's gamertag where it showed that he did not even play Braid. In fact, his XBL profile revealed he has only played TWO JRPGs this gen. Neither of which he seemed to get more than five minutes into. Also, his PSN account is only a level three. So, I'm noticing a similar pattern.

So, the answer here is obvious: I see here the OP loves Persona 3 and 4, but has a distaste for current gen JRPGs even though he wants to love them.

My advice? Play some games before you make a ridiculous thread such as this as your massive participation with no education into the current world of RPGs has ruined all your credibility and has besmirched a topic that has probably deserved some attention.

TL;DR- OP has no credibility to talk on such a topic and is pulling out the popular Persona name more than Yahtzee pulls out Silent Hill 2

I advise reading this post so we can end thread quickly

Please, I'm on your side but don't do that. Your post is fallacious and insulting. As if this debate really requires you to completely play through every game to get an understanding of the game's realism. I could spend 5 minutes on wikipedia and have a general understanding of the game. I have opinions on games that I have merely played once, twice, or not even at all. Everyone is welcome to an opinion.

So, a chemistry major should be writing theories on biology? A movie critic should have an opinion on games?

If you lack any real education into something, you shouldn't pretend to have it. Fact.

A movie critic can't play games now? Are you serious? Yep, fact alright. Once again with the fallacies, as if the comparison of two sciences is in the same scope as games. Wikipedia could honestly tell everything one needs to know about a game.

 

[DigitalAtlas]

So, I happened to look at the OP's gamertag where it showed that he did not even play Braid. In fact, his XBL profile revealed he has only played TWO JRPGs this gen. Neither of which he seemed to get more than five minutes into. Also, his PSN account is only a level three. So, I'm noticing a similar pattern.

So, the answer here is obvious: I see here the OP loves Persona 3 and 4, but has a distaste for current gen JRPGs even though he wants to love them.

My advice? Play some games before you make a ridiculous thread such as this as your massive participation with no education into the current world of RPGs has ruined all your credibility and has besmirched a topic that has probably deserved some attention.

TL;DR- OP has no credibility to talk on such a topic and is pulling out the popular Persona name more than Yahtzee pulls out Silent Hill 2

I advise reading this post so we can end thread quickly

Please, I'm on your side but don't do that. Your post is fallacious and insulting. As if this debate really requires you to completely play through every game to get an understanding of the game's realism. I could spend 5 minutes on wikipedia and have a general understanding of the game. I have opinions on games that I have merely played once, twice, or not even at all. Everyone is welcome to an opinion.

So, a chemistry major should be writing theories on biology? A movie critic should have an opinion on games?

If you lack any real education into something, you shouldn't pretend to have it. Fact.

A movie critic can't play games now? Are you serious? Yep, fact alright. Once again with the fallacies, as if the comparison of two sciences is in the same scope as games. Wikipedia could honestly tell everything one needs to know about a game.

Really? Because when Rodger Ebert had an opinion on games we called him full of shit.

Also, read my edit. I elaborated on the wikipedia bit.

If you don't want to admit someone who lacks any education in something trying to bash it is wrong due to bias, just report me and move on.

 

[Jazzeki]

..Except in P3 and P4 you gain stats by sleeping in class and goofing off with your friends?

actually you gained stats from listening to the lectures and doing actions related to the stats. if this way of leveling stats in unrealistic then oblivion has the most unrealistic stat leveling system ever.

Case and point: Fable takes place in a fake world of Albion, but it comes off as much more realistic than any JRPG as far as location goes. Persona takes place in Japan and is bonkers.

but that's the thing. yes it's Albion but for all we could care it could be Ertuhyl and nothing would change. in the end it's standard fantasy setting with a small dash of orginality.
in persona what part goes bonkers? oh that's right the part of the game that is going on in an alternate universe. sure it crosses over at some point but japan is still japan and acts like japan.
have you honestly never seen a monster movie and simply acsepted that maybe just maybe that monster could exists? then why can't you acsept and 25th hour in the day you can't actually sense in any way or a world inside a TV only the chosen ones can enter? it's still just a magical world besides the one you know that you can't sense... why is some permited but not from japan?

Again, I believe you are mixing actual realism and the feel of believing the universe.

i actually think you are doing that. you can instantly acsept WRPGs because they have familiar settings thus they are "realistic". japan tries new stuff and thus because you don't belive in the universe it's not realistic.

Also, you mentioned WRPGs have you running through fantasy town 87958485 or something similar which begs me to ask.... Have you played a JRPG? FFVII and Tales of Symphonia are two of the most JRPGs and the goal of both games is to run from town to town and solve every problem because they just so happen to be on the way of finding the main villain.

most what JRPGs? played? liked?
and anyway no. in FFVII you solve problems on your way in order to find the guy you are looking for. i know it sounds unreasonable. actually looking for the guy you are hunting as well as means to follow him? madness.

Fallout 3 had four towns. Mass Effect 2 had two. Fable III has five. Yeah, sorry bro. A lot of points you made are completely invalid.

oh and this is the point where it get's even better. yes fallout had 4 towns. in witch you helped people because... well i guess you were in a good mood. yeah yeah i know the real reason lies somewhere between charecter motivation and rewards but those things don't count in JRPGs so why should they count in WRPGs?

Who says a game has to be fun?

This is a backwards way of thinking. Gameplay doesn't have to be the star of the show if it really isn't.

The point is simple: A game should focus on completing its objective. If the objective of the game is completed by story, narrative, atmosphere, etc, fun is not a factor.

In the words of Anthony Burch: Fun isn't enough.

now this is somewhere we agree completly. the thing is you seem to completly fail to understand that JRPGs by nature have a much stronger focus on the story.
the WROG with the most focus on story would still problably not have more than the JRPG with the least focus on it. for gods sake japans game market is compromised of over 50% visual novels. that's games where your only interaction is makeing the text scroll and maybe make a choice once in a hwille in some of them. gameplay is more of an afterthought here.
now if you can't get into the story of most JRPGs that's fine. we all have difrent taste. but fact is these stories are trying to start from scratch. they are not pulling up "fantasy setting template number 4" so you'll instantly feel comfortable. they'd rather create their own world with tehir own rules andyes it'll take a bit of time before you egt what's going on.
but in the end it makes for a more complete story and thus that could be called more realistic but then i'm not gonna call it that. because nothing i see in either a JRPG or WRPG am i gonna see in real life.

 

[ryanthemadman]

they are both good in their own ways, its just that jrpgs are a thoroughly fucked up crazy while wrpgs are just crazy

 

[Dango]

Well that makes sense, considering JRPGs are never really going for realism in the first place.