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

[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.

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

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

I just spent 45 seconds on wikipedia, found out the ending to Braid. Maybe I just know how to read, who knows? So one movie critic represents the whole body? Even someone like Moviebob? Wow, you're honestly that ignorant. By your logic, I should say you can't have an opinion because you clearly don't have an understanding of logical fallacies, a key to any argument. There it is, don't ever try to argue anything again. Epic fail...

 

[james0192]

I agree with Bethesda tbh. For two reasons:

1. Western RPGs have a more realistic Aesthetic - it feels like a 'real' (albeit alternate) world.

2. Western RPGs seem more 'sensible' than JRPGs to me. It's like they have defined their worlds by a set of rules and parameters and everything fits within in them logically. Whereas JRPGs sometimes feel like they were being made up as they were going and that they don't have to make logical sense.

By realistic I don't think Bethesda mean true to real life but in that they feel like those worlds could exist.

Also neither approach is better than the other - it's all down to personal preference.

 

[DigitalAtlas]

SNIP

I love that you just realism has nothing to do with reality.

I'm not saying JRPGs (or, as you spelled it JROGs) are bad or even uncreative. I'm saying that WRPGs take place in very familiar and realistic places. Fallout 3 takes place in Washington D.C, parts of which were mapped to feel similar to the real Washington D.C. Final Fantasy takes place in make-believe and well fleshed out planets.

There is NOTHING wrong with either formula. JRPGs aren't realistic though, because they have nothing to do with realism. Hell, in Final Fantasy X they can breathe under water for ten minutes and move objects FASTER through water. These are not realistic traits. At all.

 

[Skallagrimm]

Western RPGS -

-Wizards who can conjure fireballs from the air but can't light fire to cook with
-Overly elaborate swords that are either entirely impractical or overly delicate (yes glass weaponry, i'm looking at you
-Cat and Lizard people, orcs
-Slightly defying the laws of gravity
-Armour that (for men) is pointlessly elaborate or needlessly decorated, (for women) A chainmail/

JRPGS

*Ahem*

-Characters who can swing swords the size of trucks at monsters the size of planetoids without a trace of fear but are unable to solve simple emotional problems without enedless angst and exposition
- Complete disregard for gravity, or breating in space (bayonetta), or body strength relative to weapon size (every final fantasy game, among others)
-Weapons that are in almost every sense impractical, at least for the size of the character that wields them (gunblade, buster sword, Masamune, every females/childs weapon in every JRPG in existance)
- Costumes/armour that provides about as much protection as a baked potato, maybe (at least in the females case) they assume monsters will be too distracted by borderline jailbait T&A to put a decent attack in.
- Characters who require TOTAL suspension of disbelief (borderline children fighting whole armies, super deities and winning)


Yeah, I don't like JRPGs, but objectively, Western RPGs are closer to reality than most JRPGs, they just are, like it or not, that's actually a fact. Opinion as to which type is better is a different area altogether.

 

[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. DERP.

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

I just spent 45 seconds on wikipedia, found out the ending to Braid. Maybe I just know how to read, who knows? So one movie critic represents the whole body? Even someone like Moviebob? Wow, you're honestly that ignorant. By your logic, I should say you can't have an opinion because you clearly don't have an understanding of logical fallacies, a key to any argument. There it is, don't ever try to argue anything again. Epic fail...

This is the Escapist. Where people who care deeply and breathe the medium come to discuss how enlightening gaming is. Or at least that's what everybody says.

By enticing posts with false references and no understanding of the genre he's bashing (seeming to never play anything close to a WRPG), we end up in a topic filled with bias. I don't care if you can read wikipedia. Cool. Did you experience it? No. Well, spoiler alert, THAT'S THE MAIN POINT OF A GAME! You say epic fail, well I say derp.

 

[The-Epicly-Named-Man]

Can people stop using the magic argument, because it holds no ground. Realism in this case, I believe, is a reference to what our world feels like, or more accurately, how humans act and the way our societies work. So, by that definition, the statement is (sort of) correct. Of course, they're generalizing a genre, so it's not completely right.

 

[GeneticallyModifiedDucks]

In western RPGs, as in real life, a full grown man can easily ***** slap a mouthy teen with bad hair. It is the otherway around in JRPGs.

In all seriousness, RPGs are not realistic; hence the dragons, orcs, magic etc. I didn't play alpha protocol but that grabs me as an attempt for a more realistic RPG.

You can turn invisible in that game.

I didn't see that coming...

There's also an ability that temporarily gives you infinite ammo when using an SMG, auto aim with an assault rifle and the ability to shoot your entire pistol clip with 1 pull of the trigger. I don't know what it looks like from the outside, but Alpha Protocol is anything but realistic. Regardless, I still think it's a great game and everyone who is even remotely interested should try it.

 

[AmaterasuGrim]

Neither are real it's whole point of Role Playing Games to take us into fantasy anyway not like bethesda has put out a realistic WRPG it's all medievil fantasy or wasteland fantasy, they do have real aspects in both J&W rpgs but the whole point of the genre is fantasy a rpg of life well... they'd suck quest: wait patiently in traffic jam for 4hours =/.

 

[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.

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

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

I just spent 45 seconds on wikipedia, found out the ending to Braid. Maybe I just know how to read, who knows? So one movie critic represents the whole body? Even someone like Moviebob? Wow, you're honestly that ignorant. By your logic, I should say you can't have an opinion because you clearly don't have an understanding of logical fallacies, a key to any argument. There it is, don't ever try to argue anything again. Epic fail...

This is the Escapist. Where people who care deeply and breathe the medium come to discuss how enlightening gaming is. Or at least that's what everybody says.

By enticing posts with false references and no understanding of the genre he's bashing (seeming to never play anything close to a WRPG), we end up in a topic filled with bias. I don't care if you can read wikipedia. Cool. Did you experience it? No. Well, spoiler alert, THAT'S THE MAIN POINT OF A GAME! You say epic fail, well I say derp.

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. DERP.

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

I just spent 45 seconds on wikipedia, found out the ending to Braid. Maybe I just know how to read, who knows? So one movie critic represents the whole body? Even someone like Moviebob? Wow, you're honestly that ignorant. By your logic, I should say you can't have an opinion because you clearly don't have an understanding of logical fallacies, a key to any argument. There it is, don't ever try to argue anything again. Epic fail...

This is the Escapist. Where people who care deeply and breathe the medium come to discuss how enlightening gaming is. Or at least that's what everybody says.

By enticing posts with false references and no understanding of the genre he's bashing (seeming to never play anything close to a WRPG), we end up in a topic filled with bias. I don't care if you can read wikipedia. Cool. Did you experience it? No. Well, spoiler alert, THAT'S THE MAIN POINT OF A GAME! You say epic fail, well I say derp.

Look, it obviously will be filled with bias as it's a subjective topic.I forgot that you don't understand logic though, forgive me. The point of wikipedia is to understand the game before playing it. Any game experience can be written or shown on youtube. To say that I or anyone else needs to shell out 60 dollars to understand a game is quite ignorant. Just because this one person decides to not put enough research into the topic doesn't represent the body of people trying to understand the medium as a whole. So please, try to be less insulting and since you "seem" so interested in the art of debate and rhetoric, try reading books. Your knowledge of logic is comparable to a middle school student who backs into a corner with ad hominem fallacies shouting, "You too!" I don't say that's a derp, it's really an epic fail. It wouldn't be so bad if you didn't act like you understand debate on any level. Frankly, it's sad to read your posts as a gamer. In order to breathe the medium and discuss how enlightening gaming is, try to appear amicable. If gaming is expected to be taken seriously you should consider not sounding like an elitist who uses the fallacies he criticizes.

 

[Blackpapa]

On JRPGs being realistic:

I once rented a movie for a friend, it was called "Final Fantasy: Advent Children". Since I already had it in my hands, I decided to give it a spin and watch it.

For about 20 minutes I thought I was watching some absurd parody of Mickey Mouse meets the Terminator. I was laughing.

Then I realized this is supposed to be serious.

---

However if you think about it, realism isn't necessarily a good thing. On one hand there's people who are content with health regeneration and on the other there are people who won't be satisfied until they're administering simulated but proper combat first aid in a real life wargame.

It's a matter of taste and there's nothing inherently wrong with a game being unrealistic. I don't even think that realism is a major factor for my hate of JRPGs, given that I to this day love Torment.

 

[Simriel]

At least fantasy rpg's are based on an actual time period and it's mythos. I don't recall a period in history where we all summoned giant monsters or rode around on golden chickens.

I approve of your avatar but I must say this:

I don't recall any time in history in which some guy got thrown in jail and had gotten asked by an emporer to find his son and give him a magic amulet that would seal closed the gates of a hellish type plane that would at one point in the game send out a giant monster to fuck everyone's shit up.

You weren't around in the 60s much were ya...

 

[Fbuh]

I think the point is that they are video games and they are not supposed to be realistic, just fun.

 

[MiracleOfSound]

I think JRPS are definitely more out there and wilfully weird - they spectacularly and hyperbolically bend the rules of physics and logic in ways the Western RPGs don't do quite as much.

 

[JustJuust]

you guys didn't even read the article did you?
Bethesda said it's MORE realistic. Not realistic. Which is true honestly, a skinny teenager killing things with an over compensatory sword, or a grown man using a normal sized sword
come on guys read the freaking thing

 

[Weslebear]

I think the point being made by Bethesda is look at the majority or WRPGs, they are usually heavily reliant on mythology and medieval understandings of things in the world giving the STILL fantasy settings a realistic grounding point for people to compare with as everyone grows up knowing fairy stories and the like.

Whereas when it comes to JRPGs they are often much more unique and to themselves in general, seemingly just whatever the crazy shit the developers thought of.

I love both genres heavily but I just think the more frequent use of real world mythos and not fabrication of a whole new unreal world to the player gives the impression of more realism throughout WRPGs.







And let's be honest
>arguing about realism in virtual worlds created from peoples imaginations

HURRRRRRR.

 

[nukethetuna]

First, in the article he makes it sound like "more realistic" means a setting that's been done many times before, and therefore gets by with handwaves for the more fantastical elements.

Fallout wasn't the first story to investigate mutants and the effects of a nuclear catastrophe. Fantasy and high fantasy have been done quite a bit, so no one's going to go "WTF FIREBALLS?! IMPAWSIBLE!". Settings like that already have their own rules and the audience has their own ideas about them, so its easy to overlook the unrealistic elements inherent to them. We in the West have been exposed to say, Star Wars and Star Trek, so Mass Effect's sci-fi fits in pretty well. It's unrealistic as all hell, but we've grown accustomed to it, so it's not shattering our suspension of disbelief.

Now... AESTHETICALLY, sure, the Japanese are wacky to us Americans. I have to wonder if our games/settings seem boring by comparison to them. Maybe westerners like a little more realism to help them with their immersion, while the Japanese can easily get immersed in something with golden chicken mounts and angst and special effects out the wazoo.

This may be because, on the aesthetic side, a lot of Western RPGs do try to base themselves in real life, and then apply the fantasy. It seems like JRPGs like to start with the fantasy, and then throw the reality in to make it relatable.

However, I love Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, so I'm not going to hate on Purple Haired Teenage Protagonist Clad in Light Blue Trenchcoat Dual-wielding Guns that Shoot Ponies for being unrealistic. It's just a different sort of fantasy. I enjoy all of it. Well, maybe not the ponies.

 

[Arqus_Zed]

Yes, WRPGs are more realistic than JRPGs.

This also makes them much more generic.
I've seen a lot more interesting concepts locations and characters in JRPGs than in WRPGs.

Honestly? My personal opinion?
Fuck realism!

 

[steph01a]

I like fantasy games. real life is too bland.

 

[chexlltim]

Hi everybody, this is my first ever post

I actually feel like JRPGs are more realistic. I mean think about it, any world where magic or physics-breaking technology exists would naturally be far different than our world. So in a universe that has those, the surreal setting of (some) JRPGs would actually be more realistic than one that is medieval England + Dragons.