Garak73 said:
minuialear said:
Are the stories and characters of WRPG's any better? Aren't they stale?
Isn't it always the lone hero that YOU create setting off on a journey to save the world where YOU have to fill in the blanks. There is certainly a lack of the emo shit in WRPG's but that's because there usually isn't much character development or story at all.
I'll agree that JRPG characters and stories are lacking but I won't pretend the same isn't true for WRPG's. Which is lazier? Creating an androgynous character or making the player create a character? Creating a central story or making the player do that?
I explicitly stated "which is true of other franchises." As in, other franchises share this problem. Tone the fanboyism down, please.
As for WRPGs, the reason why it's more tolerable (for me) in WRPGs is because one of the biggest differences between JRPGs and WRPGs is the amount of focus on the plot (or lack thereof). WRPGs
tend to be less about the storyline and the characters and more about the environment, exploration, and the gameplay mechanics (how the battle system works, the items you get, how leveling up/upgrades are handled, etc). Since the plot's not necessarily important to a WRPG in the first place, it doesn't matter as much if it sucks; plot developments don't necessarily happen enough for a player to need to care about the plot at all.
The same is not true in most JRPGs; the focus of most JRPGs is on the storyline and on the characters that drive it, and so if the story sucks, the game will also suck. (On the flip side of that, if the battle system's wonky in a JRPG it's not as big of a deal as it would be in a WRPG, because in JRPGs battles aren't the focus of the game.) When you have games that have more cutscenes than actual gameplay, you can't afford to rely on archetypes and recycled plot constructs; when you have games that have a ten-minute cutscene/dialogue scene every five hours, it barely matters what the plot consists of.
As for "laziness"; it's not a question of laziness so much as philosophy. WRPGs don't wipe the characterization of the main character because they're lazy; it's because the goal of many WRPGs is for the player to make the world the way they want it to be (to make decisions that make the NPCs act the way they want them to, to have events unfold the way they'd like them to happen, etc). You can't control the fate of your character if he's got one pre-programmed into himself, or if he has a personality that you can't deviate from. In contrast, the goal of many JRPGs is to give players a solid story to experience for a few hours. It doesn't make sense to make hollow characters for these games, because the player isn't supposed to have any agency over their motivations (the player is supposed to be able to watch them unfold as they play). Again, one approach isn't lazier/better than another, it's just a matter of how one philosophically approaches a game.
I don't have a problem with JRPG philosophy; I just take issue with the fact that if you're going to hold a philosophy that the story's the most important part of your game, you ought to make sure it's actually good. Not a lot of companies have been doing that lately (some specific games have succeeded, obviously, but the genre itself feels incredibly stagnant). Similarly, if a WRPG company made a game where the combat sucked, or your ability to control the flow of the game was nicked, I'd take issue with it.
ultimasupersaiyan said:
I have a question for all those JRPG critics who love setting up flamebait.
Have you played 5 different JRPGs that weren't Final Fantasy or Dragon Quest? If not go play them and then come back.
I have (or have tried to).
Persona 3
Tales of Symphonia
Kingdom Hearts (1)
Golden Sun (GBA)
Xenosaga
Two of them were tolerable because of their battle systems, but they still had the same story issues I take issue with when complaining about the FF franchise.
If those other titles, other franchise, other smaller companies get their ideas big out on the market. Men... 
