Iron Lightning said:
You'll forgive if I'm misrepresenting things a little. However, I must say that choices did have consequences, despite the linearity of the main story. Yea, it is true that most of those consequences had little affect on your character. My point is that they did change things, if I go and kill everyone, then everyone remains dead. A decision that one usually doesn't get in JRPGs. You could still change supporting characters, to a minor degree but your effects are nevertheless present.
Oh and there is a Grey Side of the Force, by which I mean neutrality on the Light/Dark axis. That's pretty much what defined the character: Jolee Bindo.
Oh, and KOTOR is certainly not the second coming of RPG Jesus, Arcanum: Of Steamworks and Magick Obscua is.
While I see the point you make about Jolee Bindo, I'd argue that from a gameplay perspective, there isn't really 'Grey'. All the morality in the game equates to light side and dark side, and accordingly I feel that 'grey' in KOTOR is simply an absence of both light and dark. You don't get to make neutral choices in the game and recieve 'grey side points'. I digress, however...
It's true that most JRPGs don't offer choice on a similar level to KOTOR, but then I'd argue that there are still very few (in context of course) WRPGs that offer anything like the same level of choice.
The Elder Scrolls lets you make choices, certainly, but few of them (if any) actually affect the story, and most of the freedom in that game comes from the sandbox nature of the world (though admittedly, you can craft your character in pretty much whatever fashion you want).
Deus Ex certainly offered choice, and in my opinion did it far better than KOTOR. Even then, the story was still fairly linear throughout (killing a character at one point as opposed to another has very little actual effect on the story), the number of choices you got to make developing JC wasn't huge (considering that the augs were either-one-or-the-other affairs: you couldn't install Melee Upgrade
and Strenth Upgrade, for instance). Most of the choice in that game simply came from whether you wanted to play Rambo style or Splinter Cell style.
Bioware games have carried on the KOTOR mentality to choice, (to the point were some argue, not entirely without justification, that they're essentially making the same game), but as I mentioned above, a lot of it is simply smoke and mirrors. Regardless of what you do in Mass Effect 1, you're still going to end up in exactly the same position at the start of Mass Effect 2.
I can't think of many others atm, apart from The Witcher, which truth betold I've not played yet, so I can't really comment.
Point being, even in the West, very few games manage to take the idea of choice and actually use it well. Most of the time it's simply used as an idiotic way of either turning your character into a shining angel or a slavering hellspawn. I personally found Final Fantasy IX to be a much better examination of morals and right/wrong than Fable. If a game can use moral choices to highlight ethics, then all good, but simply adding a few black/white choices into your game doesn't equal this.
Fair enough, I'll concede that point, forgive me for unfairly generalizing. One thing though, I wasn't talking about Cloud's character, but about the relative narrowness of his mechanical function.
Insofar as he uses a sword, yes. You can still deck him out to be a healer, a thief, a mage, a summoner, anything you fancy really. It may not make a huge difference outside battle, but in battle it creates a world of possibilities.
There we go, I said in the post which this is a response to that the JRPGs with choice are the exceptions that prove the rule. I admit that I was not much of a fan of JRPGs back in the day, which means that I don't remember those old JRPG choice-filled games. The problem is that many recent JRPGs have done away with choice; I'm certain that you would agree this makes the offenders no longer RPGs. My point that an RPG, by defintion, needs choice still stands.
I am saddened that there even needs to be a distinction between RPGs just based on the location of their development. While WRPGs can still vary greatly, the term JRPG has been used to define an exclusive list of cliches. You admit that the genre is stagnating, which is never a good thing. All I ask is that JRPGs experiment a bit with choice, non-turn-based mechanics, and different art styles. I know for a fact that a few JRPGs have already done such, but the fact that the majority continues to wallow in linearity unquestionably weakens the genre.
I do think the genre is stagnating, and needs some fresh ideas. And I'm certainly all for introducing greater character customization
as long as it is appropriate. A game like Final Fantasy IX, for instance, wouldn't work with customization like that (what the series calls the Job system) simply because the character classes don't just affect the gameplay, but are also examined in the game's stories and themes. Zidane isn't just a thief in battle, he's a thief full time, and some of the other characters are quick to judge him on it.
I also think it's a little unfair to accuse JRPGs of not changing art styles when WRPGs, as I mentioned, are still almost entirely in thrall to Lord Of The Rings. You can paint your elves as a segregated minority, or your orcs as misunderstood warriors, at the end of the day they're still elves and orcs, and a bit more variety wouldn't hurt. It's like every sci-fi show/film since Star Trek not just borrowing the ideas, but also nicking the vulcans, the klingons and the borg as well. While most JRPGs do have a very anime-feel to them, they also do tend to vary world-wise from game to game. Though again, there is a recurring template which is becoming more and more popular.
Any way, to finish. At the end of the day, I'm simply warning against non-linearity for its own sake. If a Japanese developer can integrate wide character customisation with a branching story line, and really make it work, then I'm all for it. Legend Of Mana and Chrono Trigger already suceeded at that (in my opinion) and there's no reason why other games can't do the same. At the same time, there are a lot of flaws I can't stand in WRPGs which I would hate to see become the norm in JRPGs: NPCs who aimlessly mill around and bump into one another like brain dead schools of fish, the feeling that your character is just a stat robot who's every action is dictated by numbers, the often times ridiculous situations that arise when the AI can't handle a situation that's cropped up (see any Bethesda game for examples of this). If keeping away from these features means that JRPGs aren't really RPGs, then so be it. As Juliet said, "What's in a name?" All I ask is that my games be fun to play, and both WRPGs and JRPGs fulfil that for me.
