Why are JRPGs so much longer than WRPGs?

[Caostotale]

Is Game-of-Thrones-like a thing? That people use often?
I will never understand people's obsession with that series =/

Don't get me wrong. I like it, I think it's good, but I don't think it's "the best show in the world ever!!!(!!!)" But I only watch the show, and I've heard that it leaves out parts from the books and/or doesn't follow the books completely etc.

I think it's a great show based on what's surely a solid book series, but would certainly agree that people swoon over it too much. On top of the show's considerable amounts of 'mature' content (which in today's culture just means tons of teenager pandering bullshit thrown in), it's one of those 'geek things' that a ton of other people in society enjoy, which for some geeks makes it the best thing in the world (I suppose because it makes for good water-cooler talk, conversation at the bar, Facebook BSing, etc...). I suppose the fact that I'm a dyed-in-the-wool 'true nerd' sort who's not particularly outgoing with non-nerds makes me aloof to most of the hype and silliness (e.g. dorky people filming audience reaction videos during surprising scenes).

 

[Dragonbums]

I think it has to do with the language. With the way it works you can fit in a whole lot more words onto the screen than those of the English language. For instance, look at the Japanese "Name your Character" screens. They have like four slots, but those four slots are obviously more than enough to put in the kind of names we put into ours.

 

[Krige]

If it wasn't clear above, I really don't give a crap how 'bleak' or 'Game-of-Thrones-like' a RPG is in tone.

Is Game-of-Thrones-like a thing? That people use often?

I know it's not exactly what both of you mean, but Falcom's Legend of Heroes seems to be approaching that threshold, if it hasn't already passed it years ago. The scripts for every game are absolutely HUGE and I recall a joking response from them saying that they hope to finish up the series before their president dies.

 

[RealRT]

The Witcher series is well-known for being mature not only in style, but in storytelling, with morally grey choices and dilemmas made in a bleak world filled with all kinds of -isms and Game of Thrones-like political intrigue. Based off the book series by Anrzej Sapkowski. So, actually The Witcher is a good example of a WRPG. Now that other game looks generic.

Do you actually know anything about the Tales game or are you just going to base an argument on an unbalanced comparison weighing all this stuff you already know about The Witcher series against a piece of promotional art? Based solely on this promotional art, both games look fairly 'generic' with respect to their own genres. Nothing's yet been said about either game's battle mechanics, leveling system, difficulty, etc...

If it wasn't clear above, I really don't give a crap how 'bleak' or 'Game-of-Thrones-like' a RPG is in tone. If anything, that vibe's going to drive me away, as I generally prefer games to present a neutral or uplifting alternative to the endless stream of cynical gloom-and-doom that's taken over books, comics, movies, and television (sometimes I feel like Westerners won't be happy until all of our media is as miserable, negative, and preoccupied with death and sadness as the horrible stories we constantly hear about in the news).

Based on everything I've read over the years, I'm sure the Witcher games are plenty awesome as games. The argument here is about leveling pat and superficial judgments towards this or that game based on weak cultural assumptions and attitudes.

Nothing whatsoever. And no, i'ts not all endless stream of bleakness. The world is bleak, but characters have their lighthearted moments (one particular example that stands out for me is a quest in 2 that's basically a medieval fantasy version of Hangover). It's dark, but it's good kind of dark, that lets you take a rest from the darkness and just have some fun with the characters. Do not confuse it with stuff like Dragon Age - now THAT game you can tear a new one all you want, it really is horribly generic as hell. The "Tales" art tells me that this game is yet another JRPG with teens saving the world. Not terribly original and nothing that would sway me away from WRPGs.

And I'D rather play a game with good characters, easy to comprehend battle system, colorful areas than a game with confusing as all-heck combat, characters that fling curse words around in an effort to be cool, and plot I'd like to know more about, but feel like I'd need a crash course via Wikipedia and various guides before I could even pick up one of the games. No offense to YOU, good sir. =D

The Witcher 1 and 2:
Good characters - check
Easily comprehensible battle system - check
Colorful areas - check
Comprehensible plot - check
Seems like a hit on all sixes to me.

 

[kasperbbs]

You picked the wrong way and you have to go back through all those mobs that randomly spawn to take the other route and there you encounter a boss that pretty much oneshots your whole party so you need to grind those random mobs to raise your level, thats pretty much my experience with jrpgs.

 

[Proto Taco]

In the west everyone is racing to be first. In Japan'O'Land it's all about teamwork and taking turns.

To me it would seem to boil down to the very real extra time requirement of turn-based combat/interaction.

 

[Gearhead mk2]

Mainly it's differences in design and theme. WRPGs tend to be power fantasies, focusing on you the player becoming the biggest baddest mofo on the planet, exploring big open worlds and generally ruling everything. As such, you tend to get strong fast, and most of the gameplay just comes from exploration and messing around. JRPGs are more focused on the party and the story, getting to know the characters and the world, becoming invested in it. It was what the genre was known for before FFVIII made it what it is today. There's a lot of downtime, talking, plot bombs, and you have to work on levelling and keeping track of a whole team instead of just yourself.

There's also filler. WRPGs tend to have most of the filler content divorced from the usually short main plot. Fallout 3 for example, that had a short main quest but was bursting with sidequests, exploration, little details and world changing choices. The Wasteland Survival Guide alone can add on like 2 hours to your playtime. JRPGs incorporate the filler into the main plot, with grinding and traveling and diversions from the main quest. This is usually just padding, but it does allow you to see more of the characters, which form the focus of most JRPGs. I haven't played Persona 4, but I heard that did it brilliantly.

Of course there are outliers and mixers between the two styles, such as Mass Effect, Kingdom Hearts and Fire Emblem Awakening to a degree.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

You might have not played a Tales game but you're confusing colors, brightness and positivity with childlike traits. No, these are just that, happy adventures. There's a whole lot of darkness too but it's not all-consuming. There's actual variety. There's nuance. There's actual characters who like to have fun and enjoy themselves and live their life. Not just a kill/destroy quest with no meaning.

Finally, if you don't think there's anything "epic" in a Tales game, you really really have not played any of them for 3 minutes. Hell, just the intro animation is epic enough!

You can't blame him for thinking Tales is cute and childish. It WANTS you to think it's cute and childish, that way hit hits you harder when all the racism, genocide, and human sacrifices start cropping up. I wonder how many of the Party's parents you'll have to murder in this one. Tales is an evil franchise.

Don't forget class-ism (a protagonist had to be told what money is, he was so rich he just took what he wanted from a store without thinking twice about it), illegal cloning experiments, child soldiers, environmental calamities, PTSD surfacing as fear of women, mutilation and many many other things.

Suffice it to say, if you think tales is "childish" you're ignorant.

 

[RealRT]

Elaborate then, if you don't mind. Characters: What were some good characters?

Battle System: If on the off chance I WERE to give the Witcher 2 a chance, please explain how I would play as a meleeing spell-caster.

Colorful Areas: Again, please elaborate.

Comphesensible Plot: As a guy that hasn't played the games, and might (I'll say that again, MIGHT) start via the first or second, please explain the plot, so that I may have some clue what's going on.

Geralt himself is a fairly good character - a philosophing monster hunter for hire who has a bone to pick with destiny and who tries to reclaim his identity.
Dandelion/Jaskier - a womanizing bard, who is mischievous, but is very loyal to his friends and is actually pretty smart. There's more to him than meets the eye.
Zoltan Chivay - a dwarf war veteran who is also prone to philosophizing in his own way.
Vincent de Meis - captain of the guard of Vizima city, there's more to him than meets the eye. (1)
Thaler - appears to be just a fence, but in reality he's something else. Has some hidden depths you can reveal if you talk to people about him. (2)
Ziegfried - member of the Order of the Burning Rose, a knight. A nice guy who genuinely believes in knights doing good and provides contrast to Geralt's cynicism.(1)
Vernon Roche - leader of Temerian special force squad known as The Blue Stripes, that specializes in black ops and dealing with non-human terrorists. Pretty smart and badass, has some charm and a some depth to him. (2)
Iorveth - leader of Scoia'tael, the non-human resistance movement. Ruthless, but also loyal and can be a good friend (2)
Battle system: in both games Geralt primarily relies on his swords. The signs - the Witcher spells - play a supporting role. You have five signs in the first game and get another one in the second. Aard knocks enemy (or enemies) away, Igni burns them, Quen makes a shield for you, Axii makes enemies fight for you and Yrden leaves a trap on the ground. They can be used at any time once you acquire them, but deplete the Endurance bar that's like a mana bar. Also, in 2, depleting Endurance bar makes Geralt's attacks weaker.
In the first game, the swordfighting is like a rhythm game. You initiate the combo with the first strike and then press them at the right time by looking at the icon at the screen to prolong the combo. Should you do it too soon or too late, you break the combo and have to initiate it again. There are three combat styles - the Strong style, the Fast style and the Group style. Strong and fast work when you have to fight a single opponent and there are visual clues as to which style goes with which opponent - more lenient enemies go better with quick style, while Strong is better against big opponents. Fighting them with a different style, while possible, is harder, as combos break often and may fail to initiate. Group style works with either type, dealing more damage, the more enemies surround you.
In the second game, the combat is more action-based. One mouse button controls swift strikes, the other strong strikes. Again, which work better depends on opponent. There is more emphasis on blocking and rolling, there are reposts and the like. Hitting the back gives you (or the opponent) a critical hit. The signs Quen and Axii play a bigger role here and are more useful than in the first game (Aard and Igni, the most useful signs of the first game) were nerfed.
Colorful areas:

Spoiler

1

2

Those screens don't really do the games justice though. I'd make my own screenies, but my current PC struggles running Witcher 2.
The first game:
Geralt, a witcher (mutant monster hunter for hire) was found amnesiac (I know, I know, a cliche, but it serves to introduce the player to the setting) on the outskirts of Kaer Morhen, the fortress of the witchers, to big surprise of his four remaining colleagues, since Geralt died five years prior to the events of the game (in the books). Some days after his arrival, an attack happens in which a young witcher Leo gets killed and all the mutagens and recipes used to create witchers are stolen. Geralt and the others go their separate ways, going for the attackers, but on his way to reclaim the stolen mutagens, Geralt gets to unveil a conspiracy.
The second game:
After Geralt saves Foltest, the king of Temeria in the ending of W1, he is made his temporary bodyguard. Unfortunately, a witcher from a different group kills Foltest and sets Geralt up, so he's got to clear his name and learn who was behind several recent regicides and was also responsible for the events of the first game. Notably, the game splits in the second third and you get to play a different version of Chapter 2, depending on which character you side with.
Both games have morally complex dilemmas that, unusually, do not present momentary rewards or punishments, instead they bite you later.

 

[CriticalTortoise]

I never really noticed a length difference, but that's also because I don't like JRPGs very much and far prefer Western-style RPGs, and therefore haven't had much experience with Japanese games outside of the sort of canon of classics (Chrono Trigger, Final Fantasy IV, Star Ocean, etc). However, if there is a length difference it's most likely that JRPGs are a single story, designed more or less to be played once -- see it once, you see the whole story. That's not to say they never merit second playthroughs -- far from it -- but simply that the game itself doesn't change. Western games are designed specifically with multiple playthroughs in mind, and therefore to fit more alternatives and sidequests and choices into the data allowance, the game probably has to be a little shorter, otherwise art assets have to be reused or other things like that.

 

[Hawki]

The idea of repeat playthroughs is one I haven't considered before. That said, it's probably another reason why I tend to like JRPGs more. I'd much rather be able to do everything on one playthrough than have to go back and replay the game. Whatever choices a game like 'Mass Effect' might allow, there's still swathes of gametime that'll be the same on every playthrough.

And like Extra Credits, I'm starting to think that there really needs to be better terms for the different playstyles. 'Dark Souls' is more WRPG than JRPG, 'The Third Age' and 'Sonic Chronicles' are more JRPG than WRPG, etc. (using personal examples).