Fallout 3 tidbits

[Ranne]

Dense enough for someone to register just to write a rant about it, it seems. Welcome to NMA!

Why, thank you...

 

[TychoXI]

My only real problem with jRPGs is that they claim they are RPGs in the first place. If they change the name simply to "adventure games" it would be a whole lot better. Because that's what most jRPGs I've played feel like - an adventure game with annoying combat here and there. (and this doesn't count for jRPGS only. Planescape should have been a damn adventure game as well, since at times the RPG elements just slowed down the progress of the story)

Aww c'mon!! They ARE RPGs!! You fuckin' level up for jebus' sake! What's the point of a RPG if yo don't have an adventure to follow (ie. "teh main quest")?? There are several key differences (like customization at levelin' up, (lack of) choices affecting the world and NPCs, the settings, combat... etc) but they are both RPGs.

And I believe its just a matter of historical consequence: freedom in PCs (even if it was a gawd dam' Commodore 64) was beyond whatever a console could do (samatter o' fact we should be impressed the earliest jRPGs allowed you name your character!)... and then the conventions stuck...

Even so, I sure hope jRPG developers would start seekin' enlightment from our "western" RPGs and implement some changes... of course if they think its "stronger female characters", "first-person perspective" or "More realism" what they need to look up in computer RPGs... well I would advise them to, like, actually' play a god dam' computer RPG! Mr. Naora: go grab some Ultima game or a Black Isle one...

 

[Black]

I'm sorry, but, my god, some of you can be quite dim sometimes... There is nothing wrong with not using or even knowing the term jRPG.

Dude! Of course nothing's wrong with not knowing/using the difference between JRPGs/WRPGs. But this guy here is a game dev. He should know his stuff. Seriously, if he doesn't know the differences then I think it's a sign of unprofessionalism. Carmack makes FPS games but I'd bet that even he knows the difference between western and eastern rpgs.

Besides, let's not forget, both wRPG and jRPG are unofficial labels.

Unofficial doesn't make it wrong. We need more labels because RPGs are the worst defined genre. Role playing games, my ass. Doom also can be a role-playing game. And if there's a big difference in gameplay, it's another genre, or sub-genre. Fallout is a P&P RPGs emulating crpg. But Baldur's Gate isn't. Neither is Morrowind. On the other hand, Temple of Elemental Evil is, but it isn't really like Fallout, because it's mostly P&P emulating hack 'n slash.
Or how about King's Bounty or HoMM? Are they RPGs? If not, why not? According to Tycho's defintion, they are. You level up, you have a story, you customize your characters and choices you make have effect on your characters/world.
I'd say they are strategies (KB is an RTS with TB combat rather) with RPG elements but maybe it's the other way around?
And this is why we need mawr labels. Don't give a shit if they're unofficial or not. Just because "professional" journalists put Oblivion, Fallout and Torment into one bag doesn't mean they fit there.

 

[Trithne]

I like to differentiate TRPGs from ARPGs, RPGs, and I suppose JRPGs these days, although that.. eh.

TRPG - Tactics RPGs. Your RPG-like games centered on tactical combat situations. Let it be said I love these games, although they're not 'true' RPGs

ARPG - Action RPGs. FO3. Not really RPGs a lot of the time, as they break the rule of player skill being a deciding factor in the character's actions. I also put Diablo and the like in here.

I, personally, define a JRPG as "An RPG that came out of Japan and isn't a TRPG."

As for plain old RPG, as a player of D&D and other tabletop RPGs, I say an RPG is any game that emualtes that game system. And I consider Baldur's Gate and other RTwP games to do that, because they do.

Ultimately, no Computer RPG (CRPG, har har) can match up to playing a P&P RPG.

 

[shihonage]

JRPGs feature anime characters, railroaded story, and combat sequences that are jarringly separated from the main gameplay in their own little combat engine.

I'm not a fan.

 

[Forhekset]

TRPG - Tactics RPGs. Your RPG-like games centered on tactical combat situations. Let it be said I love these games, although they're not 'true' RPGs

I think most people actually call those "SRPGs", or "Strategy RPGs" e.g. the Fire Emblem series. I love 'em too.

Anyway I'd be happy if we could all just stop sticking random letters in front of "RPG". I just like good games, I don't give a crap what genre they belong to.

 

[pkt-zer0]

JRPGs feature anime characters, railroaded story, and combat sequences that are jarringly separated from the main gameplay in their own little combat engine.

Not all, thankfully. I never really got the separation of combat and exploration gameplay being a major complaint against the genre, though. Realms of Arkania also did this, didn't it?

Also, Anachronox was awesome, you heretic.

TRPG - Tactics RPGs. Your RPG-like games centered on tactical combat situations. Let it be said I love these games, although they're not 'true' RPGs

Wouldn't those simply be turn-based tactical games (JA, X-COM, etc)? I mean, I can't really recall any games that would fall neither into this category or the "proper" RPG category (of the dungeon-crawling sort, a la Wizardry and the like).

 

[Ranne]

But this guy here is a game dev... Seriously, if he doesn't know the differences then I think it's a sign of unprofessionalism. Carmack makes FPS games but I'd bet that even he knows the difference between western and eastern rpgs.

Let me reiterate: jRPG is an English language neologism and Yusuke Naora, in contrast to John Carmack, is not an English-speaking person. If the term is not prevalent among Japanese developers, there is nothing unprofessional about not knowing it. As for the differences, reread my earlier post. Mass Effect, KOTOR, Kingdom Hearts, Septerra Core, and dozens of other titles blend both genres into something so unrecognizable that even a professional can't really classify them without a shadow of a doubt. "An RPG that came out of Japan and isn't a TRPG" is probably one of the better descriptions one can come up with, but it's not exactly dictionary worthy, if you ask me.

Unofficial doesn't make it wrong.

But it does make it rather irrelevant in official circles, wouldn't you agree? If none of the major game reviewing sites uses the label, why would a foreign language speaker care about some slang term that is not used by his peers?

JRPGs feature anime characters, railroaded story, and combat sequences that are jarringly separated from the main gameplay in their own little combat engine.

Most non-Japanese rpgs also use linear storylines. White Knight Chronicles uses real time combat. If I recall correctly, Final Fantasy XII didn't separate its combat sequences either. There are at least several other jRPG titles out there that do not use instanced battles and/or menu-based interface. If character visualization is the only definitive difference between jRPGs and wRPGs, no wonder Naora couldn't come up with a better answer.

 

[UncannyGarlic]

Cheers Shamus!

With all due respect to an industry veteran, one can only speculate on how touch he is with non-Asian markets if he does not even know the term jRPG.

Agreed, it's an old, widely used, and quite useful term. That said, I'd love to see the Japanese take a crack at something with the C&C like PS:T and the non-linearity of Fallout.

The SaGa titles have always hewed more closely to the structure of 8-bit PC RPGs than any other Japanese franchise; the much-reviled Unlimited Saga attempted to delve even further into the genre's roots by adopting the style and conventions of a pen-and-paper RPG.

Gonna have to give that (Unlimited SaGa) a fair shot, I played it for an hour or two and gave up on it (I do that a lot because my mood isn't right for the game and end up coming back to them, just haven't gotten back around to it).

Meanwhile, FFXII boldly combined the narrative and character conventions of its series with the trappings and openness of Western MMOs.

...What? It was a fucking singleplayer MMO with sparse but linear story (way too long between dialogue/story after the begining [I talked to every person], which is something of an overload). It's no more open than any of their other games, it just has a lot more shitty MMO sidequests and extra content (rare monsters).

Hopefully, Remnant's creators will continue to explore the works of developers like BioWare and Bethesda to discover what makes those games tick and incorporate their findings into their own projects -- ideally without compromising the fundamental flavor that their Japanese perspective provides.

BioWare and Obsidian, yes, Bethesda, no.

Let me ask you something: Why is it that PC games always get watered down and simplified when they are adapted for a console audience? Why do developers continually assume that console gamers are drooling spastic killbots with atrophied brains and a contempt for literacy? Aren't these the people that play Final Fantasy, a game that is only slightly less complex than piloting the space shuttle?

If you can junction materia in FFVIII, then you should be able to handle the moderate mental gymnastics required to play the original Fallout.

Why do developers keep selling their audience so short?

What gave me insight into this question was my roommate two or three years ago, he was playing FFX-2 and getting new skill grid... things but he never changed them. I didn't realize that he wasn't changing them because I wasn't watching too hard but after getting something like 10-20 hours into the game, he finally complained about it. I then told him to open the menu, go into the appropriate sub menu, into the appropriate sub-sub menu, and he was good. I was awed and disgusted that he had trouble navigating a fucking menu, granted I've played a shitload of FF games but even if I hadn't, their menus are quite simple and straight forward.

In most JRPGs you play a pre-defined character with very little customization and few choices that have consequences at best. Dialogue is often non-existent.

Some games allow for customization to a certain degree but I agree that there are significantly less things to tweak. Dialogue, on the otherhand, is very present in most JRPGs, it's just that there are rarely options and even more rarely options that matter.

Excuse me, I call bullshit. You have to be really, really dense to not see the difference between WRPGs and JRPGs. And they've heard about it just a year ago? Bullshit, I don't even believe Japanese gamers don't see the difference.

He may not have heard of the term but I agree that it's pretty god damn plain to see how they are different.

Moreover, venerable gaming sites like gamefaqs.com, gamespot.com and gamerankings.com...

Wow, wait a minute there. GameFAQs maybe venerable for walkthroughs and guides, but not for reviews and neither GameSpot nor GameRankings are venerable, widely used and popular maybe, but certainly not venerable. GameSpot in particular lost a lot of credibility when they fired their editor-in-chief over a bad review. The point was that he doesn't know the difference between the two. The proof?

Now he seems determined to sort out the defining differences between the two schools of RPG design. Does it mean stronger female characters? A first-person perspective? More realism?

And people should really stop sticking random letters in front of "RPG". It confuses me.

I agree that arguing which genre is the best is rediculous but I like the extra letter, it's a clear and concise way of describing the game, it serves the same purpose as FPS or RTS, RPG is just way too broad to be very useful.

 

[Seymour the spore plant]

That's the problem with definitions: if they're too broad they stop defining anything, if they're too narrow they become myriad and pointless. Unfortunately, the term "RPG" when it comes to videogames falls right into the first one - a label that at the same time encompasses Diablo, Fallout, Final Fantasy and even Zelda has effectively become meaningless.

Now, I'm a fan of some old jRPGs, but they're entirely different beasts than most wRPGs. They tell a story which is very much fleshed out from the start, with you progressing through it without really changing anything except maybe for the outcome, and that's pretty rare as well. WRPGs, even the more linear or sucky ones such as Oblivion, are more focused on player choices; when was the last time you so much as chose a character class in a jRPG?

 

[pkt-zer0]

when was the last time you so much as chose a character class in a jRPG?

Final Fantasy XII International Zodiac Job System had the same sort of class selection at the beginning of the game as FF1 did, actually.

 

[shihonage]

Not all, thankfully. I never really got the separation of combat and exploration gameplay being a major complaint against the genre, though. Realms of Arkania also did this, didn't it?

Also, Anachronox was awesome, you heretic.

I wasn't a fan of Anachronox.

(gasp!)

White Knight Chronicles uses real time combat. If I recall correctly, Final Fantasy XII didn't separate its combat sequences either. There are at least several other jRPG titles out there that do not use instanced battles and/or menu-based interface. If character visualization is the only definitive difference between jRPGs and wRPGs, no wonder Naora couldn't come up with a better answer.

You can find exceptions to any general rule.

 

[DOF_power]

My only real problem with jRPGs is that they claim they are RPGs in the first place. If they change the name simply to "adventure games" it would be a whole lot better. Because that's what most jRPGs I've played feel like - an adventure game with annoying combat here and there. (and this doesn't count for jRPGS only. Planescape should have been a damn adventure game as well, since at times the RPG elements just slowed down the progress of the story)

Aww c'mon!! They ARE RPGs!! You fuckin' level up for jebus' sake! What's the point of a RPG if yo don't have an adventure to follow (ie. "teh main quest")?? There are several key differences (like customization at levelin' up, (lack of) choices affecting the world and NPCs, the settings, combat... etc) but they are both RPGs.

And I believe its just a matter of historical consequence: freedom in PCs (even if it was a gawd dam' Commodore 64) was beyond whatever a console could do (samatter o' fact we should be impressed the earliest jRPGs allowed you name your character!)... and then the conventions stuck...

Even so, I sure hope jRPG developers would start seekin' enlightment from our "western" RPGs and implement some changes... of course if they think its "stronger female characters", "first-person perspective" or "More realism" what they need to look up in computer RPGs... well I would advise them to, like, actually' play a god dam' computer RPG! Mr. Naora: go grab some Ultima game or a Black Isle one...

Leveling up isn't an RPG element, it's a electronic dungeon crawler relic. Honestly I think is should be put to green pastures.

RPG elements are choices, their consequences and the interaction.
Even the great cRPGs where and very limited in rpg elements.

Let me see:


Planescape: Torment had predefined characters, as mentioned, it was a case of the story/universe limiting somewhat the role playing experience (not the other way around as mentioned).

Arcanum (2001) had too much dungeon crawling and was limited in
the technologists branch.

BG 1 and 2 was too much party strategy, forced fighting (2) and stats whoring.

KOTOR 1/2 was limited to the good vs. the dark side; again the story/universe restricting role playing.

Mass Effect, poor side-quests, limited to good vs. evil.

System Shock II and Deus Ex witch had introduced first person shooter elements, another case of the story/universe limiting somewhat the roleplaying.

(Deus Ex was may favorite rpg to date BTW.)

 

[Jenx]

As already pointed out, the main quality of a Role playing game must be choice. That is what P&P RPGs are all about. Being part of the story and being able to change it with your actions.

Most RPGs made in Japan that I've played or seen (and those aren't that much, I confess.) usually do great on the "story" part but kinda fall on their faces on the "choices" part. Yeah, it's an amazing story with great characters and great plot twists and an amazing ending...but all I can do is just sit back and watch it (or read it. Or both). So why did they bother making it into a game then? That actually HARMS the story. Go and make it into a movie, or a book, or a comic or a cave painting - I don't care.

 

[shihonage]

Sacrilege ! By doing so you would deprive the players of grinding and hoarding junk, the core of any real RPG !

 

[pkt-zer0]

As already pointed out, the main quality of a Role playing game must be choice. That is what P&P RPGs are all about. Being part of the story and being able to change it with your actions.

I'd say not all choice needs to be one that changes the story - the old dungeon crawling RPGs are still considered RPGs (at least in the "computer RPG" sense), yes? Heck, you could play a P&P session that involved no choices in the story department, just about how you massacre the untold hordes of enemies you're facing.

I suppose this might be a sort of dividing line between RPGs having more in-depth interaction with the game world and combat-oriented ones. Would be a very needed distinction as well. From Greg Costikyan's "I Have No Words & I Must Design", published in '94:

Roleplaying occurs when, in some sense, you take on the persona of your position. Different players, and different games, may do this in different ways: perhaps you try to speak in the language and rhythm of your character. Perhaps you talk as if you are feeling the emotions your character talks. Perhaps you talk as you normally do, but you give serious consideration to "what my character would do in this case" as opposed to "what I want to do next."

[...]

Which is why "computer roleplaying games", so-called, are nothing of the kind. They have no more connection with roleplaying than does HeroQuest. That is, they have the trappings of roleplaying: characters, equipment, stories. But there is no mechanism for players to ham it up, to characterize themselves by their actions, to roleplay in any meaningful sense.

This is intrinsic in the technology. Computer games are solitaire; solitaire gamers have, by definition, no audience. Therefore, computer games cannot involve roleplaying.

So even if you accept that computer games cannot involve roleplaying, it's pretty clear that most don't even try. Those ought to be differentiated from those that do, even if they don't succeed completely at it.

 

[Ranne]

...neither GameSpot nor GameRankings are venerable, widely used and popular maybe, but certainly not venerable

You can find exceptions to any general rule.

No offense, but what ineffectual responses. The fact that I didn't mention every major gaming website out there, and the fact that I did not come up with a complete list of jRPG titles that break the mold, do not have anything to do with the validity of my arguments. Most oldest game reviewing sites do avoid using the term "jRPG"; there are plenty of RPGs out there that are, in fact, both jRPG and wRPG like; both labels are confusing; and Yusuke Naora is not an anglophone. Any more "rebuttals"?

The fact is that Seymour (may I call you that?) is right. If the parent category is already too broad and ambiguous in itself, what would be the value of an even more ambiguously defined subgroup? It's practically meaningless. Yes, older RPGs were much more clearcut. Fallout seemed pretty different from Final Fantasy VII, no matter how you looked it. But now it's all shades of gray, with titles like Jade Empire, Kingdom Hearts, Mass Effect, or even Fallout 3 spawning all over the place. PC games look like console games. Console games get ported to PCs. jRPGs embracing and improving on wRPG elements. wRPGs getting dumbed all the way down to the aRPG levels. Nonlinear jRPGs. Linear wRPGs... Anyone who says he can honestly see a sharply outlined boundary between the genres possibly doesn't really know what he's talking about.

 

[shihonage]

...neither GameSpot nor GameRankings are venerable, widely used and popular maybe, but certainly not venerable

You can find exceptions to any general rule.

No offense, but what ineffectual responses. The fact that I didn't mention every major gaming website out there, and the fact that I did not come up with a complete list of jRPG titles that break the mold, do not have anything to do with the validity of my arguments.

Does it occur to you that there are JRPGs and there are hybrids as well, which do not easily fall into a single definition ? Do you not see a clearly established pattern by most Final Fantasy games, and most so-called RPGs that land on Nintendo DS and PSP ? Aren't there a whole ton of them out there ? Yes there are. Do they belong in a group that I defined earlier ? Yes they do.

Most oldest game reviewing sites do avoid using the term "jRPG";

Using mainstream game review sites as some sort of arbiter device ? Talk about ineffectual arguments. Those guys are mostly inept and their ignorance about RPGs is pointed out again and again on this site and RPGCodex... for a reason.

there are plenty of RPGs out there that are, in fact, both jRPG and wRPG like; both labels are confusing; and Yusuke Naora is not an anglophone. Any more "rebuttals"?

Eh, again, existence of hybrids doesn't eliminates JRPG as a clearly defined category.

But now it's all shades of gray, with titles like Jade Empire, Kingdom Hearts, Mass Effect, or even Fallout 3 spawning all over the place. PC games look like console games. Console games get ported to PCs. jRPGs embracing and improving on wRPG elements. wRPGs getting dumbed all the way down to the aRPG levels. Nonlinear jRPGs. Linear wRPGs... Anyone who says he can honestly see a sharply outlined boundary between the genres possibly doesn't really know what he's talking about.

Mass Effect is not a JRPG (it only satisfies the linearity parameter, so you could as well call R-Type a JRPG), and quite obviously, neither is Fallout3. Haven't seen the other two.

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

It's possible they never got to see most wRPGs out there in the first place.

I bought my copies of Plannescape, BG2, IWD, Diablo 2 and others right off the shelf in Tokyo. The level of localization they have runs the gamut. Not sure who would expect a deep, text-heavy game like PS:T to fare well if it's not translated.

Also, Anachronox was awesome, you heretic.

You know, Anachronox is right up there with Torment when it comes to offbeat, quirky settings. But unlike Torment transcending the limitations of the IE, Anarchronox never could for me, solely because of that trite fucking tired, copycat JRPG paradigm that dragged it down. I had to give up because of the combat and sitting through those ridiculous combos and cinematics.
JRPGs were played out for me back in the Phantasy Star days.

Developmental cul-de-sac.

 

[Ranne]

Using mainstream game review sites as some sort of arbiter device ? Talk about ineffectual arguments.

If you read what I said earlier, I used the gaming websites in an entirely different contest. Once again, "not being familiar with a confusing neologism that is not used by game critics and not even mentioned by the indiscriminate garbage bin of encyclopedia that is Wikipedia?" How dense can that foreign language speaking guy be, really?

Eh, again, existence of hybrids doesn't eliminates JRPG as a clearly defined category.

"Clearly defined" aside, would you tell me the genre of the hybrids, please? cawRPG? jawRPG? No genre? Then what kind of classification is it and why would a serious developer even acknowledge it, let alone use it himself? I don't own a "next-gen" console but I do track their game releases all the time, and it would seem that a good half of recent and upcoming RPGs falls into that crossbreed category of yours. A clear-cut categorization that is only usable for the 80's and 90's? Nice. I'll put it on my shelf of archaisms, next to "graphic adventure", "shooter", and "interactive movie".

Mass Effect is not a JRPG (it only satisfies the linearity parameter, which is extremely common),

Its abundant cutscenes, combat pausing, jRPG-like world and level structure, emphasized linear storyline, simplistic evil archenemy, and rather jRPG-like art style and inventory design could suggest otherwise. How exactly it is more similar to PnP-based Baldur's Gate than it is to Final Fintasy XII? I bet the only reason people don't call it a jRPG is because the DVD cover doesn't have a bunch of Hiragana characters stamped on it. Slightly emasculate some of the male characters, rename the whole thing into Massu Effectu, and, what do you know, you got a "clearly defined" jRPG on your hands. Kuso? You betcha.