Final Fantasy XIII. Some of us liked it. Some of us quietly noted our slight disapproval. BioWare doesn't want to talk quality, but it does want to talk genre assignment. According to the Mass Effect studio, Square Enix's big balls-out RPG extravaganza was not an RPG.
"Well, before I address the main point I just want to take a slightly more controversial route: You can put a ‘J’ in front of it, but it’s not an RPG," argues The Old Republic lead writer Daniel Erickson. "You don’t make any choices, you don’t create a character, you don’t live your character… I don’t know what those are --adventure games maybe? But they’re not RPG’s.
"Without the systems, you’re nothing. One of the things we’ve always been aware of is that a lot of people play Baldur’s Gate to death, and those people who play it 3,4,5 times aren’t story guys, they’re D&D guys."
Pssh, semantics.
The whole "what makes an RPG" argument has been swimming around online for years, and it usually breaks down into those who believe RPGs are primarily about leveling up and stories, and those who believe it's about choice and open worlds. For my own part, I believe the term "RPG" doesn't need to be taken too literally. It's like the term "AI" when talking about NPCs -- the "real" words and terms have very definite meanings, but they mean something else when applied to a gaming context. Final Fantasy XIII is an RPG because that's the type of game the label has come to mean. Sure, the role plays you as opposed to you playing a role, but that's what RPG means to a lot of gamers now. Final Fantasy XIII is an RPG.
Star Wars: The Old Republic Interview [Strategy Informer]
Contest:
10:00 AM on 05.14.2010 | 
...is what you wanted to write.
Pot, meet Kettle.
Fuck sake Bioware, let your game's do the talking, not your bitchy opinions.
All this industry publisher/development houses slagging each other is really pissing me off, anyone else agree?
Well said!
uh...aren't ALL final fantasies like that?
We used to use terms like "RPG" vs. "PC-style RGP" to diffentiate. With the rise of BioWare and Bethesda on consoles, "RPG" as an unqualified term has become more confusing. These days we say stuff like "FF-style RPG" and "Western RPG" to differentiate.
The only choice the player really has is their party, where they spend their CP, what weapons they craft, and how much grinding they do before the end of the game. And you can't even control your party until your about half way through the game.
Though in all fairness, Bioware's choices are often illusions of choice. The same set piece events happen, they usually unfold the same way, and the endings are very binary, but I am hopeful for them based on what I see them building in Mass Effect. ME3 could really deliver different experiences based on what you did in the last two games, but I still fear the good ending/bad ending complex they seem to have.
One is a statistical setup for characters that describe certain skills/aspects of that character. Two, a method of increasing and strengthening those statistics (usually but not necessarily by way of the experience/level system). Three, a menu-driven combat system that utilizes the skills/aspects of the characters.
There are other elements as the ones Bioware mentions as well but these are the basic must have that a game can be labeled RPG.
According to these FFXIII is an RPG
Just PR and public confusion.
Move along.
Actually it has a kind of a menu driven combat system that utilizes the skills you possess.
Zeldas for an example aren't RPG's
Role-playing game.
What game does the player not play a role in?
If you aren't playing a role, you aren't playing a game.
Silly BioWarez!
This sort of genre diffusion can be seen across the spectrum of gaming, in large part because most of these terms were from the infancy of video gaming (or even before, in the case of 'rpg'). They can't possibly hope to describe the diversity we see in the medium today. The best we can do these days is to skip this sort of nondescriptive shorthand and actually describe each individual gameplay experience in full and specific detail.
If, that is, we're interested in doing more than just having bitch fights over genre designations.
Which isn't a bad thing at all. I just hope we all realize this.
Carry on.
I just hope SE never adopts the WRPG formula...
Either way, I think this Bioware guy definitely had some balls to call out Square, without JRPG titles like Final Fantasy, Zelda and the like in the early years of gaming it is debatable weather or not WRPGs would even exist...
Simple steps to stop getting annoyed by opinions, which everyone else entitled to express:
1. Close your eyes.
2. Stick your fingers in your ears.
3. Now go "lalalalalalalala" until you feel better.
Exactly...I personaly don't like customizable characters,too much choices and exploration.I rather prefer a strong plot(with interesting plot twists) with preset characters to get to know them and a linear to some extend gameplay(not too much linear as XIII)
I don't feel the need to speed run 'Dragon Mountain' or replay it as a half-orc Illusionist so I can experience it differently. Once is pretty much enough, no matter how much of a kobold fetish the DM in question may have - after that both they and the players should want some new experience for their characters to explore.
I've replayed some JRPGs, and at least one western CRPG (Dark Sun) but in that case there's a machine doing the heavy lifting, and it's more about finding all the secrets than it is about roleplaying.
Semantics shmemantics. You can argue either way about any video game if you want to be a nit picky douche about it.
Considering Dragon Quest (which predates FF1 by several years) was based on, I believe it was Ultima, your point is not only moot but it's wrong. Also FF1 rips off D&D so badly they had to change sprites in the US version to avoid getting sued for copyright infringement (beholder was changed to the eye).
That being said, I agree with those saying this is a pointless argument. It's a title given. Thus it doesn't matter. The only thing that should matter to anybody is whether or not you appreciate the item in question. Which Jim did not.
Japanese developers never really evolved the genre beyond the combat and statistic aspect of the RPG. This does not mean that JRPG are bad games (I personally love them) . However, it is pretty clear to me that Japanese developers never really understood the more important aspect of the original table top RPGs.
Agreed.But most WRPG's use backstory plots while most JRPG's use other methods like cutscenes,CGI's to unveil the story/plot and to get you familiar(and attached to some extend) with the characters
That's a perspective though... if someone else wants to call them RPGs what the fuck do I care.
On one hand, any game can be considered an rpg, these days. Think about that for a sec.
Bioware and Square are taking different roads in the rpgs plateau. Square have more or less hit a dead end, with their jrpg tropes now incredibly cliched and worn, and gameplay wise with FFXIII, they've decided to go more of an less options/more actionesque route. Personally, I'm done with FF, as their characters are too melodrama, plus none of them can totally die through my error.
Bioware on the other hand IMO, are more progressive in their way. Jade Empire to KOTOR to Mass Effect and Dragon Age, they are not afraid of change and pushing the boundaries. I play these more, because they offer a mature side to rpgs. While action of Mass Effect is more weapon based (some might frown on that), this doesn't make it much different from an old jrpgs like Secret of Mana, a style of action rpg that has more of less disappeared these days. Mana was also similar, where you also controlled 1 of 3 characters, while managing the other two. Bioware have done a great job, moulding their style of rpg with this kind of mentality with Mass Effect.
There's nothing wrong with some simplicity in rpgs to a degree, as it opens the barrrier of entry, to those who might not play at all. While Mass Effect might have done this, IMO, Square tend to change too much with their FF games. To play FFVII to XIII, those changes over the years are to much for some (sorry, don't have time to figure out you millionth different battles system, again). Square need to develop some more consistency, beyond the silly jrpg tropes they really need to dump, and Chocobos.
At the end of the day, both are still rpgs, just very different sides of the same coin. Square need to work on their side though, as the likes of a more progressive Demons Souls might steal their thunder.
Example: Really pathetic gamers play Final fantasy.