If you haven't read BioWare's
somewhat recent comments on JRPGs do so now. Once you do that, maybe this post will make more sense. Or not, but I'm hoping that isn't the case.
With that out of the way; I think their comments are right on, though a bit biased, and missing the point. In truth, RPGs in general are on the decline. True, JRPGs have not made any attempts to be accessible to those who may be new to the genre, but that isn't necessarily an indicator that a game won't be well recieved. I don't see BioWare's own
Dragon Age as an accessible game for those new to RPGs, and yet it has sold quite well, despite not making an effort to cater to those who are not so accustomed to the realm of RPGs. The success of an RPG is not determined by the developer's ability to sweep the 'undesirable' elements of a game under the rug. I would argue that the game's story and characters are what makes an RPG worth playing for me; with a copious amount of loot whoring thrown in for good measure.
What bothers me about talking about JRPGs in the West in general is the expectation that the games, for some reason, need to evolve past traditional plot, random encounters, turn based battle systems, and unlikely heroes with a mission to save the world. I find it interesting that the very things we fault Japanese RPGs for, we find over and over in western game series, and not just RPGs. Has the highly popular God of War series needed to reinvent itself from game to game? Not really, all three games released so far involve swinging of chain blades, combos, spells, and gratuitous amounts of sex and violence. Not much was revolutionary about the sequel and prequel, Chains of Olympus on PSP. Yet, these are lauded as pinnacles of western game design, much like the Grand Theft Auto series, for what essentially amounts to cosmetic differences. Yet this is the very thing that purportedly results in a decline of JRPGs; their adherence to their roots. While Bioware does make some good points regarding the state of JRPGs and player accessibility, I don't see how mainstays like western RPGs, FPSes and RTS games are any different; none of these really makes any effort to cater to newer players; yet we never hear any complaining about them in the media.
Funny. How many times have we seen the Carth Onasi character archetype in BioWare games since Knights of the Old Republic, again?
Musai's blog
Follow
RSS
Contact
Honestly, even though it's considered a JSRPG, Valkyria Chronicles has made more strides for Eastern games than anything else in recent years.
I would argue that the reason God of War and GTA do so well both critically and in sales is because while they do stick to their formula they're the only ones on the market who "get" the formula. Many have challenged GTA's sandbox gameplay and (arguably) all have failed. Fewer have challenged God of War's western take on over the top action and (arguably) all have failed. There thousands, if not more, of JRPGs that all follow the same formula and a good chunk of those (again, this is up for debate) share the same amount of quality. While your point is valid your examples I think are poor.
As far as Dragon Age goes I think you have several factors for that. First it's NOT a JRPG. We still don't have many "pure" (meaning not genre mash-ups) western RPGs. Also Dragon Age was marketed as being Lord of the Rings meets Braveheart to a Megadeth soundtrack. And lastly it's Bioware. At least for the remainder of this console generation Bioware remains fairly relevant unlike Square who's kind of...well...old. An until FFXII you could argue there weren't many large enough changes to the formula to make non-JRPG gamers interested. Of course Square does more than FF but just as a popular example.
I've never been much of a JRPG guy. I force myself to play them because I love their stories even if the gameplay has baffled me for so many years. I really don't believe there is an antidote for the traditional JRPG learning curve. I'd argue it might be better to tighten the genre for veterans than to try and make it accessible for novices. Eventually I think you'll get a product so fresh and so well made people will want to learn.
"Fewer have challenged God of War's western take on over the top action and (arguably) all have failed."
According to current reviews, Bayonetta succeeded. I hope it becomes a franchise!
It doesn't change the outcome of the story itself, though. Now, I'm not the biggest Bethesda fan on Earth thanks to their subpar quality assurance, but when I play an Elder Scrolls game, I define every part of my experience. I can be a hero, a villain, become a werewolf or vampire. I can go with the story, I can break the story completely if I so choose. I can work for this faction, that faction or play people against each other.
That's a bit more of what I expect from a western RPG. That's just a tremendous level of freedom. Its not something I'm going to hold the likes of Final Fantasy to, though. Final Fantasy likes its linear stories and so long as they keep bringing out these robust, redefined character building system, revamped combat systems and it opens itself up to exploration eventually, I'm happy with that.
My favorite RPGs tend to fall somewhere between JRPGs that go aginst the grain or meet eastern and western design in the middle. Shin Megami Tensei Nocturne, for me, is that perfect in-between. It moral alignments of western RPGs, actually they have three more. Some of them lead to variations on the endgame and one to a completely different endgame. SMT Devil Survivor on DS had several more.
And the gameplay experience is deeply customizable.
Then there's Persona. It veers to JRPG sensibilities, but the emotional struggles of the characters tend to be far more real than the issues I see characters have in other games. Then the side stories are pretty much fleshed out by who your character forges relationships with. There's only the good and bad ending here, but the relationships your character builds have a more dramatic impact on the combat and persona fusion elements than being good or bad in a Bioware game does.
I think the other thing is that Bioware just deals in that very limited Good/Evil dichotomy. Not that its played out, its always going to be out there, but I think Deus Ex and DX: Invisible War also just spoiled me on the point of getting to play both sides against each other while I seized victory.
That's another sensibility SMT: Nocturne had. I could join what was essentially the Jihad, I could subscribe to the Darwinist side where only the strong survived or take on an isolationist view - and that was even before Lucifer and God even have made their sales pitch. I like that.
They also make you commit to that choice. Hate to say it, but Bioware just lets you turn around and become a saint after doing many, many bad things. There's not much emphasis on reputation there.I seriously hope that with The Old Republic they aren't going to allow for simple 180 changes like that.
And in the case of BioWare, many of their more recent games have patched this instance of pure black and white, especially in the case of Dragon Age; where they did away with a moral choice system altogether.
Anyway back on the subject, personally I think too much of a good thing can ruin the experience, take Oblivion for example, I spent almost 11 hours on that game only to find myself, chased by an unbeatable guard and a wolf for over an hour (yes an HOUR!), lost in the sewers attempting to fight rats who for no apparent reason have the attack power of a 10 men and finally after actually finding the portal to the first mission getting my ass owned by a couple of fireballs. Im all for freedom but at least give some direction as to what the player can do to advance the storyline. Oblivion along with Vampire Rain are the worst video game experiences I have had this generation.
Unfortunately my opinion is 100% biased in favour of JRPGs so my thoughts will always be in favour of this genre even if I know im wrong.
Hence the "arguably." It's all a matter of opinion and once GTAIV came out the majority of critics seemed to favor GTA. Obviously I can't speak for the community other than sales.
Jrpg are design first for japan in mind. I have personally tailed off from them after them getting too repetitive, but its clear japanese gamers largely hate and reject jrg change. I own and play Mass Effect, I know that there's nothing like it out there, as far as rpgs go, that does what it does.
Recent hit Borderlands is another fine example, of a game that does something unique yet very well. The beauty of Borderlands, is that I actually finished the game. I have all the FF games from VII up to X, and I get so tired of the bs with them, and as a result, have never finished any of them. Borderlands also has an awesome multiplayer option, a rare but hopefully growing event in rpgs.
Fringe jrpgs are the ones I bother with, and that's where the original ideas are coming from these days. More japanese developers should be looking to produce more ground breaking games like Demon's Souls, Valkyria, Persona, Half Minute Hero, etc, which test the boundaries of established game design, than the cookie cutter mediocrity of FF games, especially when selling games to the west is so to them now. Its just wonderful, to see Demon's Souls have great online play, when Sqaure are still twiddling their thumbs to do the same.
"tout are all pretty much fake, because in the end, you're still on a linear pathway, although you're able to choose several ways to go the same path. "
I think what you actually meant to say was.. Although you can choose multiple paths, they all end up in the same place at the end. Making the numerous different paths that are possible a moot point. At least, I'm pretty sure that's what you meant. You were just a bit clumsy there. And if that is what you meant, I totally agree. If not.. then, fuck it!
Next time, I talk a bit about why I think Monster Hunter doesn't get the credit it deserves.