Opinion: Keep Your Western Ideas Out Of My JRPGs
I like Japanese RPG's. You know what, that sentence was a really weak opener. Let's try again. I worship JRPG's with such a fervor that my therapist suggests I have deep seated and clearly unresolved issues that will require years of intense counseling and the ability to milk my insurance for millions of dollars. I grew up on Dragon Warrior (that's what kids called Dragon Quest back in the 80's) and Final Fantasy and today I can't pass by a JRPG without picking it up. I don't care how bad they are, or how insanely "Japanese" they are, I must have them. Something is happening though, there is a strange trend starting to emerge in my JRPG's, they're becoming Americanized. The biggest offender, and the reason I felt the need to put my thoughts to the virtual page, is the release of The Last Remnant, Square Enix's Xbox 360 touted as having been made for both the East and West. If this is a portent of things to come, I'm afraid we've got ourselves a bit of a problem. I may be in the minority here and this is going to sound insane, but we need to keep American gaming culture out of Japanese games.
Let's take a moment and compare two games, both classified as RPG's, but one quite Japanese and one quite American. In honor of the release of the next game in the series, I'll pick Persona 3 representing the East and Fallout 3 representing the West. I'm not going to argue that one game is better than another, because they couldn't be more different. What I'm stating here is that in my own personal and humble opinion, I've gotten far more enjoyment out of Persona 3. Japanese RPG's are a directed experience, they tell a story, and you guide a set of predefined characters. Sure, sometimes your lead character will be stricken with the inability to speak, but don't for a second think that you're directing your own tale. In a Japanese RPG, you're along for the ride. The ride will take you to several different locations, and more often than not place you up against a world destroying evil. Fallout 3, on the other hand, is about creating your own experience. American RPG's in general are about freedom, you're one man/woman and you set about changing the world, be it for the better or worse. The freedom is an illusion, as in Fallout 3 there is a beginning and an end, it is the path you take that changes.
Now I'm beating a dead cruelty-free horse substitute here, but I love stories, I love storytelling, I love a good narrative. Sadly, most games, regardless of their origin, feature contrived plotlines. The world is always in danger, and if it isn't the world, it is the kingdom, the town, the princess, the prince. There is danger, and then you end it. I'd much prefer a story that unfolded with compelling characters, even if it does follow a strict narrative flow.
As for gameplay, even more so than story, it is the gameplay that keeps me hooked on a game like Persona 3 and my attention quickly drifting away from Fallout 3. Persona 3 features one main area to explore outside of a few towns. One dungeon with dozens of floors. We're not talking about a wide open world measured in digital miles. Fallout 3 features a stunning depiction of post apocalyptic Washington DC. Towns and cleverly disguised dungeons (in the form of warehouses and sewers) pepper the landscape, but as open as the world it, there is a sense of emptiness when I explore it. This is the same emptiness I get when exploring the dungeon in Persona 3, yet the way they go about conveying a sense of isolation is different. In Fallout 3, the world is simply an empty place, where those that have survived huddle together looking for safety or to take advantage of the weak. In Persona 3, the world is asleep, and it is what is awake and moving in the darkness that heightens the experience. There are those that prefer the former and those that prefer the latter. Do we only want to see huge open worlds? When did how large a game world is become more important that what fills the world?
What about combat? Turn based versus real time. Enemies you see versus random encounters. An argument can be made for any side of these combat-related battles. I'm a fan of random turn based, there are those out there that would rather see every enemy and fight them as they see them. It seems more and more that combat is starting to take a page from MMORPG's, a trend I'm not exactly thrilled with. Another MMO trope is questing. When did side quests become the meat of a game? When I feel I've not played a full game without going on quests to kill a certain number of beasts or running to one place, then back to another in search of liquid x, I suddenly feel like my experience has become artificial. Sadly, both American and Japanese games are falling prey to this, with Last Remnant forcing you to take on quests, but then not allowing you to complete them as you see fit. Fallout 3 is based almost entirely on completing quests. Allow me to have an adventure from point A to B, don't force me to travel back and forth between them.
Like many RPG's, this little rant ended in a different spot than where it started. I just want to end by saying that I love JRPG's, and as much as I want games to evolve, if they lose the characteristics that define them in order to appeal to a larger market, some of us feel left behind. The gaming market is big enough for JRPG's and Western RPG's. Let's just stop them from breeding with one another.
TheDoctor
Posted to Hot Stuff, Video Games on 8 December 2008
· Comments (18)
Other stuff like this: east vs west, editorial, fallout 3, japan, opinion, persona 3, rpgs
Nice article, Doc. Thanks for writing it.
As for myself, the main difference between JRPGs and W(western)RPGs is the level of quirky oddities. JRPGs have no problem putting smiles on the face of the slimes you're about to beat senseless, endless puns, and fecal monsters. (I'm talking about Blue Dragon for that last one.) And don't get me started on Persona 3's "shoot yourself in the head to summon powerful spirits in the blood soaked halls of your high school." WRPGs take themselves too seriously IMO.
Major irony: early Japanese RPGs, including Dragon Quest and (gasp!) the Shin Megami Tensei series, were actually heavily-influenced by Western game design. Specifically, both were strongly influenced by Wizardry. It's not as noticeable now, as SMT has moved away from its roots over the years, but Dragon Quest's combat interface is still pretty reminiscent of classic PC RPG's.
More to the point, I'd say that advocating genre stagnation and inbreeding isn't a great decision at the best of times, and is particularly ill-advised when you consider the general decline of the games development industry in Japan. I can totally sympathize -- the last time I saw a good, turn-based, tactical RPG that was to my liking was Temple of Elemental Evil -- but putting a genre up on a pedestal isn't going to help anyone. If we'd done that, we never would have seen Deus Ex -- or System Shock 2, Bioshock, or Far Cry 2, for that matter.
Oh, and a side-note: it's a little odd that you treat the open-world school of RPG design as representative of Western RPG design in general. Bioware and Obsidian are still strong examples of Western developers that take a more linear approach to RPG design, and they're putting out stuff at a pretty good pace. Obsidian just put out the second expansion for Neverwinter Nights 2, for example, and Bioware has Dragon Age in the pipe.
While I agree with you on part of this (and do enjoy the occasional Japanese RPG), your reasons for liking JRPG's are the reasons why I strayed away from them. I started out on Final Fantasy and Legend of Dragoon, and while I enjoyed them, by the time the PS2 rolled out, it had become quite apparent that most popular JRPG's are just rehashing the same stale plot;
Main character (who usually has more inner turmoil and angst than a 14 year-old rich goth kid) starts out doing something that seems to have only an impact on a small amount of people (like, say, a town, group, or even a childhood game). Said action quickly ends up having some tie to a much larger, sinister scheme that was either unknown or disproved up until this point.
Main character shows apathy for this impending world-wide doom (or complains about it), but is somehow tasked with saving the planet. He is joined by a few people he knew in the past (like, say, girl/boyfriends, childhood friends, or schoolmates) as well as random people who all seem to be interlinked. One of these allies usually has had (or will have) a major role in the antagonist's grand scheme, usually by being manipulated or having 'seen the error of their ways'.
After a few boss fights with the antagonists, it becomes evident that the main antagonist is either
1. Way overpowered
2. Is a complete moron, since he never makes sure you die/lose, or
3. Is really a big pansy who can't finish what he started.
The main character opens up and is, oddly enough, a really caring guy (even though he didn't give a shit prior), and has been angsty because of a dark secret.
Eventually, the game ends and everyone lives happily ever after, with the protagonists utterly defeating the bad guys.
I'm not trying to troll or anything, but after playing about 15 JRPG's and seeing the same basic storyline again and again, I really started to lose hope in the Japanese RPG creativity. I still enjoy the games, but I can't help but feel cheated out of money and time when I play Final Fantasy 7,8, and 10, along with other JRPG's and see the same hero and plot staring blankly back at me.
Vincent, you forgot the amnesia part.
Doctor, a very nicely done post, maybe you should cut it short on the main page though because it's a bit long.
Anyway, I'm a huge JRPG fan and while I can see Vincent is coming from, it's all about the story itself and everything has a cliche when you've played a ton of them but it's always that little something that can make a game shine above the rest.
I personally dislike wrpg due to the non-linear structure and just how boring the overworlds tend to be (hi Oblivion).
Much like DR I'm going to go back to Persona 3 which took the tried and true formula, from plot to characters but defined itself but allowing you the ultimate choice at the end of the day.
Do you go to your afterschool project? Which suits you? Go on a date, hang with friends, chat up a babe (perhaps?) on-line?
Then at the end of the day you could study for school, become a better person or you could enter Tartarus and become a better person in a different sense, someone who is willing to risk their life to stop something they don't understand.
And yes a wrpg gives you even more options than that but when you get to the nitty gritty it never amounts to anything but a time waster.
So I'll take final fantasy x (or hell x-2) over any wrpg because I find the story of X to be a fine tale, with likable characters who might not stray far from the path of the cliches but it keeps the spirit alive. Then we have X-2 which doesn't have a great plot but the story works and the girls wants to have fun attitude is refreshing (and something we haven't seen copied yet).
So that's why I ordered Persona 4 but have yet to buy Fallout 3 (which mind you is a good game but again the open world structure does nothing for me, I need substance). And sorry for my long winded post.
I love me some old school JPRG...I don't want to admit how many times I played through the Suikoden, Wild Arms and Vandal Hearts (first time I saw a gay character) series. Yet I also like the "big, open world, side-quest filled" western-style games you described, basically for all the reasons you don't like them. Not that I fault you...as you stated, not everyone will like the same things. It's like arguing what the best flavor or color is.
I half-agree with this post, good Doctor. I too am a fan of the JRPG. And what few WRPGs I've played have been less-than-stellar (well, okay, Mass Effect was pretty good, but that's a given).
However, there's nothing wrong with combining the two as long as some games remain separate. I enjoyed FFXIII and DQVIII. And while I did prefer Dragon Quest in terms of battle mechanics, FFXII had a much better story and a decent battle mechanic all its own that had clear western influence.
The one thing I do worry about, though, is the whole thing about the Japanese developers wanting to be more "Western."
I like the quirky characters. And the androgynous pretty boys. America may have invented the videogame, but it was the Japanese who gave us the final definition. ;D
I wrote something similar a year back when gaygamer was asking for writing submissions. Actually I really like how much this discussion this topic generates, let's keep it going:
The term role-playing game is actually a profound misnomer for the story-centric games which Japan churns out annually. The category emerged alongside pen and paper games, like Dungeons and Dragons, wherein players literally assume roles in order to occupy fictional worlds. This is unlike a JRPG where roles are more often assigned than assumed. A JRPG is better likened to an interactive novel than its western counterpart.
The distinction between JRPG and WRPG is more profound than ever. Today western RPGs continue to strive for hyper-realism in a fantastic setting. Games like Elder Scrolls: Oblivion feature highly customized character creation (not unlike its pen and paper ancestor) and invite you to do what you will with this creation (save girls, kill peasants, rob and pillage). This is done, however, at the cost of any real story-telling. The sacrifice of nonrestrictive gameplay is that it deprives the plot from assuming any depth.
JRPGs, by contrast, are a lot more linear. In a JRPG, you are almost always handed your character as well as the circumstances which will overshadow their, till-then, ordinary lives. Every time you play Chrono Trigger, you will play as the same red-headed boy trying to save the future from being destroyed by the alien-parasite Lavos. But, as those of you who have played the game already know, the story of Chrono Trigger is good enough to evoke the same sort of nostalgia you might feel when remembering a favorite book or movie.
JRPGS are as much about aesthetic as they are story. While every new generation of WRPGs looks more true to life, the next-generation JRPG tends to focus on creating a distinct look and feel which sets it apart from other games in the genre. This is why WRPGs tend to look alike while JRPGs are as varied as the artists responsible for creating them.
Because they are seen as a viable form of narrative, RPGs are immensely popular in Japan. Level 5, the team responsible for the game series Dragon Quest, has even been prohibited from releasing their games on a weekday because a significant fraction of the population would miss work in order to grab a copy of the developer's latest hit-title.
It is hard to say if RPGs will ever be considered a respectable means of story-telling on this side of the hemisphere. The majority of video games are about as complex as your average summer blockbuster, but a few profound exceptions exist. I take comfort in the fact that, as a narrative form, video games are still in their infancy. It isn't beyond the realm of possibility that, in the future, video games will be taught in college classrooms alongside literature and film.
Also, it is worth noting that growing up, JRPGs have always appealed to me as a specifically gay gamer because they were often my only example of strong, feminine men (an oxymoron, I know).
Of course these men were nearly always psychotic (read Kefka), or estrogen infused she-males (read Kuja, who I think is hawt btw), or suffer from an inability to play well with others (read Sephiroth), but I felt strongly drawn to them nonetheless.
Of course the case has been made that our villain status is in some ways demonizing. I disagree. There is something very accessible about men rebelling against a world which dissatisfies you. Something that makes me understand the villain, even if I'm not cheering for their success.
My problem with the idea of not having any control is that I'd rather just be watching a series. If the character doesn't really depend on me to do anything other than tell it that it's ok to drink that potion, and that that slime needs to die, what's the point? Just tell me you're story in an anime, at that point. That's what I love about western games is the decision making, creation, etc.
You mention that in Fallout 3, my choices are illusions, and yet that's not true at all. If I choose to have a character who kills things by using his bare hands, i can. Or, if I decide to be a nerd through the game, I can. Or I can be a cannibal. In JRPG's... not so much. I'm usually one "class."
I, unlike some people here, am also sick of the effeminate main character. Not saying I'm a fan of the Marcus Fenix types, either, but I just like my characters to be... appropriate. If I'm a twig, I shouldn't be wielding a sword twice my size (Cloud, really?) That's why I loved Fable so much, my character was everything I wanted him to be, and he can be for anybody, even if you are into effeminate dudes (or beefy gals).
All I'm saying is that, lately, with the exception of Persona and Lost Oddessey, JRPG's have been a complete let-down. Good thing Square keeps remaking all of it's old games, or there'd hardly be a good JRPG to play anymore.
Oh yeah, also tired of convoluted storylines, but that's a Japanese game thing in general.
If I have no choice in the game I will go watch a film.
That is the beauty of RPG's with choice. And to say the choices in Fallout 3 do not affect the game is very untrue.
For tenpenny towers i can either kill the ghouls, let the ghouls kill the humans or talk them into staying with each other. This affects if I can trade with the people in tenpenny, the relationships and rewards from which party I choose to favour, the radio that it will be announced of my deeds, and the random rewards people will give me for doing so. Then if I want to go kill the announcer I can. How is that not choice?
These choices significantly affect my game play. As in real life it’s the little choices, and the things we do that make the person who we are. You do not have to always be a sword yielding teen on a mission to save the world for events in the game to be significant. I think the beauty of fallout is the little things; it’s an amazing experience and a whole lot of fun.
If I help the slavers to get to Lincoln memorial, I found out that later the ghouls in the underground have heard of my deeds... and they say this with spoken dialogue.. How is that not deeply affecting my game play experience?
Each choice in Fallout 3 has a profound impact on my game experience (maybe not the last mission as such but the final choices I make shape my character in a way is hard to put into words).
That is all. =p
Am I the only one that loves both Western RPGs and JRPGs? They play very differently, but are both fun for their own reasons.
When I start playing a game like Oblivion or Fallout 3, I play it to explore. I will deliberately postpone the main story missions of the game so that I can fully explore an immerse myself in the game world. I'll find many character sub-plots with the people I meet, and usually those end out being more interesting than the main story quest. But that's what I feel the point is more in a Western RPG. It's the plot of every character and NPC and seeing how they fit together into a coherent alternate reality. I also love the sense of ADD I get when I'm walking across the wasteland in Fallout 3 and see a new triangle appear on my radar indicating a location I haven't explored yet. And when I get there, there's usually another new location just off in the distance for me to get to.
But at the same time, I love JRPGs. In fact, 3 of my favorite games of all time are JRPGs (Shining Force 2, Skies of Arcadia, Tales of the Abyss). I've heard people say that "it's not role playing because you don't have choice." Well yes, that's one kind of role playing, but there's another kind, a kind where you play a predetermined role. And what I love about JRPGs is the very specific plots that are able to be created because the developers already know what the personality of the characters are going into each situation. No one faults Huckelberry Finn for not being a choose your own adventure novel, and that's because there are certain things that can be done with a linear story that can't be done if complete choice is taken away from the script writers. As for the complaints against JRPGs that they might as well just be an anime, that's just not true. Part of the fun of JRPGs is going through all the turn-based battles. Turn-based battles are unique because it allows you to intricately plan each move of your party, and though it's slower than the real-time combat or Western RPGs, it's still a lot of fun to take a more strategic approach.
They're both great, but for different reasons. For me WRPGs are more about the overall world's plot and how every character and interaction fits together, and JRPGs are like a good book that carries me through with a specific plot with a specific message, while letting me flex my strategic muscles along the way. I guess I can see that they attract different audiences since they play very differently, but there's no reason why they can't co-exist and why someone can't like both of them.
I have been an RPG fan since the NES days and only have recently embraced this whole "Western RPG." I like my stories linear, and my battles turn-based.
It's definitely all a matter of taste, but I do hope Japanese developers don't take away the cinematic flair of their great RPGs like FFX and Lost Odyssey and replace it with open-ended, quest based structures. Also, bring back the overworld map. I miss it.
There has been a lot of bitching about JRPG's on the web from the big online gamer sites (IGN, 1UP, etc.), but the JRPG was never a "popular" genre. It was always a niche genre. FF7 broke through because of it's full motion video, not it's gameplay (though the gameplay hooked people once they bought the game for the cool cut scenes). I get annoyed with people saying the JRPG is dead then pointing to games like Fallout 3 as the future. Fallout is a completely different kind of game. It's essentially a shooter with stats. (Though it is an excellent game) When I think RPG, I think of planning out a strategy, micromanaging a four or five person party, level grinding, and linear story sequences. Something that I can get lost in for hours.
I do think the JRPG is stagnant right now, not because of the old fashioned gameplay, but because of the story. Developers need to think outside the box. No more plucky teens saving the world, kidnapped sisters or princesses or anime archetypes. Do something different. FF13 looks interesting because it seems to be a balls-to-the-wall science fiction fantasy. no more castles or dragons, thank god. anyway, this is a long winded way of saying JRPG's are alright, they just have to find better stories to tell.
you know, i really don't like open world rpg's. games like fable, fallout, elder scrolls, etc. just don't do it for me.
i play rpg's for the MAIN STORY. i want to be told about the journey of a group of characters. i don't want to run around doing a million little side quests.
side quests are right at the bottom of my list of things like to do in an rpg... along with level farming for hours on end.
My brother and I joke that eRPGs are just movies with random battles thrown in. This doesn't make them bad, but when one abstract the game (remove the story and dressing) and look at just the mechanics of the game, eastern rpgs are almost surprisingly simple.
As previous posters have mentioned the western rpgs are closer decedents to the desktop role playing games than the eastern rpgs. What makes paper role playing a success is that the story is generated by the players (including the game master). The Sims is a great example of this. All the people who I have interacted with who enjoy the software toy fall into one of two camps, the content creators, and the story tellers. The Sims is delightfully entertaining when I play it to create a story. It is boring as heck if the player treats it abstractly and sees only the mechanics.
What separates the two styles isn't so much the game mechanics, but, as the Doctor alluded to, the driver and teller of the story. In that regard the stereotypical eastern rpgs have more in common to stereotypical first person shooters than the stereotypical western rpg.
Sorry about missing the amnesia part, Nate...Long post coming up, so please bear with me. Again, this is my opinion and explanation as to why I prefer free-form, and hopefully giving light to why others like me prefer, say, Oblivion and Morrowind to Final Fantasy XII and Suikoden.
To say that the main storyline on most free-form RPG's is unimportant is close-minded for many reasons. The most-evident is that if you do not finish the main story of said WRPG (even ones like Morrowind and Oblivion, which don't HAVE a real ending), you really won't have any closure to said games story and good/evil battle. You also will never understand any of the reasons as to why YOU were chosen instead of some other person (unlike the majority of JRPG's which essentially say 'You are the main character and will save us all because dammit, we said so').
I have yet to beat Oblivion's main storyline (because I am easily sidetracked, which I prefer to just setting a permanent direction and never straying from it), and because of this I am literally starting a whole new game with that goal in mind.
On the other hand, if you simply play a free-form RPG like a JRPG (in other words, stick on the most-obvious path readily available), you will never learn the non-essential (but just as intricate) stories explaining the culture and history of the world around you...something JRPG's have only tried and failed to do up until.
For example; you COULD just play on a set path from point A to point B...but you would never really learn why certain races or towns are more impoverished than others. Or who knows good stories. Or when certain characters do something interesting/funny, etc. etc.
I see where Wolverine is coming from to a certain extent on how some of the side-quests on free-form RPG's waste time...but isn't that what video games were MADE to do? Aren't RPG's essentially about learning more of the world they take place in? I don't think RPG games' side-quests should be called 'time-wasters', because, as I've said, that is a video game in a nutshell.
As for those who dislike Western RPG games because they aren't as linear, I have but one thing to say; When it all comes down to it, the PLAYER chooses if he wants to have a linear path in a WRPG. In JRPG's, the GAME chooses the path (and the same essential one every time you start a new game, mind you), and the player has no choice in the matter.
I thank you, Japan, for holding my young, 12-year-old hand and guiding me through the world of Final Fantasy 7 and other games like it, as well as teaching me what an RPG can do to a young, curious boy's mind...but it's time for me to grow up; I don't need a hand to guide me anymore, I'd prefer to make my own choices now, thank you. I want to make my OWN story and go about it in my own, unique way. Again, I thank you, Japan, but it's time for this 19-year-old gamer to become an adult of sorts.
To be honest, I don't really pay too much attention to whether a game is a western RPG or a Japanese RPG; if it has qualities that seem appealing to me, then I'll give it a shot. And I pretty much always end up liking some aspect(s) which makes the experience worthwhile. There have only been a handful of games which I just could not get into:
Morrowwind: I'm not sure if it was too open-ended, too boring, or something else; I think my playtime was at ~10 hours before I lost all interest. I liked the reagent system, but hated the levelling system. Needless to say, I won't be trying Oblivion.
Unlimited SaGa: I loved SaGa Frontier I & II, but this game was just too dependent on luck, randomness, and slot machines to be any "reel" fun (pun intended).
Fable: The first time I played, I earned enough money at the gambling tables to be able to afford anything I could ever want. I started over - this time, avoiding gambling entirely - and somehow still ended up with more money than [insert deity here] just from trading items between towns. I got bored soon afterwards.
Oh, I almost forgot one: Baldur's Gate. I probably would have played this game to completion if it weren't for the fact that every single NPC that you can take with you has the patience of a 6 year-old with severe ADHD, and will leave your party if you don't always make a beeline for where they want you to go.