Kenryoku_Maxis said:
RageBot said:
Senlis said:
RageBot said:
Senlis said:
first, to the "JRPG gamers are getting tired, moving to WRPGs and, seeing how they are different, assume it is innovation". That may be true for some people, but what about older gamers like myself and the editors of IGN. I (I can't speak for IGN) have been playing JRPGs and WRPGs for years and have seen far more innovation on the WRPG side.
As for posters such as Rastline, it is apparent that the JRPG fans don't seem to want innovation. Most of them want the same game they got on the SNES. If the JRPG developers sensed that JRPG fans wanted something new, they would innovate their games in a new and unique way for their market.
And random encounters suck. I don't see why anyone would like them or argue that they are good. It is just lazy programming if you ask me.
This will really get some people mad, but it must be said. Video games are an interactive media. The best stories are ones that you, the player, interact with. WRPGs tend to play more to this aspect by making you the main character, and if you play the story that way, it can be very rewarding. JRPGs tend to play more non-interactive, where it is more like watching a movie or reading a book rather than playing a game. The sad thing is that a great JRPG cannot compare with a great movie or book. This is besides the point, however, since IGN is not saying JRPGs should be like WRGPs. That would completely defeat the purpose of innovation if they were to innovate to something that already exists (and therefore would not be innovation). |
Lol, so, since Movies are a passive form of entertainment, the best movie stories are the ones you're passive towards?
You didn't play enough good JRPGs (or WRPGs), don't argue with those who did.
|
First off, you have no idea what JRPGs I've played. Secondly, your post makes little sense. I assume your criticising my assessment that JRPG story can't compete with movie/book story.
Movies are a non-interactive form of entertainment. They are mainly story driven (also flashy effects driven, but they tend to amount to bad movies).
Books are a better example of what I am trying to say. They are also non-interactive, just like the story of (most) JRPGs. When I say non-interactive, I mean the story progresses in such a way that the player has no (or little) method of changing it.
Great video games have a hard time competing with great books or great movies when it comes to the story. I would say it is impossible to compete with books and movies. Why? because story is the only thing a book or movie has to worry about. Video games have to worry about programming, design, graphics (yes, I know movies have to worry about this too), testing, gameplay, etc. In other words, the games that are trying to focus on story will be outdone by a good book. Period. I don't see why anyone would try to argue this.
WRPGs tend to have a story that is interactive. By that, I mean that you can guide the direction the dialogue and story goes. That is something a non-interactive medium, movies and books don't do (or don't do well. Choose your own adventure books tend to suck).
|
If you would've played games with really great story you wouldn't have said that statement.
Especially the movie statement, there are several games with plots that are better than the plot of every movie ever created.
Oh, and almost every time, a WRPGs stpry isn't interactive, the twists are the same twists, the characters are the same characters, the ending can sometimes be different, but the ending doesn't reflect the story up to this point, I can give you KotOR as an example for this.
|
So you've played every game ever made and seen every movie ever made? Pretty much, you're calling his statements arrogant and countering it with an absolute statement that's more arrogant than his could ever be perceived.
The simple fact is, video game plots and movie plots shouldn't be compared as it is. Not only are they completely different mediums and hardly comparable, but they focus on completely different modes of interaction. Where movies are a passive interaction medium people watch but are driven almost entirely by the story and video games are an active medium the user plays which have a whole host of secondary parts influencing not only the story but the users influence (such as the visuals, interface, audio and most importantly, the gameplay itself). All of this aside, there's just the simple fact that a movie plot is usually between 1-3 hours and a game plot can range anywhere from 10 minutes to 200 hours. And that same 10 minute plot can arguably have more substance to it than the same game which has 200 hours of dialogue and cutscenes (such as an MMO).
|
