Is the JRPG/FF run over?

[Kenryoku_Maxis]

SmoothCriminal said:

Kenryoku_Maxis said:

SmoothCriminal said:

DragonLord said:

Huya said:
Have you played Kotor1 and Jade Empire then?

I've played Jade Empire.  It was alright.  I don't HATE WRPGs, they're just second rate to me.  I'll still take a WRPG over a shooter anytime, any day.  But I just grew up playing JRPGs--they're what made me a gamer.  A lot of the younger generations didn't have that opportunity so they've fallen in love with action and button mashing rather than a tear-evoking, cut-scene filled story.

I would disagree. The only emotion I've ever felt while playing a JRPG was frustration. In Morrowind for example, it's not about the characters, it's about the world. There's this massive open world which is rich and vibrant and full of interesting characters and creatures. Sure the characters don't develop much, but the world develops. It changes from this strange and alien land into a home. Also, action and button mashing are not central to Morrowind, as the combat system comes down to *click as fast as you can and whoever has the higer stats wins*. That is really not doing justice to all of the intricies of magic, ranged, and stealth combat, but at the end of the day, that's pretty much it.

 

So I guess it's just what you want from a game. Do you want an open, intricite world with lots of less defined characters, or do you want a flashy cut-scene driven, story-based game.

I love these kinds of examples, where people try to devide 'WRPGs' and 'JRPGs' into extremes.  And I love to then give my favorite example.  WHy not just have both at the same time?

Using your exact examples.  A 'massive open world that is rich and vibrant' that is 'full of interesting characters and creatures'.

Yet why do we have to forget about things like interesting main characters and production values?  We can have both.  Just because some JRPGs have good production values and some WRPGs seem to focus more on fighting over story, that doesn't mean those are the 'standards' for their genre.  Far from it.  Its just what the most flashy and popular games in America have turned out to be.  And even then, those stereotypes aren't even being able to hold up anymore with companies like Bioware forcing even more story into WRPGs every title and more and more companies such as Level-5 and Atlus encroaching on SquareEnix domninance of the JRPG market (which, you must admit, up to now most peoples understanding has been limited to only titles that begin with Final and end with Fantasy).

What I'm trying to get to is, not all JRPGs are 'lacking in gameplay and focused on graphics'.  And not all WRPGs are 'brown and grey armor fests that focus on gameplay so they're superior'.  There's games out there that have a good balance in both genres.  And there's one series that actually balances the ideals of both genres quite well.  Mixing the ideals of a vast open world with tons of content to explore and interact with and solid JRPG style gameplay and character interaction.  Its a little series called Dragon Quest.  And its been doing it for about 25 years.

There's always exceptios to every rule, but when you think about it, Fallout came out in 1997, and it had a damn good story (this isn't the first RPG with a great story, just my first). WRPGs have always had great stories. As you stated you your Dragon Quest example, you stated that JRPGs had many WRPG traits. This being said, it is ok to divide them into extremes, because the grey area is so small. While I agree that a greater balance is needed, I don't foresee that becoming common any time soon. The closest example is the Legend of Zelda series. While more JRPG than WRPG, it has some distinctly WRPGs elements, such as real-time combat, and a western style protagionist (meaning that the character is silent, and his thoughts are left basically up to you. The one exception to this is Twilight Princess, where Link has a more distinct personality). It's like saying asians are smart. Is it always true? No. Is it often true? Yes. The same can be said of RPGs, 99% of them fall into distinct catagories.

 

The official definition (according to wikipedia) is console RPG and computer RPG. This is less true today, but is still in some sense correct. WRPGs are (genereally) a decendant of Dungeons and Dragons (a game that was popular with the computer-using culture), where as JRPGs are decendants of The Legend of Zelda (although LoZ is not ACTUALLY an RPG, it did influence them).

So the correct term is console RPG and computer RPG. Computer RPGs are geared toward big nerds like myself, and console RPG's are geared towards people that want a story told for them.

Then what is the grey area perchance?  Dragon Quest?  I would hold back from calling that the grey area, considering one entire nation can trace their entire RPG heritage to this series.  And no, JRPGs did not begin with Zelda, that goes back to Dragon Quest.  Zelda began true Action/Adventure games on handhelds while Dragon Quest is the origins of Japans first high budget Console RPG series.

On the flip side, if we discount this 'grey area' you are bringing up, what are we left with?  Once again, just the same major titles everyone is trying to argue about all the time and going back to stereotypes.  Might as well just fight over which of the two most expensive and well marketed RPGs have the best gameplay, Mass Effect 2 or FFXIII?  What has better graphics, Lost Odessey or Fallout 3?

In the end, its like arguing with your TV.