| M.U.G.E.N said: ME is about traveling the universe while fighting aliens! Sure there will be some 'physics' to it but how can you even argue with the fact that it's all fiction? (1) It's all 'a' type of fantasy....it's fiction, it's fantasy and it's just differs in the approach based on their cultural influences that's all. . You seem to be stuck up ME and can't move on to other WRPG's it seems so let me ask you this....or rather tell you (2) Valkyrica Chronicles for most part is more grounded on physics and such than ANY WRPG this gen.....now what? And you seem to be under the impression that since western games base their games on sci fi mostly, it becomes more sensible, more grounded and more 'believeble? That line of thought baffles me. (3) Sci fi is anything but grounded....if it was it WON'T be sci fi (4) Japanese do like fantastical approaches mainly due to their cultural influence however this doesn't mean they are any less or more grounded in nature than the west. And you do realize this person admitted he doesn't play JRPGS? Yet he comes forward to give his 'expert' analysis of the situation. What a load of crap. (5) The day fighting dragons becomes less fantastical than the JRPG counter parts come find me, cuz until then overall WRPG's are the of same unrealistic nature as the Eastern coutner parts...both influenced by culture, mythology and sci fi.... |
Ahem.
1. Thisi s true. That does not mean, however, that one is not typically more grounded than the other. Pretending that all scifi and fantasy are alik in terms of fantastical eelements is ridiculous; would you say that A Song of Ice and Fire is as fantastical as The Wheel of Time? That Asimov's Foundation is as far-out as Star Wars? Of course you wouldn't. There are varying degrees of fantasticality and groundedness within these genres, regardless of whether or not they are all essentially impossible (Asimov's work, it should be noted, is not impossible for the msot part).
2. This is false. In order for you to believe that, you'd have to pretend that heat buildup wouldn't be a problem in Jaeger's tan, that we should accept the mystical abilities of the Valkyrur as aving scientific basis (they don't), that their alternative fuel source would be simultaneously more precious and more efficient than petroleum while being much less common, that this fuel source has any explanation whatsoever for why it exists, that "technology" can be rooted in magic (that's what the Valkyrur are, after all - magical extrapolations of Valkyrie legends in a weird kind ofo Nnazi allegory), on and on and on.
You're confusing "down to earth" as a concept with settings. Being set in WW2 or a parallel to WW2 doesn't make a game more realistic. Setting has nothing to do with that. There are no scientific justifications for any of the fantastical elements in Valkyria Chronicles. It is a terrible example.
3. You go read 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea and then come back and tell me that science fiction can't be grounded. You're confusing science fiction nwith fantasy: science fiction is a story whose fantastical elements are rooed in scintific theory. Science fiction at its purest (Verne) is extremely realistic. Realistic enough that it can affect the way technology develops for decades afterward.
4. That is exactly what it means. Being less grounded or more fantastical is not bad. It's just an observation of differences in storytelling trends between the two cultures. When you acknowledge differences, you acknowledge differences. That's all there is.
5. Pretending tat everything is equally unrealistic is both disengenuous and dishonest. The difference most of the time in Western fantasy and Japanese fantasy is that in serious Western fantasy, fantastical elements still follow a hard and fast series of rules that dictate what can be one through magic and what can't. That's what separates Harry Potter from The Kingkiller Chronicles (which had a very realistic dragon-slaying, I'll add). As general trend, that's not true in Japanese fantasy stories, which will either break rules or simply not outlinee them at all.
Again: one is not better than the other. But there is nothing wrong with acknowledging their differences.
