By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Bethesda: Western RPG “More Realistic” Than JRPGs

 

Bethesda: Western RPG “More Realistic” Than JRPGs

i agree 148 57.14%
 
i disagree 49 18.92%
 
bethesda, lol. oblivion was crap 62 23.94%
 
Total:259
Kenryoku_Maxis on 08 August 2010
Khuutra said:
Kenryoku_Maxis said:

What's more realistic?  Orcs and he men fighting each other or bunny girls and effeminatemales with huge swords fighting?

PS: The answer in neither are realistic.  I miss the days when games were about being creative and fun.  Not arguing about which was more 'realistic' or had the more 'believable story'.

You missed the point of what he was saying and that he wsn't making an argument.

He's saying that RPGs in the West tend to be more groundd, with logic and explanations that keep them more down-to-earth. RPGs from the Japanese tradition tend to be more fantastical.

He's right, too. This is true of a lot of storytelling on both sides, and is pretty clearly illustrated in the differences you'll find in Japanese science fiction compaared to European traditions in the same field.

 

 

But I didn't read his point in the first place.  I was just replying to the typical 'WRPGs vs JRPGs' concept this thread was obviously made to propagate.

As for your claim that Japanese stories are more fancifal than Western....I would say that's not true at all.  Just look at the origin of 'Science Fiction' with HG Wells and Jules Verne.  Many Japanese novels and even Anime that have been made in the last 20 years are closer in style to the earlier works of Science Fiction than the 'grim realistic' stuff popular in the west.

Even products like Star Wars and Star Trek are a rare novelty now adays.  While in Japan, they are some of their major source of inspiration to this day.

Of course I'm not going to say Japan doesn't have its own post apocalyptic/grim take on Sci Fi as well.  In fact, quite a few of them have influenced the west in recent years (Akira, Ghost in the Shell, Neon Genesis Evangelion).  But at the same time, Japan is still producing a lot of Sci Fi works in that older style with flying airships in space and cybernetics that help people in the near future, etc.  If you're looking for where HG Wells and Issac Asimov live in the modern day, its in Japan, not the west.



Six upcoming games you should look into:

 

  

Around the Network
Khuutra on 08 August 2010
Kenryoku_Maxis said:

But I didn't read his point in the first place.  I was just replying to the typical 'WRPGs vs JRPGs' concept this thread was obviously made to propagate.

As for your claim that Japanese stories are more fancifal than Western....I would say that's not true at all.  Just look at the origin of 'Science Fiction' with HG Wells and Jules Verne.  Many Japanese novels and even Anime that have been made in the last 20 years are closer in style to the earlier works of Science Fiction than the 'grim realistic' stuff popular in the west.

Even products like Star Wars and Star Trek are a rare novelty now adays.  While in Japan, they are some of their major source of inspiration to this day.

Of course I'm not going to say Japan doesn't have its own post apocalyptic/grim take on Sci Fi as well.  In fact, quite a few of them have influenced the west in recent years (Akira, Ghost in the Shell, Neon Genesis Evangelion).  But at the same time, Japan is still producing a lot of Sci Fi works in that older style with flying airships in space and cybernetics that help people in the near future, etc.  If you're looking for where HG Wells and Issac Asimov live in the modern day, its in Japan, not the west.

No. No no no no no no.

You're arguign with me about scince fiction. That's fine. But your explanation of your understanding of the genre is almost solely based on its aesthetics. That's not the point.

To start it, Star Wars and Star Trek are anomalous in the canon of Western science fiction because they are not grounded in hard science in any respect. Star Wars in particular is the scifi most heavily influenced by Japanese traditions, not the other way around.

Your H. G. Wells comparison - and Verne, too - Christ, Verne - is particularly distressing. Wells I can almost understand in some capacity since his use of science fiction was as political allegory, but Verne actually sat down and did the cold hard math on every single story he ever wrote. 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea was almsot prophetic in how well it predicted the scientific advancemnt of the U-boat and Journey to the Center of the Earth, while scientifically inaccurate, was based on the best scientific understanding and theory of the day. Jules Verne is the father of hard science, of grounded fiction which flirts with the fantastic without ever lifting its skirt up.

The Wells problem is worse because "grim realism" is almsot exactly hat he was all about - War of the Worlds is one of the grittiest, darkest, starkest science fiction stories ever written, and even its more fantastical elements were grounded primarily in understanding of what was possible at the time. That's the differenc between Japanese and Western science fiction right there.

Read anny anthology of Japanese science fiction (you could just watc anime I guess but it's not the same) and you'll discover something surprising: Japanese science fiction is rooted in fantastical elements without the constraint of possibility. That's why so many elements of science fiction are prevalent in Japanese fiction and not western fiction: mecha, the space opera, "energy weapons", on and on and on.

I'm not saying that all western science fiction holds to hard science. Of course it doesn't. Star Trek and Star Wars are two examples of science fiction which throw the traditions of Verne and Wells out of the freaking window and never look back. That said, they are not the norm, and it's Wells and Verne who set the tone for Western scifi which has been held to since then.

You're not going to find echoes of Asimov's ruminations on artificial intelligence in Japanese games, but you can find it in the geth in Mass Effect.

You're not going to find Verne's adherence to the problem of pressure and heat in Japanese games, but you can find it squirreled away in the limitations of the Normandy.

You're not going to find Wells' grounded damnations in Japanese games, but you can find it in the claustrophobic halls of the vaults.

The point is that Western science fiction is gounded in physics, in mathematics, because that's the tradition on which we were raised and it's the tradition which we understand. Mecha don't appear in serious Western science fiction. It doesn't happen.

This isn't about setting.

This isn't about aesthetics.

It's not about politics.

It's not about tone.

It's about being grounded in our current understanding of the universe, about capitalizing the "science" in science fiction. Western scifi - and western games, born of the same traditions - do that. Japanese games, as a rule, don't.



M.U.G.E.N on 08 August 2010
Khuutra said:
M.U.G.E.N said:

Nope I think your the one who is missing the point here

How the hell is fighting aliens on different planets across the galazy or fighting golems and dragons on ancient lands be any less fantastical than the JRPGs? How the hell is that being 'grounded'? It's all fantastical, all unrealistic..it's just different takes on it

It's grounded when you come up with scientific explanations for everything that happens. Mass Effect is the clearest example of this, and I will say it again: it's grounded in physics. Everything is painstakingly researched and justified, from th way space combat is waged to redundant nervous systems in some aliens.

It only asks two conceits of you:

1. That there is an element which can create the Mass Effect

2. That there is extra-terrestrial life

THat's it. That's all it asks. Everything after that is based on hard science and grounded scientific theory, particular for the way communal AI would work.

The difference between Western science fiction and Japanese science fiction tnds to lie in explanation and justification for different elements - in the West we tend toward "hard scifi" a lot more often. That's not opinion, that's not interpretation, that's fact.

And you'll notice how western fantasy tends to hold to its own itnernal logic (generally derived from D&D or Tolkien) which does nont hold down Japanese fantasy in any way.

The only way you could argue that Japanese scifi and fantasy isn't more fantastical is if you have no frame of reference for comparison.


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? 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

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. Sci fi is anything but grounded....if it was it WON'T be sci fi

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. 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....



In-Kat-We-Trust Brigade!

"This world is Merciless, and it's also very beautiful"

For All News/Info related to the PlayStation Vita, Come and join us in the Official PSV Thread!

MrT-Tar on 08 August 2010
PizzaFaceGamer said:

bethesda is the real deal - japanese publishers are lagging bad this generation.

even kojima said game creativity is dead i japan, and i think he is japanese


in what aspect?

In Sales?: No (Wii Fit NSMBWii, Dragon Quest IX, Final Fantasy XIII, Brain Training, Nintendogs, Wii Sports, Mario Kart Wii, Monster Hunter, etc)

In Creativity?: No (Nintendo and there games usage of motion/touch are IMO the most creative developments this gen)

In Critically Acclaimed games?: Not Really(Galaxy 1 and 2 are the two highest rating current gen games on gamerankings)

 

Please tell me in what way are Japanese publishers 'lagging bad this generation'?




Khuutra on 08 August 2010
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.



Around the Network
M.U.G.E.N on 08 August 2010
Khuutra said:
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.


wow so much spin this post :S it's crazy ok ill go one by one then

First off Stop talking about books...this is about games because I assure you east has MANY good sci fi work, Ironman comes to mind.

why do you keep using sci fi as a basis for being more realistic? That's just silly. You say read this sci fi book that sci fi book to try and prove your point as to why sci fi is more agreeable...I will also tell you that many sci works have been utter rubbish! Jules Verne or H. G. Wells are no exception to the rule...I actually think Steam Punk fiction is more interesting than any sci work west has put out yet I do not think one is more realistic than the other....again until it's proven and been done it's fiction, it's a fantasy...going to a far away planet is a fantasy for us still.....you also seem to be ignoring many many wester rpg's that cater to western mythos...dragon age for example! how is that game not fantastical? How is elder scrolls not fantastical? How is oblivion not fantastical? It's all dragons magic yada yada it's all based on zero scientifical backing

I never implied grounded is based on the setting alone however setting does help. Racing on earth vs racing on the moon in a game is very different. So the setting is VERY important as it sets the stage for the rest of it. Again many wrpgs are about magic, warriors on a quest (may it be space marines or a a knight in the medevil days), finding and teaming up with other characters to fight a common evil. These are all ungrounded fantastical ideas. Why is JRPG's any different? Because their dialogs are different? Because they actually have some hair on their head?

Give me a WRPG that is based on current existing science and physics and nothing else. And don't start with the books because I have not seen most of Isaac Asimov's work have come to reality, I have not seen aliens invading us to just die by a bacteria, I have not seen a time machine, I have not seen people travelling to the age of jurasic to hunt the dinos...until these things happen they are all fiction, all fantasy...you can call it w/e you want but these ideas are no less or more grounded than the ones from the East.

What is magic? have you seen it? has it ben proved? You say WRPG's follow 'rules' of magic etc. What rules? It's all fiction, it's all fantastical ideas that come from the minds of the creator. In that sense also JRPG's have their own 'rules' they follow...mainly if you strive enough you can break through ANY rule set by the game. That's just ideology nothing more nothing less

They are different yes, but saying one is more grounded in facts and such while the other is not is just being blind....and again the person who made this statement has ZERO cred since he doesn't play JRPG's anyways.

Anywho this doesn't seem to go anywhere..and typing this much is tiring on a sunday :P so if you still disagree let's just agree to disagree



In-Kat-We-Trust Brigade!

"This world is Merciless, and it's also very beautiful"

For All News/Info related to the PlayStation Vita, Come and join us in the Official PSV Thread!

Khuutra on 08 August 2010
M.U.G.E.N said:


wow so much spin this post :S it's crazy ok ill go one by one then

First off Stop talking about books...this is about games because I assure you east has MANY good sci fi work, Ironman comes to mind.

why do you keep using sci fi as a basis for being more realistic? That's just silly. You say read this sci fi book that sci fi book to try and prove your point as to why sci fi is more agreeable...I will also tell you that many sci works have been utter rubbish! Jules Verne or H. G. Wells are no exception to the rule...I actually think Steam Punk fiction is more interesting than any sci work west has put out yet I do not think one is more realistic than the other....again until it's proven and been done it's fiction, it's a fantasy...going to a far away planet is a fantasy for us still.....you also seem to be ignoring many many wester rpg's that cater to western mythos...dragon age for example! how is that game not fantastical? How is elder scrolls not fantastical? How is oblivion not fantastical? It's all dragons magic yada yada it's all based on zero scientifical backing

I never implied grounded is based on the setting alone however setting does help. Racing on earth vs racing on the moon in a game is very different. So the setting is VERY important as it sets the stage for the rest of it. Again many wrpgs are about magic, warriors on a quest (may it be space marines or a a knight in the medevil days), finding and teaming up with other characters to fight a common evil. These are all ungrounded fantastical ideas. Why is JRPG's any different? Because their dialogs are different? Because they actually have some hair on their head?

Give me a WRPG that is based on current existing science and physics and nothing else. And don't start with the books because I have not seen most of Isaac Asimov's work have come to reality, I have not seen aliens invading us to just die by a bacteria, I have not seen a time machine, I have not seen people travelling to the age of jurasic to hunt the dinos...until these things happen they are all fiction, all fantasy...you can call it w/e you want but these ideas are no less or more grounded than the ones from the East.

What is magic? have you seen it? has it ben proved? You say WRPG's follow 'rules' of magic etc. What rules? It's all fiction, it's all fantastical ideas that come from the minds of the creator. In that sense also JRPG's have their own 'rules' they follow...mainly if you strive enough you can break through ANY rule set by the game. That's just ideology nothing more nothing less

They are different yes, but saying one is more grounded in facts and such while the other is not is just being blind....and again the person who made this statement has ZERO cred since he doesn't play JRPG's anyways.

Anywho this doesn't seem to go anywhere..and typing this much is tiring on a sunday :P so if you still disagree let's just agree to disagree

You're confusing the argument with whether or not these trends (which are very real and easily acknowledged if you try to familiarize yourself with science fiction or fantasy in either storytelling medium) are a good thing with whether or not they are true. The former has nothing to do with the latter.

Alpha Protocol is the WRPG you are ttryign to think of.

Asimov's ideas are possible. So were Verne's.

Being grounded has to do with justification. Name me one JRPG - one - that tries as hard to ground itself in physics as Mass Effect does. You can't do it.

Racing on the moon is perfectly realistic given a setting wherein travel to the moon is trivial (which it will eventually be). Don't confuse realistic with "realistic when set in today's world". They are very different concepts.

Being fiction does not preclude grounding oneself in hard fast rules established by a game or work's own cannon. "Ggrounded" magic is magic that operates according to one set understanding, one set of rules, where possibilities are laid out and magicb ecomes an extension of physics.

You're just illustrating that you misunderstand what is meant by "grounded" and "realistic".

I will agree that you disagree; but you only do it because you're wrong.



M.U.G.E.N on 08 August 2010
Khuutra said:
M.U.G.E.N said:


wow so much spin this post :S it's crazy ok ill go one by one then

First off Stop talking about books...this is about games because I assure you east has MANY good sci fi work, Ironman comes to mind.

why do you keep using sci fi as a basis for being more realistic? That's just silly. You say read this sci fi book that sci fi book to try and prove your point as to why sci fi is more agreeable...I will also tell you that many sci works have been utter rubbish! Jules Verne or H. G. Wells are no exception to the rule...I actually think Steam Punk fiction is more interesting than any sci work west has put out yet I do not think one is more realistic than the other....again until it's proven and been done it's fiction, it's a fantasy...going to a far away planet is a fantasy for us still.....you also seem to be ignoring many many wester rpg's that cater to western mythos...dragon age for example! how is that game not fantastical? How is elder scrolls not fantastical? How is oblivion not fantastical? It's all dragons magic yada yada it's all based on zero scientifical backing

I never implied grounded is based on the setting alone however setting does help. Racing on earth vs racing on the moon in a game is very different. So the setting is VERY important as it sets the stage for the rest of it. Again many wrpgs are about magic, warriors on a quest (may it be space marines or a a knight in the medevil days), finding and teaming up with other characters to fight a common evil. These are all ungrounded fantastical ideas. Why is JRPG's any different? Because their dialogs are different? Because they actually have some hair on their head?

Give me a WRPG that is based on current existing science and physics and nothing else. And don't start with the books because I have not seen most of Isaac Asimov's work have come to reality, I have not seen aliens invading us to just die by a bacteria, I have not seen a time machine, I have not seen people travelling to the age of jurasic to hunt the dinos...until these things happen they are all fiction, all fantasy...you can call it w/e you want but these ideas are no less or more grounded than the ones from the East.

What is magic? have you seen it? has it ben proved? You say WRPG's follow 'rules' of magic etc. What rules? It's all fiction, it's all fantastical ideas that come from the minds of the creator. In that sense also JRPG's have their own 'rules' they follow...mainly if you strive enough you can break through ANY rule set by the game. That's just ideology nothing more nothing less

They are different yes, but saying one is more grounded in facts and such while the other is not is just being blind....and again the person who made this statement has ZERO cred since he doesn't play JRPG's anyways.

Anywho this doesn't seem to go anywhere..and typing this much is tiring on a sunday :P so if you still disagree let's just agree to disagree

You're confusing the argument with whether or not these trends (which are very real and easily acknowledged if you try to familiarize yourself with science fiction or fantasy in either storytelling medium) are a good thing with whether or not they are true. The former has nothing to do with the latter.

Alpha Protocol is the WRPG you are ttryign to think of.

Asimov's ideas are possible. So were Verne's.

Being grounded has to do with justification. Name me one JRPG - one - that tries as hard to ground itself in physics as Mass Effect does. You can't do it.

Racing on the moon is perfectly realistic given a setting wherein travel to the moon is trivial (which it will eventually be). Don't confuse realistic with "realistic when set in today's world". They are very different concepts.

Being fiction does not preclude grounding oneself in hard fast rules established by a game or work's own cannon. "Ggrounded" magic is magic that operates according to one set understanding, one set of rules, where possibilities are laid out and magicb ecomes an extension of physics.

You're just illustrating that you misunderstand what is meant by "grounded" and "realistic".

I will agree that you disagree; but you only do it because you're wrong.


wow you just can't seem to accept that we have opposing views on this and shut up for crying out loud.

Valkyria Chronicles..it has no flying ships, space cowboys, bold space marines, aliens, sex with human looking aliens or anything.....so in 'comparison' it is MILES more grounded in reality (you know what you know and understand to be true today?) and physics that we know of (you know not the 'theories' the 'reality'? the proven ones?) than ME in every darn way..it's about strategy which makes sense with 'most' of the weapons based on 'realistic' expectations of what we KNOW (not theorize) today. So yes there you go :)

You speak of magic as if it was road rules or something...you speak of magic as if throwing fire from your had is grounded since the game tells you it's possible!!! So why the double standard here? JRPG's have the same sets of rules same ideas?

I think you're illustrating the fact that you live in a dream world where all sci fi works has the possibility of coming true since very few has been so and hence the same will apply to gaming since hey it's the west and it's sci fi! we will for sho go to planet X to capture the space villain Dragon-X who is a mystical dragon who will kill non stop unless a certain magical spell bound by rules of it will damage 500 points when used once is used on it!

Your statement

"Racing on the moon is perfectly realistic given a setting wherein travel to the moon is trivial (which it will eventually be). Don't confuse realistic with "realistic when set in today's world". They are very different concepts."

Just proves my point...cuz you know why? NEWS FLASH! IF it is not realistic today, it's not realistic! cuz Realism is based on......REALITY! Killing a dragon or racing on the moon or finding princess mononoke on Pluto since that's where she lives (duh) is possible too ya know? the probability of it sucks monkey balls but it's still possible...so is growing some crazy hair while summoning ifrits...just because it's not done today doesn't mean it won't be done in the future!!!

oh wait no that doesn't make sense if what Bathesda said was true...oops

again typing this much is a pain on a sunday and I like short short posts....so I'm gonna stop this back and forth bickering now cuz clearly since I don't agree with you I'm 'wrong' and you won't stop until I say hell yeah you're right lol so sure knock yourself out

ps: Just to clarify why this whole omg wrpg's kicking jrpg butt has come about ONLY because of the new settings WRPGs are exploring nothing more nothing less...But games like demons Souls and VC are a good start if creating more variety for JRPGs and I hope they keep it up



In-Kat-We-Trust Brigade!

"This world is Merciless, and it's also very beautiful"

For All News/Info related to the PlayStation Vita, Come and join us in the Official PSV Thread!

Booh! on 08 August 2010

What do they mean by "realistic"?

Typical WRPG (open world) story development:

- there's a dark menace "ready" to be unleashed

- the hero/party goes adventuring for years and years

- the threat is still there, quietly awating for a well levelled up hero

It's like if Hiler had waited for 20 years before invading France, after he invaded Poland. Usually WRPG can't be played in a meaningful way.

 



Kenryoku_Maxis on 08 August 2010
Khuutra said:
Kenryoku_Maxis said:

But I didn't read his point in the first place.  I was just replying to the typical 'WRPGs vs JRPGs' concept this thread was obviously made to propagate.

As for your claim that Japanese stories are more fancifal than Western....I would say that's not true at all.  Just look at the origin of 'Science Fiction' with HG Wells and Jules Verne.  Many Japanese novels and even Anime that have been made in the last 20 years are closer in style to the earlier works of Science Fiction than the 'grim realistic' stuff popular in the west.

Even products like Star Wars and Star Trek are a rare novelty now adays.  While in Japan, they are some of their major source of inspiration to this day.

Of course I'm not going to say Japan doesn't have its own post apocalyptic/grim take on Sci Fi as well.  In fact, quite a few of them have influenced the west in recent years (Akira, Ghost in the Shell, Neon Genesis Evangelion).  But at the same time, Japan is still producing a lot of Sci Fi works in that older style with flying airships in space and cybernetics that help people in the near future, etc.  If you're looking for where HG Wells and Issac Asimov live in the modern day, its in Japan, not the west.

No. No no no no no no.

You're arguign with me about scince fiction. That's fine. But your explanation of your understanding of the genre is almost solely based on its aesthetics. That's not the point.

To start it, Star Wars and Star Trek are anomalous in the canon of Western science fiction because they are not grounded in hard science in any respect. Star Wars in particular is the scifi most heavily influenced by Japanese traditions, not the other way around.

Your H. G. Wells comparison - and Verne, too - Christ, Verne - is particularly distressing. Wells I can almost understand in some capacity since his use of science fiction was as political allegory, but Verne actually sat down and did the cold hard math on every single story he ever wrote. 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea was almsot prophetic in how well it predicted the scientific advancemnt of the U-boat and Journey to the Center of the Earth, while scientifically inaccurate, was based on the best scientific understanding and theory of the day. Jules Verne is the father of hard science, of grounded fiction which flirts with the fantastic without ever lifting its skirt up.

The Wells problem is worse because "grim realism" is almsot exactly hat he was all about - War of the Worlds is one of the grittiest, darkest, starkest science fiction stories ever written, and even its more fantastical elements were grounded primarily in understanding of what was possible at the time. That's the differenc between Japanese and Western science fiction right there.

Read anny anthology of Japanese science fiction (you could just watc anime I guess but it's not the same) and you'll discover something surprising: Japanese science fiction is rooted in fantastical elements without the constraint of possibility. That's why so many elements of science fiction are prevalent in Japanese fiction and not western fiction: mecha, the space opera, "energy weapons", on and on and on.

I'm not saying that all western science fiction holds to hard science. Of course it doesn't. Star Trek and Star Wars are two examples of science fiction which throw the traditions of Verne and Wells out of the freaking window and never look back. That said, they are not the norm, and it's Wells and Verne who set the tone for Western scifi which has been held to since then.

You're not going to find echoes of Asimov's ruminations on artificial intelligence in Japanese games, but you can find it in the geth in Mass Effect.

You're not going to find Verne's adherence to the problem of pressure and heat in Japanese games, but you can find it squirreled away in the limitations of the Normandy.

You're not going to find Wells' grounded damnations in Japanese games, but you can find it in the claustrophobic halls of the vaults.

The point is that Western science fiction is gounded in physics, in mathematics, because that's the tradition on which we were raised and it's the tradition which we understand. Mecha don't appear in serious Western science fiction. It doesn't happen.

This isn't about setting.

This isn't about aesthetics.

It's not about politics.

It's not about tone.

It's about being grounded in our current understanding of the universe, about capitalizing the "science" in science fiction. Western scifi - and western games, born of the same traditions - do that. Japanese games, as a rule, don't.

Wow, you're going off on so many tangents, I don't know where to begin.  Or if I even want to.

I understand you're REALLY focused on this notion that Western Science Fiction (and by default games with a Science Fiction setting) are more based on 'logic' and 'reality'.  But I was trying to show you that everything is not as cut and dry as you make it out to be.  Plus the fact that you can't just simply look at ONE facet of a genre and say '[X] series is more realistic because it has more of [Y]'.  That's the short answer.

The LONG answer is that the Science Fiction genre has been evolving (much like the RPG genre has been evolving) for over 100 years.  And trying to claim that one whole subdivision of that genre (western science fiction) is more 'grounded in reality' while another subdivision (Japanese based Science Fiction) doesn't is just ignorance.  How is Mass Effect any more valid a Science Fiction work than Ghost in the Shell?  And by your own example, how is Star Trek LESS realistic than Mass Effect?  WHere are all these 'rules' coming from, especially since you're trying to totally ignore such things as setting, athstetics or tone.  What's left?  E=mc2?  I'm sorry buddy, but a big part of Science Fiction isn't about exact calculations or 'fortelling the future', its about telling a story with the 'atmosphere' of technology and the 'setting' that is beyond our time.  Or are you now going to say stuff like Blade Runner and Foundation and Empire are not Science Fiction now?

Also, as an aside, Jules Verne didn't just write technical dramas with depressing endings, as a lot of Science Fiction is today.  They were also functional stories with solid characters and most had happy endings that portrayed a positive outlook for both humanity and technology.  Once again, I point to how this is a common theme in Japanese Science Fiction (using Technology to help humanity, positive outlook on technology) whereas in contrast the opposite is true in Western media and Sci Fi (Technology is a tool, Technology is ultimately the tool of destruction).



Six upcoming games you should look into: