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

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.

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

(2) 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..

(3) 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 :)

(4) 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?

(5) 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."

(6) Just proves my point...cuz you know why? NEWS FLASH! IF it is not realistic today, it's not realistic!

(7) 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...

(8) 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

(9) 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 (10) 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

1. This is deeply ironic coming after a post where you said you were done.

2. You're confusing elements that are not currently possible with elements that are not theoretically possible. Again, they are not the same thing.

3. It's about as realistic as Fire Emblem, which is to say that realism is not one of the justifications of its settings. It doesn't care about scientific theory or principle. That's fine. Pretending it's realistic is a crime against language.

4. My point is that there usually are rules of magic in more serious western fantasy. It's rare tat there are rules for how magic works in Japanese fantasy. Of course there are exceptions - Okami goes a long way toward jsutifying its fantastical elements - but those are the exceptions, not the rule.

5. Nothing of the sort. A lot of scifi isn't grounded at all. THat doens't take away the idea that there are cultural trends toward realism or fantasy in different storytelling traditions.

6. Horse poop. Realism can be based on observation of possibility as much as current circumstances. By your logic, no story set more than a few years in the future can be "realistic", which is hogwash.

7. Realism is based on understanding. There is a difference.

8. Summoning ifrits while 'growing crazy hair' does not fit under any understanding of what's possible or will ever be possible.

9. I'm willing to bet you won't.

10. You're off the track here. I don't prefer WRPGs to JRPGs. That isn't what this topic is about. It's about recognizing differences in storytelling modes between the two cultures, not making some kind of value judgment based on those differences.



Around the Network
Khuutra on 08 August 2010
Kenryoku_Maxis said:
Khuutra said:

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.

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

(2) 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. 

(3) 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.  (4) 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. 

(5) How is Mass Effect any more valid a Science Fiction work than Ghost in the Shell? 

(6) And by your own example, how is Star Trek LESS realistic than Mass Effect? 

(7) 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? 

(8) 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?

(9) 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).

1. These only seem tangential because you came into a topic without trying to familiarize yourself with the discussion or with the topic being discussed. At its heart, this discussion is about the storytelling modes of two very different storytelling cultures, and the points I made build upon the observed differences between those modes.

2. Not "any game with a science fiction setting". I'm talking about games which come about as a result of a storytelling culture that finds its roots in Verne and Dickens and Dumas. Science fiction settings aren't enough to qualify, here, because that doesn't imply that they're more attached to the principles set down in these storytelling modes.

More, it's not about "logic and reality", it's about justification according to our current understanding of the universe.

3. I think you mean  "a series is more [x] because of [y]" but whatever. And actually, yes, you can, when X and Y have correlation through causation. Pretending that patterns can't be recognized is dishonest.

4. It would only be a conclusion of ignorance if the conclusion were based on ignorance rather than observation. Trying to ignore differences in cultural storytelling modes when they are consistent and easy to point out is not ignorant, it's actively and personally dishonest. Hell, some people would argue that assuming identical standards of cultural modes is a form of cultural racism, but I've never belonged to that camp so I won't accuse you of pigeon-holing all storytelling cultures according to your own understanding. The point remains, though, that this is not ignorance, it's observation.

5. Well, the digitization of the human mind is a philosophical concept rather than a practical one, sinnce the advent of that kind of technology won't come around in the same timeframe as presented in Ghost in the Shell (obviously).

But more, you're being misleading: you latch onto one of the only examples of a particularly grounded piece of Japanese science fiction and hold it up as an example of the genre in that culture. It's not. It is an exception. More, it doesn't reflect on JRPGs, or even on science fiction in anime; its influences (like in the Matrix) were primarily philosophical rather than scientific. That's an important distinction.

6. I'm glad you asked, actually.

Mass Effect operates off of a single fantastical idea: the Mass Effect, wherein a particular element is able to exert an effect on spacetime based on the charge of an electric current running through it:

http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Codex/Technology#Mass_Effect_Fields

That is the only real fantastical idea in the whole shebang. Everything else - FTL travel, biotics, FTL communications, etc. - are all based on the Mass Effect, logical extrapolations of a new scientific principle.

Beyond this, everything is figured out through hard science and calculations. There are certain planets that certain vehicles can't travel to because you would produce enough ehat in escaping the atmosphere to severely damage the environment. Space combat is limited by thermal buildup. Metabolic rates of alien species have a direct effect on lifespan. Every single weapon, ship, planet, species, and fantastical concept (even the Lovecraftian race of machine gods) are grounded in possibility and our understanding of physics. The team creating this world has gone to extreme lengths to be able to justify everything about the series in a way that eases suspension of disbelief for nerds of hard science:

http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Codex/Technology#Computers:_Artificial_Intelligence_.28AI.29

http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Codex/Technology#Element_Zero_.28.22Eezo.22.29

http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Codex/Weapons,_Armor_and_Equipment#Small_Arms

http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Codex/Weapons,_Armor_and_Equipment#Mass_Accelerators

http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Codex/Weapons,_Armor_and_Equipment#Kinetic_Barriers_.28.22Shields.22.29_2

http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Codex/Ships_and_Vehicles#Space_Combat:_Combat_Endurance

http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Codex/Ships_and_Vehicles#Space_Combat:_Pursuit_Tactics

http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Codex/Ships_and_Vehicles#Starships:_Crew_Considerations

http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Codex/Ships_and_Vehicles#Starships:_Dreadnought

On and on and on and on and on. Everything is painstakingly researched and crafted to be justifiable in the context of this universe.

Star Trek is not like that.

Star Trek plays hard and loose with the laws of physics and continuity for the sake of the story. It was true when Roddenberry was at the helm, and it's been true for every single writer since then. No Star Trek series has ever built a story around science. You can tell that I don't thhink this is bad. It's not. Star Trek is good science fiction. It's just not hard, not grounded.

But how do you explain the physics of the warp drives? The energy output of phasers? The heat problems of the Borg Cube? The Q? Man, the Q. I could have just said "the Q" and avoided this, but I want to finish.

7. You have to understand that the point here is not about "good" science fiction or fantasy. We are not referring to a body of quality, but to a single quality: being grounded in physics, logistics, and hard and concrete scientific principles. This is not necessarily a good quality to have. I've seen stories choke to death on realism. But noting realism where it exists is not a crime.

8. Agreed! Absolutely agreed. But those qualities that make for a good story are not what we'e tlaking about here.

And don't call me buddy with that tone, it's very offensive.

9. Granted, but irrelevant to the discussion at hand. This isn't about tone or theme.



darthdevidem01 on 08 August 2010

So in a sentence Khuutra you think Sci Fi WRPG's tend to explain the things that happen in them according to our current knowledge of how the world works while Sci Fi JRPG's don't go into deep explanations and leave things to the imagination?



All hail the KING, Andrespetmonkey

Khuutra on 08 August 2010
darthdevidem01 said:

So in a sentence Khuutra you think Sci Fi WRPG's tend to explain the things that happen in them according to our current knowledge of how the world works while Sci Fi JRPG's don't go into deep explanations and leave things to the imagination?

Yeah, that's basically it. You can argue the tone of fantasy is more grounded but that's a lot, lot harder to qualify in a concrete way.



darthdevidem01 on 08 August 2010
Khuutra said:
darthdevidem01 said:

So in a sentence Khuutra you think Sci Fi WRPG's tend to explain the things that happen in them according to our current knowledge of how the world works while Sci Fi JRPG's don't go into deep explanations and leave things to the imagination?

Yeah, that's basically it. You can argue the tone of fantasy is more grounded but that's a lot, lot harder to qualify in a concrete way.

I agree with you there after playing ME1/2 and SO4 so close to eachother, and from what I remember of Rogue Galaxy not many explanations about technology were given to us. Hmm I haven't played many space sci fi JRPG's at all.

I won't even ask why such a simple statement has led to the quote wars and talks about authors and philosophies and what not.



All hail the KING, Andrespetmonkey

Around the Network
Riachu on 08 August 2010
Kenryoku_Maxis said:
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).

The reason for the more cynical Western sci-fi is simple.  It's because we have a much higher crime rate and we have soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Not to mention we are going through the worst economic downturn in history besides the Great Depression.  That makes it worrisome for many of technological advancements.  In Japan, the crime rate is very low and they usually depend on us in times of war so they have a cheerier deposition about the future.



 

http://www.youtube.com/user/InvaderZimGuy1?feature=mhum

Khuutra on 08 August 2010
darthdevidem01 said:
Khuutra said:

Yeah, that's basically it. You can argue the tone of fantasy is more grounded but that's a lot, lot harder to qualify in a concrete way.

I agree with you there after playing ME1/2 and SO4 so close to eachother, and from what I remember of Rogue Galaxy not many explanations about technology were given to us. Hmm I haven't played many space sci fi JRPG's at all.

I won't even ask why such a simple statement has led to the quote wars and talks about authors and philosophies and what not.

A lot of people in the topic (on both sides) think this is about what's better between JRPGs and WRPGs.



Kenryoku_Maxis on 08 August 2010
Khuutra said:
Kenryoku_Maxis said:
Khuutra said:

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.

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

(2) 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. 

(3) 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.  (4) 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. 

(5) How is Mass Effect any more valid a Science Fiction work than Ghost in the Shell? 

(6) And by your own example, how is Star Trek LESS realistic than Mass Effect? 

(7) 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? 

(8) 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?

(9) 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).

1. These only seem tangential because you came into a topic without trying to familiarize yourself with the discussion or with the topic being discussed. At its heart, this discussion is about the storytelling modes of two very different storytelling cultures, and the points I made build upon the observed differences between those modes.

2. Not "any game with a science fiction setting". I'm talking about games which come about as a result of a storytelling culture that finds its roots in Verne and Dickens and Dumas. Science fiction settings aren't enough to qualify, here, because that doesn't imply that they're more attached to the principles set down in these storytelling modes.

More, it's not about "logic and reality", it's about justification according to our current understanding of the universe.

3. I think you mean  "a series is more [x] because of [y]" but whatever. And actually, yes, you can, when X and Y have correlation through causation. Pretending that patterns can't be recognized is dishonest.

4. It would only be a conclusion of ignorance if the conclusion were based on ignorance rather than observation. Trying to ignore differences in cultural storytelling modes when they are consistent and easy to point out is not ignorant, it's actively and personally dishonest. Hell, some people would argue that assuming identical standards of cultural modes is a form of cultural racism, but I've never belonged to that camp so I won't accuse you of pigeon-holing all storytelling cultures according to your own understanding. The point remains, though, that this is not ignorance, it's observation.

5. Well, the digitization of the human mind is a philosophical concept rather than a practical one, sinnce the advent of that kind of technology won't come around in the same timeframe as presented in Ghost in the Shell (obviously).

But more, you're being misleading: you latch onto one of the only examples of a particularly grounded piece of Japanese science fiction and hold it up as an example of the genre in that culture. It's not. It is an exception. More, it doesn't reflect on JRPGs, or even on science fiction in anime; its influences (like in the Matrix) were primarily philosophical rather than scientific. That's an important distinction.

6. I'm glad you asked, actually.

Mass Effect operates off of a single fantastical idea: the Mass Effect, wherein a particular element is able to exert an effect on spacetime based on the charge of an electric current running through it:

http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Codex/Technology#Mass_Effect_Fields

That is the only real fantastical idea in the whole shebang. Everything else - FTL travel, biotics, FTL communications, etc. - are all based on the Mass Effect, logical extrapolations of a new scientific principle.

Beyond this, everything is figured out through hard science and calculations. There are certain planets that certain vehicles can't travel to because you would produce enough ehat in escaping the atmosphere to severely damage the environment. Space combat is limited by thermal buildup. Metabolic rates of alien species have a direct effect on lifespan. Every single weapon, ship, planet, species, and fantastical concept (even the Lovecraftian race of machine gods) are grounded in possibility and our understanding of physics. The team creating this world has gone to extreme lengths to be able to justify everything about the series in a way that eases suspension of disbelief for nerds of hard science:

http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Codex/Technology#Computers:_Artificial_Intelligence_.28AI.29

http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Codex/Technology#Element_Zero_.28.22Eezo.22.29

http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Codex/Weapons,_Armor_and_Equipment#Small_Arms

http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Codex/Weapons,_Armor_and_Equipment#Mass_Accelerators

http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Codex/Weapons,_Armor_and_Equipment#Kinetic_Barriers_.28.22Shields.22.29_2

http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Codex/Ships_and_Vehicles#Space_Combat:_Combat_Endurance

http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Codex/Ships_and_Vehicles#Space_Combat:_Pursuit_Tactics

http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Codex/Ships_and_Vehicles#Starships:_Crew_Considerations

http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Codex/Ships_and_Vehicles#Starships:_Dreadnought

On and on and on and on and on. Everything is painstakingly researched and crafted to be justifiable in the context of this universe.

Star Trek is not like that.

Star Trek plays hard and loose with the laws of physics and continuity for the sake of the story. It was true when Roddenberry was at the helm, and it's been true for every single writer since then. No Star Trek series has ever built a story around science. You can tell that I don't thhink this is bad. It's not. Star Trek is good science fiction. It's just not hard, not grounded.

But how do you explain the physics of the warp drives? The energy output of phasers? The heat problems of the Borg Cube? The Q? Man, the Q. I could have just said "the Q" and avoided this, but I want to finish.

7. You have to understand that the point here is not about "good" science fiction or fantasy. We are not referring to a body of quality, but to a single quality: being grounded in physics, logistics, and hard and concrete scientific principles. This is not necessarily a good quality to have. I've seen stories choke to death on realism. But noting realism where it exists is not a crime.

8. Agreed! Absolutely agreed. But those qualities that make for a good story are not what we'e tlaking about here.

And don't call me buddy with that tone, it's very offensive.

9. Granted, but irrelevant to the discussion at hand. This isn't about tone or theme.

Really, I fail to see how Star Trek is 'less' Science Fiction than Mass Effect just because they emphasized realism and physics in Mass Effect.  They tried to do much of the same thing in Star Trek.  Yes they took liberties with the story in Star Trek, but that's because they didn't want to spend 100 years traveling from one planet to the other.

And frankly, if this was 20 years ago, you would be using Star Trek as your example as a Science Fiction series grounded closest in Science Fact.  Its only because you can look at it now after the fact, now that much of the series has come to reality and some of its technology has been scientifically disproven, that you can say its 'not grounded in reality'.  Sure, warp drives and the transporter can't work, but much of the show is grounded in scientific fact.

And as for your other comment, Voyager and Enterprise were the shows that were based on tons of scientific jargon and hypothesis.  Much of the reason they were the least popular (along with having the weakest writing and characters).

Also, I don't really see any main point in this thread.  I went back and read the guys main 'point'.  He just stated no western games are more 'realistic' and backed up his point by stating an example of Fallout 2:

"..Because flaming dogs falling from the sky ( a quest found in Fallout 2)  and giant ants that breathe fire by expelling flammable venom from their venom sacks, then igniting it with a spark made by clicking their mandibles( also in Fallout 2) is ultra-realistic, isn’t it?"

As I've already pointed out.  Just because a game has more 'technical' or seemingly more 'realistic' does not make it more of an RPG or more Sci FI.

And he even stated that at the end, by saying: "No one game is realistic. That’s why they’re called games."



Six upcoming games you should look into:

 

  

Slimebeast on 08 August 2010
darthdevidem01 said:

So in a sentence Khuutra you think Sci Fi WRPG's tend to explain the things that happen in them according to our current knowledge of how the world works while Sci Fi JRPG's don't go into deep explanations and leave things to the imagination?

It's not only that. You only need one unrealistic prerequisition (am I using the right word here?) before playing any WRPG which is: that fantasy world x esists, but the rest from there on will be believable and logical. In other words realistic.

For example, a JRPG can put 4 children to save the world any day without even reflecting on how unlikely and unrealistic that is. That couldn't happen in a WRPG. If a WRPG puts an unlikely character to try and save the world it would at least tell you several times how unusual and fantastic that would be. Like in Lord of the Rings you're repeatedly told how impossible the task of the hobbits is. It's one of the main emotions they want to give the reader/viewer, the sense of smallness, inadequacy and tough odds.



Khuutra on 08 August 2010
Kenryoku_Maxis said:

Really, I fail to see how Star Trek is 'less' Science Fiction than Mass Effect just because they emphasized realism and physics in Mass Effect.  They tried to do much of the same thing in Star Trek.  Yes they took liberties with the story in Star Trek, but that's because they didn't want to spend 100 years traveling from one planet to the other.

And frankly, if this was 20 years ago, you would be using Star Trek as your example as a Science Fiction series grounded closest in Science Fact.  Its only because you can look at it now after the fact, now that much of the series has come to reality and some of its technology has been scientifically disproven, that you can say its 'not grounded in reality'.  Sure, warp drives and the transporter can't work, but much of the show is grounded in scientific fact.

And as for your other comment, Voyager and Enterprise were the shows that were based on tons of scientific jargon and hypothesis.  Much of the reason they were the least popular (along with having the weakest writing and characters).

Also, I don't really see any main point in this thread.  I went back and read the guys main 'point'.  He just stated no western games are more 'realistic' and backed up his point by stating an example of Fallout 2:

"..Because flaming dogs falling from the sky ( a quest found in Fallout 2)  and giant ants that breathe fire by expelling flammable venom from their venom sacks, then igniting it with a spark made by clicking their mandibles( also in Fallout 2) is ultra-realistic, isn’t it?"

As I've already pointed out.  Just because a game has more 'technical' or seemingly more 'realistic' does not make it more of an RPG or more Sci FI.

And he even stated that at the end, by saying: "No one game is realistic. That’s why they’re called games."

Firstly, Star Trek was non-grounded science fiction from the start. That was as true all those years ago as it is now. They broke the laws of logic more often in the old days, but things haven't really changd much. Trying to defend the groundedness of Star Trek is an inherently fruitless endeavour.

Secondly, you are misreading that quote. The Bethesda representative's quote ends with "If you compare the sci-fi in Mass Effect to the science fiction in a million Japanese games, it just gets really, really out there. I think the two sensibilities break down more like that." The OP in this topic simply failed to delineate the quote from the article that quoted it.

Thirdly:

YOU ARE NOT LISTENING.

An observation of differences in storytelling modes is not a qualitative judgment concerning those modes.

Being grounded in hard science does not make something "more science fiction". You're jumpingi nto an argument that no one is posing - I'm not going to guess why! Actually yes I am: it's because you are demonstrably overdefensive whenever you think anyone is slighting JRPGs. I don't care about that! I do not give a shit about the WRPG vs. JRPG "debate". That is not what this discussion is about!

This discussion is about a tendency in WRPGs to be more grounded in reality than JRPGs are! You have not offered an argument to the contrary that made any sense whatsoever. You keep trying to turn this into some horse shit about what constitutes "real" science fiction or RPGs because that's the mode you'reu sed to arguing in, but I do not care. I'm here to point out that that's not what the quote is about. It's about being grounded in our current understanding of how things work.

It's true. The storytelling modes in the East and the West are to be different. That's fine! It's even great. It's to be celebrated, because differences lead to richness and variety of experience. It has nothing to do with which is better or which is more "real" as examples of a genre.

Do you understand?