This !

What would be realistic, would be stating that WRPG developper's PR makes crappier comments than JRPG's. They'd better work on their games.

I agree western games tend to be more realistic... as in yeah this is fantasy but this can actually/may actually happen. He isn't bashing them so...

By realism i think he meant logical realism for the realm that it's in.You would never see a 7 year old kill a 400 pound man with two punches in a WRPG but you'll see it in a JRPG with no given explation except "i trained for years"

If I truly cared about realism, I would step outside instead of playing games

After reading from that database I can confidently say that this makes references to scientific principles, but that's not the same thing as being grounded in science. How does a logic propulsion system work? Why do people fly around in mechs? How does a phase transfer cannnon work? Why can human-sized Realians used weaponry that fires ordinance comparable to tanks without being blasted backwards and torn to pieces? Why can a mech that's 10m tall destroy structures "several kilometers long" with a single "blow"?

You can see what I'm saying.

Compare that to the kin of stuff you find in the Mass Effect Codex:

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

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

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

http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Codex/Ships_and_Vehicles#FTL_Drive

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

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

http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Codex/Aliens:_Council_Races#Salarians

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

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

And this is only scratching the surface. Everything in this series is justified to the best of the abilities of the people writing it. This series is grounded in a way that Xenosaga is not, regardless of all the references that Xenosaga makes.

I don't recommend reading too much of the Codex as it potentially contains spoilers but hopefully you get the gist.

WRPGs are worlds more realistic than JRPGs. I think of realism as a certain number of things (by priority):

1. Real time combat

In a street fight, a giant HUD does not appear in your eyes with "Attack, Magic, Item," while the enemy waits up to 7 days before you pick a choice.

2. Setting

Post apocalyptic anything is more realistic than some fantasy world with chocobos and airships

3. Tolkien precedence

JRR Tolkien created the basis for every WRPG starting with Dungeons & Dragons on up to Dragon Age: Origins. I am unsure where the entire Final Fantasy series fits into the Tolkien perspective. I am not saying that Tolkien has not inspired JRPGs to a large extent, but due to the lack of JRPG developer insight on their ideas, I don't know where they come from.

4. Protagonists, antagonists, and party members

WRPG protagonists come in all shapes, sizes, ugly, attractive, and age. JRPGs, I am picking on Final Fantasy, seem to have 16 year old protagonists who are attactive, slim, and can lift a sword twice the size and weight of them. Cloud from FF7 is the most unbelievable, fantastic protagonist in an RPG ever.

A common and good rebuttal to my points would be "What about the Elder Scrolls series?"

The Elder Scrolls series is grounded strongly in the Tolkien precedence as being a fantasy world with humans, elves, dwarves and dragons. The most unrealstic aspects of the Elder Scrolls series are the cat people and lizard people. Likewise, the Elder Scrolls series does not have a continous war between orcs and men as Warhammer and WarCraft do.

That being said, The Elder Scrolls series is realistic because it has real time combat, is grounded in the Tolkien precedence, and has protagonists, antagonists, and party members of all walks of life.

This is not to say that Final Fantasy games do not have protagonists, antagonists, and party members of all walks of life. They do, but JRPGs like anime, tend to suspend the main cast into a 13-18 age range with teeny boppers wielding 400 pound, 8 foot long battle axes and swords. In contrast, both Sten and Oghren in Dragon Age: Origins are easily believable wielding their two handers due to their strength and background as accomplished, veteran warriors.

The Elder Scroll series is less realistic than the Fallout series, but more realistic than most JRPGs.

Just so. Exactly so. Like I said before: Mass Effect Fields are the only really fantastical element of Mass Effect, and as they're a fantastical principle of physics it's still a grounded fantastical element.

Mass Effect, to the best of my knowledge, never works outside of the bounds of its established science in any meaningful way. Dreadnought size and weaponry is limited by physics, space combat is limited by heat build-up, metabolic rates affect lifespan, on and on and on. It's not hard science, but it puts on a hard science tuxedo when it's time to party.

That's what the guy was talking about: it's a general tendency in western RPGs to have explanations for seemingly "fantastical" elements that are rooted in real-world logic. JRPGs tend to b much more fantastical.

It doesn't mean one is worse or better than the other. It's just different.

1. This has nothing to do with realism and is factually incorrect besides.

The first two Fallout games - in some ways much more grounded and realistic than the third - operate off of a turn-based system. In fact, for a long time the vast majority of WRPGs operated off of turn-based systems, and maybe still do in some way. You're forgetting the roots of the WRPG mechanic being in the d20 system. Lots, and ots, and lots of WRPGs are turn-based. Always have been. Probably always will be.

2. This is nothing more than cultural bias concerning expectations of realistic settings. More, post-apocalyptic settings are only a very narrow subset of WRPG settings (there are probably nenarly as many JRPGs with the same setting), and the vast majority of them, like Dragon Age, ever D&D campaign ever, the majority of GURPs, Mass Effect, KotOR, the Elder Scrolls, etc. occurring in much more fantastical settings.

3. Tolkien just created exectations. That does not make something realistic, it just means it holds to western fantasy archetypes.

4. This is needlessly reductive and ignores good, diverse, at-least-partially ugly casts in JRPGs. Try Fire Emblem, or any game directed by Matsuno. More, it also ignores how many WRPG castts also hold to character archetypes in their own genre.

The majority of what you're describing has nothing to do with realism.

I am not even going to try to refute you points because I am fairly confident just from a cursory read of your posts, that you are far more educated in Western literature than I am. Also, I am respectful and have a strong enough ego that I can allow someone to destroy my logic without resorting to a pointless back and forth of who has the biggest epeenis.

I admit as a US citizen, there is a definite cultural bias. Tolkien from what I understand and have read from my 3rd grade years on in fantasy novels ithe major source of inspiration for Western based role playing games be it D&D or Dragon Age.

I will quibble about the turn-based vs. real time as more realistic. Yes, turn-based was the most prevalent in the past with RPGs I played. That is the past.

However, as more RPGs go from turn-based to real time, I find it mighty unrealistic how each and every Final Fantasy game from the original Final Fantasy still has the trademark "Attack:Magic:Item" menu during combat. JRPGs such as Final Fantasy would be more realistic if they got in line with the times and transitioned into real time.

I am singling out Final Fantasy when I speak of JRPGs because it is very dear series to my heart. I am quite aware of newly released and upcoming JRPGs that are real time. Nier comes to mind.

As for the sci-fi setting of Mass Effect and Star Wars, I am unsure how to grade them on realism as all sci-fi is unbelievable as fantasy based RPGs. In fairness, a talk of RPGs and mentioning "setting" as realism, yes sci-fi is a major detractor to my thrust of "setting" as a realistic debating point.

Speaking of realism, I am starting to think setting is  moot point because each game and each story is unrealistic to a large degree. Henceforth, setting should not be a criterion.

He's right, for sure, with a few exceptions, but it remains to one's opinion whether this is a good or a bad thing.