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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - WRPGs versus JRPGs, or: My mis-adventures in KOTOR

Scoobes said:
darkknightkryta said:
gergroy said:
 

Well, you would know what we are talking about if you had played the game.  Fable 2 at the time (remember, it came out like 5 years ago) wasn't a bad game.  However, the comments were about his comparison to xenoblade, a very recent game.  Comparing a recent game to an older, less well recieved game that is an outlier of the WRPG genre isn't a very good comparison.  

As far as the RPG elements, lionhead removed a lot of them for fable 2 and almost completely removed them in fable 3.  I would classify the first fable as an action RPG, but fable 2 and 3 I would probably call action/adventure games.  

Yes I would know better :P.  All I remember is that Sessler and Webb gave Fable 2 game of the year because of its RPG elements, talking to people, being a polygamist, etc.  Though a game as highly acclaimed as Fable 2 should be able to stand the tests of time regardless so I think it is fair to compare to Xenoblade, one of the best WRPG this gen vs one of the best JRPG this gen.

By the same token, Zelda could be considered a JRPG (and a great one at that).

If you want to compare the best WRPGs and JRPGs of this console gen then there are plenty of other games that could be put forward ahead of Fable 2 and are fairly true to the WRPG genre (e.g. Witcher 2, Skyrim, Dragon Age Origins).

Deus Ex: HR!

But I find this whole thread really screwy. People are cherry picking JRPG's and comparing them to negatively cherry picked WRPG's to make a point and Vice Versa.

There are mechanically screwy JRPG's and WRPG's and there are mechanically sound JRPG's and WRPG's. There's some JRPG's and WRPG's with good characters dialogue and story, and some with poor. And everything in between. They are designed from different perspectives Japananese vs Western and have tendencies, but each side overlaps with eachother at times. Atleast imo.



Around the Network
ishiki said:
Scoobes said:
darkknightkryta said:
gergroy said:
 

Well, you would know what we are talking about if you had played the game.  Fable 2 at the time (remember, it came out like 5 years ago) wasn't a bad game.  However, the comments were about his comparison to xenoblade, a very recent game.  Comparing a recent game to an older, less well recieved game that is an outlier of the WRPG genre isn't a very good comparison.  

As far as the RPG elements, lionhead removed a lot of them for fable 2 and almost completely removed them in fable 3.  I would classify the first fable as an action RPG, but fable 2 and 3 I would probably call action/adventure games.  

Yes I would know better :P.  All I remember is that Sessler and Webb gave Fable 2 game of the year because of its RPG elements, talking to people, being a polygamist, etc.  Though a game as highly acclaimed as Fable 2 should be able to stand the tests of time regardless so I think it is fair to compare to Xenoblade, one of the best WRPG this gen vs one of the best JRPG this gen.

By the same token, Zelda could be considered a JRPG (and a great one at that).

If you want to compare the best WRPGs and JRPGs of this console gen then there are plenty of other games that could be put forward ahead of Fable 2 and are fairly true to the WRPG genre (e.g. Witcher 2, Skyrim, Dragon Age Origins).

Deus Ex: HR :P

Of course! The only thing about Deus Ex games is they manage to mix so many genres it's difficult to outright say which one they completely excel in! Especially when they manage to implement each element so damn well



GTA IV, while not the ultimate GOTY despite higher reviews (compared to Fallout 3 who won the most awards) or maybe not even a subjectively GOTY contender for some (also known as overrated), is still far from being a subpar game.



gergroy said:
adriane23 said:
The poor play mechanics of WRPGs (PC RPGs as I like to call them) has always been my major complaint with them. 95% of WRPGs have TERRIBLE battle systems and at least half of them can't even get navigation around the game world correct. It always baffled me how so many people could dismiss this aspect of these games and still consider them great. And don't get me started on the amount of bugs.


interesting, I would say the same about JRPG's.  Especially if you compare recent JRPG's to recent WRPG's it would be the other way around.  

No it wouldn't. Most WRPGs of the past 6 years have generally sloppy play mechanics. The few that do have good gameplay mehcanics are the Mass Effect games, The Witcher games,  and Kingdoms of Amalur. The rest are just content to have you flail your arms wildly with a weapon in your hand.

EDIT: Dragon's Dogma, Demon's Souls, Dark SOuls, and even FFXIII have great play mechanics, because they've been doing that aspect of gaming very well for several decades now.



I am the Playstation Avenger.

   

adriane23 said:
gergroy said:
adriane23 said:
The poor play mechanics of WRPGs (PC RPGs as I like to call them) has always been my major complaint with them. 95% of WRPGs have TERRIBLE battle systems and at least half of them can't even get navigation around the game world correct. It always baffled me how so many people could dismiss this aspect of these games and still consider them great. And don't get me started on the amount of bugs.


interesting, I would say the same about JRPG's.  Especially if you compare recent JRPG's to recent WRPG's it would be the other way around.  

No it wouldn't. Most WRPGs of the past 6 years have generally sloppy play mechanics. The few that do have good gameplay mehcanics are the Mass Effect games, The Witcher games,  and Kingdoms of Amalur. The rest are just content to have you flail your arms wildly with a weapon in your hand.

EDIT: Dragon's Dogma, Demon's Souls, Dark SOuls, and even FFXIII have great play mechanics, because they've been doing that aspect of gaming very well for several decades now.

The only WRPGs this gen that I can think fit that description are Diablo III and possibly Dungeon Siege 3... which is because they're pure hack n' slash. Even the Elder Scrolls games aren't like that.



Around the Network

One thing that needs to be kept in mind is Combat Mechanics is what makes or breaks a JRPG.
History shows us that there are well-loved WRPGs which have a less than perfect combat system, but a JRPG with a sh***y combat system is not even worth a single playthrough. Not because of a difference in standards of either fanbase but because good WRPGs offer the gamer considerably more beyond the actual combat. Actually, imo, this has become more and more apparent over recent years. JRPGs of yore had a certain charm about them, which their more contemporary counterparts somewhat lack( in most cases)



Scoobes said:
adriane23 said:

No it wouldn't. Most WRPGs of the past 6 years have generally sloppy play mechanics. The few that do have good gameplay mehcanics are the Mass Effect games, The Witcher games,  and Kingdoms of Amalur. The rest are just content to have you flail your arms wildly with a weapon in your hand.

EDIT: Dragon's Dogma, Demon's Souls, Dark SOuls, and even FFXIII have great play mechanics, because they've been doing that aspect of gaming very well for several decades now.

The only WRPGs this gen that I can think fit that description are Diablo III and possibly Dungeon Siege 3... which is because they're pure hack n' slash. Even the Elder Scrolls games aren't like that.

Well, if you play as a purely physical warrior (say, 2H swords) you can get away with brainlessly hammering enemys on Sjyrim, at least as long as you're not on the very high end of difficulty. Fable 3 (even though it's not much of an RPG at all) is even guiltier of that. Since that's a pretty popular way of playing I can see that people who are not so used to WRPGs would have that impression.



adriane23 said:
gergroy said:
adriane23 said:
The poor play mechanics of WRPGs (PC RPGs as I like to call them) has always been my major complaint with them. 95% of WRPGs have TERRIBLE battle systems and at least half of them can't even get navigation around the game world correct. It always baffled me how so many people could dismiss this aspect of these games and still consider them great. And don't get me started on the amount of bugs.


interesting, I would say the same about JRPG's.  Especially if you compare recent JRPG's to recent WRPG's it would be the other way around.  

No it wouldn't. Most WRPGs of the past 6 years have generally sloppy play mechanics. The few that do have good gameplay mehcanics are the Mass Effect games, The Witcher games,  and Kingdoms of Amalur. The rest are just content to have you flail your arms wildly with a weapon in your hand.

EDIT: Dragon's Dogma, Demon's Souls, Dark SOuls, and even FFXIII have great play mechanics, because they've been doing that aspect of gaming very well for several decades now.

what WRPG's are you even referring to?  you mention the recent WRPG's which is obviously what I was refering to.  How is demon souls and FFXIII world navigation any good at all?  

This is purely opinion based, but I would say the WRPG's you mentioned are all better at gameplay mechanics and navigation than the JRPG's you mentioned.  It's your opinion though, so you are entitled to it.  



AllfatherStarr said:
One thing that needs to be kept in mind is Combat Mechanics is what makes or breaks a JRPG.
History shows us that there are well-loved WRPGs which have a less than perfect combat system, but a JRPG with a sh***y combat system is not even worth a single playthrough. Not because of a difference in standards of either fanbase but because good WRPGs offer the gamer considerably more beyond the actual combat. Actually, imo, this has become more and more apparent over recent years. JRPGs of yore had a certain charm about them, which their more contemporary counterparts somewhat lack( in most cases)

I completely disagree. The most important thing about a JRPG to me is the story and having an interesting world/lore. I loved a lot of the older Final Fantasy games but the battle system was something I was willing to put up with, not something I really enjoyed engaging in. The story and the wider mythology was what kept me playing.



I also tried playing KOTOR a few years ago and couldn't get into it. The mechanics didn't hold up and I had just played Mass Effect, so I put it aside.

A couple of recent games which would be a better intro into (3rd person) WRPGs would be The Witcher 2 (I have never played the first one and I never felt like I needed too since the game gives you all you need to know.) Also Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning, I'm 90+ hours into this game. It has a great combat system, looks gorgeous, and makes it easy on you when you level up. (Plus if you don't like what you chose while leveling up you can respec almost anytime you want)

Dragon Age Origins is fun, but I wouldn't recommend it to someone who is new to WRPGs, you need to spend a lot of time setting up systems. Also Mass Effect 3 is pretty streamlined if you want an WRPG that is polished to the point of a JRPG.