Actually, I thought of a fantastic way to solve both our problems. They could make a game that allowed you to do chose to have random encounters or not. This may not have been possible until recently but think of the possibilities. You could turn it on or off, and if you turn them off, then the next time you need to load a new screen the enemies will be spawned instead of random.

It would take some extra coding of course, but I think it could revolutionize games.

I'm not a fan of any game that bogs me down with unavoidable filler, repetitive animations, and excessively long components that offer little or nothing to the story. Unfortunately, so many of the "heralded" JRPGs over the years are chock-ful of that rubbish. Personally, I find it insulting as a gamer to have that shit crammed down my throat because a designer somewhere across the Pacific wanted his game to be no shorter than 20 hours, no matter how hard you tried to blow through it.

first, to the "JRPG gamers are getting tired, moving to WRPGs and, seeing how they are different, assume it is innovation". That may be true for some people, but what about older gamers like myself and the editors of IGN. I (I can't speak for IGN) have been playing JRPGs and WRPGs for years and have seen far more innovation on the WRPG side.

As for posters such as Rastline, it is apparent that the JRPG fans don't seem to want innovation. Most of them want the same game they got on the SNES. If the JRPG developers sensed that JRPG fans wanted something new, they would innovate their games in a new and unique way for their market.

And random encounters suck. I don't see why anyone would like them or argue that they are good. It is just lazy programming if you ask me.

This will really get some people mad, but it must be said. Video games are an interactive media. The best stories are ones that you, the player, interact with. WRPGs tend to play more to this aspect by making you the main character, and if you play the story that way, it can be very rewarding. JRPGs tend to play more non-interactive, where it is more like watching a movie or reading a book rather than playing a game. The sad thing is that a great JRPG cannot compare with a great movie or book. This is besides the point, however, since IGN is not saying JRPGs should be like WRGPs. That would completely defeat the purpose of innovation if they were to innovate to something that already exists (and therefore would not be innovation).

I would not say that I don't want innovation. There are just some aspects of game play that should remain as they are. The biggest one being that I want to control a PARTY, not a single character. I think not controlling a party cheapens the experience.

I am not mad or anything.  But just because games are interactive doesn't mean they can't be linear.  ex. Uncharted 2

And yet again, JRPGs had already experimented with getting rid of random encounters years ago with games like Chrono Trigger, Mario RPG, Xenogears and even some NES RPGs like Crystalis.  The only reason they persisted is because of graphical limitations (mostly because its easier to have random encounters and not have to program enemies on the screen).  But also because the most popular JRPGs (namely Dragon Quest and Final Fantasy) still utilized Random Encounters.  And even then, the latest Dragon Quest titles have moved away from random encounters following Dragon Quest Monsters: Joker.  Dragon Quest IX has all enemies on the screen, much like Xenogears and Chrono Trigger.  Which I may add, the creators of Dragon Quest worked on Chrono Trigger.

This aside, Random Encounters are not really that bad.  They make the game much faster than you realize.  And, especially in certain games like Dragon Quest and Pokemon, can actually be utilized to both level more effectively and avoid fights more often.  People often label Dragon Quest as a 'grindfest' when in all actuality, it probably has the most options out of any JRPG out there to allow you to skip battles.  From items to spells to abilities to secondary weapon/armor effects to just plain running away (which surprisingly, some RPGs don't let you do).  I know there's been plenty of times when I was playing a Final Fantasy or 'insert WRPG' that I'd like to skip battles and I wasn't able to.  But in Dragon Quest, I have a whole host of items and spells that let me, including the ultimate spell.  'Zoom'

I didn't mention anything about linearality.  It's funny that you attribute JRPG story cliche to linearality.

He's just going off a common stereotype of JRPGs.  Which, no offense, in many ways it seems you are.  That's what this thread and all threads of this type end up doing.  Most people seem to lump all JRPGs into generalizations and stereotypes.  Just look at your wording and the wording of nearly everyone in this thread.  Such phrases as 'most JRPGs' and 'all JRPGs do such and such' or 'most WRPGs tend to do X better than most JRPGs'.  There's exceptions to everything you said and what everyone has been claiming JRPGs do as a whole.

I was referring to your mentioning of "the best stories are the one that you, the player, interact with".

Yeah, a lot of WRPGs are very, very guilty of cliches too. Dragon Age made no effort to hide it, and Fallout's "lone wanderer of post-apocalyptic wasteland" is certainly not the epitome of creativity. Tropes are the foundation of video game stories, and of great stories in general (Star Wars and its epic story is king of the tropes, after all, as is pretty much everything else that's awesome)

Battle system diversity definitely helps. The worlds don't need to be fully interactive, they just need to be more reactive

And i don't like full voice-acting. Call me old fashioned, but i don't. I'll take talking heads over hours of blather any day.