Eastern RPG's vs. Western RPG's

[Laddy]

Hey there, EoFF.

Recently I've been working on a lot of events in conventions and things, and I wanted to do an event that discusses the history of the RPG and how it evolved into two separate subgenres. The panel is primarily about how the genre developed from tabletop games to early computer gaming and the eventual rise of popularity resulting in the genre becoming incredibly popular.

One of the things I plan to highlight is the difference between western and eastern RPG's as I find it to be one of the most fascinating topics in gaming and gaming history. So, I ask you as I tend to be firmly in the middle in relation to this debate, what are the best arguments for why either one is "better" and what are the best (and worst) examples for each?

[VeloZer0]

Defining one as better and worse implies that they are both trying to deliver the same gaming experience. In that sense labeling them as subsets of 'RPG' is somewhat of a misnomer as they both evolved independently and are really quite different generes. In reality they should each have distinct names to alleviate this distinction.

In short it is like discussing which is better First Person Shooters or First Person Adventure games. They can't be judged on the same criteria, just because they have some similar elements or a name that implies relation.

[Bolivar]

From what I heard they didn't develop completely independently. Yuji Horii loved Wizardry and wanted to make a more accessible version of the game that anybody could play. From that point on, everyone in Japan was trying to reimagine Dragon Quest, a lot of them probably had no idea what Wizardry was. There were JRPGs before DQ, but that was the game that established the archetype, the rules by which everyone else had to follow.

I haven't played the classics yet, but one strength of WRPGs is that they're always about letting you create your own characters from the start. This gives you a good sense of control, feeling like you're experiencing a totally different game than someone else who may have made a different character. Of course, the counter to this is that JRPGs do a great job of letting you customize your character over time and make them completely different than anyone else's.

What really separates the two is the legitimate freedom of choice in WRPGs. If you don't feel like setting off quite yet to that distant town where the next chapter of the story takes place, there's plenty of things around you right now to get busy on. I've found most JRPGs stockpile their sidequests on the back end.

Accordingly, the strength of the JRPG is its ability to create the set piece. It's that moment when you're in a specific area, with a specific objective in mind, a song is playing that was especially crafted for that sequence, there's tons of crazy things going on around you, and this moment has paramount consequences to the story. In the newer WRPGs I've played everything seems kind of stiff and static to me. I can choose to go off and explore a dungeon, but that dungeon will always be waiting for me. It will always look the same, sound the same, it will generally have the same placement of traps and layout of enemies, even if the types of monsters changes as I increase in level. However, that JRPG moment will never exist again in the story, it's a one time thing, and it's completely different from anything else you'll see in the story.

It all comes down to crafting an experience to letting the player make one for themselves. I think it's a harder endeavor to create a story, with visuals, writing, and music that all work together to make the player feel something. I'm enjoying Oblivion, but all too often I find I'm in a boring town with boring NPCs and I'm responsible for going out and making my own fun. I know there's older games you guys recommend in the genre but I can't imagine how other high fantasy takes could make such towns any more interesting.

That's another topic in the debate. I've noticed all the WRPGs I've been exposed to stick to either the high fantasy or sci fi setting. JRPGs break the boundaries of these genre more, such as fighting robots and activating computers in Final Fantasy I's Wind Temple or slaying dragons near the Nibehlheim reactor in Final Fantasy VII. The SMT games and Valkyria Chronicles are also interesting examples of how Japan deviates from generic Fantasy/Sci Fi settings.

JRPGs also have a pretty successful subgenres, like SRPGs which have distinctive game design from the traditional game. I know there's rogue-likes and action-oriented games, but I haven't seen a lot of differentiation or variation in WRPGs aside from some being in first person as one character and others in third person with a party.

I know this post came off as more fanboyish than I would've liked, but those are a couple of the differences I've seen based on my current foray into WRPGs.

[Psychotic]

Eastern - or Japanese - RPG's aren't RPGs at all, but adventure games with RPG elements. Not saying that's a bad thing, mind you. And that's "Japanese RPGs" as a type of game, not "Every RPG made in Japan". You can find Western Japanese RPGs too, as an example. That EA Lord of the Rings game The Third Age which ripped off FFX is a good example of a JRPG made in the West. EA even approached EoFF to get us to promote it as I recall.

[ShinGundam]

You need to check both console and retro PC JRPGs. I recommend you to use game database for Japanese centric games: Game Database

Clicking on a game title will open an individual page for that game. Each page contains the Japanese title, the title in English/romaji, multiple screenshots, and publication information. For example: Final Fantasy 7 on PS1 and Illusion City on PC98.

In Japan, they classified RPGs this way:
1- RPGs: mostly like FF games, DQ, classic Phantasy Star and so on.
2- 3D RPGs: simply first person RPGs, sometimes these games include fully 3D polygonal graphics similar to Star Cruiser or set out in a pseudo-3D map battling various enemies in real time .
3- Action RPGs: games like Ys, Xak, Exile.

Just in case, SRPGs are called "simulation" games whether the game is turn based or RTS.

One of the things I plan to highlight is the difference between western and eastern RPG's as I find it to be one of the most fascinating topics in gaming and gaming history. So, I ask you as I tend to be firmly in the middle in relation to this debate, what are the best arguments for why either one is "better" and what are the best (and worst) examples for each?

There isn't much of diffrence to me other than, in Japan they focus on one epic quest but if they give you more freedom then the content may be just a filler or disjointed much like any modern RPG nowadays.

[Wolf Kanno]

Accordingly, the strength of the JRPG is its ability to create the set piece. It's that moment when you're in a specific area, with a specific objective in mind, a song is playing that was especially crafted for that sequence, there's tons of crazy things going on around you, and this moment has paramount consequences to the story. In the newer WRPGs I've played everything seems kind of stiff and static to me. I can choose to go off and explore a dungeon, but that dungeon will always be waiting for me. It will always look the same, sound the same, it will generally have the same placement of traps and layout of enemies, even if the types of monsters changes as I increase in level. However, that JRPG moment will never exist again in the story, it's a one time thing, and it's completely different from anything else you'll see in the story.

I don't know man, I kind of feel any game with cinematic sequences can do this. I mean what makes Solid Snake sneaking into Shadow Moses island any different from what you described. I get how it separates JRPGs from WRPGs but how is that trait really unique to JRPGs?

[Laddy]

Apologies, for I shall bitch.

Newer WRPG's suck. Hard. I still maintain that games such as Skyrim or Oblivion so hopelessly miss the point of what makes a WRPG great it is embarrassing to the genre. It has some much "choice" and "freedom" but very little of it is particularly interesting. Also, the leveling system is hopelessly stupid.

Accordingly, the strength of the JRPG is its ability to create the set piece. It's that moment when you're in a specific area, with a specific objective in mind, a song is playing that was especially crafted for that sequence, there's tons of crazy things going on around you, and this moment has paramount consequences to the story.

I'm sorry...but I don't understand where you're going with here. How do WRPG's with any emphasis in story lack this? How is Aerith's death any more or less significant to the plot than say, attaining godhood or the discovery of Darth Revan's identity? Both plot events have elements are specifically written, composed, and directed for those particular scenes. They are gripping. They are poignant. They have paramount significance to the story.

It all comes down to crafting an experience to letting the player make one for themselves. I think it's a harder endeavor to create a story, with visuals, writing, and music that all work together to make the player feel something. I'm enjoying Oblivion, but all too often I find I'm in a boring town with boring NPCs and I'm responsible for going out and making my own fun. I know there's older games you guys recommend in the genre but I can't imagine how other high fantasy takes could make such towns any more interesting.

Oblivion isn't a plot game, it's 70% filler to give the illusion the world is alive and populated when it's not. I've always said that Oblivion and Skyrim are terrible as RPG's for reasons such as this. If you don't like high fantasy, pick up Arcanum, a steampunk game, or Planescape: Torment, a game who's setting is so original it is downright gripping, or Fallout, a post-apocalyptic game. There are other settings out there, you just have to look.

That's another topic in the debate. I've noticed all the WRPGs I've been exposed to stick to either the high fantasy or sci fi setting. JRPGs break the boundaries of these genre more, such as fighting robots and activating computers in Final Fantasy I's Wind Temple or slaying dragons near the Nibehlheim reactor in Final Fantasy VII. The SMT games and Valkyria Chronicles are also interesting examples of how Japan deviates from generic Fantasy/Sci Fi settings.

WRPG's have very distinct setting. But again, you have to look. Like the ones I've mentioned you've got a ton of great games in cool setting, such as:

• Gorky 17, a modern horror-themed game.
• Vampire: The Masquerade, there are two games, but they take place in an underground vampire society in modern times.
• Arx Fatalis, a fantasy game that takes place entirely underground.
• Ultima and Wizardry both combine high fantasy and sci-fi, much like Star Ocean.
• Deus Ex is a cyberpunk game and it is excellent.
• Hellgate: London pretty much speaks for itself. A gate to hell opens up in Modern London.
• Jade Empire is a kung-fu based game in a world parallel to China.
• Freedom Force is superhero-themed.
• Alpha Protocol is spy-themed.

In regards to the dungeons and plot events in WRPG's, I can say you're (mostly) incorrect. How does choosing the sequence of where you go make the events you encounter any less important? Especially if the order and means you handle such events can actually have a tangible effect on the plot? How does going to one place in Fallout whenever I want somehow make it less unique than say...a location in a Final Fantasy game? Especially if it's well-done?

Anyway, rant over. I seriously suggest you check out some of the game I mention, there's some really great games out there and don't let Bethesda taint an excellent genre.

[Bolivar]

Laddy, I thought you were surveying our opinions, not that you were going to argue with us if you disagree. I wouldn't have been as frank if I knew I was going to be critiqued by someone knowledgeable of both genres, especially when I openly acknowledge that I'm not in my own post.

Of course if you look hard enough, you can always find a game that will shatter a generalization. My post wasn't a comprehensive blanket statement saying the genre has never done and can never do certain things. You probably could've saved yourself a lot of time if you read this half of a sentence

I know there's older games you guys recommend in the genre

You also have to take into account that I'm a Sci-Fi/Fantasy reader. A nuclear post-apocalyptic world is actually one of the most commonly used settings. So is cyberpunk and steampunk.

Anyway, I do plan on getting to some of the classics, but I'm taking a one-at-a-time approach when it comes to the genre. I actually am enjoying Oblivion. But my PC gaming time is filled up with other genres, too, with Guild Wars 2 constantly throwing completely new things at me, Black Ops giving me a good time from a different input perspective, and Crusader Kings II not allowing me to boot up the game without sucking away 1/4-1/2 of my day...

I get how it separates JRPGs from WRPGs but how is that trait really unique to JRPGs?

This thread is about what's different between WRPGs and JRPGs. I suggest you look elsewhere if you want a discussion about which genres have monopolies over what techniques that no other genres could ever possibly have ever.

If you want a debate, other cinematic games started doing this after a certain JRPG introduced it. Namely Final Fantasy VII. Now go start a different thread.

[Slothy]

I can't re-watch the videos at the moment, but I remember this (three part) series covering a lot of ground with how the two developed separately. I found it quite interesting at the time, though I'm forgetting many of the points they made at the moment. I'll have to check it out again when I get home: Penny Arcade - Extra Credits – Western & Japanese RPGs (part 1)

This thread is about what's different between WRPGs and JRPGs. I suggest you look elsewhere if you want a discussion about which genres have monopolies over what techniques that no other genres could ever possibly have ever.

How is discussing features which aren't unique to JRPG's not relevant to the topic though? Sure, it's important to list those differences, but is it not worth trying to find aspects which are (or are mostly) unique to JRPG's and JRPG's alone? Should we just stop at the ways JRPG's aren't WRPG's rather than also discussing the individual specialties and merits of both? Honestly, you seem like you're coming off as overly defensive here Bolivar, and it doesn't suit you. Did you honestly not expect a discussion of the differences between two genres to include actual debate?

If you want a debate, other cinematic games started doing this after a certain JRPG introduced it. Namely Final Fantasy VII. Now go start a different thread.

Why do you always treat FFVII as though games had never featured set pieces, cutscenes, or whatever else you want to give it credit for before it was released? I hate to be the bearer of bad news Bolivar, but those didn't originate with it and were in fairly wide use in the industry years before FFVII was released. Even limiting ourselves to the Playstation, other games were doing similar things a year or more before Square did them.

[Bolivar]

How is discussing features which aren't unique to JRPG's not relevant to the topic though? Sure, it's important to list those differences, but is it not worth trying to find aspects which are (or are mostly) unique to JRPG's and JRPG's alone? Should we just stop at the ways JRPG's aren't WRPG's rather than also discussing the individual specialties and merits of both? Honestly, you seem like you're coming off as overly defensive here Bolivar, and it doesn't suit you. Did you honestly not expect a discussion of the differences between two genres to include actual debate?

Because between the three of us, you, Wolf, and I have derailed probably about 10 or so threads in the last few weeks. During the course of a comparative discussion on JRPGs and WRPGs, of course I expect mechanics exclusive to one or another to pop up along the way. But to devote entire posts to JRPG exclusive elements alone does not advance how its absence in WRPGs changes the landscape of the debate.

That, and Wolf's (and apparently your) reading comprehension failed on an epic scale, in assuming that since I said I haven't seen something in the few WRPGs I've played, I must therefore think that it can not exist in any other genres ever. :freak:

Can we please get a really valid point and i'm impressed by your thinking. emoticon up in here? Like a scarecrow or something? Oh damn, we got a Raichu! :raichu:

In fact, I don't believe any game mechanics can ever be captive to one genre, exclusively. We've seen progression systems infect First Person Shooters like Call of Duty and multiple endings migrate to action games like Metal Gear Solid.

Why do you always treat FFVII as though games had never featured set pieces, cutscenes, or whatever else you want to give it credit for before it was released? I hate to be the bearer of bad news Bolivar, but those didn't originate with it and were in fairly wide use in the industry years before FFVII was released. Even limiting ourselves to the Playstation, other games were doing similar things a year or more before Square did them.

Gameplay set pieces existed before Final Fantasy VII. Cinematic FMVs existed before Final Fantasy VII. But the seamless transition between the two didn't exist until Cloud hopped off that train and you were then able to control him.

...aaaand we've just derailed the thread.

[Laddy]

You guys are fine, imo. It says "vs." in the title for a reason.

[Bolivar]

Ok.

I don't think JRPGs have exclusive elements that no other genre has.

Final Fantasy VII introduced the seamless transition between cutscenes and gameplay.

[Slothy]

That, and Wolf's (and apparently your) reading comprehension failed on an epic scale, in assuming that since I said I haven't seen something in the few WRPGs I've played, I must therefore think that it can not exist in any other genres ever. :freak:

Can we please get a really valid point and i'm impressed by your thinking. emoticon up in here? Like a scarecrow or something? Oh damn, we got a Raichu! :raichu:

I'm not sure if you're trolling or just being a dick. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt of course, but you're treading an awfully thin line between trying to be funny and being kind of insulting if you ask me, particularly since I never assumed anything of the sort.

Gameplay set pieces existed before Final Fantasy VII. Cinematic FMVs existed before Final Fantasy VII. But the seamless transition between the two didn't exist until Cloud hopped off that train and you were then able to control him.

Even if that were true (and I have to disagree with you on it being the first to seamlessly integrate the two. Hell, even FFVI was taking some more rudimentary stabs at it three years earlier), why does it even matter? It was pretty much inevitable given advances in graphics technology that more people would make use of it and the cutscenes would get better and the transitions more seamless. I can see why it's an important distinction between JRPG's and WRPG's because one is known for cutscenes and in the other they're comparatively rare, but I fail to see why you feel the need to keep bringing up FFVII as though it were god's gift to gaming. It's as suitable an example as any of what you're talking about with JRPG's, but it didn't invent this stuff as you seem to want to believe.

[Bolivar]

Final Fantasy VI didn't have Full Motion Video.

I said JRPGs do some things I haven't seen WRPGs do. Wolf claimed I said these things don't exist in other genres. You said I should defend that position. Assuming your opponent has made an argument they have not is a really valid point and i'm impressed by your thinking.. If people calling you out for logical fallacies is something that insults you then perhaps you should stop making them?

Speaking of logical fallacies, I never suggested 7 was God's gift to gaming. I simply hold that it's a game that advanced the cinematic qualities of the medium. I don't think that's ever been a controversial statement. It also introduced the seamless transition between FMV and gameplay. I'm open to considering any precursors you can find.

Also, the beauty of calling something inevitable is that it has already happened. The foolishness of assuming all things happen on a predetermined timeline has been demonstrated in more authoritative places. Even if something was inevitable, it does not take away from the first person to actually have the ingenuity to do it.

[Slothy]

Final Fantasy VI didn't have Full Motion Video.

So what? It did what it could with Mode 7 graphics and also happened to have in engine cut scenes. Functionally they serve the same purpose.

I said JRPGs do some things I haven't seen WRPGs do. Wolf claimed I said these things don't exist in other genres. You said I should defend that position.

No I didn't.

Assuming your opponent has made an argument they have not is a really valid point and i'm impressed by your thinking.. If people calling you out for logical fallacies is something that insults you then perhaps you should stop making them?

It insults me when you try to brush off my point as being a really valid point and i'm impressed by your thinking. when I did no such thing. I was simply stating that it is perfectly valid, and certainly within the purview of this thread topic, to discuss things JRPG's specialize in which are fairly unique to them. I think we could easily come up with a longer list than set pieces which were never really unique to them at all anyway, and I think it's worth while as well, particularly when recent WRPG's have been relying on creating more set piece moments. I mean, sure, historically that is something JRPG's do more than WRPG's, but why stop there? Why not try to find some more, and perhaps drill down a bit further into how they go about creating these set piece moments and if there's anything unique about their approach. That was all. Anything you inferred beyond that came from your head, not mine.

I simply hold that it's a game that advanced the cinematic qualities of the medium. I don't think that's ever been a controversial statement.

I actually don't see it. It had cut scenes sure. A decent number of them, and they tried to transition

It also introduced the seamless transition between FMV and gameplay. I'm open to considering any precursors you can find.

If you're going to limit yourself solely to the seamless transition from FMV and gameplay I think this misses the point that FMV's are functionally no different than things games were doing for years anyway. They just looked prettier in FFVII. But if you're going to ignore all cutscenes and simply focus on FMV's, then sure, it's hard to think of many examples, largely because I didn't get a Playstation until after FFVII came out.

But okay, so let's just say I concede the point that FFVII introduced the seamless transition between FMV and gameplay. So what? You've yet to actually explain how this moved gaming forward as a medium, or how FFVII in particular influenced it. Okay, so it made things more "cinematic," but you're not even explaining why you think it matters. You're simply stating it happened, and it proliferated, but not why that's good. And honestly, I've got to say that I think the release of MGS less than a year later did far more to sell cinematic games. FFVII was eye-catching sure, but there wasn't much substance behind those FMV's, whereas MGS told a compelling story filled with plenty of mystery and intriguing characters, with top notch voice acting, and well directed in engine cut scenes that transitioned well into gameplay.

Also, the beauty of calling something inevitable is that it has already happened. The foolishness of assuming all things happen on a predetermined timeline has been demonstrated in more authoritative places. Even if something was inevitable, it does not take away from the first person to actually have the ingenuity to do it.

Again, see above. FMV's weren't new. A seamless transition between gameplay and FMV was, but not by much. Many other companies were doing variations of the same thing within such a close time period that it's hard to say that they were actually influenced by FFVII unless they were somehow built from the ground up in under a year. And I'm not trying to take away from what FFVII did, I'm simply saying that it was doing something that many were doing at the exact same time, and which was itself merely a more advanced version of things games had been doing for years before it anyway.

My point being, you seem to be hung up on the technology used to implement the cutscene and transition, rather than the actual substance of it and how it plays out in gameplay terms.

Anyway, it's late and I'm tired so perhaps I'm doing a poor job of getting my point across. Simply put, I don't think you've made an effective argument for why the seamless transition from FMV to gameplay is important, nor how it's substantively different from the in engine cutscenes games had been doing for decades with seamless transitions.