Why does SE believe that people don't like JPRGs?

**Wolf Kanno** · 09-16-2014, 06:10 AM

Originally Posted by Bolivar

Originally Posted by Wolf Kanno

I simply ask why? What makes a 10 hour experience different from a 40 hour one.

Commitment, along with a hundred different other things, none of which are relevant, constructive, or likely to help your argument that popularity is a zero-sum game, where video games can only sell units to the detriment of other video games.

That is a lousy answer and you are not really being constructive to this debate by ignoring the truth.

Final Fantasy XIII did not sell less than X-2, nor did its trilogy sell half of the Uncharted trilogy; we've reached the point where you're just making things up. There comes a point where our discussion threads are no longer exchanges of ideas, they're just meaningless words being thrown against each other, and that's not something I'm entirely interested in doing anymore.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Final Fantasy XIII sold about 12 million and Uncharted about 17 million. You are probably thinking of the Final Fantasy Wikia which I would never recommend people to use (as long as it is not about getting a quick information like how to find item or ability xy). I also would not take the sales too much as what people really like but how high their expectations are. Many people were disappointed so they didn't buy it but it does not mean the sequels don't actually cover much they like and just don't know because they didn't buy it. It often means they didn't like the first one but actually they totally miss the opportunity to be surprised from the next one and all that just because they think it will be very similar to what they didn't like.

FFXII had about 5 million sales (RW should probably be counted as is it a part of it but it still less than the trilogy), that is less than XIII and way lower than the overall trilogy. FFX-2 for PS2 had about 3 million and I don't know about HD but that is definitely thanks to FFX-1 in most cases.

Also the argument that the name sales might be true just like many people like a Coca Cola more or a Sprite even though the same company actually sells a "no-name" product and people don't know but that is something normal because that guarantess sales and normally the name really does stand for something you know you can depend on. In my case I still do.

I will also say that I agree that sales figures do not mean XIII-2 and LR were bad games necessarily, but I would point out the reviews were not as good as XIII's if Metacritic is anything to go by. Hell the user scores are worse than the critical reviews and this applies to XII as well which I feel does suffer from bigger sales based on brand and hype as opposed to actual fan reaction.

Originally Posted by Spuuky

Originally Posted by Wolf Kanno

I simply ask why? What makes a 10 hour experience different from a 40 hour one. What did FFVII accomplish that Metal Gear Solid didn't? Both games are filled with filler elements its just that MGS' only takes maybe thirty minutes out of your life whereas VII took over twenty hours to do.

Pacing is totally different if the same story is packed into 10 hours rather than 40. For some things, that pace might be better. For others, it might be worse. Both forms offer different things; like the difference between a "mini-series" and a movie on TV. You can delve into things in a lot more detail, if you wish, if you have a longer time frame to work with. You can flesh out a world, rather than carefully structuring the illusion of depth all the time.

And if you are going to immerse yourself in a world, and you love that world, the longer you can stay immersed, the better it is. If the goal is world-immersion rather than a specific story or on top of a specific story, a longer game is inherently better, even if someone incorrectly deems some of the material to be "filler." This, specifically, is what handheld RPGs can't offer nearly as well as a full-production games.

I could tell the story of Crime & Punishment in 200 less pages than Dostoevsky did, by removing "filler." I can assure you I would lose a lot more than that along with it. Have you ever watched a Kurosawa movie? They are very long. The pacing is exquisite. You could tell the same story in an hour-long movie, but it wouldn't be the same story.

This is what I'm getting at, though I would argue that there is more to JRPGs than narrative and I would also argue that handhelds can be just as long story-wise as a console title. I would also point out that you need to define good pacing with bad pacing. I mean Xenoblade and DQVII can both take over a hundred hours to complete but only Xenoblade is praised for its writing whereas DQVII's is said to be somewhat forgettable. On the other hand, DQV is well praised for its story and narrative but can be completed in under 30 hours. So would you say that JRPGs are often more successful with pacing or could stand to be edited down when the "filler" content adds nothing to the overall narrative, like say FFX's Monster Arena, which can tack on another 30 hours of game time but doesn't necessarily do anything for the world immersion?

Thread: Why does SE believe that people don't like JPRGs?

Thread Tools

Display

Hybrid View

Posting Permissions