Well, that's an interesting question. I personally think that the overall shift from the JRPG to the WRPG has really changed the landscape for what will and won't sell and thus what will or won't get developed. Japan's video game market has been very weak the past decade, which means they really can't afford to produce the kind of RPGs they use to on the home consoles, that's why you see the JRPGs mostly only the handhelds (also handheld systems are now king in Japan which helps that migration).

Personally I prefer the JRPG style over the WRPG (Not that I don't like some WRPGs). This gen hasn't seen much in the way of great JRPGs. Franchises like Final Fantasy have long since started integrating more standard WRPG elements so that they can make up for declining sales in Japan. That being said FFXIII wasn't the worst game ever, way linear? yeah. But not the worst game ever. The PS2 era wasn't exactly the peak for JRPGs either though, I think it's really been a downhill slide since peaking on the PS1.

Well I agree on most parts with what you said, in terms of gameplay the 'westernization' of Japanese games isn't really that big of a deal. I mean if it works for what you are doing then that's how you should develop your game. However, the main thing I think causes that tension is the way the stories are told. Western games tend to put more choices in the hands of the player that way they can experience the game as if they themselves were the protagonist. Japanese games on the otherhand tend to push sometimes more complex stories (because honestly when choices come into the fray you're going to suffer at times with the narrative) this however is usually looked over because the player might 'feel' more connected with the game.

I also think western games tend to have more action oriented combat and until reciently most JRPGs were turn based at least in principle. I prefer the turn based, but I understand many people find that style of gaming to be boring or a grind.

In the end I play games for the story first, so I'm going to gravitate to the games with better stories to tell. In my expeience the JRPGs have had deeper more thought provoking stories than the WRPGs that I have played, and so I continue to enjoy them more.

Square is in an interesting spot. Personally I attribute their recient lack of critic success to the fact that they have purged nearly all of the original key members of their development teams. Financially I think they will be fine, while Final Fantasy isn't the brand it was during the PS1 era (it's peak in terms of sales) It's still moving plenty of units to make them major bank when they release a FF title. (FFXIV will probably end up being super successful, FFXI is actually the most successful FF game in terms of profits made, so you have to assume once they get it right they will make their money). Acquiring Eidos has made them a considerable force in the west, they own a lot of major franchises. The problem is they keep trying to make sequels to some of them without original creators and ruin them. Plus they can always just re-release all their old games again and make a few 10s of millions of dollars to keep them afloat. lmao.

I think the real place of worry from the JRPG is not many other developers are still making them, and the ones that do rarely get translated and released in north america because frankly people here just don't want them that bad. They want Fallout and Skyrim.

Developers are right to be weary about dropping big money to develop an RPG, because the fact is they probably have very little shot at making it back. In the RPG world the only console RPGs making money are major franchises that you can pretty much assure will recoup the development costs. That's why you see all the other RPGs heading to handhelds that and like I said before because the Japanese prefer the handheld over the home console. That doesn't translate to the west though, where the handheld is looked upon as something more for children than adults.

As for RPGs having conflict at the center, isn't it the case that most games have conflict at the center? More varied gameplay is good in some situations but it also can really derail any chance of telling a tightly constructed story, and honestly that's what you see in WRPGs. Skyrim as an example, there is plenty to do in the game, so much so that the narrative is broken and the main quest often overlooked or ignored completely. At least with a game like Shenmue you had a goal, something pushing you to move forward. Yes it was easy to get sidetracked there as well, but because of the setting I think it pulled that off much better than Skyrim or Fallout does. Of course Shenmue isn't really a model for the RPG genre though, as it lacks many of the core RPG elements.

Clearly those concepts are starting to work their way into the genre, you're starting to see RPGs where you can get through the game with little to no fighting if that's the path you choose. However, combat is kinda a man draw of many RPGs so it's probably always going to remain the focus of gameplay and developmental mechanics.

Honestly, and I know most people don't share this opinion with me, I would choose the game with the best written most compelling story every time. Gameplay is important, but as long as it isn't broken completely and makes progressing through said story a pain in the ass then it's really not that important to me. When I approach a game if the story and characterization isn't enough to hook me than I'll be moving on until I find one that is.

Also, as a side note. Video games, or any other medium in general will never have leverage on books because they empower the reader to recreate that world in their mind, which is a far more powerful 'virtual world' than any video game could ever hope to imagine.

I cannot agree with that lol. Nobody elses imagined vision can ever stack up to the process of creating your own.

Anyways I don't truely see the video game having leverage over Books or Movies, I feel they all have their ways for telling stories, and that's what I'm interested in them for

Though I didn't comment on the other mediums' strengths, this is what I was trying to say. In this case, we could consider interactivity advantageous for the games medium.

Moving along though… Are you looking forward to Ni no Kuni?

Post edited 3:10 pm – September 14, 2012 by Lydeck

I agree with you both.

dystopia said:

I think there are some good things about FFXIII, I agree that it's just so linear that it pretty much ruins the entire game but I really enjoyed the combat system and the developmental mechanics. The story, eh, I tried very hard to try to understand it, but I never did lmao. As to your question of why there is a XIII-2 and a XIII-3 I think that's a pretty simple one to answer. By most reports Square dumped something like $100 million into developing XIII and mainly that engine and XIII did not sell anywhere close to what they needed for it to be completely worthwhile. So you can see they are sitting around with an engine and probably plenty of unused content which they repackage into more games which means more profit.

I have to ask, what developmental mechanics are we talking about here? (Not trying to jump here)

The weapon upgrade system was base. All that needs to be said about it has been in that one line. There's nothing nuanced or distinguishable about its multiplier system.

Crystarium system is as on-rails as pretty much half of the game's dungeons if not more. In some ways, it seemed they were more concerned with the visuals of the system (IIRC, one of the system directors even stated that they streamlined ability/skill acquisition so that you could sit, both hands on cheek, gaping at its glitter effects). The only addition to the system that ensured some sort of difficulty was intact and maintained throughout the game were the Crystarium levels (or restrictions).

Since the Paradigm Shift System is the core of the battle system (and PSS was solid), it can stand ground there. There isn't much that needs to be said regarding this part as the summation of its shortcomings (which were minor irritants) never grew out of hand. A few changes made to the A.I. could have worked wonders, but I suspect this was rectified in XIII-2.

Anything else I may have left out is undeserving of a comment.

Will someone explain what it means to “return to the roots”? It's unclear to me because it could mean many things, but I'm very interesting in an explanation. First thought is “just do it like Final Fantasy 'N'”, but I'm not trying to speak for anyone.

Post edited 12:21 am – September 22, 2012 by Lydeck