GAME JOBS
Latest Jobs
spacer View All     Post a Job     RSS spacer
 
June 7, 2013
 
YAGER Development
Senior Game Systems Designer (f/m)
 
RealTime Immersive, Inc.
Animation Software Engineer
 
Havok
Havok- 3D Software Engineers (Relocate to Europe)
 
Social Point
Senior Game Developer
 
Treyarch / Activision
Senior Environment Artist
 
Sony Computer Entertainment America - Santa Monica
Senior Staff Programmer
spacer
Blogs

  Finite Fantasy: The Problem with JRPGs
by Mark Filipowich on 06/14/12 09:27:00 pm   Featured Blogs
23 comments Share on Twitter Share on Facebook RSS
 
 
The following blog was, unless otherwise noted, independently written by a member of Gamasutra's game development community. The thoughts and opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of Gamasutra or its parent company.

Want to write your own blog post on Gamasutra? It's easy! Click here to get started. Your post could be featured on Gamasutra's home page, right alongside our award-winning articles and news stories.
 

When I was growing up, there was no need for the “J” in JRPG. There were RPGs from Japan, many of which featured similar conventions and drew from many of the same tropes, but only recently has the JRPG become a genre of its own. And for Final Fantasy, Dragon Quest, and their imitators—for that is what one means by JRPG—the new classification has done a lot of harm. I remember seeing the Squaresoft logo on the corner of a game in a store and knowing with certainty that that game was worth a shot.

I was considerably shocked the year that I bought my Xbox 360 and realized that that rule no longer applied. In fact, anymore, when a game pays homage to the glory days of Japanese RPGs, it is nearly guaranteed to be obtuse, frustrating, and awkward in every way. While there are many reasons for the fall of the JRPG, the main one is that they’re still designed for consoles over 10 years old.
  
Antiquated design is most apparent in the way in which encounters are fought. Ten years ago, random encounters were excusable because the hardware lacked the capacity to set up enemies at regular intervals. Even when enemies were visible, engaging them frequently prompted a swirling blur across the screen that would position the combatants neatly opposite one another. It isn’t believable, just as turn-based combat isn’t believable, but those older consoles were incapable of rendering believable combat sequences anyway, so it was no loss for a blurred screen to teleport characters into tidy formations in which characters took turns exchanging blows.

Fighting in turns (supposedly) adds an element of strategy that hacking and slashing lacks, and it’s also the only way that the player can have full control of an entire team rather than one character with a group of NPC allies. The lack of believability—that until recently was unachievable otherwise—is compensated for by the added strategy of encounters.

Encounters play out as strategic exchanges in which speed and strength are indicated by numeric values. Most information, like position and maneuvering, isn’t necessary. The player controls only the necessary elements of the battle and so receives only the necessary sensory feedback.

We don’t see characters dodge and strike because these aren’t bits of crucial information. The damage numbers rely on what the player needs to know, and the physical strike is implied. The player’s imagination makes up for what the hardware can’t handle. Think of a Dungeons & Dragons encounter: a character is not literally a piece on a flat board—that’s just the representation of them that the player can use to keep track of relevant information as events play out in the players’ imaginations.

This works for RPGs that are ten and twenty years old. A swirling blur after talking with Garland indicates that the player is in a battle. Presumably, the players are still in the same place, and the fight is probably an epic display of combat mastery. However, because the NES can only handle so much information, only the critical information is conveyed: the monk lands a hit, the thief is KO’d, the white mage brings him back. But games on modern consoles are capable of presenting fast, complex and slick battles.

In the opening cutscene of Lost Odyssey, the hero Kiam flips, ducks, and slices his way through a dozen stormtroopers without waiting for his turn. Players know that he can fight in a fast, frantic battle because they’ve seen him do it, so it’s jarring and nonsensical to have him ripped off his path by a coloured blur and line up politely against a group of monsters. The Xbox 360 can handle Kiam running and jumping and fighting in real-time, so expecting players to do otherwise makes no sense.

Likewise, the gap between imagination and interaction has had an enormous impact on aesthetics; an impact that developers have ignored to their own peril. The overworld maps of old hinted at whole complete locations with complete histories, filled with people all affected by the growing trouble spreading everywhere. Even if players only see small districts of a few small towns, there’s a sense of a world. Pixels may have been simple and prerendered, backgrounds may have been static, but there was a personality to them. The dwarf city under the ocean in Final Fantasy IV was structured and populated uniquely just as the opera house was in Final Fantasy VI.

In other words, there was room in older games for several, varied locations with distinctive characteristics. Arbitrarily coating a continent in mist or raising an amusement park over a desert prison is creatively plausible in a world that graphically doesn’t resemble our own. The closer that the world on screen resembles the real world, the more implausible flights of fancy become.

Graphically, Final Fantasy XIII is stunning, but it’s also the most boring world in the whole series. Cocoon and Pulse look so much like the real world that there is nothing fantastic to look at. When the fantastical elements of the world finally do break out, they’re placed in a world so similar to the real world that real world logistical problems break the majesty of it (how can anyone build a highway over a bottomless pit, anyway?).

Finally, the narrative tropes of JRPGs are notoriously well documented. The hero will be a brooding swordsman or a crafty optimist with a lecherous streak, the leading lady will be a rebel-princess or a sombre maiden-figure overburdened with responsibility. There will be a teenage girl with a nauseatingly sunny disposition, a world-weary cynic, a roguish outlaw with a heart of gold, a cartoonish humanoid with only a loose attachment to reality. Everyone knows these clichés. The problem isn’t that they are clichés—clichés can work often more effectively than forced ingenuity—but they’re better suited to a bygone age.

Bartz and Cecil can leap up and down or wave their arms to convey emotion because they’re clusters of pixels without faces. A long, expository block of text is forgivable when characters don’t have faces to express their feelings. The typical JRPG is a grandiose plot that begins in medias res. It swells until the villain becomes larger than life and pulls the whole world into his threat range. It requires tons of background information that is better conveyed through a tightly written paragraph than through the words of a voice actor that has to force personality and emotion into an exposition dump. The cutscene, while at first a blessing for the JRPG, has become an obnoxious crutch. The more processing power that consoles gain, the more games wrestle control away from the player, turning good concepts into poorly voiced animations with overworked premises.

There wasn’t always a need to distinguish between Japanese and western RPGs. They each had their conventions, and there are plenty of rightful classics of both origins. But JRPGs have fallen out of favor because they’re too caught up in their glory days. They still have plenty to offer, but they can’t deliver it using techniques suited for the 16-bit era. Every year since its release, I’ve played through Final Fantasy VII, and every year I find something spectacular about it that I’d never noticed before. But what makes each individual title in the Final Fantasy series so profound is that it stands alone as an exemplary work of a time and culture. Each time that developers refuse to move the series forward it cheapens their whole tradition.

 

Originally posted on Popmatters.com

 
 
Comments

Freek Hoekstra
profile image
I get why people hate random encounters, but there is a certain charm about them in my opinion.
I also still like (semi) turnbased fighting systems more then realtime fighting systems that are not 100% smooth. like in skyrim for example, I found it to be slightly too clunky. and most mmo's are even worse with selecting an enemy pushing a few buttons and waiting for cooldowns there is barely any interaction or thoughtprocess.

don't get me wrong the first MMO or normal rpg to feature great combat systems (say like ninja gaiden 1) even if slower due to lag etc will have me sold, but untill that time I prefer combat systems like Chrono trigger, semi realtime battles in which strategy matters.

Final fantasy has tried to innovate with the paradigm system and the first iteration I hated, it was clunky slow a short movie on switching broke the flow. the second iteration was a lot faster but I'm still not completely convinced that there is something broken, I see different issues. namely that games don't appeal to the imagination anymore.

japanese characters seem to become very simple with childlike emotions and moans whenerver something happens, that while the western game industry is slowly maturing (the last of us, Heavy rain, Beyond maybe even tomb raider) where are the characters like Chrono, Cloud and Yuna who made you feel real emotions. Regardless of how many pixels are used to represent a character it is about the character itself. as an RPG is an adventure of a person or group and those characters matter most.

I don't see an issue with the distinction or with turnbased (I still love pokemon especially red and blue becouse these were still simple and elegant) but I do see the japanese industry struggling to find what it has lost. however agni's philosophy is some light at the end of the tunnel and did focus on the character.

I hope to see the Jrpg's return to their glorydays and give fun to many more generations.
Freek

Chris Dunson
profile image
What about the loyal fans who have been playing Final Fantasy for years and expect turn-based combat?

If action is what you're looking for then you should be playing an action rpg. I never thought while playing Final Fantasy 1 that things were 'excusable' because of the time it came from. I played Final Fantasy I and had fun exploring the world and interacting with it. I felt the same way with all the other Final Fantasys, but XIII. It's not that I expected to be able to run around shooting, hacking, and slashing with Lightning just because I saw a cut scene. If I wanted that I would go play Dissidia. I was just upset at how linear the game was.

Ivan K. Myers Jr.
profile image
"Fighting in turns" is supposed to control the pace of the encounter. Turn-based combat eleminates dexterity and timing based mechanics in order to make combat easy to control and to focus it on tactical and strategic decision making.

Action based combat systems tend to focus on timing, cover, dexterity and sequence memorization (button combos). Contrast this to something like Final Fantasy Tactics, where your worried about positioning, facing and capabilities, among other things.

This is not to say real-time combat can't be tactical and strategic, but to say that action based combat gives a different pace and aesthetic that may not be desired by the developer.

There are old school JRPGs with action based combat: Secret of Mana series as a prime example. Not only that, from what I hear of Final Fantasy 13 one of the things people actually liked about the game was the combat system (which was turn based). The major complaints tended to be about the way the world was structured. Turn-based RPGs are still very popular on hand-helds, PC and iPad.

Real-time vs Turn-based combat has nothing to do with the decline of the JRPG. I think gamer tastes (at least american gamer taste) has just shifted to other genres and styles of rpg.

Jonathan Jou
profile image
Mark,

I have so many responses to this! You bring up a lot of things that don't generalize to all JRPGs (or even most modern critically-acclaimed JRPGs), describe the "fall" of the JRPG which is a primarily western phenomenon as if it was a global epidemic, and then dive into the terrifyingly complex issue of novelty in content. I'll go over them one at a time.

There are old school games with action-based combat, such as the series Ivan mentioned, but there are also many many modern offerings which do so as well! I would recommend you look into the "Tales of" series such as Tales of Vesperia or Tales of Graces. Beyond that there are a whole slew of games not limited to Eternal Sonata, Star Ocean, The Last Story, and Xenoblade, many of which are critical and commercial successes even here in the West. I would be hesitant to agree with you that JRPGs have stagnated, or that their modern offerings suffer the same crippling weaknesses you described.

In terms of interesting stories, I can see that you're not quite able to relate to the characters in the games. I'm not sure what you mean when you say clichés are outdated but not the problem, and it's probably the case that there is a trope for everything! We could get into a great discussion about how there are no new stories, only interesting combinations of old ideas, but instead of exchanging platitudes I'd rather point you to the Shin Megami Tensei series, which has long been known to create interesting, believable characters. Shin Megami Tensei: Persona 3 and 4 especially were well-received.

There's a real issue in narrative control; developers sacrifice player control for the sake of plot, and I won't disagree with that. I'm won't hesitate to point out that not all gamers want narrative control, though, and that JRPGs are still selling quite, quite well in their home country. This is a case where the tastes of an entire nation might not agree with you (or the majority in your nation), and I think you're right about the West wanting different experiences. I wouldn't call them dated, I wouldn't pretend that they're new, and I certainly wouldn't speak of them as objective flaws.

Still, you've listed a lot of topics which could probably benefit from further discussion! I think Gamasutra has a pretty long and illustrious history describing the fall of Japanese games, the fall of JRPGs, and the inherent conflict between compelling narrative and player choice, and it's part of why I find it such good reading! I would be delighted to talk more about it and hear your insights.

Sincerely,
Jonathan

Eric Schwarz
profile image
With all respect to the author (and really, I mean it), this article shows a general lack of comprehension regarding RPGs, mechanically speaking, as well as ignorance towards the history of the genre. And, to be frank, a lot of the things in it don't make much sense or border on self-contradiction.

I'll say up front that part of your problem here is that your reference point for JRPGs appears to be one series of games, Final Fantasy, which not only defined many of the JRPG genre tropes, but has also stuck to them for years and years. I think you would change your mind very quickly if you had exposure to more games.

"Fighting in turns (supposedly) adds an element of strategy that hacking and slashing lacks"

This is the classic "turn-based combat is the result of technological inferiority" argument, and while it's true in part (good real-time combat often wasn't possible in the late 70s-early 80s), it's an attitude that overlooks the fact that turn-based play is a different style of gameplay with its own set of design goals. Turn-based combat allows you to manage multiple characters, inventory equipment, spells and skills, and all sorts of complicated interactions in a way that simply is not possible in a real-time scenario. Moreover, turn-based combat is predictable in a way real-time combat isn't, making planning more important even when there are random elements added to spice up gameplay. These differences over real-time combat place emphasis on a player's logic and reasoning rather than reflexes. I don't think this is disputable in any way.

This is the kind of stuff that, typically, people who have very little experience with turn-based games tend to say. I don't know what gaming experience you have, of course, it just comes across as a very ill-conceived opinion that suggests a lack of familiarity with the subject. What's more, you're throwing out too many vague statements that only demand more answers. If turn-based gameplay is indeed a "relic of a bygone era", then what criteria are we even using to determine this? What era are we talking about? When did it happen? Why is turn-based gaming a relic? Don't other game genres apply equally as well?

"The Xbox 360 can handle Kiam running and jumping and fighting in real-time, so expecting players to do otherwise makes no sense."

And Call of Duty has bar graphs indicating which guns do more damage and have more ammo, Halo has enemies and friends alike that can take dozens of bullets and keep going, Forza makes allowances in its physics and damage model for more enjoyable and less forgiving gameplay, Portal doesn't have realistic gravity, StarCraft represents supplies as an abstract resource, Mount & Blade switches between a world map and close-up view, Super Mario is a plumber that can jump 20 feet in the air and throw fireballs...

... what's your point? Most game visuals are representations of play mechanics and systems. While it's true that sometimes a certain degree of realism is expected from a game, and it's jarring when that game doesn't deliver, usually those are issues of internal consistency (i.e. a game breaking its own rules). Are you suggesting that turn-based games should all be about turtles and arthritic elderly people, rendered in 8-bit graphics, because apparently that's what's appropriate to the subject matter?

"Think of a Dungeons & Dragons encounter: a character is not literally a piece on a flat board—that’s just the representation of them that the player can use to keep track of relevant information as events play out in the players’ imaginations."

Except that most JRPGs (certainly traditional ones) have a miniscule amount of mechanical complexity compared to D&D. I understand the intention behind the analogy, but it doesn't really make sense here.

"The closer that the world on screen resembles the real world, the more implausible flights of fancy become."

We tolerate soldiers who can reload guns one-handed in 2 seconds flat, then immediately snipe people from 200 yards away, we tolerate regenerating health, we tolerate level-ups, we tolerate arbitrary plot doors, we tolerate immersion-breaking tutorial messages, we tolerate 10-foot-tall space marines with power armor, we tolerate UI elements, and so on. Why are magic, fantastic creatures etc. so much less plausible? I understand the sentiment (we tolerate fanciful scenarios and situations the less grounded their presentation), but most videogames already require huge amounts of specialized training and experience just to play, often years' worth, and often even our most "realistic" games still take huge liberties.

I'm not even sure what the argument here is. Fantasy doesn't work with more detailed visuals? If visuals are more advanced then shouldn't artists have more creative freedom to make them believable?

"The problem isn’t that they are clichés—clichés can work often more effectively than forced ingenuity—but they’re better suited to a bygone age."

The average JRPG character has a hundred times more depth and more interesting arcs than all the Marcus Fenixes or Nathan Drakes in the world. Furthermore, Western games (especially action-based titles) tend to feature far less diverse characters that fall into far more stereotypical roles. How many big-budget Western action games have you played recently where you play as a mid-twenties to late-forties white guy who is engineered to embody what a marketing department thinks is the average male? Oh, that's right, it's almost all of them, and you're lucky if that character has any sort of arc at all.

Of course, that's ignoring the "cliches aren't a problem, but they're totally the problem" statement which makes no sense whatsoever.

"There wasn’t always a need to distinguish between Japanese and western RPGs. They each had their conventions, and there are plenty of rightful classics of both origins."

The earliest Japanese RPGs were clones of Western RPGs like Wizardry.

"But JRPGs have fallen out of favor because they’re too caught up in their glory days."

Like the "relic of a bygone era" comment above, this is another one of those statements that sounds impressive but doesn't really mean anything. You could substitute a couple of words and you'd have the exact same result, which tells me it's not a good argument.

Again, I intend no offense here - but please, I think you need to stop peddling so much in generalizations and hyperbole, and broaden your understanding of the subject matter. It makes your arguments come across weaker, not stronger, or at worst, is a thin disguise for the fact that you don't really have arguments at all.

Adriaan Jansen
profile image
Even though I generally agree with you, I see a fair point in the following statement:

"The Xbox 360 can handle Kiam running and jumping and fighting in real-time, so expecting players to do otherwise makes no sense."

JRPGs tend to be heavy on narrative, and often heavy on cutscenes too. That's no problem on itself, but when the cutscene decided that the character can do all sort of fancy stuff which he can't do during interaction, it frustrates me. Since the imaginative world of the narrative does not coincide with the imaginative world of the game. It's done right often as well, but I think it wouldn't hurt to look more into how to make turn based fighting look more in harmony with the cool things the narrative designers have in mind.

Joe Cooper
profile image
I have to agree with others.

The old FF combat system is by no means an illegitimate game just because it doesn't a maneuver warfare game. Not everything is about maneuvers and the lack of maneuvers doesn't mean it has no strategy or depth. I've played the hell out of those games, especially FF4, 6 and 7 and 7 especially offers solid game design. On my most recent play-through of FF7 I actually went around battling for fun.

I'm sorry that it's not your thing, but it is a thing and it's a thing for a lot of people.

Also the notion that a game more your style wasn't doable technologically is utter nonsense.

They were all over the place and continue to be.

As for why they're less successful, I won't go into it much, but I have found every new Squaresoft game to be deeply anti resonant with me in one way or another.

The most recent that I actually played was Chaos Rings and I found the story and writing so utterly horrible I just couldn't tolerate it. My wife, however, wasn't bothered so much and played the hell out of it, apparently finding the gameplay quite fine.

Alan Saud
profile image
"Graphically, Final Fantasy XIII is stunning, but it’s also the most boring world in the whole series. Cocoon and Pulse look so much like the real world that there is nothing fantastic to look at. When the fantastical elements of the world finally do break out, they’re placed in a world so similar to the real world that real world logistical problems break the majesty of it (how can anyone build a highway over a bottomless pit, anyway?)."

Actually, Final Fantasy worlds in general are more natural and earthy than Pulse and cocoon, FF isn't really that fantastical and i found XIII world to be more alien than any other FF but the greatest sin of XIII is how each area laid out like a dungeon/zone to fight a group of enemies and nothing more than that.

Long story short:
FFXIII world : http://images.wikia.com/finalfantasy/images/0/02/Cocoon.png
http://images.wikia.com/finalfantasy/images/a/a8/FFXIII_Pulse2.jpg

FF9: http://img831.imageshack.us/img831/8492/ff9map.jpg

Ryan Marshall
profile image
I'm glad to see that I'm not alone in my opinion, agreeing with all of the responses (thus far) much more than the article itself. Fortunately, as a time-saving measure, almost everything I wanted to say has already been said.

The one thing I must add, as a troper, is that Tropes Are Not Bad and Tropes Are Not Cliches. There is a reason for all of those iconic RPG tropes, and those reasons do not become invalid just because you've seen them a million times.

Joshua Oreskovich
profile image
This is so true, it's what we love to see in other people.

Dustin Chertoff
profile image
What I'm reading from this article is that you find the turn-based nature of "traditional" RPGs to be anachronistic given the capabilities of today's consoles/computers. So, as a design challenge, I suggest a follow-up article where you lay out a design for a strategic, yet active, battle system where you control a team. As a starting point, I would suggest analyzing the FF12 combat system (it had seamless transitions from wandering the world to battles) and make suggestions that would add a more active/action feel.

You design considerations are then:
Support real-time battle
Require strategy
Allow for a single player to control a team

Looking forward to reading your (or anyone's, really), design!

Fox English
profile image
This is pretty much the the entire basis for the combat design of my RPG. Unfortunately, I have some concepts to address the challenges of strategic real-time team-based design that I haven't seen used before just yet, and I'd rather not share them until my game is finished >_> I feel making the decision to avoid hack-and-slash play is an important step though.

That aside, I just want to iterate that I don't agree with the article that turn-based is a strong reason to criticize "J"RPGs. It has advantages and its place and its whole own style of gameplay mechanics and (sometimes) narrative flow, it just doesn't necessarily appeal to everyone. If I had known turn-based was going to wane so drastically in the last 2 years, I probably would have stuck to it.

Alan Saud
profile image
We don't have many of cutting edge "traditional" RPGs to reach this conclusion.
I need to play a one with a good production values on HD console but i can't think of many "traditional" RPGs on a big scale.

The way that people talk about turn-based is like they want developers to give up on genre without trying or figuring out the weak points and fix them.

Michael Stevens
profile image
Tri-Ace has been playing with this idea for their whole history as company (and even before as Wolfteam, developers of the first Tales game).

It's not a completely linear progression but over time their games have gradually shifted away from a player+AI setup and towards treating the party as a single entity. Their three PS2 games (Star Ocean 3, Radiata Stories, Valkyrie Profile 2) show a clear thought process in this direction, although VP2 is only partially(?) real-time.

Jonathan Jou
profile image
I have trouble believing people keep talking about this like the Namco Tales Studio hasn't been doing it for almost two decades now, and part of it is because games like Tales of Vesperia have all the things JRPG players enjoy so much, while also supporting multiplayer combat encounters! I've spent many, many afternoons with friends playing Tales games, and I really hope people give the studio some love!

In most of these games, attacks are mapped so that you target one enemy, and then it plays out like a Smash Bros. style fighting game, which I found immensely enjoyable, and quite strategic. To control party members, it's possible to pause and switch members at any moment, and you can call attacks by mapping them to auxiliary buttons.

It's a lot of fun! I hope everyone who's been itching for this sort of fix gives the series a try...

Jeremy Reaban
profile image
To a certain extent, that's exactly why I stopped playing Western RPGs.

I like turn based RPGs. That they existed was not so much because real time combat was impossible back then (action RPGs existed, Gateway to Apshai, for instance, or Rings of Zilfin, or in Japan, Ys). It's just the audience was different back then, geekier, less mainstream.

I think Japan's problem (or Square's problem with FF) is that they have tried to innovate. Falcom continues to stick to the very old school formula (similar to the SNES era JRPGs) and their games are great (though they also make old school action RPGs, as well, Ys)

I think one of the reasons that Wasteland 2 (and Shadowrun Returns) had such an overwhelming response was that a lot of people like me simply missed turn based, party based, western RPGs.

I also think it's something that the industry is going to have deal with - aging gamers - in middle age, my reflexes are simply not up to action games anymore.

Alan Saud
profile image
1- Falcom didn't stick with an old formula either, YS seven is the first main YS to have a party system, larger emphasis on dialog box and exposition in general, and the combat is a new with different mechanics such as skills, flash guard, dash mechanic, side-quests involve collect this and kill that and synthesis option which can be used with materials unlike getting weapons by killing a greater fiends for a greater weapon. Mean while Ys 1, 2 and 4 all have a "weird" combat system where you ram into enemies instead of attacking manually and you are always a lone adventurer. To me YS7 is closer to Mana game than an YS game which is explain why do you thought it feel like a SNES game.

2- Final Fantasy isn't a canonical series nor a home for any purist. In other words "This FF isn't like MY FF" is the same thing people use to complain about every single game in the franchise since FF2. And i don't think an old school wannabe will change anything. I mean the fact that people can't recognize that FF worlds are more natural and earthy say something about perception here.

Craig Jensen
profile image
It's Kaim.

Good grief. At least get the main character's name right if you are going to critique a game. You repeatedly spelled it incorrectly, so you can't claim it is just an isolated typo.

Ron Dippold
profile image
I do hate random encounters. And I do hate the 'line up and take turns fight' thing.

I would argue that Xenoblade Chronicles took JRPG tropes and threw all the bad stuff right out the window and kept all the good bits. It's really everything I always wanted - the best of JRPG plus the best of WRPG. Really, my only big complaints were: sometimes Wii textures made me cry; and would it kill the menu system to remember where I was?

It's the game I point at to say that JRPGs don't have to be stuck in Square Enix hell. I am doing so now! It's also the game I can point at with other JRPGs so say they no longer have an excuse to suck so much in the gameplay department.

John Flush
profile image
"It isn’t believable, just as turn-based combat isn’t believable, but those older consoles were incapable of rendering believable combat sequences anyway, so it was no loss for a blurred screen to teleport characters into tidy formations in which characters took turns exchanging blows."

Chrono Trigger would like to say "Hi". Turn based isn't the problem at all - in fact there are a lot of us that LOVE turn-based and want more of it. I'm tired of the trope that is the industry saying I should have to play action game trash.

"We don’t see characters dodge and strike because these aren’t bits of crucial information."

I also really like Eternal Sonata - Great turn based RPG that was turn based and had the ability to dodge / block in it. Mario RPG is another if you like Mario.

"the narrative tropes of JRPGs are notoriously well documented."

Now you are on to something. A real problem with JRPG's is they have the same dumb ass story line every game. They might change the names, but they all break down to the same story every time. One of the reasons FF IV and FF VI were so good is they were so different from each other. One reason I loved Eternal Sonata so much was because it was layered upon the life of Chopin as he was dying (though it still had a lot of the drudgery of the typical JRPG storyline).

Another thing I think that is missing of mention is the fact a lot of JRPG are very linear, while not even allowing you to do everything on one play through. I understand not seeing everything / or getting everything on one play through when choice is a big element of the game, but when it isn't there should be a way for people to be completionists. I'm not going to play a JRPG 3-4 times back to back - each one takes 40 or more hours - I'll play it once and then come back to it in a year or two (maybe). No replayability is fine in those instances, by the time I get to playing it again I won't remember every detail anyhow so it will still feel fresh.

Also I think the animations drag down the game a lot. when someone use to fight, they would jump over to the other sprite - hit it - and jump back. 1-2 seconds tops. The biggest spells use to take 2-5 seconds and they were over. Now-a-days I have to watch my magic users wave their damn hands around and say something (3-5 seconds) and then I have to watch the animation take place (2-3 seconds) then it finally hits the enemies I wanted in another animation (2-3), over 10 seconds to do one thing! Same thing with fighters. And the animations are repeats after 30 minutes of the game tops and I'm stuck watching it for the next 39+ hours. Good heck.

I tried a lot of the other games people have mentioned - Xenoblade Chronicles for example - Tales games drive me nuts as the AI is ridiculously horrible at playing how I would play if I had control over the characters.

In summary, the problem with JRPGs is the opposite of what you think is their problem. I think they have moved far enough away from what I like that I just don't bother anymore while they chase people from your crowd that don't like them either. In the end they make a game that even less people want because it doesn't appeal to either market successfully.

Joe Cooper
profile image
I'd like to add to your comment about the elaborate thteatrics, that I strongly suspect they stem from the exact same line of thought as the OP here; they think they "need" some kind of fancy action. A lot of what I can't stand about such RPGs today (and sales figures would agree with me) is they seem hellbent on fitting into a crowd that will NEVER play them, and these design decisions come at the DIRECT expense of being good.

I do not expect any JRPG will be the "next FF7" or the "next Chrono Trigger" because I don't believe the current folks would ever come up with something like that.

stephan maich
profile image
in the same way that life imitates art (that imitates life...), non-progressive game structures condition players to believe that the shallow, hollow drivel they've been ingesting is what they want... keeping expectations low.

by that logic, because something is familiar, it MUST be good!

i agree with the author wholeheartedly. while i appreciate nods toward the limitations and structures of the past (without constantly smashing me in the head with "GEDDIT? GEDDIT?"), refusal to take advantage of the possibilities that modern tech can bring to the presentation of a world/environment simply retard the potential of the genre and traps the player in the same creative morass the designers reside within.

write better stories! think better thoughts! make better games!

Eric McVinney
profile image
FFXIII-2 kinda cured this whole "action only in movie" with the cinema/live scenes. Sure, you can't pull off the flips and sword play that Lightning appears to do in the intro, but the action part of the game - even when in battle - actually help pull the player in.


none
 
Comment:
 




 
UBM Tech