As for jRPGs, I just think that it's gonna be hard understanding why a specific genre of games is having problems if you don't understand the industry as a whole - or the individual jRPG and it's individual feature cells, for that matter. My immediate response would be that jRPGs tend to be clones of eachother on a much higher frequency than wRPGs. In that regard, I think that the accessibility factor is less relevant, though still always there.

Just so we're clear,

I've always been a big fan of the snes-era jRPGs and thought about creating a series of discussions based around the flaws of the genre and how they could be assessed.

I'm not referring to flaws 'now' but flaws 'since the begginning'. Obviously, they weren't clones at first, but the accessibility bar was still pretty high (heck, even D&D original video game was pretty non-intuitive!)

I personally don't like jRPGs because I think they are complicated

That's what we're after here. Can you define what makes them complicated in your view?

have un-immersive combat

I'm right there with you, and trying to get a menu-based battle system to feel more immersive while not impacting the pros of the genre.

they show off a lot of overhyped superpower stuff that ends up being a parody of itself

I guess the mainstream title do play the God card very often.

they often have a ton of dialogue that I'm just waiting impatiently to shuffle through because I didn't pay $50 to watch a movie

The same could be argued of cinematics in modern games though. This is a flaw in many games, and not necessarily genre-induced. I'll agree that many of the mainstream jrpgs are fairly big offenders here, but early dragon warrior titles really had so very few lines of texts that I doubt that all games of this genre are concerned.

One of the great exceptions to this was Final Fantasy 7, an almost perfect jRPG which still had some of the negatives, but made up for that with tons of positive content - a ridiculous number of mini-games, a vast story arc that was well-defined with compelling characters and unique personalities.

Arguably, one of my least favorite jrpgs ever (I know, I'm one of the few, but I'm much more a Chrono Trigger/FF4(story)/FF5(gameplay/levels) type of guy...)

That's what we're after here. Can you define what makes them complicated in your view?

Oh, where to begin hehe. Combat fells somewhat protracted and it's usually those tedious selection menus popping up for Attack, Magic, Skills etc upon which you need to scroll a list to find the right thing. Outside of combat it's dialogue too often and when it happens it's way too texty for my liking. FFX suffered from a lot of this too, but as I said it got doused by the sheer quality of it.

The same could be argued of cinematics in modern games though. This is a flaw in many games, and not necessarily genre-induced. I'll agree that many of the mainstream jrpgs are fairly big offenders here, but early dragon warrior titles really had so very few lines of texts that I doubt that all games of this genre are concerned.

Good points, and I agree on the generality of it. I'm actually one who would like to see less dialogue rather than more dialogue in games, because story isn't just told effectively through dialogue. Simple things like color schemes; biome and event themes, monster and gear design, random books and notes found here and there, lore on item description and much more can be used to create immense depth to a game's overall story arc. If you manage to puul that off (with a great imagination and not necessarily more work) then I don't think it even matters if the game is Jap or Yankee.

I guess I would be more on the gameplay side of things as far as design goes, because a story comes and goes. But the right gameplay can go on forever. Just look at Tetris.

Arguably, one of my least favorite jrpgs ever (I know, I'm one of the few, but I'm much more a Chrono Trigger/FF4(story)/FF5(gameplay/levels) type of guy...)

Well, it's all about taste. But I think the most important thing I like about FF7 was something that we see more and more in MMOs and other games. The mini-game aspect of it. Unique gameplay and interfaces within an already existing game, rather than making an all-new game just so one can show of a different angle to gameplay.

Anyways, I'm out. I'll be gone from the forums for some time, I'm fast-learning Java hehe. Hope you get some other interesting input from people, would be nice to see some great new approaches to jRPGs.

I'm pretty sure that JRPGs are not hard to understand. However, making them interesting is another deal entirely. From my experiences, JRPGs are based on things like menu-based combat, and that the only way I can think of making it more interesting would be to combine it with other genres like action adventure games, which would work, but probably isn't the question being asked.

[quote name='RedBaron5' timestamp='1343137537' post='4962597']
If you are more interested in the animation your character performs than the damage amount displayed, you shouldn't be playing an RPG.

well, actually, that makes a RPG. a ROLE PLAYING GAME. lets put this straight. if you are more interested in the amount of damage displayed, then you should be playing a beat'em up. RPG is about story.
[/quote]

No. Funny, but no. If you take the title literally, then games like CoD are RPGs because you PLAY the ROLE of a soldiers. A genre is not defined by the literal interpretation of its title.

http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/western-japanese-rpgs-part-1

aattss: " I'm pretty sure that JRPGs are not hard to understand. However, making them interesting is another deal entirely."

I stress that we avoid catch-alls. Just because Ihave liked a few Final Fantasies and Phantasy Star 1 should not imply that I am or am not interested in Dragon Quest or Lufia. The same goes for a lot of people who loved Fallout but hated Baldur's Gate. There are just too many variations in gameplay/narrative elements and in peoples' interests to say that all games under a (convenient buyer buzzword) genre are or are not interesting.

Closer to what we are looking for here is not some misguided hope of setting an industry trend (thus "fixing" the "flaws" of an entire "genre") but to just come up with something that feels new to us. I believe a main point of contention with using a turn-based on-screen menu system is that (and this may very well be me analysing my changing tastes) "character skill vs. player skill" for most people is just idealizing a computer playing out concrete actions (swing a sword, running, aiming and firing a gun, etc.) that many other games let a player do themselves.

All that aside, there is no such thing as pleasing everybody. Doing what feels right to you and with good QA testing is what can draw a potential customer's interest (and even some games like NES Final Fantasy and Buggerfail can gain strong followings while loudly coughing at the mention of the later factor ;) ).

I'm pretty sure that JRPGs are not hard to understand. However, making them interesting is another deal entirely. From my experiences, JRPGs are based on things like menu-based combat, and that the only way I can think of making it more interesting would be to combine it with other genres like action adventure games, which would work, but probably isn't the question being asked.

[quote name='Mito' timestamp='1343139506' post='4962602']
[quote name='RedBaron5' timestamp='1343137537' post='4962597']
If you are more interested in the animation your character performs than the damage amount displayed, you shouldn't be playing an RPG.

well, actually, that makes a RPG. a ROLE PLAYING GAME. lets put this straight. if you are more interested in the amount of damage displayed, then you should be playing a beat'em up. RPG is about story.
[/quote]

No. Funny, but no. If you take the title literally, then games like CoD are RPGs because you PLAY the ROLE of a soldiers. A genre is not defined by the literal interpretation of its title.

http://penny-arcade....ese-rpgs-part-1
[/quote]

"A role-playing game (RPG and sometimes roleplaying game[1][2]) is a game in which players assume the roles of characters in a fictional setting. Players take responsibility for acting out these roles within a narrative, either through literal acting, or through a process of structured decision-making or character development.[3] Actions taken within many games succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines.[4]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role_playing_game

if you don't make decisions yourself that affect the plot, isn't a RPG. otherwise, it is.

(convenient buyer buzzword)

I like the jRPG buzzword by lack of other appelation. SNES-era console RPGs with a strong emphasis on narrative and restrictive amount of narrative choices is a bit long to tackle. Also, there aren't that many jRPGs (there's definitely more than 10, but we're not talking 1000s).
While they do differ on some various aspects, they are generally alike, but I agree to your point that generalizing may be tempting (especially judging the thread title).

All that aside, there is no such thing as pleasing everybody

Once again, I agree, but: there is such a thing as good production value (and polish). Once you have an idea you know not everyone will like, you still need to bring it up to par with those that MIGHT like it by making is polishes and well developed. You're not pleasing everybody, but you're pleasing everybody you can. I think that's a fine goal and a good way to look at production value. The upside to this is that you sometimes end up convincing people you weren't expecting. Obviously, I don't expect a soccer mum to play a retro jRPG, but what if she does? Then clearly, you've made it cleanly and efficiently in such a way that it was accessible enough. You didn't make the product FOR her, which means you're not pissing off your targetted audience, but SHE recognized the value of your product regardless because of its accessibility.
Generally, I think of accessibility as a means to make a product accessible to other crowds without impacting your targeted audience. This emcompasses the very thin layer of decisions you can take that will increase interest of some player bases without affecting any of your own targetted consumers. Mind you, there aren't so many.

I may or may not have listed this, but, the example of Dune 2's remake is a perfect example of that.
Dune 2 was a kickass RTS, successfully launching a genre that has survived to this day. In an attempt to remake the game from scratch, a developer (whose name eludes me) decided to make the game AS IS except he added a few input/UI modifications. Nothing graphic mind you.
Of the very few additions, he integrated the ability to drag around military units to select them all. This is a standard in most RTS, but it didn't exist back then, and the micro-management of units was just a hassle. Now I would heavily doubt that a non-Korean player would argue that this was a bad addition to the game and that it ruins it. In fact, I've applauded that as it made the game more accessible to modern RTS players without taking away any of its charm.

"A role-playing game (RPG and sometimes roleplaying game[1][2]) is a game in which players assume the roles of characters in a fictional setting. Players take responsibility for acting out these roles within a narrative, either through literal acting, or through a process of structured decision-making or character development.[3] Actions taken within many games succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines.[4]"

http://en.wikipedia....le_playing_game

if you don't make decisions yourself that affect the plot, isn't a RPG. otherwise, it is.

In most RPGs, character development is used, but not necessarily decision-making (hence the OR). The actions you take are not narrative (combat strategies for example). In fact, the jRPGs are known for their lack of options, and whenever the player is given an actual choice (duel Magus or join him?) this becomes a moment of wonder and amazement.

I believe it might be time for a next topic, Orymus3. I will begin with something general: shops. If you are interested, post some of your thoughts on them, and I will try to explain what bothers me about them. Any other discussion ideas? How is yourclassic JRPG coming along?

@Giauz:
I had set myself a rule where I would go on with these posts for as long as they had sufficient feedback. I feel that if you remove the out-of-topic discussions here, we roughly have 14 replies to work from, and that's small. However, you may be right, and I should be assuming this could be related to the weakness/confusion infused by this topic. I was a bit sloppy when came the time to come up with the last discussion and I can see the results here.

More to your point, I guess I've never perceived shops as a weakness of the jRPG genre. To me this is something we can expand upon with clever crafting systems and whatnot, but not a shortcoming per se. I strongly feel that if we are to find fertile ground for solutions, we need a problem that is more of a consensus, but let me know if I'm missing something important.

Other items on my list:
- There's a number of specific points in the combat system that I'd be willing to revisit, but as we've already done, that may feel strongly redundant so early in the line. I also realize most answers will be to change the battle system logic, and that's just avoiding the problem to me.
- One of the topics I'd really like to assess at some point is the effect of consumables on the game economy. This is still a bit vague, but specifically, I'm comparing how a game such as Dragon Quest made good use of restricted numbers of items (Zelda ALttP probably did even better) whereas more recent classics dealt with the 99 syndrome. The problem is I've felt we've touched on that during the attrition week.
- I'd really like to discuss pacing at some point, which I felt fell under accessibility, but may not. A lot of people think the game is too slow for their taste as a whole, and I wanted to point out good examples of trying to fix this (Chrono Trigger does not change screen for combat, for fluidity's sake, which inherently hasten combat/exploration transitions).

I guess I'm open to anything if you're interested ;)

How is yourclassic JRPG coming along?

Slow. It's summer for most of the team here, so, we're not doing much about it. That's part of the reason why I felt I had some time to hold these discussions and reassess some design decisions that were made. Currently, I'm ok with most of them save the crafting system's implementation, but its not to be part of the prototype, so I'm not overly worried just yet.

The main gripe I have is not that you earn a virtual allowance and have a place to spend it, but the implementation of the shops themselves. While I generally don't complain about logic (or the lack thereof) in gameplay elements, I do think story/thematic elements should be more logical. I would put shops under the thematic element category. Some questions they raise are why are they selling military grade weapons to you? Do towns have any governing laws at all?...................

Ok I guess this is more of a nit-pick. I realize shops are mostly there for stat-packages better than the average leve-up. If I had to lay blame on a game that caused the nitpick to form in my mind it has to be Oblivion/Skyrim. Each of those games has a government with an army, guards, and everything, and yet it's all for nought with all kinds of shops selling stuff that it doesn't seem like a strong empire would stand for.

Good talking with you anyway.

Some questions they raise are why are they selling military grade weapons to you?

This begs the realism vs fun question. I'll be 100% honest, experience taught me that its best to err on the side of fun regardless of realism. If we wanted something real, we'd play that game called real life. So I'm ok with that abstraction/stretch from reality.

I realize shops are mostly there for stat-packages better than the average leve-up.

That's a bit more fertile for a topic. It isn't shop-related necessarily, but how shops affect the in-game economy of stats. A lot of jRPGs are at fault for having the next town always selling better gear, which begs to question, why no one from town 1 ever imported from town 10??? It would make a slightly bit more sense if gear just evolved in all shops at once. Skyrim being open world defeated this by having shops that do pretty much the same thing, with the downfall that you have no particular reason to buy from this smith rather than this other smith aside from convenience and proximity. It has its pros, but it certainly has its cons as well.

Each of those games has a government with an army, guards, and everything, and yet it's all for nought with all kinds of shops selling stuff that it doesn't seem like a strong empire would stand for.

Are you familiar with medieval history? If so, you'd probably know that most of the armies were made of a majority of non-permanent more or less armed at their own expenses. You would see mass of peasants lifting the pitchfork, for sure, but with any decent wealth, man-at-arms (otherwise called Sergents) could be seen almost as heavily armed as knights with no title of nobility. Skyrim is built around two core ideas politically speaking: city-states (Influenced by Classic Greece) and kingdom nobility (medieval circa 600-1000 Anno Domini). As a result, Skyrim is perfectly fitting from a realistic standpoint in that regard.
On the other hand, Oblivions borrows on Classic Roman Empire (you can even tell from the Imperials' armors) where armies were made of regulars, armed by the empire itself (the title in charge differed immensely through time). In this case, it would appear less fitting to see armed citizens, but how good a game would it be if guards arrested you everytime you had a sword in your hand? Besides, during the roman empire, there was no ban on having a weapon per se, which hints that they could be sold around.
You'll notice that, by contrast, no one wants to buy or sell drugs in Oblivion...

I'll think of something for that next discussion...