The main problem with JRPGs isn't having to select “attack” from a menu thousands of times or being set on a rail that carries you from one major plot point to the next – no, the problem is choice. Take the set-up for Final Fantasy XIII for instance: while the complicated and somewhat overwrought plot has some interesting twists in it, the player has no say whether to team with the Cocoon or with Pulse, cannot diverge from becoming l'Cie, gives no input on whom to sacrifice (or if you sacrifice at all) and is purely an observer for which characters will fall in love. By design, all players will experience the same basic story every time.
Gaming narratives are always going to have some constraints and some degree of mandated control by the designers is often necessary. But let's take another JPRG series, Xenosaga, for example: the sci-fi plot of the game is often called “epic” and “grand” and thought of like a really long movie. Mass Effect, another sci-fi RPG series has also been called “epic” and “grand” but there is one major difference: the game's story is participatory, shaped by the players disposition and what they do (or choose not to do). The story of Xenosaga is experienced passively but Mass Effect's story is as active as its gameplay, and when some RPGs involve the player personally while others do not, it makes the passive games seem out-of-touch.
Players are offered many faces and many choices as Commander Shepard in Mass Effect.
Personalization of a story often starts with the creation of an avatar for you to use; Fallout 3 and Elder Scrolls IV give a great degree of freedom in this process, and the Dragon Age and Mass Effect player-characters are often highly unique and diverse, often reflective of the sort of personality they will have. White Knight Chronicles (a new JRPG for PS3 from Level-5) also allows players to design a detailed character of their own... but unlike those games listed above, this character has no dialog and is practically absent in the main story.
They're are certainly exceptions to this rule for JRPGs: Chrono Trigger was incredibly progressive for its time, offering a few branching paths and Final Fantasy X-2 also had some ending variations. I also know as one of a dozen people in North America to have finished Vandal Hearts II that the game had several different endings depending on your choices during a handful of important events. Even in these titles, though, it never feels like you're playing your own story – at best, it feels like a variation on someone else's story, usually brought on by participating in optional side quests.
I'm not saying that these games are rendered unplayable and can't be fun anymore but... when it feels like you're playing through a slightly more advanced SNES RPG with 3D graphics, there's a problem. It's evocative how the FIFA series has surpassed the Pro Evolution Soccer series in review scores, in no small part because the latter Japanese series hasn't evolved to keep up. It's this revolution in Western game development about choice that's helped along in significantly by BioShock and continued in titles like inFamous where the games offer more freedom to shape the game world, even if it's in a binary good/evil sort of fashion. Heavy Rain (and I realize I'm veering outside of RPGs, but stay with me) is another great recent example, with a multitude of choices great and small offered to the player to shape the game; maybe only a handful of those choices have any real lasting effect but it feels like there's consequence around every corner. Letting players tool around with the story, or at least feel like they're changing the story, is empowering, rewarding and interactive and it just feels more appropriate to this medium.
I wouldn't expect JRPGs to die out in the West, but there's a strong chance that they'll face cultural obsolescence and become more niche than they already are, especially for franchises that aren't already pretty popular. Nothing happens in a vacuum, and to expect JRPGs to not be compared by consumers to their Western counterparts simply isn't realistic. This is not an admonishment – it's a call to action. We wish the language barrier was not so insurmountable that there'd be a chance this message would get back to Level-5, Mistwalker, Square Enix and dozens of other JPRG developers. The message I'm trying to convey is this: playing a linear, largely un-participatory story carries less interest than it used to in the West, and in order to better compete on the other side of the Pacific (if that is a priority at all), they must evolve. The choice is yours Japan.
23 Comments
February 26, 2010
I would have to say the reason Turn based JRPG's are dead is not because they didn't turn into action rpg's but because they attempted to turn into action RPG's. Just liking JRPG's does not ensure you will like them at a later age. Because YOU the gamer change with age. Most people change from liking twitch games to cerebral games, because the reflex slows down and the testosterone deminises, and the satisfaction of hack and slash goes down. But there are many that will always like cerebral or twitch for that mater. So what i'm saying is your previous love of turn based JRPG's may be fooling you. Don't be fooled after FFIX Square preceded to concentrate on the none turn based crowd, and have since done so. Even FFXII is a hybrid your going to only please people that like half, and half. When was the last time you saw a tradition summon spell in a big name RPG? (OK except blue dragon, and it only had one per character). The answer would be FFix! FFX does not count. Not only that but the music has changed, the characters have went more dark. But not truly dark! Again half and half. Japanese still love turn based rpg's, most of the time when you look at the top 50 sold in japan 36% are jrpg's.
IF you will notice people in Japan did not like white night story it got bad reviews, but got much better reviews here. In the USA people dogged lost Odyssey, but it got near perfect scores in Japan, they like that kind of gaming more than we do. I know people that despise light heated games, and melodramatic stories, and light hearted music, that used to love them also. They have no patience for powering up from flame1 to flame4, then inferno, etc. In the USA we wont instant action, and we want it NOW, so in that regard square can not please us with JRPG's.
One last thing I would like to point out, rpg's started out ACTION not turn based, action RPG's are from way before there was a Square enix, so your really arguing that Square should devolve, in involve.
February 26, 2010
Also i would like to add dispite my reasons disagreeing about why square is in trouble I agree they are in trouble. And that with the change from turn based, traditional summon spells, J-rpg music, and light hearted themes with a melodramatic story, the sales have declined!
Thanks for the nice read maybe it will get Squares attention.
February 26, 2010
I've never liked Action RPGs, which may seem odd given that I really like RPG and Action titles. Generally, RPGs do the RPG thing well, and Action titles do the Action thing well, but the jack-of-all-trades mediocrity of Action RPGs never sat well with me. It's too real time to develop deep strategies, but it's not real time enough that I can rely on high fidelity controls.
I'd say in general, yes, the jRPG is dead. It's dead mostly from a lack of innovation, both from gameplay and narrative perspectives. You're right, I can only play a young boy with a pocket full of dreams going up against an evil empire with a ragtag group of heroes so many times. And while I still enjoy turn-based combat more than I could ever enjoy real-time action, it's difficult for me to go back to games like Dragon Quest and slog it out.
I would love to suggest that tile-based RPGs are where it's at now, with games like Disgaea and Jeanne D'Arc and other even more obscure titles as rough cut cult classics, but they, too, suffer from a lack of innovation that only seems less severe through the lense of an occasional gimmick, like Jeanne D'Arcs defense bonus as your party stays together on the field.
The one real point of light in this darkness is the Shin Megami Tensei series, in my opinion. It's cruel, unforgiving, and cerebral, it has turn-based battles that actually demand strategy, and it usually contains plot lines aberrant from the vanilla "boy-saves-the-world". I mean, boy may save the world, but he'll do it by becoming the lord of darkness and waging a war against heaven. Technically.
February 26, 2010
There are definitely some gems out there, but overall I totally agree with David. For whatever reason the Japanese RPG devs have failed to evolve the genre or innovate substantially in many years. It's unfortunate.
February 26, 2010
I agree that games with dynamic scenario is fun and seems to have high replayability.
However, are these really necessary for games?
Games in the west nowadays seems to have ways to "persuade" the users to replay the same game again and again. In my opinion, might not be something that everyone wants.
Games like Dragon Age or Mass Effect 1&2 which have these "dynamic " scenario features sometimes seems is just like "torturing" and binding the players.
I stop playing Dragon Age half way through the story on my 3rd character, my friend dont feels like playing mass effect 2 yet because he is trying to replay mass effect 1 to import a good saving, games that have multiple ending ended up installed on hard disk and never be "fully complete" after other new games comes out, the list just goes on.
In the past, when a game is release, players would just have to complete it and moves on to the next one,like reading a novel or something. Compared with old games or the JRPG games, games like Dragon age are just seems to "force" players to play the same games again and again. Some games might be alright to do so, but most would unlikely. Story is usually only exciting when you experience it the first time. You might rewatch the same movie again, but the first time experience is forever gone.
We have to aware that , one hour you spent on this game is one hour times other games you havent player being taken away. So if you repeating playing the same game, you are actually playing less games. Some people might be alright for that, but I would prefer to spent my time to experience new things to maximize my statisfaction especially we only have limited time to live.
So, maybe the JRPG arent actually dying. Instead, there is just another way to make games.
February 26, 2010
I hope the JRPG isn't dead, but just suffering from lack of originality. I would be extremely dissapointed if JRPG creators tried to mimic the western version of the RPG. Instead, they need to rediscover what made titles like ChronoTrigger work so wonderfully the first time, and then recreate the magic using modern technology, and relevant themes, soundtrack ,etc.
February 26, 2010
@Kronotross I totally agree the action Rpg is not something that actually gets you to THINK deeply. How many spells and items can you access in real time and think the 'set' of turns through?
On another note part of why rpg's are sinking is because the entire Japanese market is sinking do to the last decade of the economy. Even the action games in Japan are suffering in sales, same with western shooters that make it over there. As far as pie they seem to have close to the same 36%, but the pie is smaller! The real problem is that the other markets are twitch markets, specifically the USA. I wish that the next FFXIII vs is fully like FFVII. I can only dream!
February 27, 2010
yeah all games should involve space marines with future rifles. see these aren't just normal marines, they're marines from the future in space, and that is where the unique originality comes in. basically every game ever should be gears of war (or mass effect if you want to do something that's 0.0001% different), every character should have a buzz cut, this is the one true path to homogeneous originality. in the future every game will have a bald space marine as the protagonist, and this will be very original.
February 28, 2010
let me just say that you have no idea what you are talking about. If you want WRPGs, play WRPGs. But for most JRPG players like me WRPGs are too boring (hint: most JRPGs players are in Japan). Then again, there is Mass Effect, but it's not your typical WRPG like Oblivion. But back to the point. WRPGs are nothing like JRPGs, it's very different game design. JRPG's developers like Sakaguchi and Kitase are not trying to compete with WRPGs. People like you dont understand that.
February 28, 2010
I'm going to have to fully agree with you on this one.
I pre-ordered, and purchased the Japanese version of Final Fantasy XIII, and damn well near ended the game (I was in the last chapter). But I stopped playing it on account of work getting in the way, and such. But just as I was going to play it again, I purchased Mass Effect 1 & 2, along with Dragon Age. Very, very, BAD idea.
After playing Dragon Age for about 10 hours, and Mass Effect 1 for almost 5 hours, I can't even go back to XIII, or any other jRPG for that matter. Which sucks because I bought White Knight Chronicles & Persona 4. Just the idea of having all these choices at my disposal makes me feel so... "in control", if you will. And I really like that feeling. It feels good, and it feels right.
Also, I'd like to say the only wRPG's I've played before these games are Diablo 1 and 2. And I've grown up on ONLY jRPGs. Fact. Final Fantasy VII being the only jRPG I can play over and over again (childhood favorite, shutup). Maybe it's because it feels bran-new to me, but wRPG's just grant me much more fun in comparison to jRPGs. So I know where you're coming from.
February 28, 2010
So basically, David, you're saying that RPGs that are linear are RPGs that are dying? Because that's the reason why the first week sales of Final Fantasy 13 doubled the first week sales of Mass Effect 2, and that's only Japan sales. Seriously, get over yourself, accept a game for what it is, if you don't like it, too bad.
What you have to learn, David, is that sometimes, game developers create their own world to share their story, to share their plot. It's not for you to run in there and go, "SCREW YOU! I want to own everything!" If you want customizable features, freedom and an open world, go play World of Warcraft or RuneScape, or Mass Effect, if you can even call that third-person shooter with levelling an RPG.
February 28, 2010
February 28, 2010
There seems to be some misunderstanding here. This article is NOT an attack on JRPGS despite your best efforts to misconstrue as such. Instead, it asks an honest question: why has the JRPG genre stagnated like it has?
There's been a real lack of innovation. Each subsequent generation of JRPG looks better, but adds little in terms of gameplay. We all loved the FF games from the 80s and 90s, but just translating these old systems to 3d is no longer enough.
I'd liken this to what Blizzard is doing with Starcraft 2. Here's a sequel is being released 12 years after the original game and is essentially just a graphical upgrade of the now ancient original with some new units thrown in. And maybe this speaks more to the East vs West video game market, because a large reason for Blizzard's lack of innovation is their very lucrative South Korean market; can't shake things up because Starcraft is basically a national past-time there. Perhaps the Japanese gamers blind loyalty to JRPGs is the real problem, it's breeded a culture of acceptance of stagnation.
It's a fine line to walk, but I would love to see a psychological analysis of the differences in the video game markets between different cultures.
February 28, 2010
You cant have your cake and eat it too. If you are saying something must evolve I mean come on you can't possible claim your not putting it down. You say your not attacling JRPG's but saying one thing at the start of a article, and doing another does not make it so. For instance you attact them as staying the same for the sake of staying the same, possibly lazy. Last time I checked it takes about 100 people 5-7 years to make a big name turn based jrpg but you can make a big name action rpg in 2-3 years with 40-60 people. So it is backwards to call them possibly lazy. I hate it when developers are called lazy, especially considering the staff is working 60 hour weeks. Cheap is a better word, it cost to have a big production for 5 plus years. You put down the narrative even though they pay big name Japanese musicians, and voice actor for the original voices. That is a put down, plain and simple. Take your own advise you just don't like that kind of acting. Then you complain about the hero and the support case as being cookie cutter, how is that not a put down? Did not sheppard in Mass Effect save humanity on even a larger scale? Most video games have you save the world not just JRPG's. Why complain only about it in JRPG's? You complain about the story, and it being linear. You use the word problem over and over again. You complain about selecting attact from a menu. If I was to complain about every action RPG having you press 'x' would you not realize that is not a compliment of the game? In fact your whole article sounds like a cookie cutter article attacking JRPG's why? Almost EveRYThing you said I can reverse it into other games and types of games. Why has the western first person shotter stagnated like it has? it's like taking mip mapped first person shotters and putting it in true 3d graphics. You still are aiming a weapon and shoting someone or something (see how that sounds) it is what it is, a put down.
March 1, 2010
@dmastri
If you think about it, Western RPGs have only just began to capture huge audiences on consoles. As a slightly more new genre to the Japanese RPG, they obviously have more room to grow. And who says Final Fantasy doesn't change? Each new Final Fantasy game, Square-Enix brings out something new. It's not to say they are not evolving, it's simply trying out new things that some people can't accept. Final Fantasy XII was not linear, Final Fantasy XIII is. Some people need to accept a change is basically what I am saying. You can't always expect things to be your way.
Before Final Fantasy XII came out, people looked away because of how open and free the game's gameplay was. Turns out the game was actually pretty good, and now gamers want Final Fantasy 13 to not be linear. Seems to me like expectations are too much now days, it's like saying you want chocolate milk to taste like strawberry milk, simply because you like strawberry milk better.
March 1, 2010
So we are just figuring this out now? I would think that the flops of Blue Dragon, Lost Odyssey, Infinite Undiscovery, and other JRPGs would have made this obvious by now. FF is an exception living on brand value. If it succeeds, perhaps the genre will continue. If it fizzles . .. the genre is REALLY dead.
However, Demon's Souls which is an RPG from Japan looks good . . . but I don't think it is a JRPG in the traditional meaning.
March 2, 2010
This is an interesting piece, and one which certainly seizes upon the current zeitgeist surrounding the state of the Japanese gaming industry as such. That said, I believe that some of the ideas posited by Mr. Radd are slightly flawed, and would like to take a moment to address those issues which I feel need addressing.
I agree with Mr. Radd regarding the air of stagnation that plagues narrative in the JRPG, namely the repetition of those character types which see comparable oversaturation in such other forms of Japanese media as anime and manga (i.e. the stoic swordsman, the acid tongued tsundere, etc). However, I do not believe that the Western approach to RPG storytelling represents a wholesale better approach to narrative, an idea which Mr. Radd's article seems to insinuate. There is something to be said about the notion of taste, and indeed many individuals derive as much, if not more, pleasure from a linear narrative filled with stock character types and conveyed via cutscenes as they do from an emergent, player-driven narrative. The latter may be "better" in the sense that it is more "gamerly" and not as tied to the established tropes of another artform (namely, the cinema) as the former, but I believe that it is deeply problematic to take one's own subjective notion of what is "good" RPG storytelling and using it as a yardstick against which to measure all forms of RPG narrative- especially when such a notion fails to take into account personal and cultural differences in taste.
With regards to gameplay, I believe that it is important to keep in mind that Western RPGs can be faulted for engaging in the same gameplay repetition as their Eastern breathren (and indeed, as an earlier poster pointed out, the problem of JRPG gameplay stagnation is not as endemic as Mr. Radd makes it sound, with games such as Demon's Souls, Valkyria Chronicles, Persona 4, etc quietly refinining and experimenting with JRPG gaming conventions in the shadows, whilst their high-profile older brothers invariably make it appear as though the entire genre is drowning in an undertow of staid repetition). To illustrate my point, consider for a moment the case of Bioware. Over the years there seems to have developed a popular myth of sorts which holds that Bioware and its gaming ilk are the chosen ones, divine prophets destined to lead us to the promised lands of yore where we will all play fantastic RPGs and live in eternal harmony. Yet anyone who has played Bioware's games over the past few years with a discerning critical eye has undoubtedly come to the troubling conclusion that they are, in essence, playing the same exact game over and over, with the only real differentiating feature being a setting palette swap (i.e. instead of making "tough" moral choices in a galaxy far, far away (KOTOR) you're now making "tough" moral choices in Middle Earth (Dragon Age)). This is, perhaps, an oversimplication of sorts, and one which does not take into account Bioware's near Shakespearean knack for dialogue and writing, but as one gaming critic so innocuously quipped, Bioware "should not receive points for that anymore" as good writing has essentially become their "house style." In any event, what I am attempting to assert is that the Western RPG is just as culpable of engaging in the stagnant rehashing of established tropes as the JRPG is; its just that our particular position as Western gamers, coupled with our collective swooning at the notion of narrative choice, has blinded us to the gameplay flaws which haunt many a Western RPG.
Alas, I have much more to say with regards to this particular topic, but unfortunately message board etiquette dictates that I keep my response as terse as possible. I shall thus close things out by saying that this was a wonderful piece, Mr. Radd- if nothing else, it convinced this silent observer to take up a keyboard and make his voice heard:).
March 2, 2010
Great post, LikeClockWork! At minimum David just wanted to get the conversation started, which his piece definitely did, judging by the comments here. You're right that individual tastes need to be accounted for too. Video games, like all art, can be very subjective. Right now the western world is having a greater impact on gaming than Japan in general, so culturally the Western flavored RPGs are winning out. But no one ever said that they're immune to stagnation either. BioWare and Bethesda and Lionhead, etc, will have to keep innovating, because you're right - the idea of choices and moral decisions is becoming repetitious in and of itself these days too.
March 9, 2010
First of all thank you to everyone who responded – there were some great comments in here. I was pleasantly surprised, I was expecting a response from someone who either didn't read/misinterpreted the article to be the first or second response – it didn't come until the eighth response. ;) Secondly, I just want to make certain things clear: I know JRPGs are not going to disappear in Japan because they're a huge percentage of the market. Square Enix will be fine I'm sure and Final Fantasy will continue to be a blockbuster franchise on both sides of the Pacific.
The main issue I'm bringing up is the fate of JRPGs in the West, primarily America, and right now I see their appeal diminishing over here for a variety of reasons. I started out the article somewhat open-ended, and decided it wasn't a question of turn-based or not, linearity or not, or using the typical hero archetype story or not (although some wholesale changes in these regards might not hurt) but of user interaction with the story or not.
There are some exceptions as I noted, and as Kronotross pointed out, the Shin Megami Tensei series is great; there will always be exceptions when talking about a subject this general. I was also purposefully vague on how to fix the issue because I don't think the right way is to take the “BioWare Model” or the “Bethsoft Model” of making games – I'd like to see dynamic, interactive stories told in a distinctly Japanese fashion. I'm not saying a huge franchise could or should be used for this experiment; The Last Remnant was an attempt to appeal to a Western audience that (for the most part) failed but it'd be nice to see an attempt where they didn't just alter the character design, but rather the story design.
I did bring up a number of JRPG cliches to point out some of the symptoms of what I regard as the greater problem, but I didn't write this article because I hate JRPGs... it's because I love them. It honestly made this hard to put together – I'd rather be complimentary, but that wasn't what was warranted here. Keiji Inafune said after this past Tokyo Game Show that “Japan is over. We're done. Our game industry is finished.'" and he wasn't being hateful, just critical. But everyone who didn't like what I wrote, you're right, this isn't a love letter for JRPGs – it's a 'Dear John' letter, which could be surmised like this:
Dear JRPGs,
We've had some great times together. Dragon Warrior IV was my first love with the genre – I'll never forget it. Games like Final Fantasy IV and Lunar: SSSC touched me emotionally. Disgaea made me laugh and Dragon Quest VIII sucked up an almost embarrassing amount of time.
But... I feel like we've gotten stuck in a rut. Every time I see you, you just want to do the same old thing. The fact is... I've changed and you haven't. Also... there's someone else now. We have a lot more in common and they actually listen to me!
We'll still be friends.. we'll just see each other a lot less.
Kind regards,
David
I'd like to think that JRPGs would rise again and be bigger over here in the West than they ever were... but I'm not optimistic. I've seen too many Japanese designers talk about their inclination towards a heavy handed narrative (my words, but that's what it equates to), which isn't a good sign for story choices/interactivity in the future. And part of the reason I'd like to see some change is because if mainstream JRPGs don't do well over here, we'll be less likely to receive innovative but less well known JPRGs.
To conclude and emphasize again, I'm sure Final Fantasy XIII will sell perfectly well over here in the States. However, there's already been some push-back from the enthusiast media (Edge gave the game a 5!) and that just illustrates my main point: Japanese RPGs (and Japanese games in general) don't occur in a vacuum over here. Just like how in the '80s and '90s, Western game designers for consoles couldn't argue for special consideration for their titles during a time when they were generally outclassed by their Japanese counterparts, the opposite could not be argued now either.
March 9, 2010
Final Fantasy XII came out, people looked away because of how open and free the game's gameplay was. Turns out the game was actually pretty good, and now gamers want Final Fantasy 13 to not be linear.
psp memory
March 16, 2010
http://www.rpgfan.com/news/2010/96.html Speak of the devil the reason for the lake of traditional things was not evolution, but TIME CONSTRAINT by leadership. As admitted in the link.
March 21, 2010
Linearity and lack of story interaction is not the problem with JRPGs. The problem is, and has been since the beginning, that most of the games in the genre just aren't very good. I love games such as Final Fantasy IV, VI and Chrono Trigger, but they are some of the rare outstanding ones. Even in the 90s, Square produced some truly awful games (e.g. the SaGa series), but most of those didn't make it to the US until after Sony entered the console gaming business. Publishers carefully hand-picked the JRPGs that made it to the US for some years.
Now it's to the point where publishing the games in North America is usually worth the costs. So we'll see almost anything released here. Like any genre there's going to be more bad than good games. I don't care if Hironobu Sakaguchi headed up Blue Dragon or Lost Odyssey, it doesn't mean they're particularly good or fair examples of the best the genre has to offer. Stacking them up against a top example of a Western RPG does not make for a good argument.
Back to the debate of heavy-handed storytelling version interactive storytelling, that is not the issue. It's a distraction. Many of the best games of the last few years have no interactive storytelling. Even in Western RPGs it's frequently an illusion. Maybe you can select conversation choices to declare yourself a big softy goody twoshoes, or declare yourself as a jerk who steals candy from babies while repeatedly punching them in the face, while most of the game plays out the same regardless. Multiple endings are a gimmick that even JRPGs have done to death, a gimmick that I can count how many times I've seen it done right one on hand.
Often when people want to point to where storytelling is at its best in video games, many critics are less likely to point to Mass Effect than they are to point at examples such as Half-Life 2, Bioshock, Uncharted 2, games that focus on immersing the player into the story, but with little to no allowance for the players to influence the story. I'd actually be interested if you asked Ken Levine or Amy Henning how difficult it is to write a compelling story with a heavy amount of freedom given to the player.
May 25, 2010
The article is really about SquareEnix and not about JRPG's. Where is the mention of the Persona and Megami games, which generally are still turn-based and quasi-popular, even in the USA? I think the author wanted to write an article about his disappointment with recent Square's games and this is what he wrote.