Separator
Editorial: On Relevance and the Real (E)state of the JRPG
Default_picture
Sunday, February 28, 2010

Nobody likes the act of moving to a new house.  Perhaps the most terrible part of moving to a new place involves rummaging through your possessions in your old apartment and deciding what goes with you and what gets thrown out.  As you pick up each item, you ask yourself, "Do I really need this?"  Items that get the nod get to make the trek to the Promised Land  -- a nice brown box, a trip in a U-Haul, and the new house.  Unfortunately, some items -- things like old magazines and wire hangers -- are not as lucky.  They usually end up on the curb inside of a big, black Hefty bag.

A similar phenomenon happens in the video game industry.  As years pass and more consoles are released, it becomes more apparent that some genres either relocate or become obsolete.  Where are our puzzle games, 2D platformers, and on-rail shooters today?  For the most part, they're restricted to hand-held consoles, DLC, and arcade cabinets.

We're knee deep in this current generation of consoles, and I'm wondering if the Japanese RPG has a similar fate.

"This house is too big for us"

The JRPG, as well as the pen-and-paper-RPG, is something that had to exist. That is, they're games that people would have had to invent at one point or another.  It all comes down to imagination and doing what you can with certain limitations.

As technology progressed, the pen-and-paper-RPG evolved and was made available in the form of a video game, the JRPG.  The convenience of these "ready-made" RPG campaigns is that they provided visuals, a story, and rolled the dice for you.  When the earliest JRPGs were released, the imaginations of both gamers and developers far surpassed what technology could accomplish.  Therefore, things like world maps, battle screens, and dialogue boxes had to be used as tools to help convey the complex stories that had to be told.  Characters became party members and injuries were produced by random number generators.

One can argue that the golden age of JRPGs occurred sometime during the PSone/PS2-era.  At that time, we hit a "sweet-spot" where world maps and battle screens were presented beautifully, in better detail.  Unfortunately, battle screens and world maps were still required -- huge, open worlds that have been simplified due to limitations. During this time Japanese developers, well-known for peppering their games with computer-generated cut scenes, released many titles, each with their own spin on the genre.

But what happens when the line that separates cut scene and gameplay footage becomes blurred?  What if that line were to become non-existent?

Today, Sony and Microsoft set the bar when it comes to visuals.  Nintendo continues to innovate by allowing us to interact with our video games in new, exciting ways.  With this technology, mechanics that are usually implemented in JRPGs become archaic.  Battles take place on the world map; the player fights battles in real time; text boxes are replaced by Nolan North.

Will future consoles become too "big" for the genre?

The Current Situation

Video game genres have evolved towards more life-like representations.  The Madden and NHL franchises make it look like you're actually watching a sports game on television.  Mirror's Edge has allowed gamers to platform in first person.  As our consoles improve, many things that make a JRPG what it is may become unappealing.

Let's take a look at the battle systems in our typical JRPG.  Success in battles takes some deliberation and requires the player to be able to manage their party members well.  Giving orders to party members usually involves navigating through a series of menus which may stop the action if we're talking about a turn-based RPG.  The stop-go action during these battles doesn't seem to lend itself well to the age of gaming we're in.

Recently, it seems like Western game developers have been out-RPG'ing Eastern developers.  Game developers like Bioware and Bethesda Softworks have truly exemplified what it means to give players a role-playing experience.  Western developers have done a great job of engulfing players in the worlds they create by providing meaningful dialogue trees and (more importantly) allowing the player to make decisions that change the experience. Western developers seem to spread their efforts evenly across characters' conversations, providing different scenarios for different choices players make, and cut scenes, thus putting a console's capability to good use.

Unlike most of the decisions players are prompted to make in a JRPG, some decisions in a game like Mass Effect 2, for example, have a lasting effect on the storyline.  Today, there are high standards when it comes to "role playing" in video games.  The term, "JRPG," seems like a misnomer since Japanese RPGs tend to provide players with shallow consequences for the decisions they make.

Can JRPGs do more with current-gen consoles than provide fancy CG sequences?

 
Pages: /2
1 2 >
4
BITMOB'S SPONSOR
Adsense-placeholder
Comments (3)
Default_picture
February 28, 2010


I think JRPGs are still relevant, but one of the reasons we're seeing fewer titles developed for consoles is because the market has changed so much this generation. Some RPG fans who only owned a PS2 last generation have shifted to any of the three new systems, so publishers are unsure of what system to release their games for.



Also, I think the gaming press is partly to blame, because they've been more negative towards JRPGs this console generation than they've ever been. They constantly deride linearity as a weakness, when in fact, there are millions of people who love the linear stories in JRPGs. I love the ability to create change in games like Jade Empire and Mass Effect, but I also enjoy playing a well-crafted linear story that isn't influenced much by the player.



There are several other issues at work as well such as escalating development costs, but I won't go into that for now.



Even though I don't agree with all of your points, I thought this was a well-written article. It's nice to see a perspective on the future of JRPGs that doesn't solely rely on bashing linearity.


Default_picture
March 06, 2010


@Brian



Thanks, man.  I do really like this genre just because it was important to who I am today as a gamer.  I agree with you that there is a negativity coming from the gaming press when it comes to the JRPG.  However, some of that may be due to the lack of  (or perceived lack of) innovation or "progressiveness" in the genre.  There are totally other issues at work here, but I kind of wanted to focus on "what JRPGs are" and which platforms best suit them.



I personally don't mind if they stay restricted to hand-held consoles, nor would I really considered it a bad thing. But what do you think?  Do you think that the genre will be "okay" when it comes to the next few generations of games?



I originally wanted to mention something about how on a long enough timeline (with respect to improvements in technology), JRPGs will turn into action/adventure games.  That might have opened up a whole new can of worms, though.  :)


Bmob
March 07, 2010


I quite like moving house. ;)



I get quite agitated with the age-old WRPG vs JRPG debate, truth be told. Both sides think they're the "real" RPG, and they're both right. They just look at roleplaying from two different perspectives.



I think that's important to remember, because at the end of the day, we, as westerners, look at games from that western perspective. If games don't fit the framework pushed on us by western developments, then they will suffer in the west.



Westerners call RPGs out for being derivative, but that's only because our ideas of originality are different. Japanese games often include stories that are too different for western developers to even consider them. JRPG battle systems can change hugely from game to game. Where are the similarities in the battle systems of Enchanted Arms, Tales of Vesperia, Lost Odyssey and Final Fantasy XIII? I can think of a great many JRPGs that don't suffer from the 'go to -- get -- return' systems of WRPGs, for example, but all of this goes under the radar because we're too busy clamouring for OUR developments to be included.



On the other hand, I'm sure there's a Japanese Bitmob, where a great many people are discussing why FPSs are out of date. After all, they haven't really changed since their inception, and 99% of the "stories" revolve around being lost in space or fighting in a world war. Where was the originality in MW2? Scenese were taken straight out of James Bond, and I could've sworn I'd already played the Favela level in a Tom Clancy game. If anything, that's more of an "interactive story" than any JRPGs, because you watch a scene, pull the trigger a few times, and repeat.



I don't mean to ramble, but I think it's important to remember where we're from in this debate. West and East have their own developments. It's like in TechnoMage. One civilization relies on magic, and one relies on technology. Both are developing very quickly, but both think the others are 'irrelevant' because they're not following their opposite number's path.


You must log in to post a comment. Please register or Connect with Facebook if you do not have an account yet.