Western RPGs

They are if they want to simulate human reactivity. Which is so often the aim.

Why do you think that Alpha Protocol was such a short game?

WRP Gs tend to have a lot of fully voiced dialogue.

JRP Gs can have lots of dialogue, but usually save money by not voicing all of it(specifically, stuff that isn't relevant to the main story).

JRP Gs also usually have a fixed PC, so you don't need multiple variations on the same voicing for different genders/races/backstories.

Also fixed party-members, meaning that battle- and cutscene-dialogue can be planned, programmed and voiced much cheaper than with variable party-members.

I am not sure whether this is true but in my (admittedly rather superficial) experience, JRPGs tend to have less branching Dialogue Trees than WRPGs.

However, that said, the voice-every-bit-of-written-dialogue is actually a BioWare thing that started back in KotOR (and taken further to a voiced PC in ME). WRPGs before that (like Baldur's Gate, Planescape: Torment and Morrowind) only had the key dialogues voiced and weren't much less immersive.

edited 17th Feb '13 5:03:30 AM by Koveras

I don't think it's about immersion, rather about being true to film.

It's the same thing IMO. Films are all about immersion, too. It's just that old RPGs were more about book-like immersion and newer games gravitate towards movie-like immersion.

Well no, umm, look:

All media values immersion, since all media is a metaphor or an approximation for the narrative they're telling. If an audience stops believing in a narrative then tradition dictates that narrative's effectively "failed". Immersion helps an audience by-pass that fail state.

When you talk about book-like immersion or film-like immersion in the above paragraph you're not being true to the concept of immersion as it actually stands. You're not talking about the ways that each medium maintains an audience's willingness to believe. Rather you're actually referring to the ways each medium approximates its narrative — the way a novel uses text, metaphor, formal rules of grammar, reading ect. ect. or the way a film uses subject, image, formal rules of continuity, literal imagery, watching, ect. ect. These are, in fact, the structures of the medium that counter-act immersion but are central to how an audience understands and relates to a medium.

When I say that the trajectory in Western RP Gs is about a movement towards film, rather than a move towards "immersion", I'm agreeing with what you said in the paragraph you initially replied to. I just think that talking about immersion misses the point somewhat, like you said.

So, to whit (and this is the important part that actually deals with the subject we're talking about):

Older WRP Gs attempted to conjure an audience into a setting using text, but naturally gravitated towards higher-fidelity forms of narrative given the medium's inherently visual appeal and Western pre-occupation with film. by that I mean that since Western narratives value realism fidelity higher than Japanese narratives do (you can see this in at least their acting, but in other ways as well), Western games had to be more and more like film and the way film speaks of the world in order to satisfy consumer demand.

Western games support immersion through their adherence to the logics and tools of film, and prioritise its logics and structures even in cases where it doesn't make sense to do it (how many Western Games have rain hitting your face like you're suddenly the windshield of a car!?), rather than Japanese games which have other priorities and therefore more likely to maintain game structures, like HUDS and damage numbers.

^^ Which is bad really, because those sucks up development resource HARD.

Also the voice thing...I remember Silver do it before (it's action rpg back in 1999)

edited 17th Feb '13 6:00:27 AM by onyhow

I kinda understand what you mean... but only kinda. For me, immersion is about being drawn into the book/film/game and feeling like I am actually there. For you—correct me if I am wrong—it's more about the Willing Suspension of Disbelief and realism? For me, these two aspects overlap a lot but they are still distinct, but I may just as well have the wrong idea of them.

Well, of course, there were lots of fully-voiced games before KotOR. All the adventure games, for instance, were voiced over since the advent of the CD-ROM. However, RPGs (particularly Western-style) tend to contain metric tons of written dialogue and BioWare was the first, to my knowledge, to make a point of voicing every little bit of it in each of their games.

edited 17th Feb '13 6:45:48 AM by Koveras

I kinda wish they'll go back to only voice critical stuff (or just cut it out) though...the whole voice everything really limits on how complex on the dialogue can be (and their length), also it jacks up the dev cost hard enough that's one of the reasons why game dev cost are expensive as shit right now...

Well, reality fidelity is one way of doing "immersion". (Its relative opposite, genre fidelity, is another.)

We're talking about the same thing, I think. You're considering immersion in subjective, personal terms and I'm considering the theoretical side of it. I'm arguing that immersion is the critical force that allows for the suspension of disbelief. Your argument frames immersion in terms of immediacy, like you're "really there", and thus fits under a certain conception of realism.

Immersion however, doesn't have to place an audience as invisible third party in a narrative. Brecht and other alienists (an appropriate video game example might be Suda 51. Might be) were interested in identifying and rejecting an audience but could still provoke audience interest, empathy (erm, not Brecht though. Think more Stoppard.), fascination ect. Immersion isn't calcified in the presence of an audience. Just wilful interaction.

So like I said, it's really besides the point. The real thing to consider is film. WRPG are like many Western games in their interest in apeing Hollywood. JRPG is interested in other traditions, probably drawing more heavily from animation and youth programming that Western film does. But I can't really comment specifically on that, just gesture vaguely at the Bomb, the Japanese work cycle and at social repression and their combined need for playful, distanced escapism.

You are not the only one saying that. Personally, I would also prefer if the devs weren't put under the pressure of having to voice everything and instead concentrated on the writing. But I am also pretty sure that's what Obsidian and inXile are going to do in their current Kickstarter projects, so it may yet catch on.

In a way, all games cater to their target audiences' escapist desires.

Which also explains a larger willingness toward being more over the top and a generally greater emphasis on characterized animation.

Apart from more dialogue options, WRPGS, even more linear ones, also tend to have more character customization options, and larger varieties of spells, powers, and weapons and other miscellaneous items. On the flipside, JRP Gs spend a lot more time with animations for spells and such.

Anyway, I just finished KOTOR, and while I don't think it's anywhere near as good as stuff like Baldurs Gate, Planescape Torment, or even lesser games like Neverwinter Nights, I actually really got into it, which surprised me because even though I love the Star Wars films as much as anyone, I never really cared much for the general Star Wars universe. I heard that the sequel isn't so good and is really buggy though, but it apparently has a lot more options especially with side characters. Is it worth getting? People compare it to NWN 2 in terms of bugginess, but I was able to get through that with only two fairly minor hiccups (though it was fully patched).

The sequel's awesome...the main problem of it is that it's rushed to release date so a lot of stuff are cut out...but there's a mod to fix that.

Also blaster is much better than in the 1st game...

Debatable.

edited 22nd Feb '13 10:03:22 PM by JotunofBoredom

I concur, it varies.

Compare Pokemon/Shin Megami Tensei with Fable.

Yeah, the blaster was pretty useless in KOTOR 1. I made the mistake of playing a scoundrel with no points put into strength. I had to use hit and run tactics

& It's more of a tendency than a rule, but from my own (admittedly limited) experience with JRPGS it seems to be the case. There are JRP Gs where you can customize your character to some extent (like in Final Fantasies II and V), but it's only to a certain extent. I have nothing to back up my claim that there are more weapons and items in the games, but I think the fact that WRP Gs generally have more classes and side areas gives them the edge in that respect. Dn D games in particular have more weapons than anyone could possibly need. I don't think I've played any Eastern PRG newer than Golden Sun though, apart from Poke Mon (which has a lot more choices than other JRP Gs I've played). Tactical RP Gs also have a lot more variety.

edited 23rd Feb '13 3:15:05 AM by supergod

In my opinion, the divide between WRPGs and JRPGs is pretty pointless, since neither is clearly defined and the line tends to blur more and more with time. It's more accurate to say that there are several big RPG line-ups (not necessarily franchises, e.g. I lump all BioWare games into a single line-up) traditionally associated with one side; there are games that emulate them; and then there are games that fall anywhere in-between the successful line-ups. In other words, the RPGs aren't a spectrum spanning from East to West but a web of inspirations with several historically significant clusters.

To illustrate my point, I've recently been playing Path of Exile, which looks and feels like Diablo II and is proud of it. I mean, what can be more Western than Diablo? So it took me a long, long while to realize that the whole active skill system is taken right out of Final Fantasy VII, and then another troper pointed out that the passive skills are essentially the Sphere Grid from FFX.

As for pre-defined characters, one of the most celebrated WRPG series at the moment, The Witcher, has a predefined character and only allows customization "to a certain extent". So that cannot be the dividing principle. And if you look closely, pretty much every RPG aspect can be found implemented on both sides of this perceived "divide", which is exactly why I think it's pointless to think of the genre in this terms.

Again, I'm talking in general. There will always be exceptions. WRP Gs seem to be getting less and less RPG-like, though (I'd say it's because they want to appeal to the Xbox crowd, but I don't want to sound like an elitist). Apart from Deus Ex Human Revolution, which is more of an FPS with a few RPG elements, I haven't played anything newer than Oblivion. The Witcher is on my list, but now I'm not so sure. Can you at least choose your class?

edited 23rd Feb '13 11:39:57 AM by supergod

No, but the Witcher has a predefined character as a result of being based off some books.

Bioware is gradually removing RPG elements from their games, while trying to maintain the same level of storytelling quality and it isn't working that well.

edited 23rd Feb '13 11:41:37 AM by Zendervai

Ah, that's the problem with playing an established character in RP Gs. That and the QTE stuff are two strikes against it, but I might still get it.

Also, while there is no character creation, you have quite some freedom to choose how you develop Geralt's skills. Those are pretty blank at the beginning (and I actually prefer that over a class-based system, which put a character in a "drawer" with no way to diversify).

A classless system where you're to choose your skills and feats is good. I though it meant that I'd be stuck playing a typical Warrior or a Wizard or whatever. I don't know where I heard about the QTE thing from, but I'm sure I'm not making it up (that I heard it, that is).

edited 23rd Feb '13 12:45:42 PM by supergod