would you like to see a western studio make a final fantasy game?

#81kupo1705Posted 4/24/2013 3:10:58 PM
Kouuta-Kun posted...
kupo1705 posted...
Kouuta-Kun posted...
kupo1705 posted...
Kouuta-Kun posted...
You just made that up.


I made you up.


I'm not real?


Yeah.
And when I stop believing in you, you'll be gone.


So, whats gonna happen to me now?


Nothing if I keep believing in you.
#82Kouuta-KunPosted 4/24/2013 3:16:10 PM
kupo1705 posted...
Kouuta-Kun posted...
kupo1705 posted...
Kouuta-Kun posted...
kupo1705 posted...


I made you up.


I'm not real?


Yeah.
And when I stop believing in you, you'll be gone.


So, whats gonna happen to me now?


Nothing if I keep believing in you.


My life is in your hands.
---
"...Once again, this isn't alcohol. Are you a pack of imbeciles?"
The Official Evil Mastermind Of The FFXV Board
#83-BrokenSpiral-Posted 4/24/2013 3:55:09 PM
kupo1705 posted...
lennethsoki posted...
kupo1705 posted...

They barely even have a definition.


True, but it being bare is what makes it so foolproof since it doesn't delve into the parts that are and have been used by both. I think it's that way on purpose because they knew any further classifications would end up sounding asinine.

What they said was pretty much 'RPGs that are like those that Japan mostly makes now are JRPGs and RPGs that are like those the west mostly makes now are WRPGs.'


It's really the whole progression, narrative flexibility, freedom, and whether or not the game revolves around self-insertion that they were on about. I mean, the way some define it that I've seen say that it must have turn-based combat, have anime graphics, etc. to be a JRPG, or having burly men, realistic graphics, constant sidequest availability to be a WRPG, which one could list multiple examples to counter them. Then you have a ton who still think JRPG = from Japan and WRPG = from the West (I think that's what they were originally for, though), and it opens a whole 'nother slew of problems.

You might get a kick out of this, but one guy I met said that the difference between the two is that JRPGs = good, well-written stories and WRPGs = boring, poorly written stories collectively.

Writing out the above made me realise how much I hate the terms... But how would you define it, if I may ask?


That's the part which makes no sense. All types of RPGs be made anywhere.
Well, only Japanese games can be anime-like since it's Japan-exclusive, the western equivalent being cartoon, but that's irrelevant. The biggest flaw with this J/WRPG thing is that it means there are only two kinds of RPGs. The Extra Credits video doesn't touch upon subgenres. If it did, the whole argument would fall apart.

The really stupid part is that Japan can only make JRPGs, while western developers can make any kind.
If a western RPG is an action RPG, people call it a ARPG. If a Japanese RPG is an action RPG, people call it a JRPG.
If a western RPG is a turn based RPG, people call it a turn based RPG. If a Japanese RPG is a turn based RPG, people call it a JRPG.
And so on. It shouldn't even be a genre, that's just dumb.

They were originally called console and computer RPG. GameFAQs still uses these terms.
Since only westerns developers made RPGs for computers, and only Japanese developers made RPGs for consoles (with some exceptions, mainly PC to console ports), they became known as Japanese and western RPGs. Which in today's market with most games being multiplatform makes no sense.

So yeah, use proper terms like Action RPG, turn based RPG, strategic RPG and so on.


Are you refuting or agreeing with her? Rereading the conversation, it seems like lenneth said "I accept it, but it's stupid and flawed" and you replied with "Yes, it is stupid and flawed."
#84kupo1705Posted 4/24/2013 3:57:20 PM
-BrokenSpiral- posted...
Are you refuting or agreeing with her? Rereading the conversation, it seems like lenneth said "I accept it, but it's stupid and flawed" and you replied with "Yes, it is stupid and flawed."


I explained what I thought, which is what was asked.