RPG's: What Do You Like?

This subject always gets to me because there are so many different types of RPGs but no one can really agree on what makes one great.

Western vs JRPG

Some people like the western style RPG which is usually open world, gritty, very customizable, mediocre combat and story, and based on medieval European culture (though not always) vs the fanciful but linear RPG with unique combat systems and more defined character development. Solo hero vs the party method is also a debate.

Then there are turn based combat systems (Phantasy Star), Real Time Combat (Skyrim) and Grid Based Combat RPGs (Shining Force or FF Tactics)

I guess what I'm asking is what makes an RPG good, is it the story? The combat system? The magic? The characters interaction?

I personally love both types of RPGs but find Western RPGs less engaging because of the lack of or a very loose main story - but at the same time there is so much to do and no resttriction. I can also make my hero exactly as I envision. But JRPGs while kind of corny sometimes (like Tokyo Mirage Sessions on Wii U) it was fun and I got way more attached to the characters. It made the journey more amusing for me but - outside of the main story there wasn't much exciting to do and just a little customization available.


So which do you prefer and why?

All of the above. I like RPG's across the board.

But the style and mechanics are not what make or break it unless that's the primary appeal of that game.

Several Final Fantasy games, Shining Force 1&2 , the TES games, Planescape: Torment, the Tales games, and more. I love the variety of RPG games out there and don't stick to just one type.

^^Actually, Western RPGs are mostly "medieval" or "cyberpunk". But great. :D

^Agreed. As for me, I like RPGs overall. But I do love grinding; for both, the great pastime that it makes for me as I casually roam the world half-awake, as well as the enormous satisfaction I get seeing my character grown at last and being able to kill that crazy difficult boss from earlier on with a single punch. It used to be "JRPGs" (and I use this term very loosely, since I don't think the term is ubiquitously understood) that made for better grinding, but this has also been lost in modern gaming in a lot of ways.

Either way, like I mentioned, I love RPGs overall. Whether it be a turned-based Strategy RPG (my favorite), or an action RPG (also loads of fun to play).

My favorite RPG style, however, are those early 4th gen turned-based strategy RPGs. The kind that look almost like enhanced 8-bit graphics. My favorite RPG of all time will remain Phantasy Star II. And, actually, Phantasy Star III follows very closely (it has that same format). It also has that mystical, and almost eerie atmosphere; which I love in RPGs of that era. The setting is entrancing. I find it fantastic (no pun intended).

P.S.> I am currently playing Final Fantasy XIII, btw. I'm actually loving it. This game looks fantastic even for today's 8th gen standards. Sure, it is a departure from the overworld setting; but the combat is good, and the graphics are great. I can't complain. The only thing, though, is that I can't fully categorize it as an RPG. It is closer to games like, say, Future Tactics (which I also love). But it also isn't fully a tactical, turn-based style game. It is also comparable to a linear adventure game like, say, God of War or, even, Uncharted. So, it's not exactly an "action adventure", it's not a "strategy RPG". if I were to categorize Final Fantasy XIII, I'd probably call it a "Strategy Adventure" game. That's right bitches. I just coined it ;).

P.S.S.> What makes an RPG good? I've played so many by now that what makes for a great RPG, for me specifically, is a combination of gameplay (regardless if it's turn-based or action) and tone. And tone I'd define as the overall feel you get from the combination of the graphical style (not "latest" graphics, but more like art style), the music and the writing (inclusive of story, dialogue and choices/consequences).

I don't know why but I'm so hung up on story... let me run this by you and you tell me if I'm nuts.

Lets take Skyrim because you've all played it... so they tell you there is this massive threat of Alduin (sp?) the bad ass dragon who's going to mess up everything royally if he isn't stopped. There also happens to be a civil war ongoing which turns out to be of minor consequence. But the problem I have and I guess others might too is that if this is such a big deal and such an imminent threat - why am I allowed to seemingly roam the countryside for years killing bandits and doing random side quests? I mean is the threat urgent or not? It kind of just makes me lose focus on the main point of the game and I'd say 50% of the time I can't even remember what the hell I was supposed to be doing.

As opposed to something like Phantasy Star where I know what I need to do and how I need to do it and I just start kicking ass and taking names. Like when I had to get the psycho wand to beat the snot out of Zio (so badly wanted to kill Zio) that my main focus was going to get that damn thing no matter what. IDK I guess what I'm saying is I like the direction or focus of a JRPG and Western RPGs seem to lack that to varying degrees.

I guess the best RPG i played recently that sort of had both in fair mixture was Dragons Dogma... though not a perfect example it does have elements of both

Also tossing Witcher 3 in here as an example of game that is awesome but is TOO open world... I mean it's like 300 hours of stuff to do - easy

^Lol. Yeah. A lot of games do that. The Witcher 3 lets you divert from the main plot of saving your loved one. To be fair, though, you are allowed to go straight for that "urgent" matter at the risk of dying an utter death. This wakes you up to the fact that you're not exactly ready just yet and you need training to toughen-up. I always play it that way in my mind to fill in those gaps (think movies like Karate Kid or Kickboxer. They would've gotten their asses kicked if they had gone straight back to their bullies without their training. Meanwhile, they get to hook-up and do some side order stuff ;)). Also, it makes for more satisfying gameplay. :) But that's not to say that some RPG writers and devs make that perfect balance that you're asking for in several games.

...I love those games you mentioned, though.

I think for me, its the atmosphere a game creates. RPGs are usually very time-intensive, so you get to play with these characters within a developed world over a long period of time. If that world and characters are interesting, I'm along for the ride. It's like an interactive TV show. Unlike a platformer or a racing game, the story and characters are much more important in RPGs and that's what draws me to them and gets me to put in all the hours.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raja

Also tossing Witcher 3 in here as an example of game that is awesome but is TOO open world... I mean it's like 300 hours of stuff to do - easy

---

yes except the witcher pulls it of INCREDIBLY! so far the game of this generation imo. last generation was dragon's dogma, a japanese rpg I guess but with lots of western elements

if you thought the witcher 3 was too much I advice playing both expensions rather than the main game. they are much shorter and excellent games on their own. I dare say hearts of stone is one of the best storylines I've played in a videogame

Oh, it does no doubt. I have Hearts of Stone and Blood and Wine and both are excellent. I have nothing but praise for Witcher 3 but there is almost no way any sane human can do all the side quests which are interesting and compelling but.... Is it just maybe too much? Witcher 3 literally had two or maybe more games worth of content that's all I'm saying. You get your moneys worth.

the thing is you can choose. I didn't do all the sidequests but some (no life)friends of mine did though. leaves more for me when I want to replay it a few years down the line

I love a good story in a game... but the story in a game like Skyrim is fundamentally different than one like say, Final Fantasy (I can't speak to the newest one tho, haven't played it).

There are weaknesses to the storytelling in Skyrim when viewed as a narrative tale to be sure... But you "could" play the game that way if you wanted. Running through a very selective set of quests and story sections that express the urgency of the apparent threat... but you are not forced to do it. You can go screw around for 300 hours of doing whatever you damn well feel like and barely even give a glance to any of the main story points.

That is the strength, and weakness, of the TES games. I for one agree with the issues with Skyrim, it's why I feel it's inferior to Morrowind in many ways, even when it's obviously superior in others.

But even so, you can't gauge it by the exact same standards as more linear and story driven games because they don't follow the same rules.
The story in Skyrim is there to set the tone, and provide the framework for the world, characters, and objectives. Everything else is up to you as the player.

Games like, say, Final Fantasy XIII only give you one path to follow, and have, at best, a couple branching paths you might be able to get via actions/dialog taken.

The story itself, along with the characters, is much more important in the FF kind of games because they are the complete focus, as opposed to just a framework.

Which is better? Neither really. They both have their own merits.
Do you want that nice meal in a restaurant? That you can appreciate for its flavor and presentation?
Or do you want to go shopping and cook a meal yourself? It would take longer, and be less convenient, but you can build it exactly how you want it.

Both are good at different times, and some people are far more predisposed to one vs the other.

true but try the witcher 3. it has an amazing storyline yet is very open as skyrim about 10 times the size of it as well. not as detailed and interactive as skyrim but still very good.

the best storylines are lineair imo. look at something like ico. one of the best stories ever for me, it would've never worked if it wasn't lineair and it isn't even a real rpg

Eclectic, so you mentioned Morrowind. In that game the main quest doesn't start until later on... don't you think that's a better way to do it? Mass Effect 1 is the same way.

I mean to let you build up your character doing stupid things and getting your levels/skills etc. Once you reach a certain point when you're strong enough you can head up to where the main quest starts and mow through the quest line. At least like in Morrowind you have some sort of bearing and confidence about you - where in Skyrim it's like, hey I can barely hold a weapon and I'm killing a dragon already! Eh just seems odd to me. Still enjoyed the game though.


And the Witcher 3 escapes this fate because while you're on a search for someone - lots of obstacles block your path - more in line with a traditional RPG, though many people in the towns you are traveling to have their own problems only a Witcher can solve. I think the Witcher 3 is the superior open world experience to Skyrim but does lack some (not much) of the customization of Skyrim.

These days Western RPGs attract me more than JRPGs. It's a lot easier to jump into them, I find, than contemporary JRPGs. For that same reason I've developed a taste for many Western-oriented gameplay mechanics - real time action, for instance, particularly of the shooting sort - and it's why something like Fallout 4, while not the high point of either the series or the genre, is a lot more likely to captivate me than the latest JRPG.

That said, my fondest memories with RPGs, and games in general, lie firmly with JRPG titles. There's the obvious ones like Final Fantasy VII and X, and Dragon Quest VIII, but also the more under-the-radar titles: Rogue Galaxy and Dark Cloud, Ni No Kuni and Koudelka. I'm not sure if it's because I played these games when I was younger, which not only contributes to nostalgia but also meant that I had more time to invest and become absorbed in them, but even today they strike me as masterworks in their own ways, all unique titles striving for different things. Today's Western RPGs are, like much of the industry in general, often too similar to one another, in writing or mechanics - Mass Effect resembles Dragon Age, The Elder Scrolls resembles Fallout. These are each great series but unlike the JRPGs of the past I look back on them as games, not experiences.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raja

Eclectic, so you mentioned Morrowind. In that game the main quest doesn't start until later on... don't you think that's a better way to do it? Mass Effect 1 is the same way.

I mean to let you build up your character doing stupid things and getting your levels/skills etc. Once you reach a certain point when you're strong enough you can head up to where the main quest starts and mow through the quest line. At least like in Morrowind you have some sort of bearing and confidence about you - where in Skyrim it's like, hey I can barely hold a weapon and I'm killing a dragon already! Eh just seems odd to me. Still enjoyed the game though.


And the Witcher 3 escapes this fate because while you're on a search for someone - lots of obstacles block your path - more in line with a traditional RPG, though many people in the towns you are traveling to have their own problems only a Witcher can solve. I think the Witcher 3 is the superior open world experience to Skyrim but does lack some (not much) of the customization of Skyrim.

---

The main quest in Morrowind starts right from the get go. The difference is you, as the player, don't know all that it entails until you get further along into it.

That's not what makes it better from a story standpoint than Skyrim for me. The part that really clicks about Morrowind is that everything revolves around you, specifically. It's a prophecy, there's stuff happening, but it's been going on for a long time. There is no critical threat that looks odd waiting for you.

Alduin just chilling back and relaxing for years of play time in Skyrim is just... odd. Because why is this a critical threat? The civil war really doesn't do much. There's no evidence of the lands being truly ravaged by the conflicts that the story tells you are tearing the lands apart and threatening the whole world.

Morrowind on the other hand. The blight is all over, it's been all over. Dagoth Ur has been there for a very long time and would be there for a long time after you if you fail. The only reason things happen is because you are making them happen. So them waiting around for you makes complete sense.

There are technical reasons why Skyrim is the better game to be sure. There's a lot more polish and refinement in every aspect of the game systems... but at its core, Morrowind has a more solid foundation to build the game on from a character, setting, and story standpoint.

Personally, I think Western RPG's are fine as they as, but any growth in the genre would be good too.

As for JRPG's, I'm all for anything that either eliminates, or makes random battles more tolerable(Phantasy Star IV's MACRO system, the Suikoden series "let go," and anti-grinding experience system). I'd rather have something I can enjoy playing, than a good story, but same ol' shit Dragon Quest/Final Fantasy clone gameplay.

I don't really care if it's a western or eastern RPG. I just look at each game individually. There are a lot of things that can make them good, but I tend to like games that have a lot of good lore that is incorporated well in the game.

There's a lot of talk about Skyrim here. That is a game that really disappointed me. It felt like it had no idea what it was or what it wanted to be - it was all over the place. It felt like they did not care what they created and just wanted to leave it up to the modding community to actually make the game enjoyable. There was a good D&D style base... that they did absolutely nothing with.

I love Baldur's Gate and other such titles. Something about overhead-view is just more appealing when playing an RPG.