The characters of Xenoblade, according to me

[Foxi4]

My friend is going to let me borrow this next week, I really hope it's not THAT bad.

That was a great story, so complex.

I sense time travel... or bullsh*t.

 

[EZ-Megaman]

Some of the best stories are simple ones. Star Wars for instance is just a very, very simple story. In fact its refreshing to have a JRPG that isn't convoluted and complex like FFX or XIII.

Yeah, it's pretty annoying for most recent JRPGs to have complexity and lack depth. There were a good amount of old JRPGs with simple stories like Lunar Silver Star back in the 4th/5th generation of gaming,
Aren't most WRPGs lacking in story, though? There are obviously a few exceptions (Mass Effect, The Witcher, etc), but there are exceptions to everything.
I'm mainly thinking of Bethesda's stuff like Skyrim, for example. The lore's interesting and all, but I lost interest in the main story after awhile.
I guess it depends on whether you prioritise gameplay or story, though. :/

 

[Gahars]

Aren't most WRPGs lacking in story, though? There are obviously a few exceptions (Mass Effect, The Witcher, etc), but there are exceptions to everything.

Actually, I'd say that they tend to be the most story driven - Mass Effect and The Witcher are hardly outliers.

Even Bethesda's work places a lot of emphasis on story. The main storylines may be weak, but the focus is supposed to be on the side plots; the organizations to join, the people to meet, the monsters to slay, etc.

The main difference, I think, is just that WRPGs place emphasis on player interaction. For the most part, JRPGs are light on choice - in WRPGs, choice is everything. It's supposed to be your story first and foremost.

 

[EZ-Megaman]

Actually, I'd say that they tend to be the most story driven - Mass Effect and The Witcher are hardly outliers.

Even Bethesda's work places a lot of emphasis on story. The main storylines may be weak, but the focus is supposed to be on the side plots; the organizations to join, the people to meet, the monsters to slay, etc.

The main difference, I think, is just that WRPGs place emphasis on player interaction. For the most part, JRPGs are light on choice - in WRPGs, choice is everything. It's supposed to be your story first and foremost.

Player interaction doesn't really appeal to me, so that could be why I find WPRGs less enjoyable since I'd prefer a predetermined game rather than being able to get multiple endings, but only a single one being canonical.
But it wouldn't be fun if one tried to replicate the other since they have different audiences, so I suppose they're fine as they are.

 

[Guild McCommunist]

Player interaction doesn't really appeal to me, so that could be why I find WPRGs less enjoyable since I'd prefer a predetermined game rather than being able to get multiple endings, but only a single one being canonical.
But it wouldn't be fun if one tried to replicate the other since they have different audiences, so I suppose they're fine as they are.

Mass Effect has your save transfer over to the next game. So every ending is canonical.

 

[EZ-Megaman]

Mass Effect has your save transfer over to the next game. So every ending is canonical.

Not many games do that, so that problem still exists for most WRPGs. Bioware did well with the save transfer option, though, yeah.

 

[Guild McCommunist]

Not many games do that, so that problem still exists for most WRPGs. Bioware did well with the save transfer option, though, yeah.

Not a lot of WRPGs are as story focused or connected as Mass Effect.

 

[EZ-Megaman]

Not a lot of WRPGs are as story focused or connected as Mass Effect.

Which is why I listed it as an exception as a WRPG that isn't lacking in story, but it seems your friend thought that it was hardly an outlier.
Hm, well it seems like this is going in circles now.

 

[Guild McCommunist]

Which is why I listed it as an exception as a WRPG that isn't lacking in story, but it seems your friend thought that it was hardly an outlier.

Well that's not to say that there's not a lot of story-focused WRPGs (I misspoke on that part), I meant that they're not structured like Mass Effect. Each game is directed related to the other, you play the same character, and the games basically happen right after the other (well give or take a couple of years/months).

If you look back at older BioWare stuff (like Baldur's Gate) there's still a deep story focus but it's not structured like Mass Effect or even involve the same mechanics of choice.

 

[Gahars]

Which is why I listed it as an exception as a WRPG that isn't lacking in story, but it seems your friend thought that it was hardly an outlier.

It still isn't - Mass Effect is unusual in bridging the three games together, but that's about where the difference ends. I'd disagree with Guild and say that the story focus is nothing new.

Also, I take umbridge with one of your points before. Most WRPG series don't render your choices noncanon in the following sequels - most of the time, the developers take care to leave things adaptable enough that, conceivably, your decisions could be the "correct" ones.

Even when the sequels take an "official canon" stance, they aren't rendering your decisions moot - they're just taking one possible sequence of events to provide the basis for a new story. Think of it like the new Star Trek films - the old ones aren't undone; the story just explores a different path.

 

[EZ-Megaman]

Well that's not to say that there's not a lot of story-focused WRPGs (I misspoke on that part), I meant that they're not structured like Mass Effect. Each game is directed related to the other, you play the same character, and the games basically happen right after the other (well give or take a couple of years/months).

If you look back at older BioWare stuff (like Baldur's Gate) there's still a deep story focus but it's not structured like Mass Effect or even involve the same mechanics of choice.

Well I can't exactly fault Bioware for anything, seeing as I enjoyed most of their games that I played like Neverwinter nights, (although that Sonic RPG was pretty boring, but every company yields at least one bad game.)

Even when the sequels take an "official canon" stance, they aren't rendering your decisions moot - they're just taking one possible sequence of events to provide the basis for a new story. Think of it like the new Star Trek films - the old ones aren't undone; the story just explores a different path.

Perhaps it's more of my fault than the developers, but wouldn't I need to have explored the path that lead to the one being explored in order to fully understand what happened? And thus, whatever I chose before is currently irrelevant, which basically means I wasted an entire play-through. It is pretty rare for developers to do that, so yeah, I could see where you're coming from.

I guess I should retract my comment about WRPGs not being as focused in terms of story and say that I would prefer to have a strong focus on the main story rather than side-quests?
For example, I can't recall why the evil dragon in Skyrim wanted to destroy crap or any motivation he had, why he's doing what he is, etc. We know hardly anything about a central character to the main plot. (Some JRPGs like Legend of Mana are like this too, but at a lesser extent).
Admittedly, some of the sidequests like the Thalmor ones are interesting, but I'd rather have something similar to that to begin with instead of a generic dragon that wants to destroy everything for no reason at all.

EDIT: I think I accidentally derailed the topic into a generic debate based on opinions that neither of us could probably change? Sorry, continue.

 

[Gahars]

Perhaps it's more of my fault than the developers, but wouldn't I need to have explored the path that lead to the one being explored in order to fully understand what happened? And thus, whatever I chose before is currently irrelevant, which basically means I wasted an entire play-through. It is pretty rare for developers to do that, so yeah, I could see where you're coming from.

It's not about restricting information - it's about differing outcomes. You might understand the perspective of the Brotherhood of Steel in Fallout better if you ally with them exclusively and investigate their way of life, for example, but you aren't losing plot essential information. Most WRPGs ensure that you receive the same stream of plot relevant information - it's what you do with it that differs.

I guess I should retract my comment about WRPGs not being as focused in terms of story and say that I would prefer to have a strong focus on the main story rather than side-quests?
For example, I can't recall why the evil dragon in Skyrim wanted to destroy crap or any motivation he had, why he's doing what he is, etc. We know hardly anything about a central character to the main plot. (Some JRPGs like Legend of Mana are like this too, but at a lesser extent).
Admittedly, some of the sidequests like the Thalmor ones are interesting, but I'd rather have something similar to that to begin with instead of a generic dragon that wants to destroy everything for no reason at all.

A few things...
1) That's the Bethesda approach. New Vegas, a game made by Obsidian, shows that you can have a strong story focus while offering a plethora of side quests for the player to explore. If you're going to play a modern Fallout game, play that one.
2) The Big Bad's motivations are explained pretty thoroughly in the main questline - you might've just missed it.
3) Bethesda employs, on the whole, pretty shitty writers. I wouldn't base the merits of WRPG storytelling off of them.

EDIT: I think I accidentally derailed the topic into a generic debate based on opinions that neither of us could probably change? Sorry, continue.

Eh, it's more interesting than the game this thread is about, so I don't mind.

 

[GameWinner]

I sense time travel... or bullsh*t.

No, I was talking about Guild's post when he was explaining the lore.

 

[Guild McCommunist]

EDIT: I think I accidentally derailed the topic into a generic debate based on opinions that neither of us could probably change? Sorry, continue.

It's impossible to derail an EOF thread. Continue on.

Also I don't think story focus is an issue in some games. I don't really care if JRPGs have a much larger story focus if the story is bad. I'd rather have a game like Skyrim (which I'm not terribly fond of but I put like 100+ hours into it) which has a story that's not great but not detracting than a game like FFXIII where the story is bad and constantly a huge factor in the game.

I remember a ShitGBAtempSays quote, "A bad story is better than no story at all", which is absolutely false. The rule with stories in gaming is if they add to the game, then they're great. If they detract from the game, then they're bad. So no story, provided it doesn't detract from the game, is better than a bad one.

 

[EZ-Megaman]

A few things...
1) That's the Bethesda approach. New Vegas, a game made by Obsidian, shows that you can have a strong story focus while offering a plethora of side quests for the player to explore. If you're going to play a modern Fallout game, play that one.
2) The Big Bad's motivations are explained pretty thoroughly in the main questline - you might've just missed it.
3) Bethesda employs, on the whole, pretty shitty writers. I wouldn't base the merits of WRPG storytelling off of them.

Huh, I thought that Bethesda made New Vegas too, so I avoided it since Fallout 3 was pretty boring. Looks like they just published it though, so I might have to give New Vegas a go since I enjoyed the first two.
It might be possible that I missed the dragon's motivations, not much point in denying that.
And I'd have to agree that Bethesda's writers aren't very good, but they made most of the WRPGs I've played, so I might have to try a few games from other WRPG developers to make a better judgement.

I remember a ShitGBAtempSays quote, "A bad story is better than no story at all", which is absolutely false. The rule with stories in gaming is if they add to the game, then they're great. If they detract from the game, then they're bad. So no story, provided it doesn't detract from the game, is better than a bad one.

To be honest, I could see where that person is coming from. I could play through games with chicle stories and bad (although still functional) gameplay for a long time, but I can't play games without a story but good gameplay quite as long.

I'm not sure if I could explain it well, but a game with good gameplay eventually gets repetitive. You're just attacking enemies endlessly, which probably gets boring after an hour. At least a bad story still adds a sense of purpose and a reason to keep playing.

I'm speaking strictly about RPGs, though, otherwise I wouldn't be able to tolerate over half of the games out there.

Either way, I'm starting to see holes in my own points now, so I guess I'd withdraw most of 'em now. :/

 

[Foxi4]

Huh, I thought that Bethesda made New Vegas too, so I avoided it since Fallout 3 was pretty boring. Looks like they just published it though, so I might have to give New Vegas a go since I enjoyed the first two.

Game feel-wise Fallout 3 was butchered, Fallout: New Vegas on the other hand is absolutely brilliant and I strongly recommend it.

 

[Guild McCommunist]

Bethesda published New Vegas, it was made by Obsidian (who are former Black Isle devs). My first play of New Vegas, I wasn't fond of it (I gave up at the halfway point basically) but I picked it up months ago and I thought it was fantastic. Only reason I didn't stick to it was I was on the PC version and my laptop didn't run it all that great. However if/when I get a better PC I'll pick it up again.

New Vegas is a great game on a fucking awful engine. Bethesda just made a blatantly horrendous engine when Oblivion game out and they still haven't fucking fixed it.

Such a shame too since their bonuses depended on Metascore and they got an 84 Metascore on New Vegas. They needed an 85 for a bonus.

 

[Janthran]

It's not. It just has a not-so-shit (but still rather flawed) battle system...

Uh.. Is there any game with a battle system that has now flaws? You just want to hate this game.

 

[Guild McCommunist]

Uh.. Is there any game with a battle system that has now flaws? You just want to hate this game.

But it has more flaws than most. The fact that it's a 3-party team and two of the members are basically essential (at times all three are essential) just shows a real flaw.

I've tried juggling between party members but there's little reason to not use Sharla and Reyn at least. You basically NEED a tank. You basically NEED healing. That leaves a third slot open. There's little reason to NOT take Shulk since he has a huge variety of moves, deals great damage, and he's essential versus Mechon. Like the team works alright when you're using say Riki or Melia instead of Shulk but that's only for fun, not for practicality.

I went into this game open minded and I even liked it at first. I'm saying the battle system does have some deep flaws but in general I enjoy it. It's still exciting, it's still involved, and it's different.

 

[JoostinOnline]

But it has more flaws than most. The fact that it's a 3-party team and two of the members are basically essential (at times all three are essential) just shows a real flaw.

I've tried juggling between party members but there's little reason to not use Sharla and Reyn at least. You basically NEED a tank. You basically NEED healing. That leaves a third slot open. There's little reason to NOT take Shulk since he has a huge variety of moves, deals great damage, and he's essential versus Mechon. Like the team works alright when you're using say Riki or Melia instead of Shulk but that's only for fun, not for practicality.

I went into this game open minded and I even liked it at first. I'm saying the battle system does have some deep flaws but in general I enjoy it. It's still exciting, it's still involved, and it's different.

I ditched Reyn for Riki. I tried using Melia because she is really powerful, but I had a hard time getting used to her moves. I always played as Shulk for battle though (Riki plus Quick Step VI was lightning fast, great for moving across empty space), since it made sense for the story and I loved using the Monado.

You just need to learn what armor/weapons/gems to use if you want to use other characters. You are right about needing healing, but a tank certainly isn't necessary (or even practical in some situations) if you just take the time to properly customize each character.