I'll answer myself in a little while. I am just curious what all of you have to say!

All of the above.

Characters/storytelling>>>>>>story, though.

Good battle can make up for any other shortfalling of a JRPG. In the case of the Shadow Hearts series it has amazing story and battle, which is clearly a plus.


For the majority of RPGs I play, mostly on hand helds, it is the level grinding that provides the impetus to continue playing.


If you have ever gone to the beach and gone out deep into the sea and first swam toward the shore, then started to run when your legs can reach the sand, there is a great feeling that comes as with each step there is less resistance from the ever-shallowing water. That is what level grinding in an RPG feels like for me.

"If you have ever gone to the beach snd gone out deep into the sea and first swam toward the shore, then started to run when your legs can reach the sand, thete is a great feeling that comes as with each step there is less resistance from the ever shallowing water. That is what level grinding in an rpg feels like for me."

I prefer running into the water. Don't you like a challenge?!

aspro said:

This is exactly why I started the threadon JRPG's the other day. Story has just become completely unimportant to me in JRPGs.  They are infantile and repetitive, at least the ones I've been playing on the DS and PSP.  Perhaps it is the old source material, but even so I put in Tales of Vesperia and  Infinite Undiscovery and it the same bullshit voice acting and writing directed toward children.

On the WRPG side, in the last 12 months I've beaten Morrowind, Oblivion, Fallout 3, Fallout New Vegas and played a fair amount of KOTOR.  In those games the importance of story was far more important than the battle elements.

You realise that Yakuza's story is basically a JRPG story minus the fantasy elements, right?

aspro said:

Your post made me evaluate what I meant by those WRPG's having story being the most important part.

Instead of saying story, I'll change my answer to reflect that the developers of those games were always providing the player with motivation toward their next and ultimate goals.  Whereas in a JRPG (at least the ones I've played lately) I'm rarely compelled to continue playing on the basis of wanting to know what happens next.

In Yakuza, I usually beat them within 2-3 days because I keep wanting to know what is going to happen next (4 was the best at this so far).  While I contend that the gameplay of Yakuza is much like a JRPG, I don't agree with the story being so. The simularities I guess would be that you are a lone voice for justice in a world that needs a saviour, but that could be applied to most video games, including Halo, Half-Life, The Sabotuer... most of the games I've played this year actually.

One of the early hooks (not early in all of the Yakuza's; sometimes it comes around a little later) is a character being kidnapped. This kidnapping turns out to be part of a larger conspiracy. I don't think anyone was kidnapped in Halo or Half-Life. The interaction between Kazuma and the ensemble cast, and the way their relationships develop are extremely JRPG-like with there being one major difference that doesn't really have any affect on character development or the story so is irrelevent to what I'm saying: they're not a part of your party, and thus have no effect on gameplay gameplay. Though, of course there are quite a few instances where you do have them following you around.

Well, it does affect the story a little which might be why you don't think they're similar: you are not over-exposed to the ensemble cast so they don't have the opportunity to become nearly as annoying as JRPG main characters characters.

Take a step back from the main characters that would be in your party, and look at how the bosses and secondary main characters are presented. You get to see the bosses as the game goes along and understand their motivations, realising that they're not completely evil, through cutscenes as the game progresses, while the secondary characters on your side take place in these scenes and doubts are raised over what side they are on. That's exactly how a JRPG story unfolds.

Most other genres don't do that. Let's take Halo for instance. Yes the plotline of you being the only one capable of saving the world is basically the same, but the presentation is completely different. The enemy is given no overt motivation, and they are never presented with an opportunity to become somewhat sympathetic, and the same goes for Half-Life. What interaction in Half-Life 2 do you get with the evil guy? Snippets of propaganda and him antagonising you. If it was an RPG he'd be a major character that you're exposed to just as much as Alx and the black guy, and it's exactly the same with Yakuza.

So yes, the stories are exactly the same, but there's an important difference that probably makes it a whole lot more palatable for you.

"They are infantile and repetitive, at least the ones I've been playing on the DS and PSP."

IMO this demonstrates exactly what I'm saying. If in the first game you had to put up with the bar gal lamenting her lost parenting opportunities throughout the game rather than in a cutscene every few hours you'd probably find it infantile and repetitive too. This is also because the game is drastically shorter than JRPGs; not becuase the story isn't like a JRPG epic (just as much shit goes down) but because the game doesn't follow a JRPG structure due to the combat being limited: thus the game needs to be a great deal shorter than a JRPG. Oh, and the combat is arguably limited because there is less freedom when there's only one character involved.

Apologies for the incoherency. Hopefully it still made some sense.

Maybe a misunderstanding in terms. My apologies for saying "story" instead of "storytelling" in my first reply to your initial post.

As I was meaning to imply I wasn't really talking about story, because you weren't either. We're both really referring to storytelling, though perhaps in slightly different ways with you focusing on the structure and me the technique.

My point that the storytelling techniques (dripping out entertaining story elements as you put it) are actually the same in Yakuza as in JRPGs still stands IMO. The difference lies in the gameplay structure, which does to a degree affect the storytelling structure, but not the technique or style. They're still told in exactly the same way, but one is concise (Yakuza) and one is verbose (JRPGs). While the same themes apply to your other examples, the storytelling techniques are completely different.

Basically Yakuza=condensed, concise JRPG, which means that we're pretty much in agreement!

Hope that clears everything up! I didn't meant to be argumentative or anything like that.

Also I think it's an interesting discussion because we play the game in a completely different manner to each other. If I didn't do all the side stuff while playing through the main story I might not make the connection between the storytelling and JRPGs either. When you see the story over a similar period of time to a JRPG it's easier to make the connection.

Yodariquo said:

For JRPGs, it's the one genre that requires balance.  Missing anything and the experience is pretty crappy.  You can have a shooter with no story or an adventure game with no gameplay, but an RPG without a competent gameplay or engaging story is always less than impressive.



WRPGs just need to be in a better genre

Wow, never thought I would say this to you Yoda, but you are wrong. This surely must be a sign of the apocalypse.

Yes RPGs need balance, but so do all the other genres. The igredients of said balance do differ. Platformers need to have good and instant control with a framerate that never drops. JRPGs, especially turn-based ones do not need it. Platformers need variety, jRPGs can have parts that are monotonous.

I just compared two genres, but I could do it for all the others too.