Topic: Westerners' perception on gaming

I have this question that has been bothering my mind for years now about western gamers and how they see gaming, And I'm wondering if anyone here can help me understand it better.. But please don't think of it as me trying to bait or start a flame war, I just want to discuss gaming with my fellow Nintendo fans lol!

So I have been hearing for the past 6 or 7 years now how western people are bored with jrpgs, How uninspired or uncreative they're.. Ok, Cool.. People have wanted new things and all that, I get it.. No biggie..

But then I started going to gaming websites and subscribing to gaming channels, And I noticed that many of the popular games are wrpgs, So I start checking them out, Right? And what I found was most of those games literally haven't evolved at all since the 90's except for better graphics of course..

I mean this year there're Pillars of Eternity and the witcher 3, Last year was TES online, Wasteland 2, Divinity and Dragon Age, and before that there was Skyrim..

My question is how are those not ''uninspired'' or ''uncreative''?

How is a game that was released in 2014 that still uses the same Tolkien and Lord of the Rings medieval concepts, themes and generic music is not ''uninspired'' or ''uncreative''?

How is exploring dungeons and slaying dragons as warriors and wizards in 2014 or 2015 is ''creative'' or ''new''?

How is any of those games is any different than Baldur's Gate or Ultima?

Some are even a direct sequel like Diablo 3 or Wasteland 2..

Have you seen or played TES Arena? How is Skyrim not a prettier version of Arena? How is TES franchise is not like Pokemon with having the same core game concepts, Lore and mechanics, Just with prettier graphics and better engine?

How is a 2014 game like DA:I having classes like a Warrior, Rogue or mage is ''creative'' or ''new''?

Was there any WRPG that wasn't a medieval, Post-Apocalyptic or deep space game?

Is there any WRPG like Battle Network or Earthbound in terms of trying new concepts and themes?

Is there any WRPG like the Persona series in terms of using unorthodox and fresh kind of music instead of your standard, generic Lord of the Rings score?

The only ones that I'm familiar with are the JRPG-inspired ones like South Park or Child of Light..

Is all this just a really bad case of Steve Job's "people don't know what they want until you show it to them.” theory?

Is this just an example of people with ''sheep mentality'' where they think something is cool just because it's popular? Are they falling under peer-pressure?

Some people answered this before by saying that they ''hate turn-based systems", Which is a head scratcher for me, because if you have played any JRPG that was on the consoles for the past 4 or 5 years, you'd see that none of them have turn-based system..

Xenoblade, Xenoblade X, The Last story, Pandora's Tower, FF Type-0, FF 14, FF 15, Tales of Grace F, Tales of Xilia, Tales of Xilia 2, Ni No Kuni, Fairy Fencer F, white Knight Chronicles etc..etc.. They all don't have turn-base system..

The only exceptions that I can think of were the FF13 trilogy and the upcoming Persona 5 and maybe FE X SMT..

It seems to me that the problem here is that western people are still stuck believing some out-dated stereotypes about JRPGs that have stopped being valid or true years ago.. Like they played one game 10 or more years ago, and didn't like it then, and just assumed everything after it was exactly the same..

I dunno.. What do you guys think? I'm assuming that most of you here are Americans or Westerners in general, So please tell me how people over there see this topic?

I think the big difference between "JRPGs" and "WRPGs" are how active you are throughout the game. JRPGs are generally a lot of menu surfing and strategy. WRPGs are generally a lot more action oriented. When people say JRPGs are dull and lack creativity, they mostly mean they want to be more active in the game. It is more about repetitiveness. Each encounter in a WRPG feels unique and different (when done right) while each encounter in a JRPG feels more of the same. I haven't played many RPGs (especially recently) but from an outside perspective that is what it looks like, and I bet that is another issue with the market. People will jump to conclusions on games based off what they see instead of what they experience. Experiencing a game can feel very different than watching a game.

TL;DR You can't always trust what people are actually complaining about, you need to look pass that and at why they are complaining about something. That will give you better insight.

@DefHalan: Ok, So you're saying they mean the gameplay not the creative aspects of the game.. But the thing is that most of the console JRPGs that I have played for the past 5 years were literally Action-RPGs.. Hell, Every single game from the my list are Action-RPGs except for FF14 which was an MMO, and even that was consider ''action-y''.

even though western RPGs have been around for a long time, they only became a thing for consoles at the previous generations. For that reason, gamers who only play on consoles still see them as fresh

@GMB-001: I don't even think it has to do with new and creative gameplay, I think it just has to do with preference. I think it is the actions the player takes (not the action in the game). Tales of has real-time battling but after a while the battles start to feel repetitive. Skyrim has slower combat than Tales of but each battle feels challenging. What is the big difference in their combat? Random encounters. In JRPGs I have felt that random encounters are punishing, they are something the player has to do to continue progressing. In WRPGs encounters are normally a little more planned and it feels rewarding to fight the enemies. The loot at the end of a WRPG battle almost doesn't even matter while the loot at the end of a JRPG battle is important. WRPGs you fight because you want a challenge, JRPGs you fight to gather loot. The act of Combat (not loot) is more rewarding in WRPGs and that plays a part in why people will say they prefer them over JRPGs.

westerners current perception on gaming is "hey that looked cool on Youtube/Twitch"

@GMB-001: Are you the same guy I see on YouTube sometimes? If so... Nice! Hahaha.

I wanted to talk a little more about this "In JRPGs I have felt that random encounters are punishing, they are something the player has to do to continue progressing. In WRPGs encounters are normally a little more planned and it feels rewarding to fight the enemies." Pokemon is a JRPG but its random encounters don't feel as punishing, I think a reason for that is each encounter there is a chance you will see a new Pokemon. This Pokemon is not just a stronger monster for you to fight but it can also be a new weapon. This gives it a rewarding feeling. How can JRPGs make encounters a more rewarding experience? Just think about the reason why a player would want to get into a fight. If the reason is for a possible loot drop then is the fight (the action of fighting) really that rewarding? In JRPGs leveling up skills and becoming stronger is normally left up to RNG. You gain enough experience and the game tells you what you are now better at, in WRPGs leveling up is dependent on how you play. You want to level up your fire skill? Use fire attacks. So going into a fight in a JRPG feels even more worthless because you are not actively working towards anything, just hoping RNG will hit the right numbers and give you what you want. WRPGs have a focus on what the player is actively doing while JRPGs tend to focus more on characters and story.

The biggest thing to keep in mind when talking about JRPGs and WRPGs is that anything anyone says will not be able to be applied across the board. There will always be exceptions.

@DefHalan: Yes, I remember that Random encounters were also a big issue with Westerners as well.. But the thing is that just like Turn-base system, those have also went extinct on console JRPGs 5 years ago or so.. The list that I showed before has no game in it that featured random encounters, You can see the enemy from a distance.. You don't wanna fight them? Just keep walking and don't actively engage them. They're in your way? Lure them in then turn around them and run quickly, just like in WRPGs..

@Blast: Yeah, I have the same name and avatar there ^^ YT was where I asked this question originally lol

@ekreig: That's a good point that I never thought about.. But from my understanding, WRPGs like Skyrim, Fallout, Mass Effect and the Witcher also don't have online multiplayer, the only ones that I'm aware of are the MMOs like WoW.

The mechanics of the Elder Scrolls series changed completely from the first one to Skyrim. I'm inclined to say you really overestimate the early Elder Scrolls games if you don't see the advancements. It's changed a lot more than Pokemon has. The Mass effect series was a new concept. It had three games, with decisions carrying over from game to game in meaningful ways. The scale is something that's never been seen before, and hasn't been seen in anything else.

Gameplay has also changed completely. Combat is completely different than Ultima and BG in modern games. Some of your complaints like dungeons and dragons are also so general it's ridiculous. You could apply the same complaint to JRPGs just as easily. In fact, your doing the same thing to WRPGs as you complain about happening to JRPGs.
Now, I don't think that JRPGs are all boring and uncreative. I like them

There are good reasons to prefer WRPGs over JRPGs though. While they aren't like old FF turn-based, a number of those games like Ni No Kuni are still turn-based to a degree. WRPGs also allow a much greater amount of freedom. Your usually allowed to make a lot of narrative choices and whatnot. JRPGs often (but not always) lack role-playing and are linear, now allowing for choice that you want when you think of an RPG. It can go the other way of course, but I don't feel like listing the opposite arguement. All in all though, you're being really unfair to WRPGs,

@GMB-001: I don't think you are understanding. It isn't about the act of a random encounter, it is more about the encounter itself. In the Tales of series, you can see enemies on the map, but what function do those enemies serve? In Skyrim when you encounter enemies they feel more naturally placed. Also I feel like you are looking for 1 answer that will fit all games and that will be impossible. There are some games where random encounters enhance the game, like Pokemon, and there are some games where placing enemies in certain locations enhance the game, Skyrim. There is no 1 thing about either type of RPG that is better, it is all about how it is used with the other mechanics.

I think one thing that factors (that not many have said) is simply cultural sensibilities, plain and simple.

Even if it's not always intentional, a creator's own cultural ideals will always seep into their work (meaning a holy/religious location in a WRPG will most likely resemble a Christian Church rather than a Shinto shrine, for example, even if it isn't supposed to be specifically based on anything real world), and it's simply likely that most western consumers will "get" what a WRPG is all about more easily at a glance than they would a JRPG.

An expansion of this (and this is something I've noted of users here before) is that a lot of western gamers think of anime styled art direction as "generic", "lazy", "weird", or a combination of the above, and they project those pre-conceived notions on what kind of story/characters the game(s) will have, and chide JRPG's for being "more anime" today than they were in the past. Though it's entirely likely that even many JRPGs of old were supposed to have anime art styles, but due to the limited nature of sprite graphics (and the fact that some games would come with new cover art for the west), they could simply easily project whatever art style they wanted it to be in their mind.

@GMB-001: I like jRPGs and wRPGs, but the biggest hit against jRPGs in the west has a lot to do with plot. Much like anime, jRPG seems to be tied down to have the exact same trope cast in every jRPG following along the exact same plot points.

It is the same reason that Bioware games are getting stale (at least for me). They all have the Awkward Hottie, The Hype-Aggresive Psychotic, Honor-bound Killer, Generic Male Support Dude, Useless Mentor, Recalcitrant Shrew, and a Robot. The missions generally follow a similar closed chapter structure that closes upon reaching a predetermined plot point.

It's good that you're calling out the west with their latest Adventure RPGs all being the same. But at least there's diversity there. All Diablos are the same but they are nothing like the Elder Scrolls series. One could argue that all JRPGs have been stagnant for years.

If it were up to me, we'd go back to what I consider the golden age of JRPGs, the 90s. When it was all about the story and less about gimmicky mechanics. I would actually welcome JRPGs to return to the turn based systems and break up the monotony of the action RPG games with long drawn out cut scenes and high school drama

Both sides would benefit from breaking from their molds they've been in the past 10+ years. However, does the thread starter seriously not see how the JRPG market has become uninspiring?

For the record, the last JRPG that I felt was truly unique and fun was The World Ends with You.

As someone who plays almost exclusively action-JRPGs, I can't disagree more. I think the main common thread between JRPGs is their world and narrative structure. They are often focused on a single narrative thru-line mostly about other characters, and, while the world can be non-linear (like Tales of Symphonia), it's generally not to the extent that you have an open world of discovery available to you.

I think the biggest distinction between JRPG and WRPG is that on the J side you act as someone already defined, with his background, his relationships, his "universe". The game is leaning towards narration

On the W side the experience is more "open". You actually play as yourself, making your personal character. This lead to more "generic" stories, because keeping the main character so open does not allow to have a truly deep story going on. The game leans then towards action.

The difference tends to be rather obvious to me (though it's not universal, of course):

JRPG's put a lot of emphasis on the story and how characters are involved with it. This story is expanded through most of the accessible environments and areas, building a small, but coherent world that strongly emphasizes character development. In addition, JRPG's like to go into more ridiculous fantasy styles, working with a lot of colorful and sometimes outright freakish environment to fascinate the player. At the same time, these cool environments are somewhat nonsensical, and this often extends to the entire in-game universe, with only very few rules being established to allow for as much creative stuff as possible. But to fully utilize this, the story tends to be much more streamlined, with sidetracks having comparably low incentive to lure the player in, so it feels very restrictive at times.
As for combat, JRPG's still have turn-based combat, or at least more menu-centric control of it, which they make extensive use of with loads of options and strategic approaches. Organizing and planning is often encouraged, and a tendency of random encounters (even when you see an enemy on the field, you don't know what enemies you'll actually encounter on contact) ensures you don't just stick to the same setup all the time.

WRPG's are much more interested in detailing everything except your own character. Most of the time, the story is told with you as an observer rather than an integral part, which stems from the idea of "make it your own adventure", up to and including you having a full character editor, but still a hollow puppet of a protagonist as a consequence. This means that sidestories of other characters can be told in astounding detail, while the main plot is merely a guideline. For the most part, the stories of many WRPG's can be fascinating, but also uninvolving. However, WRPG's also tend to orientate at medieval fantasy, with many environments looking strongly european in design. This rather realistic foundation allows for plenty of constants and variables as a reliable base of logic, so surprises are left to the plot, but are much less prominent in gameplay.
Combat-wise, WRPG's mostly use real-time combat, with various skill setups being possible, as well as using your mobility to evade encounters and attacks. Enemies are always clearly visible, giving you a good chance to prepare for the encounter. Since many abilities are either passive or button-assigned, you can use anything on the fly and string together all kinds of techniques. This also tends to make up for a lack of party control. WRPG's don't really want you to tell other characters what to do, or what equipment or techniques to use, but they also tend to be good enough to take care of themselves, anyway.

Now, mind you, there's plenty of examples that actually contradict my view on both sides, but I feel like that's what it often boils down to. It's more about how each side tries to convey their world(s) to you, and less about how they think an RPG should be like. That's just my observation, of course, and people might absolutely disagree with that, but it's simply how I experienced it.

I think deep down people hate JRPG's because of the fact that:
1. They're not western made.
2. Most are influenced by anime and have an anime artstyle.
3. They aren't shown off on Twitch, YouTube, etc. from popular e-celebs.
4. Popular western review sites can't escape their comfort zone and always knock on these games because "oh, this game looks creepy because of the artystyle or something"
5. JRPG's usually are done by smaller studios and so they don't normally have the AAA quality people expect in the west.

I have friends that won't even touch Nintendo or Sony because they're not made in America. How can anyone expect these people to play an anime influenced game?