I don't know, the standard response I always hear about Japanese RPG's is how they have so much more "story" than Western RPG's, particularly the classic ones. I know I'm no connoisseur of the Japanese RPG despite owning several (I've never actually completed any) for Dreamcast and PS2, among other systems, but I think frankly the idea of "story" is used with too broad of a stroke. It's not that simple.
It's very simple really to compare the differences. I'll use Phantasie as an example and Pool of Radiance (POR), both from SSI, simply because they were previously discussed. When playing through each of them, there was obviously plenty of exposition, plenty of quests/missions, plenty of things to do. However, at no time in either game are you particularly guided in how to achieve your objectives. In no way did you feel that the story was predetermined. You created characters from scratch and guided them through the world and uncovered things and responded to things more or less as you saw fit (within the constrains of the technology and the design - you obviously had to fight a lot even when you didn't want to for instance). The stories were the typical kill the big foozle at the end, but the story still interacted with your characters and there were still the occasional NPC's that could join your party (in POR) IF YOU CHOSE (more or less) with their own agendas, who also could affect the outcome.
Now compare that to something like a "Kingdom Hearts". You're given a character to play. Your party consists of pre-determined characters. Your encounters consist of pre-determined interactions. You move from one event to another to trigger the next cut scene and the next linear progression. Yes, an intricate story is woven around these events and characters, but is it really a "better" story than the one in POR or Phantasie? If all of this stuff is pre-determined for me ahead of time and I have little to know ability to take my own path to the finale', why wouldn't I just watch a "Kingdom Hearts" movie than play my way through it? I'd rather not watch a POR or Phantasie movie, because the outcome of the games are entirely my own to weave. Obviously there are plenty of triggers in both games and events that happen when you reach certain points, but more or less, it's like I'm "really" role playing. The personalities of my characters are mine to imagine, they're not pre-determined for me.
I know how I wrote the above is not particularly elegant and may not have made my point as well as I would have liked, but I hope I at least highlighted why I think there are fundamental differences in the game types that are both somehow referred to as "RPG". To compare one to the other - to me - is all but impossible. Each has very different goals and effects on the end user, the player. Each appeals to very different people. I know I've been stunned that there are people out there that actually don't like to make their own characters - they'd rather be GIVEN characters already created - they actually hate the process. Until I could accept that as a concept, I could not understand why someone might not like a true classic CRPG. Again, different styles appeal to different people.
Finally, here's one last illustration of the differences. My sister-in-law is an RPG fanatic for the PS2, playing through nearly every RPG ever released for the system. How does she do it? Essentially she buys the game AND the guide. She opens up the guide and starts playing, following PRECISELY step-by-step what the guide says. In essence, she plays the walkthrough to go from the start of the game to the end. It still takes her the 15 - 20 hours or whatever it ends up being, but she plays through step-by-step. You know what the "walkthrough's" were for classic CRPG's? You were basically given tips on fighting, maps to the dungeons and wilderness areas and a rough outline of what you needed to do to advance through the game. No walkthrough was possible. That to me is the KEY difference. One is an interactive movie more or less, the other is an interactive world. Harsh, but isn't it rather true?
I don't know, the standard response I always hear about Japanese RPG's is how they have so much more "story" than Western RPG's, particularly the classic ones. I know I'm no connoisseur of the Japanese RPG despite owning several (I've never actually completed any) for Dreamcast and PS2, among other systems, but I think frankly the idea of "story" is used with too broad of a stroke. It's not that simple.
It's very simple really to compare the differences. I'll use Phantasie as an example and Pool of Radiance (POR), both from SSI, simply because they were previously discussed. When playing through each of them, there was obviously plenty of exposition, plenty of quests/missions, plenty of things to do. However, at no time in either game are you particularly guided in how to achieve your objectives. In no way did you feel that the story was predetermined. You created characters from scratch and guided them through the world and uncovered things and responded to things more or less as you saw fit (within the constrains of the technology and the design - you obviously had to fight a lot even when you didn't want to for instance). The stories were the typical kill the big foozle at the end, but the story still interacted with your characters and there were still the occasional NPC's that could join your party (in POR) IF YOU CHOSE (more or less) with their own agendas, who also could affect the outcome.
Now compare that to something like a "Kingdom Hearts". You're given a character to play. Your party consists of pre-determined characters. Your encounters consist of pre-determined interactions. You move from one event to another to trigger the next cut scene and the next linear progression. Yes, an intricate story is woven around these events and characters, but is it really a "better" story than the one in POR or Phantasie? If all of this stuff is pre-determined for me ahead of time and I have little to know ability to take my own path to the finale', why wouldn't I just watch a "Kingdom Hearts" movie than play my way through it? I'd rather not watch a POR or Phantasie movie, because the outcome of the games are entirely my own to weave. Obviously there are plenty of triggers in both games and events that happen when you reach certain points, but more or less, it's like I'm "really" role playing. The personalities of my characters are mine to imagine, they're not pre-determined for me.
I know how I wrote the above is not particularly elegant and may not have made my point as well as I would have liked, but I hope I at least highlighted why I think there are fundamental differences in the game types that are both somehow referred to as "RPG". To compare one to the other - to me - is all but impossible. Each has very different goals and effects on the end user, the player. Each appeals to very different people. I know I've been stunned that there are people out there that actually don't like to make their own characters - they'd rather be GIVEN characters already created - they actually hate the process. Until I could accept that as a concept, I could not understand why someone might not like a true classic CRPG. Again, different styles appeal to different people.
Finally, here's one last illustration of the differences. My sister-in-law is an RPG fanatic for the PS2, playing through nearly every RPG ever released for the system. How does she do it? Essentially she buys the game AND the guide. She opens up the guide and starts playing, following PRECISELY step-by-step what the guide says. In essence, she plays the walkthrough to go from the start of the game to the end. It still takes her the 15 - 20 hours or whatever it ends up being, but she plays through step-by-step. You know what the "walkthrough's" were for classic CRPG's? You were basically given tips on fighting, maps to the dungeons and wilderness areas and a rough outline of what you needed to do to advance through the game. No walkthrough was possible. That to me is the KEY difference. One is an interactive movie more or less, the other is an interactive world. Harsh, but isn't it rather true?
=================================
Bill Loguidice, Managing Director
Armchair Arcade, Inc.
[ My collection ]
[ http://www.MythCore.com ]
***************************
Bill Loguidice, Managing Director
Armchair Arcade, Inc.