Joshua Dyal said:
On a slightly different tack; this article may be of interest.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6199779/site/newsweek/
Oh, and MoogleEmpOg, keep in mind, the original poster said he was a middle-aged fantasy enthusiast from Norman, OK. I think you're a bit off-base by recommending a slew of Japanese titles and denigrating stuff like Baldur's Gate.
The article was interesting, but myopic and, I think, incorrect. 2004 was a banner year for games overall, but the list was somewhat lopsided. The ten biggest games of the year made up for a massive 15% of sales: particularly Halo 2 (4.2 million copies) and GTA:San Andreas (5.4 million copies). That makes the whole analysis somewhat lopsided. Of the top 10 games, 3 were from EA and 3 from Take Two. None of this even begins to take into account console sales, either, including the nearly 6 million DS units that Nintendo expects to have shipped by the end of the month, or the 1-2 million PSPs set to sell this month.
The Japanese game makers no longer have an exclusive lock, is all. They still produce a huge amount of games, many of which are quite popular.
My personal feeling about console RPGs is this: different folks like different things...and the arguments over U.S. versus Japanese RPGs has been going on for more than 15 years....the biggest difference these days is that a console RPG is no longer automatically a Japanese RPG.
Morrowind is a carryover of a PC game, and it feels like it. Certain aspects of Morrowind are excellent, IMHO. You have true freedom: you can become whatever kind of character you want, and have true choices over developing your character. But at the same time, that freedom is mitigated by two things I didn't like: lots of boring travel and repitition, and only a veil of a plot you don't actually have to even get involved in. Ultimately, the game features lots of choices, but very little actual interaction, per se. You go through lots of hoops and different quests, but it all started to bleed together for me, after a while.
Knights of the Old Republic is different, to a degree, in that it's a much better game....but like most Bioware games, you don't REALLY have that much of a choice. Whether you honestly say "Yes, Master Jedi, I embrace the force" or mutter through your teeth half-sarcastically "Oh suuuure....I'd LUUUHV to be a Jediiii....", you still follow the plot. You have the illusion of freedom...but it's an illusion. Most of the game's ultimate ending is deteremined by one choice you make late in the game. Your experiences up until that point are affected by your behavior....but the ultimate plot is not.
More old-sk00l US RPGs are really just tactical endeavours, historically, such as Nethack, Wizardry, the original Bard's Tale series, Might and Magic and their ilk. The central over-riding quest (usually, defeat the Grand Foozle) required you to become powerful, travel the lands, kill things and take their phat lewt.
Console RPGs take railroading to a different level. Whereas in KOTOR you have some choices of relevance (who joins your party, what powers you develop and what order you take different quests in), many japanese console RPGs deny you even these levels of decision-making. They present you with "non-choices" that may change a piece of text, but don't alter the overall flow of the game. Example: in Tales of Symphonia for the GC, you have lots of choices in little social cut-scenes, like choosing to ask one of three characters a question or choosing to wake character X to aske them something. These all contribute to their attitude towards the main character, and have nominal in-game effects...but you choices don't change the plot, don't change the story and have only minor effects on the gameplay in any capacity. You are effectively playing an interactive movie, where you get to make minor choices in the experience, but the game moves at its own pace. Characters will drop out of your party without any decision by you, and vice-versa. To some folks, this can be infuriatingly frustrating, while for others, it can be part of the fun. For proof, just read above.
Part of the confusion, I suppose, comes from the terminology. What makes an RPG an RPG? Is it the leveling-elements? The quests? The story? The ability to assume a role? The ability to truly interact on your own level? By my way of thinking, NONE of the games mentioned so far give anything on that level of verisimilitude that pen-and-paper offers. Despite claims to the contrary, you really are quite limited, by necessity, in all of these games. Don't want to become a Jedi in KOTOR? Too bad, you don't have a choice. No Han Solo for you. Want to turn to evil and join the big bad foozle in Final Fantasy? Sorry, no can do. Would you like to see the Emperor in Morrowind, and travel to the capital? Fraid not.
Tactical RPG is, of course, something of a misnomer. They are RPGs in the cosmetic sense that they take away all pretense of story choice. If Final Fantasy railroads you, Vandal Hearts just tells you how it is, PERIOD. Whereas you might wander around town for an hour before going to a dungeon in Morrowind, in Fire Emblem, you're told straight up that you've gone to an abandoned abbey, when suddenly your party is attacked...ROLL FOR INITIATIVE. Tactical RPGs have much more in common with D&D miniatures, in a campaign mode. You carry over your characters, and may have some control in how they level up...but that's it. Some would argue that Diablo's dirty little secret is not that it isn't an RPG, but that it's an RPG in it's purest form, with all that story nonsense cut out. It's just the kill-lewt-level luvin', without all that other stuff getting in the way. In many ways, a game like Diablo is the diametric opposite of Final Fantasy.
Into this sway, of course, come the hybrids. Quick, is Resident Evil 4 an RPG, an adventure, an action game, a third-person shooter or a interactive movie? It has elements of all of the above, but isn't really any of them. I mean, you can choose to give extra health to your character or the sidekick, you can upgrade your weapons (by increasing their various stats), you have some choices of how to go through the game (take the El Gigante route or the maze of Los Ganados) and you kill creatures and take their loot. You don't get to choose a role to assume, but you do have one you can take.
How about Devil May Cry? Metal Gear Solid has been mentioned, but since you can't really change your stats, I rule that one out. How about Paper Mario: the Thousand Year Door? Is it really that radically different than Planescape: Torment or Fallout 2?
Your specific answers to the above questions help determine which game you like. Each has it's own appeals and distractions. Tastes vary, folks, and there is no right answer. Ultimately, what's for fun for one person may be drudgery for another. Follow your bliss.
Then kill it and take it's loot.
