Flour:
3) Once again, gaming forums are better than reviews.

Are you kidding me? 95% of all gaming forums are filled with fanboyish morons who are more quick to judge a game based on what console it's released on rather than it's actual quality. Sure, you might find that rare guy who actually will give his honest opinion of a game, but the same is true with reviewers. Likewise, most gamers you find on forums only have two opinions on a game. It's either A) 'ZOMG BEST GAEM EVR MAED' or B) 'DIS GAEM IS SHEIT FUCK IT SUX 0/10'. Many gamers on forums have little understanding of what makes a good game and are many times extremely inexperienced when it comes to video games (looking at the 5-14 year olds).

I'll take the critics any day of the week over the uninformed masses that plague online forums.

peterwolfe:
yes, but then there are people who look at action/adventure shooters, and laugh at how unrealistically chiseled every feature of the main character is or the fact that their bicep is the size of a 1st county fair prize watermelon, and scoff at the simple-at-best retarded-at-worst storyline.

these people are not, apparently, video game reviewers, which leads to a major bias in the critical community.

Unfortunately, the entire young immature androgynous look is far more common in JRPGs than unrealistically buff men (like those in Gears of War) are in FPS/action games.

Not to say that FPS characters aren't generic and very samey (because they are), but they usually don't go over the deep end like Gears of War characters do. However, when you look at JRPGs, you can find pretty boys in pretty much every other JRPG.

Pretty boys are a far bigger problem in JRPGs than overly-masculine men are in FPS.

Not to mention that a pretty boy cliche in a supposedly story-driven game is much worse than a muscle bound cliche in an FPS.

I think it's more of the reverse, JRPGs don't get bad scores, it's just the "safe" ones get scores that are too good for them. Looking at the latest Final Fantasies and Dragon Quests, they deserve the scores of 6s and 7s a lot more than the 9s and 10s they get for no reason. I mean I started to play Final Fantasy XII and realized.. Hrmm...what game have I played before that had a princess disguised as a commoner and a plucky hero... OH YEAH! That was Final Fantasy IX!! THe Dragon Quests aren't even worth playing now as they want to make them for stupid gangsta kids (seriously read some of the spell names...translated horribly)

As for the "SNES" graphics on PS3...grow up. Disgaea has a style to it and they stick with it, I'm proud that they didn't try to insert useless graphical crap in it.

Woe Is You:

Eiseman:
How many space marines do you think you'd be running through sterile hallways in giant space stations if it weren't for Master Chief?

A lot of FPS games have been like this since Doom. Halo has little to do with it.

Really now, Doom was actually quite varied, it was colourful and interesting, and went more for blues and greens and reds than dull sterile environments.

Quake, now. Quake invented the colour brown.

Novan Leon:
I think it is primarily cultural differences that tend to bias western reviewers against JPRGs, the same reason most westerners don't find most Japanese animation that appealing. The differences in cultural taste are numerous and deep but I can summarize a few key ones:

- Graphical power isn't as important to the Japanese as it is to Western society.
- Graphical style is much more important to the Japanese, typically cartoon-ish or anime style graphics with vibrant colors is preferred. In the west these types of graphics are looked down on as "childish".
- Appealing characters and a cool story are MUCH more important in Japan than they are here, outranking graphics by a large margin.
- The Japanese like classic by-the-numbers gameplay with few minor differences whereas westerners seem to always want something new.
- Westerners have a definite taste for action over story and character development, the opposite is true for the Japanese.

OK, I tried ignoring this post, but I can't any more.

This is a form of discrimination, sure it's demonstrating admiration, but it is like saying "Jews are so great with money, that' why so many of them are rich and they control Hollywood and the banks"

It is coming from a place of ignorance, and it is taking shots at western culture / people in doing so.

This is a "fanboy much?" situation, someone who "knows" Japanese culture because they play FF, watch anime, and cosplay every now and then.

It bothers me a lot.

crimson5pheonix:
Honestly, all this talk about graphics is getting on my nerves. I'm okay with a JRPG as long as it doesn't look like a 5 year old drew it. JRPGs have been and always will be about the story line and everything else takes a back seat. So it doesn't have to have bleeding edge graphics, innovative combat, or much of anything. It's about the storyline.

That's a rather flawed argument.

A game that neglects gameplay entirely in favor of it's storyline is a movie. If I wanted a movie I'd watch a movie.

If I'm playing a game I expect gameplay to be a team player and not fuck the whole experience up.

As for the topic: You'd do well to remember that all reviews are subjective. Always.
A review is basically someone's opinion of their experience with the game. If you add to that that the simple concept of right and wrong are subjective I think it becomes quite clear that there can never be an objective review.
If you truly enjoy a game who cares about the review it gets? This is valid for...Anything really. Guy Ritchie's Revolver, to me, is one of the most brilliant movies of all times, but it got a 6.4 (or something) out of 10 rating in IMDB... I still think it's one of the most brilliant movies ever made.

As for the why are JRPGs generally not as well received by the western public... You can argue different cultural values, blablabla, but by my standards is simple: they're generally inferior and full of grind and linearity.

You can argue a game's story is awesome, which, again, is subjective, and blablabla, but I buy a game to play it, not to see it drive me helplessly towards it's own goal. Ironically I've been a long time fan of the FF saga, but honestly it's been loosing it's interest to me over the years...

Also "grind" can go suck a tank full of scrotums... And aids...and then die miserably... Fucking arbitrary fake-gameplay lengthening bullshit.

I didn't read every comment so excuse me if somebody mentioned this but JRPG's without "Final Fantasy" or "Dragon Quests" get high scores too. Let's take Digital Devil Saga for example. You probably won't know the magazine I was reading at the time when this game was released. Score: 87/100. Some called the graphics bad for the PS 2 but those people are just stupid. The story was great and the fighting system was not bad either. It's turn based with random encounters and I like that. I hate games like FF XII with a fighting system like that.

Najos:
Right, because if Chrono Trigger were released right now it would be a decade behind in graphics and gameplay. Why shouldn't it get a lower score because of this? A game like Disgaea 3, with outdated graphics, can't possibly be deserving of a 90+ review. Sure, it might be great at everything else, but graphics alone count for something. It'd be like writing an awesome essay, but using the wrong format or something.

This argument is a large part of what's wrong with the gaming industry today. Graphics do not account for 98.3% of a game's worthiness--end of story.

On the question at hand. You guys have pretty much figured out the reason: JRPG games are, by in large, very niche-y and of meager or absolutely no interest to anyone else. The popular ones are well received and accepted because they provide more than the average gamer's FDA recommended allowance of JRPG gaming. As far as the reviews go, don't forget: they are for the masses, unless you're looking at "JRPG Gaming World" or something. It is not a general media outlet's job to pander to every clique out there. Besides, if you can extrapolate a sense of how good the game is from the general text of the review, what difference does the score make anyhow? That is pretty much how I read reviews to begin with.

Also, it is very silly to ask "why is something rated so poorly?" and then say that quality cannot be taken into consideration of the fact.

crimson5pheonix:
Saying my argument is flawed by your logic is flawed. You can say you didn't like it, but you can't call it flawed. I like the idea of a story line quite a bit and that's my opinion. If you think the gameplay is more important that's your opinion. But don't say my opinion is flawed.

There's a difference between opinion and a fact.

What is a game? An interactive movie basically. If you throw the "interactive" part out of the window it's just a movie.

You can argue you like games that way, but you can't argue people find that inferior graphics and gameplay detract from the fun of the game.

But that argument proves the point: not too many people are all that interested in sitting through some questionably designed and technically painful ordeal just to unravel an even more convoluted and esoteric storyline. Though frankly, even the "popular" JRPGs suffer from the same issues.

I disagree entirely as to the argument that graphics matter.

When did gamers become graphics snobs?
While I agree that SNES era graphics aren't something to be proud of anymore, you can't just say that a game is bad just because the art is different, and the same with the gameplay.

A game is about the whole package, and what that package needs to contain is entirely different for each gamer.

For me, even if the graphics are amazing, if the storyline is a pile of crap I won't want to play it.

I personally prefer storyline. Graphics and controls don't bother me to much as long as they are not very irritating.

For example, why is FFVII so popular? Because for its time the graphics were great, the story was epic, and the controls were good.

Everyone has there own opinion on what makes a good game, so only throw out phrases about poor graphics, controls, and stories with great caution, at least when talking about an entire genre. Because not all games are cut from the same cloth.

Another:

When did gamers become graphics snobs?

Since always, really.

I personally do not care overly much. A game's worth is comprised of the sum of its parts, not one aspect or another.

Another:
When did gamers become graphics snobs?

"When did gamers become story snobs?"

Story, graphics, gameplay...They're all equally important parts of gaming, none constitutes the entirety of a game.

Caliostro:
What is a game? An interactive movie basically. If you throw the "interactive" part out of the window it's just a movie.

A real game is not an interactive movie (a term which is almost contradictionary by itself ;)

tobyornottoby:

Caliostro:
What is a game? An interactive movie basically. If you throw the "interactive" part out of the window it's just a movie.

A real game is not an interactive movie (a term which is almost contradictionary by itself ;)

"A graphical storyline in which you interact"... Well fuck me that was a huge difference.

I did say "basically", implying "it's not just this, but in a nutshell".

tobyornottoby:

Caliostro:
What is a game? An interactive movie basically. If you throw the "interactive" part out of the window it's just a movie.

A real game is not an interactive movie (a term which is almost contradictionary by itself ;)

By that logic, the majority of games which have come out recently are not real games, for the record.

The extent of interactivity in gaming has seen some pretty slim representations over the years so there is really no basis for any argument which states: less interactivity == not a game. It might not be a game you want to play, but it is still a game none the less. Plain and simple, end of story.

And again, this is all going back to the niche appeal aspect which seems to be the crux of the matter. I think its a generally accepted fact that reviews, in general, tend to be of dubious validity from the get go so why sweat them for this? If you want true opinions on a specific type of game, seek a specific source. A stellar review of some obscure game with limited appeal is not necessarily going to make it any more appealing to anyone; people rave up and down about plenty of games I can't bloody stand.

because they arnt what western and europen gamers want:
.fps combat (not turn based)
.some kind of viloence
.to not have stupid npc dioluge
.to have a GOOD story

and of course:
.TO BE FUN

Caliostro:

tobyornottoby:

Caliostro:
What is a game? An interactive movie basically. If you throw the "interactive" part out of the window it's just a movie.

A real game is not an interactive movie (a term which is almost contradictionary by itself ;)

"A graphical storyline in which you interact"... Well fuck me that was a huge difference.

I did say "basically", implying "it's not just this, but in a nutshell".

Nah I mean that 'games that are all about being games' like Tetris or Mario can hardly be seen as stories/movies.

The second thing I meant was that it's... impossible to have interaction and story at the same time, as the first implies uncertain outcomes and the second implies a predefined outcome. Kinda like oild & water, you can put them in a glass together but they'll never quite mingle

hubertw47:
because they arnt what western and europen gamers want:
.fps combat (not turn based)
.some kind of viloence
.to not have stupid npc dioluge
.to have a GOOD story

and of course:
.TO BE FUN

Every one of these "facts" is, in fact, entirely subjective.

tobyornottoby:

The second thing I meant was that it's... impossible to have interaction and story at the same time, as the first implies uncertain outcomes and the second implies a predefined outcome. Kinda like oild & water, you can put them in a glass together but they'll never quite mingle

And this, is a horribly misguided statement. Emphasis on story does not, in any way, have to necessitate a lack of player involvement in said story.

tobyornottoby:

Nah I mean that 'games that are all about being games' like Tetris or Mario can hardly be seen as stories/movies.

I hardly consider them fun or good games tbh. Never liked Tetris or Mario.

tobyornottoby:
The second thing I meant was that it's... impossible to have interaction and story at the same time, as the first implies uncertain outcomes and the second implies a predefined outcome. Kinda like oild & water, you can put them in a glass together but they'll never quite mingle

Not really. Good games can even mix interaction and story. For instances, games where your actions affect how the story develops.

To go back to what the man said (Yahtzee), most JRPGs keep story and game play locked in separate rooms. Lets see, tell me how many times this has happened.

Fight hard boss with special attacks and 4000 HP, boss joins your side after fight, boss no longer has those special attacks or those HPs. I mean it gets to me when my main character can obliterate the sacred earth any of my enemies tread, yet keeps talking like his just a good ole boy from home who is praying with the help of his friends he'll beat the last guy.

FF Tactics broke this mold because by the mid-point, Ramza was saying things like "Put down your weapons and you'll be sparred". Instead of "Il beat you with the power of friendship!"

But you're basically trying to fault a game for succeeding at being exactly what it was intended to be. If a game is intended to be geared more towards story exposition than gameplay, its not a flaw that it is. If you dislike it for that fact, its purely a matter of opinion.

I don't play JRPGs so I can't accurately comment. However, from what I know/assume/see, JRPGs are extremely linear, have uninteresting/recycled plots, use grinding as a main feature, and in general you don't actually play a "role" in the game, you just go from point A to B and grind along the way.

Because JRPG´s are very hard to enjoy if youre not asian. its a nationality thing.

snowplow:
I don't play JRPGs so I can't accurately comment. However, from what I know/assume/see, JRPGs are extremely linear, have uninteresting/recycled plots, use grinding as a main feature, and in general you don't actually play a "role" in the game, you just go from point A to B and grind along the way.

Like in almost every FPS or Action Adventure. And not every JRPG has uninteresting or recycled plots. Some of them are pretty good and most of them are decent unlike most FPS storys.

A JRPG is more like a movie. Let's take FF VII for example. Really who cared about how you kill bosses or how you get much money? But who cared about that a main character was murdered? There is even a movie based on FF VII (well it's not really based on it but whatever) and you can turn this movie into a game.

Oh and I'm not asian and I still enjoyed most JRPG's I played because I like games with a good story

crimson5pheonix:

TommyGun465:
Because JRPG´s are very hard to enjoy if youre not asian. its a nationality thing.

And your a racist.

I don't think that was really intended as a racist comment. Consider how many JRPGs there are and their general level of appeal (in the US, at least). Now consider just how many more JRPGs are never released outside of Japan. Do you know why? Because there's not nearly as large a market for them outside of Japan.

The notion that the target audience for JRPGs is the Japanese is not remotely racist, its a fact. The comment was poorly stated, but no less valid a point. The same goes for manga and anime--a lot of non-Japanese just aren't interested in it, despite the niche markets it has established abroad; though both are obviously highly popular in Japan. Different countries, different cultures, different tastes.