Zero Punctuation: Valkyria Chronicles

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NEXT
 

They just keep getting better and better.

mike1921:

I'm mildly autistic (I think..., my mom said so a few times but she's an idiot). You thinking he was making fun of autistic people means you: were already thinking about autism for some other reason, are a knee-jerk-y idiot who looks too far into things to find things that offend you, or are just saying that to be a troll.

You don't get to walk around claiming to be autistic just because your Mom said so. What kind of moronic diagnosis is that? He's allowed to interpret things the way he wants to. His interpretation isn't for you to decide. He even said Yahtzee's rant was good aside from that. What else do you want?

I also don't see how you can claim him to be the troll when you're the one calling him an idiot.

runtheplacered:

mike1921:

I'm mildly autistic (I think..., my mom said so a few times but she's an idiot). You thinking he was making fun of autistic people means you: were already thinking about autism for some other reason, are a knee-jerk-y idiot who looks too far into things to find things that offend you, or are just saying that to be a troll.

You don't get to walk around claiming to be autistic just because your Mom said so. What kind of moronic diagnosis is that? He's allowed to interpret things the way he wants to. His interpretation isn't for you to decide. He even said Yahtzee's rant was good aside from that. What else do you want?

I also don't see how you can claim him to be the troll when you're the one calling him an idiot.

No, because my mom thinks a doctor said so, but I take everything she thinks as questionable.

Yes, he's allowed to interpret however he wants to, I'm allowed to call his interpretation ridiculous though.

I didn't claim he was a troll, I was saying that was one of 3 reasons I thought of that he might have that interpretation .

Re. US in WW2 - the British avoided upsetting the steel- trade earlier on in the war because of business- interests in Germany would perhaps distance the US too much, for example. Somehow none of this is mentioned in respectable history- books overseas for some reason.

Fraser.J.A:
Oh sure, you can "interpret" his opinion and translate what the game is really like, but compared to other reviewers he is a troll. Like I said, there's no problem with that for entertainment.

Nah, most of the time he picks up on things with the game that reviewers somehow seem to ignore out of sheer professionalism and glee from having exclusively being able to review a game. Chest- high walls that happen to be spread around the game for the only purpose of letting you use the cover- system, rather than being part of the architecture. These are perfectly serious issues that game- developers struggle with, when they try out new gameplay mechanics, and vainly try to bridge it into the game- world they've created, for example.

Same goes for the unskippable cutscenes that many games have - it's not that they are unskippable that's the problem, it's that they don't belong in the game. It's that the attempt to integrate that particular story- line into the game simply failed outright. But the rest of the reviewers somehow end up not mentioning it, because it's always possible they'll antagonize people who loved the game and thought the cutscene provided something profound about the nature of bad voice- acting, or something of that sort. And ripping the game apart because the cutscenes can't accomplish what the designers obviously meant them to is a valid and very good observation.

But that of course doesn't matter, when the majority of the yokel fans, which we see after a review like this, only like ZP because of the abusive form. And will think it's funny as long as there's swearing, rapid talking and offensive jokes.

image Ha, ha, ha. You guys are so funny. I though it's about time I join in and share some of my superior gaming intelect... ok maybe just some average intelect but compared to some of you I look like Albert Einstein of the Gaming World. This will be a WALL of text so please bare with me.

Ok, let's start with some truth colored by a bit of euphemism so some won't think that I'm here only to mock you...

Snipingkid:
Wow, he actually reviewed a game I played and beat!
I liked how everyone had his or her own personality. Most of his complaints here seem to be from nitpicking too much. I do agree that the game needs autosave though. Not during the missions though, but the save button needs to be more obvious (it's hidden in the options menu).

Now the hard part - If you can't find the "save option" ingame menu or in the book menu (btw that is very, almost utterly transparent) them I'm very sorry but you are "not the sharpest tool in the shead" (read: "stupid").

So, after some warmup let's head straight to the core, where the fun is, please notice the 3 following quotes:

Autocracy:
Okay. I tried. I really did. I tried to look away but I just can't let this rest.

You seem like a reasonable chap, you really do, but you reasoning is flawed as is your comparisons. Honestly, I hate the line of thinking and how common sense is abandoned by amateur fans of the genre. Of course, I never was a fan of the way gamers liked to try and classify things. What is Valkyria Chronicles. It's a turn-based Role Playing game that is from Japan, therefor it is a Japanese Role Playing Game (behold, the most flawed logic on earth). AKA a JRPG. It is very much relevant and I don't know why it wouldn't be.

Autocracy:
AGAIN! AGGG. I want to choke these people. Do you not understand what a tactical RPG is? Have you not played Disgaea or Final Fantasy Tactics? Luminous Arc? None of these names ringing a bell? How about Operation Darkness, that was pretty recent. No? I'm about to start shooting people in a moment.

Autocracy:
Dear lord. I facepalm at thee. No. "JRPG" is a term to collectively categorize the games of this genre that originate from that region and share common elements such as those "anime tropes" you mentioned. Just because it has "tactical" elements doesn't automatically exclude it from being a Japanese Role Playing Game. That just strikes me as silly. To argue that the two things are mutually exclusive is just a pointless exercise in semantics, don't you think?

As you have probably noticed Mr. Autocracy here is very "certain" of what he is saying is THE TRUTH... or is just a troll trying to stir up trouble... but let's assume the first option, shall we.

Mr. Autocracy says that VC is a JRPG, his arguments:
- it's from Japan... and therefore every game with the last 3 letters "RPG" is atomaticly an JRPG
- it has anime characters
Ok, fair enough.

But only for the next 5 minutes let's assume Valkyrie Chronicles is actually NOT an JRPG - lets assume it's an TRPG (=Turn-Based Tactics).

I dream of a world where a genre of a game is not determent by the country of it's orgin but by the content of it's gameplay... by the logic of Mr. Autocracy if "Jagged Alliance 2" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jagged_alliance_2 ) would be made in Japan with "anime graphics" it would be a JRPG. Why I took JA2 as an example? Because it's the closest game that I recall when thinking about VC ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valkyrie_of_the_Battlefield ). I gave you Wikipedia links ( I know that Wikipedia is made by funny people that are not to be trusted but still) so you could see that what genre those two games are under - a bit simple from my side, I know. I beg for forgivness.

Oh yeah, one more thing. Mr. Autocracy, when writing stuff like "I want to choke these people", please stop, it makes you look more pathetic then you really are, although this still falls under discussion.

Samurai Goomba:
But yeah, enemies should NEVER be able to shoot you when it's not their turn in a TBS. I don't think I've ever encountered that in all my TBS gaming.

I see you never played any games from the JA series.

Now something from a different barrel before I hit the second main event, please observe:

Lord_Jaroh:
I happened to enjoy the pseudo-WWII story-line (which I think they told that way just to avoid stepping on peoples toes, in my opinion

Unfortunetly for you are totally wrong... and what's with this "in my opinion"... are you afraid that someone will call "bullshit" on you? I hate people who use this, usualy shows the lack of balls or arguments... or both. I will explain why I think this is wrong after the next quote:

Triple G:
Sorry to like interrupt your discussion, but freakin' cry me a river. STOP spoiling people's fun and defending JRPGs. Do you try to be serious in a comedy club and spoiling the comedians jokes, too? This was like the best review in a month. Also Yathzee has some really valid points in his review, e.g. the "we rename real countries to evade historical accuracy" thing. Also as I understood the USSR was left out in this game.

What the hell? The USSR had like 80% of the war and has beaten the Germans almost singlehandetly, the so called "allies" dropped in after Germany already lost the key battles(Moscow, Stalingrad & Kursk).

There were only 2 real battles on the "western front".
1. D-Day, where the so called "Allies" had terrifying losses.
2. German offensive in the Ardennes in the Spring of 1944. This was like the only time the Germans really fought back on the western front after D-Day and the so called "Allies" almost got pushed back to the Atlantic Ocean. And you know what stopped the Germans? They run out of gas.

Besides that the so called "Allies" alomst didn't fight real soldiers at all. They fought 14-year old children and old men from the "Volkssturm" who had just old stuff because all the REAL stuff had to be moved to fight the USSR.

First of all - they where not evading historical accuracy because it was never there intend.

Dear Lord Jaroh (not Mr. because here already is a Lord) and Mr.GGG (historian wannbe). Japan is not Canada - example - Bethesda (hell on there soul for raping Fallout) actually removed the NUKE from the Japaness version of the game... how did they substitute it or WHY THE FUCK did they do it, beats me. I heard that the Australian version is even more butchered thanks to "you know who".

On the other hand we have the Japs, lovers of tentacle porn on other strange stuff. You people really think they give a shit what other countries think. Anybody of you ever played Ring of Red ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_of_Red ) ? It's also a TRPG. Read the the "Plot" and after that "Plot differences". You will see who dudges history (I'm getting off-topic here, have to get back on track).

Ok, ok this is not proof enough that really didn't want to make a historical accuracy world - different argument. Let's say they want to make an accurate europa - how are they gonna put in the elements like: the big Castle Lance, the Darcsens people, the ancient civilization, the valkyria blood and other unnatural shit.

Is it so hard to see that they wanted to make a game about a "great war" with slight SF elements that resemble a bit the IIWW?image

Map for those who don't own the game:
image

Next case:

Max-Vader:
1: The Empire is not the incarnation of ultimate evil (they are still portrayed as normal human beings, which I liked) and they are not only based on Nazis, but also on Prussia and the middle ages.
2: The Federation is just as bad, as shown in one chapter.
3: Let's just say that one case early in the game showed that being a main character with much screentime doesn't make you immortal.
4: The main character is squad leader because he was trained for that, not because he has a tank.
5: The backstory of soldiers is one page, not one sentence.
6: If your sniper hits one out of ten, then "you're doin' it wrong", if you excuse the bad joke.
7: Your own units also fire at enemys while they move, so it's fair.
8: You can also crouch behind other things than just sandbags.
9: Guns can be upgraded in three ways, not in one.
10: You can skip cutscenes.
11: Most of the characters aren't really androgynus.
12: I'm not entirely sure, but I think you can save at least every turn.

Thanks MV, this will be usefull further down the road.

Lord_Jaroh:
Yes, I can see where there is some disagreement, but I can also see his side of the criticism, as 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 11 are all subjective based on the point of view. Ergo, his critism is valid, as is yours (oh come ooooon) . He was not wrong in anything he said, maybe exaggerated, but not flat-out wrong.

Ladies and Gentelman, the Devils Advocat Lord Jaroh, probably the 2nd most "full of shit" person in this thread right after Mr. Autocracy.

Some facts:
- Mr. Croshaw said himself that all opinions are subjective and other stuff about "not getting to you...".
- MV poited out facts.
- "Yahtzee" clearly lacked a lot of accured info when making his review/rant.
- Lord Jaroh knows Mr. Croshows thought, thats how he can counter all those accusations so splenditly, on Mr. Croshows behalf.

Between RIGHT and WRONG there is no "I didn't have those information so I'm excussed", you are still PLAIN WRONG. Hugh Laurie in House M.D, episode "Three Stories" explains this nicely. Oh yeah, when someone starts shouting "opinions are subjective" in means that the arguments have ran out on his side, go figure - only pussies use "IMHO".

solidstatemind:
This is ENTERTAINMENT. Yes, you are entitled to think that "Yahtzee is wrong/is a lousy game player/is biased against JRPGs/didn't play enough of the game/is (whatever excuse makes you feel less butthurt)", if that honestly makes you feel better that he doesn't happen to have the same glowing opinion of a game that you really, really like.

However, the rest of us here don't really give a flying fuck about YOUR opinion: we're here to see YAHTZEE'S because he makes us laugh!

You really want to 'take issue' with Yahtzee??? Then, FFS, stop whining in a comment thread that less than 10% of his fans are going to bother to read and produce a product that will attract our attention away from him!

image

We are nearing the ending, hang on a little bit longer.

Yes, ENTERTAINMENT... but on what level? When "Yahtzee" started he was quite accured about the facts when ranting on games - atleast those that I know. At some point came "The Witcher" (ARPG), here strange things started to happend, the jokes/egzadurations started focusing on stuff "stereotypical" for RPGs - Big Manuals and so forth, not the actual shitty content... oh, one fuck up, happends to everyone once in a while.

After that it was all and well in Yahtzland, then this year happend "VC", even more cheap humor then TW and a lot of false data... UGH! It's nothing major, once a year it can happen, hey, there is nobody who gives 100% for himself in work all year long, is it.

I don't want Mr. Croshows to become a troll, the gaming world is domineted by gaming media that give blowjobs to every dev/publisher who is rich enough to make AAA titles and pay for ads on there sites. We, gamers need a honest person (a comedian at that), that will show us how many of todays "big-budget" games are just big turds wraped in tinfoile (prime example "Far Cry 2").

Mr. Croshows, please, don't be a troll, be a person that shows truth by the POWER of humor.

One more thing, some of you may assume that "Yahtzee" lied about a few thing in his rant, that is not true. When exaggerating a false info it looks like the person was lying on purpose, which is in fact just a mistake, simple as that.

For the record:
- yes, I have a life, but today I had a lot of free time
- no, I don't like JRPG

Thanks for reading.

Hardcore_gamer:

FloodOne:

odisious15:
Well watching that saved me from buying a PS3 for the sole purpose of playing Valkryia Chronicles. Guess I'll stick to my PC for gaming and hope we get more JRPG's withing the next decade or two.
As for the review hilarious as always.

Wow.... if you actually use Zero Puncuation to make a choice on what kind of games to buy, you must still be playing ps1 games

What? I for one agreed with most everything he said. Though i have only played the demo :(

And what does the PS1 have to do with anything.

playing the demo gives you close to zero license to make a judgment on any game, and the reason I said ps1 is because Yahtzee crushes every great game with nit picking and clever witticisms. I love Zero Punctuation, but I don't use Yahtzee's opinion to make an educated purchase.

nipsen:
Nah, most of the time he picks up on things with the game that reviewers somehow seem to ignore out of sheer professionalism and glee from having exclusively being able to review a game. Chest- high walls that happen to be spread around the game for the only purpose of letting you use the cover- system, rather than being part of the architecture.

I'm not saying the things he says aren't true, but he focuses so much on the negative details that you get a totally disproportionate understanding of their importance. A normal reviewer has, say, 500 words to describe a game; they want to get across what it's like to play, a little of the storyline, whether it's fun and any other details that will determine whether you'll enjoy the game. The fact that the chest-high walls don't fit with the rest of the architecture is just not relevant, because no gamer's enjoyment of a game has ever been hampered by inaccurate architecture (except maybe a handful of gamer-architects). It's not relevant, but it is funny, so Yahtzee will feel free to carry on about it at length, because his job is not to give you an understanding of the game; his job is to catalogue the game's flaws entertainingly.

If Yahtzee reviews a game with great gameplay but a dull storyline, he'll focus on the storyline. If he reviews a game with an amazing story but shitty controls, he'll focus on the controls. If he reviews a game in which everything is awesome except that one character has bad voice acting, you can bet that character will get a much bigger share of the ZP screentime than they do in the game.

Some people call that "honest reviewing" and describe any review that doesn't mention every conceivable flaw of a game as "unprofessional". I call these people "jerks".

Yummy little house pets.

Oh, I'm compassionate, Ben. I'm so compassionate that I hand-pick the people I'm charitable towards by personal evaluation INSTEAD OF FORCING people to give up money to an anonymous government agency that distributes it to special interest groups.

Go sit on a cock.

Fraser.J.A:
I'm not saying the things he says aren't true, but he focuses so much on the negative details that you get a totally disproportionate understanding of their importance. A normal reviewer has, say, 500 words to describe a game; they want to get across what it's like to play, a little of the storyline, whether it's fun and any other details that will determine whether you'll enjoy the game.

Still, what's usually missing from a real review is some way to judge the subjective comments. For example, a lot of reviewers write as if they have no opinions at all, and are just explaining how good or bad the game objectively is. And then you buy the game, and find out it has three slides sketched with a pen ten minutes before deadline as a story, that the characters have no personality of any kind, that the direction is abysmal and there are simply nothing in the game that was very noteworthy for how good it was.

But no review out there would actually say so.

A brilliant example of that is Star Wars: the Farce unleashed. Any kind of reading of the plot, or look at the game- mechanics, or the game- engine, or the skill- progression, the game- balance, or how the story develops, or how the characters develop, or on how it fits in the canon, etc, etc. Any of those done seriously will simply not give a good grade. But no review in any official magazine dependent on ratings and good will from publishers would tell you that.

So what ZP does best, usually(..not this time), is at least pick up on one annoying crappy thing that all gamers will notice, and wish game- developers would just stop doing, but all the serious reviewers forgot to mention. Whether it's a good game or a bad game, or you like it or not, that's completely irrelevant here, imo.

But.. if he's just bashing games for the sake of bashing a game, then you're of course right. I'm just hoping we'll see more of the really good comments about games. Instead of something like this, that seems to be some sort of... compensation for the HAWXzZ review (..where actually whacking the story is legitimate, when the actual story, that we're seeing in the game, is exactly as bad as it is integral to the missions and so on. I.e., you can't get around that you'll be spoon- fed the plot down your throat no matter how much you like an arcade flight- sim. And there's just no way to.. imagine it as a fantasy land, because you have current political issues, locations and characters jumping at you at you. If VC was the same way, and it really was some sort of "Evil Empire conquers the world and cause the Bolocaust"- story, where, like in HAWZ, the parallels to the real world really are that thin - then it would have been a really good comment. Because, again, that's the kind of thing reviewers loathe to even begin with).

Ah, the bit where he caught himself enjoying it was quality!

WW:
holy mother of all that is sacred, long ass text.

I could almost be arsed to read all that but one word I kind of don't understand. What is "egzadurating?"
English is not my first language and I can't find it in any dictionary, so would you be so kind to enlighten me?

That one word happends to be on the very end of the post so I can safely assume you read all of it... oh and that word is a mistake, it's exaggerating.

There you go, I edited it just for you.

Shmahtzee Gormtroopers and Bollocaust... this awesome :D

Jahtzee just keeps getting better. \o/

Barry93:

zenoaugustus:

Barry93:
pretty good except for that republican joke because it's not true, if he meant Dick Cheney and compasion then i might let that slide and why not say that instead of pointing of a huge group of people. Even a Democrats and Republicans comparison would be better. Oh well, still one of my favorite ZP's.

You can't come to the defense of Republicans everytime someone takes a crack at them. I mean, I don't care if people insult Democrats. Whatever, it's just a joke. Was it funny, well in this case I thought his Republican joke was, so why care?

If were even slightly true, I wouldn't care. Conversely, you respond to all my posts defending the GOP, so why care?

Yeah, but I like talking about politics and no one ever insults Democrats so I need to find some way to discuss politics. And usually in your recent comments you've started some argument I'd like to join, that's why.

Onmi:

Terrik:

Onmi:

Universal Millitary Uniform= Silly Costumes?

From what I've seen the women wear skirts in combat, that IS silly. Especially when it's called "Universal Millitary Uniform".

Great review as always. Funny that pretty much everyone with an anime style avatar that's commented seems to hate this review :P.

Uh, Rosie and Alicia are the only two girls to wear skirts. Everyone else wears pants.

EVERYONE ELSE.

I hate the review cause he's blatantly wrong, not cause I like anime. What do I expect though you will just catagorize me as someone who see's no wrong in what I like.

The only other character to wear a skirt is Selvaria. and she's a Valkyrie so it's sorta the dress code.

Besides any fighting game or shooting game where the girl hasn't bound her breasts is ridiculous as the bouncing around would get in the way.

I don't see any girls prancing around a combat zone in Bikini's.

EDIT: Also THIS is a fair review http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/reviews/5530-Review-Valkyria-Chronicles

When have I said I'm all for girls wearing bikini's in combat? It makes as much sense as wearing a skirt, it's silly because we know they put it in there to make the girls look hawt. Making it a dress code makes it even sillier.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3274/2966771643_896a266fa1.jpg?v=0 Would this look silly to wear in combat? I say hell yes.

nipsen:
For example, a lot of reviewers write as if they have no opinions at all, and are just explaining how good or bad the game objectively is. And then you buy the game, and find out it has three slides sketched with a pen ten minutes before deadline as a story, that the characters have no personality of any kind, that the direction is abysmal and there are simply nothing in the game that was very noteworthy for how good it was.

But no review out there would actually say so.

A brilliant example of that is Star Wars: the Farce unleashed.

Ah well, I agree with your general comments, though I still don't think Yahtzee gives a more accurate description of a game than any halfway decent serious reviewer. When you describe "a lot of reviewers", to me it only sounds like the ones from Official Xbox Magazine or Official Nintendo Magazine; hardly unbiased sources. The reviewers I read (e.g. Eurogamer and Tom Chick) don't seem like that at all. To take your example, The Force Unleashed got pretty mediocre reviews from most sources; a lot of them said something like "if you're a Star Wars fan you'll probably enjoy this game, but it's nothing special and it has a lot of flaws."

Fraser.J.A:
a lot of them said something like "if you're a Star Wars fan you'll probably enjoy this game, but it's nothing special and it has a lot of flaws."

Sure. But you know.. they didn't say why. And you can tell Yathzee read the reviews about the wii controller, for example. I.e., that wiggling the controller back and forth tries to attempt something we all would like to see: fighting on the screen with a light- saber - but it still fails abysmally. So in that review/rant you had three things: clearing a hallway with a sneeze, etc., or gameplay balance, story, and controls. All of which really does fail..

...Here's the eurogamer review:

But this is a Star Wars game and, in narrative terms, the most significant ever released. The stunning quality of the cinematics is everything you'd expect from a developer that shares office space with LucasFilm and Industrial Light & Magic, and the story is told with compelling vigour and convincing flair.

7/10.. He doesn't go into details about the way the narrative is told, there's something about game- balance, somehow admonishing the game for taking away your force- powers. It's also apparently too easy - while the actual problem with the game is that you're invincible as long as you can get off the combos. Which is also true in the boss- fights, where you will win as long as you don't actually use any of those combos and expose yourself.

So yeah, I sort of will maintain that ZP has more credibility as a reviewer than even "serious" and professional reviewers. ;) For the most part.

WW:
[...]and Mr.GGG (historian wannbe)[...]

I am no historian wannabe. I just read more about WWII than most people can fit in their head.

And please... don't try to flame-war-fight me. It won't turn out well for you. Also the fact of your trying to defend a JRPG tells me much about you and your so called "superior gamer intelect" or how you ever might call it, I don't really care. You might get credibility from most people(as most people are stupid follower-sheep-humans with no sense for individuality, real freedom and no own opinion). Also I as an RTS, an RPG and an FPS fan will not tolerate such attempts of mixing those genres like the developers of "Valkyria Chronicles" intended and did it. THIS is raping 3 genres at one time.

i don't really want to bother. I have never played that game yet. If you want to review a bad game play STORMRISE. Is a masterpiece of a horrible game

Triple G:

WW:
[...]and Mr.GGG (historian wannbe)[...]

I am no historian wannabe. I just read more about WWII than most people can fit in their head.

And please... don't try to flame-war-fight me. It won't turn out well for you. Also the fact of your trying to defend a JRPG tells me much about you and your so called "superior gamer intelect" or how you ever might call it, I don't really care. You might get credibility from most people(as most people are stupid follower-sheep-humans with no sense for individuality, real freedom and no own opinion). Also I as an RTS, an RPG and an FPS fan will not tolerate such attempts of mixing those genres like the developers of "Valkyria Chronicles" intended and did it. THIS is raping 3 genres at one time.

Well my friend I think you might have to travel back in time for this one.

because Sakura Wars was doing this shit years ago.

Not to mention it is an SRPG.

It is Fire Emblem, It is Final Fantasy Tactics, It is Sakura Wars.

ALSO, I love how people bitch and bitch that a genre is bad but when it does something different they bitch that it shouldn't have. Apparently people who didn't actually play the game are the ones who are bitching about it so thats the laughable one.

I love how Yahtzee posted no screen shots of Actual combat or in game ANYTHING, I mean he has done it for other games so why not VC?

So it's not an RTS, it's not an FPS, it's an SRPG. Maybe you should PLAY the game before you have a bitchfest.

personally i like this game but im also a massive nerd.

Since I like to argue genre, let me interject on this flabby debate in as concise a way as possible:

1. JRPG. The genre is so named because it is the result of Japanese interpretation of the RPG (a Western genre). The main difference between a JRPG and an RPG is that in an RPG you create your own role and play the game as a result of that decision. In a JRPG you are given a predefined character and play through his/her eyes.

(And yes, many Western RPGs now have prefab characters and plots. That's because JRPGs have now influenced Western RPGs).

2. Turn based combat is actually a crucial part of most RPGs, Western and Japanese. Only recently have we seen real-time RPGs, beginning with the likes of System Shock. These games are often dubbed "action-RPGs", almost as if an RPG is impure if it is in real time.

3. So what seperates an RPG from a TBS? Simple. In your classic "strategy" game, you do not have an in-game avatar. You are God, floating above the world and directing all your units. In a RPG, no matter how large your party and how total your control over each member, you have an in-game avatar.

4. While that technically makes it an RPG, VC includes a lot of TBS features alongside a lot of JRPG features, as do games such as Fire Emblem. I would suggest these JRPG/TBS hybrids comprise a genre in their own right: the Japanese Role Playing Strategy, if you will. Invent your own cute name.

To summarise: VC can justifiably be called a JRPG, but also a TBS. Neither side is going to win that debate. I suggest you think of VC and its ilk as part of a seperate genre, or at least too inextricably hybridised to neatly pigeonhole in existing categories.

Triple G:

WW:
[...]and Mr.GGG (historian wannbe)[...]

I am no historian wannabe. I just read more about WWII than most people can fit in their head.

And please... don't try to flame-war-fight me. It won't turn out well for you. Also the fact of your trying to defend a JRPG tells me much about you and your so called "superior gamer intelect" or how you ever might call it, I don't really care. You might get credibility from most people(as most people are stupid follower-sheep-humans with no sense for individuality, real freedom and no own opinion). Also I as an RTS, an RPG and an FPS fan will not tolerate such attempts of mixing those genres like the developers of "Valkyria Chronicles" intended and did it. THIS is raping 3 genres at one time.

You're absolutely right, Deus Ex was a heinous abomination that fouled the most holy genre distinctions of the gaming scriptures.

(No, I lied. You're just batshit insane.)

Triple G:
I am no historian wannabe. I just read more about WWII than most people can fit in their head.

And please... don't try to flame-war-fight me. It won't turn out well for you.

Ok, I really didn't want to show what my real thoughs are but if you insist, I will tell you why I called you a "historian wannabe". This was the mildest term I could find for someone who wrote this:

- "The USSR had like 80% of the war and has beaten the Germans almost singlehandetly"
- "the so called "allies" dropped in after Germany already lost the key battles(Moscow, Stalingrad & Kursk)
- Besides that the so called "Allies" alomst didn't fight real soldiers at all. They fought 14-year old children and old men from the "Volkssturm" who had just old stuff because all the REAL stuff had to be moved to fight the USSR.

What I really think is that you are a "troll"... or an "utter moron" who read some book but didn't have the needed brain processing power to analize what he read, simple as that. "80%", where did you get that? Form a book? Was it some Russian history book from the '70 titled "Вторая мировая война"? Come on, you really believe that stuff you wrote?

Triple G:
Also I as an RTS, an RPG and an FPS fan will not tolerate such attempts of mixing those genres like the developers of "Valkyria Chronicles" intended and did it. THIS is raping 3 genres at one time.

You know what people like GGG, Autocracy and co. want to do? They actual want to convince people that a genre like TRPG/SRPG/Turn-Base Tactics ( take note: three different names for one and the same genre - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRPG ) does not exist, that it's only a hybrid of other genres (why does a hybrid have to be bad, hey, don't ask me).

Actually I want to take the topic a little bit further - theoretically - let's say we meet a girl that is partly Caucasian, partly Asian and partly Hispanic, shall we. Is that girl an abomination because she is a "half-bread"? Of corse not, you would have to be a Rasist Fuck to think so... would you hit here, hey, if shes hot, fuck yeah! See where I'm going with this?

One more thing, SYSTEM-J, you sound like you know what you're talking about. Could you write a little bit more about this:

VC includes a lot of TBS features alongside a lot of JRPG features

What are those JRPG features if I may ask?

Autocracy:
Dear lord. I facepalm at thee. No. "JRPG" is a term to collectively categorize the games of this genre that originate from that region and share common elements such as those "anime tropes" you mentioned. Just because it has "tactical" elements doesn't automatically exclude it from being a Japanese Role Playing Game. That just strikes me as silly. To argue that the two things are mutually exclusive is just a pointless exercise in semantics, don't you think?

You can facepalm all you like, but you're still wrong. The two genres are completely different. You seem to think that the shared country of origin and use of the words "role playing game" point to the same genre. But they don't: never have, never will. Just like a "first-person shooter" is not the same as a "rail shooter". They play differently and are structured differently. Final Fantasy VII is not a TRPG; VC is not a JRPG.

Sure, they both derive storyline tropes from animé, but that's no different to American games deriving storyline tropes from Hollywood. Uncharted & Halo may share similar influences from another medium, but that has nothing to do with their genre. Game genres are defined according to gameplay, and in the case of JRPGs and TRPGs, they could hardly be more different. I'm not arguing semantics, I'm making a statement according to established genre guidelines which have been commonplace for nearly two decades. See for yourself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Console_role-playing_game
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_role-playing_game

[The fact that you think TRPGs are simply JRPGs with "tactical elements" leads me to believe that your experience with both genres is minimal. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Perhaps you've played dozens of TRPGs over the past couple of years without realising it.]

WW:
One more thing, SYSTEM-J, you sound like you know what you're talking about. Could you write a little bit more about this:

VC includes a lot of TBS features alongside a lot of JRPG features

What are those JRPG features if I may ask?

The presence of a player avatar (which is absent in strategy games) and the centrality of that avatar to a highly developed linear narrative. It's quite rare in strategy games for the plot to be a crucial aspect of the game experience. Even in games such as C&C which employ cinematic narrative devices, the plot is largely a framework to the action. Most of the classics of TBS like X-Com and Civilisation have no plot at all.

By contrast, it's very rare in JRPGs for the plot not to be central to the game experience. That's why many JRPG franchises run for many iterations with minimal or no alterations to gameplay: the story is a huge selling point. If VC had been made by a Western developer by TBS conventions it wouldn't have nearly so much emphasis on plot. The fact the game borrows a large amount stylistically from JRPGs and anime is secondary, but still worth noting.

SYSTEM-J:
Most of the classics of TBS like X-Com and Civilisation have no plot at all.

By contrast, it's very rare in JRPGs for the plot not to be central to the game experience.

*sigh* ...the problem was probably the idea that if you have a story- driven game and it's made in Japan, then it's a JRPG. But when a story- driven game is made in the west, then it's something else.

I'm not going to correct you or anything, I'm just going to state that I think this kind of thinking is pretty stupid. There are Asian games with indirect story- telling that lifts up what otherwise would be a generic button- masher, or a pretty simplistic strategy- game. There are Western games with exactly the same setup. And there are western RPGs that are story driven, even though they're not really made any more, and Obsidian isn't credited for pulling it off the last time.

But there hasn't been made a story- driven strategy- game with some role- playing elements before. So VC is actually pretty original.

So.. the point probably is - it has signs of a typical jrpg, like the magical animal crap, anxious teenagers and... well, nothing, really, if you actually played the game. So take from that what you want - imo, it's an original strategy- game with a good story that happens to have been made in Japan. If that makes it impossible for people to accept there may be other things in it than androgynous and anxious teenagers, voluptuous plots impossible to understand, pretentious dialogue that makes no sense, bad voice- acting, and so on - then you're just missing out on a very good game.

(A very good game that, surprisingly, only had the mind- reading magical pig "Hans" in it that screamed "made in Japan". There are other subtler things, like the lack of a perfect/overly macho hero fighting an evil empire one bad guy at a time, an evil government out to conduct experiments on your siblings, terrorists you can kill in droves, and space- nazis taking over the world by interrupting comically evil communists with a hive- like mentality. But other than that, even the most terminally xenophobic morons could play this game and "sort of like it", like Ben said. It really is that good.

Not that it matters, of course. The anti- war sentiment.. sorry, it doesn't actually have that.. The lack of patriotic glorification of armed conflict everywhere but in your own country.. there we go.. will still make those people furious and give them aneurysms in the brain. So frankly, if you're a moron, you'd better not risk exposing yourself to aggravating experiences like a good story told in an untraditional way).

nipsen:

SYSTEM-J:
Most of the classics of TBS like X-Com and Civilisation have no plot at all.

By contrast, it's very rare in JRPGs for the plot not to be central to the game experience.

*sigh* ...the problem was probably the idea that if you have a story- driven game and it's made in Japan, then it's a JRPG. But when a story- driven game is made in the west, then it's something else.

I'm not going to correct you or anything, I'm just going to state that I think this kind of thinking is pretty stupid. There are Asian games with indirect story- telling that lifts up what otherwise would be a generic button- masher, or a pretty simplistic strategy- game. There are Western games with exactly the same setup. And there are western RPGs that are story driven, even though they're not really made any more, and Obsidian isn't credited for pulling it off the last time.

But there hasn't been made a story- driven strategy- game with some role- playing elements before. So VC is actually pretty original.

I don't see your point at all. The Japanese model of the RPG is quite a bit different to the original, Western concept. In fact, JRPGs aren't real RPGs at all, precisely because they give you a predefined character. The original model of a RPG is a game that lets you create a character and play the game in a way specific to you. That's the whole point of experience and character classes: to let you customise the play experience. True, pure RPGs should have no predefined story, and are dictated by devices such as Game Masters.

The Japanese took the turn based combat, stats, experience and other game mechanics but altered the core point considerably. They narrativised the genre: made the RPG an interactive narrative form. Originally, the RPG was not a narrative-driven genre at all.

That's why the emphasis on story in this game is significant. TBS, like the RPG, predates videogaming and goes back to board gaming and war gaming. In its roots, TBS is narrative-less. By placing a heavy emphasis on story, the Japanese are modifying the TBS just like they did the RPG before, through the same methods and drawing on the same stylistic influences.

Whatever your point is, it must have be some sort of objection to the "JRPG" as a genre - either you believe my definition is incorrect, or you don't believe the JRPG should be seperated from other RPGs. If so, I'd like to hear your argument.

(And yes, for the record I'm perfectly aware of plot-driven Western RPGs such as the Ultima games as old as the JRPG genre.)

It was a good review. Far from the best but still good.

SYSTEM-J:

nipsen:

SYSTEM-J:
Most of the classics of TBS like X-Com and Civilisation have no plot at all.

By contrast, it's very rare in JRPGs for the plot not to be central to the game experience.

*sigh* ...the problem was probably the idea that if you have a story- driven game and it's made in Japan, then it's a JRPG. But when a story- driven game is made in the west, then it's something else.

I'm not going to correct you or anything, I'm just going to state that I think this kind of thinking is pretty stupid. There are Asian games with indirect story- telling that lifts up what otherwise would be a generic button- masher, or a pretty simplistic strategy- game. There are Western games with exactly the same setup. And there are western RPGs that are story driven, even though they're not really made any more, and Obsidian isn't credited for pulling it off the last time.

But there hasn't been made a story- driven strategy- game with some role- playing elements before. So VC is actually pretty original.

I don't see your point at all. The Japanese model of the RPG is quite a bit different to the original, Western concept. In fact, JRPGs aren't real RPGs at all, precisely because they give you a predefined character. The original model of a RPG is a game that lets you create a character and play the game in a way specific to you. That's the whole point of experience and character classes: to let you customise the play experience. True, pure RPGs should have no predefined story, and are dictated by devices such as Game Masters.

The Japanese took the turn based combat, stats, experience and other game mechanics but altered the core point considerably. They narrativised the genre: made the RPG an interactive narrative form. Originally, the RPG was not a narrative-driven genre at all.

Yes.. only controlled by games- masters, who lead the player around in a story, with predetermined characters, and set pieces and rules and stories.

Look. The idea here is that the role- playing element in a video- game is really your engagement in the game, or with the characters and the world. "WRPG"s simply removing the story- development, and putting you in a soulless game where you fantastically can pick up on the story and earn experience by reading books (in the game) to pick up on the plot - that is, apart from being a sign of an eminently lazy development team, also a variant of that indirect, passive, role- playing. So you're simply incorrect. There's no "real" role- playing going on in video- games, as long as you don't actually interact with other human players.

Instead, there are more or less narrative- driven stories that you take a part in, and feel engaged in with more or less success depending on your subjective preference. And the type of role- playing typically in jrpgs, the introspective one where you fill in the reasoning and motivation for the characters, that may not appeal to you. But to others it's a way to engage in the game and the story - for example in a more involved way than when reading a book, while being less improvised than a typical role- playing session. In my opinion, these games could easily be called a "game- novel", or something like that, to better explain the concept.

It's very strange, but I keep seeing this "idea" you're coming up with a lot. That as long as you can customize your character - even if you are dangling like a balloon at the end of the dungeon master's hand, and all the dialogue greets you with "Hail, *bzzt* player name here *bzzt*" - then it's a role- playing game. It's not.

That's why the emphasis on story in this game is significant. TBS, like the RPG, predates videogaming and goes back to board gaming and war gaming. In its roots, TBS is narrative-less. By placing a heavy emphasis on story, the Japanese are modifying the TBS just like they did the RPG before, through the same methods and drawing on the same stylistic influences.

... you're mad they've "taken" something "we" owned..? Seriously?

Whatever your point is, it must have be some sort of objection to the "JRPG" as a genre - either you believe my definition is incorrect, or you don't believe the JRPG should be seperated from other RPGs. If so, I'd like to hear your argument.

(And yes, for the record I'm perfectly aware of plot-driven Western RPGs such as the Ultima games as old as the JRPG genre.)

...*cough* The point(I explained above) was that calling it a JRPG because it's 1. made in Japan, and 2. has certain role- playing elements - is daft. Just as daft as calling a western- made action- adventure game with role- playing elements an RPG. It doesn't tell you anything useful about the game.

I love how you've "quoted" words I didn't actually say. When did I say "we"? When did I say anyone owned anything? And where, indeed, did you get the idea I was angry?

It seems to me you have a bias towards JRPGs so you both see the need to defend them and to legitimate them in relation to "soulless" Western RPGs, to the extent you're defending them when there's no need. I'm not passing judgement on:
1. VC.
2. JRPGs.
3. Anything else.
Whether JRPGs or Western RPGs "appeal" to me is not the issue at all. This is a discussion of classification, not of preference.

nipsen:
It's very strange, but I keep seeing this "idea" you're coming up with a lot. That as long as you can customize your character - even if you are dangling like a balloon at the end of the dungeon master's hand, and all the dialogue greets you with "Hail, *bzzt* player name here *bzzt*" - then it's a role- playing game. It's not.

Again, nice job on "quoting" a word I never actually typed. Are you deliberately trying to misrepresent me, or is it a stylistic oddity? Also "It's not" is a proof by assertion. I've stated my reasoning, I haven't heard a refute. There are, for the record, totally narrative-less RPGs in videogames. Zangband springs to mind. A pure RPG is just a rule-set dictating a play dynamic, onto which any character or story can be ascribed by the players. Obviously, concessions have to be made in the limited world of videogames, but the Japanese changed narrative from a concession to an emphasis.

...*cough* The point(I explained above) was that calling it a JRPG because it's 1. made in Japan, and 2. has certain role- playing elements - is daft. Just as daft as calling a western- made action- adventure game with role- playing elements an RPG. It doesn't tell you anything useful about the game.

Again, I don't see your point. I didn't call VC a JRPG.

menhir:

Triple G:

WW:
[...]and Mr.GGG (historian wannbe)[...]

I am no historian wannabe. I just read more about WWII than most people can fit in their head.

And please... don't try to flame-war-fight me. It won't turn out well for you. Also the fact of your trying to defend a JRPG tells me much about you and your so called "superior gamer intelect" or how you ever might call it, I don't really care. You might get credibility from most people(as most people are stupid follower-sheep-humans with no sense for individuality, real freedom and no own opinion). Also I as an RTS, an RPG and an FPS fan will not tolerate such attempts of mixing those genres like the developers of "Valkyria Chronicles" intended and did it. THIS is raping 3 genres at one time.

You're absolutely right, Deus Ex was a heinous abomination that fouled the most holy genre distinctions of the gaming scriptures.

(No, I lied. You're just batshit insane.)

You don't get it, do you? I wasj ust saying, that THIS game was an abominations, there are mix-ups of gerne's which are good. Like "Rise & Fall" for example. I'm no enemy of mix-ups, I'm an enemy of bad games and a game where enemies shoot you when it's not their turn is obviosly bullshit.

It's seems to me that the only thing in this thread that has any connection to "bullshit" is that...you are full of shit.

SYSTEM-J:
4. While that technically makes it an RPG, VC includes a lot of TBS features alongside a lot of JRPG features, as do games such as Fire Emblem. I would suggest these JRPG/TBS hybrids comprise a genre in their own right: the Japanese Role Playing Strategy, if you will. Invent your own cute name.

To summarise: VC can justifiably be called a JRPG, but also a TBS. Neither side is going to win that debate. I suggest you think of VC and its ilk as part of a seperate genre, or at least too inextricably hybridised to neatly pigeonhole in existing categories.

SYSTEM-J:
The presence of a player avatar (which is absent in strategy games) and the centrality of that avatar to a highly developed linear narrative. It's quite rare in strategy games for the plot to be a crucial aspect of the game experience. Even in games such as C&C which employ cinematic narrative devices, the plot is largely a framework to the action. Most of the classics of TBS like X-Com and Civilisation have no plot at all.

So basiclly those JRPG features you where talking about are as followed:
- players avatar
- plot driven game

**************************Utter Rubbish**************************

By your logic "Warcraft 3" is also partly a JRPG and there for can be called as that. Why? You know, we have an Avatar and also a Plot that is a "crucial aspect of the game experience". Now that I think about it, what your are implying is that any game that has those two elements must be at least partly a JRPG. Dang!

SYSTEM-J:
By contrast, it's very rare in JRPGs for the plot not to be central to the game experience. That's why many JRPG franchises run for many iterations with minimal or no alterations to gameplay: the story is a huge selling point.

O-k, so you are saying that a JRPG are plot driven... now that was very enlightning.

SYSTEM-J:
If VC had been made by a Western developer by TBS conventions it wouldn't have nearly so much emphasis on plot.

Excuse me by those are speculations on your side.

SYSTEM-J:
The fact the game borrows a large amount stylistically from JRPGs and anime is secondary, but still worth noting.

Yes, that's what I'm implying in my earlier posts.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here