Follow 
Connect 
Watch 
Subscribe 
Linearity in RPGs – An Exploration
Chad Awkerman | Dec 30, 2009 | Comments 13
Perhaps one of the most fortunate (or unfortunate, as the case may be) realities about our lives is the fact that we travel in a linear direction through time. Our lives have a beginning and a finite point; there is no changing that. We don’t have a Delorean we can charge up and race off into a different time period to influence our past and change the future (at least, not yet, right?). It’s with this in mind, it seems, that our favorite books and movies define themselves – one linear motion, each having a start and finish, regardless of their genre or plot.
Sure, some attempt to contort our thinking and help us explore the “what ifs” of our existence and the way we perceive and travel through time. You’re familiar with the old science fiction fallback of multiple variations of timelines based on our own actions, no doubt (called the theory of multiverses)? It is a seemingly overdone plot device in the genre, which attempts to perpetuate the theory of multiple outcomes for each action we take and, by taking one of dozens of different actions at any given point in time, we ourselves create a new “universe”. For example, if I find out you’re sleeping with my girl and confront you about it, at the most basic level, one of two things is going to happen – 1) I’m going to beat the brain matter out of your face or 2) we’re going to talk it over like civilized people. If I decide to talk it over, the theory would state that there is another “universe” in which I rearranged your face and a split in time would occur, one for each outcome. In reality, there could be a dozen different outcomes, each being a variation on both of those basic outcomes above.
Unlike our linear lives, this gives us the possibility – or, perhaps on some level, hope – that our lives can become more free-form, more open, spreading out in a wide variety of ways, encompassing a large array of directions, exploration and promise. Now, if only that theory can be proven and we could actually explore each offshoot in the timeline and decide which direction we would like to go.
You’re probably wondering what my point is and quite possibly are ready for me to shut up. Well, I’ll get to it. Unlike other forms of media and, really, our lives themselves, video games have the possibility to allow us to do exactly what we want the most – to explore other possibilities, other directions in the stream of (game) time. And this need we have to want to know what is ahead, to influence the outcomes we face, is likely what drives us to want the option of non-linear exploration and game play in the games we choose to play. I understand that and, sometimes, feel that need, as well.
One of my biggest pet peeves in this day and age of gaming is a group of gamers trying to change one genre into something it isn’t. Let’s take a rather popular game as an example – Modern Warfare 2. Everyone and their mother plays this and, apparently, loves it. What if a sizable group of people came along and had a conniption because there were no airships, no 3rd person view, no limit breaks and no spiky-haired emo kids? They implore Infinity Ward to change things, to patch things, to keep these ideas in mind for their next game. What would you say to a group like that? Probably something like I’m about ready to discuss now – don’t try to change the game into something it isn’t. If you want a FPS game with a great multi-player element – play Modern Warfare 2. If you want a 3rd person RPG with airships, limit breaks and spiky-haired emo kids, go play a JRPG. (Forgive me for perpetuating an unfair JRPG stereotype, it was done for the sake of getting my point across.)
In almost every genre of games, the story is told in a very linear1 manner (and this is debatable, no doubt). Sometimes games break the mold, but it’s rare. One of the genres that usually stands above most in breaking out of the linear archetype is the role-playing game. To me, though, there are two very different, very distinct genres of video game RPGs. You have your Eastern or Japanese RPG (Final Fantasy, Star Ocean, Disgaea, etc.) and you have your Western RPG (Mass Effect, Baldur’s Gate, Fallout 3, etc.). We will leave MMOs out of this discussion for the time being, because that is a whole different beast.
Basically, what it boils down to, is we have the traditionally linear JRPG pitting off against the sandbox-style Western RPG2. Western RPGs tend to come from more of a PC gaming background, but have boiled over into consoles, especially this generation. Japanese RPGs were born on the console and have ventured into the realm of PC gaming on rare occasions. To be honest, the issue I typically have is with people disparaging a JRPG because it is too linear. I have a couple points to counteract that argument, both follow a more open-minded assessment of that reality.
First off, many of the hugely popular non-RPG games of the past are horribly linear, more linear than most JRPGs, to be honest. God of War, Ratchet and Clank, Call of Duty (and the Modern Warfare spin-offs), Uncharted 2 and the list goes on. Sure, in certain cases you have the option to replay stages, retrace your tracks, search for hidden items, secret areas, treasure and and have some semblance of freedom (perhaps Arkham Asylum would fit this). But, for all intents and purposes, these games are linear. People can’t get enough of them. Why? One of two reasons: They have a story to tell and people are drawn to that or they have awesome game play and razzle-dazzle graphics and that appeals to some. People don’t care and don’t throw a fuss that these games are linear.
Secondly, those who complain that JRPGs are too linear lose sight of the fact that that is what the genre is about. See, besides the way the game is structured (linear vs. non-linear), there is another major difference between the two RPG genres. Japanese RPGs have a story to tell and want you to follow the characters in that story. Conversely, Western-style RPGs tend to offer a world to play in and let you create your own character and your own story within that game world. Sure, there may be a set story, but you can follow the storyline…or not. You can side quest…or not. It’s like a choose-your-own-adventure.
I don’t attach well to choose-your-own-adventure, moral-choices-affect-the-story-but-you’re-playing-with-generic-characters type of games. While there have been numerous situations and characters in JRPGs that I could personally relate to and numerous events in those games that have triggered an emotional response in me, never once has any of that happened in a Western RPG. This tells me that a linear story, told as the writers and developers see fit, is more poignant than a haphazardly thrown together conglomeration of do-anything-you-want-and-you-might-stumble-upon-the-main-story style game play (hello Oblivion). Each RPG I play of each style solidifies this thought in my mind because, unfortunately, no matter how hard they try, Western developers just can’t match the focus, the connection, the emotional highs that come from telling a story – instead they always want you to make up your own story as you go along. Giving the player a huge amount of choice, to me, seems to negate any emotional reaction you might have to certain story points, especially if you can influence the outcome of major events, much like you can in Dragon Age: Origins.
The next time you read or watch The Lord of the Rings trilogy, consider this: The part of the story where Gandalf falls through the depths of Moria after the fellowship’s encounter with the balrog at the Bridge of Khazad-dûm, we see Frodo and the others thinking he’s dead and the emotional reaction that comes with it. How much of an impact do you think that part of the story would have if you could say, “Oh, wait, hold on, I don’t want Gandalf to fall, if I choose [insert action here] instead of him stopping to attempt to block the path of the balrog, we’ll all be one big happy family again and the fellowship can continue on unscathed. Yeah, cool, that sounds good!” See, introducing a large amount of choice, or less linearity, would likely lessen the emotional impact of the scene. And that, I feel, is what Western RPGs do to an almost extreme extent sometimes.
See, JRPGs are like your typical novel or movie – they have a beginning and an end, they are an entire package designed to tell you a specific story with specific characters in a specific way, attempting to get a specific emotional response from the player. They’re focused. Not unlike Uncharted 2. Not unlike Modern Warfare 2. Not unlike God of War.
Speaking of God of War, David Jaffe, the game’s creator, made an interesting remark on his Twitter recently in response to someone asking him about camera control, and this illustrates my point in another way. Someone asked, ‘Why take camera control away from the player?’ His response was that giving camera control to the player slows the pacing of the game. In addition, he wanted to send the players on a ride of his creation, and having the developers, through the game, control the camera would allow him to do that. (Note: I paraphrased, because the conversations were all in “leet speak” and slightly difficult to read, so I cleaned them up a bit.) Now, let’s put that in the context we’re talking about here. Allowing too much freedom in a game – through non-linear sandbox-style game play or massive amounts of moral choice type dialog options – takes away from the impact of the story, it lowers the emotional highs, it interrupts thematic pacing. On the flip side, being able to move the camera in exactly the way the writers and developers want, providing less freedom to the player, helps get across to the player the emotions and thematic elements they want to represent at any given moment and makes plot points have more impact, bringing emotional highs when they should and keeps the pacing going at a speed that compliments everything else. In other words, less freedom of choice brings about more poignant moments, which, in turn, give the player more emotional attachment to the characters and the story.
Again, I ask, why do we not care about how incredibly linear our FPS or action titles are, yet balk at linear RPGs? Isn’t it almost a double-standard, a hypocritical attitude?
I’ve said this a dozen times before for various reasons and I’ll say it again: If you want to play a Western RPG, go play a Western RPG, don’t complain because a JRPG isn’t a WRPG. That would be like complaining to whatever higher power you believe in that your life is too linear and in the future you would like to be able to explore all possible outcomes of each action before you decide on one. It just isn’t going to happen.
Our lives are also defined by emotional highs and lows, they’re defined by the good times and bad. While we certainly never wish for anything bad to happen to us or our loved ones, when they do, there is no choice, there is no decision, they just happen. Those events in our linear travel through time define us, who we are, what we believe and what direction our path will take. If we could decide for ourselves how the outcome of certain choices and certain events in our lives would take place, unfortunately the world would be a much more boring, predictable place, where our lives aren’t defined by what happens TO us, but what we CHOOSE to happen to us.3
Japanese RPGs are our books, our movies, our lives. Western RPGs are that fantasy we always dream of having, where we can choose the outcome for ourselves and make informed decisions about our future. It’s true, both genres have their pros and cons. I’m not trying to condemn Western RPGs because I do enjoy them, too. Sometimes it’s nice to dream, but, when morning comes, we must wake up and join the real world once more. Yes, I am a JRPG fan. But, I don’t discriminate and I am rather open-minded. You like what you like. All I’m saying is that the linearity of a game should be a non-issue, because there is room for both genres of RPGs and you should play the one you want to play, don’t play one and then complain about it because you feel it should be something it inherently is not.
You know that line from Forrest Gump that goes something like, “Life is like a box of chocolates – you never know what you’re going to get”? Someone does know what each and every piece of chocolate in that box is made of – and we’ll call these the writers and developers of a Japanese RPG. They gift you this box of chocolates and, for sure, you don’t know what you’re going to get, but you are quite certain that you’re going to eat what the developers put in the box. You can’t throw a hissy fit because you can’t choose the chocolates you want, you will, indeed, be eating those chocolates if you want to see what they are. Feel free to go buy your own box of chocolates, but the fact remains, unless you eat that specific box, you will never know what the developers had in mind for you. Ultimately, that’s like complaining when life gives you apples and you had your heart set on oranges. There’s no way to change things – you will be eating apples whether you like it or not. It’s futile to attempt to change the outcome of the box of chocolates or the fruit, you have to live with what you get. So, why try to change an RPG into something it isn’t simply because we want something else? Since we seem to be so big on choosing our own path and making our own choices, go out and play a game of a genre you want and leave everything else well enough alone.4
1 Linear is relative to the type of game you’re playing. Obviously most, if not all, RPGs have stuff to do between story points to some degree or another, but just having a few side quests and a couple treasures to hunt does not a sandbox-style RPG make. So, when we’re talking about linearity in RPGs, consider that this is different than linearity in action games. Although, the same argument can be said about both.
2 Not all Western RPGs are strictly the the sandbox variety. Mass Effect, for example, seems to be a mash-up of both Western-style freedom (mostly in the dialog choices) and Japanese-style linear story.
3 Some would argue that we’re defined by the choices we make and not the events that happen. I agree, to a point. However, the events that happen define those choices. Without those seemingly unforseen and random events, we would have no choices to make, therefore the event itself is what ultimately defines us, not the choices we make after, because those choices are forced upon us by the events that are out of our control.
4 You know an article is long when I have to add in footnotes!
Filed Under: Editorials • Featured
Vanquish Demo Impressions 
A Proposition for Sony: Worldwide PlayStation Store 
MAG 2.0 Beta Impressions 
Ys Seven Review 
Mafia II Review 
Worms Reloaded Review 
* 
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
A very well written piece, in my opinion. One of the reasons I am so in love with JRPGs is because of how the story, although at slow paces sometimes, unfold like those in books. I’ve always loved the genre because of its ability to tell a story – even if linear.
Because the genre of Western RPGs are becoming extremely popular, some people tend to want to take elements of it, which is already embedded in their subconscious, and apply it to other titles like JRPGs. Although the overall core of how JRPGs haven’t changed in the last two decades, I feel that is what has drawn most of us to them. Sure it is a game; but it is a game specifically designed to instill emotional values at given moments; where non-linear games usually deprive us of that very umph because of the non-linear approach of being able to control your fate. This adds an element of surprise.
I enjoy both genres immensely. But what I love about linear games is the fact that your destiny has already been chosen; your job is to unveil that destiny through the process of progress. And with it, you’re pretty much surprised, saddened, angered, and happy as if it is a part of our very lives that seems to be unfolding before our eyes.
Good read. Loved it all, Chad.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Definitely correct, people these days are too concerned with the “linearity” of games, particularly JRPGs. What people have to realize is that this is how it has always been. Consider FFX, it is a very linear game, however, it is also considered one of the best in the series. Even FF VII is extremely linear at first, expanding later on in the game as is the tradition. Gamers should play a JRPG for what is worth, a game trying to tell a compelling story, some will be slightly different, for instance, Demons Souls. However, these are the exception to the rule, in the end, just play the game and enjoy it, and stop trying to mold the JRPG genre into the western-RPG genre. They are different and should stay different.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Good article – I agree with the author and now my head hurts from having to think too much. My head may also hurt because I wear glasses and the text was too small for my beady little eyes to see.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Yeah i agree with the piece but the reality of it is, people want more to games than just playing it once and not having a reason to go back. Linearity is good but it kills replay value I believe and with games now giving the taste of “non-linearity”, you can’t blame people for wanting more all together. Gamers want to feel involved, I believe that’s the whole concept, I can understand it for action or adventure games if they’re linear but rpgs should offer something a bit bigger than just playin through a story where you have no choice but to go through it exactly the way the creators want you to with almost no penalties to actions and all. I enjoy jrpgs very much, played a lot over the years and I still love ‘em but giving the player huge options that affect the overall story would be nice for a change
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@galmi: A non-linear game isn’t necessarily synonymous with high replay value. Example: You can do everything there is to do in Assassin’s Creed II in one play-through and it is an extremely non-linear game.
I’ve replayed many JRPGs for various reasons – a linear game doesn’t mean it has no replay value.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
After reading the article, I can’t help but feel that the author’s entire experience comes only from the electronic era of RPGs, without any understanding of the true roots of the genre, the old PnP games, so he can’t understand why linearity is such a bane. He complains that there’s a double standard of linearity between RPGs and every other genre, where its perfectly acceptible.
Well yes there IS that double standard, but there’s also a reason that double standard exists. Again if he ever played the original pre-electronic RPGs, he would remember what the name of the game meant. Role Playing Game. The gamer playing a role. And somone getting there hands on a gamepad and controlling a given character (say Kratos, Link, Master Chief, Mario, or whoever), their given game actions and combat abilities is NOT roleplaying. That is merely controlling an on screen avatar.
To actually BE roleplaying, means that the player themself DEFINES THE ROLE. He/she puts into the charatcer which ever qualities they choose to, in personality and attitude. Going back to the old D&D games, when friends sat around a table, they weren’t given a prescripted character. The Dungeon Master didn’t hand out character cards to all the players, each having a charatcer name and set profile; “so here you go Mark, you’ll be Rivnokk the Barbarian, the card has all your charatcers abilities and stats”. No, the players chose their own roles, from races and cIasses, and rolled dice to get the starting stats. And from there, how they interacted with the game world, and the NPC characters they encountered, as described by the DM in each situation they entered was up to them. The characters personality was which ever traits the character creator imbued them with.
In other words, the whole point of the Role Playing Game as it was first introduced, was to be a nonlinear form of game play, as it was all directed by the imagination and input of the players (which by that very nature is more open ended), instead of a fixed board with tracks that set the direction of the game.
Now when it came to the PnP games, the numeric stats and levels were an integral part of the game mechanics. Since this was a game played by the imagination, where scenes and battles had to be visualized in the mind, the dice were the tools by which to generate the outcome for combat and other situations. But there are two core layers to RPGs. The game mechanics, which is the numeric stats and levels, and the game play level, the essential roleplaying I outlined above. While WRPGs manage to retain both layers of the genre, the JRPG keeps only the basic game mechanic layer, while discarding the gameplay layer that is essential to what defines roleplaying.
The author claims that with nonlinear gameplay, you can’t get the same emotional impact of a tightly constructed plot that guides the player by the hand in a specific direction. I must argue he is wrong about that. While he may have referenced Mass Effect and KOTOR as examples of the western branch of RPGs in his first paragraph, I have to wonder if he actually played those listed games. Because Bioware has struck an amazing balance of nonlinear gameplay with dramatic story crafting which carries with it thrilling moments to evoke reactions in the player.
While you can explore the worlds in which ever order and direction you choose to, there always remains the key moments that when the player does arrive at them, will still deliver an unexpected plot revelation which carries just as powerful an impact, no matter how you arrived at it. The “Revan plot twist” from KOTOR being the best example I can think of. No matter how you went about to get to that plot moment, it is still an engrossing story moment that will just wow you.
And best of all, in true RPG fashion where the character you are when you encounter it, is your own creation, you can approach it in any number of ways, all based on your own perceptions to the scenario. Unlike in a JRPG story, where when you get to the cinematics which unfold the story, you essentially stop playing to watch the scene play out, and always in the exact same way. The player has no input into how his charatcer reacts to the scene, but can only passively watch how the game designed character reacts to it.
Finally, the author complains that we should just let WRPGs be what they are, and let JRPGs be what they are. Like in his example, FPS games are left well enough alone and not influenced by other genres (well except for Borderlands, Bioshock, and Deus Ex, but well… you know
). My main problem with that is (and the problem shared with others which is the source of the complaints), we aren’t talking about two seperate generes, but really two branches of the same genre since, after all they share the same name – RPG. But where the Western branch does retain the gameplay elements of what the name means, JRPGs don’t. They are calling themselves roleplaying games without actually being a roleplaying game.
You can call it complaining about semantics if you like, but the meaning of the name is important to many, and a game trying to call itself something its not by the roots of the definition, is kinda false advertising. Take that as you will I suppose.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@AdobeArtist: Thanks for your comment, it could be a whole article in itself.
The intent of the post wasn’t to give an entire history of RPGs from beginning to end. I was specifically talking about console RPGs of the Eastern and Western variety. Whether or not JRPGs are what RPGs should be is irrelevant. I was talking about JRPGs as they are. Period. Regardless of where the term “role playing game” came from and regardless of what is considered an RPG now, JRPGs are what they are, and that was the definition for them that I’m using and I think most people relate to, considering this isn’t a PnP site but a video game site.
Also, I didn’t refer to KOTOR, I never played it. I did refer to Mass Effect and Balder’s Gate, the latter of which I have not played, but I’m familiar with it. I played Mass Effect and Dragon Age: Origins to completion (check my XBox Live profile if you wish: xchadnessx), as well as many other Western-style RPGs. And, I stand by my statements in the article – none of the WRPGs I’ve played through the years has had the same impact as JRPG stories have had through the years – on me. You can’t dispute that, because it’s personal experience and opinion, which I clearly stated in the article, using pronouns like “I” and “me”.
I did mention in one of the footnotes that a game like Mass Effect could be an exception to the rule, and is more of a mash-up of both SUB-genres.
And yes, we should just let each genre (or, as you want to put it, sub-genre) be what it is, isn’t that the definition of tolerance, of expressing creativity? Just because something doesn’t conform to your standards doesn’t mean that it doesn’t deserve to exist. JRPGs and WRPGs are so different in design philosophy that they might as well be separate genres. I never said that they weren’t the same genre, but I personally consider them two separate genres because of the massive differences.
In conclusion, I love video game RPGs of almost every type. I loved Mass Effect, I loved Dragon Age: Origins, I loved Morrowind and Oblivion. I’m not trying to say that. You seem to think I was attacking those type of RPGs, but I was not. I was simply stating that people should not want to change a game into something it is not. A JRPG is typically not an open-world, sandbox style RPG so people need to stop complaining that they aren’t and just live with the fact that they are what they are and if they don’t want to play a game like that, then find something to play that meets their needs.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Thanks for the reply Chad, and sorry if I made too quick a judgement of your gaming history.
Though throughout my long diatribe about my perspective about RPGs, and the extensive history of it, at the *heart* of my thesis (could be called that, hehe) was addressing the primary theme of your article.
Does linearity have a place in RPGs? To me it still seems to defeat the original design of this game type, how it was conceived, all those years ago.
It does indeed seem that the identity of the genre has “mutated” in its transition into the digital media, and maybe little ol’ me is not one to say this shouldn’t be the case.
But then again, maybe that was how it happened simply because the limitations of the technology of the day, that couldn’t fully encompass the freedom RPGs traditionally had. Limitations no longer present, yet still imposed on by familiarity. But also limitations the western branch set the games free from, who showed that the original design of RPGs *could* be replicated in electronic format.
And perhaps there is merit that a linear story can be a more cohesive plot by the nature of its structured design. But to ince again play devils advocate, that is by no means a gurauntee of quality. I mean how many crappy movies and books do we see?
Can it be argued then that a linear JRPG will always have a better story than a nonlinear WRPG? Guess we’ll agree to disagree on that one
I’ve said before in past debates on this subject (mostly the gamespot forums, which lead me to this article) that there are two layers to the RPG genre.
There’s the *game mechanics layer*, which is the stats and levels system which partly defined roleplaying games from back in the D&D days. I would call that the base layer. And there’s the *game play layer* which is the previously outlines *role playing* aspects.
I can concede that both JRPGs and WRPGs are role playing games from a purely game mechanics stance. But to me (and this will be MY opinion) the WRPGs are the far better *role playing experience*, by virtue of encompassing both afformentioned layers of RPGs, whereas JRPGs only carry the game mechanic layer of the genre.
And that’s the way I see it
Happy New Year Chad
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Very interesting article. And although I agree with the general sentiment there is such a thing as TOO linear. You don’t want to actually feel like you’re moving from point A to point B and so forth – it shouldn’t feel forced but feel like a natural progression.
But in the end it’s all about giving the player the ILLUSION that the game isn’t completely linear. I think the quality of the storytelling and gameplay itself are huge factors in how linear a game can feel.
FFX for instance was very linear but the story was so well written and the pacing just right so that it never felt like you were being pushed on rails – you actually WANTED to see where the story would head next because it was so absorbing.
The battles system was also fun and the battles themselves were adequately challenging. Where most JRPGs drop the ball is with random encounters that are cakewalks. You get to a point where you’re saying to yourself, “oh great, ANOTHER battle” and it isn’t fun because you always know the outcome.
But the same applies to Western RPGs. Oblivion was a terribly bland game with amateurish writing, dull voice acting and a weak plot.
The gameplay portion wasn’t that exciting either thanks to the leveled loot/enemy scaling and the “My First RPG” design of the whole thing (quest/NPC compass, constant help-text pop-ups, extremely limited dialogue options, etc.) so you’re left with this huge open world where you really aren’t compelled to do anything.
Compare it to Arcanum which although it had a terrible combat system, the characters were well written as was the story, and you actually felt you were ROLE PLAYING because your actions actually affected the world around you.
SO my point, as a long time fan of both JRPGs and CRPGs is that ultimately what matters in an RPG is great story telling and/or great gameplay systems. If it’s linear, it has to have a strong story or good characters to push you along. If it’s extremely non-linear, there has to be a strong focus on gameplay elements or the world around you has to be compelling to explore.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Another thing to keep in mind is that the Western RPGs of TODAY are really closer to JRPGs than ever.
Take Bioware’s games for instance. Their last truly great RPG for me was Baldur’s Gate II which was chock full of solid gameplay for 100 hours or more. The story telling was good and was obviously crucial to the game’s success, but the focus was on actual gameplay. There was lots to do and up to a certain point in the game there were a ton of side quests not totally relevant to the main quest but just as well written and fun. And the game was no cakewalk.
By contrast, every game they’ve made since seems to put more of a focus on presentation and story and less of a focus on actual gameplay content.
Mass Effect had a terrible combat system. KNights Of The Old Republic had a solid combat system but was way too easy and without it’s Star Wars license and big story twist it would have been pretty mediocre. Jade Empire also had a good story and very good voice acting but it used a very simplified real-time, action-game combat system and it’s skill system was pretty shallow.
Western RPGs are really now just hybrids of multiple genres and slowly losing their identities.
Oblivion was RPG’s Grand Theft Auto. Huge open world with lots to do but most of it simplistic and shallow (only difference being that GTA was fun and intriguing and certainly not dull).
And I haven’t played Dragon Age but I’ve read where Bioware has touted it as somewhat of a “return to form” so I hope that’s true but their previous games have been more like JRPGs without the fun quirkiness and entertaining, over-the-top melodrama.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@AdobeArtist: You do make some good points, especially the theory about how JRPGs ended up the way they are, considering PnP RPGs were, for all intents and purposes, non-linear.
I won’t guarantee that I’ll never say that a non-linear RPG will not have a better story than a JRPG, that would be rather ignorant, because it seems with each new game things are getting better. The closest it’s come for me was in DA:O, there were points there that came awfully close to reaching that emotional points that numerous JRPGs have taken me, but they didn’t quite deliver for one reason or another.
I’m quite looking forward to Mass Effect 2 to see if that will kick things into high gear for me, although I don’t really have high hopes. I enjoyed the story of the first one, but it didn’t really DO anything for me, if you know what I mean.
Ultimately, like I said in the article, you like what you like and your opinions are fine. I respect that. People should be allowed to like what they like and dislike what they dislike. That’s cool. It isn’t going to make me never speak to you again or anything.
But, I’ll reiterate this point again: Part of the point of this article was to point out how people complain that one thing isn’t this other thing. All the whining and complaining about FFXIII being too linear kind of pushed me over the edge (although I haven’t played it yet).
These people need to realize it’s absolutely cool if they have a specific thing in mind that they want, but they should go find a game that meets their needs instead of complaining about one that doesn’t and trying to change it into something it isn’t.
Btw, I do appreciate the lengthy, well-thought-out comments.
@Relayer71: I will agree in some very specific cases Western developed RPGs remind me of JRPGs because of some reason or another. Mass Effect was interesting because it had a very specific story with even a specific character name (although the physical appearance could be different). It also wasn’t true open-world. So, I can see elements there.
Oblivion…I loved Oblivion, but it still bothers me just how irrelevant the main story is to the whole game. I mean, I logged probably over 100 hours in that game in two separate attempts (about a year apart) to play through the main story and never got to it just because there is no structure to the game. They plop you in the world and say, “Here, do what you want when you want, no hurry.”
That’s not a BAD thing, and I can’t quite put my finger on why it bothers me. When people start wanting to turn a game like FFXIII or another JRPG into that, it really gets to me.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Well the most glaring problem with Oblivion is that you’re told the world is being invaded by these demons and there are portals everywhere but there really is no invasion… the demons are just standing around the entrances just waiting for you to come.
So you’re told to DO SOMETHING NOW…but at the same time it doesn’t matter if you run off and do your own thing because the “invasion” waits for you.
The problem starts before that though – I mean the Emperor’s ELITE guard can’t protect him but here you are a lowly level 1 prisoner and are able to take out his assassin. And then he gives you this really important high level task that should have been given to one of his officers.
It’s such a contrast to Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind where the main quest opens up in a gradual and subtle way. Most important of all, in a natural way that allows for you to – actually gives you reason to – go off and join various guilds and explore the land.
Again, it’s Bethesda’s design philosophy of INSTANT GRATIFICATION and trying to please everyone that ruins Oblivion. Can’t say they’re just trying to cash in though, they do seem to put a lot into their games but it’s sad that the ES series went from a hardcore RPG one to a mainstream action/adventure game with lite RPG elements.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
And by the way, just discovered this site, keep up the good work guys, really liking the content
(And sweet that you guys are NYC based – born and raised here in Brookly & Queens myself
)