#1 Edited by Lard (262 posts) -

 

http://www.destructoid.com/bioware-co-founder-jrpgs-suffer-from-lack-of-...

"The fall of the JRPG in large part is due to a lack of evolution, a lack of progression," Zeschuk said. "They kept delivering the same thing over and over. They make the dressing better, they look prettier, but it's still the same experience

Um - while I will be the first to admit that this gen's console RPGs have been terrible overall, (barring Demon's Souls, Folklore and Enchanted Arms), this seems incredibly one-sided and overly simplistic from a guy that sticks exactly the same dialogue trees and moderately different endings in every game. (See? I can generalise too! It's easy!)

In all seriousness, console RPGs this gen have been weak, but the DS RPGs have been a real hotbed of interesting, experimental games.

And, in part, there is a sense of "those slanty-eyed Japs can't do anything right - USA! USA!" in gaming this gen that really rubs me the wrong way. (Including Keiji Inafune's "Everything in Japan sucks - except for Capcom of course! LOLZ!"

Basically, this an incredibly gross oversimplification on the part of Bioware - and I think WRPGs can be accused of exactly the same faults that JRPGs have, if you're determined to find fault like he is.

Oh and is holding back content from the game and then charging ridiculous amounts for it (like Dragon Age Origins) the kind of evolution that JRPGs are lacking? Because I'll be happy if they stay stagnant if that's what he means.

#2 Posted by Video_Game_King (36272 posts) -

I think one of the major reasons behind him saying that is because a lot of JRPGs still use turn based battles. There's nothing wrong with that, but the people saying these things think there is.

#3 Posted by Red (5995 posts) -

He's right. Even if you change around the combat, the style and structure of JRPGs have basically been the same since Final Fantasy VII. While yes, there are some exceptions (The World Ends With You, Persona 4), but CRPGs are constantly changing. Just look at the difference between Baldur's Gate and Mass Effect, and then look at the differences between Final Fantasy VII and Lost Odyssey. 

#4 Edited by AndrewB (7621 posts) -

Actually, I think they're right on the money. It's no wonder why my top RPGs of all time are mostly Bioware, or at least USA (errr... North American; yes, I know Bioware hails from Canada), developed.

#5 Edited by MAN_FLANNEL (2462 posts) -

Anyways, I agree WRPGs have evolved while JRPGS haven't. 
#6 Posted by Clubvodka (417 posts) -

At least from a story stand point (except Persona 3 and 4) America/England (Fable II) have shown how you can take the basic RPG systems and make something new. Yes Mass Effect and Dragon Age have dialogue trees etc but they both have interesting stories. Same with Fallout 3 and for the most part Borderlands. 
 
I don't know how many JRPGs have a combo of moody monotone heroes, amensia, steam punk asthetics etc. Lost Odyssey tinkers with the battle system and the Persona games weave in humour with heavy handed but interesting story telling. 
 
So I would agree with that.
#7 Posted by s3ank1m (126 posts) -

how about Demon's Souls?

#8 Posted by Hailinel (24844 posts) -

The people at Bioware are entitled to their opinion, but I have to staunchly disagree with it.  Particularly since I can't say that there was anything particularly new or innovative about Dragon Age.

Online
#9 Edited by HitmanAgent47 (8576 posts) -

He speaks the truth, however wrpg games lacks good characterization and appealing character designs, rather has boring old archetypes like dungeons and dragons that doesn't appeal to everyone. That's very true of games like the witcher or dragon age orgins and oblivion which are substance over style.

#10 Posted by Jeust (10655 posts) -

i agree with you Lard, as wrpgs haven't also seen a great evolution till this point, at least since the first kotor. 
 
The Bioware games have similar stories and decisions, as there isn't really much difference, albeit some scale, between kotor and jade empire, for instance. 
 
The VATS system on Fallout 3 was a innovation but the game remembers too much of Oblivion. 
 
In the eastern rgps if there is some evolution it has been done by square enix and atlus.

#11 Posted by Hailinel (24844 posts) -
@TooWalrus said:
" Nope, it's a pretty accurate statement. Once you've played one JRPG you've played them all, for the most part. "
Sounds like you've only played two or three, at most.
Online
#12 Posted by TooWalrus (13203 posts) -
@Red said:
" He's right. Even if you change around the combat, the style and structure of JRPGs have basically been the same since Final Fantasy VII. While yes, there are some exceptions (The World Ends With You, Persona 4), but CRPGs are constantly changing. Just look at the difference between Baldur's Gate and Mass Effect, and then look at the differences between Final Fantasy VII and Lost Odyssey.  "
I had pretty much typed out this same thing, but it sounded like it was spewing out of the mouth of a complete prick. So I'm just gonna quote you here...
#13 Posted by Hailinel (24844 posts) -
@TooWalrus said:
" @Red said:
" He's right. Even if you change around the combat, the style and structure of JRPGs have basically been the same since Final Fantasy VII. While yes, there are some exceptions (The World Ends With You, Persona 4), but CRPGs are constantly changing. Just look at the difference between Baldur's Gate and Mass Effect, and then look at the differences between Final Fantasy VII and Lost Odyssey.  "
I had pretty much typed out this same thing, but it sounded like it was spewing out of the mouth of a complete prick. So I'm just gonna quote you here... "
Actually, Red is a prick.  He'll call you an idiot for liking FFXII.
Online
#14 Posted by TooWalrus (13203 posts) -
@Hailinel: Ha, no doubt, I just happen to agree with him this time.
#15 Posted by TheKidNixon (1564 posts) -

I think you can apply some of these concerns with a lot of Japanese game development right now. There seems to be a pretty strong trend to stick to the holding pattern, where as most Western developers seem at the very least to be interested in combining genres and ideas in an attempt to create some new. Sometimes Japanese developers looking back into their history of design can work well, such as with Street Fighter IV or the new 8-bit Mega Man games, but it can equally become very stale. One of the reasons that Metal Gear Solid 4 made such an impression I think is because it wasn't afraid to innovate and change, despite having some pretty substantial terrain in nostalgia. Japan needs more developers like Kojima and Suda 51, who are interested in innovation and aren't afraid to take inspiration from other games to develop forward, rather than stick to the way things have always been.

#16 Posted by Milkman (16802 posts) -

He's spot on. WRPGs have passed JRPGs in almost every single aspect (barring a select few, I guess). WRPGs have figured out how to make combat fun and accessible, something JRPGs have ALWAYS struggled with. The story of WRPGs have evolved way past JRPGs. Though I'm sure some of you will say that they still enjoy the same story of spiky haired young boys fighting against an anicent reawoken evil, the majority of the world will probably disagree.

#17 Posted by Damien (1384 posts) -
I don't see where blatant racism comes into play: @Lard said:

"And, in part, there is a sense of "those slanty-eyed Japs can't do anything right - USA! USA!" in gaming this gen that really rubs me the wrong way."

Aren't the two doctors Canadian and originally from Canada, with two of the three Bioware studios located in Canada?
#18 Posted by Slippy (735 posts) -

Bitches don't know about Valkyria Chronicles. Seriously, everyone who wants to see a turn-based tactical RPG done right needs to play this game. I know it's the exception to the rule, and a similar system was used in Sakura Wars already, but it is at least proof that Japan can create an interesting battle system.

#19 Posted by Lard (262 posts) -
@Damien said:
" I don't see where blatant racism comes into play: @Lard said:

"And, in part, there is a sense of "those slanty-eyed Japs can't do anything right - USA! USA!" in gaming this gen that really rubs me the wrong way."

Aren't the two doctors Canadian and originally from Canada, with two of the three Bioware studios located in Canada? "
Yeah, I didn't mean from Bioware specifically, but there's an underlying tone this gen of "Japan suckz! Teh West is teh best!" that comes off as patronising.
#20 Posted by Jimbo (9814 posts) -

"They kept delivering the same thing over and over. They make the dressing better, they look prettier, but it's still the same experience."
 
That's a bit rich isn't it?  He should play NWN, KOTOR, Jade Empire, Mass Effect and Dragon Age back to back sometime.

#21 Posted by Death_Unicorn (2838 posts) -
@Red said:
" He's right. Even if you change around the combat, the style and structure of JRPGs have basically been the same since Final Fantasy VII. While yes, there are some exceptions (The World Ends With You, Persona 4), but CRPGs are constantly changing. Just look at the difference between Baldur's Gate and Mass Effect, and then look at the differences between Final Fantasy VII and Lost Odyssey.  "
I agree with you, good sir.
#22 Posted by ArbitraryWater (11749 posts) -

Hooray for culture wars! Weaboos on one side and Gaijin on the other! FIGHT TO THE DEATH!
 
Ahem. As someone who has disliked pretty much everything Square has put out for the past 10 years, I can say that I enjoy W-RPGs far more than J-RPGs with a few exceptions (those exceptions being the Persona series and SNES era Final Fantasy games). Maybe it's that KotOR was my first real game in the genre, or maybe it's because the J-RPG as a whole hasn't advanced much past say... Final Fantasy VII in terms of development mindset. 
 
In any case, I can't see this thread going anywhere but down. Bye!

#23 Edited by fallen_elite (380 posts) -
@s3ank1m said:

" how about Demon's Souls? "

Read the article, he excludes Demon's Souls but that's more of an action RPG, than a JRPG. Though I guess it technically is a JRPG as much as Mass Effect is considered an RPG.
#24 Edited by Turambar (6785 posts) -
@Milkman: I'd say combat is by taste.  I enjoyed it in both DAO and ME, but I don't really think they're better than traditional turnbased combat in my opinion.  Also, isn't "super special guy fighting ancient evil to save the world" the plot for both ME and DAO as well?  WRPGs, Bioware rpgs in particular have pretty much embraced this plot line as well.
 
 JRPGs haven't evolved, but it has learned to perfect itself.  WRPGs is still evolving, but has yet to find the right way of doing things.  Claims of choice is all fine and good, but no Bioware game in particular has yet succeeded in making the forks in the paths meaningful or significant.  ME and DAO most certainly failed at this.  I look forward to how the certainly large choices you made at the end of ME (but ultimately weightless within the first game itself) factor into ME2.  However, we have seen how they have completely failed at that before (from KOTOR to KOTOR 2), so I'm not holding my breath.  WRPGs have great potential, but the genre is simply not there yet.
#25 Posted by Milkman (16802 posts) -
@Turambar: I have trouble believing you played Dragon Age if you think the choices weren't significant or meaningful. Every decision you make in Dragon Age has a huge impact on your game. One person playing the game will have this character play a huge role in the game and another player might not have met that character at all. Choices is what Dragon Age is all about.
#26 Posted by thecleric (793 posts) -
@s3ank1m said:
" how about Demon's Souls? "
Calling Demon's Souls a JRPG is like calling Wild Arms a WRPG. Sure, they're 'from' that area, but they show that they're nothing like any other rpgs from that region, really goes to show how stupid the term 'jrpg' and 'wrpg' are, honestly.
#27 Posted by s3ank1m (126 posts) -
@fallen_elite said:
" @s3ank1m said:

" how about Demon's Souls? "

Read the article, he excludes Demon's Souls but that's more of an action RPG, than a JRPG. Though I guess it technically is a JRPG as much as Mass Effect is considered an RPG. "
whoops didnt read that portion, my mistake haha
#28 Posted by Hailinel (24844 posts) -
@Milkman said:
" He's spot on. WRPGs have passed JRPGs in almost every single aspect (barring a select few, I guess). WRPGs have figured out how to make combat fun and accessible, something JRPGs have ALWAYS struggled with. The story of WRPGs have evolved way past JRPGs. Though I'm sure some of you will say that they still enjoy the same story of spiky haired young boys fighting against an anicent reawoken evil, the majority of the world will probably disagree. "
Bullshit.  This is bullshit to the nth degree.
 
Combat is not "more accessible" in WRPGs.  For me, playing Dragon Age on anything but the lowest difficulty becomes a clusterfuck because I am terrible at real-time strategy.  Sure, I can pause the game and switch tactics that way, but that just leads me back down the path of the original Icewind Dale, and issues I had with ID's design left me unable/unwilling to finish the game.  The combat is just loaded with complications of a different sort.
 
And while I ultimately enjoyed Dragon Age, I hated Oblivion.  The skill-based leveling system was a pain to use.  The way enemy power scaling worked not only invalidated leveling, but also made the game more ludicrous over time.  Fallout 3 lacked a lot of Oblivion's worst offenses despite being ridiculed as Oblivion with guns, but at the same time it had its own problems.  The moral choices and morality are stark black and white, and very few choices made in the game have the same level of impact as the nuke in Megaton.  The idea of choice presented in the game doesn't feel natural.  It's stringent and artificial.
 
And I really wish I didn't feel it necessary to do this, but there are a number of JRPGs that don't fall into the "Teens save the world from an ancient evil" category.  (And this is by no means a complete list.  Just games I'm familiar with that I can think of off the top of my head.)
 
  • Final Fantasy IV
  • Final Fantasy VI
  • Final Fantasy VII (Most of the characters, including Cloud, are in their early/mid-twenties.  Suck it, stereotypers.)
  • The SaGa series as a whole.
  • Shin Megami Tensei:  Nocturne
  • Dragon Quest IV
  • Dragon Quest V
  • Lost Odyssey
  • Eternal Sonata
  • Torneko's Mysterious Dungeon
  • Sweet Home
  • Shin Megami Tensei:  Strange Journey
Online
#29 Edited by Turambar (6785 posts) -
@Milkman said:

" @Turambar: I have trouble believing you played Dragon Age if you think the choices weren't significant or meaningful. Every decision you make in Dragon Age has a huge impact on your game. One person playing the game will have this character play a huge role in the game and another player might not have met that character at all. Choices is what Dragon Age is all about. "

Your quest choices in DAO impacted nothing but what units you were able to summon during the final seige.  The game tells you that what you did was significant, but the scope of it doesn't let you see first hand any of the consequences.  Can DAO expand on this in future games?  Yes.  But the problem is the game within which you made them gains nothing from the decisions other than some minor changes to the creatures of the landscape.  I'd say the only choice with any actual consequence was the mage's guild, as it fed into your choices for Redcliffe.
 
Your character choices are also awkward.  For example, why would you ever kill the dog, or Sten, within the first hours of the game?  The game has given you no reason to hate the qu'nari enough that you'd kill him (in fact, no lore has been offered for his people at all yet), and the fact that DAO is a game pretty much compels you to let them live to see what addition they give to your game play experience.  If killing him (or doing almost anything that would force out a party member for that matter (I'd give Andraste's ashes a pass, but barely because you can just leave the gauntlet and switch up your party members to avoid the consequences)) opened up another section of the game, this wouldn't be as much of an issue.  But it doesn't.
 
BTW, these issues with DAO, I'd attribute to most WRPG games as a whole.
#30 Posted by darkmoney52 (49 posts) -

I think the big difference is that while western devs haven't been innovating a whole lot more lately, they have all been doing their own thing. Compare a Bioware game to a Bethesda game to the Witcher and you've got a much wider range of experiences than among the popular JRPGs.

#31 Posted by Red (5995 posts) -
@Hailinel: No, no. I'll call you an idiot for saying that Final Fantasy XII is a noteworthy character-centric JRPG, and then a bigger idiot for being offended by me calling you an idiot. 
#32 Posted by Hailinel (24844 posts) -
@Red said:
" @Hailinel: No, no. I'll call you an idiot for saying that Final Fantasy XII is a noteworthy character-centric JRPG, and then a bigger idiot for being offended by me calling you an idiot.  "
I never said it was a character-centric RPG.  I was defending others for your calling them idiots for mentioning the game in the thread.  In any event, you've proven that you have incredibly poor social manners.
Online
#33 Posted by therabidfrog (349 posts) -
 "And, in part, there is a sense of "those slanty-eyed Japs can't do anything right - USA! USA!" in gaming this gen that really rubs me the wrong way."
 
Or it could be that he's right. JRPGs never evolved far beyond pure grinding and hitting one or two buttons. Why do people rush to allegations of racism? Western RPGs over all have always been a lot more complex in terms of game play mechanics and rules. JRPGs are usually hit X over and over and over while sitting through the same silly story over and over.
#34 Posted by nail1080 (1975 posts) -

That particular Bioware dude is being arrogant. Blue Dragon, Lost Odyssey, Eternal Sonata and the Last Remnant are all great and fun games and offer many different things in my opinion.

#35 Posted by Turambar (6785 posts) -
@therabidfrog: The problem is, does the complexity offer anything significant?  Does simply hitting X take away from anything significant?  Persona 4 is an X-hitting fest, but few can deny that it is an incredibly good game.  On the other hand, the complexity placed into DAO combat wise becomes a question of taste and accessibility, and the complexity placed into the story telling, as I have previously said, is largely hollow and meaningless.
#36 Posted by Jimbo (9814 posts) -
@Turambar said:

" @Milkman: I'd say combat is by taste.  I enjoyed it in both DAO and ME, but I don't really think they're better than traditional turnbased combat in my opinion.  Also, isn't "super special guy fighting ancient evil to save the world" the plot for both ME and DAO as well?  WRPGs, Bioware rpgs in particular have pretty much embraced this plot line as well.   JRPGs haven't evolved, but it has learned to perfect itself.  WRPGs is still evolving, but has yet to find the right way of doing things.  Claims of choice is all fine and good, but no Bioware game in particular has yet succeeded in making the forks in the paths meaningful or significant.  ME and DAO most certainly failed at this.  I look forward to how the certainly large choices you made at the end of ME (but ultimately weightless within the first game itself) factor into ME2.  However, we have seen how they have completely failed at that before (from KOTOR to KOTOR 2), so I'm not holding my breath.  WRPGs have great potential, but the genre is simply not there yet. "

Bioware didn't make KOTOR 2, so I don't think you can blame them for that.  Everything we've seen so far suggests you're right about ME though, they've taken the sequel as far away from the first game as possible so they don't really need to worry about all those 'important' decisions you make, but I guess we'll have to wait and see.
 
Bioware games are definitely made to the same template nowadays though - the combat itself changes, everything else around it pretty much remains the same:  
 
  • The nature of the protagonist (Last Best Hope)
  • The nature of the threat (Universal Destruction)
  • Everything about the companion interaction. 
  • What you need to do to counter that threat (collect the 4x:  plague cure ingredients (NWN) / words of power (NWN) / star maps (KOTOR) / pieces of spirit amulet (Jade Empire) / investigation (Mass Effect) / armies (Dragon Age)
  • TWIST! (Your mentor turns baddie (NWN), you were the baddie (KOTOR), your mentor is the baddie (Jade Empire), baddie not really the main baddie (Mass Effect)
#37 Posted by borgmaster (513 posts) -
@darkmoney52: what are you doing in here with thought out arguments? don't you know this is the internet?
#38 Posted by MrPickles (140 posts) -
@darkmoney52 said:
" I think the big difference is that while western devs haven't been innovating a whole lot more lately, they have all been doing their own thing. Compare a Bioware game to a Bethesda game to the Witcher and you've got a much wider range of experiences than among the popular JRPGs. "
That's probably the most accurate way to describe it.
 I feel JRPGs are in the sometimes in the same vein too. I've played my fair share that have done something unique with both the story and the gameplay.
#39 Posted by ThatFrood (3375 posts) -

I really agree. Jrpgs seem to really stick to the same format. Hard.

#40 Posted by Slippy (735 posts) -

JRPG = RPG from Japan. 

#41 Posted by mordukai (7151 posts) -

 @Lard:
Seriously man. Learn how to use the quote option. It's not that hard at all, look I'll teach you.  
 

  1. You write down the quote you want to pot on your post.
  2. You Highlight it, and the quote option will pop up on your text menu right next to the spoiler option. (it's the text bubble symbol in case you can't figure it out)
  3. While you text is highlighted press that quote option and the highlighted text will be quoted, like so:

I agree with his statement to some extent. 

See, not that hard.    
#42 Posted by Undeadpool (4944 posts) -
@Jimbo said:
" @Turambar said:

" @Milkman: I'd say combat is by taste.  I enjoyed it in both DAO and ME, but I don't really think they're better than traditional turnbased combat in my opinion.  Also, isn't "super special guy fighting ancient evil to save the world" the plot for both ME and DAO as well?  WRPGs, Bioware rpgs in particular have pretty much embraced this plot line as well.   JRPGs haven't evolved, but it has learned to perfect itself.  WRPGs is still evolving, but has yet to find the right way of doing things.  Claims of choice is all fine and good, but no Bioware game in particular has yet succeeded in making the forks in the paths meaningful or significant.  ME and DAO most certainly failed at this.  I look forward to how the certainly large choices you made at the end of ME (but ultimately weightless within the first game itself) factor into ME2.  However, we have seen how they have completely failed at that before (from KOTOR to KOTOR 2), so I'm not holding my breath.  WRPGs have great potential, but the genre is simply not there yet. "

Bioware didn't make KOTOR 2, so I don't think you can blame them for that.  Everything we've seen so far suggests you're right about ME though, they've taken the sequel as far away from the first game as possible so they don't really need to worry about all those 'important' decisions you make, but I guess we'll have to wait and see.
 
Bioware games are definitely made to the same template nowadays though - the combat itself changes, everything else around it pretty much remains the same:  
 
  • The nature of the protagonist (Last Best Hope)
  • The nature of the threat (Universal Destruction)
  • Everything about the companion interaction. 
  • What you need to do to counter that threat (collect the 4x:  plague cure ingredients (NWN) / words of power (NWN) / star maps (KOTOR) / pieces of spirit amulet (Jade Empire) / investigation (Mass Effect) / armies (Dragon Age)
  • TWIST! (Your mentor turns baddie (NWN), you were the baddie (KOTOR), your mentor is the baddie (Jade Empire), baddie not really the main baddie (Mass Effect)
"

That's JUST Bioware though. They're only one of many Western RPG developers and most other developers do significantly different things. Put Dragon Age up against Fallout 3 up against The Witcher and you've got three RADICALLY different games in terms of theme, plot and even impact of choices on the world.

Also, both in and out of context, you WERE the baddie (KOTOR) was amazing for a twist.

#43 Posted by Vigilance (270 posts) -
@Jimbo said:
" "They kept delivering the same thing over and over. They make the dressing better, they look prettier, but it's still the same experience."  That's a bit rich isn't it?  He should play NWN, KOTOR, Jade Empire, Mass Effect and Dragon Age back to back sometime. "
Yeah, the WRPG experience is different, but it's not like every WRPG is some totally original experience. 
 
There's the Bioware style, the Oblivion style, the Diablo style, and the Final Fantasy style.  
 
So yeah, you could argue that WRPGs have three times the variety of JRPGs, but KOTOR, Mass Effect and Dragon Age are more similar as Final Fantasy X and Final Fantasy XII. 
#44 Posted by cstrang (2381 posts) -

I agree with him whole-heartedly.  There is no reason for me to pay $60 for a JRPG that plays decidedly worse than, or exactly the same as, a game that was released 15 years ago.  There are a few exceptions, sure, but most JRPGs feel and look the same.  
 
And to the dudes saying there is nothing "new or innovative about Dragon Age", that was the point of Dragon Age.  It's meant to be an old-school WRPG.  A tribute, if you will.
 
And to the other dude saying that WRPGs "lack appealing character design", I hope you were joking.  I find nothing appealing about androgynous 12 year olds running about.

#45 Posted by Hailinel (24844 posts) -
@Vigilance said:
" @Jimbo said:
" "They kept delivering the same thing over and over. They make the dressing better, they look prettier, but it's still the same experience."  That's a bit rich isn't it?  He should play NWN, KOTOR, Jade Empire, Mass Effect and Dragon Age back to back sometime. "
Yeah, the WRPG experience is different, but it's not like every WRPG is some totally original experience.  There's the Bioware style, the Oblivion style, the Diablo style, and the Final Fantasy style.   So yeah, you could argue that WRPGs have three times the variety of JRPGs, but KOTOR, Mass Effect and Dragon Age are more similar as Final Fantasy X and Final Fantasy XII.  "
Final Fantasy X and XII have so little in common with each other that your comparison doesn't make sense.
Online
#46 Posted by Vigilance (270 posts) -
@Hailinel: Um, that was my point? 
 
Dragon Age and Mass Effect are more alike than Final Fantasy X and XII, therefor I feel it is unfair to say JRPGs lack variety when compared to WRPGs.
#47 Posted by Hailinel (24844 posts) -
@cstrang said:
" I agree with him whole-heartedly.  There is no reason for me to pay $60 for a JRPG that plays decidedly worse than, or exactly the same as, a game that was released 15 years ago.  There are a few exceptions, sure, but most JRPGs feel and look the same.    And to the dudes saying there is nothing "new or innovative about Dragon Age", that was the point of Dragon Age.  It's meant to be an old-school WRPG.  A tribute, if you will.  And to the other dude saying that WRPGs "lack appealing character design", I hope you were joking.  I find nothing appealing about androgynous 12 year olds running about. "
Saying that the point of Dragon Age was to be a throwback is a lazy argument.  Almost as lazy as going to the anti-androgynous character argument.
Online
#48 Posted by Turambar (6785 posts) -
@Undeadpool: I picked heavily on Bioware because they were the one making the statement.  However, my criticisms of it can be generalized to most of the WRPGs I've played.  And similarly to the DAO to Witch comparison, I can make the same with JRPGs.  Valkyria Chronicles and Final Fantasy are worlds apart.
#49 Posted by Hailinel (24844 posts) -
@Vigilance: Sorry.  I misread your comment.
Online
#50 Posted by cstrang (2381 posts) -
@Hailinel: I clearly have no where near as much interest in arguing about this topic as you do.  I agree with Zeschuk, as do a lot of other people.  Get over it.