Giant Bomb needs a JRPG guy

@Legendary: It's not even so much about JRPGs as much as in general a lot of people come off as dicks when they think their way of seeing the world is the only right one and if you disagree you're a terrible human being. I mean that is how Hitler came about, and yes I realize I just compared random internet posters to Hitler!  I get carried away with it easily, fuck people who seem to think their way of life is the only one, man.

@beeftothetaco said:

Here's the thing; almost every JRPG released in the last 15 years has been boring, generic and uninspired. Clearly they don't have a problem with the genre, as they DID just do an endurance run of one of the most well received games of the genre ever, as well as having written at least one review on one of the Pokemon games. I think it's just that nowadays the only differences between JRPG games are locales, names/skins and mascot characters. The stories are written like a Mad Lib; boring and recyclable.

Every time I see a post like this, I wonder: What JRPGs have you played? I'm curious.

@Hailinel: I've played FF VII-X, Crystal Chronicles, Golden Sun, Tales of Symphonia and Persona 3, off the top of my head. The only one in that list that I got any enjoyment out of was Golden Sun, but it didn't last long.

@beeftothetaco said:

@Hailinel: I've played FF VII-X, Crystal Chronicles, Golden Sun, Tales of Symphonia and Persona 3, off the top of my head. The only one in that list that I got any enjoyment out of was Golden Sun, but it didn't last long.

And what, pray tell, is generic and uninspired about those games?

If we keep this going maybe we'll break the record for longest "please validate the things I like" thread ever.

@downtime58 said:

If we keep this going maybe we'll break the record for longest "please validate the things I like" thread ever.

This isn't really about validation. It's about the staff being able to discuss a subject with someone that is actually knowledgeable regarding the subject and that doesn't fall back on the same tired jokes any time the subject approaches something that they don't understand. I don't really think that Giant Bomb needs a "JRPG guy," but the staff could definitely bother to do some research before making some of the assertions that they do.

@Hailinel said:

@downtime58 said:

If we keep this going maybe we'll break the record for longest "please validate the things I like" thread ever.

This isn't really about validation. It's about the staff being able to discuss a subject with someone that is actually knowledgeable regarding the subject and that doesn't fall back on the same tired jokes any time the subject approaches something that they don't understand. I don't really think that Giant Bomb needs a "JRPG guy," but the staff could definitely bother to do some research before making some of the assertions that they do.

As with the OP, the argument you're making has nothing to do with knowledge of the games and everything to do with ruffled feathers over making fun of the conventions of JRPG's, which is perceived as misunderstanding them by fans of the genre.

I would ask - Are you suggesting that before playing FF13 Brad needed to do his research to understand why the game was designed the way it was - or even, before they picked up Chrono Trigger for the Endurance Run that they should've studied up on JPRG history?

The answer to both questions is no, they don't. As with any game I buy, including say FF13, Shadow Hearts, Valkyrie Chronicles, etc., the game either delivers an enjoyable experience or it doesn't. I don't think having to do research prior to a playing a game speaks very strongly for it's usability.

The fact is, you really like these games - as does the OP - and I get the need for championing them. I kind of like most of them, and I kind of like lots of games, but in no way do I expect Giant Bomb to hold everything I enjoy with the same reverence that I do. If they were simply conveying incorrect facts about what the games do, then I'd see the argument, but honestly this winding thread seems pretty subjective to me.

I feel like they should either ignore the games altogether or if they are going to start talking about a game then they better get more aquainted with information, or simply finish a game before bashing it (Brad's comments on FF13-2 really annoyed me - as nearly every gripe he had with the game is finished by the end - especially his fear of the "to be continued" screen which actually comes with a fantastic ending).

But this transends past specific genre's, this goes for every game. They do seem to be harsher on Japanese titles and very judging on their flaws (I see this with Nintendo products a lot - however they are better at focusing on them since they are usually Nintendo exclusive titles and so they have to talk about them more otherwise they alienate and entire console-worth of players)

Although, they do continue to do this with other titles as well which is probably due to the limited time they have to focus on games; I just wish they could at least simply say honestly how much of a game they have played and then say what their personal opinion is based on what they have seen and not try to argue it as fact or that they now know enough about a game to verbally review it and know exactly how the rest of the game is.

It would also help if others in the crew didn't focus solely on what tehy have seen in quick looks because this can lead to them being extremely harsh on something that they are saying is in the entire game and instead is only specific sections (Patrick ranting about FF13-2's jumping mechanic only needed at the blue circles because that is all he saw Brad use it for int he QL when their are many areas you can jump to without the blue circles).

It seems less genre-specific and more of a general attitude change.

@Hailinel: Well, just about everything I mentioned in my first post: An uninspired, cookie-cutter story template (reluctant heroes that must face a world-threatening menace and eventually accept their responsibility to do so, fucking annoying mascot characters, "emotional" subplots, plus or minus dramatic sacrifice, ect ect), generic character archetypes (excitable female companions, angsty douche companion, to name a couple) and uninspired gameplay mechanics (elemental weaknesses, turn-based gameplay, some kind of powerful summon attack that's linked to the story). I don't have any desire to get much more detailed than that, as we could argue about the minuscule/nonexistant differences between the titles all day long. I think I have done an adequate job explaining my angle on this topic.

I have no interest in JRPG.

Bring on more PC guys, or just clone Dave!

I don't see it being necessary, as I'm at peace with the fact that most modern JRPGs just ain't their thing. However, I must say It would have the potential for some great bombcast debates. I would hope it wouldn't play out in a similar manner in which Demon's Souls/Dark Souls discussions were carried out. One member likes it, yet walks a fine line between admitting liking it and hating it in order to not appear as some crazy loon to the others, e.g., "Yeah, I play these, y'know, because of the masochist in me..I don't really like it". Bombcasts often have an atmosphere of just some buddies "shootin' the shit". I'm sure most people have experienced friends in these situations not being completely honest because not everyone is comfortable being the odd man out.

@Zenaxzd said:

@downtime58: [...]
The blue circle thing bothered me a bit too (since once again, not true) but that is admittedly a very minor thing when compared to something about Patrick's insane Nomura rant.

Yeah, I get how it was a very minor thing - I was just using it as an example generally of when one of them has taking something they saw form a qucklook and blown out of proportion.

@Zenaxzd said:

@downtime58: Actually as a general thing I feel like they should at least do some research, especially regarding things that aren't even true.

I concur with that - however I do not think they need to do it before playing a title (something I would argue against as it could tarnish their view of it before they see it, or simply set them up for wrong expectations); they should definitely do it before talking about a title. Now in Podcasts I think it is ok for the first week to get some details wrong as they are still playing a game - but once they finish or have decided they won't continue the game then they should get all their facts straight before talking about the title again. And Quick Looks should require them to look it up before doing what some consider a review-style piece (as many people use it to decide if they will buy a game or not).

They don't necassarily have to know all the reasons for why it was made the way it is, but they should at least know in context what they have experienced (i.e. knowing what mechanics are going to change as the game progresses and which parts are essential to completing the game ect...).

Again, that goes for all genres and titles - however they could avoid a ot of the research by doing what TotalBiscuit on youtube does with his WTF series by saying outright these are his opinions on what he has played so far (usually being just the tutorial, and in bigger titles the first couple levels) so that the viewer knows he isn't critiquing the entire game, but instead the early parts he has played/is playing. By making sure they reiterate that they aren't talking about the entire game but instead how far they have played then they can still give the opinions they have as they continue to play it while at the same time not judging a title for areas that might shange later (which is most cases is the story or the complexity of the mechanics).

Again, that goes for all genres and titles - however they could avoid a ot of the research by doing what TotalBiscuit on youtube does with his WTF series by saying outright these are his opinions on what he has played so far (usually being just the tutorial, and in bigger titles the first couple levels) so that the viewer knows he isn't critiquing the entire game, but instead the early parts he has played/is playing. By making sure they reiterate that they aren't talking about the entire game but instead how far they have played then they can still give the opinions they have as they continue to play it while at the same time not judging a title for areas that might shange later (which is most cases is the story or the complexity of the mechanics).

@beeftothetaco said:

@Hailinel: Well, just about everything I mentioned in my first post: An uninspired, cookie-cutter story template (reluctant heroes that must face a world-threatening menace and eventually accept their responsibility to do so, fucking annoying mascot characters, "emotional" subplots, plus or minus dramatic sacrifice, ect ect), generic character archetypes (excitable female companions, angsty douche companion, to name a couple) and uninspired gameplay mechanics (elemental weaknesses, turn-based gameplay, some kind of powerful summon attack that's linked to the story). I don't have any desire to get much more detailed than that, as we could argue about the minuscule/nonexistant differences between the titles all day long. I think I have done an adequate job explaining my angle on this topic.

No, I mean, how do those correlate specifically to each game you mentioned?

@President_Barackbar: I know that they have said that, however it doesn't change how in the Quick Looks they do talk as if they kow everything about a title and speak in very generalised terms to not refer to what they have played so far but as the game as a whole which is misleading. And the subconcious idea that is created of how a game is this way isn't reduced by them inrequently pointing out that they aren't reviews as people will act differently simply by the attitude given to it.

The point is, they still critique the games as a whole during Quick Looks even if they don't mean to create the idea that they are which changes peoples perception of a game even if they conciously know that they aren't reviews. It also doesn't help that they go on about things in the QL's which are specific to only certain moments in the game later in the Podcast as if they were reviewing it.

They either need to critique parts of the game up to where they played outright but giving specific examples sort of like a review of the first area of the game, or they need to make it very clear everytime that they aren't reviewing the game and are instead showing one specific moment within the game for people to see (even if they just have a small box at the side near the video description pointing out that QL's aren't reviews or analysis), and if they do this they must be consistent and not use it later to critique the games like in the Podcast.

Remember, a lot of people watch the videos because they want info on a game but aren't knowledgable much with the site (simply googling it - or in the case of youtube searching a game title with the word "gameplay" which don't have theses pre-concieved assumptions; most of which either expect no commentary, a playthrough or if it is neither then they expect it is some form of review which it is easy to see a QL as if you have not seen one before (especially on youtube where they aren't even titled Quick Looks).

@beeftothetaco said:

@Hailinel: Well, just about everything I mentioned in my first post: An uninspired, cookie-cutter story template (reluctant heroes that must face a world-threatening menace and eventually accept their responsibility to do so, fucking annoying mascot characters, "emotional" subplots, plus or minus dramatic sacrifice, ect ect), generic character archetypes (excitable female companions, angsty douche companion, to name a couple) and uninspired gameplay mechanics (elemental weaknesses, turn-based gameplay, some kind of powerful summon attack that's linked to the story). I don't have any desire to get much more detailed than that, as we could argue about the minuscule/nonexistant differences between the titles all day long. I think I have done an adequate job explaining my angle on this topic.

I can't account for any of the Final Fantasy games, but Golden Sun, Persona 3, and Tales of Symphonia had none of the things you mentioned in this post.

@Zenaxzd said:

@downtime58: Actually as a general thing I feel like they should at least do some research, especially regarding things that aren't even true. For example Patrick was talking about how much he hated Nomura and how he is tired of all FF art being from him when in reality Nomura didn't even have anything, or very little, to do with the art of FF9, FF12, FF11, and FF14, which even if you want to take out the MMOs from that equation that leaves you with FF9 where he contributed nothing, FFX where he didn't do the art alone, FF12 where contributed nothing, and FF13 where he once again he did not do the art entirely by himself. I mean from my understanding the only thing Nomura even did in 13-2 was make the faces of the new characters.

Patrick was making this big deal about something that wasn't even true to begin with. I mean really, the last major release that came out before FF13 (Being 12, of course) Nomura literally had nothing to do with. Stuff like that is what really gets me when they decide to start talking about the genre or Square in general. You don't have to know every little detail but you should show a bit more knowledge than that, especially when what you are saying is not even close to being the truth. The blue circle thing bothered me a bit too (since once again, not true) but that is admittedly a very minor thing when compared to something about Patrick's insane Nomura rant.

Well, I think it's easy to take the person who drew and created the character and blame everything on him. In reality he didn't voice those characters, he didn't write the script of what they would say or the story. He just drew a fictional character.

Nomura is only as good as the setting he is provided with and how that character is written. FFVII was clearly the high point because other than Cait Sith and Yuffie, none of the other characters were really that out of place and his art style was still fresh and new. When 8 came around we were introduced to similar hair style characters but with different hair color. I did think that the characters he drew for the Laguna sequences of the game were great though and should have been used instead of the main characters.

I look back at FFX man, and I remember there was a character that kicked balls in peoples faces man.... Wakka is the freaking Jar Jar Binks of FF.

The issue with 11,12, and 14 that your mentioning is due too the same art team that worked on FF Tactics, Vagrant Story, and FF Tactics Advance. That work was mostly done by Yoshida for the character designs who worked for Enix before the company was merged to Square-Enix.

I would like to see someone with a different taste in games on Staff too. It gets rather old hearing the guys go on and on about the same games and dismiss anything that doesn't fit into their little circle of what's cool. They will like what they like and I don't expect them to give coverage on games they have no interest in, those QL's are so terrible, but it would be nice to hear some people talk nice about different stuff then the generic blockbuster game of the month the guys like. Plus diversity leads to arguments and discussion. The podcast gets real dam old real quick when everyone at the table agrees on the same thing a majority of the time and they can't be bothered to even attempt to think about why someone would disagree.

@Zenaxzd: I'd actually agree with you about Skyrim, if anything that illustrates my point better. I can see why people would love it, it just shouldn't get the amount of praise it receives (especially as it still fails to live up to Morrowind). Same deal with Final Fantasy (although it has more obvious and glaring problems). There are still things to like there, I just don't come close to being stellar games, especially when there are things like Radiant Historia, Persona and Xenoblade out there.

Once JRPGs become generic action games like western RPGs we can talk.

@President_Barackbar: But a lot of these people aren't talking about specific games that get ignored. And no one here is saying it is breaking the site and it isn't enjoyable or useful (those people have left), we are just point out soething that we think should be improved. The arguement that we should be happy and fully approve of everything on the site or simply leave is absurd - this site is not perfect and there are many ways it could be improved and pointing them out doesn't make us blind fans of a specific genere/game or haters of the site; simply people who enjoy the site but would like it more if the opinions given were more diverse and information given more well researched. We are just making constructive criticism.

@Landon: To keep things brief, I'll use one example for each game: with Golden Sun its the unwilling hero, as Issac is implied to have some reservations about securing the Elemental stars; Persona 4 (sorry for the typo) the mascot character is Teddy; and for Tales of Symphonia, the angsty/douche companion is Kratos.

I really don't feel like typing any more shit about JRPGs.

@Hailinel: To keep things brief, I'll use one example for each game: with Golden Sun its the unwilling hero, as Issac is implied to have some reservations about recovering the Elemental stars; Persona 4 (sorry for the typo) the annoying mascot character is Teddy; and for Tales of Symphonia, the angsty/douche companion is Kratos. As for the FFs, I'd say almost every first female companion you acquire falls into the hyperactive kawaii bullshit category. Also, fucking moogles.

I really don't feel like typing any more shit about JRPGs.

@Zenaxzd:  especially when there are things like Radiant Historia, Persona and Xenoblade out there.

Edit: I messed up

@Zenaxzd: I never said Yoshida worked on 9 though, that was Amano. I forgot XI was Amano. I'm sorry.

@beeftothetaco said:

@Hailinel: Well, just about everything I mentioned in my first post: An uninspired, cookie-cutter story template (reluctant heroes that must face a world-threatening menace and eventually accept their responsibility to do so, fucking annoying mascot characters, "emotional" subplots, plus or minus dramatic sacrifice, ect ect), generic character archetypes (excitable female companions, angsty douche companion, to name a couple) and uninspired gameplay mechanics (elemental weaknesses, turn-based gameplay, some kind of powerful summon attack that's linked to the story).

You have just described Dragon Age: Origins as well, by the way. Except the mascot characters weren't "annoying" and there are no summons. But all the other points fit that game as well. If I think about it, for the most part it sounds a lot like Mass Effect, too. And just for the record, I liked those two games!

@downtime58 said:

@Hailinel said:

@downtime58 said:

If we keep this going maybe we'll break the record for longest "please validate the things I like" thread ever.

This isn't really about validation. It's about the staff being able to discuss a subject with someone that is actually knowledgeable regarding the subject and that doesn't fall back on the same tired jokes any time the subject approaches something that they don't understand. I don't really think that Giant Bomb needs a "JRPG guy," but the staff could definitely bother to do some research before making some of the assertions that they do.

As with the OP, the argument you're making has nothing to do with knowledge of the games and everything to do with ruffled feathers over making fun of the conventions of JRPG's, which is perceived as misunderstanding them by fans of the genre.

I would ask - Are you suggesting that before playing FF13 Brad needed to do his research to understand why the game was designed the way it was - or even, before they picked up Chrono Trigger for the Endurance Run that they should've studied up on JPRG history?

The answer to both questions is no, they don't. As with any game I buy, including say FF13, Shadow Hearts, Valkyrie Chronicles, etc., the game either delivers an enjoyable experience or it doesn't. I don't think having to do research prior to a playing a game speaks very strongly for it's usability.

The fact is, you really like these games - as does the OP - and I get the need for championing them. I kind of like most of them, and I kind of like lots of games, but in no way do I expect Giant Bomb to hold everything I enjoy with the same reverence that I do. If they were simply conveying incorrect facts about what the games do, then I'd see the argument, but honestly this winding thread seems pretty subjective to me.

But think about it this way:

If we lived in a world where the GB guys didn't like action games and only played a few FPS titles over the years and made all their judgments, comments and complaints based on having played Homefront, Duke Nukem Forever with some fond memories of playing Quake and Doom "back in the day", would you say that that would be equally fair or the fault of the games they (theoretically) overlooked?

I love Giant Bomb and what these guys do to differentiate the way they present content and how they choose to cover games but being a little bit more informed about an important genre (it's an essential part of gaming history ... it's not a totally weird Love+ dating sim after all) would go a long way to show their professionalism and improve their credibility when talking about gaming overall.

no

Resonance of fate 3 stars, tales of vesperia 5 stars, FF13 2 stars, FF13-2 3 stars, Monster hunter-tri japan you so crazy, star ocean: TLO 3.5 stars There ya go. My work here is done.

@hollitz said:

Resonance of fate 3 stars, tales of vesperia 5 stars, FF13 2 stars, FF13-2 3 stars, Monster hunter-tri japan you so crazy, star ocean: TLO 3.5 stars There ya go. My work here is done.

check's in the mail.

@crusader8463 said:

I would like to see someone with a different taste in games on Staff too. It gets rather old hearing the guys go on and on about the same games and dismiss anything that doesn't fit into their little circle of what's cool. They will like what they like and I don't expect them to give coverage on games they have no interest in, those QL's are so terrible, but it would be nice to hear some people talk nice about different stuff then the generic blockbuster game of the month the guys like. Plus diversity leads to arguments and discussion. The podcast gets real dam old real quick when everyone at the table agrees on the same thing a majority of the time and they can't be bothered to even attempt to think about why someone would disagree.

Well put.

@Zenaxzd: I thought it was clear I was talking about my opinion, if not I apologise for that.

I won't apologise for my comments about any of the games. I think of of the biggest problems with JRPG's is the ridiculously low standards people seem to accept. It's something we see with all fanboys, but the JRPG ones seem to take this to a whole new level. For example, I love the Monster Hunter series.. but pretending it's a perfect game with no flaws is insane, and fans react to the changing of even the slightest mechanic to mean blasphemy. The genre seems to stagnating, partially because the fans are forcing it to.

@beeftothetaco said:

@Hailinel: To keep things brief, I'll use one example for each game: with Golden Sun its the unwilling hero, as Issac is implied to have some reservations about recovering the Elemental stars; Persona 4 (sorry for the typo) the annoying mascot character is Teddy; and for Tales of Symphonia, the angsty/douche companion is Kratos. As for the FFs, I'd say almost every first female companion you acquire falls into the hyperactive kawaii bullshit category. Also, fucking moogles.

I really don't feel like typing any more shit about JRPGs.

No, you said all of those games had all of those supposed elements. I asked for examples of all from each. But even so, you're completely off-base. I didn't find Teddy annoying, for example, and please, explain to me how each of the first female characters you acquire are "hyperactive kawaiii bullshit." Because seriously.

• Final Fantasy II: Maria is hardly any of these things.
• Final Fantasy III: Refia is a tomboy and hardly hyperactive.
• Final Fantasy IV: Ryida is a nine-year-old girl who is either angry with you or mostly quiet. Rosa is a refined white mage.
• Final Fantasy V: Lenna is royalty and behaves in no such manner. Faris is a crossdressing tomboy pirate.
• Final Fantasy VI: What you suggest couldn't be further from the truth for Terra, Celes, and Relm.
• Final Fantasy VII: Once again, your description does not apply to Tifa, Aerith, or Yuffie.
• Final Fantasy VIII: This only slightly applies to Selphie, but she's not really that hyperactive.
• Final Fantasy IX: Eh, never played it, and don't know enough about the characters. I'm guessing your wrong here, too.
• Final Fantasy X: How are Yuna and Lulu "hyperactive, kawaii bullshit" again?
• Final Fantasy XII: Once again, your descriptor does not apply to Ashe, Fran, or Penelo.
• Final Fantasy XIII: The only one you could even remotely make this argument toward is Vanille, who isn't hyperactive and who matures over the course of the game.

As for Kratos from Tales of Symphonia, I can't comment because I don't know enough about him. But he couldn't possibly be any worse than that other angsty douche Kratos. Either way, I think you need to go do some research before you spout more inaccurate bullshit.

Who, specifically, could they hire that would appease JRPG fans? The grass is green, the sky is blue, and JRPG fans are hypercritical of anyone writes about JRPGs.

@beeftothetaco said:

@Landon: To keep things brief, I'll use one example for each game: with Golden Sun its the unwilling hero, as Issac is implied to have some reservations about securing the Elemental stars; Persona 4 (sorry for the typo) the mascot character is Teddy; and for Tales of Symphonia, the angsty/douche companion is Kratos.

I really don't feel like typing any more shit about JRPGs.

Issac is a silent protagonist. You can say yes or no to multiple things, and you can make him be fully willing to go searching for the elemental stars.

I don't understand what you mean by Teddy is a mascot character. He goes through changes (literally and metaphorically) throughout the game about who he is, where he came from, and what his goal in life should be. He makes friends and eventually fights with you and becomes a much deeper than just a cute bear who makes bear puns. This is just an example of you immediately seeing him and judging.

And Kratos isn't an angsty/douche companion. He's a quiet mercenary who later reveals himself to be a powerful angel. He becomes a bit of a father figure to Lloyd and gives him someone to look up to before his betrayal.

Yep, none of the people you mentioned fit your descriptions. Maybe you should play a bit more of these games before you just go and judge the entire thing.

@Landon said:

@beeftothetaco said:

@Landon: To keep things brief, I'll use one example for each game: with Golden Sun its the unwilling hero, as Issac is implied to have some reservations about securing the Elemental stars; Persona 4 (sorry for the typo) the mascot character is Teddy; and for Tales of Symphonia, the angsty/douche companion is Kratos.

I really don't feel like typing any more shit about JRPGs.

Issac is a silent protagonist. You can say yes or no to multiple things, and you can make him be fully willing to go searching for the elemental stars.

I made my Isaac always say "no" to everything or chose the ignorant option so the other characters would get mad at him. so dumb ... I loved it :D

I would have to agree i really like this site and the crew but i can't consider being a paying member of this site when they don't cover a good portion of the games i play. Even some of the games they quick look or cover that don't have any worthwhile knowledge of the series or game they cover, not even on a basic level. So in turn i don't really consider giant bomb as a serious review site. I mainly think of giant bomb as a video game entertainment site with the crew giving their opinion on games.

Now that may be a bit harsh because for the most part they give sound reviews and there are worse places you can go, but it still stand that i feel there will always be a fine level of bias when it comes to what they like and cover. Now if its about giant bomb's bottom line i think their would be a good amount of people who would jump on as a paying member if they knew the games they liked would be covered more.

@Hailinel said:

@beeftothetaco said:

@Hailinel: To keep things brief, I'll use one example for each game: with Golden Sun its the unwilling hero, as Issac is implied to have some reservations about recovering the Elemental stars; Persona 4 (sorry for the typo) the annoying mascot character is Teddy; and for Tales of Symphonia, the angsty/douche companion is Kratos. As for the FFs, I'd say almost every first female companion you acquire falls into the hyperactive kawaii bullshit category. Also, fucking moogles.

I really don't feel like typing any more shit about JRPGs.

No, you said all of those games had all of those supposed elements. I asked for examples of all from each. But even so, you're completely off-base. I didn't find Teddy annoying, for example, and please, explain to me how each of the first female characters you acquire are "hyperactive kawaiii bullshit." Because seriously.

• Final Fantasy II: Maria is hardly any of these things.
• Final Fantasy III: Refia is a tomboy and hardly hyperactive.
• Final Fantasy IV: Ryida is a nine-year-old girl who is either angry with you or mostly quiet. Rosa is a refined white mage.
• Final Fantasy V: Lenna is royalty and behaves in no such manner. Faris is a crossdressing tomboy pirate.
• Final Fantasy VI: What you suggest couldn't be further from the truth for Terra, Celes, and Relm.
• Final Fantasy VII: Once again, your description does not apply to Tifa, Aerith, or Yuffie.
• Final Fantasy VIII: This only slightly applies to Selphie, but she's not really that hyperactive.
• Final Fantasy IX: Eh, never played it, and don't know enough about the characters. I'm guessing your wrong here, too.
• Final Fantasy X: How are Yuna and Lulu "hyperactive, kawaii bullshit" again?
• Final Fantasy XII: Once again, your descriptor does not apply to Ashe, Fran, or Penelo.
• Final Fantasy XIII: The only one you could even remotely make this argument toward is Vanille, who isn't hyperactive and who matures over the course of the game.

As for Kratos from Tales of Symphonia, I can't comment because I don't know enough about him. But he couldn't possibly be any worse than that other angsty douche Kratos. Either way, I think you need to go do some research before you spout more inaccurate bullshit.

I used one example of each because, unlike you, apparently, I have better things to do with my spare time than fight about games that I don't like with complete strangers. And nice FF fact sheet. It looks like you spent a lot of time studying that shit. Forgive me if I can't remember EVERY personality trait of the characters from the 4+ games I've played of a series that I dislike.

The only thing I agree with is the bit about Kratos. He's a douche too.

@Landon said:

I don't understand what you mean by Teddy is a mascot character. He goes through changes (literally and metaphorically) throughout the game about who he is, where he came from, and what his goal in life should be. He makes friends and eventually fights with you and becomes a much deeper than just a cute bear who makes bear puns. This is just an example of you immediately seeing him and judging.

And Kratos isn't an angsty/douche companion. He's a quiet mercenary who later reveals himself to be a powerful angel. He becomes a bit of a father figure to Lloyd and gives him someone to look up to before his betrayal.

LOL. I could also call Hitler a "passionate leader whose only intention was to salvage his country from a crippling depression." It's all in the wording. Also, look up the definitions of "mascot characters". It should be floating around somewhere on the web. Teddy IS a mascot character, and goes through a cookie-cutter character progression that countless mascot (or otherwise) characters before him have in anime and JRPGS. Again, I could argue about this shit all day, but in the end I can't change your opinion, nor can you change mine.

@beeftothetaco said:

@Landon said:

I don't understand what you mean by Teddie is a mascot character. He goes through changes (literally and metaphorically) throughout the game about who he is, where he came from, and what his goal in life should be. He makes friends and eventually fights with you and becomes a much deeper than just a cute bear who makes bear puns. This is just an example of you immediately seeing him and judging.

And Kratos isn't an angsty/douche companion. He's a quiet mercenary who later reveals himself to be a powerful angel. He becomes a bit of a father figure to Lloyd and gives him someone to look up to before his betrayal.

LOL. I could also call Hitler a "passionate leader whose only intention was to salvage his country from a crippling depression." It's all in the wording. Also, look up the definitions of "mascot characters". It should be floating around somewhere on the web. Teddy IS a mascot character, and goes through a cookie-cutter character progression that countless mascot (or otherwise) characters before him have in anime and JRPGS. Again, I could argue about this shit all day, but in the end I can't change your opinion, nor can you change mine.

Yeah, Teddie is a cookie cutter character. He was a lost and lonely, he had no idea where he came from or even what he was. He was a hollow shell that had no use until the investigation team came along. Eventually his shadow showed up, which was much smarter than any of the previous ones and immediatly attacked the group instead of waiting for Teddie to reject it. When they beat it he deflated want, from wanted to become stronger, grew himself a body (totally seen that a million times). Teddie became the comic relief of the group, and befriended Nanako whom he saw himself in (they were both lonely).

Teddie goes further than being a simple mascot character. He'd kindhearted and the funniest character in the game. He's very well written which is only helped by the suburb voice acting.

Try again

Edit: On second thought, don't try again. All of your arguments come down to "I don't like JRPGs because of reasons A B and C, here are games I barley played to prove said points".

I'm not saying a lot of JRPGs fall into those traps, but making blanket statements like "THEY ALL DO!!!" isn't true.

I'd so love to fill that position. But I agree they tend to dimiss anything JRPG and sometimes just Japanese in general. To be fair though, the whole industry has been doing that. Japan doesn't get the respect it deserves anymore. People act like the West puts out nothing but hits and Japan just drops duds and that couldn't be further from the truth.

@beeftothetaco said:

@Hailinel said:

@beeftothetaco said:

@Hailinel: To keep things brief, I'll use one example for each game: with Golden Sun its the unwilling hero, as Issac is implied to have some reservations about recovering the Elemental stars; Persona 4 (sorry for the typo) the annoying mascot character is Teddy; and for Tales of Symphonia, the angsty/douche companion is Kratos. As for the FFs, I'd say almost every first female companion you acquire falls into the hyperactive kawaii bullshit category. Also, fucking moogles.

I really don't feel like typing any more shit about JRPGs.

No, you said all of those games had all of those supposed elements. I asked for examples of all from each. But even so, you're completely off-base. I didn't find Teddy annoying, for example, and please, explain to me how each of the first female characters you acquire are "hyperactive kawaiii bullshit." Because seriously.

• Final Fantasy II: Maria is hardly any of these things.
• Final Fantasy III: Refia is a tomboy and hardly hyperactive.
• Final Fantasy IV: Ryida is a nine-year-old girl who is either angry with you or mostly quiet. Rosa is a refined white mage.
• Final Fantasy V: Lenna is royalty and behaves in no such manner. Faris is a crossdressing tomboy pirate.
• Final Fantasy VI: What you suggest couldn't be further from the truth for Terra, Celes, and Relm.
• Final Fantasy VII: Once again, your description does not apply to Tifa, Aerith, or Yuffie.
• Final Fantasy VIII: This only slightly applies to Selphie, but she's not really that hyperactive.
• Final Fantasy IX: Eh, never played it, and don't know enough about the characters. I'm guessing your wrong here, too.
• Final Fantasy X: How are Yuna and Lulu "hyperactive, kawaii bullshit" again?
• Final Fantasy XII: Once again, your descriptor does not apply to Ashe, Fran, or Penelo.
• Final Fantasy XIII: The only one you could even remotely make this argument toward is Vanille, who isn't hyperactive and who matures over the course of the game.

As for Kratos from Tales of Symphonia, I can't comment because I don't know enough about him. But he couldn't possibly be any worse than that other angsty douche Kratos. Either way, I think you need to go do some research before you spout more inaccurate bullshit.

I used one example of each because, unlike you, apparently, I have better things to do with my spare time than fight about games that I don't like with complete strangers. And nice FF fact sheet. It looks like you spent a lot of time studying that shit. Forgive me if I can't remember EVERY personality trait of the characters from the 4+ games I've played of a series that I dislike.

The only thing I agree with is the bit about Kratos. He's a douche too.

You said every game you mentioned had every trait. I proved you wrong in one fell swoop. That you're either unwilling or incapable of collecting the proper evidence to support your claim is not my problem. And no, it didn't take me a lot of time to study this. I was able to rattle it off because of my familiarity with the series overall, which you do not have.

@Landon: And you are getting into specifics. Look at his character progression from a broader perspective. I'd be willing to bet that wherever I put an "X", 1/3 of JRPG/anime characters would be applicable. X has a mysterious past. X was a drifter/had no ambition until the protagonists found him. X is the comedy relief of the group. X has a catchphrase that is used frequently. X is usually not involved in conflict until confronted by an almost tailor-made foe that reveals something about themselves that they did not know about know about (be it indirectly or directly.) I don't know what the fuck you are trying to say near the end about the deflated want or some shit. But X wanting to be taken seriously/contribute to the group effort is pretty damn common, I would say.

So, in summary, Teddy has a mysterious past, is the comic relief of the group, is only (at first) directly involved in conflict when the particular foe opposes the protagonists, has an annoying catchphrase, and eventually has a change of character later in the story. Yeah, that's original alright. With your logic, one could entertain a similar notion that CoD MW3 has a completely different plotline from a game like BF3.

Also, don't bother replying to this. Judging by your profile picture there, I figure that this argument has the potential to drag for an extended period. I have no interest in that.

@TheHumanDove said:

No, he'd be awkward and sweat a lot

this.

lol

@beeftothetaco said:

Also, don't bother replying to this. Judging by your profile picture there, I figure that this argument has the potential to drag for an extended period. I have no interest in that.

That's the most idiotic way to judge someone.

@buzz_clik said:

Without trying to divert traffic (and potential revenue) away from one of my favourite sites on the internet, aren't there other places you can go to get what you would consider a valid viewpoint on any JRPG you're interested in? Maybe it's just not what Giant Bomb wants to be about. And if it is what Giant Bomb wants to be about at some point, why not try those other sites in the interim?

Super valid point here. I think the reason people are opposed to this is the same reason I am: I'm lazy. I think it is more of a convenience thing than anything else. A lot of people use GB as their only source because, for the most part, you can get opinions an insight on almost every genre, with sports and JRPGs being the only ones seriously left out. Alex covers sports, but he is not on the bombcast. It would just be kind of nice to have someone give opinions on how one JRPG differs from others, and if it is worth it for the people who are a fan of the genre. We can't change their interests and opinions, and forcing them to talk about something they don't care about would be pointless. But posting here and hoping someone will magically appear and appease us is much less work than trying to find another site/personality to invest in that has good perspectives on the quality of JRPGs. I think it'd be nice to have someone, but I am exceptionally lazy, so it doesn't personally really bother me much. I just think this is the general line of thought for people who ask for it.