|
"There are two types of RPGs; It's not Eastern and Western, but it's pretty close"
For the longest time, the difference between "Eastern" and "Western" RPGs has been argued and debated upon. Occasioanlly, a "Western" RPG fan will criticize "Eastern" RPGs for not being true RPGs as they do not play a role and cannot exercise control over their character. Conversely, "Eastern" RPG fans will criticize "Western" RPGs for having too little depth and development leading to a very shallow main character, and occasionally, plot, owing to the inability of the developer to control the player experience because of the flexibility given to the player.
In particular, I dislike the former criticism for dismissing an entire category of RPGs because of a misunderstanding of the term RPG. Of course, were I to argue or debate on the definition of an RPG, we would get nowhere ("MARIO IS AN RPG CAUSE YOU PLAY AS MARIO" is something we'd all rather not hear). Instead, let me first lay down that RPGs can only be vaguely defined as a game having sufficient RPG elements to be considered one.
The purpose of my editorial is to give my input as well as introduce the world (if it isn't already widely used) my two personal classifications of RPGs. "Eastern" and "Western" is, in my opinion, a very bad way of describing RPGs. While it currently gets the point across, the use of regions to define the categories (which incidentally have nothing to do with the region aside from the predominance of the category of RPGs from that region) is less than pleasant. And what would you call an RPG that allows massive customization from Japan or an RPG from America that has its character and storyline perfectly defined anyway?
A Role-Playing Game is one that you play a role in. Not telling very much, but follow me on this. In both "Eastern" and "Western" RPGs, you play a "role" though in different manners. In what is currently known as "Western" RPGs, you play a role of a character you imagine up and craft, and you control his every action, essentially taking complete control of and playing the role of the character that you create. You play out the role by exercising control over his development and choices; this flexibility is what these "Western" RPGs are famous for, the freedom of truly becoming and playing your own character. Some would consider this to be the purer form of RPGs, I'm about to rebut that; neither form is purer.
In the case of the current categorization of "Eastern" RPGs, you still play a role, albeit differently. Instead of playing the role of someone you create, you play the role that the developer has created for you. You take on and step into the shoes of your main character, and explore and play as who this hero is. You lose your freedom, but your path and journey has been completely defined, and you play into the role crafted for you. This is in no way inferior to "Western" RPGs, just different; the roles in this case can be seen to that of one in a performance, where the role you play is completely defined, and you cannot just choose to change the story of your character however you want. Similarly, your character will do as he has been designed to do by the developers, and you as the player enjoy the journey playing as him.
Because of an increasing number of developers from either region developing RPGs of the other category, I find it increasingly inappropriate to call them "Eastern" and "Western" RPGs. "Console" RPGs and "PC" RPGs doesn't cut it either, since the merging of the two systems and cross-platform porting both contribute to the wearing down of the line separating these two.
Not to mention that both RPGs are also crossing into each others' boundaries. "Eastern" RPGs are getting more customization; "Western" RPGs get more defined storylines and plots. The ideal player experience is likely to be the middle-ground anyway: enough customization to allow the player to exercise freedom, and sufficiently defined scenarios to ensure the player's quest/journey has direction.
However, one has to recognize at the same time that the cultural differences between both categories extends far more than just the gameplay. The style of design and focus of the RPGs from each camp also differ largely.
Hence, the question remains should titles of "Eastern" and "Western" RPGs remain, for their convenience and simplicity, or should a new title be given to each in light of the maturity of RPGs?
What do you think?
|
RSS feed
iTunes