Think of your favorite game.
Got it? Are you sure? Now remove all cutscenes and other explicit elements of story. Is it still good? If not, then I hate to break it to you but it barely qualifies as a game. Sorry, you have shit taste!
>not every game is made for gameplay
there's a reason we make fun of weebshit nerd
Ace Combat Zero.
I guess the aerial combat and such would still be fun, but the story and atmosphere that give context to the fighting is what makes the game so good (and it's the reason why the final boss is one of the hypest in the history of vidya).
>always skipped the cutscenes anyway
if i wanted a story i'd watch a movie lol
>Jagged Alliance 2
Really, losing a few minutes of Elliott getting slapped around throughout the campaign is absolutely nothing.
Well, unless voice acting constitutes story. That's actually a large part of the game's charm.
I was going to argue your point for fun OP, but I realized that my own "side" of the argument is just agreeing with you. So I guess, I will just leave my blurb here.
A game should be good on the merits of its gameplay. While story can certainly enhance a game, it is by no means a substitute. and it certainly can't save a bad game from being bad.
But it doesn't. The only thing it has going for it is its plot.
It's a hamfisted shooter. The stealth is incredibly primitive. There's really nothing more to it than that, apart from a compelling and flexible plotline.
No cutscenes whatsoever and there is basically no story. Just "Go inside here, solve puzzles, kill God, the end."
Still my favorite game.
I'd really miss the cutscenes since my favorite character is Waka. I find story to be a really important element in what I consider an amazing video game, so there's also that.
>Sonic 3 & Knuckles
>Streets of Rage 2
>Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door
Still... Like, 50% good.
>Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines
Alpha Centauri. I don't think it would have been as good without the scenes from Baraka, lore, or the story that goes along in the background.
So you didn't know jrpgs had gameplay? Are you a fool? Do you think players have fun in those secret dungeons because of the story? Did you not think the proper management of a party required no involvement? Do you honestly fucking believe there was more satisfaction in the jrpg story than defeating the hidden bosses?
Your a fool, and it shows.
>Etrian Odyssey III
There's like nothing to remove
it doesn't need cutscenes
an incomprehensible mess
untouched - meaning the greatest game of all time
untouched - meaning a fucking mess
>Oddworld: Abe's Oddysee
>no cutscenes or story explanation
Without cutscenes it would probably just look like a story of a blue nigger trying to break into a KFC factory, escaping because the security was too high, getting some lightning magic, and then blows it up.
Still a good ame
Ah, I get it. I've read the Nihon Shoki and the Kojiki, so most of the time I was like: "Yeah, I know that guy."
Waka was fun, I wonder if they actually made him try to recite waka (and fail) in the original.
>favorite sports game
Ive played to many games to have 1 favorite
shit is still cash
guitar hero is my favorite game
Arenas, dungeons, trading, trotmobile customizing, part-creating, mining, and comfy exploring. Still my favorite game.
inb4 1996 called
And althought the game is great (but obviously outdated) the intro was the best part of the game, so idk how it would turn out with it.
You had a lot of creativity in the combat with all the stupid spells and combinations you could use them in. The addition of movement to a turn based combat also gives more approaches to it. When you get to Throne of Bhaal this becomes insane. The quests were good because a lot of them were interesting, not including "find x item I lost in the woods" and took you to new locations. There were also quests with different outcomes and ways to handle them, but they're mostly in the city.
>S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Shadow of Chernobyl
Yup, it's still gr8 m8
This wemb is from CoP though
> Monster Hunter
Aaaaand nothing of value is lost.
i would love for sega to do a 3d world styled sonic game with level design closer to the original games instead of these long boost mode corkscrews and springs. in other words, i want a sonic game that has actual level design rather then a slightly interactive cutscene that plays itself.
I rectify, this is the BEST INTRO EVER in the history of videoames
MHFU is my favorite game
I hope the quest babes don't count as story.
but still its gr8 m8
you "literally" changed nothing, In-fact you probably made a better game. I can't skip cut scenes on sonic adventure on the dreamcast.
So now the whole game is skirmish mode?
Eh. It's okay. At least the characters should still retain their personalities.
Isara never dies
I... I think I'd actually prefer that version.
Setting and design are elements of story too anon. If you remove all elements you would have to remove any cohesive design that could lead to inference of story. For instance metal slug's story is you are on a team of agents who protect the world from various shit, aliens and old warmongering enemies. Even if it doesn't say outright "this is the story" it still has one. If you removed all of that you would be left with a game that didn't resemble the original game at all, at least in graphics, setting, and possibly even combat.
Are you one of those people who never got out of their "concrete" phase of thinking and believe any game where you can shoot the first person you see is a first person shooter? Or that every game is an RPG because you play a role in it? Or that any game with lots of shooting is a shoot em up?
a lot of fun dialogue and fun cutscene would lack but gameplay itself could easily be a standalone thing by itself.
and who gives a fuck what the nigger in the radio shouts in ebonics anyway?
>Gaining more time to play since you don't care anyway
>no more unskipable loading screens
No, I'm one of those people who prefers to keep genre distinctions simple. As soon as you start needlessly adding one trait or another to a genre, you run into tons of overlap, and you quickly reach a point where genres as a descriptor become useless. Moreso in games than in perhaps any other medium.
So, let's keep it fundamental. If it's an RPG and its Japanese, it's a JRPG. Nothing more or less needs to be added to the definition of a JRPG. I'm not arguing that Ys isn't also an action RPG. But I see no reason to deny its status a JRPG.
So you are saying, you want to keep JRPG from being a useless descriptor, by keeping it applying to as wide a range of things with no commonality between them instead of narrowing it to a specific subset of games?
Brilliant plan anon.
I liked the chase bits with the evil ninja police men. Hated being chased while shot at though. I hope Mirror's Edge 2: The Rise of Faith has unscripted chasing and fleeing across the city.
This is correct. Not only JRPGs but RPGs in general have terrible gameplay and expect to make it up with characters/story/setting etc; if any of those suck then even if the gameplay is good, it has failed as an RPG.
I know it's a shit game, but I still love it to death.
If it's any consolation, my second favorite game is Q3A which is technically a "good game" by OP's standards.
>armored core for answer
wait, the game had a story?
>Every single game within any subgenre of one of the largest genres of games that is ever made in japan, the second largest regonal producer of games for decades
Yep, such a small field I can see why you wouldn't want that to be more specific than it already is.
The only cutscenes are the opening and ending.
Removing all story elements makes no sense since it's gameplay.
Because usually specific implies a small group, if not a singular because a large amount of things usually doesn't fall under a specific category. While it is true that my word choice was poor, but this is not an argument of semantics. Let me point out your original statement.
>No, I'm one of those people who prefers to keep genre distinctions simple. As soon as you start needlessly adding one trait or another to a genre, you run into tons of overlap, and you quickly reach a point where genres as a descriptor become useless. Moreso in games than in perhaps any other medium.
You explicitly expressed that you did NOT wish for there to be a lot of overlap. However the term you defend causes a huge amount of overlap, every single game made in japan in any of the subgenres of RPG. This is a totally pointless and underwent term, and even you think that such things are bad. Why you would want a genre that denotes nothing about the game instead of one that actually applies to only a specific subset, when your own statements say otherwise, I cannot fathom.
Am I too late to the thread to say tf2?
>inb4 people still play this xd
It seems I misled you, and for that I apologize.
Ultimately, people are going to form their own perception of a game once a genre is applied to it. You tell them its a JRPG, they'll probably assume there's leveling in and it's about saving the world. That perception will be at least slightly different from person to person; I see no reason to standardize it, because that becomes an excuse to use genre descriptors as a replacement for actually describing the game.
But we've gotten away from the origin of this argument, which is explaining to me why Ys is not a JRPG. There are only three conditions under which it would not be a JRPG:
1) It is not an RPG
2) It is not Japanese
3) JRPG means more than simply "Japanese RPG"
If you want to argue 1), I'll happily accept as I'm not interested in turning this into a debate about what makes a game an RPG. 2) is patently false. 3) is also false, from a purely linguistic point of view.
I don't have a favorite game per se but cave story is one of a few games that have a special place in my heart.
And yeah, it would lose a lot of charm but it would still be a damn good game.
That part made me drop the game
>Ragtag group of soldiers become like family
>Win battle after battle through superior tactics
>Don't clear the area or even set up a fucking perimeter after capturing enemy stronghold
Isara didn't deserve that. Why couldn't they kill Rosie? Racist bitch had it coming
Less charming, still good
Perhaps you are right that there is no standard, but I also don't believe in using JRPG in the literal sense, because as a literal descriptor it is entirely pointless and tells you nothing about the style of the game. Ideally JRPG as a term should be thrown out entirely and only used informally, but I suppose that's not going to happen.
As for the rest, I do not consider most aRPGs to be RPGs at all, despite the fact that they are classified as a subset RPGs, and that is not simply because I believe all RPGs must have traditional roleplaying, but that aRPGs (and most RPG subsets) don't contain roleplaying in even the traditional gameplay view.
But both of these arguments are ones for another time because I simply don't know if I have the presence of mind to follow through with it right now.
>3) JRPG means more than simply "Japanese RPG"
I'm not the anon you're responding to and I've never played Ys, but I would certainly argue for point 3. The term "JRPG" is generally associated with a specific subgenre of RPGs which originated in Japan.
The way I see it is analogous to ethnic foods. Not many would suggest that Chinese food literally means food that was made in China.
You can eat Chinese food at a Chinese restaurant anywhere in the world.
You can order a cheeseburger at a McDonald's in China. I would not consider that eating Chinese food.
In other words, "Chinese food" refers to a style of cuisine that originated and is associated with China. And I consider "JRPG" to refer to a style of role-playing game that originated in and is associated with Japan.
I know it's bait.
I'm going to respond to it anyways.
A game doesn't necessarily need to have story to be considered a game. Now, as we probably all know, the elements of games, such as play, rules, and competition, all fail to adequately define what games wholly are. Therefore, I'm going to speak my opinion, and have the reader take this at either face value or understand it on another level. It's the way you interpret what I write, not what I'm trying to get across. Remember that.
Games do not necessarily have to have overpowering story, with deep lore to be classified as a game. A game of chess, or cards is only that, a simple game of wit or counting. Video games can have that same aspect; a video game can have the only purpose to exist be for gameplay and gameplay solely.
Although a game like that could be considered good by some people, other people may argue that a game like that isn't "interesting", while the other side may retort the 'mechanics' of the game are the interesting part. Both sides are correct, as these things are relative.
A game may have itself based entirely around story, and the mechanics lacking (as you might say, a game like "Gone Home", which isn't particularly a game in anyone here's opinion). Gone Home, or games like Gone Home, are technically still games. They have a story that they provide, and there is a win-condition that brings you to the credits and thereby to the end-screen or whatnot.
CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
Having an equal balance of gameplay and story doesn't particularly make a game fantastic, either. The story could be written choppily, without much cohesion to itself, and the gameplay may have a load of bugs, glitches, and other errors. It also may feel clunky, and non-entertaining to play. This all equates to the game being considered awful by the general people.
My entire point here-- with evidence in the previous paragraphs of information, is that games don't have to be entirely based around gameplay to be considered a good game. As long as a game has basic mechanics that work decently, and provide the user with enough entertainment, and as long as those mechanics actually exist, the game can be classified as a game, possibly even a good one.
There's also opportunities to mix in story with gameplay, with cutscenes not restricting movement of the player, or something like Marathon, with information terminals.
I guess we'll never know why the PS3 has no games.
> Not many would suggest that Chinese food literally means food that was made in China.
No, but they would suggest that Chinese food literally means food that *originated* in China.
Just like I would suggest that a JRPG is simply an RPG that originated in Japan.
Though really I'm not that comfortable with the food analogy. There's way more that goes into the culture of food than *anything* related to videogames.