I hate the story progression/structure of WRPG's

[videogamestashbox.com]

Me and my cousin would always talk about this but I never really put it out there in the ether before.

Formal Complaint:
Of the Western rpg games I've played I'm looking mainly at the Elder scrolls & Fallout line of entries. The best way I can put it is that there isn't any real driving force to the story.
It just never feels like anything is going on in terms of a cohesive overarching line of events. Just a big'ol side mission festival


Now to be fair:
They are obviously designed to be that way and alot of it could be an issue with my expectations more so then execution of WRPG's. If you have an active imagination and spin your own personal tale within the sand box they give you then you can get a lot of mileage out of them(which is how I play them).

Conclusion:
WRPG's feel like they give you a world in a particular state, while other games feel like they give you a world in a particular state ...that's also under some process. I don't want the world to feel like it's waiting in stasis for me to poke around in it. If you have no imagination and don't care for stealing a pair of rusty scissors from a random NPC then I can see those games being mad boring.
.........................

 

[Fatboi1]

This is basically a common attribute of open world games. They never feel urgent as opposed to non open world games.

 

[el_oh_el]

This is basically a common attribute of open world games. They never feel urgent as opposed to non open world games.

Westerners are always geared to games being a bit more realistic. Story progression in real life is more closely emulated in WRPGs than Eastern

 

[CarltonJunior]

Well most WRPGs we play and associate the term with are made by Bioware or Bethesda, with a few exceptions (CD Projekt Red comes to mind). Those two literally have the same story structure and style of game but just updated through the years, so I think it's natural that they feel like this. They've been doing the WRPG so long that their games are what you think of when people say "WRPG"

That being said there's other games that are WRPGs that don't adhere to this, something like a Undertale or even Borderlands comes to mind. So my point is, be more specific on what you call a WRPG.

 

[Fatboi1]

Westerners are always geared to games being a bit more realistic. Story progression in real life is more closely emulated in WRPGs than Eastern

It's not necessarily the progression i'm getting at, more so the pacing and story being delivered in a more urgent matter where games(Open world ones) tend to falter at times. Too much player choice and freedom kind of makes the story feel secondary to the game itself.

Like recently I was playing MGSV and the last mission I did something crazy happened and the mission ended with a cutscene and things naturally should've just progressed on but the open world, mission structure of the game made for a jarring transition.

The game just went back to the player sitting in the chopper with the usual mission select screen of which you can just continue on a side mission or w/e despite the "story" showing something that would make this scenario unrealistic.

JRPGS give you that freedom and whatnot usually but the way the game is designed they usually give you that space and off beat moment when the story reaches there. If something serious is happening, it won't "end" as the game just flows naturally whereas a WRPG usually is structured mission wise.

 

[Dwolf]

It's not necessarily the progression i'm getting at, more so the pacing and story being delivered in a more urgent matter where games(Open world ones) tend to falter at times. Too much player choice and freedom kind of makes the story feel second to the game.

Like recently I was playing MGSV and the last mission I did something crazy happened and the mission ended with a cutscene and things naturally should've just progressed on but the open world, mission structure of the game made for a jarring transition.

The game just went back to the player sitting in the chopper with the usual mission select screen of which you can just continue on a side mission or w/e despite the "story" showing something that would make this scenario unrealistic.

JRPGS give you that freedom and whatnot usually but the way the game is designed they usually give you that space and off beat moment when the story reaches there. If something serious is happening, it won't "end" as the game just flows naturally whereas a WRPG usually is structured mission wise.

MGSV isnt a RPG.

 

[Fatboi1]

MGSV isnt a RPG.

It's funny because technically it isn't but you could basically say it is if you really just look at it how is.

It had pretty WRPG like features(EXP, missions, open world, side quests, grinding etc.)

 

[CarltonJunior]

It's funny because technically it isn't but you could basically say it is if you really just look at it how is.

It had pretty WRPG like features(EXP, missions, open world, side quests, grinding etc.)

It's made by the japanese, and MGS is known for being so convoluted that it doesn't make sense.

This is what I was talking about when I said you need to change your idea of what a WRPG is and be more objective

 

[Fatboi1]

It's made by the japanese, and MGS is known for being so convoluted that it doesn't make sense.

This is what I was talking about when I said you need to change your idea of what a WRPG is and be more objective

Okay. Replace MGSV and a few words in my post with Fallout 4 and my point still is the same. The "story" starts off seriously but the way the game is structured, the story isn't really "important" due to the way the game plays. I don't play that type of game for the story though.

A game like Mass Effect 2 though seems to have done it right as the story seems to flow naturally without having serious beats and or moments where you can just go do w/e while something serious is happening in the background.

 

[CarltonJunior]

Okay. Replace MGSV and a few words in my post with Fallout 4 and my point still is the same. The "story" starts off seriously but the way the game is structured, the story isn't really "important" due to the way the game plays. I don't play that type of game for the story though.

A game like Mass Effect 2 though seems to have done it right as the story seems to flow naturally without having serious beats and or moments where you can just go do w/e while something serious is happening in the background.

That's mostly on the developer's end. This thread's premise is geared more towards Bethesda games. They're some of the only WRPG's that really feel like that.

Bioware's games have a trope where basically you have to do 1 main quest -> 3 side quests -> 1 main quests -> 3 side quests -> 1 main quest -> final mission. The developers are the ones doing that shyt, it's not a genre trope. That's the point I'm trying to make. Bioware, Bethesda, Projekt Red have been putting the same story structure/engines in their games for 10+ years so it feels like all WRPGs are one way to you because you mostly play their games

 

[videogamestashbox.com]

Well most WRPGs we play and associate the term with are made by Bioware or Bethesda, with a few exceptions (CD Projekt Red comes to mind). Those two literally have the same story structure and style of game but just updated through the years, so I think it's natural that they feel like this. They've been doing the WRPG so long that their games are what you think of when people say "WRPG"

That being said there's other games that are WRPGs that don't adhere to this, something like a Undertale or even Borderlands comes to mind. So my point is, be more specific on what you call a WRPG.

Actually I was very specific...

Formal Complaint:
Of the Western rpg games I've played I'm looking mainly at the Elder scrolls & Fallout line of entries. The best way I can put it is that there isn't any real driving force to the story.
It just never feels like anything is going on in terms of a cohesive overarching line of events. Just a big'ol side mission festival

As a matter a fact I stated that explicitly because as soon as I typed it I thought of Bulders gate, Ice windale, diablo, etc so I wanted to be specific.
Side note: Diablo 1 was so fukking It's just how they got to Diablo 3

 

[CarltonJunior]

Actually I was very specific...


As a matter a fact I stated that explicitly because as soon as I typed it I thought of Bulders gate, Ice windale, diablo, etc so I wanted to be specific.
Side note: Diablo 1 was so fukking I don't know how they got to Diablo 3

The thread states "WRPGs" and so that places other games that don't fit into this umbrella. Elder Scrolls and Fallout are made by Bethesda, so you should have said "I hate the story progression structure of Bethesda games"

 

[videogamestashbox.com]

That's mostly on the developer's end. This thread's premise is geared more towards Bethesda games. They're some of the only WRPG's that really feel like that.

Bioware's games have a trope where basically you have to do 1 main quest -> 3 side quests -> 1 main quests -> 3 side quests -> 1 main quest -> final mission. The developers are the ones doing that shyt, it's not a genre trope. That's the point I'm trying to make. Bioware, Bethesda, Projekt Red have been putting the same story structure/engines in their games for 10+ years so it feels like all WRPGs are one way to you because you mostly play their games

I agree but that is a moot point in so much that, that particular truth was already accounted for in the initial post

Looking at it from an attribute stand point (a,b,c,x,y,z) there is going to be some subset of attributes common to lots ..even all games. Given some subset ( , , , ,y,z) of attributes common to certain games, if there is no formal designation/terminology for them exclusively all you can do is explicitly name the games you're talking about.

Which I did in the original post.

We all agree that not all WRPG's(Role Playing Games made by western developers) play like that. Partly because alot of games share the same gameplay attributes anyway. but there is no term explicitly for those types of WRPG's so I explicitly stated which I was referring to

 

[videogamestashbox.com]

The thread states "WRPGs" and so that places other games that don't fit into this umbrella. Elder Scrolls and Fallout are made by Bethesda, so you should have said "I hate the story progression structure of Bethesda games"

I can smoke a "bag a dat" as a suggestion....
Though I still wouldn't use that title because I don't won't to explicitly limit myself to those games, because as stated above it's an issue in games outside of those Bethesda titles.

Formal Complaint:
Of the Western rpg games I've played I'm looking mainly at the Elder scrolls & Fallout line of entries. The best way I can put it is that there isn't any real driving force to the story.
It just never feels like anything is going on in terms of a cohesive overarching line of events. Just a big'ol side mission festival

**not exclusively**
It just so happens that those are some of the most egregious offenders and showcases for that design style.

 

[videogamestashbox.com]

This is basically a common attribute of open world games. They never feel urgent as opposed to non open world games.

Agreed