As for the Japanese market, if we are to consider Square-Enix specifically, since it is the developer that has been called into question, then it's untrue to say the Japanese market is in decline when just about every single title developed by Square-Enix has produced sales that have been relatively consistent since X. It's true that both IU (although not developed by SE) and LR haven't sold as well as previous SE titles like FFXII and FFX, but the figures are convoluted by the fact that the 360 is not a popular console choice of the population. Also good to note is that virtually all SE titles have done significantly better in Japan than in North America. This is astounding when you consider that America alone more than doubles the population of Japan. And because sales have remained consistent for SE since they debuted X on the PS2, no doubt this does not make this 'need' for change as drastic as many here in the West claim JRPGs need. Again, I'm not saying JRPGs don't need to improve, because they do, but if we're discussing the Japanese market when it comes to JRPGs, I hardly recognize a decline.

I won't deny my article is aggressive, but I don't think that 'defines' the notion that I felt JRPG didn't need to change. Not once in my entire article did I say "JRPGs don't need fixing", nor once did I explicitly say "JRPGs are better than WRPGs". Rather, I used words like 'irrelevant' or 'untrue' in the context of the points they said. I am very welcome to people criticizing the JRPG genre, but use points that make sense. You sir, have done such a thing when you referenced COD4's campaign as an example. They did not.

As well, I don't see how my article has done disservice to my argument–which was to dismiss the points of justification brought forth by Erik and Hilary–simply by being 'aggressive'. I feel that I certainly did dismiss their points, and I don't think me being any 'kinder' about it wouldn't have changed any of the facts I brought forth.

And I thank you for taking the 'premise' of the IGN article and formulating a far better rounded argument that supports why JRPGs need to change.

Sure, I understand your correction of non-linear, but I still believe the intricacy of the storytelling suffered as a result. When I compare the cinematic presentation of MGS4 in comparison to Mass Effect's, this toll becomes obvious. But I'll agree that judgment of how well a story is told remains to be an opinion, so I'll leave it at that.

Onto your next point, Halo 3 and Gears of War 2 are not console RPGs. They are categorized as First/Third Person Shooters, so I'm leaving those titles out of the argument since we are debating the genre of RPGs.

"Winning or loosing Japan isn’t really something companies care about and that exemplifies how the market has changed."
I don't understand why you are focusing on companies 'losing' Japan, when the process is the complete opposite. JRPGs are first made in Japan, then localized to NA and Europe. These 'companies' can't lose Japan if Japan is the core audience they've been pleasing for over 20 years.

If that is your understanding, then I'll kindly tell you that you are mistaken. On the contrary, I feel like you give Erik and Hilary far too much credit. Your stand-point is a valid one, but I fail to see the same level of accurate criticism in the points brought forward by Erik and Hilary. Rather, the points they might have been trying to make may be valid, but they have used the wrong examples to justify it.

The fact that I agree that JRPGs need to change is proof enough that I'm not dismissing the argument. Rather, I'm dismissing the points of justification brought forth by Erik and Hilary, because many of them were completely flawed and are quite frankly, untrue. In particular, "Learn to Use the Unreal Engine" (and I hope you can agree) is completely irrelevant in fixing the JRPG design–not to mention their completely untrue fact that IU used the UR3 engine. Their claim of CGs ruling the RPG world in the past is completely untrue as well. I actually agree with evolving the RPG elements, but the points they've used to explain why or how they should improve it had little foundation. Naming an NPC "Jim the Barber" hardly brings more meaning to him being there, and their criticism of uninspiring city designs, "[having] towns you walk around in, with dozens of people you speak with for no reason. There are poorly conceived fetch quests and uninspired city designs" could easily be said about WRPGs by someone else and be just as 'valid'. I won't repeat the last two points since they're in the article above.

Conclusively, this is not a dismissal of an argument, rather it is a criticism of the method used to debate it. JRPGs need fixing, that much is true. But the points brought forth by Erik and Hilary to justify it have been based on either completely untrue facts (IU using the UR3 engine; CG ruling the RPG world 'back in the day'), irrelevant facts (Learning to use the Unreal Engine does not = good JRPG; mercenaries in LR were not stronger than the main 6 heroes because they were meant to assist you, not steal the spotlight), or points that could easily be said about the very titles they were praising ("uninspiring city design, towns you walk in, people you talk to for no reason"). I feel it is important that if you're going to criticize something, use not only correct information, but use factually relevant information. Showing that Erik and Hilary failed to do any of this was the purpose of the article I wrote.

I don’t agree that Mass effects dialog suffered under the sandbox style as you call it, but that is very subjective. To me Sandbox implies that you are given certain tools and then let loose on a world with few rules, personally I prefer the use of non-linear as it more accurately refers to the western style of story telling. I’m not trying to correct your language, just my personal opinion.

I’m not trying to impose on your freedom to say what you want; if I was then I wouldn’t be arguing with you.

As for my previous last point, I guess I have to elaborate. First of all; you seem to focus on North America a lot and western bias, let me just set the record straight. I’m Danish and I do not endorse games like Halo 3 and Gears of War 2 which to me are just American stupidity on DVD-ROMs. Second of all; I do not favor Western games in fact my favorite developer of all time is Hideo Kojima, what I would like and frankly what I think is needed is for the lessons western developers have learned to transfer to Japan. Not entire concepts, genres, artistic styles, stories or basic gameplay ideas. Things like presentation having all characters talk, making invisible walls less apparent and quality over quantity. I personally don’t think Japanese developers are a lazy bunch, but it is being misinterpreted by the masses and who can blame them? I don’t think Japanese developers know why their games are less popular now than years ago. The problem being that the genre is being abandoned by gamers in the west, and with the cost of doing a top of the line RPG now a days we will see less and less Chrono triggers coming out of left field. My hypothetical JRPG’s are dead in 2013 statement, was simply an exaggeration to suggest that the genre is in a decline. Sure the 360 experienced a brief sales spike in Japan, but much like JRPG’s it isn’t the king of kings anymore. Winning or loosing Japan isn’t really something companies care about and that exemplifies how the market has changed. That in combination with the heightened costs will see familiar brands and designs dominate this will most likely happen everywhere, but I suspect JRPG’s will suffer under this (more than WRPG’s that is) if they do not change.

Finally I suspect the “bias” you seem to refer to coming form yourself, sure the IGN article wasn’t the best and you might have a point in not trying to force Western and Japanese RPG’s to overlap. But it seems like you dismiss all arguments with these same claims of bias or hatred towards Japanese culture. I don’t want to offend you; however that is my understanding of the situation.

Sure some people have mocked MGS 4 and called it this that and the other thing, using some of the same arguments as they do against JRPG’s. Personally I don’t find it the least bit annoying. I don’t however think that people compare the two or that linear storylines are bad. Although from a purely hypothetical point of view you could state that since Videogames are interactive it is therefore a mistake to take that away by making a linear game and thereby making the interactions predetermined. If someone were to state a valid argument against the Metal gear story telling then I’d consider it, but I have yet to encounter that.

Gears of War 2 and Halo 3 were simply examples of popular western games that I don’t like, as “proof” if you will that I do not prefer western games.

The Japanese market is in a decline of sorts which forces companies who are strongest in Japan to seek other markets. Rising development costs force them to do this aggressively, with the trend of JRPG’s falling behind it could become a problem for developers in Japan.

”I'm not dismissing the argument. Rather, I'm dismissing the points of justification brought forth by Erik and Hilary” if this is your attempt? Then your article does disservice to your argument, it’s very “aggressive” and for the most part you seem to disagree with everything. I agree that the title is wrong, seeing as how they seem to shift between Square and the rest of JRPG development. The segment called “Learn to use the Unreal Engine” seems redundant in that if any development house has to use any engine they need to know how to use it, however releasing a game that barely runs unless you install it to your HDD is pretty inexcusable. Claiming that IU utilizes the Unreal engine is also a pretty big error, something they probably got from their own website as it is stated on the profile of the game. I have stated before what I think they got right and will not retread old ground. What I tried to do was to take the “premise” of the IGN article and argue for what I think it should have been. Because I think it’s important to have this discussion.

Lastly, you misunderstand the terms East and West. West refers to 'Western culture' which pertains to primarily anglo-american ethnicities. This includes North America and Europe. "Eastern culture" refers to primarily the countries of Asia.

Also, the cultural argument has to do with Individualism vs Collectivism, which is a major difference between the West and East in terms of what they value and how they interact with others. Again, I didn't go into that argument because it would require far too much discussion with something that takes a large tangent.

You reference Mass Effect as having most of the things that JRPGs as of late seem to lack, but I have to disagree when Mass Effect in my opinion lacked the very thing that JRPGs were known for the most–that is delivery of the storyline. Yes, I'll admit that storytelling has not been up to par in the last few JRPGs that I played, but it's also true that Mass Effect–because of its several diverging paths–no one path is particularly compelling. This is because they had to sacrifice intricacy of presentation for flexibility of choice. Most of Mass Effect's 'cutscenes' were simple camera shifts from one character to another while they engaged in conversation. It's not quite as primitive as visual novel cutscenes like in Enchanting Arms, let's say, but it's not quite off the mark. While Mass Effect can say they voiced practically every scene in the game, to me it doesn't really change the fact that the script/dialogue suffered due to the flexibility the storyline required. No particular exchange was breathtaking, nor any single line of dialogue showing emotional appeal. But that's enough of that point since I only brought it up because it just highlighted the problem of linear vs sandbox storytelling.

Also, where did I say that WRPGs raised the standard? I said there is nothing wrong with "thinking" that WRPGs are better than JRPG, since that is an opinion, just as how I still enjoy JRPGs way more than I do WRPGs. Thinking so is my right just as it is someone else's right to say they enjoy WRPGs more than JRPGs. What I did call into question was the notion that JRPGs can be improved by following a Western approach to story-telling, which I believe is the major flaw in Erik and Hilary's article. There is no question that that is practically what they were saying when telling Square-Enix to play Fallout 3, Fable 2 and Mass Effect, regardless if they were aware of that or not.

As for your last point, this is where once again Western bias has shown. You say you want JRPGs in 2013 but at the rate they're going "they don't stand a chance". In case you were unaware, JRPGs have thrived in Japan just as much as they did 20 years ago when FF first started. Both Infinite Undiscovery and The Last Remnant have drastically raised 360 sales in Japan, meaning they still greatly enjoy them, even if it means buying a console that is completely unpopular over there. Increased 360 sales because of these two games means that Japanese people are willing to go as far as buying an entirely new console just to play JRPGs So when you say JRPGs don't stand a chance, you're really just talking about the North American market. Just because JRPGs aren't doing as well in North America, that does not mean Japan is going to stop making JRPGs. That's a bit of an arrogant statement considering JRPGs are not primarily made for North Americans. What you're saying '[doesn't] stand a chance' are the localizations, and *that* is a legitimate concern.