Support NeoGAF

[jaundicejuice]

Before PC-centric rpg series and developers started appearing on consoles, jrpgs were just rpgs. The distinction became prevalent when companies like Bethesda and Bioware started developing console games for the original Xbox. That's around about the time where an rpg came from began to matter, most likely so we could argue ad nauseum for a decade plus on forums like this.Now people argue about what constitutes a jrpg and the whole conversation and distinction is increasingly stupid.

 

[Soltype]

FFXII is one of my favourite games of all time

 

[Basileus777]

Where are you getting this shit? Just making it up as you please?

The mental gymnastics people go through to justify their arbitrary and nonsensical definitions of JRPG can be pretty amusing to see.

Though these threads are always ruined by shitty arguments over genre definitions.

 

[Griss]

See this is a lot of the problems with gaming in general though, not just JRPGs. PIck out some random games of any genre and a lot of them will suffer from a bunch of these issues.

Can't fully agree with this. While these issues are present in many games, there's no series of games that have issues with these elements anything as bad as JRPGs. I genuinely find the stories in most of them hard to sit through.

The current exception would be Etrian Odyssey. Love that series. Story takes a backseat, and the dialogue is charming. Fire Emblems 7-10 were pretty damn good too.

EDIT: Reading the last few pages reminds me of my thread where I stated that the term 'RPG' means nothing anymore and needs to be abolished. JRPG is the same. Technically you could call Dark Souls a JRPG, but it's just fucking not one, is it? Every game has RPG elements these days. Makes no sense to call a single-character action game like Dark Souls an RPG.

 

[Zocano]

It's negative to me because I've grown to dislike most straight forward jrpgs and "normal" rpgs to me just out do anything jrpgs try as far as story, character, and world building.

I've tried to go back and play FF7 and 8 and other "classics" like Suikoden and they do nothing for me. Just boredom and cringe. And hearing talk of new ones deter me anyway (xenoblade). Just nothing about the genre appeals to me so I don't think highly of the genre. I tried FF12, even, and could only get like 8ish hours before just giving up. The only "jrpgs" I enjoy are srpgs, FFTactics, Tactics Ogre, and Fire Emblem and I consider those entirely different beasts.

 

[ULTROS!]

I dunno but FFXII's aesthetic looked kinda... Boring?

I don't hate the game but it isn't my favorite FF aesthetic.

 

[Otakumegane]

"JRPG"? No.

"JRPG for Vita"? Yes.

Seriously wish this wasn't the case.

 

[chaosblade]

I wouldn't say it's negative, but it is kind of moving in that direction as more emphasis is put on things I don't like (fan service, crummy stories) and less on what I do (fun battle systems and gameplay mechanics). I feel like Japanese RPGs have, for the most part, gotten worse as developers have gained more freedom to do what they want thanks to better hardware.

That and I think the term "JRPG" is silly anyway, but that's beside the point.

 

[cosmicblizzard]

gameplay systems stuck in the 90s and more.

Gonna have to explain this one. I assume you're talking about traditional turn-based, which hasn't been a staple in JRPGs for over a generation now.

As for the writing and stuff, I'd honestly chalk a lot of that up to value dissonance and other stuff based on cultural differences (to an extent, some of it is absolutely bad).

 

[Mobius and pet octopus]

Can't fully agree with this. While these issues are present in many games, there's no series of games that have issues with these elements anything as bad as JRPGs. I genuinely find the stories in most of them hard to sit through.

The current exception would be Etrian Odyssey. Love that series. Story takes a backseat, and the dialogue is charming. Fire Emblems 7-10 were pretty damn good too.

EDIT: Reading the last few pages reminds me of my thread where I stated that the term 'RPG' means nothing anymore and needs to be abolished. JRPG is the same. Technically you could call Dark Souls a JRPG, but it's just fucking not one, is it? Every game has RPG elements these days. Makes no sense to call a single-character action game like Dark Souls an RPG.

Do you consider Ys to be a JRPG?

My answer:

Spoiler

I do

Steam users have voted jrpg tag enough times on the game for the tag to show up on the store. http://store.steampowered.com/app/207350/

Ys Origin is a single-character action game. I still think it is a jRPG. Action jRPG, if that is best descriptive of it.

 

[Mauricio_Magus]

You all need some Ys, Kiseki, and Etrian Odyssey in your life.

 

[RPGam3r]

I used to love JRPG. I used to look forward to almost every release. I thought I had grown out of the genre, but what I realized is that I don't have any interest in the types of JRPG that come out now, especially those on the Vita.

 

[SkyOdin]

It feels like too many people in this thread are answering the question: "Do you like JRPGs?" instead of the original intent of the thread, which I believe is closer to: "Is the term JRPG in of itself loaded with a negative connotation?"

 

[Trouble]

It's only negative to me in the sense that I don't generally enjoy the genre. I can say the same about RTS and MOBA games. I have no ill will towards them, their developers or those who enjoy them, just not my cup of tea.

 

[Darth Karja]

For some reason I do think negatively of them. Idk why. Pokemon is the only one I've played and I loved it so I have no reason.

 

[ArtHands]

I wouldn't say it's negative, but it is kind of moving in that direction as more emphasis is put on things I don't like (fan service, crummy stories) and less on what I do (fun battle systems and gameplay mechanics). I feel like Japanese RPGs have, for the most part, gotten worse as developers have gained more freedom to do what they want thanks to better hardware.

That and I think the term "JRPG" is silly anyway, but that's beside the point.

Those stuffs on the Vita doesn't represent the entire genre.

 

[cosmicblizzard]

It feels like too many people in this thread are answering the question: "Do you like JRPGs?" instead of the original intent of the thread, which I believe is closer to: "Is the term JRPG in of itself loaded with a negative connotation?"

This is impossible to determine I think. I don't believe any genre has widespread negative connotations, except maybe some rapey porn games, but I'd guess a lot of people don't even know they exist.

People will shit on every genre for a multitude of reasons, and sales alone won't determine public opinion beyond "this genre sells more than this one".

 

[Audette]

Question: Is The Legend of Zelda a JRPG?

 

[KirbYuuYuu]

I have negative connotations for it due to how the term came into existence. That being said, on a simple level, JRPG is perfectly fine.

Unfortunately, we have this uncanny knack of tacking on pointless shit to determine what is or isn't a JRPG, which further soured how I view the term.

I mean shit, it was fine when you could tell "OH, it came from this region", and not "OH NO, IT DOESN'T FIT WHAT WE THOUGHT DESPITE ORIGINATING IN THIS REGION, QUICK, POINTLESS DEBATE GO!"

As for the games that have come out recently on every system that gets the games? Don't really care what they contain and what isn't pure. It's still an RPG made in Japan. Be it Moero Chronicles, or Pokemon/Mario and Luigi, or even Dark Souls. RPGs that were made in Japan. Simple as that.

 

[Mango The Magician]

No, but I use to think it meant junior rpg, so maybe of that were the case.

Question: Is The Legend of Zelda a JRPG?

No Zelda isn't an rpg period, more of an action adventure.

 

[VanillaCakeIsBurning]

Gonna have to explain this one. I assume you're talking about traditional turn-based, which hasn't been a staple in JRPGs for over a generation now.

As for the writing and stuff, I'd honestly chalk a lot of that up to value dissonance and other stuff based on cultural differences (to an extent, some of it is absolutely bad).

What he means is that he hasn't played one since the 90s.

EDIT: And there you go.

 

[Striek]

Gonna have to explain this one. I assume you're talking about traditional turn-based, which hasn't been a staple in JRPGs for over a generation now.

As for the writing and stuff, I'd honestly chalk a lot of that up to value dissonance and other stuff based on cultural differences (to an extent, some of it is absolutely bad).

Ehhh, turn-based random battles is obviously the gold standard for awful gameplay design (that I loved as a kid), but its less due to turn-based combat than it is for the core systems of the command driven battle approach. More frequently than not they lack the strategic depth of WRPGs but often the accessibility too.

But gameplay means more than just battle systems. Its world design, quest design, map design that are more important. WRPGs can suffer in these areas, but JRPGs tend to fucking suckkkkkk at them. You generally have corridor design or open world (or quasi-open, like Xenoblade), but the difference (fun factor) of going from point A to point B tends to be vastly different. In WRPGs you get a variety of encounters that tend to be fluid, chaotic and different, making the gameplay the core reason to play the game. In JRPGs you get a variety of encounters that all play out exactly the same way, making the gameplay the chore getting in the way of the story.

A game like TES has repetitive area and quests but more emergent gameplay or encounters within those areas than most JRPGs could dream of. Its more fun to enter random dungeon ZYX in Skyrim than travelling up the whole of the Mechonis' boring, overly long, incredibly samey inner works in Xenoblade, yet TES is considered low-tier in these areas for WRPGs and XC high-tier for JRPGs. The level design and encounter design just suck in most JRPGs in terms of variety. Another of my favourite JRPGs is Nier and I actually like its core combat system over most RPGs (contrarian I know), but it is an example of this in a totally realtime combat system where every area is like the one before because going from point A to point B fighting enemies on flat plains or corridors where everything plays out the fucking same. Theres no thought behind the level design from a gameplay perspective, theres no encounter variety. Its a JRPG through and through.

To your other point, it might just be value dissonance but this is a question being asked on a (mostly) western BBS. I had wrote here about specific tropes I dislike and why I'm not able to suspend my disbelief at a lot of it when I've no problem with dragons, monsters, aliens, world-saving arcs, heroes with ungodly powers etc. etc. but I erased it all because its easier to say this:

Japanese developers by far and large fail with the execution of making their characters seem real and consistent within the world they create (edit: oh lord is Tales in particular terrible at this).

 

[Tain]

As for the games that have come out recently on every system that gets the games? Don't really care what they contain and what isn't pure. It's still an RPG made in Japan. Be it Moero Chronicles, or Pokemon/Mario and Luigi, or even Dark Souls. RPGs that were made in Japan. Simple as that.

You say this as though determining what is and isn't "RPG" is a straightforward and agreeable thing.

 

[Waxwing]

There are good and bad entries in any sub-genre, but I feel like the project of the average RPG is an honorable one: divorce RPG mechanics of over-vaunted player agency in order to tell a more focused story. FF and Tales in particular excel at this.

 

[KTO]

JRPGs are up there in terms of my favorite genre, but I really don't agree with the tastes of most JRPG fans. So while I don't think the word itself has negative connotations when its being used to describe a game it's almost always negative for me. I really like Final Fantasy XIII and it seems like people are almost hesitant to call it a JRPG, which it definitely is. Other games like Xenoblade or FFX seem to fit the description better so people refer to them as JRPGs more frequently and I don't really like those games.

 

[frogger]

I loved JRPG when I was a kid, now I can't get into them anymore. It seems western RPGs are much better for me now.

One fact I can't get about the JRPG is that 90% of them stars a teenager.

 

[jroc74]

When I was growing up, JRPGs were just called "Console RPGs". I think JRPG is a hell of a lot more endearing than that was.

For me it was just RPG. I didnt even realize there was s specific thing called JRPG, WRPG, etc..until joining this site.

When i was a kid, to me games like Final Fantasy, Chrono Trigger or Dragon Quest were the RPGs, no "JRPG" but just RPG.

Now obviously there is a big line between what its considered a game made in Japan versus the West, and even games like Paper Mario sometimes are not considered because they lack the traditional artstyle and thus are not "true" JRPGs.

Its a mess.

Yea...its a mess. Especially now that I dont really like them anymore. Now I gotta be specific and put J or W before RPG.

When I was younger, JRPG had a very positive connotation. Levels, Stats, and Turn-based combat were all traits I attributed to JRPGs growing up, and to me at the time those were all inherently positive things. Now, JRPG has no real connotation at all for me, it just means "Japanese Role-Playing Game". I don't really play as many JRPGs nowadays, and feel very neutral towards the genre. I still pick up games that interest me, but I don't have the hunger for JRPGs that I had in my tweens and teens, it's gone.

Same here.

I think negativity about it stems from some ppl just not liking that type of game anymore. We have games like Mass Effect and Witcher....we cant lump them all in RPG because they are different types of RPG games out there.

Then again...maybe we could. I dont see a problem with it all being called RPG.

The thing is....if the media is gonna be specific and say JRPG....they have to say WRPG, Action RPG, etc. when describing some games. That article about fixing them....fix what? Choice is a great thing and just browsing this site alone many ppl still love JRPG. As much as I like action based over turn based now....it would seem off to play a Final Fantasy game that wasnt turned based. Last one I really played was X. I have 13 but didnt really play it, I assume its still turned based.

 

[Northeastmonk]

You should play FFXII, it's almost an antithesis of what you described.

I agree and there's a reason to why it had the best voice acting in any FF ever since. I definitely think we might not get another one as solid as that was unless they make some massive changes.

It blows my mind how we went from FFXII on PS2 to nothing coming close. Mistwalker tried, but to me they didn't outdo XII.

 

[KirbYuuYuu]

You say this as though determining what is and isn't "RPG" is a straightforward and agreeable thing.

It's not what is and what isn't and RPG. It's what is a "JRPG" and a "WRPG".

 

[AntiFacebook]

I think the need to distinguish JRPGs came since they are not really role playing games.
On the other hand, most of WRPGs aren't either, so whatever.

"JRPG"? No.

"JRPG for Vita"? Yes.

Memories of celceta is great

 

[mrpookles]

Not negative, but I've largely outgrown them. I still try and find time for Final Fantasy, but it seems like the best JRPG experiences are on portable systems, which aren't for me.

 

[Sojiro]

Was and still is my favorite genre, it will never be a negative to me...even if the genre doesn't see as many releases as it used to.

 

[Soltype]

I agree and there's a reason to why it had the best voice acting in any FF ever since. I definitely think we might not get another one as solid as that was unless they make some massive changes.

It blows my mind how we went from FFXII on PS2 to nothing coming close. Mistwalker tried, but to me they didn't outdo XII.

Yeah we aren't getting another FF game that good again for along time, maybe someday under a different title.The game was just too mature for FF's fanbase.

 

[Not Spaceghost]

When I hear JRPG I instantly think of varied gameplay.

I feel like JRPG's are always trying to be different in some way, even if it ends up being a downfall of the game due to over complexity or information overload. If you take 5 JRPG's from different franchises that are all turn based, you can be sure that each one will have it's own unique spin on the battle system and I think that's cool.

Then you've got games like Valkyria Chronicles, infinite space and Resonance of Fate that are just kind of their own thing.

However similar the games might look aesthetically (you could honestly say the same for some WRPGs) they each have their own thing going for them.

That being said it's a genre i'm very selective with, I'll usually only play a JRPG like once every couple of years.

 

[Greddleok]

Usually it's pretty negative owing to the fact that I've only ever finished one JRPG other than the Pokemon games - Persona 4.


I've bought many over the years and inevitably quit them after about 40 hours. Weird, because 40 hours should be enough to make me say I enjoy the game, but they just get repetitive and tedious and the lest 10 or so hours before I quit feel like a chore.
I usually end up loathing the ham fisted way they portray character too. I find it especially hard to enjoy when I despise the main character right from the start (FF games mainly, but also Tales of the Abyss).

I'm trying TWEWY right now, and it seems good, but it's not really got its hooks in me. Generally don't get the urge to pick it up unless I have nothing else to play.

 

[Lynx_7]

Considering SMT is one of my favorite game franchises and that's a JRPG, I'd say no, the term holds no negative connotations for me. In fact, I still enjoy JRPGs as a whole better than most WRPGs, since the latter tend to emphasize openness a bit much and I prefer my games to have more focus on design/structure in general. I admit there have been fewer quality releases recently than there used to be back in the PS2/PSx/SNES days, but there are still some great games being released in the genre.

Having said that, I am very selective about which JRPGs I play and which ones I don't. I haven't touched any of these weird breeds of loli/moe/idol JRPGs yet but I have plans for the near future of not playing them, and I'm excited about the prospect of continuing to ignore them forever! Except for SMTxFE, which I'll end up playing solely because of the brand.

Spoiler

Fuck me.

 

[PKrockin]

I don't associate JRPGs with negativity generally. Other people might if they define JRPG so narrowly as to only include games they hate. The "JRPGs haven't evolved" narrative has been pushed so hard that people just don't think of Mario and Luigi, SMT, Fire Emblem, Xenoblade, etc. as JRPGs. They continue to rail against the nameless JRPGs that still feature heavy grinding, random encounters, and turn-based menu systems while enjoying their "Action RPGs," "Strategy RPGs," and "JRPGs that are really more like WRPGs."

 

[pa22word]

Na.

People have a tendency when looking at the term to focus solely on SE's recent output to judge Japan's entire RPG output, and I think that tends to skew a lot of people's opinions on the matter.

Like for me, I've written off SE a long time ago on the RPG stuff but people like Atlus, Falcom, FromSoftware, and hell even Nintendo have filled the void just fine without me ever missing a beat on enjoyable games to find to play. Just because FF isn't great anymore and DQ is whatever doesn't mean Japan isn't making quality games anymore in the genre. Expand your outlook and you're bound to find some great stuff--just like every other genre in gaming.

 

[redcrayon]

Because the other definitions unfairly pigeon-hole any RPGs made in Japan into the category of JRPG even if they don't fit the typical style of JRPGs.

The only pigeon-holing going on is this kind of thinking that doesn't allow genres to evolve. It's basically saying that any JRPG that isn't a throwback to the 90s somehow isn't a JRPG any more, allowing us to say that they never change. We wouldn't say that CoD isn't an FPS because it doesn't have your health as a percentage and wide levels to explore like in Doom, or other old-school gameplay mechanics, so why limit JRPGs to what they were?

In the last gen we saw a mix of turn-based, action and hybrid combat. A mix of battle screens and on-field enemies. A mix of cinematic cut scenes vs small budget productions, and a mix of combat styles from the bizarre triangle-of-guns in Resonance of Fate, to the MMO cool-down combat of Xenoblade and the paradigm system in FFXIII.

I mean, by all means rail against the bad, recurring flaws of JRPGs (amnesiac teens, terrible anime characters and comedy animal/child party members killing special forces troops with ridiculous weapons like musical instruments etc are my bugbears), but you'd have to admit that the genre now encompasses so many styles and modern attempts to break from tradition that any attempt to describe the genre as only comprising those that look like JRPGs from the 90s just doesn't work any more.

Dragons Dogma is another wierd hybrid. Beautiful action-based combat, but there isn't any significant choice in the dialogue, and it feels just as much a JRPG because of Capcom's fluid combat taken from their action games as it does a western one for the quasi-photo-realistic art style. It's almost the opposite in that of Dark Souls, where the monsters have that wierd Japanese flair for the bizarre.

I just kinda think all RPGs exist on a bell curve at the moment, pigeonholing as 'western' or 'Japanese' as if those descriptives mean anything when considering hundreds of titles does a disservice to the games where developers have gone out of their way to escape the traditions of a genre and make something new.

I think JRPG kinda works as a descriptive of the 90s games like Chrono Trigger, Suikoden etc, where they all shared a lot of similarities. But these days there's so many different ideas that trying to decide whether each one still fits in that box is futile.

 

[KirbYuuYuu]

Again, a big problem with trying to say that JRPG is a certain gameplay style is when something comes in and fucks that up. Demon's Souls fucked that up many years ago, which showed how flawed it was to base it on a type of game style

Spoiler

nevermind that JRPGs didn't originate in the form it primarily takes on nowadays

and why it was easier to simply label something J/WRPG based solely on who developed the game.

 

[daninthemix]

In my mind, the term J-RPG connotes certain outdated mechanisms like random battles and a frequent need to grind in order to achieve power parity. More broadly, it conjures the image of a game in which combat is imposed upon me more frequently than I'd like.

These prejudices (for want of a better term) have been formed by decades of exposure to the genre, though admittedly less exposure in recent years. The last J-RPGs I've played are the FFXIII series (all of which were awful, and my point about excessive combat is applicable to them), Lost Oddysey and a few others on 360.

EDIT: as someone who thoroughly loved SNES-era J-RPGs, it's mostly the case that the wider RPG genre is now owned, for me, by the likes of Bethesda and Bioware, whose games take everything I love about J-RPGs and excise everything I hate.

 

[redcrayon]

Again, a big problem with trying to say that JRPG is a certain gameplay style is when something comes in and fucks that up. Demon's Souls fucked that up many years ago, which showed how flawed it was to base it on a type of game style

Spoiler

nevermind that JRPGs didn't originate in the form it primarily takes on nowadays

and why it was easier to simply label something J/WRPG based solely on who developed the game.

For me I even look at stuff like Resonance of Fate, and wonder if, as games about parties of heavily armed, quasi-medieval adventurers roaming the land, righting wrongs and thwarting bad guys, once you step outside of the aesthetics, Dragon Age and Tales have more in common with each other in that general, Knight-Errant, heroic-vagrants-kinda-theme than either do with RoF.

The first two still follow a party of adventurers with mixed abilities as they travel and gain insight and experience, a tradition set out in gaming terms by tabletop games, not by computer games. The latter is something else, it's like comparing Splatoon to Binary Domain and deciding they are closer to each other than BD is to Gears.

 

[Earthpainting]

No, it doesn't really carry a negative connotation to me. Some of my all-time favourite games are JRPGs. It does come with a higher chance of specific questionable elements, but it has a higher likelihood of positives as well. I like to think I'm a decent judge on recognising what I'll like and dislike, and I have several people whose opinions I can trust to nudge me in either direction. I will admit though that PS2-era ones and up do have a less successful track record to me than the games from before. This is most likely due to audio visual fidelity. Visual mannerisms and voice acting leave less to the imagination, and it's a big hurdle for games of all genres to me. I prefer being able to interpret the details myself, like I would in low-spec games.

"JRPG" is a pretty useless term. Even if you restrict it to "RPGs made in Japan" or "RPGs in the style of how Japan historically made them", it is way too diverse of a genre to be usefully descriptive. I won't make too much of a fuss if people are using the term in discussions, but I do try to avoid using it as much as I can. It's best to group games using terms that actually you something about the games in question. I should clarify that by that I don't mean the 'Characteristic Genre Name' nonsense that the Tales games use. "To Know the Meaning of Birth RPG" is not a genre, and ever if it were, it still doesn't describe any of your games, Tales Studio. Cut it out.

 

[poncle]

It used to be my favourite genre, but nowadays I feel like it means something different. More precisely:

- cheesy, nonsense storyline
- awful writing, VA, and cut-scenes direction
- slow and basic combat, where every attack takes a 30 seconds animation to execute
- half naked lolis everywhere

So everytime I see the the term, I get into this struggle where I hope to find a good game, but expect thrash.

 

[Dark_castle]

I'm not going to force what my opinion of what JRPG means, but as I said earlier, people often like to think of it as simplistic as possible, i.e. JRPG = Japanese Role-Playing Game, Japanese RPG made by Japanese developer. I think of it as Japanese-styled Role-Playing Game.

In reality, I think what the game overall feels and plays like weigh more meaning than the race of the people who made the game. For instance, Dark Souls and Dragon's Dogma give a much stronger vibe of a western game while Child of Light and South Park: The Stick of Truth (and various western indie JRPG like Zeboyd Game's titles or those made with RPG Maker) belongs to the Japanese counterpart.

 

[crinale]

I sure prefer otaku stuff over middle-aged man protags

 

[DrXym]

To me, JPRG means protracted exposition that exceeds actual gameplay, nonsensical plots, bizarre fantasy worlds, extremely repetitive battles, oversized swords, floppy haired lady boys and girls with enormous eyes and tits.

I've played enough of them to know that I really don't like the genre although I've wasted a lot of time playing mainstream titles like Golden Sun, Zelda, Pokemon on handhelds.

Western RPGs certainly have their share of cliches too but it's simply easier for me to relate to them and they tend to keep the plot and exposition on a short rein.

 

[Fou-Lu]

So, looking just at the top 50 in this thread for games I would consider JRPGs:

9 Turn-based without random battles
2 Turn-based with action inputs, also without random battles
4 action and exploration
10 Turn-based with random battles
2 MMO style combat system without random battles
3 tactics style battle systems
1 tactics action (valkyria chronicles)
1 The World Ends with You

I think the only two games I counted that some people wouldn't are Dark Souls and Demon's Souls. Seems like a pretty varied genre to me really. Also seems we like our turn-based random battles here on GAF anyway. Although I wasn't really sure where to put Pokemon, since yes it has random battles, but you can often choose when and where you meet them, which is a bit different.

 

[petran79]

no, they're perfectly fine for the age group they target.

 

[SatelliteOfLove]

So I make that post earlier and like clockwork, more evidence of it being necessary arrives.

I mean, do they expect their logic leaps from opinion to fact to not get called out (and back to opinion once it is)? Or how silly the zero-sum good-bad dichotomy is at best untenable to defend? Or how woefully out-of-date and narrow their knowledge base is? Or realize how they should be reading and not speaking till they have read? Or why this discussion had to be made in the first place?

It's the one praising Nier's combat that seals it for me. Oy vey.