Or if it had any sort of combat-driven character progression at all. Which it does not have.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Let's finish this off, what is the correct definition of JRPG?
- Thread starter Grief.exe
- Start date
Or if it had any sort of combat-driven character progression at all. Which it does not have.
Sword Familiar
178% of NeoGAF posters don't understand statistics
I don't even think I've seen the distinction of W vs J being made until quite recently, at least during early-to-mid 00's at the earliest. Back in the 80's/90's, it was more about making a distinction between console and PC RPGs if anything, but the lines have blurred a lot since then. As a console gamer, when I saw the word "RPG" for instance, it was usually a word to define a certain type of RPG, the one that was most prevalent at the time, the DQ/FF-clone. Anything else was a sub-category, like Action RPG or Strategy RPG. RPG had nothing in common with P&P RPGs, really. It was just a word to describe a genre so that when anyone hear it, they'd know roughly what type of game it was. I'm sure PC gamers also called their version simply "RPGs", complete with sub-categories, but the word was used to describe something different than what console gamers were used to.
That's why when I hear people categorize, for instance, Mass Effect as an RPG, I get a bit confused since I have a rough image of what an RPG is supposed to be, and even when comparing it to the image I have of what a console and PC RPG really is (in my mind), that image doesn't quite match the image I have of Mass Effect (well, the first game is closer than the other two, for sure). This is because the base of the "battle system" is that of a TPS. But simply defining it as a TPS and be done with it would also pose a problem because there is also an "image" attached to that word to describe a specific genre, one which Mass Effect doesn't quite fit into either. So, is it an RPG with shooter elements or a TPS with RPG elements? I would probably choose the former and call it an "RPS", Role Playing Shooter" because it gives me a rough image of what I might expect from the game.
That's why when I hear people categorize, for instance, Mass Effect as an RPG, I get a bit confused since I have a rough image of what an RPG is supposed to be, and even when comparing it to the image I have of what a console and PC RPG really is (in my mind), that image doesn't quite match the image I have of Mass Effect (well, the first game is closer than the other two, for sure). This is because the base of the "battle system" is that of a TPS. But simply defining it as a TPS and be done with it would also pose a problem because there is also an "image" attached to that word to describe a specific genre, one which Mass Effect doesn't quite fit into either. So, is it an RPG with shooter elements or a TPS with RPG elements? I would probably choose the former and call it an "RPS", Role Playing Shooter" because it gives me a rough image of what I might expect from the game.
Ah I forgot about Zeboyd.
It's not because if you do even a little bit of research you'd know that unlike every other popular genre like the one's you listed, the RPG developed independently in both Japan and the West away from each other for over a decade due to PC games falling out of popularity in Japan. Thus, there are inherent cultural, presentation, and expectation differences in a traditional JRPG vs a WRPG.
Krusenstern
Banned
Type "JRPG" in google image search.
Look what results you get.
That's what I think of when I hear the term JRPG.
Therefore I wouldn't call Dark Souls and Dragon's Dogma JRPGs either.
Look what results you get.
That's what I think of when I hear the term JRPG.
Therefore I wouldn't call Dark Souls and Dragon's Dogma JRPGs either.
So two different genres developed independently? Kinda further proves that the terms shouldn't exist...
RoadHazard
Gold Member
JRPGs are those games that are not actually role-playing games at all, but rather character-playing games. I believe that Tales guy (director?) said that his games are about playing characters, not roles, and I found that to be a very good distinction.
Poltergust
Member
JRPGs are RPGs with a gameplay style that originated in Japan, but do not necessarily have to have been developed in Japan. Same thing applies to WRPGs.
I mean, otherwise it's useless as a genre descriptor. What does a game being called a JRPG tell you if it only refers to where the game was made? Absolutely nothing.
It's better to just describe the gameplay style specifically: action RPG, turn-based RPG, stratagy RPG, etc. Then there is no ambiguity.
(It's why FPS is also useless as a genre descriptor, too. Portal, CoD, and Metroid are FPSes but belong to completely different genres.)
I mean, otherwise it's useless as a genre descriptor. What does a game being called a JRPG tell you if it only refers to where the game was made? Absolutely nothing.
It's better to just describe the gameplay style specifically: action RPG, turn-based RPG, stratagy RPG, etc. Then there is no ambiguity.
(It's why FPS is also useless as a genre descriptor, too. Portal, CoD, and Metroid are FPSes but belong to completely different genres.)
Top results for me are Eternal Sonata, Infinite Undiscovery, and FFV which would all agree with the traditional genre definition rather than the regional one.
Unless you can articulate further, that's a completely nonsequitious line of reasoning.
The_Darkest_Red
Member
If Dark Souls is a JRPG it's officially time to throw the name out the window. It tells you nothing meaningful at that point.
Hence the term JRPG "Japanese Role-Playing Game".
Any other definition would result in unnecessary debates. As for gameplay types, we have other more precise terms we can use and have been using for a while now.
Is the difference between character progression at pre-set points and character progression in potentially any battle that meaningful? And even if it is, doesn't the more meaningful progression in FF XIII and Lost Odyssey (games that are considered "RPGs") operate like the former? By locking players down until they hit a certain point? I often hear Deus Ex and System Shock 2 brought up in RPG discussion, too, though those are generally less accepted. Devil May Cry and Ninja Gaiden (games that aren't considered "RPGs") definitely operate like the latter.
This topic bugs the shit out of me, and you nailed it. When there's a 'best of X genre' list, it should function to give you similar games with similar gameplay that you might like. The terms 'RPG' and 'JRPG' no longer do that at all.
When you have a 'best RPGs' list that includes things like Bravely Default, Fallout New Vegas, Dark Souls, Lightning Returns, Borderlands etc, then the term means nothing because the games are nothing alike. So why use it then? And you'll never convince me that Dark Souls is an RPG, just because it has character building / stat progression. Almost every hardcore game has that these days.
It never made sense to use the term 'JRPG' if you meant it as the place of origin, because where something is made is irrelevant to its genre, while the term 'JRPG' was used as a genre descriptor. That's why I was under the same impression as the OP for over a decade.
We desperately need new genre descriptors, and as you suggest, to retire the terms 'RPG', 'JRPG' and 'WRPG' once and for all.
All good character action games are Japanese. Pretty much all FPSes are western. Except for indie games, all good 2D shooters are Japanese. Except for Rayman and indie games, all good platformers are Japanese.
There are large numbers of quality/popular "RPGs" that come from both the west and Japan. People long for some sort of way to differentiate them.
(Sports/racing games are perhaps the only "genre" immune to this dichotomy.)
chaosblade
Unconfirmed Member
It makes sense, but really only in a weeab sort of way. There are people (even on GAF) that will consider practically any RPG from Japan but nothing of western origin.
That, in combination with the people who see JRPG as a very specific genre (turn based, random encounters, linear and plot driven, stats + equipment), are really the only things giving the term any relevance anymore.
I agree that it's basically useless at this point, precisely because country of origin tells you nothing about the game. And even as a specific genre not everyone is going to have the same qualifiers which basically makes it equally useless.
Yes, I agree. For example, a western developer could make a JRPG. JRPG is a term, a description for a certain video game type that originated in Japan. Those games had "typical" gameplay elements that have become synonymous with JRPGs - for example the turn based battle system, leveling system, lot of party members, strong focus on "story". That's why I think it's ok to call those games JRPGs, not matter where they were made.
Psycho_Mantis
Banned
Other the country of Origin, which is made completely redundant by having both From Software and Bandai Namco on the front of the box.
none of which are as succinct as "JRPG"
Parakeetman
No one wants a throne you've been sitting on!
You would think right? But apparently folks like to over think things and make it difficult.
We have proven in this thread that "JRPG" is not succinct because nobody can agree on what it should mean, or what it does mean.
joecanada
Member
A western dev could make such a game but it's unlikely the art style would match a jrpg which also uses "japanimation" (another 80s term,)
Therefore it still wouldn't match the definition.
First post nailed it - an rpg made in j
Mihael Mello Keehl
Banned
But rpg means role playing game right, how that dont qualify? My teacher told me the first rpg he ever played was Zelda.
Mauricio_Magus
Banned
RPG done in Japan.
That was easy.
That was easy.
Is there anything people have ever agreed on? This is just another thing where people will bend (made up) definitions to suit their arguments and personal preferences. Just like all definition threads, we will never find a consensus on this.
Uh, I called those Western RPG with turnbased battle system.
Brawly Likes to Brawl
Member
I just wish the term would be dropped. It makes no sense to use a region as a genre name and then get mad at people when they think it only applies to games from that region.
WRPGs and JRPGs, as the originated, were considerably different correct? Not just in their country of origin, but also in their style of play, what the developers was trying to achieve, and what the audience wanted to get out of the game. If that's the case, then why were they both referred to as RPGs anyway? If they were so different, then shouldn't the genres have been called sometimes that made distinguishing them much easier?
But that's just me thinking about it in 2014.
You're right that back when the terms arose, it didn't really matter. They were good enough. My point is that the terms have never been good at showing what exactly is in the game and how exactly the game plays. And obviously it isn't good enough any more. The fact that this thread exists proves that the existence of these descriptions is just plain bad.
But that doesn't just apply to J/WRPGs. Video game genres in general are badly applied, because games have so many variations and melding genres is so easy and happens all the time. And RPG itself is one of the worst offenders. If you take the term 100% literally, then every game is an RPG, making the term completely redundant and useless.
Ultimately, it's a useless argument since there will never be a consensus.
So what terms do you think we should use. Lets get some ideas on the table.
The following are the more useful descriptors I've settled into using. People immediately get a sense of what I'm walking about:
Turn-based RPG
Tactical RPG
Western Fantasy RPG
Open-world RPG
Action RPG
MMORPG
I think those are pretty meaningful. That being said, when I say "JRPG," I'm referring to the specific style of RPG popularized by Japanese developers. The Tales series, the Final Fantasy series, the Phantasy Star series. The sub-genre established in 8 and 16-bit titles whose mechanics have continued beyond that period. Saying the geographic location of the parent studio has more bearing on the genre than the gameplay style seems like a poor standard for a description, personally.
Turn-based RPG
Tactical RPG
Western Fantasy RPG
Open-world RPG
Action RPG
MMORPG
I think those are pretty meaningful. That being said, when I say "JRPG," I'm referring to the specific style of RPG popularized by Japanese developers. The Tales series, the Final Fantasy series, the Phantasy Star series. The sub-genre established in 8 and 16-bit titles whose mechanics have continued beyond that period. Saying the geographic location of the parent studio has more bearing on the genre than the gameplay style seems like a poor standard for a description, personally.
The purpose of words is to communicate. If people can't agree on the definition of a word, then its use as a communication tool is stifled. It's common for people to have niggling issues about what is or is not filed under a certain genre -- this is usually with regards to nonstandard games in a particular grouping -- but with "JRPG" people can't even decide on a core definition. That's why I and several others have been arguing for it to stop being used because it isn't useful to anybody as it is.
RaySpencer
Member
I vote that Mass Effect and Baldur's Gate get regenred as CRPGs. Canada RPGs are the best.
If people are going to tell me that they think JRPG is just to tell you where it was made, then either use it for every country for every genre, or dont use it at all.
If people are going to tell me that they think JRPG is just to tell you where it was made, then either use it for every country for every genre, or dont use it at all.
The_Darkest_Red
Member
While we're doing this, anyone care to explain to me the difference between a TRPG and a SRPG?
It's mixed, imo. The director of the project was heavily inspired by Oblivion, thus the tile has obvious western inspirations, but the core is still inherently Japanese in both presentation and execution. In the end, it wouldn't the same without the western influence or without the Japanese, thus I'd say it's probably one of the first titles of the newly homogenized post-7th-gen-PC-developer-diaspora modern RPG world. Eventually, I forsee both J/W terms eventually being completely pointless as more and more Japanese designers continue to play and be directly inspired by western titles, thus obviously leading to more and more globalized titles in the RPG genre.
I'd say within a few gens the RPG market will have probably entirely consolidated spare for a few fringe titles on handhelds and such.
Also, before anyone gets their panties in a wad, the reason the J side is going to become more and more western is because, in short, the west has always had access to JRPGs and have incorporated them (or not) into their own design ideas naturally over the decades. Japan didn't. Some of the most influential western RPGs have never been released in Japan. System Shock, Deus Ex, Ultima 7, Baldur's Gate 2, etc never released in Japan. Thus now japanese designers suddenly having access to these types of games is pretty revelatory. Eg Kojima radically changing the design of metal gear 4 and 5 after playing Gears of War and Deus Ex HR, respectively, and the director of Dark Souls being heavily inspired by Oblivion.
Dark Souls is not a JRPG. Dark Souls is a much more combat-focused title, where story is not as prevalent, therefore I would call Dark Souls an ARPG.
bender
What time is it?
If you are using JRPG to define a genre, sure, but it's not like Japan was only making one type of RPG when the term was coined. If you use it from a regional perspective, it makes perfect sense. At any rate, region is how I've always interpreted the term.
CrimsonCommie
Member
Yes it is!
There is only one way to really settle this. Someone do an interview with Square-Enix, From Software, Capcom, XSEED, Level-5, and Atlus(sega). Let the Japanese developers tell us what they think a JRPG is. If From Software laughs in the interviewers face and placed a knife before them to commit seppuku then you know Dark Souls isn't a JRPG.
Sanctuary
Member
Right, but do the Souls games really count as an "RPG"? So many games anymore have "RPG elements", but that doesn't make them an RPG. At the most basic level, you could say that the Souls games are RPGs because:
1. They have stats that you adjust while leveling up; which is a staple of most "RPGs" whether they are adjusted automatically, or manually.
2. They have an inventory management component for swappable weapons, armors and items.
Beyond that though? I can't think of anything else that is in the series that hasn't been in most modern Action/Adventure or even straight up action games anymore, and the combat is most certainly that of an action game, not an RPG. Even the points above are in non RPGs.
Even if you want to compromise and say that they are ARPGs, is JARPG even a genre?
That's what the games are listed as to begin with.
As most people have said, it stands for Japanese RPG, meaning RPGs from Japan.
That said, being a regional description doesn't preclude it from a series of commonly shared attributes that normally resemble a genre. For example, Indian cinema or Korean pop music- there are certain qualities you can expect. Fans of those genres of art don't gravitate toward them simply due to the language they're in.
There is no racism involved in recognizing different cultural influences and regional audience expectations. And exceptions to the rule doesn't make these descriptors useless, because they were always meant to be generalizations. Japanese gamers are sure to categorize western games as being in their own (somewhat niche) genre.
EDIT: Found it. So what is the correct definition of a 'youge'?
http://www.examiner.com/article/square-enix-ceo-to-japanese-gamers-quit-hating-western-games
That said, being a regional description doesn't preclude it from a series of commonly shared attributes that normally resemble a genre. For example, Indian cinema or Korean pop music- there are certain qualities you can expect. Fans of those genres of art don't gravitate toward them simply due to the language they're in.
There is no racism involved in recognizing different cultural influences and regional audience expectations. And exceptions to the rule doesn't make these descriptors useless, because they were always meant to be generalizations. Japanese gamers are sure to categorize western games as being in their own (somewhat niche) genre.
EDIT: Found it. So what is the correct definition of a 'youge'?
http://www.examiner.com/article/square-enix-ceo-to-japanese-gamers-quit-hating-western-games