Support NeoGAF

[RaySpencer]

Maybe not directly, but when someone says "character action game", what immediately comes to mind are japanese games, with very few exceptions.

Also, you may not have Jfightinggames and Wfightinggames, but there are tons of discussions of western vs eastern fighting games, and it's really normal for people to defend one side, even though Blazblue and Street Fighter IV play nothing alike.



That's perfectly fine, then.

I definitely agree with you. But maybe not with your examples. Character Action games make me think about God of War just as much as it makes me think Devil May Cry.

I just think if we are going to continue to call ALL RPGs that come from Japan 'JRPGs' then we should start calling stuff NARPGs (North American), or EERPGs (Eastern European) or whatever. If there is a reason for people to keep differentiating between Japanese RPGs from other RPGs, then we need to broaden this to everything.

 

[Gbraga]

These terms are only about the combat,RPG's are more complex than that.
Don't you think seperating games like Skyrim,with an emphasis on freedom,from very narrative focused games like say FF is also important?
The terms WRPG and JRPG cover that pretty well already.

Then Dragon's Dogma is a western RPG and Mass Effect is a japanese RPG?

Separating them by gameplay style is fine.

 

[Ratrat]

These terms are only about the combat,RPG's are more complex than that.
Don't you think seperating games like Skyrim,with an emphasis on freedom,from very narrative focused games like say FF is also important?
The terms WRPG and JRPG cover that pretty well already.

No they don't. Play more games.

 

[leadbelly]

How is it redundant? It tells you the game is from Japan

I've already explained why it is redundant. If it means nothing other than the place of origin, then there is no point in using the term. Just call it an RPG.

If you simply called Dark Souls a JRPG for instance, it is not really telling you anything other than the place of origin, right? So therefore there is no need to make that distinction in the first place.

 

[demidar]

Guess I'll quote myself from something I've said today (with one minor correction), though I'm not sure if my many posts on this get digested.



Note how easy this becomes when you are not concerned with retrofitting a hundred messy classifications based on the arbitrary thoughts of people who have no business talking about these things conclusively. Here I'm merely saying "Games that are like Final Fantasy (or Dragon Quest or Wizardry)" or, to say it in a much more informative way, "What makes games like Final Fantasy different from everything else?" The term "JRPG" is itself inconsequential; what's important is reaching a point where you can see the distinction between multiple types of games, even within the same genre.

I have a few other things to say, but I tempted to just to search through my post history and quote each argument word for word. I'm not going to go that far unless a there is request for clarification or a challenge.

In short, though, people need to be able to rethink the poorly thought up foundation if they ever want to produce anything but noise on this topic. Until then, every major "RPG" thread will suffer from the very same questions even if said questions have been answered perfectly at least a decade ago.

EDIT: Also Final Fantasy has not been turn-based for what I think is most of its life. People are really bad at describing what they mean.

Interesting. So where would you put the following games? Resonance of Fate, Grandia 3, any modern 3D Tales of game, any Star Ocean, Valkyrie Profile 2, Lightning Returns.

 

[Szadek]

Then Dragon's Dogma is a western RPG and Mass Effect is a japanese RPG?

Yes for Dragon's Dogma.
Mass Effect is less WRPG than TES,but still as many aspects of the genre like character creation and moral choice.

 

[Gbraga]

I definitely agree with you. But maybe not with your examples. Character Action games make me think about God of War just as much as it makes me think Devil May Cry.

I just think if we are going to continue to call ALL RPGs that come from Japan 'JRPGs' then we should start calling stuff NARPGs (North American), or EERPGs (Eastern European) or whatever. If there is a reason for people to keep differentiating between Japanese RPGs from other RPGs, then we need to broaden this to everything.

I think the difference is that I don't really care about the terms existing, I don't see a problem with that. People just shouldn't give it much thought.

Just the fact that some people feel like calling japanese games "western RPGs" is necessary just shows how much importance they're giving to something that doesn't really matter all that much.

ARPGs, SRPGs, dungeon crawlers and so on are much better genres to put games in. But it's fine to use JRPG as a general term to talk to a crowd.

It's far easier to say to someone who doesn't like japanese RPGs to check out Dragon's Dogma because it's very different from the others than it is to create new terms when the ones we need already exist just because of exceptions.

 

[Sakura]

I've already explained why it is redundant. If it means nothing other than the place of origin, then there is no point in using the term. Just call it an RPG.

If you simply called Dark Souls a JRPG for instance, it is not really telling you anything other than the place of origin, right? So therefore there is no need to make that distinction in the first place.

The point to using the term, is to tell people where it is from. We do this for all sorts of things not exclusive to games, and most of the time, yes it is pretty useless. Normally I would just refer to Dark Souls as an RPG, same with Skyrim, and Dragon's Age, and Final Fantasy. If I wanted people to have more info on the type of game it was, I'd say if it was a strategy RPG, or open world, or action, etc. Using JRPG to describe a genre serves no purpose, and as I said, if you confine one specific type of RPG to the term JRPG, then what does every single other type of RPG fall under? WRPG? That doesn't make any sense. Or if they don't need to be called WRPGs, then why do we need to call a specific genre JRPG?

 

[EXGN]

For me, it will always be a term used to describe a certain subset of the RPG genre, and not specifically a country of origin. As I came to understand it, the term came about in the early 90s because RPGs from Japan were pretty much narrative-heavy light DnD games that were streamlined to make the more casual and approachable to a mainstream audience as opposed to Western RPGs which were more literal interpretations of DnD games and had more stats/options.Thus, JRPGs describe a type of game, not a game from a country.

I don't personally get the logic of people who think it's just an identifier for country of origin. We really don't use country of origin for any other type of game, and so why else differentiate if there were stylistic/mechanical differences between Japanese and Western RPGs.

 

[Owlowiscious]

It makes such perfect sense, that we dont use it in any other genre? How does that make sense. Clearly at some point in time there was a reason to differentiate between a Western style and a Japanese Style RPG.

We should all agree that more appropriate terms are necessary.



Exactly. In past it could have defined a genre, as most (not all) RPGs coming out of Japan were of a similar style. Now everything is different, and it has become useless at defining a genre.

People need to stop using 'JRPG' to describe what type of game it is. BUT people also need to stop using it to tell you what region it comes from. The region it comes from doesnt matter, or is implied by who is developing it. OR we need to start defining all games by the region they are from, not just RPGs.




100% exactly this.

turn based
atb
strategy
simulation
action
adventure

the terms already exist. and the terms for where a game originates also exist.

 

[Toxi]

It feels like the term JRPG evolved to describe stereotypes of JRPGs and Final Fantasy rather than most actual RPGs from Japan.

 

[leadbelly]

The point to using the term, is to tell people where it is from. We do this for all sorts of things not exclusive to games, and most of the time, yes it is pretty useless. Normally I would just refer to Dark Souls as an RPG, same with Skyrim, and Dragon's Age, and Final Fantasy. If I wanted people to have more info on the type of game it was, I'd say if it was a strategy RPG, or open world, or action, etc. Using JRPG to describe a genre serves no purpose, and as I said, if you confine one specific type of RPG to the term JRPG, then what does every single other type of RPG fall under? WRPG? That doesn't make any sense. Or if they don't need to be called WRPGs, then why do we need to call a specific genre JRPG?

lol

The point seems to be going over your head. There is no need for the term in the first place then. That is the point I was making. Just call them all RPGs

I have given you evidence of how historically it has been used to differentiate styles popular in Japan and in the West. It's no different to music in some respects. If I said I like 'African music' for instance, that would imply a certain style. Now there are bound to be certain African artists that you can't fit at all under that term, but in the general sense of the word, people know what I am talking about.

 

[Famassu]

I've already explained why it is redundant. If it means nothing other than the place of origin, then there is no point in using the term. Just call it an RPG.

If you simply called Dark Souls a JRPG for instance, it is not really telling you anything other than the place of origin, right? So therefore there is no need to make that distinction in the first place.

It's not redundant because there is quite usually some visible or underlying similarity between games of same place of origin even if the combat is different or even if one is animuuuuu and other is twisted & dark, especially when it's a place like Japan with such strong, different kind of culture in comparison to western cultures. When you say Japanese RPG, then you can basically be 100% certain it's not a game like Mass Effect, Baldur's Gate or Fallout. Dark Souls really has a lot more to do with Japanese game design sensibilities and twisted shit like Berserk than anything western.

There's a reason why anime and manga are a separate thing from all other forms of animation & cartoons. The same applies quite well to JRPGs.

 

[RaySpencer]

I think the difference is that I don't really care about the terms existing, I don't see a problem with that. People just shouldn't give it much thought.

Just the fact that some people feel like calling japanese games "western RPGs" is necessary just shows how much importance they're giving to something that doesn't really matter all that much.

ARPGs, SRPGs, dungeon crawlers and so on are much better genres to put games in. But it's fine to use JRPG as a general term to talk to a crowd.

It's far easier to say to someone who doesn't like japanese RPGs to check out Dragon's Dogma because it's very different from the others than it is to create new terms when the ones we need already exist just because of exceptions.

It would matter if people were all using them to define the style of game though, like say Western being open world and having character creation or something. Which isnt true, since Japanese games can be like this too, and Western games dont need to be like this at all.

But when people are just using it to describe the region it comes from then it means nothing and is useless. Someone who likes Persona might not like Dark Souls, because they are completely different games, so calling them both 'JRPGs' when its technicaly true for both of them (assuming you consider both RPGs, haha) is completely useless. It doesnt describe anything other than they are both from Japan, and that you would assume they would be similar games because they both are 'RPGs'.

It just shows that a lot of our genre definitions are useless, and that everything should be changed.

 

[leadbelly]

It's not redundant because there is quite usually some visible or underlying similarity between games of same place of origin even if the combat is different or even if one is animuuuuu and other is twisted & dark, especially when it's a place like Japan[/b] with such strong, different kind of culture in comparison to western cultures. When you say Japanese RPG, then you can basically be 100% certain it's not a game like Mass Effect, Baldur's Gate or Fallout.

There's a reason why anime and manga are a separate thing from all other forms of animation & cartoons. The same applies quite well to JRPGs.

Exactly. :s

You're either missing my point, or you have not read my posts.

 

[Sakura]

lol

The point seems to be going over your head. There is no need for the term in the first place then. That is the point I was making. Just call them all RPGs

I have given you evidence of how historically it has been used to differentiate styles popular in Japan and in the West. It's no different to music in some respects. If I said I like 'African music' for instance, that would imply a certain style. Now there are bound to be certain African artists that you can't fit at all under that term, but in the general sense of the word, people know what I am talking about.

This is kind of what I am saying though. If there were some African artists that didn't fit under this certain "style" that you are referencing, would you say that it isn't African music? Just like some people say a game like Dark Souls isn't a JRPG, because it doesn't fit under their limited idea of what a JRPG is.

 

[Gbraga]

It would matter if people were all using them to define the style of game though, like say Western being open world and having character creation or something. Which isnt true, since Japanese games can be like this too, and Western games dont need to be like this at all.

But when people are just using it to describe the region it comes from then it means nothing and is useless. Someone who likes Persona might not like Dark Souls, because they are completely different games, so calling them both 'JRPGs' when its technicaly true for both of them (assuming you consider both RPGs, haha) is completely useless. It doesnt describe anything other than they are both from Japan, and that you would assume they would be similar games because they both are 'RPGs'.

Definitely, you're completely right. I just think instead of crafting new terms, we should just be ok with exceptions.

See:

When you say Japanese RPG, then you can basically be 100% certain it's not a game like Mass Effect, Baldur's Gate or Fallout. Dark Souls really has a lot more to do with Japanese game design sensibilities and twisted shit like Berserk than anything western.

There's a reason why anime and manga are a separate thing from all other forms of animation & cartoons. The same applies quite well to JRPGs.

This is very much true, and the fact that Dark Souls and Dragon's Dogma don't quite fit isn't enough reason to banish those terms that have use for most other situations.

Also, this may be just my prejudice speaking, but when I think of deep combat systems, I don't think of western games. So that's one reason I defend both are VERY japanese games, even if their art style may not fit with other japanese RPGs.

It's fine if you don't wanna call them JRPGs, but western games they are not. So I agree when you say that if you wanna categorize them properly, you can't use either term, because just saying "this is what JRPG means and everything else is WRPG" would just cause a new thread like this to appear some time from now trying to define WRPGs so they won't suffer from the same thing.

EDIT:

This is kind of what I am saying though. If there were some African artists that didn't fit under this certain "style" that you are referencing, would you say that it isn't African music? Just like some people say a game like Dark Souls isn't a JRPG, because it doesn't fit under their limited idea of what a JRPG is.

Very interesting point, that's also worth discussing.

 

[RaySpencer]

turn based
atb
strategy
simulation
action
adventure

the terms already exist. and the terms for where a game originates also exist.

Terms exist, but they arent widely known, and they definitely arent widely used or accepted.

Games are so complex and full of different layers of gameplay and we havent updated our vocabulary to fit it.

DmC shouldnt be called an 'Action Game' or 'Character Action Game', that doesnt tell you that its a platforming-combostacking-narativedriven-linear-combat game, haha.

Or people calling both Lightning Returns and Persona 4 'JRPGs', 100% useless to help people find something they would enjoy if they like a particular genre.

 

[leadbelly]

This is kind of what I am saying though. If there were some African artists that didn't fit under this certain "style" that you are referencing, would you say that it isn't African music? Just like some people say a game like Dark Souls isn't a JRPG, because it doesn't fit under their limited idea of what a JRPG is.

It is a generalised term.

This is a straw man argument now.

 

[RaySpencer]

Definitely, you're completely right. I just think instead of crafting new terms, we should just be ok with exceptions.

See:



This is very much true, and the fact that Dark Souls and Dragon's Dogma don't quite fit isn't enough reason to banish those terms that have use for most other situations.

Also, this may be just my prejudice speaking, but when I think of deep combat systems, I don't think of western games. So that's one reason I defend both are VERY japanese games, even if their art style may not fit with other japanese RPGs.

It's fine if you don't wanna call them JRPGs, but western games they are not. So I agree when you say that if you wanna categorize them properly, you can't use either term, because just saying "this is what JRPG means and everything else is WRPG" would just cause a new thread like this to appear some time from now trying to define WRPGs so they won't suffer from the same thing.

I think thats the problem though, there is more and more exceptions now. So the longer we wait to redefine certain types of games to new genres, then the more and more useless the current genre names become.

 

[gravitybear]

2 words

spiky

hair

 

[Gbraga]

I think thats the problem though, there is more and more exceptions now. So the longer we wait to redefine certain types of games to new genres, then the more and more useless the current genre names become.

Hm, you're super right

 

[demidar]

It's not redundant because there is quite usually some visible or underlying similarity between games of same place of origin even if the combat is different or even if one is animuuuuu and other is twisted & dark, especially when it's a place like Japan with such strong, different kind of culture in comparison to western cultures. When you say Japanese RPG, then you can basically be 100% certain it's not a game like Mass Effect, Baldur's Gate or Fallout. Dark Souls really has a lot more to do with Japanese game design sensibilities and twisted shit like Berserk than anything western.

There's a reason why anime and manga are a separate thing from all other forms of animation & cartoons. The same applies quite well to JRPGs.

Let's look at this from the other side: western games that are similar to JRPGs. Lord of the Rings: The Third Age is practically Final Fantasy X with a LOTR skin. Anachronox plays damn similar to the Final Fantasies of old. Then you got that South Park game that plays similar to Paper Mario, and whatever Child of Light is, I haven't followed it much. How about games like Cthulhu Saves the World and Breath of Death VII which draw extensively from classic JRPGs? Would you classify them as WRPGs? Doing that doesn't make much sense to me, most of those are western made JRPGs.

 

[Gbraga]

Let's look at this from the other side: western games that are similar to JRPGs. Lord of the Rings: The Third Age is practically Final Fantasy X with a LOTR skin. Anachronox plays damn similar to the Final Fantasies of old. Then you got that South Park game that plays similar to Paper Mario, and whatever Child of Light is, I haven't followed it much. How about games like Cthulhu Saves the World and Breath of Death VII which draw extensively from classic JRPGs? Would you classify them as WRPGs? Doing that doesn't make much sense to me, most of those are western made JRPGs.

I don't think you're wrong, but the discussion becomes waaay too semantic there, since "western made JRPGs" means pretty much the same as "japanese-style WRPGs"

 

[The Silver]

It's not redundant because there is quite usually some visible or underlying similarity between games of same place of origin even if the combat is different or even if one is animuuuuu and other is twisted & dark, especially when it's a place like Japan with such strong, different kind of culture in comparison to western cultures. When you say Japanese RPG, then you can basically be 100% certain it's not a game like Mass Effect, Baldur's Gate or Fallout. Dark Souls really has a lot more to do with Japanese game design sensibilities and twisted shit like Berserk than anything western.

There's a reason why anime and manga are a separate thing from all other forms of animation & cartoons. The same applies quite well to JRPGs.

in Japan all animated stuff, western or otherwise are called anime.


It's only in the west that a difference was brought up because for a long time our cartoons were nearly all comedy and/or geared towards children, with the evolution of western cartoons with things like Avatar and DC's offerings there really is no difference at all between "cartoons" and "anime".

 

[demidar]

I don't think you're wrong, but the discussion becomes waaay too semantic there, since "western made JRPGs" means pretty much the same as "japanese-style WRPGs"

Japanese-style WRPGs != Japanese-style RPGs made in the west. I am not using those terms as a country of origin, but to describe certain styles of RPGs. WRPGs and JRPGs have opposing philosophies.

We can also bring this to animation. Is Avatar: The Last Airbender anime?

 

[Sakura]

in Japan all animated stuff, western or otherwise are called anime.


It's only in the west that a difference was brought up because for a long time our cartoons were nearly all comedy and/or geared towards children, with the evolution of western cartoons with things like Avatar and DC's offerings there really is no difference at all between "cartoons" and "anime".

Anime is a loanword that when used in English has a different meaning than when used in Japan. Just like Chai is simply the Hindi word for any kind of tea, but when used in English refers to a specific type of Indian tea, or how Sombrero refers to a very specific type of hat in English.

 

[SparksterMeta0]

It's RPGs produced in Japan.

It's so simple it works.
Thank you!

 

[Riposte]

Interesting. So where would you put the following games? Resonance of Fate, Grandia 3, any modern 3D Tales of game, any Star Ocean, Valkyrie Profile 2, Lightning Returns.

Once you are forced to think outside casually accepted, but conflicting, traditional frames of thinking, there's plenty of work to be done relating games to previously established sub-genres (across national borders, in some cases) or making new ones. There's a lot to discuss, which, for the most part, I'm less passionate about to declare things one way or another. The nature of sub-genres, mainly with highly related ones, is that they are less distinct from each other and as go deeper (e.g., sub-sub-genres) exceptions become the norm. This would actually be a nice change of pace compared to being so confused that you are denying Dark Souls is an action game and thus should be treated as one side by side with the other action games that arbitrarily don't appear in these "JRPG" threads. With that said, I'm going to provide some simple, inconclusive thoughts to your questions. This is partially because I haven't played most of those games. I'll still try to get by with what I know.

Isn't Grandia 3 like Valkyrie Profile 1? Correct me if I'm wrong. In that case, it is an interesting scenario where you tack-on action mechanics to what is otherwise a JRPG. Personally, I have no problem with JRPG being highly reflexive (FFXIII being a good example, with its rapid class switching), but it's certainly something to think about. I would call it a hybrid game at most, leaning towards of just JRPG.

3D Tales is definitely an interesting one. I've been trying to wrap my head around it since I played Tales of Grace F, the only one I've put much time in (the only one I've played besides a little of Vesperia). My mind immediately connected that game's movement system (within a confined area, no less) with Virtua Fighter 5, which I was also playing a lot of during that time. Skipping straight to the point, it really reminds me of a "squad-based" 3D Fighter (with the 2D ones not too far from 2D fighters in that same respect) and I only feel more comfortable with this line of thinking when you consider the fact that these games are usually multiplayer enabled (wouldn't be the first time a co-op fighting game has existed) and the AI/scripting taking over in the place of other players (poorly, if you ask me; I really disliked moving my characters games in that it's exactly what it sounds like: a 3D fighter where you control four characters in real time with one controller lol). I totally understand why someone many call me crazy at this point, but that's part of the fun (I also think this one is dipping into a rarely touched upon issue, what makes fighting games what they are, but one headache is enough for now). I'm not entirely confident in calling them fighters or anything, but in a process of elimination I've taken out the usual suspects. (Isn't Star Ocean highly derivative of Tales? The only one I played (2) was a lot like it, but pseudo-3D, like a belt-scroll game IIRC)

Resonance of Fate is a SRPG. IDK, seems open and shut to me.

Lightning Returns looks really weird to me. I have to play myself before I even try to categorize it. Unless movement has no real effect (as is the case of FFXII, IIRC), it's pretty safe to call something other than a JRPG. If it sounds really unintuitive given the game is carrying over a lot of tropes from the previous two games, imagine what would happen to House of the Dead if you suddenly gave the player full control of the camera/movement. Ah, yes, light gun/rail shooters are great analogue to the JRPG.

 

[leadbelly]

in Japan all animated stuff, western or otherwise are called anime.


It's only in the west that a difference was brought up because for a long time our cartoons were nearly all comedy and/or geared towards children, with the evolution of western cartoons with things like Avatar and DC's offerings there really is no difference at all between "cartoons" and "anime".

I'm curious. When you hear the term 'Anime', you don't make a distinction between Western animation and Japanese animation?

What image do you have in your head. Do you see like a more traditional western style to animation or do you see characters with big eyes and blue hair?

 

[demidar]

Once you are forced to think outside casually accepted, but conflicting, traditional frames of thinking, there's plenty of work to be done relating games to previously established sub-genres (across national borders, in some cases) or making new ones. There's a lot to discuss, which, for the most part, I'm less passionate about to declare things one way or another. The nature of sub-genres, mainly with highly related ones, is that they are less distinct from each other and as go deeper (e.g., sub-sub-genres) exceptions become the norm. This would actually be a nice change of pace compared to being so confused that you are denying Dark Souls is an action game and thus should be treated as one side by side with the other action games that arbitrarily don't appear in these "JRPG" threads. With that said, I'm going to provide some simple, inconclusive thoughts to your questions. This is partially because I haven't played most of those games. I'll still try to get by with what I know.

Isn't Grandia 3 like Valkyrie Profile 1? Correct me if I'm wrong. In that case, it is an interesting scenario where you tack-on action mechanics to what is otherwise a JRPG. Personally, I have no problem with JRPG being highly reflexive (FFXIII being a good example, with its rapid class switching), but it's certainly something to think about. I would call it a hybrid game at most, leaning towards of just JRPG.

3D Tales is definitely an interesting one. I've been trying to wrap my head around it since I played Tales of Grace F, the only one I've put much time in (the only one I've played besides a little of Vesperia). My mind immediately connected that game's movement system (within a confined area, no less) with Virtua Fighter 5, which I was also playing a lot of during that time. Skipping straight to the point, it really reminds me of a "squad-based" 3D Fighter (with the 2D ones not too far from 2D fighters in that same respect) and I only feel more comfortable with this line of thinking when you consider the fact that these games are usually multiplayer enabled (wouldn't be the first time a co-op fighting game has existed) and the AI/scripting taking over in the place of other players (poorly, if you ask me; I really disliked moving my characters games in that it's exactly what it sounds like: a 3D fighter where you control four characters in real time with one controller lol). I totally understand why someone many call me crazy at this point, but that's part of the fun (I also think this one is dipping into a rarely touched upon issue, what makes fighting games what they are, but one headache is enough for now). I'm not entirely confident in calling them fighters or anything, but in a process of elimination I've taken out the usual suspects. (Isn't Star Ocean highly derivative of Tales? The only one I played (2) was a lot like it, but pseudo-3D, like a belt-scroll game IIRC)

Resonance of Fate is a SRPG. IDK, seems open and shut to me.

Lightning Returns looks really weird to me. I have to play myself before I even try to categorize it. Unless movement has no real effect (as is the case of FFXII, IIRC), it's pretty safe to call something other than a JRPG. If it sounds really unintuitive given the game is carrying over a lot of tropes from the previous two games, imagine what would happen to House of the Dead if you suddenly gave the player full control of the camera/movement. Ah, yes, light gun/rail shooters are great analogue to the JRPG.

I understand the hesitance to go deep in segregation, but RPG is the broadest genre that many sub genres are warranted, so I don't think we have to worry that much about sub-subgenres rubbing up against each other.

Grandia 3's combat system can be best described as "hella weird".

The Tales of games are definitely the black sheep of these discussions, they don't like being pigeon-holed. I thought they just drew from ARPGs and JRPGs but I can totally see a fighter inspiration as well (that I didn't see due to my inexperience with fighting games). If Tales of Zesteria has seamless battle transitions then that's gonna fuck this up even more lol. Also I think Graces f being your major point of entry is colouring your view as it's easily the fastest and most technical battle system of the 3D Tales of games.

Resonance of Fate being an SRPG makes sense.

Lightning Returns is indeed a weird one. It's got the trappings of an ARPG.... but it lacks the relatively expansive range of movement expected of one. And it has battle transitions. Is it possible for a game to be considered an ARPG with battle transitions? We should ask someone who's played LR to death.

 

[foxuzamaki]

a role playing game, made by a japanese studio.
JRPG

 

[tearsofash]

I prefer to call an RPG made in Japan an RPG. However, I think other games that follow traditional Japanese RPG tropes and battle schematics ought to be called "similar to JRPGs." I'd rather just say "turn-based stuff" in a casual conversation though.

 

[foxuzamaki]

Zelda is a jrpg.....yes or no?

If you go to the virtual console on wii(idk if its like this on wiiU) and go under the rpg category, you will find zelda games
This is a official commercial made by nintendo themselves.
Nintendo themselves consider zelda a RPG.
So the answer? Yes.

 

[Grief.exe]

Calling Zelda an RPG is a major stretch.

 

[demidar]

Also assumes designers/developers/publishers are infallible.

Nothing is infallible.

 

[wmlk]

Honestly, I just look at a game and judge it for what it is. I feel like people depend on genres too much as a criteria. All I need is to refer to my past experiences about playing games, not just genres, and then judging the new things I see from a game.

 

[RaySpencer]

Honestly, I just look at a game and judge it for what it is. I feel like people depend on genres too much as a criteria. All I need is to refer to my past experiences about playing games, not just genres, and then judging the new things I see from a game.

They are nice to have when your looking for something new in a genre that you like.

Its fine if you dont use them, or care about them, but you should at least be able to understand why being able to define things within genres is useful.

 

[Levyne]

I would probably have a different answer on a given day, or if I discussed more thoroughly with people, but I don't think Zelda is quite an rpg in its current form. However, it is extremely close. I think that if the statistics of the items and equipment were more transparent to the player, it could be. For instance, if the game was open about the how much damage each sword does in, say, Skyward Sword, then it would resemble an RPG really closely. For instance if you give the Goddess sword an attack of "1", the long sword doubles that to "2", the master sword doubles the attack to "4", and if you were to list how much damage each type of attack does (for instance, typically lunges are double damage) and if you were to replace hearts with a simple hp stat (which would effectively be the number of hearts times 4 I guess?) that it's starting to look a lot like an RPG. If you were to also compare the damage of arrows, boomerangs, etc to the "1" damage of the base Goddess sword swing and determine "attack power" of all of the other item types, then even more so. You could effectively reverse-engineer what the items effective "stats" are.

It would all be a cosmetic change, but just those tweaks would make zelda look really similar to an RPG.

But I am not set in stone on the opinion, I haven't thought about it a lot. Because clearly there are other games where enemies have health points and attacks do certain damage amounts that are not generally considered RPGs.

 

[RurouniZel]

I usually take "JRPG" as a spiky-haired kid waking up out of bed, and realizing that they have to save the world with their other spiky-haired friends.

2 words

spiky

hair

I never knew an aesthetic qualified as a genre now.

Carry on, I suppose.

 

[Shinta]

It feels like the term JRPG evolved to describe stereotypes of JRPGs and Final Fantasy rather than most actual RPGs from Japan.

Only by people using it incorrectly. These are the same people that are fighting tooth and nail to prevent something like Dark Souls from being called a JRPG.

They want to cut Dark Souls off of that, so that they can shit on the term "JRPG" with impunity. Because, you see, that is literally the only reason the term "JRPG" was ever created in the first place.

It's about stereotyping and criticizing large amounts of games based off ignorant, inaccurate generalizations. They used to just all be called RPGs. As soon as they succeeded in calling them JRPGs, then we got the flood of "how to fix the JRPG" articles, and "east vs. west" articles. It's about elevating the west over the east, and the criticism never seems to go the other way, despite how varied and different WRPGs are.

They don't want to let Dragon's Dogma and Dark Souls into the term JRPG, because they actually like those games. That should tell you everything you need to know about this argument, and about why it's ridiculous.

It literally just means RPG from Japan, end of debate. It's never been a useful term. They're all just RPGs.

 

[Steel]

Only by people using it incorrectly. These are the same people that are fighting tooth and nail to prevent something like Dark Souls from being called an RPG.

They want to cut Dark Souls off of that, so that they can shit on the term "JRPG" with impunity. Because, you see, that is literally the only reason the term "JRPG" was ever created in the first place.

Don't turn this into us vs them shit. I honestly like a lot of JRPGs, and I like Dark Souls, but I honestly don't see Dark Souls as a jrpg. If you played the game not knowing who made it, your first assumption would not be that it was made by a japanese developer.

And whether you like the term or not, JRPG is in the vernacular as a genre to itself. How it got there is irrelevant, how to distinguish what is and isn't in the genre is relevant(If it's just geographics, the term becomes pointless).

 

[Shinta]

Don't turn this into us vs them shit. I honestly like a lot of JRPGs, and I like Dark Souls, but I honestly don't see Dark Souls as a jrpg. If you played the game not knowing who made it, your first assumption would not be that it was made by a japanese developer.

And whether you like the term or not, JRPG is in the vernacular as a genre to itself. How it got there is irrelevant, how to distinguish what is and isn't in the genre is relevant(If it's just geographics, the term becomes pointless).

It is us vs. them, literally. W vs. J. That is the only point of using the terms, and it's been useless since it started.

 

[Parakeetman]

jRPGs stands for Japanese RPGs, which as the name implies are RPGs made in Japan there's nothing more to it.
They're not called Japanese-inspired/styled RPGs.
That's basically what I said in the previous thread.
It's not a real genre, it's just a way to tell people what region the game is from. Game mechanics will never be tied to a country same thing goes for tropes.

Saying something along the line of something like "Bravely Default is a jRPG" is not any different than saying "Alan Wake is Finnish Action-Adventure game"

Also one thing that really annoys me is that certain people classify all turn-based RPGs as jRPGs. Western developers did turn-based first popular western turn-based games include Wizardry and Might and Magic.

Do you know what Wizardry and Might and Magic have in common? They're both first-person dungeon crawlers and that brings up my next subject

Etrian Odyssey and Class of Heroes are more western than Dark Souls and Dragon's Dogma.
I'll try keeping it short since I don't feel like typing that much.

Now if you google Etrian Odyssey or Class of heroes you'll find probably be thinking
"This looks like another standard jRPG" because you got an image like this and probably think I'm crazy because it has anime styled artwork.





Wizardry is a popular franchise Japan, if you played early jRPGs chances are Wizardry was influence and (possibly) introduced Japan to the western fantasy setting. Dragon Warrior/ Dragon Quest, Final Fantasy, and Phantasy Star are some of the popular franchises that were influenced by Wizardry. And when I mean Japan really loves Wizardry they do, in fact some games are only found in Japan despite being a western game. I'm pretty sure there are more Wizardry games in Japan than there are in English.

So how exactly does Wizardry play?
In Wizardry you create your party from a list of classes that are available to you. Being a fantasy-styled game (Just like in Final Fantasy!)

Gameplay wise the entire game is in a first-person perspective even battles, and as I stated above the game is a dungeon-crawler so expect to crawl some dungeons.





As what I said about Wizardry can be applied to both Etrian Odyssey and Class of Heroes. Even though Dark Souls and Dragon's Dogma are western-inspired they certainly do not play like Wizardry or any early dungeon crawler, and a game having a certain art style doesn't change what region it's from.

Being a huge fan of the wizardry genre and owning a fuckton of the titles agree with everything said here. Great post.

 

[SkyOdin]

Don't turn this into us vs them shit. I honestly like a lot of JRPGs, and I like Dark Souls, but I honestly don't see Dark Souls as a jrpg. If you played the game not knowing who made it, your first assumption would not be that it was made by a japanese developer.

That is a pretty big claim. Dark Souls and Demon Souls are games that boldly proclaim their Japanese origins to me. They come from a very distinct brand of Japanese dark fantasy, and they share very little with western RPGs gameplay wise. Just about the only so-called "western RPG" trait they have is a stat-based character growth system. And those aren't unheard of in games from Japan.

To be perfectly honest, I think the the big reason people don't think of Dark Souls or Demon Souls as JRPGs is art style. If you changed Dark Souls to having a more stylized "anime" asthetic and kept everything else about the game the same (monster design, difficulty, gameplay, story, etc), you would see a lot more people eager to call it a JRPG.

I really think many people's use of the JRPG moniker is based more on superficial elements like art style than anything else.

 

[clem84]

I have read a good chunk of this thread and I see absolutely no reason why both definitions can't be true. If it's an RPG made in Japan, it's a JRPG. If it's an RPG with strong Japanese roots a la FF or DQ, it's a JRPG. There's no reason to insist on having one or the other. They're both true as far as I'm concerned. The acronym JRPG is a bit vague. It could mean a number of things. People shouldn't just use JRPG, they should explain why it is referred to as such. It would end the confusion and threads like these wouldn't even be necessary.

 

[demidar]

That is a pretty big claim. Dark Souls and Demon Souls are games that boldly proclaim their Japanese origins to me. They come from a very distinct brand of Japanese dark fantasy, and they share very little with western RPGs gameplay wise. Just about the only so-called "western RPG" trait they have is a stat-based character growth system. And those aren't unheard of in games from Japan.

To be perfectly honest, I think the the big reason people don't think of Dark Souls or Demon Souls as JRPGs is art style. If you changed Dark Souls to having a more stylized "anime" asthetic and kept everything else about the game the same (monster design, difficulty, gameplay, story, etc), you would see a lot more people eager to call it a JRPG.

I really think many people's use of the JRPG moniker is based more on superficial elements like art style than anything else.

Dark Souls and Demon's Souls are ARPGs, just like Kingdom Hearts.

 

[SkyOdin]

Dark Souls and Demon's Souls are ARPGs, just like Kingdom Hearts.

I'm not going to contest that. I was just responding to the idea that someone wouldn't think they were made by a Japanese developer if they were not told otherwise. Presuming of course, that the A in ARPG stands for action.

 

[Mxrz]

Out dated term at best. Used to be a way to refer to FF & anime style junk when we didn't know any better. If you're going to keep using it, then you're going to have to accept stuff like Souls and DD and a host of other non-anime things fall under it.

That is a pretty big claim. Dark Souls and Demon Souls are games that boldly proclaim their Japanese origins to me. They come from a very distinct brand of Japanese dark fantasy, and they share very little with western RPGs gameplay wise. Just about the only so-called "western RPG" trait they have is a stat-based character growth system. And those aren't unheard of in games from Japan.

To be perfectly honest, I think the the big reason people don't think of Dark Souls or Demon Souls as JRPGs is art style. If you changed Dark Souls to having a more stylized "anime" asthetic and kept everything else about the game the same (monster design, difficulty, gameplay, story, etc), you would see a lot more people eager to call it a JRPG.

I really think many people's use of the JRPG moniker is based more on superficial elements like art style than anything else.

Oh it certainly is. Saying Souls is "Western" is just the flip side of that.

 

[Steel]

That is a pretty big claim. Dark Souls and Demon Souls are games that boldly proclaim their Japanese origins to me. They come from a very distinct brand of Japanese dark fantasy, and they share very little with western RPGs gameplay wise. Just about the only so-called "western RPG" trait they have is a stat-based character growth system. And those aren't unheard of in games from Japan.

To be perfectly honest, I think the the big reason people don't think of Dark Souls or Demon Souls as JRPGs is art style. If you changed Dark Souls to having a more stylized "anime" asthetic and kept everything else about the game the same (monster design, difficulty, gameplay, story, etc), you would see a lot more people eager to call it a JRPG.

I really think many people's use of the JRPG moniker is based more on superficial elements like art style than anything else.

Art-style is one of the major things that I think make the distinction. It's not just artstyle, though. It's world style, narration style and a party focus.

On your point about Dark Souls, however, it is more western dark fantasy than Japanese Dark Fantasy, if we're being honest. The mechanics are not that far outside of western style RPGs, and they are very far from a Tales of game or a Final Fantasy in those terms. So yeah, I maintain that if you didn't know the developer and played the game blind, you'd assume it was made in the west. I would anyway.