Support NeoGAF

[Have a Nice Day]

I don't see this as a problem. We have plenty of sub-descriptors that more readily identify what each game is.

Consider this hierarchy I just created:

These games are all JRPGs, but are all clearly in different subgenres.

I lol'd

 

[Sqorgar]

Now, whatever cute little sub genre you want to assign it to afterward whether it is a strategy RPG, action RPG, Tactical RPG, Anime Influenced RPG, Otaku RPG, Visual Novel RPG, turned based RPG, it is still A Japanese RPG

I still take offense at strategy games being under the RPG banner. Advance Wars is not a strategy RPG, and yet Fire Emblem is so closely related, I'd be surprised if they didn't share 90% of each other's codebase. Putting those two games into separate genres is madness.

 

[MuddyDonut]

The discussion on JRPGs seems so damn eager to go in circles. Guys, if you don't face me now, I'll just show up in your other threads.

It's going to happen anyway. With that being said I just popped in Ff12 and player positioning doesn't seem to matter nor does player movement as enemies will still hit you even if you are a good distance away from them. But if you keep on running you can go into the next zone and avoid their attacks. It's kind of messy so I recommend popping it in for better perspective.

 

[chaosblade]

Is Secret of Evermore a JRPG? Is Barkley Shut up and Jam Gaiden a JRPG? Would be a JRPG if it were developed by Japanese Americans? Or it be a JRPG if people made it while on vacation in Japan?

Is Final Fantasy IX (developed in Hawaii?) a JRPG or WRPG? Final Fantasy III I think had the whole team working in LA since Nasir's visa in Japan ran out or something. If Toriyama & Uematsu did the character design and music for the next Elder Scrolls game, would it be a JRPG?

I think there's something more to the style than it simply being developed in Japan or being made by Japanese people.

Look at it this way. I ask you about a game, and what it's like. You tell me "oh, it's a JRPG."

That doesn't tell me anything, because "JRPGs" vary to the extreme in everything from gameplay mechanics to visuals to storytelling, world building, and characterization. There's not enough consistency under that label to use it as a meaningful genre description, so it doesn't serve anything more to denote where a game is from (or possibly, as someone else mentioned, who it targets).

But then you have people saying "Fire Emblem isn't a JRPG, it's a SRPG" because it doesn't meet some sort of personal criteria that they have. If it's not simply a description of where the game was developed (or what market it targets) then that just makes it an even more useless label because everybody is going to have different definitions.

 

[AppleMIX]

Is Dead Rising 2 a JRPG? Cthulhu Saves the World a WRPG? Was the Japanese-made sequel to Wizardry a JRPG?

Once upon a time, RPGs in the West were essentially dead, but the genre was thriving in Japan. We just called them RPGs. But then, thanks to Fallout and then Baldur's Gate, we had a bit of a resurgence in the west. But Baldur's Gate isn't much like Final Fantasy. So we called them CRPG (computer RPGs) and JRPGs (because 99% of console games were made in Japan at the time) to make that distinction. Thus fans of gritty, complicated RPGs could tell the difference from those sunny, teenager saves the world RPGs on consoles.

(Technically, people already called computer RPGs "CRPGS", but it was intended to make a distinction with pen and paper RPGs, like Dungeons and Dragons, where were far more omnipresent and influential during the early days of computing. When it came time to make a distinction between Fallout and Final Fantasy, CRPG was just sort of modified to refer to RPGs on a computer as opposed to a console).

Except then the PC started dying in the west. Maybe it was piracy. Maybe it was because Microsoft entered the console race. But those CRPGs stopped showing up on computers and started showing up on consoles. You used to be able to call Morrowind a CRPG because the Xbox game was a port. But Oblivion was made as much with consoles in mind as the PC. How was one to make a distinction now? So we started calling them JRPG and WRPGs?

Thus the term JRPG only really exists because console RPGs were wholly created by Japanese companies at a time when computer RPGs were coming back into style.

Good post, you pretty much summed up why the classification exists in the first place.

Ultimately, these genres exist so that people can classify which games they will and won't be interested. My personal pet peeve is that tactics games routinely get trashed by JRPG fans who have only dabbled in tactics games because of Final Fantasy Tactics. When you classify things wrong, you get people making stupid demands and having unreasonable expectations, ultimately destroying a subgenre as these demands ultimate push games further and further towards the familiar.

I complete disagree with this notion. This generation we've seen less of a focus on genre classifications (most games are described as it is "this" mixed with "this" and a little bit of "this". We've seen games be willing to mix traditional genres and I think this is the most diverse games have ever been (despite what GAF may say).

The characterization of that is too simple.

If a RPG is made by Japanese Developers which by extension has Japanese cultural influence (whether implied or outright), made for a Japanese audience, it is a Japanese RPG.

Now, whatever cute little sub genre you want to assign it to afterward whether it is a strategy RPG, action RPG, Tactical RPG, Anime-Influenced RPG, Otaku RPG, Visual Novel RPG, turn-based RPG, it is still A Japanese RPG

How the hell do you define something nebulous as a "japanese culture influence".

 

[demidar]

I still take offense at strategy games being under the RPG banner. Advance Wars is not a strategy RPG, and yet Fire Emblem is so closely related, I'd be surprised if they didn't share 90% of each other's codebase. Putting those two games into separate genres is madness.

Advanced Wars is just turn-based strategy because there's no manipulable stat points, each unit is faceless and unit types are completely the same. Fire Emblem does have stat points that dictates damage, armour, crit rate and dodge chance.

 

[Hcoregamer00]

I still take offense at strategy games being under the RPG banner. Advance Wars is not a strategy RPG, and yet Fire Emblem is so closely related, I'd be surprised if they didn't share 90% of each other's codebase. Putting those two games into separate genres is madness.

They are separate genres, one game is a pure strategy game, another is a Japanese Strategy RPG. You can grind the crap out of Fire Emblem and break the game balancing, you cannot do the same with Advance Wars.

Just because they share the same designers and game engine doesn't automatically make it the same genre.

 

[Riposte]

It's going to happen anyway. With that being said I just popped in Ff12 and player positioning doesn't seem to matter nor does player movement as enemies will still hit you even if you are a good distance away from them.

You can't really "kite" enemies around, can you?

 

[Portugeezer]

It's more to do with style than country of origin, otherwise all games would be categorised by country, but they're not.

 

[hydrophilic attack]

It's difficult to completely separate them because W/JRPGS are not mutually exclusive. There are many requirements that can define which style an RPG belongs to (as my post above states as well as that Zeboyd blog post) but it's a sliding scale. Aesthetically an RPG can be super-stylized, realistic or any point inbetween. How much agency does the player have within the world or story? None (traditional JRPG), heaps (open-world WRPGs) or any point inbetween (NWN2 for example). WRPGs and JRPGs are just two sides of the same spectrum, there's no hard delineation.

I agree that labeling RPGs can get really messy, but that doesn't mean we should take the easy way out. We should do our best to label them and in time we'll come to a good conclusion.

I don't think we would ever reach an agreement if we would try to make a distinction based on "style" or a bunch of different variables. There are numerous examples of attempts in this very thread that were shot down very quickly which illustrate my point.

Your post implies (with wording such as "taking the easy way out") that making a distinction based on country of origin would be meaningless (please correct me if I'm wrong). But good points have been made in this thread for why it is indeed meaningful, just as it is when we discuss movies or literature. See posts 116 and 130 by Valkyria and Hcoregamer00, respectively.

 

[Enosh]

Even though I see the kind of distinctions people are trying to make, I think it's stupid and this is right. An RPG made in Japan or from a Japanese developer.

a black metal band playing in Gothenburg doesn't mean they are suddenly playing Gothenburg metal just due to the location

location based names for defining stuff aren't really something new or unheard of
christ food is full of this shit, no one says any sauce made in Bologna is automatically Bolognese sauce just due to it's point of origin for example, instead the term signifies a sauce prepared in a certain way with certain elements to it, regardless if it is done in Bologna or Beijing

 

[Hcoregamer00]

How the hell do you define something nebulous as a "japanese culture influence".

I hinted at it in post #130 of this thread.

 

[RurouniZel]

So wait... to the people who are claiming that it's not based on country of origin (which is a fucking retarded thing to do anyway)... if Demon's Souls isn't a JRPG (again bullshit, it's the successor to King's Field) because of it's style... would this logic apply to GAFers as well?

For example, I'm a WGAF, but I play mostly Japanese games. Does that make me a JGAF?

 

[MuddyDonut]

You can't really "kite" enemies around, can you?

Well you need to be in a certain range for an attack to initiate and enemies will find a way to get to you. However, I can see it being possible even if the opportunities are slim. I only ran around an open area and fought some monsters in a field so that option was not really available to me.

 

[UltimaKilo]

In before "RPG that's made in Japan"!

 

[TheChewyWaffles]

An RPG made in Japan. I don't understand why people are so adamant about arguing against that.

So if Skyrim was developed in Japan it would be a JRPG? Nope.

 

[partyphone]

What we need is something like the Scoville scale for RPGs that measures anime levels. Less than 1000 anime? Probably a WRPG. More than 50,000 anime? Probably a JRPG.

 

[RurouniZel]

So if Skyrim was developed in Japan it would be a JRPG? Nope.

Actually yes, yes it would be. But it wouldn't be developed there (most likely), so it's not.

 

[Hcoregamer00]

So if Skyrim was developed in Japan it would be a JRPG? Nope.

If Skyrim was developed in Japan by a Japanese Development team with Japanese Sensibilities/Cultural influences for a Japanese Audience you are damn right it would be a JRPG.

 

[AppleMIX]

I hinted at it in post #130 of this thread.

My point is simple, Japanese Role Playing Games are RPGs made for the Japanese market by a Japanese developer. A western RPG with huge anime eyes and anime-style characterization doesn't make it a JRPG.

So if you have a RPG game made by Japanese for the Japanese it is a JRPG. If the game is exactly the same but is not made by Japanese developer then it is not a JRPG?

Also, what if some of the work is outsourced to western developers? Is it less of a JRPG then?

How in the world does that make any sense?

 

[partyphone]

Actually yes, yes it would be. But it wouldn't be developed there (most likely), so it's not.

The problem is if you have a genre label that includes Final Fantasy, Xenoblade, Dark Souls and Kingdom Hearts it's almost entirely useless as a descriptor.

 

[PsionBolt]

I might be wrong, but it seems to me like most of the people who don't agree with defining JRPG and WRPG by reigon hold that stance because it makes the terms worthless. But the way I see it, that's completely fine. It's okay if 'JRPG' and 'WRPG' don't tell you much about how a game plays.

We dont need those terms, because we have other ones: Command RPG (for DQ-likes), Strategy RPG (for Tactics-likes and FE-likes), Action RPG (for full control), Roguelike, and so on. On top of that, there are modifiers like turn-based, real-time, grid-based, first-person, dungeon-crawler, etc., to further differentiate.

It's not like we have any shortage of good descriptors for these games, so there is really no need to hold onto reigonal classifications and insist that they can convey something about gameplay.

I see plenty of others in this thread follow a similar line of thought.

 

[JordanN]

i reject the notion of whether a game is a wrpg or jrpg being based solely around which country the developers happened to reside in when making the game. If i go to eat sushi in Rome im not eating Italian food.

On one hand, you wouldn't call Burger King Belgian because fries come from there.

 

[hydrophilic attack]

How the hell do you define something nebulous as a "japanese culture influence".

Even if you can't define it, it is still there. Or do you deny that there are differences between different cultures?

In fact, the problems of defining it is similar to the problem of choosing certain traits that are typical of Japanese RPGs and making a definition based on that. It's impossible! Yet there is still something there! Which is why making a distinction based on country of origin is more feasible and more meaningful than making a distinction on a more or less arbitrary and subjective set of traits.

 

[Sqorgar]

They are separate genres, one game is a pure strategy game, another is a Japanese Strategy RPG. You can grind the crap out of Fire Emblem and break the game balancing, you cannot do the same with Advance Wars.

Both games have their origins in tabletop wargaming. Advance Wars is a direct descendant of Empire (which is also the origin of 4x games). SRPGs are a bit muddier, but in general, they are descended from Chainmail, the tabletop wargame that eventually paved the way for the creation of Dungeons and Dragons. Chainmail was just one in a long line of miniature skirmish tabletop games that go all the way back to HG Wells' Little Wars rules.

SRPGs did not grow out of RPGs. If anything, it is the complete opposite. But at the very least, the RPG elements in SRPGs are additions place on top of the tactical wargaming gameplay, and THAT'S what these games should be classified by. Calling Fire Emblem an RPG is like calling DOOM a massively multiplayer online game. It greatly exaggerates what is essentially a very small part of its identity.

 

[Hcoregamer00]

So if you have a RPG game made by Japanese for the Japanese it is a JRPG. If the game is exactly the same but is not made by Japanese developer then it is not a JRPG?

Also, what if some of the work is outsourced to western developers? Is it less of a JRPG then?

How in the world does that make any sense?

You kind of missed the most important part of the post

The developers were raised in the cultural context of being in Japan, so there are uniquely Japanese sensibilities that are imbued in the game, even if it doesn't look or act like a stereotypical Japanese game. An western RPG would not idealize the school setting, would not have heavy concepts of Buddhism and Shintoism, would not portray women, homosexuality, and minorities the same way a Japanese RPG would.

 

[HolyBaikal]

With games like Dragon's Dogma out, a game like Skyrim could easily be a Japanese RPG. We may not classify it in the same genre as freaking amazing games like Tales of Symphonia. But it would still be a Japanese RPG, in my book.

Some of the major differences I think to making the game Skyrim for Japanese sensibilities would be to change the facial designs. Not necessarily make them anime, but their facial proportions would follow a Japanese rather than Western discipline. Japanese developers overall seem to have a radically different concept of how you're supposed to design a face both in "cartooning" or realism, than the West. Also there would be an even greater focus on third person gameplay.

First person games and RPGs do exist in Japan, but third person gameplay is far more popular.

 

[demidar]

I don't think we would ever reach an agreement if we would try to make a distinction based on "style" or a bunch of different variables. There are numerous examples of attempts in this very thread that were shot down very quickly which illustrate my point.

Your post implies (with wording such as "taking the easy way out") that making a distinction based on country of origin would be meaningless (please correct me if I'm wrong). But good points have been made in this thread for why it is indeed meaningful, just as it is when we discuss movies or literature. See posts 116 and 130 by Valkyria and Hcoregamer00, respectively.

Valkyr Hcoregame

But that's what I mean (at least that's what I've been trying to get across). My point was to divorce JRPG/WRPG terms strictly from region (i.e. an RPG made in Japan is a JRPG even if it's a carbon copy of say... Baldur's Gate II), BUT that developers in these regions are immersed in a design environment where certain tropes and design choices are given priority within the space of RPGs (if everyone's RPG is menu-driven, so will mine; everyone's game casts magic using MP, so mine will as well; everyone's game uses ATB, this will influence my game; people like games that feature angsty 18 year olds, but mine will feature 19 year olds!; these are just examples). The games made in this region are influenced by other games and in turn inspire future games in this RPG space. Because of isolation and cross-pollination of a limited number of ideas in this space, it gives rise to what we now call JRPGs. Therefore, an RPG made by a developer in the west that harkens back to that time, or is influenced by current games under the JRPG banner should also be called JRPGs (i.e. Cthulu Saves the World, Breath of Death 7, Anachronox). It's not about regions, but the stylistic differences that grew up in those regions, the difference is there and that's what I've been arguing.

 

[SkyOdin]

I might be wrong, but it seems to me like most of the people who don't agree with defining JRPG and WRPG by reigon hold that stance because it makes the terms worthless. But the way I see it, that's completely fine. It's okay if 'JRPG' and 'WRPG' don't tell you much about how a game plays.

We dont need those terms, because we have other ones: Command RPG (for DQ-likes), Strategy RPG (for Tactics-likes and FE-likes), Action RPG (for full control), Roguelike, and so on. On top of that, there are modifiers like turn-based, real-time, grid-based, first-person, dungeon-crawler, etc., to further differentiate.

It's not like we have any shortage of good descriptors for these games, so there is really no need to hold onto reigonal classifications and insist that they can convey something about gameplay.

I see plenty of others in this thread follow a similar line of thought.

Exactly. JRPG and WRPG are useless as terms, no matter how you define them. Either they tell you nothing, or they are highly misleading and generalized to the point of meaninglessness. No matter what, no one can agree on the definition, so know one will know what you are talking about regardless.

Better to just shelve them as antiquated terminology.

 

[partyphone]

With games like Dragon's Dogma out, a game like Skyrim could easily be a Japanese RPG. We may not classify it in the same genre as freaking amazing games like Tales of Symphonia. But it would still be a Japanese RPG, in my book.

Some of the major differences I think to making the game Skyrim for Japanese sensibilities would be to change the facial designs. Not necessarily make them anime, but their facial proportions would follow a Japanese rather than Western discipline. Japanese developers overall seem to have a radically different concept of how you're supposed to design a face both in "cartooning" or realism, than the West. Also there would be an even greater focus on third person gameplay.

First person games and RPGs do exist in Japan, but third person gameplay is far more popular.

But why? What does that gain you? What use is it in any possible conversation about video games? The term becomes entirely meaningless and useless when you define it that broadly.

 

[HolyBaikal]

So are there tangible gameplay difference between Japanese role playing games and Western role playing games overall that can and should be classified and not just shallow things like "anime"?

 

[Psycho_Mantis]

So wait... to the people who are claiming that it's not based on country of origin (which is a fucking retarded thing to do anyway)... if Demon's Souls isn't a JRPG (again bullshit, it's the successor to King's Field) because of it's style... would this logic apply to GAFers as well?

For example, I'm a WGAF, but I play mostly Japanese games. Does that make me a JGAF?

Exactly people are called from where they originate not what they act like. A Japanese person could act like an American but he is still Japanese.

Its not got to do with style. Over time people noticed certain trends in rpgs coming from Japan and some are now saying these trends are a rule book that all Japanese rpgs must obey to be a JRPG.

For instance you expect a Japanese rpg to have animu designs. Thats our expectations.

 

[partyphone]

So are there tangible gameplay difference between Japanese role playing games and Western role playing games overall that can and should be classified and not just shallow things like "anime"?

Not by your definition of JRPG.

 

[Nairume]

A decade or so ago, I'd say that the distinction between WRPG and JRPG were necessary as they ended up developing along wildly different, with really distinct things separating them from each other. Meanwhile, games that were already kind of a mix between the two were rare and considered niche products (like Anachronox, Kings Field, and the Japanese Wizardry clones).

But now RPGs made in Japan are starting to pick up more western design inspirations and RPGs made in the west are doing the reverse, causing the two sides to just reconvene again. Likewise, games that were already on the bridge are now starting to gain prominence as with stuff like Dark Souls, DragDog, and the Wizardry clones.

Only creepy loli stuff made by Gust and Idea Factory are the main outliers now, and I'd be perfectly okay with those games having their own quarantine genre.

 

[Nairume]

So are there tangible gameplay difference between Japanese role playing games and Western role playing games overall that can and should be classified and not just shallow things like "anime"?

At one point, yes, that was the case.

It's not anymore, and the two genres are merging back together.

 

[water_wendi]

On one hand, you wouldn't call Burger King Belgian because fries come from there.

Well thats an ingredient and not a dish. Would you consider Blue Dragon a wrpg if it was created using tools developed by Microsoft?

 

[Hcoregamer00]

But why? What does that gain you? What use is it in any possible conversation about video games? The term becomes entirely meaningless and useless when you define it that broadly.

It is important when alarmist posts talk about the "Death of the JRPG" as if we didn't have a great number of varied amazing games.

What posts like this should be saying is "Death of the turn based RPG" or "death of the Final Fantasy-style RPG" since an overall view shows that the genre is doing just fine when you look at the broad umbrella.

 

[Sqorgar]

So wait... to the people who are claiming that it's not based on country of origin (which is a fucking retarded thing to do anyway)... if Demon's Souls isn't a JRPG (again bullshit, it's the successor to King's Field) because of it's style... would this logic apply to GAFers as well?

King's Field's largest gameplay influences were probably Ultima Underworld and games like Wizardry. The atmosphere influence is dark fantasy, which has a fair lineage in Japan (Berserk, for one), but again, largely comes from Robert E. Howard's Conan stories, which mixed a historical medieval vibe with the Cthulhu mythos. In both cases, King's Field's most direct influence was western.

But I would say that Demon's Souls largest gameplay influence is no King's Field, but instead games like Ghouls and Ghosts and Castlevania - tough as nails action games where failure is punished severely, but with memorization and some skill, it is possible to get through each game without dying.

I'm not sure where I'm going with this except to say that King's Field is a Western RPG created by Japanese developers, and that claiming Demon's Souls is an RPG because of King's Field is bit misleading.

 

[Tain]

Would love to see someone address Riposte's posts.

 

[HolyBaikal]

I'm not sure where I'm going with this except to say that King's Field is a Western RPG created by Japanese developers

Then what about Etrian Odyssey?

They are both first person dungeon crawlers which take a lot of influence from early wRPGs.

 

[Nairume]

Then what about Etrian Odyssey?

They are both first person dungeon crawlers which take a lot of influence from early wRPGs.

They are inspired from mechanics that took place before the genre split off into two distinct regional flavors. It wouldn't be fair to call EO either because EO is trying to be something that predates WRPG and JRPG.

Incidentally, as the genres are starting to merge back together, games like EO and Dark Souls/Kings Field are starting to stand out more.

 

[hydrophilic attack]

So if you have a RPG game made by Japanese for the Japanese it is a JRPG. If the game is exactly the same but is not made by Japanese developer then it is not a JRPG?

Also, what if some of the work is outsourced to western developers? Is it less of a JRPG then?

How in the world does that make any sense?

No definition is perfect. Yes, this is the kind of problems you run into when you define based on region of origin. Yet, the number of actual real-world, problematic, borderline cases is orders of magnitudes lower than when making a distinction based on certain traits. Which is why the approach of dividing by region of origin is a much better approach.

The problem is if you have a genre label that includes Final Fantasy, Xenoblade, Dark Souls and Kingdom Hearts it's almost entirely useless as a descriptor.

Which is why you make a distinction between Japanese command RPGs and and Japanese action RPGs etc.

But that's what I mean (at least that's what I've been trying to get across). My point was to divorce JRPG/WRPG terms strictly from region (i.e. an RPG made in Japan is a JRPG even if it's a carbon copy of say... Baldur's Gate II), BUT that developers in these regions are immersed in a design environment where certain tropes and design choices are given priority within the space of RPGs (if everyone's RPG is menu-driven, so will mine; everyone's game casts magic using MP, so mine will as well; everyone's game uses ATB, this will influence my game; people like games that feature angsty 18 year olds, but mine will feature 19 year olds!; these are just examples). The games made in this region are influenced by other games and in turn inspire future games in this RPG space. Because of isolation and cross-pollination of a limited number of ideas in this space, it gives rise to what we now call JRPGs. Therefore, an RPG made by a developer in the west that harkens back to that time, or is influenced by current games under the JRPG banner should also be called JRPGs (i.e. Cthulu Saves the World, Breath of Death 7, Anachronox). It's not about regions, but the stylistic differences that grew up in those regions, the difference is there and that's what I've been arguing.

You make an interesting point here. Even so, unless you can define these stylistic differences (which we have established is difficult/impossible) you can't make the distinction. While the distinction made in Japan/not made in Japan is much more easy to define.

Edit: And whether the developer is Japanese or not is still meaningful due to the conscious or unconscious effect of the culture of the developers on the final product.

 

[partyphone]

It is important when alarmist posts talk about the "Death of the JRPG" as if we didn't have a great number of varied amazing games.

What posts like this should be saying is "Death of the turn based RPG" or "death of the Final Fantasy-style RPG" since an overall view shows that the genre is doing just fine when you look at the broad umbrella.

But isn't that what they mean when they say JRPG? That's a more useful definition of the term than "made in Japan". You're still just engaging in a semantics argument and not actually talking about video games.

 

[Coxswain]

There is only* one definition of "JRPG" that is consistent and sensible, without any edge cases that render the term meaningless: If it was made in Japan, by Japanese game designers, it is a JRPG.

As far as whether the term is useful: It's not a genre. It's not a precise descriptor of how a game needs to play. It's a heuristic. If you enjoy Final Fantasy, you're more likely to enjoy Dragon Quest, and vice versa, but some people only like one and hate the other. Some people only like Xenoblade, and some people only like D* Souls. Doesn't mean they aren't JRPGs. Doesn't mean the term is meaningless.


*only**
**only***
***ONLY

 

[Sqorgar]

Then what about Etrian Odyssey?

They are both first person dungeon crawlers which take a lot of influence from early wRPGs.

I'm not comfortable with the JRPG moniker in the first place. I'm merely pointing out how it breaks down very quickly under scrutiny.

I'm perfectly happy with Etrian Odyssey be called a first person dungeon crawl. It allows it to share a genre with its influences, the Wizardy and Eye of the Beholder series, while still giving it some wiggle room with its contemporary influences. I think that if you were to take either the first person aspect or the dungeon crawling aspect out, it would fundamentally change the game into a different genre, and thus I'm happy with the terminology "first person dungeon crawl" as well. I would even put King's Field and Ultima Underworld in this genre, despite not being party based like most of the others.

But I wouldn't call it a JRPG, because that excludes the game from its influences and nearest neighbors simply by virtue of the nationality of who made the game.

 

[demidar]

The problem exists because RPG as a descriptor is incredibly broad, necessitating the use of further qualifiers. Perhaps the answer is to throw out RPG as a video game label (besides describing games that actually emulate table top RPGs) and come up with a label that is more focused.

 

[AppleMIX]

You kind of missed the most important part of the post

So thats it?

What if a native Japanese person works on a WRPG? Is it now magically imbued with Japanese culture and thus a JRPG? Also do we describe the Witcher as a Polish RPG and completely different from a Canadian RPG (Baldurs Gate) or how about a Maryland RPG (Skyrim)?

Geographical location has NOTHING to do with what the game is. A game can be influenced by Japanese culture but it sure as hell doesn't get its own subgenre.

How does this definition hold up to even to the most mild scrutiny? It seems as though you can't provide a answer other than "it's just different".

 

[Philia]

I don't see this as a problem. We have plenty of sub-descriptors that more readily identify what each game is.

Consider this hierarchy I just created:

These games are all JRPGs, but are all clearly in different subgenres.

<3 I approve. I sure hate KH but OLD Tales are still great in my book... still on the fence on the newer ones though.

As for prior this nifty chart, I always just used Dragon Quest as a baseline and go from there. I should mention that I don't like Demon Souls as a rpg. Its more like survival horror to me. :\

EDIT: Gahhhh. I've forgotten about King's Field. Sigh yeah, I can see Demon Souls coming from that. I sure HATE the series though. BLAH.

 

[partyphone]

Okay so now that this is all settled we can at least agree that Dark Souls is the best JRPG ever made.

 

[Thoraxes]

It is an RPG and is Japanese.