Support NeoGAF

[Nairume]

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.

It does now.

I think it would be very safe to say that there was a period ranging from the early early 90's to the mid-2000 where what was coming out of the west and what was coming out of the east were generally distinct enough from what was coming out across the pond to where you could use the JRPG and WRPG distinction, with only a few games ending up hard to classify.

It doesn't really work for anything in the 80's nor does it work now, but it did work during that pretty lengthy time.

 

[Aeana]

All Japanese RPGs can be traced back to the likes of pen & paper RPGs, or Wizardry and Ultima. Dragon Quest was directly influenced by both of the latter. Does that mean we should also cease referring to Dragon Quest as a Japanese RPG? If you go down this path, things only get murkier.

I'm not someone who ever uses the term "JRPG," but really, the origin point of all of these games is pretty much the same, so defining games made today based on what they evolved from makes little sense.

 

[PsionBolt]

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.

I don't think a descriptor being broad is a bad thing. This forum regularly uses (and argues over the definition of!) an even broader term all the time: "video game". But that doesn't make it useless, just impercise.

If you just mean "used in conversation less" when you say "thrown out", then I actually agree. an RPG is a good descriptor for a database, but not very useful in general conversation, where people usually want more specific information. We have those more specific labels already, but they're not as commonly used as they perhaps ought to be.

 

[SatelliteOfLove]

"I can't stereotype it if I come upon one that I can't define!"

Then it is no surprise that you are defining JRPG and WRPG in such a silly manner.

The SaGa series of Square RPGs is about as nonlinear as it gets. All of the games in the Romancing SaGa series are defined by both the ability to pick your starting main character from a list of 8, and the ability to travel the world freely and do sidequests in a very loose order. It is also one of Square's oldest franchises, made by one of its founding members, and through the early PS1 era had as many installments as the Final Fantasy franchise, many of which were wildly popular in Japan.

The problem with people trying to use JRPG as genre definition is that it is typically based on a perception that Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest games are the extent of the genre, and a general ignorance of everything else produced by Japan. Only a small fraction of Japanese produced RPGs became hit successes in the west, but those games are not the extent of what is produced by the country.

For example, sometimes people will claim that Demon's Souls isn't a JRPG, but that ignores two key facts: Demon's Souls has little in common with western RPGs, and it is the successor to From Software's King's Field franchise, which has been around since the beginning of the PS1 era. Games in its general genre have been around and popular in Japan for years and years. Claiming that it isn't a Japanese-styled game is quite silly, since it is part of a well-established Japanese RPG genre.

They never read these kind of posts. Their view has ignorance both as a base and fuel.

 

[hydrophilic attack]

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

Fixed.

Spoiler

Although, if you include the DLC, Dark may still come up on top. I'm not yet decided on that.

 

[partyphone]

Fixed.

Spoiler

Although, if you include the DLC, Dark may still come up on top. I'm not yet decided on that.

I'm okay with this.

 

[demidar]

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.

I can identify whether a game is a JRPG or a WRPG with about a 90% accuracy, but what interests me is why I can do that. Something must be different and I've been thinking about what it is. What usually helps is the aesthetic (anime-ish or realistic or any point in between) but don't conflate that with aesthetics being a defining feature, I use it as an indicator of the general direction of the game.

There is a definite design difference with regards to the two sub-genres. For example most WRPGs have a lower numbers attached to stats, in DnD styled games, STR/DEX/WIS/INT/CHA/CON are quite low (10-20) unless you have epic characters, the SPECIAL system found in Fallout games are between 1 and 10. Some WRPGs don't even use such a system like Mass Effect 1 and its skill trees to determine stat bonuses. Compare to JRPGs, early Final Fantasies have stats up to 255, Star Ocean charcters can usually deal up to 10,000+ damage in a single hit, Tales of characters can have stats starting at 100, eventually going up to 700. This is just one of the differences between the two genres (grounding and importance of stat points).

 

[Sqorgar]

I think it would be very safe to say that there was a period ranging from the early early 90's to the mid-2000 where what was coming out of the west and what was coming out of the east were generally distinct enough from what was coming out across the pond to where you could use the JRPG and WRPG distinction, with only a few games ending up hard to classify.

I don't think so. As I mentioned earlier, the only reason we have this distinction is because of the and eventual rise of western RPGs on computers during a time when consoles were popular (and almost exclusively developed on by Japanese companies). In the mid-80s, games like Dragon Quest and Final Fantasy (then just called RPGs) peacefully coexisted against their computer contemporaries, like Might and Magic, Wizardry, and the AD&D Gold Box games.

There weren't a lot of JRPGs then (at least, not that got localized), but in Japan, there was a very large western influence going on. The Wizardry and Ultima series were pretty popular on the MSX, and I think there was a game called The Black Onyx, which was extremely influential over there. These games just weren't being made for the Famicom, and when they were, we didn't see them. So we got a VERY one-sided look at Japanese role playing games.

The SNES/SFC was really where our modern sensibilities about what constitutes a JRPG comes from. During this period of time, American-made RPGs were sort of dying out. Bard's Tale and the like were kinda disappearing. Meanwhile, Dragon Quest had inspired a lot of console games to be made in its image. However, that western influence could still be felt on Japanese computer games.

Ultimately, I think Americans bought Final Fantasy, so we got a lot of games that were like Final Fantasy, while the RPGs which were different were never localized. This lead to a VERY limited impression of what RPGs the Japanese played and enjoyed. We classified these console RPGs as JRPGs because we thought that was all the Japanese played, but we were only seeing part of the picture.

 

[VanillaCakeIsBurning]

I think the only times I've used this term is because others used it first.

It makes sense to me that JRPG would mean an RPG made in Japan. WRPG means an RPG made somewhere in a Western country although it's a little vague.

I've seen CRPG (Canadian) and PRPG (Polish) used as well. I don't mind because I don't expect 4 letters to fully describe how a game plays or looks.

If I see a game labeled as JRPG, if I'm interested I'll investigate and look up more details about the game. The only thing JRPG tells me is the location the game was developed in. That's it.

Nothing else. You only need to bring up a comparison of something like Tales of versus Demon's Souls to show you that using it to segregate different styles doesn't actually accomplish what its proponents claim it does.

Basically, don't be lazy. Take 5 minutes to look up the mechanics of a game if you're interested, because 4 letters isn't going to do the job.

 

[Riposte]

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

Naturally, I disagree with your conclusion. I just posted the most consistent and meaningful way to use "JRPG". The phrase itself is irrelevant of course, but I'm interested in how it is used as a classification.

With this though, you've solved nothing. You just restructured the current problem. Your JRPG definition just says every Japanese game is a JRPG. Okay lol. Why not just call them "Japanese games"? If you did that would still leave us with people treating Dragon Quest and Dark Souls as the same thing when they couldn't be farther apart.

Perhaps you meant to only apply this to "RPGs". Well, now define "RPG" (actually don't, at least not for my sake). The point is that all you've done is found and brought to light an existing and even bigger problem by "solving" (or rather, mitigating) the problem of JRPGs.


Honestly, this remains hopeless for as long as people obsess over the phrase "JRPG". The collection of letters and what they can mean is just not important. Stop trying to make the world fit around this arbitrary name you inherited from tradition rather than the other way around. If GAF can't get over this, it will never be able to move the discussion forward.

 

[partyphone]

Mass Effect 3 is a JRPG because it is a dating sim with terrible writing.

 

[Sqorgar]

All Japanese RPGs can be traced back to the likes of pen & paper RPGs, or Wizardry and Ultima. Dragon Quest was directly influenced by both of the latter. Does that mean we should also cease referring to Dragon Quest as a Japanese RPG? If you go down this path, things only get murkier.

But Dragon Quest was significantly different from its influences. What's more, it inspired many clones. Rather than Dragon Quest being one more in a long line of Wizardry games, it is more precisely remembered as the first in a long line of Dragon Quest games.

Something like Etrian Odyssey, which goes out of its way to bring back drawing maps on a sheet of graph paper, is trying to emulate its influences, not surpass them.

 

[water_wendi]

The problem exists because RPG as a descriptor is incredibly broad, necessitating the use of further qualifiers.

Agreed. Its as broad as Action or Adventure or Puzzle.

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.

i understand why you would want this but i feel it is important to keep the label. The problem is, i think, that marketing departments have attached the label to nearly everything which has diluted its significance.

This is just my personal opinion but i feel that the resistance to the label jrpg comes from the idea from the last generational leap of the "jrpg" as something as a pejorative in the eyes of US gamers. As someone who is more in the camp of wrpg games (choice and consequence, limiting combat to uphold a moral path, etc) i disagree with this moniker because the current model wrpg choice and consequence is "i have the choice to kill with fire or ice! im making choices!" which is completely absurd.

i wish i could say what im think in a better way right but honestly im kind of drunk atm. i <3 jrpg games. Its the only thing that makes me want to get a console.. and i will once i get my tax refund. i had to stop myself from watching an entire Lets Play of Ni No Kuni, Nier, White Knight Chronicles, Lost Odyssey, and Blue Dragon because i want to experience them as they were meant to be experienced.

 

[Orayn]

It's interesting to note that the middle installments of the Ultima series seem to have been the biggest influence on the games that gave rise to the split between "W" and "J" RPGs. On the "W" side, you see Gold Box and later Infinity Engine RPGs. In Japan, the battle system gets streamlined and you have Dragon Quest and Final Fantasy.

First person dungeon crawlers like Wizardry and Eye of the Beholder would give rise to Ultima Underworld and the Immersive Sim genre, while their popularity in Japan brings us modern Wizardry spinoffs and decidedly oldschool dungeon crawlers like Etrian Odyssey.

Roguelikes trace their lineage back to "dnd," a mainframe game from 1979 that predates all of the above games. They served as the inspiration for Diablo and have a rather strong tradition in Japan as well with the Mystery Dungeon series.

The Elder Scrolls and King's Field are less closely related to the mainline traditions of W or JRPGs. TES is sort of a non-party based take on Might and Magic and the more sprawling Ultima games, while King's Field is like a more action-y and less elaborate version of Ultima Underworld. (KF is also an under-appreciated technical achievement for using fully polygonal graphics in an era when most 3D games still relied heavily on sprites.)

 

[hydrophilic attack]

Well, now define "RPG" (actually don't, at least not for my sake).

An RPG is a game where the effectiveness, primarily with regards to combat but sometimes also with regards to other in-game actions, of the playable characters is determined by stats that are visible, more or less transparent and manipulable by the player. The manipulation of these stats should be a rather important part of gameplay. Note that changing equipment that would change the effective stats of your characters would count as manipulating your stats as well.

.

 

[demidar]

Agreed. Its as broad as Action or Adventure or Puzzle.


i understand why you would want this but i feel it is important to keep the label. The problem is, i think, that marketing departments have attached the label to nearly everything which has diluted its significance.

This is just my personal opinion but i feel that the resistance to the label jrpg comes from the idea from the last generational leap of the "jrpg" as something as a pejorative in the eyes of US gamers. As someone who is more in the camp of wrpg games (choice and consequence, limiting combat to uphold a moral path, etc) i disagree with this moniker because the current model wrpg choice and consequence is "i have the choice to kill with fire or ice! im making choices!" which is completely absurd.

i wish i could say what im think in a better way right but honestly im kind of drunk atm. i <3 jrpg games. Its the only thing that makes me want to get a console.. and i will once i get my tax refund. i had to stop myself from watching an entire Lets Play of Ni No Kuni, Nier, White Knight Chronicles, Lost Odyssey, and Blue Dragon because i want to experience them as they were meant to be experienced.

Marketing itself is a gigantic clusterfuck and hold entirely too much power in my opinion, so let's not get them involved.

 

[CadetMahoney]

If a japanese company made fallout I wouldn't call it a jrpg.

pretty much.

 

[Sqorgar]

It's interesting to note that the middle installments of the Ultima series seem to have been the biggest influence on the games that gave rise to the split between "W" and "J" RPGs.

I thought I was the game historian in this thread

This is a good point though. Dragon Quest and console RPGs of that ilk are probably most closely related to Ultima 3 and 4, while what we now call WRPGs are most like Ultima 6-7 (and the WRPGs from BioWare are now most like Ultimate 8-9).

First person dungeon crawlers like Wizardry and Eye of the Beholder would give rise to Ultima Underworld and the Immersive Sim genre, while their popularity in Japan brings us modern Wizardry spinoffs and decidedly oldschool dungeon crawlers like Etrian Odyssey.

Don't forget one of the earliest and most influential ero games, Dragon Knight, was a first person dungeon crawl... er... so I've heard.

 

[Unstoppable Lionheart]

It has to overuse a formula that's been in use for 10+ years, it has to have a child and his other 5 year old friends completely dominating several adults with years more experience and power, there has to be several awkward attempts at humor, and it has to refuse to improve.

It also has to limit your freedom a good deal.

This is what I've gathered anyway.

 

[Riposte]

.

You missed the most important part of that quote:

(actually don't, at least not for my sake)

The moment you begin talking about stats (as if it matters if they are visible or not lol), you've already lost.

I am just not interested in talking about that right now. If by some miracle we can come to understand JRPGs can be simply described as tactics games which are mechanically different from SRPGs and action games, then the fight is half over.

 

[DukeTogo1300]

Not every Japan-related term needs to be almost impossible to define. This is one of the easy ones.

 

[hydrophilic attack]

You missed the most important part of that quote:

It appears you missed part of your own quote

(actually don't, at least not for my sake)

I didn't do it for your sake as I had already done it earlier in the thread.

The moment you begin talking about stats (as it matters if they are visible or not lol), you've already lost.

Why? And it definitely matters that they are visible. All games have stats. Shooters have different guns which in turn have different stats. But as the stats are not visible to the player, the player cannot make a conscious choice of gun on the basis of knowing their stats. While in an RPG you would choose the gun which, based on the stats, which you know, is most appropriate for the situation.

I am just not interested in talking about that right now.

Then why are you in this thread, acting like you know everything and that your definitions are indisputable words of truth? If they are, you should be able to have a productive discussion about them, like most other posters in this thread do, regardless of their stance. You should be able to state why someone with an opposing opinion has "already lost" and not just state that they have. You should be able to dispute their points, not just make arrogant, blanket statements.

 

[TheFLYINGManga_Ka]

I consider true JRPGs that hold this formula:

• Cast of characters with different classes that form a party
• RPG elements such as XP points, HP, leveling up, equipment, magic, etc.
• A world map that you can explore.
• Towns and dungeons.
• Bosses.
• And a story.

The modern formula:

• Teen character with amnesia protagonist, a cast of interesting characters.
• Or a female character with lavender hair and a bad attitude!
• A annoying cat character
• RPG elements but with automatic customization and leveling progression.
• Gameplay is, Cut scene, point A - Point B, another cut scene, Point C - Point D...maybe a few treasure chests, boss battle. Another cut scene.
• Linear story...making sense is optional!
• Teeny melodrama
• Lot's of capsule toys, action figures, manga adaptations, and even perfumes that follow.
• Piano intro music during the title screen.

 

[DR2K]

Anything that can be classified as an RPG from Japan. Anything else is just made up criteria that gives fans a reason to exclude a subset of games for frivelous reasons.

 

[Shaanyboi]

While you could broadly say "A japanese-made RPG", I think Dark Souls, Monster Hunter etc. aren't really included in that blanket term.


I associate the term with party systems, menu-based combat, going to shops/towns to buy new gear, and LOTS of story. There are other things I think I tie the term with, but aren't necessarily as true.

 

[Crash Station]

What I've learned from Gaf:

If it's bad, JRPG
If it's good, doesn't count as JRPG

 

[Riposte]

Then why are you in this thread, acting like you know everything and that your definitions are indisputable words of truth?

I'm classifying JRPGs.

But as the stats are not visible to the player, the player cannot make a conscious choice of gun on the basis of knowing their stats. While in an RPG you would choose the gun which, based on the stats, which you know, is most appropriate for the situation.

I know the stats of a shotgun relatively speaking and I know the stats of a sniper rifle relatively speaking. Watch me make a conscious choice based on their stats that is most appropriate for the situation. Perhaps I can't immediately discern the difference between two shotguns. Well, with time, I can. Much like I can figure out a critical hit rate in a SRPG if they happen to make it a bit obscure (DEX + blah blah / blah blah blah x phase of the moon = weird math equation).

Moreover these are strategic/tactical choices. If you want me to spare you the trouble, your problem is that you don't understand that what you call "role-playing" is often referred to as "roll-playing" in actual role-playing games. You (or rather, the predecessors who have decided this) took the strategy combat (dice-based wargaming) and character creation systems of tabletop games and assumed that's what people meant when they said role-playing when in actuality those were just vehicles for it. And that is the last time I'll talk about the definition of "RPG" for this thread, at least until I'm satisfied that I've made my point with JRPGs.

If they are, you should be able to have a productive discussion about them, like most other posters in this thread do, regardless of their stance. You should be able to state why someone with an opposing opinion has "already lost" and not just state that they have. You should be able to dispute their points, not just make arrogant, blanket statements.

I've already made an argument, but I haven't had the opportunity to discuss it further.

 

[Paracelsus]

What I've learned from Gaf:

If it's bad, JRPG
If it's good, doesn't count as JRPG

The feeling I have instead is that people desperately try to associate DS to the Jrpg genre because the game is godlike and it's a genre that hasn't had many titles of that level in ages and ages. I agree with whoever associated it to Zelda instead, it plays and feels like an action-adventure, individual skill counts way more than stats and plot is barebones.

 

[sleepykyo]

jRPG and wRPG don't specify the developer but the style. Both kinds started around the same time but in different regions, so the naming convention started.

jRPGs tend to have parties.
jRPGs tend to be turn based.
jRPGs tend to have loads of plot and exposition.
jRPGs tend to have a linear dungeon structure and story.

wRPGs tend to have a single player character.
wRPGs tend to be real-time.
wRPGs tend to be open world.
wRPGs tend to have you tell your own story through game mechanics.

If you play a lot of RPGs, you'll realize that very few games blur the lines, and if they do, you'll probably just call them by their subgenre. I.e. Fire Emblem is a sRPG, not a jRPG.

Everything you listed for jrpgs was in the Canadian Wizardry series (though the series is now in Japanese hands).

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.

I'd rather just reject the a country/origin to role-playing games. While the countries of origin do get discussed, I usually see RE just referred to a shooter rather than JShooter. Not to mention current blockbuster games are the product of 7 or 8 studios across the world.

 

[JordanN]

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

Fries are an actual dish. Potatoes are the ingredient (but they don't serve that).

 

[Lothar]

Action rpg: Souls games, Secret of Mana, Kingdom Hearts
Turn based aka traditional rpgs: DQ, FF etc
SRPG: Valkyria Chronicles, Disgaea
Non-linear rpgs: Atelier
Dungeon crawling: Etrian Odyssey, Izuna

A genre with many sub genres.

pretty much covers them all

Action RPG isn't a sub genre of RPG. It's a cross between Action genre and RPG genre. If anything, it's closer to being a sub genre of action.

Dark Souls and Secret of Mana are RPGs as much as Zelda or God of War is a RPG. Not at all.

 

[demidar]

Moreover these are strategic/tactical choices. If you want me to spare you the trouble, your problem is that you don't understand that what you call "role-playing" is often referred to as "roll-playing" in actual role-playing games. You (or rather, the predecessors who have decided this) took the strategy combat (dice-based wargaming) and character creation systems of tabletop games and assumed that's what people meant when they said role-playing when in actuality those were just vehicles for it. And that is the last time I'll talk about the definition of "RPG" for this thread, at least until I'm satisfied that I've made my point with JRPGs.

So what's the difference between the strategy employed in your definition of RPGs and strategy of any other game? Also some examples would help please.

Also I disagree with your argument of visible and manipulable stat numbers but we'll get to that later.

 

[Riposte]

So what's the difference between the strategy employed in your definition of RPGs and strategy of any other game? Also some examples would help please.

JRPGs are strategy games. I don't know what you mean.

 

[hydrophilic attack]

I'm classifying JRPGs.

Fair enough. But you yourself brought up the definition of RPGs in response to Coxswain's post and used the fact that it (in your opinion) is difficult (or pointless?) to define RPGs to dismiss the made in Japan/not made in Japan distinction. Once you have opened up that line of argument, you can't (well, shouldn't) just abandon it later.

I know the stats of a shotgun relatively speaking and I know the stats of a sniper rifle relatively speaking. Watch me make a conscious choice based on their stats that is most appropriate for the situation. Perhaps I can't immediately discern the difference between two shotguns. Well, with time, I can. Much like I can figure out a critical hit rate in a SRPG if they happen to make it a bit obscure (DEX + blah blah / blah blah blah x phase of the moon = weird math equation).

Still, the visibility of the stats is important together with the "manipulating stats is an important part of gameplay" part of my definition. In a shooter it is feasible to know the exact difference between three different shotguns after hours of experimenting. But if you had over 30 different shotguns to choose from, which wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility in an rpg, you probably wouldn't have time to thoroughly test all of them before the game ends, in order to determine their stats. And if you did, you wouldn't be able to make a conscious choice until you had played through a large part of the game. While in an rpg, where the stats are visible, you can make your choice immediately. I'd say that is an important difference.

Moreover these are strategic/tactical choices. If you want me to spare you the trouble, your problem is that you don't understand that what you call "role-playing" is often referred to as "roll-playing" in actual role-playing games. You (or rather, the predecessors who have decided this) took the strategy combat (dice-based wargaming) and character creation systems of tabletop games and assumed that's what people meant when they said role-playing when in actuality those were just vehicles for it. And that is the last time I'll talk about the definition of "RPG" for this thread, at least until I'm satisfied that I've made my point with JRPGs.

I've heard this argument before. I guess what it comes down to is whether you want to put the emphasis on "role-playing" or "game" in the term "role-playing (video) game". It's pretty difficult to make a game with only "role-playing" in your sense of the word. It's difficult to make a computer emulate a GM, which is a human being and is capable of adapting to however the "role-playing" aspects of the campaign evolve. It's much easier to make a game out of the "roll-playing" aspects than the "role-playing aspects". So the word "role-playing" implies slightly different things in a pen-and-paper campaign or a role-playing video game. And that is fine.

 

[demidar]

JRPGs are strategy games. I don't know what you mean.

I also don't know what you mean. Are they one-step removed from games like Starcraft? What about Fire Emblem? The way you are using the term 'strategy', I don't understand the definition of. Every game requires strategy.

 

[SkyOdin]

Action RPG isn't a sub genre of RPG. It's a cross between Action genre and RPG genre. If anything, it's closer to being a sub genre of action.

Dark Souls and Secret of Mana are RPGs as much as Zelda or God of War is a RPG. Not at all.

Genre is additive, not exclusionary.

If you cross a sci-fi setting with Western tropes and plotlines, you get a space western. If you cross a horror plotline with a fantasy setting you get fantasy horror. If you cross an action game with RPG mechanics, you get an action-RPG.

Secret of Mana is both an action game and an RPG. I would say more RPG than action, since its action mechanics are somewhat shallow compared to its RPG mechanics. But it still legitimately counts as both an action game and an RPG. Having one doesn't make it not the other.

 

[demidar]

That reminds me, what about shooters that can be played both in first person and third person like the Serious Sam series? Are they F/TPSes? Or do we just call them shooters?

 

[SkyOdin]

I'm classifying JRPGs.



I know the stats of a shotgun relatively speaking and I know the stats of a sniper rifle relatively speaking. Watch me make a conscious choice based on their stats that is most appropriate for the situation. Perhaps I can't immediately discern the difference between two shotguns. Well, with time, I can. Much like I can figure out a critical hit rate in a SRPG if they happen to make it a bit obscure (DEX + blah blah / blah blah blah x phase of the moon = weird math equation).

Moreover these are strategic/tactical choices. If you want me to spare you the trouble, your problem is that you don't understand that what you call "role-playing" is often referred to as "roll-playing" in actual role-playing games. You (or rather, the predecessors who have decided this) took the strategy combat (dice-based wargaming) and character creation systems of tabletop games and assumed that's what people meant when they said role-playing when in actuality those were just vehicles for it. And that is the last time I'll talk about the definition of "RPG" for this thread, at least until I'm satisfied that I've made my point with JRPGs.



I've already made an argument, but I haven't had the opportunity to discuss it further.

Wow, the "role-playing" versus "roll-playing" argument. That was tired and pointless a decade ago when it was trodded out by internal fan-wars of D&D. In tabletop terms, calling someone else's style of gaming "roll-playing" was always a pretty lousy and stupid argument. It was always a form of "my edition or playstyle of this game in a niche hobby is better than yours" argument that lacked substance or meaning.

Even in tabletop RPGs, what makes it an RPG is that it has rules and mechanics. RPGs, tabletop or videogame, are defined by attaching malleable statistics and traits to characters. A tabletop RPG that lacks such things stops being a formal game entirely, while a videogame that lacks such things slips into another genre, such as action or strategy.

 

[Nairume]

All Japanese RPGs can be traced back to the likes of pen & paper RPGs, or Wizardry and Ultima. Dragon Quest was directly influenced by both of the latter. Does that mean we should also cease referring to Dragon Quest as a Japanese RPG? If you go down this path, things only get murkier.

I'm not someone who ever uses the term "JRPG," but really, the origin point of all of these games is pretty much the same, so defining games made today based on what they evolved from makes little sense.

I'd say that maybe early Dragon Quest (and early Final Fantasy for that matter) represented a murky period where they were still mostly doing the same things as their western counterparts, and what they were doing different wasn't really enough to set them apart from what the others were doing.

Going off that, it seems there was point around Dragon Quest 4 and definitely Final Fantasy 4 where the genres had diverged and you could say for certain that they were doing very different things from each other.

While it'd be silly to say that early Dragon Quest and Final Fantasy were WRPGs, since they obviously weren't, maybe the safe thing would just be to consider the early stuff on both sides of the pond "RPG" and just recognize that the WRPG and JRPG diversion came later.

 

[decoyplatypus]

I shouldn't only be critical I guess. Here is a rushed(I'm tired as hell) layout of what I think is most proper. Though I don't expect anyone to suddenly adopt it, I firmly believe it avoids all the pitfalls.

(Names don't matter as much as what games are in these groups.)

a) Genre 1: Wizardry-like games, Dragon Quest, Mother, Pokemon, Final Fantasy 1-10, The Last Remnant, Radiant Historia, Valkyrie Profile 1

These games have mainly strategy combat systems in nature(though you can get weird ones which have tacked on reflex tests like Valkyrie Profile 1 and the combos in TLR). What sets them apart is the complete removal, simplification, or trivialization of positioning and movement in combat. This is a big deal because in wargames(and then some RPGs), the origin of all strategy genres, precise position and movement are some of the most important elements. In Dragon Quest positioning in non-existent, in some Final Fantasys it is represented as battle ranks, and The Last Remnant is an extreme take on the idea where your relationship to your enemy is what you control(though positioning still matters for AoEs, it is not really in your control.)


"JRPGs". "Wizardry-like". I sort of want to give them a name based on what makes them different, something like Static (c)RPGs.


b) Genre 2: Baldur's Gate, Tactics Ogre, Icewind Dale, Temple of Elemental Evil, Final Fantasy Tactics, Disgaea, Dragon Age: Origins (they don't have to be isometric, that matters only a little)

SRPGs / WRPGs. Traditionally grid-based combat where movement and positioning is very important and you have a whole map to play with.

I think The Last Story might fall into here, as an extreme real-time example, but then again, I don't know if I understand the game enough. It might be 3.


c) Genre 3: Diablo, Torchlight, The Witcher 1(not 2), MMORPGs in the style of Everquest/FFXI/WoW, DotA games

These are what I would call action (C)RPGs(NOT Kingdom Hearts or Demon's Souls). Though they can be further separated between games where you click-click-click and auto-attack, I am going to keep it simple. When are not spamming the default melee attack you are likely manipulating a collection of powers based on cool-downs. At the highest level, the distinction between the genre's strategy origins and the action-nature of it should be really blurry. It seems like this is what you get when you strip away squad-members and focus on making playing one character more interesting.


d) I've never played a Tales game before, but as far as I can tell, they belong nowhere near the above three categories. At least not the classic ones. Also these seem to be action games, anyway.

One objection to Riposte's taxonomy is that it is highly idiosyncratic. If we're hesitant to define "jRPGs" as "Japanese-developed RPGs" because geographical origin is insufficiently descriptive of the content of the category, then we should be equally slow to adopt a definition that, so far as I can tell, is unique to Riposte. Putting Baldur's Gate and Tactics Ogre in the same category (based on the importance of movement/positioning) is hardly more helpful to the average player than placing Tactics Ogre and Demon's Souls in the same category (based on geographical origin). Gameplay features may be more relevant than geography in parsing videogame genres, but the features Riposte hones in are not the ones (or at least not the only ones) most people think of when they label a game a "jRPG" based on its content, and they lead to some pretty counterintuitive results. Chrono Trigger may end up in subgenre (b) despite being formally extremely similar to FF1-10 in all respects except its use of positioning in combat. Valkyrie Profile 2 probably slots into subcategory (b) even though Valkyrie Profile 1 is in (a). Riposte's taxonomy may be a neat way of analyzing combat systems, but it's not much help in addressing the OP's question.

I'm also slightly skeptical of the internal coherence of his classifications (though I am open to persuasion here). Is positioning really less important in Valkyrie Profile and Radiant Historia than it is in Baldur's Gate? It matters a great deal where the enemy is positioned in the former games. In Valkyrie Profile, you get very different results for hitting an enemy in the air as opposed to on the ground. In Radiant Historia, the object of the battle system in many ways is to force the enemy into a good formation for your attacks to do maximum damage. The positioning decisions you have to make in Baldur's Gate (are my Archers a sufficient distance from the enemy? are my thieves going for stealth hits?) are, for the most part, present in many games in subcategory (a) - only in abstracted form. Riposte knows this, and that's why he says positioning doesn't have to be completely removed to put you in subcategory (a); it just has to be simplified or trivialized. Well, I'm not sure the the abstractions at work in subcategory (a) always result in something simpler than games that do not use those abstractions.

 

[entremet]

Demons Souls feels more like an action game than RPG.

 

[demidar]

Demons Souls feels more like an action game than RPG.

Wouldn't say that, using equipment to its full effectiveness requires stat points. Try and swing a Zweihander at SL 5 and I will just lol at you. Wear Havel's armour set and you might as well be asking to die since you can't run for shit.

It's an ARPG, there's an equitable importance of both the action and RPG parts.

 

[Risette]

Still, the visibility of the stats is important together with the "manipulating stats is an important part of gameplay" part of my definition. In a shooter it is feasible to know the exact difference between three different shotguns after hours of experimenting. But if you had over 30 different shotguns to choose from, which wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility in an rpg, you probably wouldn't have time to thoroughly test all of them before the game ends, in order to determine their stats. And if you did, you wouldn't be able to make a conscious choice until you had played through a large part of the game. While in an rpg, where the stats are visible, you can make your choice immediately. I'd say that is an important difference.

So Resident Evil 4 is an RPG?

 

[partyphone]

So Resident Evil 4 is an RPG?

don't be silly. it's a JRPG.

 

[SkyOdin]

I'd say that maybe early Dragon Quest (and early Final Fantasy for that matter) represented a murky period where they were still mostly doing the same things as their western counterparts, and what they were doing different wasn't really enough to set them apart from what the others were doing.

Going off that, it seems there was point around Dragon Quest 4 and definitely Final Fantasy 4 where the genres had diverged and you could say for certain that they were doing very different things from each other.

While it'd be silly to say that early Dragon Quest and Final Fantasy were WRPGs, since they obviously weren't, maybe the safe thing would just be to consider the early stuff on both sides of the pond "RPG" and just recognize that the WRPG and JRPG diversion came later.

Again, I need to mention that games like Final Fantasy 4 are not wholly indicative of what was going on in Japanese RPG design for the period. Romancing SaGa was released in 1992, the year after FF IV. It was an open, non-linear game with a player-customizable protagonist and a slim story. It went on to found a popular trilogy of games that lasted through the SNES era. Romancing SaGa sold the same amount in Japan that Final Fantasy 4 did. It was just as popular and just as much a part of Square's game output at the time.

I find any claim that there is a fundamental and clearly delineated difference between Japanese and Western games to be highly exaggerated, even historically. More importantly, the idea that there is a unified Japanese or Western style is even more problematic.

Western RPGs are clearly split into several distinct genres. We have single character exploration heavy RPGs like Fallout and Elder Scrolls. We have D&D styled party-oriented games like Baldur's Gate. We have the rogue-likes and their descendants such as Diablo (which I argue is a closer cousin to Persona 3 than Final Fantasy is). And we have distinct genre hybrids such as Deus Ex. Trying to lump all of those together as a unified "style" confuses the issue.

It is as silly as trying to draw distinctions between Western and Japanese shoot-em-ups while ignoring the difference between horizontally scrolling and vertically scrolling shmups. The differences between different facets of games are very complex and numerous, and much more real and tangible than focusing too hard on a Japanese versus Western split.

 

[demidar]

I just remembered a game I played years ago, Lord of the Rings: The Third Age.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcOyUs1dgDY

Now tell me, is it a WRPG or a JRPG? I'll give you a hint

Spoiler

the combat is exactly like FF10's, right down to the turn order bar

. No wonder I loved the shit out of that game, plus it had Evil mode.

 

[Meccanical]

Japanese RPGs are made in Japan right?

I mean...that's why they are Japanese...

 

[Thug Waffle]

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

Came here to post this. JRPG's tend to have their own style, but it's not outside the realm of possibility that a JRPG resembles a Western-made RPG and vice versa.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

Action RPG isn't a sub genre of RPG. It's a cross between Action genre and RPG genre. If anything, it's closer to being a sub genre of action.

Dark Souls and Secret of Mana are RPGs as much as Zelda or God of War is a RPG. Not at all.

What the hell? I can understand objecting to calling Zelda an (action-)RPG, but how is Dark Souls not an action-RPG? It has action combat, but character stats, equipment and fine-tuned customization is absolutely central to the gameplay. Just because it's not turn-based combat doesn't make it non-RPG... -_-

 

[Riposte]

I also don't know what you mean. Are they one-step removed from games like Starcraft? What about Fire Emblem? The way you are using the term 'strategy', I don't understand the definition of. Every game requires strategy.

To put it simply, sure. Fire Emblem is particularly apt. If you threw away the maps of Fire Emblem and just lined up everyone (the combat animations included), it would look and play like a JRPG. My point here is that it is the map mechanics (i.e. movement and placement) usually fundamental to wargaming that separates something like Fire Emblem from Dragon Quest. In both cases they are still tactics games.

Again, I'm not sure what you are asking. Are you talking about how I use strategy choices/depth (i.e. what you do moment to moment in Fire Emblem) or strategy games? Or is it you don't understand how I differentiate action and strategy games as a whole (which isn't particularly important because I'm talking about games which play in a manner that is recognizably alike)? Given what you initially quoted you might be caught up in how I described "roll-playing" (in that case it doesn't matter if the combat system was based on wargaming or not, you can have role-playing use any type combat system as a vehicle). This is a bit too broad for me answer. Also a little too vague (for example you asked me about something I said in my definition of RPGs even though I didn't give one).

Genre is additive, not exclusionary.

That is a terrible system to work from. Genres work best as exclusionary (other words: with distinction in mind).

Just because movie genres (though these may all simply be sub-genres) are confusing (and mind you, not particular helpful given a "genre film" is something often looked down upon by critics) doesn't mean videogame ones have to be. It probably doesn't help that inexplicably some genres are based on setting while others based on intended mood. I don't really care though, it doesn't necessarily affect arguments on videogames. Personally I'm not going to waste my time bridging my strong understanding of videogames to something I don't care to understand deeper.


More in a moment.