partyphone
Banned
I think that's all of them.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
What classifies a "jRPG"?
- Thread starter HolyBaikal
- Start date
I think that's all of them.
Propaganda
Riposte
Member
If you want to know what I think JRPG means, then it is more along the lines "Japanese-style CRPGs" (C"RPG"s being a misnomer to begin with). Frankly, that makes more sense than "Japanese" alone because we almost always mean a certain style of game that is contrasted with a "western-style". That is at least based on content. What happens if tomorrow Capcom wants to collaborate 50/50 with a western dev on a new turn-based Dragon Fire game?
However, I can't stress enough it just doesn't matter to me and it shouldn't really matter to anyone to the point it misguides them. That's not a good excuse for sloppy classification (this is where we get "Dark Souls is a JRPG, but Devil May Cry or Zelda isn't"). I only want to assign the phrase to something along the lines of "Wizardry-like" or "Dragon Quest-like" because it fits well enough and it needs a name.
My problem with your post is that you didn't solve the issue of people saying Dark Souls and Dragon Quest are related in some way that isn't also true for every single game that originates out of a Japanese studio (or is published under a Japanese brand). You literally defined JRPG as "Japanese game" (I had to assume you forgot to add something, but if what you wanted to add is "RPG" then we are back at square one). I agree, both Tales of Phantasia and Final Fantasy X originate from Japan. So does various versions of Tetris and Street Fighter IV (though that's a "western" IP, owned by the Capcom in America). Even if it isn't a matter of genre (I feel it is destined to become one though), the linking of Dark Souls, Xenoblade, The World Ends With You, Final Fantasy X, Final Fantasy XI, Dragon Quest I, Kingdom Hearts, Tales of Destiny, Tales of Vesperia, etc etc should be explained if we are going to even exclude one Japanese game and certainly if we are going to exclude Japanese games with some form of progression system or similar mechanics otherwise.
I mean the only thing I can even halfway accept is that this has nothing to do with the games themselves. This is a pile of games which is the result of fanboys clinging to certain studios over a few decades. Thus is it impossible to truly ascertain what is included and couldn't be more arbitrary. On podcasts about "RPGs" people make excuses to talk about these games. At that point though, there is no conversation to be had.
Huge post coming up next.
They aren't JRPGs because they're not made in Japan. You're imposing your definition of JRPG onto others, when not everyone agrees to a strict definition of what a "JRPG" is.
And I don't really see the problem in calling games like Tactics Ogre an RPG anyway. The RPG mechanics are often as important as the strategy, if not even more.
I'm saying they aren't RPGs, therefore they can't be JRPGs. They are tactical skirmish games, and their country of origin doesn't mean anything because nobody has ever decided that Japanese strategy games are somehow different from all the other strategy games out there.
That's HIGHLY debatable, especially since Tactics Ogre auto-levels all the enemies to the level of your highest character. You can't grind your way ahead of the game. Positioning is far more important. Place meat shields in front of your mages, always hit from behind, defend choke points, and attack from higher ground. In Fire Emblem, you get bonuses depending on what units are next to each other. In Disgaea, characters can pick up and throw each other (not to mention the geo-mods or whatever they are called). In Yggdra Union, make sure your characters are lined up properly depending on whether the attacker is male or female. Position is fundamental in all but the most shallow and uninteresting tactics games.
It's a cooking style originating from China. It's pretty clear and well defined. You won't mistake a pizza for Chinese food. The classifications people make for JRPG are completely random and made up. In this thread:
Lord of the Rings: The Third Age = JRPG
Fire Emblem = Not JRPG
Where is the logic here? If you want to cut things down into genres, then just say turn-based, strategy, first person, action, party-based, massive multiplayer, etc. Simply saying "Japanese RPG" and assuming everybody automatically thinks of the same thing makes no sense. Like I said earlier, I disagree with the word "Japanese" being used to describe a genre when there is no clear definition.
Mondriaan said:
Well, this is another issue entirely. I would call The Simpsons American, despite being primarily animated in Korea. It's still written and produced in the US after all. Or are you actually talking about a Korean cartoon being called anime?
demidar said:
I don't consider it to be a genre. Similarly, I don't consider "Western" to be a genre of RPG. It's just where it comes from. Demon's/Dark Souls is a Japanese RPG to me (unless you want to argue against the term RPG here, which is fair).
Why aren't they RPGs, though? They have heavy RPG elements.
partyphone
Banned
so Call of Duty is an RPG?
...What?
partyphone
Banned
since CoD4 they've had heavy RPG elements.
Because RPG elements don't suddenly transform a game into something completely different. You add inventory and experience points to a first person shooter, it's still a first person shooter. You add inventory and experience points to a beat'em up, it's still a beat'em up. And if you add inventory and experience points to a game that is extremely Chess-like, it remains extremely Chess-like.
Heavy RPG elements? Absolutely not. You could easily dominate at level 1 against a bunch of max prestige players. CoD is much more about skill than the weapons you gain from leveling up.
Compare that to, say, Tactics Ogre or FFT. Leveling/New equipment/etc is pretty much required in order to move further into the game.
Yes, hence why people call it an "SRPG" -> It's a hybrid of RPG and Strategy elements.
Riposte
Member
This post is long, but you kind of brought that on yourself!
Only in its whole, really.
Right now the matter of how people classify xRPG, yRPG, etcRPG, and a handful of games inappropriately drawn from other clearly defined genres is all over the place (we have countless different arguments on it). There is no current set of classifications that can be sensibly agreed upon (some even argue that there should be no classifications lol), so it is not as if I'm peculiar in how I stray. What little can be agreed to some extent are based on loose assumptions which should be challenged (sacred cows, even). If you look around you'll see people make some of the same distinctions I do here and there. In midst of the nonsense there are people who want to separate Dragon Quest ("turn-based RPGs", "traditional RPGs", occasionally "command RPGs") from Fire Emblem ("SRPGs") and/or World of Warcraft and/or Monster Hunter and/or Dark Souls and/or Ocarina of Time. I've only made a conclusion which separates all of these at once and describes to which extent they are separated.
It is irrelevant that I'm pushing forward an idiosyncratic idea (at first glance) if it also happens to be the one that makes the most sense. Now I wouldn't say this model I drew up in a rush one night 2 years ago is the one that needs to be followed here on (especially in this form as it is lacking in some details, like that SRPGs can coexist even though not all of them are grid-based. More importantly I didn't face the turn-based, real-time, and semi-real-time distinctions head on). In fact I beckoned others to criticize is as I considered it a first draft. It is only to show how I would begin to clear up the mess we are in now.
But you see analyzing combat systems is the proper way to classify these games. They are the fundamental and distinctive mechanics at play. What you are left with once you remove that is menus which have lost their purpose, a visual novel (which may or may not have meaningful role-playing), and usually an added walking sim and some mini-games. What I honed on was simply the great difference which creates two sets out of otherwise similar set of games. The greatest difference that existed in the area which put these game where they were before I split them. In other words I've splintered two groups out of "tactics games".
Chrono Trigger is without a doubt in "Genre 1" (a JRPG as I would eventually put it). I don't follow how it wouldn't be. You seem to follow how I explained how JRPGs are not without any positioning mechanics.
I struggle to care about every instance of what someone normally thinks when they label a game JRPG. How can I when at times it is so contradictory and random? I just don't see how my way is counter-intuitive. More work? Maybe. But Dragon Quest and Final Fantasy (though there are drastic changes within the series everyone can recognize: FFXI, FFXII, DQX) are the ICONIC JRPGs (based on similarly iconic Wizardry) and I'm simply separating the games which play more like other established genres (or sub-genres) than they play like them. (Btw I purposefully avoided mentioning Valkyrie Profile 2, because I never played it and have no idea what it is like. I've played Covenant of the Plume and that was clearly different from VP1. Now does it matter that these two games in the same franchise may be in different sub-genres? No, of course not. If it does... have fun with Guilty Gear 2 lol)
What you are looking at is a lack of meaningful options within Baldur's Gate inherently more complex movement scheme. I think the way I used "important", especially in that old write-up may have been confusing, so my apologies. I didn't mean to say that the new mechanics which often replace the wargaming-style map are not important only that positioning as we knew it may not exist or be trivialized to the point where it doesn't exist in a meaningful capacity (it doesn't have an effect on combat). What you get in games without the new elaborate mechanics, in the best case scenario anyway, is designers focusing on what's left (which can mean they made reductions in a smart ways, removing what would normally be chaff).
Another way of looking at it is that games which can do thief sneak attacks, archer ranged attacks, and so on without the map is streamlined (or dumbed-down, if you prefer) into something else completely. They've removed the complexity from that element, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is less deep. For example if you added two or three more ranks to a JRPG which uses a system of a back and front row, you could possibly just be adding an unbalanced or meaningless mechanic. Naturally you can have a SRPG which doesn't make use of every inch of the map. On the other hand the strategy from something like Radiant History's managing of enemy positions (on a 9x9 board IIRC) with push-back and such can be in itself very tactical (btw I'm not endorsing the game).
Now, it is really the same thing being done if the method of doing a "sneak attack" (a visual theme to an action) is completely different? If a sneak attack in a SRPG is defined by moving your thief character across the map until he is sitting in a position which activates it (and this can be disrupted by the movement and positioning of enemies using the same system), then naturally it is destined to be different in a game without a map. Perhaps it is instead done by using an abstract system such as requiring an enemy to be "engaged" with another character or having the thief "switch sides" after using an ability.
Also, consider this:
On the other side of gaming we find these two (sub) genres: Rail-shooters (for now just think Time Crisis, House of the Dead) and First Person Shooters. Rail-shooters have removed all or most of the complexity involved in moving a character and using geometry to your advantage (or you can look at it as FPS have added it, doesn't matter). That's basically how they are best classified though: FPS without movement or positioning (or at least positioning has been extremely abstracted or simplified, e.g. the "pedal"/cover mechanics of Time Crisis). Now that arguably makes them a simpler genre as a whole (which I would say they are), but rail-shooters change the focus away from movement and do more things with shooting. It is not very often in FPS where you will shoot down other projectiles and the pressure on aiming is usually much higher in a rail-shooter. (I don't think we should have a conflict over this just because you can make a FPS look like a rail-shooter by camping with a sniper rifle lol.)
(On the topic of rail-shooters, there is actually a problem where I can't think a name for the third group. The one which holds games like Sin & Punishment. That clearly has movement, but in a different manner than FPS (or a TPS). I don't think of it as a STG either, because of how aiming works. This probably already exists and it is just slipping my mind, because I'm in a dead rush at this point to get back to school work.)
I should also note that movement and space (and the control inputs dictated by them) are an extremely important factor elsewhere. After all, that is how we separate 2D and 3D gaming, the biggest split in action games.
Tactical choices go way beyond just positioning. It seems like I'm stating the obvious here. Multiple attack options, resource pools (HP, MP), inventories, party members (with classes), etc all give you choices to consider. It is not as if the example you give is the only tactical choice you'd be making in Fire Emblem (in fact it is such a simplification that a form of that strategy does appear in plenty of JRPGs with row positioning). The weapon system, items, weighing of stats, etc. Similar things exist in JRPGs. The "tactic part" comes from the fact that JRPGs play like tactics games, but without a wargaming style map (or any real map to speak of). If you want to see an example of high level tactics in that form, check out competitive Pokemon play.
As for separating Fire Emblem and Advance Wars... Maybe I don't want to? lol. If it this is surprising (or makes it seem I've been vague up until now) it is just because that isn't what the topic is about. I'm entirely focused on JRPGs and the comparison with SRPGs just makes more sense. I rather not dwell deeper into this topic at the moment, but I have no problem with SRPGs being a "sub-sub-genres" so to speak. The deeper we go the less fundamental and distinct the defining characteristics need to be (the heavily generalized difference between Fire Emblem and Advance Wars would probably be best described as "team" construction and character progression, less essential stuff by my own accord). Just like JRPG, the term SRPG doesn't need to go away, it just needs to be specified. This would probably be easier to explain if there were more tactics games that are to JRPGs what Advance Wars is to Fire Emblem. I mean they exist in some capacity, I've played flash games like that, nothing worthwhile comes to mind.
This is a question with a big ass answer and a short answer, depending on just how much of video game criticism theory you want to cover. I'm going to try to be brief and hope for the best.
First, we have to understand that Counterstrike simply doesn't play like Fire Emblem. I'm hoping there isn't a problem in terms of why they have to be so far apart in the "tree of genres". I can try to describe what you do in these games and how it feels, but it is ultimately going to come down to attributing language to observations that have to be made in the first place. We can't sit here and fret over the obvious.
Now, we call the latter a tactics game not because it is exclusively tactical (its not, for sure), but because that is just the name that makes the most sense in respect to other kinds of "grander" strategy games less concerned with in and outs of what happens on the "battlefield". This goes back to how people define tactics and strategy, though strategy has a way of enveloping both concepts overall. By establishing the tactics genre we are effectively saying "Advance Wars is NOT Civilization. It is NOT SimCity" and so on and this results in pairing the games which are not anything else. Before we consider less essential elements (which I briefly listed at the end of the 2nd quote in my first post in this thread, the post I've hope you've read by now) we are left with a certain set of games which covers "SRPGs", "WRPGs", "JRPGs", and "tactics games" (a la Advance Wars and Hero Academy). You can then further divide them, which is what I've done. The reason Counterstrike is so far away from what we have as "tactical games" is because we divided the group which had both Fire Emblem and Counterstrike in it ages ago (in fact the split might occur at the base of the tree).
You are correct to assume Counterstrike has "tactics", but what it also has everything else which makes it Counterstrike. So this is the truly wordy part that I'm going to have truncate like crazy or else someone is going to have to start doing my college papers for me. All of gaming sits on a spectrum between "Action" and "Strategy" (which are the two main types of depth). In most games you make strategic choices (exceptions are basic "QTE" sequence games which describes both Dragon's Lair and rhythm games, "simon says" stuff) which I would describe as choices which are made cognitively (god, this is already becoming messy lol). Meanwhile there are also reflexive choices, though you may have a hard time looking at them as "choices": these are simply the things you do "reflexively" in games (the choice usually comes down to succeeding or failing). So one way to look at it is that "strategy games" are NOT "action games", but not necessarily the other way around.
This spectrum is extremely important in defining genres... initially. Getting away from your question, we come across something I find to be very tricky. Is Starcraft, a game extremely dictated by "micro" reflexive skills, an action game or a strategy game? What of Pikmin, for example? Puzzle games: Tetris requires insane reflexes in the harder games. Do ATB Final Fantasys sit on the opposite side of the genre tree than true turn-based ones? The games I describe in "Genre 3" sound a lot like action games, but their origins make it confusing (I mean DOTA is totally an action game, but it is basically an RTS where you control one unit). Turn-based vs Real-time vs semi-real-time (pausing, etc).
What I've done to solve this is have genres dictated by "form" after the initial split and lay the spectrum over it. Now this is an area where I can see a lot of argument, but I get the feeling I'm already talking about things that are not generally discussed in JRPGs threads lol.
Um, eventually distinguishing every game from every game sounds like the natural conclusion. I don't see that as defeat, just reaching one end of the model.
The taxonomy is as helpful as it can be: it defines genres by distinctions based on their most fundamental mechanics. That doesn't stop people for finding similarities in other respects and as long as they understand that they are no longer talking about genres, that isn't a problem. Both Call of Duty and Final Fantasy have leveling mechanics (mechanical theme). Both ZombiU and The Walking Dead involve zombie apocalypses (aesthetic theme). Now I don't know if I would call the model purely exclusionary: all of the mechanical themes become more important as you split off the bigger differences. SRPGs arise from tactics games. If you were to dwell even further than that, then you would probably find even less meaningful differences (at some point you would arrive at "series" / "spiritual successors and predecessors" , then finally "game"). I would visualize it as "race" at the very end of the primate order - at that point you don't really pay attention because there are virtually no defining differences.
Fair warning, even though I just did several quotes and answers (being replied to by many people at once sort of forced me to), I generally don't reply or at least fully reply to posts which follow that format. Not saying I won't read the post, but I usually limit myself in that manner so I don't spend all day on NeoGAF. I always take that as a sign that the conversation has become too splintered and would be better off continuing in a more concentrated thread (that could very well be the case here). There is a good reason why I wanted to avoid discussing "What is a RPG".
Only in its whole, really.
Right now the matter of how people classify xRPG, yRPG, etcRPG, and a handful of games inappropriately drawn from other clearly defined genres is all over the place (we have countless different arguments on it). There is no current set of classifications that can be sensibly agreed upon (some even argue that there should be no classifications lol), so it is not as if I'm peculiar in how I stray. What little can be agreed to some extent are based on loose assumptions which should be challenged (sacred cows, even). If you look around you'll see people make some of the same distinctions I do here and there. In midst of the nonsense there are people who want to separate Dragon Quest ("turn-based RPGs", "traditional RPGs", occasionally "command RPGs") from Fire Emblem ("SRPGs") and/or World of Warcraft and/or Monster Hunter and/or Dark Souls and/or Ocarina of Time. I've only made a conclusion which separates all of these at once and describes to which extent they are separated.
It is irrelevant that I'm pushing forward an idiosyncratic idea (at first glance) if it also happens to be the one that makes the most sense. Now I wouldn't say this model I drew up in a rush one night 2 years ago is the one that needs to be followed here on (especially in this form as it is lacking in some details, like that SRPGs can coexist even though not all of them are grid-based. More importantly I didn't face the turn-based, real-time, and semi-real-time distinctions head on). In fact I beckoned others to criticize is as I considered it a first draft. It is only to show how I would begin to clear up the mess we are in now.
But you see analyzing combat systems is the proper way to classify these games. They are the fundamental and distinctive mechanics at play. What you are left with once you remove that is menus which have lost their purpose, a visual novel (which may or may not have meaningful role-playing), and usually an added walking sim and some mini-games. What I honed on was simply the great difference which creates two sets out of otherwise similar set of games. The greatest difference that existed in the area which put these game where they were before I split them. In other words I've splintered two groups out of "tactics games".
Chrono Trigger is without a doubt in "Genre 1" (a JRPG as I would eventually put it). I don't follow how it wouldn't be. You seem to follow how I explained how JRPGs are not without any positioning mechanics.
I struggle to care about every instance of what someone normally thinks when they label a game JRPG. How can I when at times it is so contradictory and random? I just don't see how my way is counter-intuitive. More work? Maybe. But Dragon Quest and Final Fantasy (though there are drastic changes within the series everyone can recognize: FFXI, FFXII, DQX) are the ICONIC JRPGs (based on similarly iconic Wizardry) and I'm simply separating the games which play more like other established genres (or sub-genres) than they play like them. (Btw I purposefully avoided mentioning Valkyrie Profile 2, because I never played it and have no idea what it is like. I've played Covenant of the Plume and that was clearly different from VP1. Now does it matter that these two games in the same franchise may be in different sub-genres? No, of course not. If it does... have fun with Guilty Gear 2 lol)
What you are looking at is a lack of meaningful options within Baldur's Gate inherently more complex movement scheme. I think the way I used "important", especially in that old write-up may have been confusing, so my apologies. I didn't mean to say that the new mechanics which often replace the wargaming-style map are not important only that positioning as we knew it may not exist or be trivialized to the point where it doesn't exist in a meaningful capacity (it doesn't have an effect on combat). What you get in games without the new elaborate mechanics, in the best case scenario anyway, is designers focusing on what's left (which can mean they made reductions in a smart ways, removing what would normally be chaff).
Another way of looking at it is that games which can do thief sneak attacks, archer ranged attacks, and so on without the map is streamlined (or dumbed-down, if you prefer) into something else completely. They've removed the complexity from that element, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is less deep. For example if you added two or three more ranks to a JRPG which uses a system of a back and front row, you could possibly just be adding an unbalanced or meaningless mechanic. Naturally you can have a SRPG which doesn't make use of every inch of the map. On the other hand the strategy from something like Radiant History's managing of enemy positions (on a 9x9 board IIRC) with push-back and such can be in itself very tactical (btw I'm not endorsing the game).
Now, it is really the same thing being done if the method of doing a "sneak attack" (a visual theme to an action) is completely different? If a sneak attack in a SRPG is defined by moving your thief character across the map until he is sitting in a position which activates it (and this can be disrupted by the movement and positioning of enemies using the same system), then naturally it is destined to be different in a game without a map. Perhaps it is instead done by using an abstract system such as requiring an enemy to be "engaged" with another character or having the thief "switch sides" after using an ability.
Also, consider this:
On the other side of gaming we find these two (sub) genres: Rail-shooters (for now just think Time Crisis, House of the Dead) and First Person Shooters. Rail-shooters have removed all or most of the complexity involved in moving a character and using geometry to your advantage (or you can look at it as FPS have added it, doesn't matter). That's basically how they are best classified though: FPS without movement or positioning (or at least positioning has been extremely abstracted or simplified, e.g. the "pedal"/cover mechanics of Time Crisis). Now that arguably makes them a simpler genre as a whole (which I would say they are), but rail-shooters change the focus away from movement and do more things with shooting. It is not very often in FPS where you will shoot down other projectiles and the pressure on aiming is usually much higher in a rail-shooter. (I don't think we should have a conflict over this just because you can make a FPS look like a rail-shooter by camping with a sniper rifle lol.)
(On the topic of rail-shooters, there is actually a problem where I can't think a name for the third group. The one which holds games like Sin & Punishment. That clearly has movement, but in a different manner than FPS (or a TPS). I don't think of it as a STG either, because of how aiming works. This probably already exists and it is just slipping my mind, because I'm in a dead rush at this point to get back to school work.)
I should also note that movement and space (and the control inputs dictated by them) are an extremely important factor elsewhere. After all, that is how we separate 2D and 3D gaming, the biggest split in action games.
Tactical choices go way beyond just positioning. It seems like I'm stating the obvious here. Multiple attack options, resource pools (HP, MP), inventories, party members (with classes), etc all give you choices to consider. It is not as if the example you give is the only tactical choice you'd be making in Fire Emblem (in fact it is such a simplification that a form of that strategy does appear in plenty of JRPGs with row positioning). The weapon system, items, weighing of stats, etc. Similar things exist in JRPGs. The "tactic part" comes from the fact that JRPGs play like tactics games, but without a wargaming style map (or any real map to speak of). If you want to see an example of high level tactics in that form, check out competitive Pokemon play.
As for separating Fire Emblem and Advance Wars... Maybe I don't want to? lol. If it this is surprising (or makes it seem I've been vague up until now) it is just because that isn't what the topic is about. I'm entirely focused on JRPGs and the comparison with SRPGs just makes more sense. I rather not dwell deeper into this topic at the moment, but I have no problem with SRPGs being a "sub-sub-genres" so to speak. The deeper we go the less fundamental and distinct the defining characteristics need to be (the heavily generalized difference between Fire Emblem and Advance Wars would probably be best described as "team" construction and character progression, less essential stuff by my own accord). Just like JRPG, the term SRPG doesn't need to go away, it just needs to be specified. This would probably be easier to explain if there were more tactics games that are to JRPGs what Advance Wars is to Fire Emblem. I mean they exist in some capacity, I've played flash games like that, nothing worthwhile comes to mind.
This is a question with a big ass answer and a short answer, depending on just how much of video game criticism theory you want to cover. I'm going to try to be brief and hope for the best.
First, we have to understand that Counterstrike simply doesn't play like Fire Emblem. I'm hoping there isn't a problem in terms of why they have to be so far apart in the "tree of genres". I can try to describe what you do in these games and how it feels, but it is ultimately going to come down to attributing language to observations that have to be made in the first place. We can't sit here and fret over the obvious.
Now, we call the latter a tactics game not because it is exclusively tactical (its not, for sure), but because that is just the name that makes the most sense in respect to other kinds of "grander" strategy games less concerned with in and outs of what happens on the "battlefield". This goes back to how people define tactics and strategy, though strategy has a way of enveloping both concepts overall. By establishing the tactics genre we are effectively saying "Advance Wars is NOT Civilization. It is NOT SimCity" and so on and this results in pairing the games which are not anything else. Before we consider less essential elements (which I briefly listed at the end of the 2nd quote in my first post in this thread, the post I've hope you've read by now) we are left with a certain set of games which covers "SRPGs", "WRPGs", "JRPGs", and "tactics games" (a la Advance Wars and Hero Academy). You can then further divide them, which is what I've done. The reason Counterstrike is so far away from what we have as "tactical games" is because we divided the group which had both Fire Emblem and Counterstrike in it ages ago (in fact the split might occur at the base of the tree).
You are correct to assume Counterstrike has "tactics", but what it also has everything else which makes it Counterstrike. So this is the truly wordy part that I'm going to have truncate like crazy or else someone is going to have to start doing my college papers for me. All of gaming sits on a spectrum between "Action" and "Strategy" (which are the two main types of depth). In most games you make strategic choices (exceptions are basic "QTE" sequence games which describes both Dragon's Lair and rhythm games, "simon says" stuff) which I would describe as choices which are made cognitively (god, this is already becoming messy lol). Meanwhile there are also reflexive choices, though you may have a hard time looking at them as "choices": these are simply the things you do "reflexively" in games (the choice usually comes down to succeeding or failing). So one way to look at it is that "strategy games" are NOT "action games", but not necessarily the other way around.
This spectrum is extremely important in defining genres... initially. Getting away from your question, we come across something I find to be very tricky. Is Starcraft, a game extremely dictated by "micro" reflexive skills, an action game or a strategy game? What of Pikmin, for example? Puzzle games: Tetris requires insane reflexes in the harder games. Do ATB Final Fantasys sit on the opposite side of the genre tree than true turn-based ones? The games I describe in "Genre 3" sound a lot like action games, but their origins make it confusing (I mean DOTA is totally an action game, but it is basically an RTS where you control one unit). Turn-based vs Real-time vs semi-real-time (pausing, etc).
What I've done to solve this is have genres dictated by "form" after the initial split and lay the spectrum over it. Now this is an area where I can see a lot of argument, but I get the feeling I'm already talking about things that are not generally discussed in JRPGs threads lol.
Um, eventually distinguishing every game from every game sounds like the natural conclusion. I don't see that as defeat, just reaching one end of the model.
The taxonomy is as helpful as it can be: it defines genres by distinctions based on their most fundamental mechanics. That doesn't stop people for finding similarities in other respects and as long as they understand that they are no longer talking about genres, that isn't a problem. Both Call of Duty and Final Fantasy have leveling mechanics (mechanical theme). Both ZombiU and The Walking Dead involve zombie apocalypses (aesthetic theme). Now I don't know if I would call the model purely exclusionary: all of the mechanical themes become more important as you split off the bigger differences. SRPGs arise from tactics games. If you were to dwell even further than that, then you would probably find even less meaningful differences (at some point you would arrive at "series" / "spiritual successors and predecessors" , then finally "game"). I would visualize it as "race" at the very end of the primate order - at that point you don't really pay attention because there are virtually no defining differences.
Fair warning, even though I just did several quotes and answers (being replied to by many people at once sort of forced me to), I generally don't reply or at least fully reply to posts which follow that format. Not saying I won't read the post, but I usually limit myself in that manner so I don't spend all day on NeoGAF. I always take that as a sign that the conversation has become too splintered and would be better off continuing in a more concentrated thread (that could very well be the case here). There is a good reason why I wanted to avoid discussing "What is a RPG".
partyphone
Banned
so Mass Effect 3 isn't an RPG.
Yeah... no. The Japanese call these games Simulation RPGs. I guess Westerners heard SRPG and just assumed the S stood for Strategy. It didn't.
The Japanese also call Devil May Cry games Crazy Stylish Action (3), Crazy High Action (2) or Crazy Hard Action (1) and Tales games Discover the Strength to Protect RPGs or Discover the Meaning of Life RPGs and Metal Gear Solid games Tactical Espionage Action.
People post these things as an absurd proposition:
But it's probably true. Japanese developers and publishers invent "genres" on the fly. Total nonsense. They probably did the same thing when slapping RPG on whatever back in the 80s.
I have to imagine this is one of the reasons game genre classifications are so deranged -- taking these made up genres seriously. People take "survival horror" as a genre seriously yet it's a totally made up nonsensical thing that Capcom applied to Resident Evil only. They classified Dino Crisis as "survival panic", for instance. You have people debating what is and isn't part of a totally made up genre with a straight face and they don't realize the reason that nobody can decide what survival horror is or isn't is because is because it's not a real genre.
This thread hurts to read.
Yes, I am aware of the SaGa franchise.
I am also aware that between Romancing SaGa and Final Fantasy 4, one very obviously became the standard bearer for the genre to which the vast majority of the genre sought to emulate over the following two decades, while the other spawned a series of niche experimental games that were pretty love it or leave it kinds of games.
I think it's obvious which one is which.
Yeah, I'm aware of Japan's propensity for absurd genre names. Still, Simulation RPG isn't one of those fanciful genre terms. It's been the standard term used for tactics games going back a long time. Even now, Famitsu lists Super Robot Taisen and Devil Survivor Overclocked as Simulation RPGs.
The term may have been made up, but it was adopted by gaming largely because there was a classification void needed to describe games like Resident Evil. Notice that we call Dino Crisis survival horror and not survival panic. Capcom may have invented the name for the genre, but we accepted it because it did become a genre and because "survival horror" wasn't as stupid sounding as everything else Capcom comes up with.
Riposte
Member
It is funny to me that engrish "rule of cool" nonsense (the very same kind that gave us names like "Big Boss" in the late 80s) has somehow found itself so deeply embedded into the conversation.
Honestly, having played a metric fuckton of those games you are talking about Americans having missed, I stand by my statement that there was a pretty clean shift where the majority of RPGs coming out of Japan during the 90's and 2000's gained a distinct design, mechanical, and aesthetic style from what was going on elsewhere and that THOSE games could safely be distinctly be considered JRPGs.
If that means that Japanese games on the design periphery, like King's Field and Dark Souls, don't count. Then that's fine. We can just call them RPGs. It's really not worth freaking out about.
That doesn't mean you shouldn't approach it with caution, because it sounds like nonsense.
It didn't become a genre. It's based on nonsense and always will be. You can look to hundreds of threads where people trip over themselves trying to decide what is and isn't survival horror or how it's not real survival horror or how everybody has their own definition of survival horror.
Nobody debates over what an action movie or drama or comedy or mystery is.
It is nonsense. That's why I call them tactics games (because Tactics Ogre popularized including "tactics" in game names, like FFT, Suikoden Tactics, Onimusha Tactics, Fallout Tactics, etc, so it becomes a fitting name for the genre). I was merely replying to someone who was using the fact that they are called SRPGs to mean that they must be RPGs because the name is a combination of Strategy and RPG - it's not, it's a combination of bullshit and bullshit.
There's a few games that are most definitely survival horror. It's just games that were traditionally survival horror that have since evolved more towards action that confuses people because they want Resident Evil 6 to be in the same category as Resident Evil 2.
They sure do. You also left out sci-fi / fantasy, which is a setting and could easily be action, drama, comedy, or mystery. Classifications are largely based on what sticks, not what actually makes sense.
EDIT: Actually, they do sort of make sense. They don't classify what the films are, but rather the expectations of the audience. It's not that the film is particularly funny, but because the audience is looking for something light and whimsical. Similarly, a lot of people have trouble identifying with more fantastical settings, so even though a movie may both fantasy and a comedy, the fantasy aspects present the largest block in potential enjoyment and must thus be identified.
JRPGs likewise represent expectations of the player. Rather than representing a specific type of game, it represents a specific attitude towards the game of the player. For a lot of westerners, Japanese games and their tropes represent a significant impediment to their enjoyment, so it is important that they single them out.
In other words, JRPGs aren't about what people like, but what about people don't like. It's an indicator of a specific niche that allows people to overlook them with ease. It's not about the games at all. That's... sort of depressing.
I think this is the secret.
It's no coincidence that any "JRPG" that people like also has many trying to divorce the game from the term.
Again, I'd argue that it's partially because the two splinters of the genre (and, more importantly, the interests of their fans) have started to merge back into one whole thing. Thus, the RPGs that come out of Japan that reflect that (re: Dark Souls, Etrian Odyssey, etc) are now starting to step into the forefront, instead of being seen as antiquated nostalgia cash grabs to pre-split RPGs from the 80's.
Meanwhile, the ones that are either trying to desperately stick to 90's design (re: shitty Idea Factory games) are becoming increasingly niche, while others that are trying to retain a distinct identity (Modern FF) are struggling to find their place and are largely looking to the wrong place for influence.
Eh... eh... nope. J/W RPGs refer to the style. If Skyrim was made by SE it most certainly would not classify as a JRPG just like if FF was made by Bethesda it wouldn't classify as a WRPG. I mean... let's be serious... there's nothing to argue or discuss - they are two completely different styles of RPG.
Sure, so then why do you want everyone to stop calling "strategy" games SRPGs? Does it not have RPG elements? I'm not sure what our argument from earlier was for.
They are still within the old 90's/2000's JRPG mindset, but I think even they are showing signs of adapting to the new standard. Pokemon seems to be slowly deemphasizing the race to the Elite 4 (which was a pretty traditional JRPG story structure) and is focusing more on opening the world up to letting the player explore a wider range of things to do.
Persona's in kind of a weird spot since the last actual new game was from the mid-late 2000s. In that light, we should probably point at how the most recent non-tactical MegaTen game, Strange Journey, went back to the Wizardry origins of the series.
Of course, classifying things under labels doesn't have to mean that the model has to work for every single case.
Because if you call them JRPGs, they won't be taken seriously by either fans of JRPGs or by not fans of JRPGs. JRPG fans just want more Final Fantasy Tactics and tend to spit on anything that deviates too strongly from that format, and people who think JRPGs are boring won't give more indepth strategic experiences a chance because they think it will be the same "push a to win" that JRPGs are notorious for.
And more than anything, it just offends my sensibilities. It doesn't make sense to call Fire Emblem an RPG. It isn't a useful classification. It does more harm than good. And it shows the lack of distinction and experience that someone who doesn't give a shit about games would toss out without a second thought.
The allegory of the three umpires definitely comes into play here, and we call them as we see them.
Always thought that when CliffyB (?) mentioned a future of shooter/rpg hybrids that the future already arrived in Modern Warfare.
It is really is. Grind a lot of xp for some customization (weapons, perks). Cast magic missile (noobtube), fireball (predator missle), firestorm (air/napalm strike) and wrath of god/Armageddon (nuke).
And calling it a strategy game is just as big of an offense to the SRPG genre. I personally don't enjoy most Western strategy games, but I do love Japanese ones because of the art style and emphasis on characters/story.
If I didn't know what Fire Emblem was and you told me it was a strategy game, I'd probably not bother looking it up.
Femmeworth
Banned
Except it's not totally nonsensical. It may not be the absolute best term to classify Resident Evil and similar games, but it rings with a degree of truth. How do propose video games be classified?
"We" don't use it to mean a certain style of game. If that's what you've been doing, that's where you're fucking up. I use it to denote the region of origin, and in that respect it's a useful heuristic, because developers in the same region, working in the same broad genre, will have been immersed in a similar environment and culture, and so it is more likely that the works produced, in the same broad genre, and with the same set of influences, will turn out to have similar appeal (or lack of) than two games made in the same broad genre by two developers in completely different environments with completely different influences.
If there were a collaboration game made 50-50 between a western developer and Capcom? Who the fuck knows. You'd probably say something like, "This is a collaboration between a western developer and Capcom, so if you like JRPGs you might find some of the same appeal here, and if you like WRPGs you might find some of that same appeal here."
Ta-da! Descriptive versus Prescriptive labeling.
But it doesn't fit - at all - and the "Command RPG" is far more fitting for the concept you're trying to encapsulate.
I was talking about games that fall under the umbrella term "RPG", yes.
If it bothers you that that's a term, here's a definition: An RPG is defined by the level of abstraction between the mechanics and the fiction. And it is, by necessity, a loose definition that is open to personal interpretation, and it also lacks a universal, non-arbitrary boundary where you can say "This definitely is an RPG, and that definitely is not!"
(Let me stop there to reinforce something: This is not "sloppy" categorization. This is descriptive categorization - classifying something after examining and interpreting it, rather than precriptive categorization - classifying something before you've even seen it, according to specific criteria, irrespective of how it fits in amongst other games.)
The reason that it is a necessity that this be a loosely defined term is simple:
1) "Level of abstraction" is, in itself, open to interpretation, because abstraction can be applied at different levels to almost all aspects of a game.
For instance, almost all (but not all) games abstract the concept of 'health' to a number, the exact same way that an RPG uses HP.
But "what happens when you press the attack button" can vary from "dice are rolled to figure out whether or not you hit, how much damage you do if you do hit, and whether or not that's a critical hit, plus whether the attack lights the enemy on fire and causes them to take burning damage for a number of rounds between 2 and 6" to "a bullet fires from the gun you're holding as you pull the trigger, aimed directly through the sights, subject to the wind, gravity, and the muzzle velocity of the bullet, which will do damage according to where exactly on the target you hit".
And if we're looking at Dragon Quest, Dark Souls, and Devil May Cry, in terms of level of abstraction:
Dark Souls, like Devil May Cry, and unlike Dragon Quest, allows your movements and attacks to be roughly one-to-one with your controller input. You move your character in real-time, and when you press the attack button, you swing your weapon, which may or may not hit depending on how well you lined up the attack, how far away you're standing, whether the enemy moves, and so on. This is obviously not the case in Dragon Quest, where attacking is abstracted to a command chosen from a menu.
Dark Souls, like Dragon Quest, and unlike Devil May Cry, abstracts the progression of your character's abilities into a very granular, pseudo-continuous statistical curve. The same sword attack in Dark Souls can deal 50 damage if it's used at the beginning of the game, or it can deal 500 damage if it's used at the end of the game. This is not the case in Devil May Cry, where a particular attack just sort of is that attack, beginning to end.
2) Level of Abstraction is a spectrum, games that are "RPGs" only occupy a portion of that spectrum, and at the outer fringes of that region of the spectrum, it is a personal judgement call as to what is and is not an "RPG".
Put simply: At very high levels of abstraction, "RPGs" fade into Strategy games. If you want to pick an arbitrary, but fairly commonly understood approximate boundary case, look at the difference between Advance Wars and Fire Emblem. Many people would describe Fire Emblem as an RPG, and a significant number of people would consider it purely a strategy game. Some people might expand 'strategy' all the way down to the point where they wouldn't call a Tactics Ogre or Final Fantasy Tactics an 'RPG' instead of a strategy game. Some people might call all the games that fall within that fuzzy boundary "Strategy RPGs". All these interpretations are valid, because "RPG" is a descriptive, rather than prescriptive, label.
At very low levels of abstraction, "RPGs" fade into Action games. Dark Souls and Devil May Cry are probably a good edge case. Most people would consider Dark Souls an RPG and Devil May Cry an action game. It is valid to consider Dark Souls an action game and not an RPG, and it is valid to consider Devil May Cry an RPG as much as an Action game. There's no 'correct' place to draw that line, whether you wish there was or not. Descriptive, not prescriptive.
The bottom line is this: "JRPG" is only a useful term when it applies to the country of origin of a game. The region of origin says something about the environment, culture, and influences that affects the designers and developers who made the game. This does not provide specific information about the design of the game. However, a similar culture and similar set of influences both increases the probability that two developers will produce a game with similar design, and increases the probability that those two developers will incorporate similar intangible concepts into their design, even if the implementation is very different on paper.
People refer to all those games listen as western rpgs also.
D
Deleted member 20920
Unconfirmed Member
There is nothing in this post that I do not agree with
My thoughts exactly.Wow it got messy in here.
Okay first of all, XCOM and Fire Emblem (I don't know about the others since I haven't played them) are SRPGs. SRPGs do not necessarily fall under JRPGs, but exist along side them. Strategy games with RPG trappings? I think that's called a strategy RPG mate.
Second, XP and a level system does not an RPG make. What defines an RPG is visible and manipulable stats that greatly influences how a character acts. These points define a character's parameters and are intrinsic to said character. Equipment serves to augment or complement a character's intrinsic stats. This is why leveling and XP in COD means shit with regards to it being a RPG. A level 50 that prestiged 8 times is not statistically stronger than a level 5, they are on equal footing in terms of intrinsic character ability, and the level 5 can completely dominate the prestiged level 50 is he's skilled enough. In this way, Borderlands is a shooter RPG since characters do have innate parameters that can be manipulated by depositing points into skill trees.
Okay first of all, XCOM and Fire Emblem (I don't know about the others since I haven't played them) are SRPGs. SRPGs do not necessarily fall under JRPGs, but exist along side them. Strategy games with RPG trappings? I think that's called a strategy RPG mate.
Second, XP and a level system does not an RPG make. What defines an RPG is visible and manipulable stats that greatly influences how a character acts. These points define a character's parameters and are intrinsic to said character. Equipment serves to augment or complement a character's intrinsic stats. This is why leveling and XP in COD means shit with regards to it being a RPG. A level 50 that prestiged 8 times is not statistically stronger than a level 5, they are on equal footing in terms of intrinsic character ability, and the level 5 can completely dominate the prestiged level 50 is he's skilled enough. In this way, Borderlands is a shooter RPG since characters do have innate parameters that can be manipulated by depositing points into skill trees.
Robert at Zeboyd Games
Banned
The fact that there are pages of people arguing about what the term JRPG entails perfectly illustrates how it's not a very useful term to begin with.
Sure, you could argue about whether or not Cthulhu Saves the World is a JRPG. Or you could just call it a Dragon Quest parody and be done.
Sure, you could argue about whether or not Cthulhu Saves the World is a JRPG. Or you could just call it a Dragon Quest parody and be done.
Weltall Zero
Member
To me, all four of the above are non-JRPGs. And of course, I support the opinion that the J stands for Japanese-style, not literally Japanese. It makes no sense whatsoever to classify one game as one genre or another solely based on where it was made. The very notion is absurd. So if Skyrim was made by Square it would now be a JRPG? Ridiculous.
It may be as unfortunate a name as NP complexity in algorithms, but at this point both are entrenched and both have a meaning. It's just not the immediately obvious one.
That is a perfect description... of how it should be. Unfortunately, nobody uses "command RPG" as a term, and pretty much everyone uses "JRPG" as shorthand for that. Again, an unfortunate situation.
Aside from that, your post is pretty much how I see it. We may need more RPG qualifiers, however, especially for several typically "western" subgenres, like whatever KOTOR is.
Riposte
Member
Ignoring his misguided attempt to define RPG, hydrophilic attack's set of genres isn't so bad if you just make the next sensible step and remove "RPG" from their names (well, for at least half of them) and cut the ties that get in the way of what they are most related to. Borderlands is a shooter, Dark Souls is an action game.
The name Command RPGs, if used to mean the exact same thing I mean when I say JRPGs ("Genre 1"), is fine to me. These two being equivalent seems like the natural conclusion anyway. He stresses that they are not Tactical RPGs, well... what would be the defining difference there? The map and how it works. You manipulate your character on the map in addition to accessing your commands. I do think restricting it to a list menu is short-sighted. I also did not like how some people use it to describe Tales games which (of the ones I've played) are more akin to 2D and 3D action games (fighting games even), which if nothing else places them far away from "Command RPGs".
Just looking at it, it is actually not a bad name at all. It focuses on commands, as in "actions". This fits well when compared to the bread and butter typical to SRPGs: "Act" and "Move". The thing is its acronym is CRPG lol. cRPG won't work either, so you'd have to get creative. There is also the temptation to remove "RPG" entirely, but it is simply too much bother (which is why I fine with sticking with JRPG). It is just beginning to use Command RPG in 2013 reaffirms the improper use of (C)RPG which is unlike just inheriting Japanese(-style) (C)RPG and Simulation (C)RPG from the 1980s and making them acronym-centric. A small problem though. Alternatively you could instead focus on the relatively static and immobile nature of the genre or perhaps its greater abstraction.
I've chosen to stick with JRPG because I want to take over how it is used now. I want to end the connection between Dragon Quest and Dark Souls, so the flimsy word the holds up a crappy tradition is a fine target. If I used Command RPG I wouldn't be facing how people use JRPG head on. Like I've said over and over again, it just doesn't matter in the end though.
Coxswain, your focus on "descriptive versus prescriptive" is throwing me for a loop. This dichotomy (more appropriate for linguistics than videogame theory) is a false one here. I've come to classify these games based on a deep investigation of their individual qualities. I'm only "prescriptive" in the sense I have the will to impose meaning (it would be pathetic to lack it), even over others. This isn't contradictory because I'm not in the business of studying how others see videogames, much like I'm not in the business of studying how people use English (no matter how much peasants with shit-caked faces can manipulate it). It is not about videogames having to be a certain way, it is pointing out the way they are with the most logical method in mind.
For instance I never said whether something is definitely one way or another, only it is distinct enough to classify separately. It only looks more definite because the great difference. These distinctions have to be made (meaning has to be created) for something to exist in the first place, otherwise it is just an indistinguishable piece of the chaos. The reason I can fit every game into an overall system is because I can define the entire spectrum of interactivity (the fundamental quality of this artform) before hand and break down further and further, adapting to each mutation in the process. This doesn't prevent the creation of new genres or separations, it simply makes it much less likely the higher the category.
So far I've been using strong opposing examples to highlight the spectrum itself. Where the line falls (between JRPG or SRPG for example) is up for debate, but not by a lot. Using the example, clearly games like FFXIII and The Last Remnant are closer to SRPGs than Dragon Quest given how AoEs work (among other things) thanks in part of it using 3D models on a 3D map, but I would say they are safely in the JRPG area because the player has no control over that (thus few or no strategic choices can be made in that area, at best you react to it like you would any random element).
Unsurprisingly, I'm unsatisfied with how you use and define "RPG". I wonder how much difference it would make if you just replaced it with "videogame" (with JRPG meaning "Japanese videogame" once again). I don't find your "descriptive" method of absorbing what others think of videogame theory to be at all appealing. I think back to the last paragraph of my previous reply to you.
In (1, your example of how you connect Dragon Quest and Demon's Souls but not Dark Souls is rather flimsy. I would argue that connection (the abstraction being made) is much less meaningful and distinctive when compared to the first example (to the point that it opens the possibility of putting an inappropriate amount of attention on any number of pointless comparisons, e.g. games with jumping, games with magic). I too understand these things as a spectrum (as I understand all things to be, hence my preference for distinctions), but this is one where you have to consider what the game is first and foremost. You have to consider the primary spectrum at play (and here we run into the problem of why grouping so-called "RPGs" over genre is flawed, bolding since I'm pretty much addressing everyone now).
Increasing stats in a turn-based games driven by menus is inherently different than increasing stats in a full blown action game, because the stats (i.e. the RULES of the game) are used in entirely different manner. No matter how granular (or structured) a progression system Dark Souls holds, it will always be more similar to Devil May Cry because stat changes do the same thing (relatively speaking) as DMC and it never does the same thing as Dragon Quest (this is all relative to the combat systems of these games). The idea of increasing stats has no meaning without the base system of stats and that base system dictates that these "RPGs" have little in common. What you are looking at is just a "theme", loose and fast understanding of mechanics as they are designed. The farther apart these two games are (and in this case, they are very far) the less meaningful the theme becomes.
Alright, before I stop talking about "RPG" for good, let me not be a complete dick and just say what I consider role-playing ("RPG" doesn't need to come into it). Role-playing is interacting and having an effect on the game's narrative (that is, to direct the overall scenario and sequence). Given this can be applied to (or by) both action and strategy choices in any type of game, it is not a genre-defining distinction. A RPG would simply be a game with an "appreciable" amount of meaningful (effectual) role-playing choices. I don't like this label much (probably for the same reason Coxswain likes his lol). Even if we were to use it to highlight a lack of role-playing in games like Dragon Quest and Final Fantasy or disparage the low amount of complexity of role-playing in many games (with can include Mass Effect and even Alpha Protocol depending on how much of a tabletop RPG stickler you are), the drama that would come from it would not be worth it. I simply measure a game's role-playing depth in addition to other kinds of depth.
The name Command RPGs, if used to mean the exact same thing I mean when I say JRPGs ("Genre 1"), is fine to me. These two being equivalent seems like the natural conclusion anyway. He stresses that they are not Tactical RPGs, well... what would be the defining difference there? The map and how it works. You manipulate your character on the map in addition to accessing your commands. I do think restricting it to a list menu is short-sighted. I also did not like how some people use it to describe Tales games which (of the ones I've played) are more akin to 2D and 3D action games (fighting games even), which if nothing else places them far away from "Command RPGs".
Just looking at it, it is actually not a bad name at all. It focuses on commands, as in "actions". This fits well when compared to the bread and butter typical to SRPGs: "Act" and "Move". The thing is its acronym is CRPG lol. cRPG won't work either, so you'd have to get creative. There is also the temptation to remove "RPG" entirely, but it is simply too much bother (which is why I fine with sticking with JRPG). It is just beginning to use Command RPG in 2013 reaffirms the improper use of (C)RPG which is unlike just inheriting Japanese(-style) (C)RPG and Simulation (C)RPG from the 1980s and making them acronym-centric. A small problem though. Alternatively you could instead focus on the relatively static and immobile nature of the genre or perhaps its greater abstraction.
I've chosen to stick with JRPG because I want to take over how it is used now. I want to end the connection between Dragon Quest and Dark Souls, so the flimsy word the holds up a crappy tradition is a fine target. If I used Command RPG I wouldn't be facing how people use JRPG head on. Like I've said over and over again, it just doesn't matter in the end though.
Coxswain, your focus on "descriptive versus prescriptive" is throwing me for a loop. This dichotomy (more appropriate for linguistics than videogame theory) is a false one here. I've come to classify these games based on a deep investigation of their individual qualities. I'm only "prescriptive" in the sense I have the will to impose meaning (it would be pathetic to lack it), even over others. This isn't contradictory because I'm not in the business of studying how others see videogames, much like I'm not in the business of studying how people use English (no matter how much peasants with shit-caked faces can manipulate it). It is not about videogames having to be a certain way, it is pointing out the way they are with the most logical method in mind.
For instance I never said whether something is definitely one way or another, only it is distinct enough to classify separately. It only looks more definite because the great difference. These distinctions have to be made (meaning has to be created) for something to exist in the first place, otherwise it is just an indistinguishable piece of the chaos. The reason I can fit every game into an overall system is because I can define the entire spectrum of interactivity (the fundamental quality of this artform) before hand and break down further and further, adapting to each mutation in the process. This doesn't prevent the creation of new genres or separations, it simply makes it much less likely the higher the category.
So far I've been using strong opposing examples to highlight the spectrum itself. Where the line falls (between JRPG or SRPG for example) is up for debate, but not by a lot. Using the example, clearly games like FFXIII and The Last Remnant are closer to SRPGs than Dragon Quest given how AoEs work (among other things) thanks in part of it using 3D models on a 3D map, but I would say they are safely in the JRPG area because the player has no control over that (thus few or no strategic choices can be made in that area, at best you react to it like you would any random element).
Unsurprisingly, I'm unsatisfied with how you use and define "RPG". I wonder how much difference it would make if you just replaced it with "videogame" (with JRPG meaning "Japanese videogame" once again). I don't find your "descriptive" method of absorbing what others think of videogame theory to be at all appealing. I think back to the last paragraph of my previous reply to you.
In (1, your example of how you connect Dragon Quest and Demon's Souls but not Dark Souls is rather flimsy. I would argue that connection (the abstraction being made) is much less meaningful and distinctive when compared to the first example (to the point that it opens the possibility of putting an inappropriate amount of attention on any number of pointless comparisons, e.g. games with jumping, games with magic). I too understand these things as a spectrum (as I understand all things to be, hence my preference for distinctions), but this is one where you have to consider what the game is first and foremost. You have to consider the primary spectrum at play (and here we run into the problem of why grouping so-called "RPGs" over genre is flawed, bolding since I'm pretty much addressing everyone now).
Increasing stats in a turn-based games driven by menus is inherently different than increasing stats in a full blown action game, because the stats (i.e. the RULES of the game) are used in entirely different manner. No matter how granular (or structured) a progression system Dark Souls holds, it will always be more similar to Devil May Cry because stat changes do the same thing (relatively speaking) as DMC and it never does the same thing as Dragon Quest (this is all relative to the combat systems of these games). The idea of increasing stats has no meaning without the base system of stats and that base system dictates that these "RPGs" have little in common. What you are looking at is just a "theme", loose and fast understanding of mechanics as they are designed. The farther apart these two games are (and in this case, they are very far) the less meaningful the theme becomes.
Alright, before I stop talking about "RPG" for good, let me not be a complete dick and just say what I consider role-playing ("RPG" doesn't need to come into it). Role-playing is interacting and having an effect on the game's narrative (that is, to direct the overall scenario and sequence). Given this can be applied to (or by) both action and strategy choices in any type of game, it is not a genre-defining distinction. A RPG would simply be a game with an "appreciable" amount of meaningful (effectual) role-playing choices. I don't like this label much (probably for the same reason Coxswain likes his lol). Even if we were to use it to highlight a lack of role-playing in games like Dragon Quest and Final Fantasy or disparage the low amount of complexity of role-playing in many games (with can include Mass Effect and even Alpha Protocol depending on how much of a tabletop RPG stickler you are), the drama that would come from it would not be worth it. I simply measure a game's role-playing depth in addition to other kinds of depth.
Meccanical
Member
Is this seriously being discussed in earnest?
Look, if a game is made in Japan, and the Japanese developers call it an RPG, it's a JRPG.
Don't try to refute it. Don't try to expound upon it. This is the only fact.
Yes games developed in Japan that the developers call RPGs do tend to share certain tropes and elements but that's it.
Look, if a game is made in Japan, and the Japanese developers call it an RPG, it's a JRPG.
Don't try to refute it. Don't try to expound upon it. This is the only fact.
Yes games developed in Japan that the developers call RPGs do tend to share certain tropes and elements but that's it.