Do you consider it a JRPG? I always considered it a WRPG made in Japan.
Printable View
Do you consider it a JRPG? I always considered it a WRPG made in Japan.
Pretty much same here, though I barely even consider it an RPG at all. The plot is purely behind the scenes, armor and stat progression are generally considered fluff, where weapon upgrades and skilled player input are generally more important. Not a lot of RPGs are "master this combat". I see it as straddling the line the way Zelda does, but for totally different reasons. Which hardly matters. The fact that you don't play as a teenager coming of age, and nobody overtly plays a cliche'd archetype character makes it more western to me, regardless of setting or genre
Well, I mean isn't Cloud an adult? He's like the face of JRPGs.
Well, does Cloud do his own laundry? That's the main question here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Squall Leonhart Loire
I do consider it a JRPG just to make the point that the term 'JRPG' is stupid and should be killed immediately. Like... there are bad genre labels and then there are bad genre labels and JRPG is the latter.
Exactly. Turning 21 doesn't magically turn you into an adult.Quote:
Originally Posted by Del MurderWell, does Cloud do his own laundry? That's the main question here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Squall Leonhart Loire
What do you hate about the label?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox
I think the problem is that people often use JRPG in A derogatory manner, as if to say they are inherently inferior to other RPGs because of tropes that they often contain
The fact that everything from Tales to Final Fantasy to Valkyria Chronicles apparently counts as a 'JRPG' despite being such incredibly different games. And Dark Souls either does (because it's an RPG made in Japan, duh) or doesn't (because it's not animu) depending on who you ask. So it's just a mind-bogglingly confusing term which also shoehorns Japanese games into a limited set of stereotypes. I mean I've seen Senran Kagura be labelled 'JRPG' for god's sake. It's a brawler!Quote:
Originally Posted by Squall Leonhart LoireWhat do you hate about the label?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox
The same applies to WRPG, that's an awful term as well. Although it tends to be used less racist-ly when compared to JRPG so it's not quite so bad.
Example of what I mean by the above:
"[Game name] has a cast of interesting characters that don't rely on tropes and interesting game mechanics that encourage exploration, unlike other JRPGS"
^ That's quite a common style of sentence to read in a review of games like Tales of Berseria, Fire Emblem, Valkyria Chronicles... you know, good games that tend to get lumped under the 'JRPG' label. There is quite a strong bias against "typical JRPGs" so games with that label tend to be dismissed with a lot of unfair assumptions until they specifically prove otherwise.
Yeah a lot of people use it as a derogatory term.
Another one I like - "Japanese Sensibilities"
BEcause OBVIOUSLY Motomu Toriyama and Yasumi Matsuno embody the same sensibilities because they're both Japanese :roll2
I hope one day 'western sensibilities' == 'being a massive trouting weeb'.
Because that's a world I can get excited about.
I still think there needs to be a differentiation between the two though. FF, DQ, SMT, Xeno, Tales, etc. are different from Skyrim, Dragon Age, Witcher, etc.
But then there's stuff like Dark Souls on one end, and Septerra Core and Child of LIght on the other and it all falls apart
I haven't played those two. Do they feel like JRPGs to you?
Haven't played Septerra Core, but Child of Light definitely has the vibe
It also has Oengus whom I love with all my heart
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-03rFTW5Me2...lightsmall.jpg
What JRPG does it feel like to you?
A bit of Grandia, a bit FFVI, a bit KH - mostly its own thing though
They're both dumb terms and should be done away with completely and forever.Quote:
Originally Posted by Squall Leonhart Loire
Putting games in their appropriate 'genres' is really, really hard. There's some fairly old game design theory out there that discusses the difference between three 'levels' of game design. These levels are known as 'mechanics' 'dynamics' and 'aesthetics'. Mechanics are the rules of the game: you can hit a tree to collect wood. Dynamics are the types of play that emerge as a result of these rules: players build wooden swords to fight enemies. Aesthetics are the feelings these dynamics create: a sense of accomplishment and empowerment having crafted a new weapon.
We tend to define our game genres by mechanics, which is too low level. 'First person shooter'. What? How is that a genre? How is that a different genre that a game which is basically exactly the same except the camera is in a different position? And it doesn't help that we mix these in with narrative genres (e.g. horror) and regional labels (e.g. JRPG). Using dynamics would be a bit better. This is a shooting game. This is a crafting game. But still highly flawed.
Tl;dr - Pretty much any way of categorising games into genres is gonna be bad, because they are just too diverse even within the little groupings which seem similar at face value. But some ways are worse than others and I consider JRPG/WRPG pretty much the most worstest of all.
How would you label them?
Dunno, I've been thinking about this for years and I haven't come up with a good solution xD
I tend to just try and describe games on an individual basis rather than lump things into genres.
Would Monster Hunter be considered a JRPG?
Origin-wise yes. Style-wise no.
So per definition yes. For what matters for people, so what it plays and looks like, not at all.
DS, MH, or both?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth
Given globalization and the abilities of modern computers jRPGs and wRPGs are kinda moot points in current generations. Unless you're referring to where they're designed that's about it but that in itself isn't useful. I think terms like aRPG and turn-base can be more useful regarding mechanics in general, yet what does RPG really mean these days really starts to break down as you look at everything that fits under the umbrella.
I mean, ultimately JRPGs aren't RPGs since you don't role-play in them. You just assume a Japanese anime character.
That's exactly the kind of sentiment I was talking about in my criticism above. First - how are we defining 'role playing' here? If it's strictly the pen and paper approach, than western RPGs are hardly better. If the only requirement is to develop the statistics of your character then Japanese RPGs are just as good.Quote:
Originally Posted by Squall Leonhart Loire
Yeah. And even stating "you have to make your character and/or make decisions to really role-play" isn't really valid since DQIX, part of THE JRPG series if there ever was one, has you compose not just your player character, but your whole party. That's Icewind Dale-level "roleplay"
If I play an RPG I feel that I do. That is my difference. That is why I accept Zelda as Action-Adventure-RPG while others do not.
Of course Scribblenauts is the only true RPG
I have no idea what that even is. I think you just made up a random word.
So, you role-play as a Japanese anime character. That's still role playing. Creating or defining the character is immaterial. You're PLAYING a role. Not creating one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Squall Leonhart Loire
Dark Souls is a WRPG made in Japan with Western aesthetics. Etrian Odyssey is a WRPG made in Japan with Japanese aesthetics.
Septerra Core is a JRPG made in the West with Japanese aesthetics. Anachronox is a JRPG made in the West with Western aesthetics.
The J and W refer to the sub genre based on mechanics, not the country of origin or the visual design but rather where that design philosophy was popularized. It's not a slur, it's a rough description of basic mechanics, of which JRPGs and WRPGs have strong differences that these descriptors need to convey. A turn-based RPG is fairly useless to discern the difference between the two because that encompossases Fallout 1, Final Fantasy X, Valkyria Chronicles, and Wizardry III, all of which are very different from one another.
Brie is still a French cheese even if it was made in Wisconsin, since that's the nation of origin. Austrian School Economics don't cease to be referred to as such when practiced elsewhere. We use the term to attribute the nation that it emerged from, out of respect and proper designation, and credit the maker's nation of origin.
So Dark Souls is a WRPG made in Japan.
It's not though, because what those basic mechanics are is never defined anywhere. Hence why Final Fantasy, Fire Emblem and Tales Of are all 'JRPGs' despite having wildly different mechanics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Laddy
And even if it isn't a slur, that doesn't stop people from using it in a derogatory way
But the approach to 'role-playing' is similar, that's what the labels are trying to convey because that's where the design philosophy between the two subgenres differ. There's less dependency on skill checks, character advancement is more streamlined, storylines tend to focus on sets and established dialogues rather than branching paths, combat and storyline are usually mechanically segregated, etc.
Arcanum (isometric, single character, no classes, good/evil magic/tech axis, steampunk) , Morrowind (real-time, less focused on character and more on exploration, combat-heavy, open world), and Might & Magic (party-based, first-person, highly transparent combat mechanics) are also very different, but generally share the same elements that fit under the WRPG label. The differences that those series possess are as radical as ones that could exist in say, the Strategy genre.
Some people don't like certain genres; why does it matter? Keep in mind, for a period in the late 90's and early 2000's, most WRPG's were considered too nerdy or souless compared to WRPG's. That's why Bioware and Bethesda proved so important, they propelled WRPG's more into the mainstream.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fynn
EDIT: I love JRPG's to death, but I think finding their tropes and elements overly common is a very valid criticism of the genre. i.e. Evil Empire, Corrupt Religion, Ancients, Amnesia, My Hometown is Burned, X is my Y, love story, The Old War, the typical six (energetic guy, edgy guy, tough guy, meek girl, bubbly girl, haughty girl). It's a very valid criticism, and while I can appreciate the tropes when they're tied in with a fascinating story and setting and gameplay, I can certainly see why people may not find it appealing. It's not a wronging of people to not enjoy tropes.
There it is. A textbook example of why having these labels is a bad idea. Because you default to the idea that 'JRPGs are full of dumb tropes.' Yet most 'JRPGs' wont feature most of those tropes! They're only tropes of the 'genre' because large numbers of wildly different games are being arbitrarily lumped together and any mechanic or plot device that occurs more than twice gets labelled a 'trope' across the board.Quote:
Originally Posted by Laddy
This happens with a bunch of genres but 'JRPGs' seem to be one of the hardest hit. I can only assume because the label originated in the west as a way to try and lump all the 'wacky Japanese games' under one convenient umbrella.
It also bugs me how people complain about "tropes" when no trope is really inherently bad and what matters it's how it's utilized. But no. JRPGs are "tropey", whatever the hell that means
No, it is not. If it is not Japanese, it is not Japanese. Just like a cartoon not made in Japan is no anime, no matter how much it looks like an ordinary anime. Anime ist just the Japanese abbreviation of Animation. A Japanese cartoon. Does the Honey Bee Maya not look like an anime? No? Well, it is one. A game from Japan is a Japanese game. A Role-Playing Game from Japan is a Japanese Role-Playing Game. A Japanese Role-Playing game with Western influence is exactly that. Japanese Role-Playing games tend to reflect a certain mindset, just as Western RPGs do, but that is all. A Japanese Role-Playing Game that was made with the mindset of making it like a Western one will simply be a Japanese Role-Playing Game that looks Western-esque. It not being like this would mean a Japanese Role-Playing game could never evolve to the status of looking like what we know from old-school JRPGs as well as the modern ones that are more influenced by the West. They would always stagnate in their classification. Also, as said, they are Japanese.Quote:
Originally Posted by Laddy
I never said these tropes were dumb, though? And considering I've been a registered and active poster in a forum for JRPG's for literally half of my lifetime, I have no idea why you'd think that's remotely what I was implying. You're being defensive towards things that aren't being sad.
I mean, no one is implying that these games are carbon copies of each other or that these tropes (and despite what you're claiming, they are tropes despite your odd being defensive about it) were bad. The only thing I was saying is that a) tropes exist in genres of all media and b) finding them unappealing or too common is a valid criticism. I don't think JRPG's aren't too much more trope heavy than other genres - but their emphasis on plot, aesthetic, and character makes them more noticeable.
If you'd REALLY like me to, though, I can do a trope counter.
No, no, Laddy, don't misunderstand! I didn't mean you - I know you don't think like that - I mean there's this trend in general.Quote:
Originally Posted by Laddy
Well, it's generally agreed upon that anime has to be Japanese to be considered anime, regardless of stylistic or thematic elements. JRPG's and WRPG's aren't so strictly defined but exist to refer to their content either regardless or in addition to their nation of origin.Quote:
No, it is not. If it is not Japanese, it is not Japanese.
I have already added more to my post. You cannot simply go out and say that only because something that started from a Japanese mindset and now we know as the elements of classic RPGs can define a Japanese Role-Playing Game. That means that RPGs could never evolve when it comes to classification. Also what you try to define - not trying to be personal here - looks like double standards. You say it is not about the origin but about the design philosophy during creation. The design philosophy that you say is so relevant and decides what a JRPG is originates in case of JRPGs from where exactly? Japan. So there is no getting around that. Even if you do not want to count something from nowadays as JRPG just is comes from Japan, your own definition when led back to the roots makes use of the word "Japanese" because of Japanese origin itself. Past Mindset from Japan made what basic JRPGs are nowadays normally known for but modern mindset from Japan is not allowed to make something that is also called Japanese Role-Playing Game even though it is also from Japan and the first JRPGs were also JRPGs because they came from Japan? And if the first RPGs would have looked different they would not have been JRPGs? Quite unfair. Japanese people have all the right in the world to influence JRPGs with their thinking just as in early days. That does not mean JRPGs die out. If anything "JRPGs as we knew them" do and even that will not happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Laddy
You're oversimplifying what I'm trying to argue: the names are based on their design philosophy, which were inspired by the developing markets and design philosophies unique to each culture, hence where the name came from. As the subgenres evolved, the names don't necessarily describe the nation of origin, but rather the style of games' it is influenced by's nation of origin. Like I said, a practitioner of Austrian Economics does not cease to be so when they aren't Austrian. Moroccan cuisine does not suddenly become British cuisine just because it's prepared in the UK. The terms JRPG and WRPG have always carried more substance to them than "this was made in Japan" or "this made in Canada", have you noticed Undertale is called a WRPG or Dark Souls isn't classified as a JRPG? (It's more of an ARPG but it WRPG way better than JRPG) That's because the concepts that come to mind when they're being used don't apply to their respective titles. We can argue that an RPG made in Japan that involves character sheets, simulated dice rolls, a morality system, and dialogue trees isn't a "true" WRPG, but it sure as hell would be misleading to refer to it as a JRPG since the audience would be expecting a radically different experience. My point is, JRPG and WRPG usually evoke different concepts, mechanics, tropes, and styles when their names are used, which is the whole purpose of giving a title a genre descriptor in the first place.
EDIT: There is a difference between a Japanese role-playing game and a Japanese-style Role-Playing Game (JRPG).
Yes, but they are terms which are wildly oversimplified, outdated, and ever more confusing as fewer and fewer games in each sub-genre conform to the concepts, mechanics, 'tropes' and styles that their forebearers created; especially as more and more games from their opposing region borrow the mechanics from their counterpart (hence Dark Souls and Undertale).Quote:
Originally Posted by Laddy
I understand why these terms were invented and how they are used, my argument is that they are incredibly reductive and woefully inadequate when it comes to grouping games together. Maybe 'JRPG' was less inappropriate when it was 1997 and we were only really getting major titles like Final Fantasy and Star Ocean localised in the English speaking world, but 20 years on that label (along with many others that define certain narrow 'sub-genres') is more of a hindrance than a help.
No, there are things that are just that simple. The problem is that you make use of something you argue against then use it in something that seems to be another context when in reality it is unfair to make them look like two different contextes because there actually is only one in our argument and all these things play a role together (and what you think of as Japanese mindset can only be called Japanese mindset for leading it back to where it comes from otherwise it would not be called Japanese mindset in the first place but I have a problem with acting like there is only one Japanese mindset because it is incredibly discriminatory against Japanese as well as their games). As a matter of fact you want to oversimplify things yourself by saying "JRPGs are just those with trait xyz" and telling me I am arguing in an oversimplifying way by actually mentioning a trait that, when led back to the very beginning, was always a real thing. Basically yes, those are two different contextes. But even your context makes use of my argument so it is redundant to even see it differently. Especially because what you think of reduces JRPGs to ideas that do not allow them to become different.Quote:
Originally Posted by Laddy
Who says the names are based on any design philosophy? Who exactly? JRPG design philosophy alone is something that does not even exist when making the first JRPG ever. And then another RPG in Japan is made that is different from that. What is the JRPG now according to your logic? And as said already, even if that is a given, the entire "each culture" argument you use cannot be used without acknowledging that what you think of as JRPG was, let's say it is 1982 and we live in Japan and make the first RPG ever, was called JRPG because it came from Japan. How can you even claim that only a certain mindset can be used to influence what you think you know as a RPG? This cannot be the case at all. Imagine these games would have started out differently. They would have been made with what you call another philosophy than the one you think you know as the philosophy as JRPGs. But they would have no right because some thought about an apparently superior philosophy is only able to magically make something a JRPG? No. No at all. Back in the days we knew JRPGs for certain aspects. That is totally correct - but they were still called JRPG because they have been led back to Japan. As said, your "each culture" thing even partially makes use of it so I do not even know why this is argued about. It is really just unfair to newer games because it means old Japanese mindsets have defined and influenced what we knew as JRPGs but new Japanese mindsets cannot influence them as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Laddy
Of course Sushi originally comes from Japan. When I make Sushi this exact Sushi is German nonetheless. Now if you ask "and why is the original idea of sushi Japanese?" then you are perfectly agreeing with me because then you once more would have to make use of the origin explanation as you have done multiple times while trying to tell me otherwise. Origin always plays a role, in one way or the other. You cannot simply forget it. Not even in your own argument. And while you seem to be so eager to argue about subgenres and all from nowadays I say that, and I am repeating myself here, you are simply giving a genre a treatment that is not fair at all by reducing it to something like "ideas that only like this can define it with the country not playing a role except when you need it for your own argument".Quote:
As the subgenres evolved, the names don't necessarily describe the nation of origin, but rather the style of games' it is influenced by's nation of origin. Like I said, a practitioner of Austrian Economics does not cease to be so when they aren't Austrian. Moroccan cuisine does not suddenly become British cuisine just because it's prepared in the UK.
No, I have not noticed because anyone I have talked to flat out says Dark Souls is a JRPG. All I can see is you trying to say the philosophy you think of is superior to the origin argument even though the old philosophy also made use of its origin.Quote:
have you noticed Undertale is called a WRPG or Dark Souls isn't classified as a JRPG?
As said, only if you are unfair and do not let them evolve. Or to answer you fitting: "No, all of them are Japanese Role-Playing Games. There is just a difference between a Japanese Role-Playing Game that we know as classic with traits we are used to (that is what it should be called and not the reducing "Japanese-styled" as if there can only be one Japanese style) and a Japanese Role-Playing Game with traits that we are not used to. They will always be Japanese Role-Playing Games though".Quote:
EDIT: There is a difference between a Japanese role-playing game and a Japanese-style Role-Playing Game (JRPG).
Anyway, I'm outta here.
I hate trashypedia by the way but even they immediately acknowledge the origin.
Fine, you can call it "Japanese Role-Playing Game that we know as classic with traits we are used to".
The rest of us are fine with "JRPG" as an abbreviation.
Obviously not all people reduce JRPGs to just those traits so please spare me your classic "I have a personal aversion against Sephiroth" contribution. It does not help at all. There is a reason why Squall gave this thread its name instead of just calling it "I have seen it as a Western RPG made in Japan and it is a fact that it is no JRPG".Quote:
Originally Posted by Skyblade
Um, that post had nothing to do with a personal aversion to you.Quote:
Originally Posted by SephirothObviously not all people reduce JRPGs to just those traits so please spare me your classic "I have a personal aversion against Sephiroth" contribution. It does not help at all. There is a reason why Squall gave this thread its name instead of just calling it "I have seen it as a Western RPG made in Japan and it is a fact that it is no JRPG".Quote:
Originally Posted by Skyblade
It's simply that I think your point is relatively nonsensical and irrelevant.
You argue that "Japanese" can only be used as a descriptive element specifically discussing the origin country of the game.
Plenty of words have multiple meanings, and even single standard meanings that change in the context of how it's used (such as "Polish" having a completely different meaning if it's an adjective describing "sausage"). So your argument that there is "one true definition" that is the only one you accept is just a bad argument.
What's more, languages change frequently, and words adopt new definitions in common usage all the time, far faster than dictionaries are updated, and this has only accelerated in the information age.
Finally, you've utterly failed in the same area that EVERYONE who has ever made the argument against the JRPG/WRPG terms has: You were unable to produce a viable term to use in it's place. It's a genre. You KNOW it's a genre, because you were able to single it out and define it, and everyone knew exactly what you meant. It's a individual style of games and game design that follows distinct conventions that are recognized universally by gamers, and who have given it a clear and obvious term based on that style's origin and history.
You don't like it. I'm sorry about that, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be used. It's a label. It's a convenient way to group things, summarize things, and describe them quickly without having to write paragraphs at a time to get your point across. If I say "first person shooter", you have a basic grasp of some of the core game. You know what to expect. Same thing if I say "platformer" or "puzzle game" or "visual novel". "JRPG" is nothing more than another of these labels, created by gamers, to describe their pastimes to other gamers.
If you want the term "JRPG" to stop being used, then provide an alternative name for the genre that clearly and concisely conveys the meaning of the individual genre that we can all use. Because, again "Japanese Role-Playing Game that we know as classic with traits we are used to" is stupid when we already have a term that is universally recognized by gamers, is short, easy to type, and easy to abbreviate.
The fact that you have no alternative, and instead had to resort to a fifteen word phrase to convey what any of us could capture with four letters, shows just how helpful labels can be.
I have a friend who pushes to me that FF is a WRPG made in Japan. He says that it's more western than other JRPGs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skyblade
Obviously I do not argue that. If you would have taken the time to lean back and read my posts you would know that. The implication was that the "Japanese" in "JRPG", so in this context, the word that you yourself try to use against me, comes from that, which it does because there was one point in time where this word came into existence. It is the most essential aspect, that is my point and you cannot just let that out. I even said that Laddy means something different so obviously you can use it for something else - there are certain moments when you just should not because they are easy to be mistaken then. Later more about that. There is a reason why Wikipedia says "Eastern RPGs are RPGs that come from county xyz" and not "Eastern RPGs are RPGs that reflect the mindset of developer xyz".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skyblade
That is a totally unnecessary lecturing about contextualization and semantics considering I am a person that cares about context in such a nitpicky way that it is already neurotic. My argument was that a certain term originated from something, which it did. Do not try to turn my words around in any way because it was "one guy saying it comes from x" against "one guy that posted the next thing saying it does not come from x but from y instead". Something coming from Japan is not nearly as restrictive as a trait as saying "it has to have this certain mindset", as if some people in Japan changing their whole mentality suddenly would "un-Japanese" them. That is so discriminatory. It means their mentality cannot evolve and their games also cannot. And as said, in no way the Japanese origin can be forgotten. You try to support Laddy here and that is all fine but mindsets just are not limited to one kind of person.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skyblade
Seeing how I have classified them way better by separating them, something that you just for the sake of provocation made fun of, it was far from an utter failure. There are plenty of people all over the world who, once you say "do you know this JRPG/WRPG?" answer you "it is no real JRPG/WRPG, it just looks like one but developer x made it actually" not everyone is just fine with it. Of course you know what people mean when they use the word, that does not mean that it is enough. It is like saying "oh it is okay to call a strawberry a berry because everyone knows what you mean" when in reality a strawberry is botanically not berry or people constantly saying "it is okay to say calories because many people use it when the actually mean kilo calories because kilo calories" are what we actually need to consume per pay and not just calories but people do not realize that. It can actually lead to real misunderstandings. So tell me once again how me saying "this is not a JRPG it looks like what you know as an old-school one but that's about it" is a problem for anyone and causes any misunderstanding. I have never even heard of a single person where I live that was convinced that Final Fantasy XV was not a JRPG. They all know it is from Japan but acknowledge that it has classic traits of what we know of Western Role-Playing Games. Also there is a very clever way to call them something: "Classic or Old-School JRPG".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skyblade
Always good how things are reduced to a simple "you don't like it therefore you say that". And here I thought your post actually had a whole paragraph about contextualization.
So if you are so convinced that what I am saying is nonsensical and irrelevant then you might also be able to tell me why every person that ever actually conversed with me for 5 minutes and was not just arguing for the sake of arguing and did not mind longer explanations never had a problem with them. You use "stupid", "irrelevant" and all. Others do not seem to think so. I tend to talk long with people and much but actually acting like I would not consider proper context is about as wrong as a claim about the neurotic Compuer Scientist-Video Game-Addict-Overanalyzing-Person I am that defines everything to death can be. Also it is very self-ironic because most internet arguments with me come from others no thinking about the right context and are not even ready for the basics of Communication Psychology because they do not even want to think about what could be okay about their communication partner's parts. Which I at least do and, even while not that present in this chat right now, can definitely be seen very often in other conversations. You are telling me we would understand what people mean with "JRPG", well, maybe you are satisfied with that. I am a person that aims for higher understanding of things. I do not just want to live with "yeah there is this but actually there is a flaw in that because of ..." And to bring back the word "context" again - using a word like "JRPG" like this you still have to make it understandable enough for people in which way and sentence you mean this word. So there is obviously something that there is to work on. As a matter of fact I even was the one who once was not that unequivocal with what he meant in a conversation about the Souls series once with a video game addict/seller. He wanted to sell it to me and I said "I mainly like JRPGs" and he said "Souls is from Japan", so I had to re-phrase "I mean JRPGs that look like traditional JRPGs". So as you can see, I even admit that I made the same mistake that leads others to misunderstand me, even more highlighting the problem with this term so I have even more reason to be more specific and not just because I am so neurotical.
Not only do I have an alternative, I also did not say labels are useless. Whereever you have read that in my comments. And constantly misreading or misusing words is => not helpful at all. Just as people calling me crazy for saying that the average adult needs 2.5 million calories (2.5k kilo calories) per day because they think it is incredibly much when in reality it is not, because the unit that they normally call "calories" are "kilo calories" and I just use "calories" correctly as well as "kilo calories". There is a reason why things are classified more and more. Now give a person "2.5 million calories" as they would misuse the word, so 2.5 million kilo calories and let's see what happens. So you are absolutely right. Correct wording is helpful. And even more helpful is even more accurate wording.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skyblade
The "correct" meaning of a word is whatever conveys your intended meaning to the listener. Words have no inherent meaning, they are a tool to convey ideas. If you are conveying the idea you intend to when you say "JRPG" to someone, you are using it correctly. If you are not conveying the idea you intend, which depends on the listener's interpretation, you are not using the correct word.
Of COURSE it is correct to say "berry" when you point at strawberries, because you have accurately conveyed your idea to the listener. To suggest that this isn't "correct" in a normal, non-academic context is objectively wrong and represents a gross misunderstanding of the nature of language.
That is acceptable for an ordinary chat but not when it is really important. There is a reason why people who are actually familiar with certain meanings of words intend to point out what they mean. For something as ridiculous as video games you might now think "how is it important" then but this is just my nitpickiness.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spuuky
- Not in the botanical context.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spuuky
- I even used the word "botanic" so I do not see any point in mentioning this because it was already contextualized.
And you do not need to tell me anything about Communication. I know Paul Watzlawick's 5 Axioms of Communication Psychology so this is not necessary at all. It was a part of my Education/Psychology lectures. Part of this communication psychology does not actually mean that a disturbance of communication automatically means you have used the wrong word. It would mean that the interpretation of the other one that you have mentioned could never be the true, which it can be very well. Often you can modifiy your modalities of communication the best way you can do and the most accurate way you know but the other one can still misunderstand you and that can have various reasons, not necessarily because you did something wrong.
You are not accurately conveying meaning to anyone when you say "this sushi is German" about sushi technically made within the national boundaries of Germany. You are being pedantic at the cost of understanding.
If a person understands that I am talking about the Sushi being made in German then it is correct. Your little rule of "whichever word is used" would count for me as well then and just as I have the choice of pointing out the context for a person the other person - hopefully - has the capability to correctly interpret. You calling me pendantic when I have pointed out others are just like me means what in your eyes? We are all doing it wrong? I can tell you we do not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spuuky
If this is the case, then surely you can accept the use of "JRPG" to refer to the set of games with similar design elements that most people automatically think of when they hear the term "JRPG."
I never said "I do not accept it". I have no choice but to accept that there are people who will always do that. I have no choice to accept that one day I will die. That does not mean I cannot talk about other things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spuuky
When this first started to get heated i was kinda exasperated but it's actually an interesting topic. Unfortunately I fall into the court where I use JRPG to describe a style rather than an origin. Even though, understandably, most come from Japan. And I also generally tire of Japan's reliance of tropes and clichés as actual character writing. Agreed that WRPGs use cliches and tropes just as much, but it seems in my experience that they tend to just use it as a starting point to build off of. But the final thing that makes me cautious (note: NOT turned off, just cautious), when someone says JRPG is Japanese creators' general inability or struggle to tell or convey the difference between drama and melodrama. And typically they lean into melodrama. But I love love love when they have real writing, real character, real drama. Bravely Default used archetypes as a base and built off them and had real drama sprinkled in. Star Ocean The Last Hope was pure tropes and cliches and archetypes with very little building and pure melodrama and bad writing and characterization
The only WRPGs I have played are Elder Scrolls, the first two Fallout games, and The Witcher. Personally I agree they use cliches too.
I assume you did not trigger the private actions in the Calnus?Quote:
Originally Posted by Vyk
It's been so long, I don't honestly know. I can say I quit when they removed Edge from command for being too melodramatic, if that helps tell you where I was in the story. I do remember having some private conversations on the ship. But I don't remember themQuote:
Originally Posted by SephirothI assume you did not trigger the private actions in the Calnus?Quote:
Originally Posted by Vyk
Maybe FFXII or the MMO's but I wouldn't go that far.
Are you referring to me?Quote:
Originally Posted by Laddy
Yeah I just didn't know there was another page lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Squall Leonhart LoireAre you referring to me?Quote:
Originally Posted by Laddy
Hmm... well he was comparing FF to the likes of Hyperdimension Neptunia and games like those. FF isn't as anime as those games but to deny anime influence altogether shows insecurity. He was really bugging that day.
Except of course, there are a fair chunk of players who consider Dark Souls a JRPG.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skyblade
And I can never seem to get people to agree on exactly what criteria they consider 'JRPG'. I mean, almost without fail, people will say that both Final Fantasy Tactics and Hyperdimension Neptunia are JRPGs. But what do they share, exactly? Mechanically, FF Tactics is closer to both XCOM and Planescape: Torment than it is to Neptunia. In terms of narrative style and delivery it's much closer to those classic western CRPGs as well. And yet FFT is still widely accepted as 'JRPG'. Hell, I've seen Gravity Rush described as a JRPG!! What's the common link here? The art style is kinda anime-like? Surely that's not the depth of our genre definitions.
You're right in that critics of 'JRPG' don't provide alternatives, but that's because I feel that it's a nonsense 'genre'. It's simultaneously extraordinarily broad in scope (see the above example) while also encouraging an extremely narrow view of the games within it. I mean I cannot think of any other genre where people discuss and criticise the so-called "tropes" as much as they do for JRPG. So the reason I don't provide an alternative is because I don't think the games accepted as being within it have any right being grouped together as part of the same genre.
I would argue fairly strongly, that Final Fantasy XV is in the same genre as The Witcher 3, and not in the same genre as Final Fantasy VII. But what genre label would y'all give XV?
Final Fantasy Tactics and Planescape: Torment aren't even remotely alike. This is about as bizarre of a comparison you can make. Torment is real time, dialogue-focused, nonlinear, handling metaphysical/philosophical dilemmas over battles as the main conflicts, dying is a gameplay device rather than a fail state, and all combat is optional. The only similarities is that both games involve sad dudes who can change their class. I mean, do you even know the premise of the two games? Your insistence of difference and similarities on mechanics are very very superfluous, to be honest.
I wouldn't consider FFT a JRPG per se; I'd consider it a strategy RPG because that's what it is, and that's how it's more accurately described as. Like Banner Saga, Fire Emblem, Heroes of Might & Magic, XCOM, or Disgaea (3 of each coming from each region, btw). Dark Souls is more accurately described as an WRPG over a JRPG, but it's probably more in line with games like Torchlight or Kingdom Hearts, mechanically, making it an ARPG. It's quite different from what the traditional use of JRPG conveys, games like Tales of Vesperia, Xenosaga, or Golden Sun.
Can Ramza use his Persuasion stat to convince Argath to abandon his classism? Can he sneak into various battlegrounds to avoid combat if you choose to stat him that way? Can Ramza decide, smurf it, I'm going to just stick with being a mercenary and smurf saving the world? No, because that's not the developers' intent, they wanted to deliver a finely-tuned narrative that better suits their vision, so your comparison of its narrative structure outside of its influence from European history (which can be applied to any genre) to CRPG's is very inaccurate and one-dimensional. I question your experience with games like Torment or The Witcher since you seem to have a very limited scope of what they entail.
Witcher 3 has moral choice, extensive use of non combat skills, flexibility in character advancement, and narrative/quest open-endedness to an extent that Final Fantasy XV doesn't. The goal in FFXV is to watch Noctis' story, the goal of The Witcher 3 is to tell Geralt's story. I'd argue FFVII or the Persona series is quite a bit more like Witcher 3 since it's more open-ended in character advancement (materia, etc), you can choose to act upon various plot elements in the story how'd you wish, and there's just as much emphasis on sidequests.
Yeah OK, maybe that game in particular was more of a stretch that would be ideal, and I'm focusing more on similarities within combat (where there are more than first appears), for example, maybe because that was how I always used to play them! So I concede it was a mistake to use CRPGs in my example and I'll instead stick more to the 'XCOM' example which is far less tenuous. Forgive me, I was rushing out my post before work and didn't think it through all the way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Laddy
And I would agree with you. But many, many people would not. You say "oh it's more accurately described as such and such," but there's no consensus about this. To many, FFT is a JRPG. Kingdom Hearts: JRPG or ARPG? Tales of Vesperia: JRPG or ARPG? In this very thread we have people saying "JRPG is a useful label because we all know what it is" while at the same time we cannot agree about whether or not Dark Souls is one.Quote:
I wouldn't consider FFT a JRPG per se; I'd consider it a strategy RPG because that's what it is, and that's how it's more accurately described as. Like Banner Saga, Fire Emblem, Heroes of Might & Magic, XCOM, or Disgaea (3 of each coming from each region, btw). Dark Souls is more accurately described as an WRPG over a JRPG, but it's probably more in line with games like Torchlight or Kingdom Hearts, mechanically, making it an ARPG. It's quite different from what the traditional use of JRPG conveys, games like Tales of Vesperia, Xenosaga, or Golden Sun.
Which is a perfect valid judgement as well! You bring up good points why FFXV isn't as like The Witcher as I suggested, and also how FFVII and Persona (which would be pretty much undisputed as JRPGS) are more similar to The Witcher than I suggested, simply by emphasising different mechanics. My entire argument is that these sub-genre labels (particularly JRPG) are inadequate ways of grouping these games together because there is so much shared similarity across genres, any it's very difficult to get any kind of agreement on what is correct.Quote:
Witcher 3 has moral choice, extensive use of non combat skills, flexibility in character advancement, and narrative/quest open-endedness to an extent that Final Fantasy XV doesn't. The goal in FFXV is to watch Noctis' story, the goal of The Witcher 3 is to tell Geralt's story. I'd argue FFVII or the Persona series is quite a bit more like Witcher 3 since it's more open-ended in character advancement (materia, etc), you can choose to act upon various plot elements in the story how'd you wish, and there's just as much emphasis on sidequests.
ARPG and SRPG have fallen out of use of late as there are more action games than action ARPGs and more strategy games than SRPGs but when they were used more frequently I did regard them differently than other JRPGs. And they group nicely with games from all regions because it's about an idea more than origin. JRPG does just convey an idea. It doesn't have to contain the word Japanese at all. Hell in the 90s and early 2000s WRPGs were called cRPGs. So you could easily rename these ideas as console rpg and computer rpg even though a lot of computer style rpgs now reside on console you would describe it as similar to games that originated on computer.
Outside of really bad attempts at D&D most console rpgs originated in japan. So back then console rpg and jrpg were synonymous until things like Knights of the Old Republic became more common
Albeit console rpg was a term used with derision back then as well. PC Master Race ideology
In Japan WRPG's are largely looked down upon as well, viewing rhem as unstructured and lacking in emotionality which is dismissive as hell as well.
My whole point is that JRPG and WRPG bring to mind very distinct playstyles, mechanics, and tropes so even if the terminology is outdated and arbitrary, it certainly brings elements to mind on the average gamer far more often than not, often accurately.
I mean science fiction includes films like Her and Alien, which are very different in mood, plot, and focus but we still refer to them as science fiction because they're both speculative, futuristic, and fantstical, elements one tries to convey with the term.
We should just forego these JRPG, WRPG, CRPG, LOLRPG labels entirely and for each game just describe what other games it is most like. I've found those comparisons much more useful in finding additional games I like.
True mostly. "It's like X but Y" is really effective, although the downside is it requires your audience to have a very specific point of reference.Quote:
Originally Posted by Del Murder
How about JSTWAG(Japanese Save The World Adventure Game)?
Get rid of the 'The' and I love it.
I love me some J-SWAG. I buy it all the time :lol:
Fox, are you a JRPG? :P
How about "Save Japanese World" games, or "SJW" for short?
Lol. That'd be the perfect game nowadays.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spuuky
Bump. Do you guys consider Zelda a JRPG?
Action-Adventure-JRPG. A good mix of many things. Breath of the Wild alone is so much RPG-ish in my opinion and my favourite, Twilight Princess (after Nier Gestalt my favourite non-FF-Game) just does a fantastic job of fusing all the elements together. Many people consider Zelda to not be an RPG because you do not normally level up and have puzzles but that seems a bit of weird criteria to me. At least it is its very own Japanese Role-Playing Game of sorts. Even the developers call it an RPG, as far as I am aware.
What? They call it an Action-Adventure, game Sephiroth.
I have read it somewhere once that several people of Nintendo, I think it was even Aonuma-san or so, called it an RPG. Or was it Miyamoto-san? I don't remember.Quote:
Originally Posted by Squall Leonhart Loire
That was a long time ago, Sephiroth. Definitions have changed.
I see it as an Action-Adventure game with RPG elements. KH would be more of a JRPG.
What was a long time ago? An opinion of a person and therefore that person can longer have it? When one of them considers it an RPG they have all the right to still do so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Squall Leonhart Loire
Aonuma?Quote:
Originally Posted by SephirothWhat was a long time ago? An opinion of a person and therefore that person can longer have it? When one of them considers it an RPG they have all the right to still do so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Squall Leonhart Loire
As said, I do not remember. It must have been Eiji Aonuma-san or Shigeru Miyamoto-san. Developers of course and not some random fans.
Yeah, but I think for the most part it's not a RPG. Oh well, it doesn't matter. People think God of War is an RPG.
People think Fable is an RPG, and that's pretty much Zelda. But they generally don't think Darksiders is an RPG and that's pretty much Zelda
Really? I have seen a lot of people calling Darksiders an RPGish action game, especially the second one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vyk
I've never actually went out and looked for it to be called that, I'm just surmising based on what little I gleaned when it came out and the fact that I never see it under RPG when perusing the genre on platforms. I guess it's just my exposure. But I guess that's beside the point. The real matter seems to be that ARPG games tend to straddle the line in a lot of people's eyes for some reason. And some people think the third person action variety are just action (possibly action-adventure games), while overhead versions (which tend to be more hack'n'slashy) games like Diablo are the only ARPGs in the minds of certain people. Case and point: Horizon: Zero Dawn is totally an action RPG, but people put the thread in General Gaming, and not General RPGs. In the end it's just splitting hairs, so it doesn't really matter. But it is interesting to see where different people draw different lines on the topic. It's not just Dark Souls and Zelda
Dark Souls is definitely a RPG IMO but not a JRPG. Zelda is more of an Action-Adventure game with RPG elements. I haven't played Horizon and know nothing about it so can't say.
RPGs can be action or turn-based, same goes for JRPGs. KH, Tales, Ys, and Star Ocean are definitely JRPGs with their linear shounen anime like storytelling.
Is Pokemon a JRPG? No story in it, more like a monster collecting game
Others may, but I do not consider Pokemon an RPG. And if my arm were twisted to do so I would put it in the same category as Mystic Quest or Quest 64. Something that borrows heavily from RPGs but lacks any of the substance that would make it interesting as an RPG. It uses an RPG battle system and it's a 40 hour game. That's about it, to me
Is it a RPG?
Is it made in Japan?
Then it just might be a JRPG.
Pokemon is 40 hours? I thought you could beat all of them in under 15 and that is without even rushing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vyk
The main appeal of the game is the training and breeding anyways.
QUOTE=Example;3659594]Is it a RPG?
Is it made in Japan?
Then it just might be a JRPG.[/QUOTE]
But it doesn't feel like one. A pizza made in Japan is still Italian food
After watching the Game Grumps play through it in 120 episodes on YouTube (supposed to be 10 - 15 minute episodes, so 1200 minutes, which I guess is only 20 - 25 hours), I just took a shot at a game length. And having only tried 2 Pokemon games in my life, both of which were extremely boring, my idea of how long the game can take may be skewed
Yes...Dark Souls is a JRPG. Any RPG game that is made in Japan, even if the people making it themselves aren't Japanese, is still a JRPG. The same holds true for WRPG titles. (An outside example can be found through the short anime Shelter) However, calling Dark Souls simply a JRPG is very vague, as there is a decent spectrum of what can be called an RPG in the first place. To be specific, Dark Souls is a Japanese ARPG.
So a Pizza made in Japan is Japanese? Okay, I get you.Quote:
Originally Posted by FinalxxSin
Sure. Similarly, I know people who refuse to call Metroid Prime an FPS, because it's focus is on puzzles and exploration, not shooting. Even though to me, it's an FPS because it's first person, and a shooter. You'll never get 100% agreement, but that's not the point. There are large consensus agreements about the genres, though (and, really, I've never seen anyone say that FFT isn't a Tactical RPG. If you know someone who calls it a JRPG, ask them which genre title suits it better, and I'm pretty sure they'll say Tactical RPG over JRPG). And you can use them to get a decent feel about the style of game.Quote:
Originally Posted by FoxExcept of course, there are a fair chunk of players who consider Dark Souls a JRPG.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skyblade
And I can never seem to get people to agree on exactly what criteria they consider 'JRPG'. I mean, almost without fail, people will say that both Final Fantasy Tactics and Hyperdimension Neptunia are JRPGs. But what do they share, exactly? Mechanically, FF Tactics is closer to both XCOM and Planescape: Torment than it is to Neptunia. In terms of narrative style and delivery it's much closer to those classic western CRPGs as well. And yet FFT is still widely accepted as 'JRPG'. Hell, I've seen Gravity Rush described as a JRPG!! What's the common link here? The art style is kinda anime-like? Surely that's not the depth of our genre definitions.
You're right in that critics of 'JRPG' don't provide alternatives, but that's because I feel that it's a nonsense 'genre'. It's simultaneously extraordinarily broad in scope (see the above example) while also encouraging an extremely narrow view of the games within it. I mean I cannot think of any other genre where people discuss and criticise the so-called "tropes" as much as they do for JRPG. So the reason I don't provide an alternative is because I don't think the games accepted as being within it have any right being grouped together as part of the same genre.
I would argue fairly strongly, that Final Fantasy XV is in the same genre as The Witcher 3, and not in the same genre as Final Fantasy VII. But what genre label would y'all give XV?
Which is also why JRPG as a term for RPGs "made in Japan" is useless, because country of origin tells us almost nothing about the game itself.
Honestly? I consider Dark Souls to be more of an action game with RPG trappings than an actual RPG. If I had to stick between the two, it's a JRPG on a technical sense of being classified for some odd reason as one and it happened to be made in Japan. Stylistically, it's closer to a WRPG in terms of design when placed on a historical background. The most "traditional" JRPG that Dark Souls comes close to feeling like, barring the the fact the series as a whole is a spiritual successor to Demon's Souls which itself is a spiritual successor to King's Field, would be Vagrant Story; and that game itself falls into the weird design issue of not fitting neatly into its genre category either.
In the end though, who really gives a damn what genre it is, it's a great game regardless.