Eastern RPG's vs. Western RPG's

[Wolf Kanno]

I get how it separates JRPGs from WRPGs but how is that trait really unique to JRPGs?

This thread is about what's different between WRPGs and JRPGs. I suggest you look elsewhere if you want a discussion about which genres have monopolies over what techniques that no other genres could ever possibly have ever.

If you want a debate, other cinematic games started doing this after a certain JRPG introduced it. Namely Final Fantasy VII. Now go start a different thread.

Coming out of the corner swinging are we? I feel you have misconstrued my meaning, I never implied that you don't believe it didn't happen in other genres. My issue with that part of your post is that since it's not unique to the genre, it should not be counted as a strength unique to JRPGs. What makes setting the mood in Clock Tower (1996, a year before FFVII and not even an RPG) through various techniques of pacing, graphics, sound and gameplay any different from how a JRPG does it?

And Bolivar, you should know better than to make generalized statements concerning this topic, on this forum, but what you really should know better is that debating the arguments we set forth is the best way to create the clear answer the OP is seeking. So this isn't a lynching just chillax.

[Bolivar]

I feel you have misconstrued my meaning, I never implied that you don't believe it didn't happen in other genres.

I don't know man, I kind of feel any game with cinematic sequences can do this. I mean what makes Solid Snake sneaking into Shadow Moses island any different from what you described. I get how it separates JRPGs from WRPGs but how is that trait really unique to JRPGs?

I wanna know what your meaning of the word "misconstrue" is. Even if that was your meaning, can you please explain to me how other genres come into the fold here?

It insults me when you try to brush off my point as being a really valid point and i'm impressed by your thinking. when I did no such thing.

It's as suitable an example as any of what you're talking about with JRPG's, but it didn't invent this stuff as you seem to want to believe.

Why do you always treat FFVII as though games had never featured set pieces, cutscenes, or whatever else you want to give it credit for before it was released? I hate to be the bearer of bad news Bolivar, but those didn't originate with it

Congratulations, Vivi. You've officially fallen to the argumentative value of a brick wall. Nonetheless:

If you're going to limit yourself solely to the seamless transition from FMV and gameplay I think this misses the point that FMV's are functionally no different than things games were doing for years anyway.

FMVs allows you to do things that the engine cannot. Mode 7 could not show a character's face up close. Mode 7 could not show an animated city, only pieces of it, a finite number of tiles at a time. Even when Mode 7 showed far away shots of Narshe, it couldn't then come into the controllable overhead view of the player. These three methods show how the first two minutes of Final Fantasy VII alone had more sophisticated techniques than the entirety of FFVI.

The sequence I just described was the first time a sequence shot had ever happened in an interactive medium. A more recent example would be the Metal Gear Solid: Ground Zeroes trailer. The sequence shot is an incredibly difficult and coveted technique in film that takes a deal of creativity and skill to pull off. The fact that its use also serves as a nod to the film industry increases the creative ingenuity of Square using it.

I can't imagine how allowing creators express themselves in different ways is not an important thing.

[Jiro]

I know you guys are all bros and argue a lot and it's all good fun or whatever but I think we should take a step back 'cause I'm starting to worry it's gonna get real mad in here soon. Take 5, shake some hands and debate like the scholarly gentlemen you are.

[Wolf Kanno]

I feel you have misconstrued my meaning, I never implied that you don't believe it didn't happen in other genres.

I don't know man, I kind of feel any game with cinematic sequences can do this. I mean what makes Solid Snake sneaking into Shadow Moses island any different from what you described. I get how it separates JRPGs from WRPGs but how is that trait really unique to JRPGs?

I wanna know what your meaning of the word "misconstrue" is. Even if that was your meaning, can you please explain to me how other genres come into the fold here?

So you're going to ignore me cause I said your answer was poor due to a technicality you feel isn't important..

You misconstrue because you are saying I said you are an idiot and don't realize that other genres use the same techniques.

You know, this statement:

That, and Wolf's (and apparently your) reading comprehension failed on an epic scale, in assuming that since I said I haven't seen something in the few WRPGs I've played, I must therefore think that it can not exist in any other genres ever. :freak:

So yeah, I'm trying to be nice here and say you missed my point. I'm trying to have a discussion about what JRPG are at their core that makes them unique and you're going on about VII being the greatest thing ever because of transitional cut-scenes and probably frothing at the mouth as you type it. That's why I'm harping about your definition of it's strengths because it doesn't really set JRPGs apart from WRPGs or other games for that matter. I wish to explore the nature of the genre and define it.

If you don't know the answer then I don't really have any further business with you cause we've had the VII debate before and your argument hasn't gotten any better. So I'm not wasting my time just so we can both walk away eventually after we get tired going a few rounds.

*************************************************************************************************

With that said, I'll post my own comments on this in the next few days. I will say right now that like Bolivar, my knowledge of WRPGs are very limited having played only bits and pieces of Baldur's Gate 1 and a few other modern games like Fallout 3. So it will be JRPG exclusive, though I doubt I myself will come to any answer that will satisfy my curiosity.

[Slothy]

Congratulations, Vivi. You've officially fallen to the argumentative value of a brick wall.

I'm not sure what bee got in your bonnet Bolivar, but honestly, if you're not going to even make an attempt to engage in an honest debate and not simply misunderstand and blow off the points I'm trying to make then I'm going to stop wasting my time with you.

FMVs allows you to do things that the engine cannot. Mode 7 could not show a character's face up close. Mode 7 could not show an animated city, only pieces of it, a finite number of tiles at a time. Even when Mode 7 showed far away shots of Narshe, it couldn't then come into the controllable overhead view of the player. These three methods show how the first two minutes of Final Fantasy VII alone had more sophisticated techniques than the entirety of FFVI.

The sequence I just described was the first time a sequence shot had ever happened in an interactive medium. A more recent example would be the Metal Gear Solid: Ground Zeroes trailer. The sequence shot is an incredibly difficult and coveted technique in film that takes a deal of creativity and skill to pull off. The fact that its use also serves as a nod to the film industry increases the creative ingenuity of Square using it.

I can't imagine how allowing creators express themselves in different ways is not an important thing.

So you're argument is essentially that FFVII was ground breaking because technology improved and the developers implemented some techniques filmmakers had been using for years? This is supposed to be innovative, original, and something which pushed video games forward? Honestly? Sounds like they just made it more like a movie to me, and used a pretty well known film technique to do it.

Anyway, to get to the actual topic again, and go down the same road WK is interested in, to actually explore the things which are unique to JRPG's and sets them apart from WRPG's, I would actually agree with Bolivar that the biggest thing in the early days was telling a more directed story. When JRPG's began they were pretty much the only ones doing this at all. Looking specifically at the NES days for example, games like Mario, Zelda, Battletoads, and just about any other non-RPG genre weren't doing this. Yes, they certainly had plots, but they were fairly divorced from the gameplay. They were often used to set up why you're doing what you're doing, but the where, how and with who never really mattered between the opening title screen and the final boss. They weren't interested in creating a plot with structure and pacing, or characters who you played as or interacted with beyond simply stomping on their heads or whacking them with a sword.

But, the issue here is that this is not something which remained unique to RPG's. Structured plots and character development have been co-opted by pretty much every genre in existence now, and it started literally decades ago. Whereas WRPG's have been able to remain somewhat unique in their focus on player choice in character building and character interactions (few games that aren't WRPG's have made attempts at giving players meaningful dialogue and mission choices on the level of games like the original Fallout titles or Mass Effect, and the same is largely true when it comes to building your character as they level up), but the story is not something JRPG's retain a monopoly on.

So even if that was the most important distinction once, the question we need to ask is, now that it's no longer what sets JRPG's apart from WRPG's and is more a matter of what sets WRPG stories apart from pretty much everything else, what makes JRPG's unique anymore? Does anything at all?

I've been giving it some thought, and I'd love to hear WK's or anyone elses thoughts on it (yes Bolivar, even yours), because I'm having trouble coming up with anything. JRPG's have other things which are quite strongly associated with them such as random encounters, turn based battle systems, more defined character classes, but you know what else has all of those? The new XCom. And I don't think anyone here who's actually played it would be prepared to call it a JRPG. And when I look at Persona 3, probably my favourite JRPG in the last few years and think about what I like about it so much aside from the plot and characters or the turn based battle system, what I come up with is the ability to interact with characters and make choices which determine how the relationship develops which is something often associated more strongly with WRPG's, and exploring Tartarus which is, in many ways, more like a randomly generated WRPG dungeon than your typical JRPG dungeon.

And looking at another example in the form of FFXII (the other JRPG I enjoyed immensely in the last several years), it's combat plays more like an MMO, and it has a massive world to explore which happens to be far more open than any JRPG world I've seen. It seems to take many of it's cues from WRPG and MMO gameplay styles rather than simply being a JRPG.

The point being, I think the conclusion I'm kind of trending towards, and part of why I want to hear other people's thoughts on it, is that JRPG's and WRPG's differentiated along two lines very early on due to their differing cultural influences and technological limitations. On the one hand, JRPG's went more down the route of offering more developed and structured stories than a WRPG could really accomplish in English at the time, and which other genres weren't attempting. WRPG's, on the other hand, differentiated themselves along gameplay lines instead. They focused on allowing the player to make decisions in building their character as the old pen and paper RPG's often allowed, and built worlds to explore instead because they simply couldn't do grandly written, well structured stories due to the hardware limitations when they started to appear. Now what it looks like to me right now is that while there's nothing wrong with either approach, the JRPG approach was far more easily co-opted by other genres as time went on and hardware limitations were less of an issue. Almost any game can tell a well structured and developed story these days, and this has been true for at least 15 years or so. But simply having a more structured story doesn't make an FPS stop being an FPS because from a gameplay standpoint, that's exactly what they are. But it's much harder to completely co-opt WRPG game mechanics without actually feeling like a WRPG, not to mention that implementing those mechanics these days is quite costly and time consuming. Not to say other games don't take on aspects of WRPG's, but since they were defined along gameplay lines instead of story telling very early on, they continue to develop and exist along those same lines now, and you have things like non-linear missions, quests and story telling, player dialogue choices which affect how a story plays out, and player character building which often goes much deeper than other games and has a measurable effect on how the game plays.

What do JRPG's have? Turn based battle systems seems to be the big one, but then the Tales series might have some things to say about that. So I think we need to honestly ask the question of if JRPG's really exist as a unique game genre anymore. I don't think there's anything wrong with arguing that there isn't anything that makes them as a whole unique anymore, but it's an interesting prospect nonetheless. And I'm also not going to argue that they haven't differentiated themselves in terms of game mechanics over time either, but looking at them it's hard to say for sure that there are any that bind them all together besides story.

Obviously they're not all turn based given the Tales series existence. They don't all have random encounters looking at Chrono Trigger, FFXII, or Persona 3. They don't all have defined character development as FFV, VII, VIII, XII, and others prove. Maybe story and the cutscene really is the sole defining characteristic which binds them all together?

[ShinGundam]

@Vivi22
JRPGs are whatever "developers" want them to be, it isn't actually a genre. JRPGs are just nebulous(or slang?) term describing a trend in console RPGs from Japan.

But, the issue here is that this is not something which remained unique to RPG's. Structured plots and character development have been co-opted by pretty much every genre in existence now, and it started literally decades ago. Whereas WRPG's have been able to remain somewhat unique in their focus on player choice in character building and character interactions (few games that aren't WRPG's have made attempts at giving players meaningful dialogue and mission choices on the level of games like the original Fallout titles or Mass Effect, and the same is largely true when it comes to building your character as they level up), but the story is not something JRPG's retain a monopoly on.

OK, i am not sure how to tell you this but story wasn't an exclusive feature to JRPGs to begin with. Adventure games were more of story driven genre than JRPGs and offer structured plots, choices, investigation options and visual scenes, here some examples from late 80s to early 90s, "Snatcher", "Policenauts" and "Jesus".

Obviously they're not all turn based given the Tales series existence. They don't all have random encounters looking at Chrono Trigger, FFXII, or Persona 3. They don't all have defined character development as FFV, VII, VIII, XII, and others prove. Maybe story and the cutscene really is the sole defining characteristic which binds them all together?

Again, this isn't true, there are many non-RPGs story driven with many cutscenes sometimes , i mean look at "ninja gaiden".

[Slothy]

@Vivi22
JRPGs are whatever "developers" want them to be, it isn't actually a genre. JRPGs are just nebulous(or slang?) term describing a trend in console RPGs from Japan.

Not really. The JRPG was definitely a genre unto itself that did develop in Japan independently of what was happening in the West. Yeah, they share some features because they were all inspired by pen and paper RPG's, but to say that JRPG's are just RPG's from Japan is to ignore their separate and independent development history. From the beginning they definitely went in separate directions with the similar skeletal structure pioneered by pen and paper games.

OK, i am not sure how to tell you this but story wasn't an exclusive feature to JRPGs to begin with. Adventure games were more of story driven genre than JRPGs and offer structured plots, choices, investigation options and visual scenes, here some examples from late 80s to early 90s, "Snatcher", "Policenauts" and "Jesus".

I wasn't trying to insinuate that JRPG's had a monopoly on being story driven. Yes, things like text adventures and visual novels existed even before them. In fact, they heavily influenced the direction JRPG's took in the early days and are one of the reasons JRPG's are so story driven because that was where a lot of the guys making them were coming from. But those games didn't tend to have much more going for them than that. JRPG's were definitely a much more accessible and visual experience, as well as being inspired heavily by pen and paper RPG's in terms of their gameplay mechanics.

And it seems a bit silly to me to bring up games that came out more than a decade after games like Dragon Quest as being story driven adventure games with visual sequences. They aren't contemporary with the development of JRPG's at all. Snatcher is at least somewhat contemporary with JRPG's, but the simplicity in how it uses visuals to help tell the story compared what JRPG's spent the next 10 years doing only serves to drive home how different they were.

So yeah, sure, JRPG's even in the beginning didn't have a monopoly on story, but there's no denying that in terms of implementation they were approaching it a lot differently than anything at the time. Though, perhaps we could argue they weren't after all and simply moved from text commands to a more visual representation of old text commands like "talk" or "investigate". But if we go down that road it just means we need to be prepared for the possibility that JRPG's are really just doing what text adventures did before in a more streamlined manner and layering RPG mechanics on top of it all. Which really begs the question of if JRPG's did anything unique ever? I suppose in that case, streamlining the game mechanics of the visual novel and text adventure could qualify as being unique to them.

This is why I think it's beneficial to have a serious discussion about this.

Again, this isn't true, there are many non-RPGs story driven with many cutscenes sometimes , i mean look at "ninja gaiden".

It seems my slight dig at the JRPG genre has gone over your head. When people generally think of JRPG's what tends to come to mind? Story and an over abundance of cutscenes.

[Bolivar]

I agree with Jiro's assessment of the tone and I'm going to stop the condescension and namecalling.

But Wolf, it is outrageous that you accuse me "frothing at the mouth" and ignoring you when you have yet to make a single contribution of substance to this thread and its subject matter. I talked about FFVII to flamebait you, and I've only elaborated because Vivi challenged my position. He's actually partaken in a back and forth about the subject matter and I really owe him an apology (I'm sorry dude ), because this originally stemmed from your assertion that:

since it's not unique to the genre, it should not be counted as a strength unique to JRPGs.

So, along your line of thinking, no genre can possibly have "unique strengths," because there are no genres with unique mechanics. What's ironic is that I actually haven't ignored you:

I don't believe any game mechanics can ever be captive to one genre, exclusively. We've seen progression systems infect First Person Shooters like Call of Duty and multiple endings migrate to action games like Metal Gear Solid.

So I'll ask you one more time, how does cinematic expression existing in other genres stop it from being a strength to JRPGs? How does its existence in other titles stop it from differentiating JRPGs from WRPGs?

But to go on your last post, how could the nonexclusivity of JRPG mechanics affect "what JRPG are at their core that makes them unique," your alleged desire to define the genre? Isn't it a collection of strengths, or something entirely different that defines a genre?

I'm not going to pretend ShinGundam came to my defense, but his latest post illustrates how your line of thinking is untenable:

JRPGs are whatever "developers" want them to be, it isn't actually a genre. JRPGs are just nebulous(or slang?) term describing a trend in console RPGs from Japan.

I'm going to steer this issue into the topic of this thread, in that one difference between WRPGs and JRPGs are their definability.

Vivi pointed this out at the end of his post before his last: the trouble of defining JRPGs. The reason I'd rather talk about what differentiates JRPGs from WRPGs as opposed to defining JRPGs as Wolf urged is because, as the Extra Credits video Vivi posted suggests, the terms "JRPG" and "WRPG" are largely arbitrary. Games that look like JRPGs such as Sonic Chronicles: The Dark Brotherhood have come out of the West and games that look like WRPGs such as King's Field have come out of Japan.

Despite the lack of substance to their names, one major difference between the two is that we actually can come close to defining the WRPG. One of the few points I made that remained undisputed by Laddy is that WRPGs don't have nearly the level of subgenres as JRPGs have. Demon's Souls, Valkyria Chronicles, and White Knight Chronicles are three recent games that exemplify three very old, but very recognizable pillars of JRPGs. Yet they are absolutely nothing alike. Their combat systems have (almost) nothing in common. Even the way you customize these characters and maintain them is different. The way they present their stories are particularly distinct. Their settings and characterization are also dissimilar.

Two forces are at work in defining JRPGs and also differentiating them from WRPGs. One is an intangible sense of Japanese sensibilities that go into the game design. You can't point to a group of gameplay or story mechanics and say "that's a JRPG," it's one of those things that you know it when you see it. It's why many consider Zelda a JRPG and opponents have struggled to answer why it's not. The other force is the limitations of a console. You're looking at a controller, not a keyboard, and a tv screen, not a monitor. Original WRPGs had no problem shipping their games with manuals that included the commands you needed to type in order to cast spells. Even today, many inventory and menus systems in WRPGs have been described as "clunky," largely because console ports fail to portray how easy it is to breeze through rougher, more complex menus with a mouse and keyboard. As I said in my post, RPGs existed in Japan before Dragon Quest, but that's the title that really invented the JRPG genre. Whether it's action, strategy, or small party turn-based/ATB, actions need to happen relatively immediately. Menus need to be quick to sort and navigate.

That being said, there are two factors that, in tandem, are really the only defining lines of what a JRPG is. One is the use of some kind of a fantasy setting. White Knight Chronicles emulates high fantasy, Valkyria Chronicles portrays an alternate World War II and Demon's Souls delves into the Macabre, but each of these occupy some corner of what we would consider firmly entrenched in fantasy (or its twin genre of science fiction). The second factor answers the Zelda dilemma: JRPGs utilize some degree of randomness applied to their combat and/or loot.

So a Japanese console fantasy game that incorporates random calculations is the closest I think you could come to defining a JRPG. Close, but not perfect. Zelda randomly calculates drops from enemies and the damage in Demon's Souls is not exactly random. So probably the best definition would be a collection of Japanese fantasy games that are impossible to define.

While the lack of coherent labeling is a new difference to this discussion, I think there's some things I should clarify that are not differences between the two. I've mentioned character-as-avator creation before, but I don't think that's something that's exclusive to WRPGs. Demon's Souls lets you create a character in no less a fashion than many WRPGs do. Even the original Final Fantasy let you select a group of classes to begin with. And I also believe that JRPGs do a far better job at letting you customize characters abilities and stats throughout the game than the WRPGs I've played have.

Nor are branching storylines exclusive. Chrono Trigger is a really awesome example of this, but even moral choices have been done in a really powerful way with Tactics Ogre.

So while I think it's easier to define WRPGs as a coherent "genre," I don't think they have as many major characteristics which JRPGs haven't incorporated or also experimented with over the years.

[Laddy]

You make some good points, but I have some things I'd like to point out:

One of the few points I made that remained undisputed by Laddy is that WRPGs don't have nearly the level of subgenres as JRPGs have. Demon's Souls, Valkyria Chronicles, and White Knight Chronicles are three recent games that exemplify three very old, but very recognizable pillars of JRPGs.

I disagree.

You have roguelikes (Rogue), hack n' slashers (Diablo, Torchlight), strategy-RPG's (Heroes of Might & Magic, Spellforce), isometrics (Baldur's Gate, Fallout), party-based (Wizardry, The Bard's Tale), stealth-RPG's (Deus Ex), and sandboxes (Elder Scrolls, Fallout 3) to name a few. Each of these games have similar elements, but each have totally different experiences associated with them.

And even though Demon's Souls is Japanese in origin, I'd say it has more of a WRPG style to it.

The second factor answers the Zelda dilemma: JRPGs utilize some degree of randomness applied to their combat and/or loot.

WRPG's have this too. You've played Oblivion; don't wolves sometime have forks on their corpses?

Nor are branching storylines exclusive. Chrono Trigger is a really awesome example of this, but even moral choices have been done in a really powerful way with Tactics Ogre.

Branching and non-linear are not the same. Branching has predetermined points and/or ways in which the plot changes, non-linear plots go at your own pace. But I'm just being picky.

So while I think it's easier to define WRPGs as a coherent "genre," I don't think they have as many major characteristics which JRPGs haven't incorporated or also experimented with over the years.

You are right in this regard. There have been some things that JRPG's have adapted into their systems that work wonderfully. The only thing I haven't seen a JRPG do is have a JRPG-style plot and combat with a WRPG party creation a la Wizardry or Might & Magic.

Also, slightly off-topic: Anachronox is the best American JRPG-style game I've played I have ever played while Etrian Odyssey is a great WRPG-style old-school dungeon crawler. Further proof that the J's and W's don't really mean much outside of how we choose to define them.

[Slothy]

Apology accepted Bolivar. No hard feelings dude.

So I'll ask you one more time, how does cinematic expression existing in other genres stop it from being a strength to JRPGs? How does its existence in other titles stop it from differentiating JRPGs from WRPGs?

Hopefully WK doesn't mind me taking a crack at this. It's not really that cinematic expression isn't a strength of JRPG's or that it doesn't differentiate them from WRPG's. Those couldn't be farther from the truth and I don't think anyone here would argue with you there. But just the same, there are WRPG's that bend those rules, if not outright break them. Games like Mass Effect do that to some extent. But I think what Wolf is trying to get at is the same thing I'd like to get at. WRPG's tend to differentiate themselves fairly heavily with things like in depth character creation and character building which the player has a great deal of control over, or gameplay which is totally non-linear. These are things fairly unique to them which other genres haven't attempted to nearly the same degree or depth, and can quite rightly be seen as aspects which help heavily define WRPG's and separate them from every other genre. Cinematic story telling, while a big part of JRPG's, isn't as unique. So while it's certainly valid to point it out, if we flip the statement around and say that WRPG's tend to not rely on cinematic story telling, or don't do it as well, then we have a statement which basically differentiates WRPG's from every other genre, not just JRPG's.

Which is why I think, and probably why WK thinks it's just as important to try and define JRPG's. We've got some pretty solid characteristics which make WRPG's a unique genre compared to everything else out there. But doing the same for JRPG's is obviously proving a bit more difficult.

JRPGs are whatever "developers" want them to be, it isn't actually a genre. JRPGs are just nebulous(or slang?) term describing a trend in console RPGs from Japan.

I'm going to steer this issue into the topic of this thread, in that one difference between WRPGs and JRPGs are their definability.

Vivi pointed this out at the end of his post before his last: the trouble of defining JRPGs. The reason I'd rather talk about what differentiates JRPGs from WRPGs as opposed to defining JRPGs as Wolf urged is because, as the Extra Credits video Vivi posted suggests, the terms "JRPG" and "WRPG" are largely arbitrary. Games that look like JRPGs such as Sonic Chronicles: The Dark Brotherhood have come out of the West and games that look like WRPGs such as King's Field have come out of Japan.

I would agree that the terms JRPG and WRPG are arbitrary because of trends which developed early on in actual JRPG's and WRPG's, but I wouldn't say it makes them useless. They definitely describe two separate styles of RPG's, and while we may have a hard time totally defining and separating the two, when you say JRPG and WRPG, most people have an idea of what you mean, and those ideas are generally quite similar. Sure, it's unfortunate that the names for those genres differentiate along geographical lines instead of game mechanics, or something more descriptive, but that's a failing of language, not an indicator that the attempt to differentiate the two is fruitless.

But as Laddy stated, there are RPG's made in Japan which are definitely more WRPG's than JRPG's and vice versa. Demon's Souls and Dark Souls are two of the best examples you'll find of that actually as from start to finish they just play and feel like a dungeon crawling WRPG, which makes sense when they utilize many of the same mechanics as those types of WRPG's. Sure, they were made in Japan and are a distinctly Japanese take on that style of game, but I'd still say they're WRPG's more than JRPG's.

As I said in my post, RPGs existed in Japan before Dragon Quest, but that's the title that really invented the JRPG genre. Whether it's action, strategy, or small party turn-based/ATB, actions need to happen relatively immediately. Menus need to be quick to sort and navigate.

This actually may be one of the more helpful ways to differentiate the two, though perhaps not totally. The two did basically grow up on totally different platforms, so perhaps we could argue that some simplifying and streamlining of RPG mechanics in JRPG's took place compared to WRPG's which seem to grow more complex rather than less in many ways. I'm not sure I'm totally on board with that or not, but it my initial gut reaction is that it feels true. It's hard to say though, in part because there's been more homogenization of the two genres in recent history as newer generations of game developers who grew up playing both make new games on both sides of the ocean. Maybe at some point we're simply better off saying smurf it, RPG's are RPG's, and differentiating into sub genres based on differing game mechanics? FF is a turn based story driven RPG. Oblivion is a non-linear, open world questing RPG, and so on.

That being said, there are two factors that, in tandem, are really the only defining lines of what a JRPG is. One is the use of some kind of a fantasy setting. White Knight Chronicles emulates high fantasy, Valkyria Chronicles portrays an alternate World War II and Demon's Souls delves into the Macabre, but each of these occupy some corner of what we would consider firmly entrenched in fantasy (or its twin genre of science fiction). The second factor answers the Zelda dilemma: JRPGs utilize some degree of randomness applied to their combat and/or loot.

I'm not sure how I feel about either of those to be honest. Fantasy settings are hardly unique to JRPG's and are frequently used in WRPG's as well, not to mention showing up in other genres. And depending on how liberal you want to get with the term fantasy, we could find lot's of examples in lot's of genres. And randomness in combat and loot heavily applies to a lot of WRPG's. For some it's practically their defining characteristic and used to greater degree than most JRPG's make use of.

But stuff like this is part of why the more I think about it, the more JRPG's feel like this nebulous, poorly defined thing that doesn't stand too far apart from anything else. Should we consider just dropping the genre name altogether?

[Bolivar]

To be clear, I don't think randomness separates JRPGs from WRPGs, I was expressly talking about the Zelda dilemma. As I said in my post, you're not going to find anything, by itself, that separates a genre from everything else. I disagree that WRPGs differentiate themselves from other games because of in-depth character creation and customization and player control thereof. EA Sports games and other titles like The Godfather have done an incredible job at letting you create a character. And we can assemble quite a long list that let you choose character classes and maybe stats at the beginning at or near the level that the average WRPG does. As I've said before, I think JRPGs do a far better job at letting you customize your character's abilities and stats over the course of the game (as opposed to the beginning creation phase) than WRPGs let you do. Actually, I might argue that this whole immersion-breaking sequence where you go through facial models and class menus is a part of the reason why JRPGs have better pacing than WRPGs, especially with a lot of JRPGs being renowned for their amazing openings.

So it's not just one thing, rather, it's the collection of things that define a genre and make it unique from others. That's why my definition of JRPGs was : A 1) Japanese 2) console 3) fantasy game that 4) utilizes random calculations in damage and/or loot.

I feel that's the closest we can come, and there's still tons of games that break it.

As far as the whole intangible experience of making a console game with a controller and how that effects menus, I think that goes to how for a long time, JRPGs were called "Lite RPGs" and one reason I'm happy with that being a close descriptor of the genre. But then again we have Ys games and of course Japanese MMO's.

[Laddy]

As I've said before, I think JRPGs do a far better job at letting you customize your character's abilities and stats over the course of the game (as opposed to the beginning creation phase) than WRPGs let you do. Actually, I might argue that this whole immersion-breaking sequence where you go through facial models and class menus is a part of the reason why JRPGs have better pacing than WRPGs, especially with a lot of JRPGs being renowned for their amazing openings.

I disagree. JRPG's typically have established characters with defined abilities that can be customized but only to the extent the character is allowed. In short, each character typically has a very defined role, barring some exceptions. WRPG's have much more open-ended development, to say that JRPG's are moreso proves contrary to my experience with both genres.

In most WRPG's, especially those without defined classes, a character's skill set can totally change as they develop. For example, in my current playthrough I rolled a Speech and Science-based character. As she developed, I chose to emphasize those skills less as I basically had them way higher than I needed to at that point and instead focused on a more agile melee-based character. While the creation typically lays out how the character and/or party will be, the level 1 character sheet hardly defines it. FFVII and Persona feature similar systems, but I find them the exceptions rather than the rule.

And I agree with WRPG's often lacking immersion, but considering this a genre that places a large emphasis on stats, attributes, and intergers, immersion isn't exactly the goal. And yes, many RPG's have slow openings, which is why I downloaded a mod for Baldur's Gate II that lets me talk to a cheery dude outside of the literal torture chamber I start in so I can randomly teleport out of the first dungeon, despite it being hilariously out-of-place.

[Wolf Kanno]

Alright, might as well put my stamp on this. I'm not quite ready to comment on what else is going on here, but I feel my definition will drag me in either way so here goes.

To answer the OP question about what is the difference between a JRPG and WRPG, I would first off state that the J and W are meaningless and geography doesn't really mean much. I feel the Japanese are just as good as making WRPG style games as Westerners could make a JRPG if they wanted. There are examples on both sides to show this point, so I feel it's important to make a point that geography is kind of moot.

The difference between JRPGs and WRPGs are in the type of "GM" they possess: JRPGs have "Hard GMs" while WRPGs have "Soft GMs". I like the term GM cause it references a common point of origin for both sub-genres. For now I will explain them in blanket terms but understand that I feel that like most things in life, RPGs of either group tend to have elements of both a Hard and Soft GM and the best games of the genre tend to fall into an almost perfect middle ground of both styles.

A GM in video game terms can best be described as the way the developers design the game and scenario in direct relation to the amount of choices the player has. RPGs must have "choice" cause the heart of the RPG is role playing meaning you assume a character and direct the flow of the game. To get back to the term of GM, if we were to think of the design team as a GM and the player as well... the player. The type of game you would get is dependent on the type of GM you have.

A "Soft GM" could be thought of as a laid back GM who has created a world and scenario, but largely empowers the player to carve out a direction through an abundance of choices and is genuinely flexible with the player to a certain degree. The problem with this style of GM is that if they become too flexible (like some modern WRPGs) then the players wind up doing everything and you kind of get a "patients running the asylum" scenario and the direction and general flow of the scenario begins to break down as the player tries to go in too many directions at once. The player drowns in the ocean of choices. Another flaw is if the GM places the same level of importance to every scenario. It breaks the illusion of the player being in a fantastic world and diminishes the sense of accomplishment for the player. There needs to be a defined sense of scale, even if doing so may limit some of the players choice. The strength of this type of GM is that the player gets more sway and can have more fun with everything. They take part in the GM process and can change the mood of the scenario to fit their preferences.

Example of a Soft GM: The player reaches a point where the road splits into three directions. A Soft GM would tell the player if they checked, that one road was blocked by rubble, then one road leads to a journey to get a dragon's treasure while the other road leads to a kingdom plagued by a Lich. The player then is allowed to make a choice of which direction to go.

A "Hard GM" is the type of GM who has written a strong narrative and forces the players to play along. I'm sure anyone familiar with the paper and pen games will have met one of these types of GMs who throw hissy fits when the players don't want to play ball with the scenario they crafted. This GM usually limits the players choices and tends to be more rigid and less flexible, but also works with the player avatars to write them into the narrative. The best Hard GMs will be the ones that hide from the player their inflexibility with the illusion of choice. Perhaps giving the players the feeling they are in control but all the while guiding them to the GMs predetermined destination for them. The strength of this style is that depending on the GMs writing ability, the player finds themselves in a more focused scenario with defined goals that create a sense of better immersion for the player as they anticipate what may happen next as opposed to trying to decide where to go next. The problem with this style is that if the GM becomes too inflexible and openly destroys choice, it feels less like a role playing adventure and more of you listening to the GMs crappy novel that got laughed at on his D&D forums. The player still needs to feel like a part of the scenario, not simply as an observer. Likewise, if the scenario plays a larger role than normal and if the GM turns out to be a lousy writer then the whole game falls apart s the player may become bored or irritated.

Example of a Hard GM: The player reaches a point where the road splits into three directions. A Hard GM would do one of two things: Either let the player choose whichever road they want, but make the destination the same no matter which road they choose, but not tell the player this. The other option is to have the player check and see that one road is blocked by rubble, when they choose the next road, the GM alerts to them that a large enemy force is on this road and spots the player forcing them to backtrack and take the third road which was the one the GM wanted them to take in the first place. The important point in all of this I must stress is that a Hard GM still has to create the illusion of choice, and as with the second scenario, it's possible to make this exciting for the player despite the GM is manipulating them to go the way the GM wants them to go.

To me this is the easiest way to define their differences without really going into the murky territory of defining what each of them is on technical merits in the broader scope of the RPG genre.

I will post thoughts on the discussion of what is a JRPG later, right now, I'm tired and need some time to collect my thoughts and read through what's been discussed so far.