The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
ITT pointless discussion of the definitions of genres [wall of text warning]
kurokaze
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
From sales thread, avoiding too much OT discussion therein
Like the similar point-and-click adventure before it, the JRPG has very few 'main gameplay designs' aside from being focused on cutscenes, dialogue, and story, and many of those have since been assimilated into other genres. The difference between the JRPG and the point-and-click adventure, in fact, if one ignores interface tropes, pretty much boils down to that JRPGs have battles and adventures have more in-depth/manual use of key items. Character advancement of some form is so universal these days that it's hard to truthfully call it a trait of any genre, though it will be perceived as 'RPG elements' for a while yet.
The observation I wanted to make earlier, and by which I justify the making of an entire new thread, is this: If JRPGs are similar to point-and-click adventures...
We all know point-and-click adventures declined greatly some years ago and are now pretty much a nostalgia niche.
We also know that JRPG sales haven't been that great, few JRPGs this generation are considered among the generation's top games (despite having JRPGs that rate among the top JRPGs according to many), and many have called it another genre in decline.
So: Is the JRPG in decline because, like adventures before it, its most compelling elements, character advancement and focus on a strong linear story, have been assimilated into other genres, causing the JRPG genre as such to lose its appeal to the non-genre-fan?
Back to arguing:
Superficial details like how early games had voice acting aren't relevant. The WRPG genre (again, specific individual games can push the boundaries of genre) is by its very nature not cinematic and not driven by a linear story because almost its entire nature is to be driven by a dynamic story that imposes great technical limitations on the ability to make the kind of seamless experience seen in JRPGs and other cinematic games. Mass Effect went to great lengths to overcome these limitations and was in large part successful, but it still has significant warts if you look closely and its 'cinematic-ness' was nothing we hadn't seen 10 years earlier except for the fact that it managed to do it with a dynamic, rather than linear, story.
The tile-based strategic battle system is interesting in that it was a common trend for WRPGs at one point (Gold Box games, for example) but faded entirely from sight a little before the time we started to see the first Japanese SRPGs pop up like Tactics Ogre and FFT. (There were earlier Japanese SRPGs, but I don't think we ever saw any of them. I have no idea how long they've been around over there.) Depending on how you view this, either this type of battle is an element that was formerly a trait of WRPGs, but no longer is, and is now a trait of a subgenre of JRPG; or it is a periodically-appearing trait of both WRPG and JRPG. Take your pick.
Or just say they're actually somewhat different combat schemes that are similar in design and intent but not in execution, as the SRPG uses a paradigm wherein the tile-based combat map is all there is and battles take ~30 minutes while WRPG versions have exploration separated from combat and encounters are more in the ~5 minute range.
Anyway, you reveal that your entire premise is flawed when you talk about 'many RPG games developed in the west'. Nobody gives a shit (except you, apparently) where a game was developed for classifying what genre it's in. If a game looks like a JRPG and talks like a JRPG, it's a JRPG, made in the west or not, regardless of how poorly named the genre is. Likewise, a game that is clearly an RPG of some sort that is developed in Japan - Class of Heroes, for example, or any roguelike - is not necessarily a JRPG.
You'd be laughed out of anywhere you choose if you asserted that Final Fantasy Mystic Quest and Secret of Evermore are not in the JRPG genre, or subgenre, or category or whatever. Where were they developed again? Square USA? Right. It's less obviously ridiculous to assert the same about Anachronox, but that's just because it's easier to not pay attention.
Returning to the actual definitions of the genres:
The WRPG is defined by player choice. The entire purpose behind the game design is to provide the player with the tools to play a role in a way they see fit. As such, the 'common gameplay design elements' are:
- Character creation. Almost all WRPGs allow the complete invention of the player character from whole cloth. Those that do not still allow extreme amounts of customization compared to almost any other genre. Many WRPGs allow creation of other characters as well.
- Character actualization. This is the key defining element of the genre and is present in all but the most primitive entries (which I am tempted to even consider their own proto-genre). By this, I mean that in addition to defining the character's superficial and gameplay-related aspects, one defines the character's story-related aspects (decisions). The extent to which this is true depends almost entirely upon the depth, effort, quality of writing, and level of technology involved in the game; it is very rarely if ever compromised. This includes clear developer intent that the choice be made in a manner that recognizes the consequences of actions and fits the personality of the character being 'role-played'. Though the actual realization of the consequences or availability of choices that fit many character ideals aren't always there, those things are present within the capabilities and structure of the game.
- Character advancement. In many/most/all(?) situations this is tied in with both character creation and character actualization, in that it is yet another part of role-playing. Emphasis is on the ability to choose how one advances from a vast array of choices that produce multiple viable solutions to the problems the game presents.
- Sidequests and rewards for exploration. Many/most/all(?) WRPGs have as much detail and effort placed on sidequests as they do on the 'main quest' and have a fuckton of them relative to most other genres including JRPGs. The player is typically expected to search for any and all available sidequests as new areas become available during main quest progress, with 3-5 or more typical for any given new area.
Compared to JRPGs:
- Character creation. Very few JRPGs allow any form of character creation beyond name modification, which is even going the way of the dodo due to its adverse effect on voice acted scripts. Those that allow further customization typically have highly arguable/unique genre profiles (Legend of Mana), aren't actually JRPGs as such (roguelikes and other dungeon crawls, a few obscure games I've encountered such as Dark Law: Meaning of Death), or actually predate the development of this distinction (Final Fantasy I).
- Character actualization. Very few JRPGs have anything of the sort, and those that do typically just have an extremely basic and superficial system tied to one event in the game (FF7 dates). Persona's inclusion of this in more depth simply shows that it is a game that bends genre (it also gives up cinematic-ness to do so, even to the extent of having almost no voice acting). On the other side, JRPGs that want to present a character that one 'identifies' with, rather than allowing them to make player-defined choices, typically go the silent protagonist route.
- Character advancement. In many/most/all(?) examples this is tied in heavily with the game's chosen combat system and has no, or almost no, bearing on the progression of the story except to the extent that the flavor of the combat system is tied into the story (see Magicite, Materia, GFs)
- Sidequests are typically obscure guide-or-you'll-miss-it affairs, or minigames, or otherwise much less detailed than the main game.
---
Unlike the WRPG (but similarly to some other genres such as 'platformer'), the JRPG is not defined entirely by one trait that separates it from all other genres. As such, the definition is much murkier and there will be disagreement as to what specific games fit under the label. One could even draw a distinction and say that one type of category (call it a 'genre') is defined by a trait, like WRPGs, and another type of category (call it a 'classification') is a more vague collection of tropes that combines to form something that is perceived as a genre, but does not have elements that are essentially unique to it.
Common gameplay elements:
- Story-driven. JRPGs have a tendency to push the envelope regarding how much the game's main story shapes and drives the entire play experience. Similarly, a player can typically push through the 'main' story and be assured that they will get most or all of the story-based content in the game.
- Cinematic. JRPGs have a tendency to push the envelope regarding how movie-like and realistic (and frequent) the game's cut-scenes are. As such, typically the games have to make concessions in the gameplay to keep variables from negatively impacting the cut-scene's authenticity. Recently, for example, many JRPGs have been using a model where all characters in the party are considered present for a cut-scene, despite having some be 'in your party' and some not with regards to battles. Experiments in the other direction (FF6) have been widely regarded as unsatisfying in this regard. (Yes, it's a great game, many people love it including me, but the generic cut-scene lines and general lack of your party members commenting on anything does suck.)
- Heavy focus on combat and combat systems. All but the most cookie-cutter of JRPGs (perhaps excluding SRPGs) contain unique innovations in their combat system. The game lives and dies on that system in many respects. Even a game as generic-seeming on the surface as Lost Odyssey is full of depth and its combat is a different experience from any other game. This is almost always heavily tied in with the character advancement system, such that there is little to no point to the character advancement system outside of the context of how it interacts with the unique parts of the combat system.
- Specific combat system tropes of note: tactical/SRPG, round-based (as in early FF or Lost Odyssey), turn-based (as in FFX), Zelda-like action (Seiken Densetsu), Tales-like action (Tales and Star Ocean), ATB (a variant of turn-based), pseudo-positional (as in Chrono Trigger), and multiple-action turn-based (Xenogears, Chrono Cross). Of note is that most of these share a common trait that is almost completely absent in the modern (1990s+) WRPG genre: positioning is highly abstracted and often entirely ignored. Also of note, though this may be considered superficial, is that there is actually very little if any overlap with WRPGs here. As noted above, the tactical/SRPG JRPG plays differently as a whole game from a turn-based tactical WRPG like Fallout, even though the specifics of combat are almost identical. Fable is a WRPG with Zelda-like action, but it was likely directly inspired by Zelda at a later date (and thus is reminiscent of post-OoT Zelda) and shares little with the Zelda-like JRPGs that play more like LoZ/LttP.
Compared to WRPGs:
- Again, WRPGs don't focus nearly as much on the main story, using it more as a guide and pacing mechanism to experience the short but in-depth side quests.
- Again, WRPGs are severely technically limited in the cinematic experiences they can provide due to the importance they place on player choice. Typical offenses are dialogue trees that result in the same lines being repeated, lack of voice acting for the player's lines and glossing over the player's name in VA, lack of any sort of NPC reaction to various things you'd think they'd notice (like the huge freaking dragon wings my NWN1 expansion character sported), canned and clunky animations, few prerendered cutscenes along with game engines not suited to detailed in-game engine cutscenes, etc. Most of these things aren't flaws in the games but inherent in the amount of choices that the game offers.
- Combat in WRPGs, as a rule, sucks ass. The combat is designed around the advancement system, rather than the other way around as in JRPGs, and the advancement system is designed around role-playing and player choice. This results in combat that feels like an afterthought even when it's half of what you're doing in the game. Companies go for a decade with no significant combat improvements and even sometimes make combat the same but worse and even give their shitty combat engines to other developers so more games can have identical shitty battle systems. I know I'm bringing subjectivity into this, but it's undeniable that all Infinity Engine games have almost identical combat with minor interface changes (and 3E for IWD2), and it seems unlikely that anyone would say that NWN/NWN2 are not the exact same combat system only not as good. This is a polar opposite to the combat systems in JRPGs which are their primary source of innovation and title differentiation. (And don't think that I'm just singling out one offender. Gold Box, Bethesda, Fallout 1/2, all rehashing. Arcanum copied Infinity Engine. Bloodlines is basically the same as Bethesda's games IIRC. Mass Effect adds cover to same. ToEE shines as a lone example of WRPG combat that does not suck ass, too bad about the rest of the game.)
- Combat tropes in WRPGs: Shooter, tactical, and real-time turn-based pausable. If you go WAY back into the past, you can find other tropes, some of which (Bard's Tale, I think?) actually have abstracted positioning like JRPGs do, but these have long-since gone the way of the dodo at approximately the time when alternatives (like the rather odd but undeniably positional Eye of the Beholder system) were invented/feasible/whatever.
RPGs or RPG-like games that are neither WRPGs nor JRPGs:
Zelda.
Diablo and clones. This is possibly a subset or superset of roguelike, but probably not.
Roguelikes.
MMORPGs. This is possibly a subset of Diablo-style games.
Monster Hunter. I haven't played enough of this to know, but it might fit into one of the above categories.
I'd also argue that there is a third major single-player 'true' RPG genre, which I call CRPG for reasons I don't entirely understand. This basically refers to the very beginning stages of role-playing video game development, pre-dating any distinction between W or J or whatever else you like. The games that don't have a strong main narrative or innovative combat so aren't JRPGs, don't have worlds, stories, or characters affected by player choice so aren't WRPGs, and don't have random dungeons so aren't roguelikes.
Unfortunately I'm not familiar enough with the older games to actually say which would fit into that category and which would be WRPGs. I was thinking Class of Heroes was a prime example of a modern version of this, but I forgot it has random dungeons and stuff so it can fit under the roguelike heading. Though I hear the people who actually like roguelikes get angry if you put anything under their heading they don't approve, perhaps including games with more than one dungeon.
However, if this category were created, I'd probably put Final Fantasy I and Dragon Quest I in it, though that would perhaps be controversial. Maybe even a few other proto-JRPGs. It was FF3 that invented the combat-and-advancement-system focused RPG, as far as I know.
Important thing to note before making any further stupid statements:
Genres are not all-consuming entities taking any opportunity to grow bigger by assimilating the competition; they are classifications of games based on common elements. As such, the presence of a single game in a genre that has a particular trait does not mean that that genre has that trait. Examples: Time manipulation is not a trait of platformers, despite four platformers off the top of my head using it as a major gameplay element. Character advancement is not a trait of point-and-click adventures, despite Quest for Glory. Platforming is not a trait of shooters, despite many shooters containing places where you have to jump between platforms. Having cutscenes that aren't really clunky, likewise, is not a trait of WRPGs, despite Mass Effect having quite a few. Having combat systems that are unique and innovative is not a trait of WRPGs, even if a few do (The Witcher maybe? I recall it being different-ish.) Having detailed interaction with characters and making choices that affect the world is not a trait of JRPGs, despite Persona. Nonlinearity is not a trait of JRPGs, despite FF6 and SaGa Frontier.
And finally, since it's not off-topic here, and some people probably don't have the context, here's what started all this. (Red added by me.)
Just to clarify: the premise of this post appears to be:
- JRPGs are just rehashes of PC games from the '80s. Riiight. It's the art style that differentiates Tales of Vesperia from Ultima, nothing more.
- WRPGs are full of innovation and modern-ness. Fallout 3 is not at all yet another rehash of TES: Arena, for example, and Mass Effect was way more than a solid refinement of KOTOR, right? (which itself was a refinement of NWN, which was a majorly crippled variant of BG).
- The RPG has a 'base audience' on PC (what does this even mean?) and somehow this makes the PC style RPG superior or having a superior fan-base even though the sales of PC style RPGs didn't take off until they hit consoles.
This post may have hit upon some truth in the idea that WRPGs are outperforming JRPGs on consoles at the moment simply because WRPGs are newer to the console gamer. But really, both genres are horrifically stagnant in different ways and both are showing evidence of progress and evidence of not-getting-it and evidence of not-progress-but-it's-a-damn-fine-game-anyway.
spamfilter wrote: »
WRPG and JRPG are as different from each other as platformers and shooters, sharing only an unfortunate coincidence of name and a tendency to focus more on story than other games. Yes, there are a few games that blur the line, but that's true of all genres. Yes, the original JRPGs were derivatives of the original CRPGs like Ultima, but both genres have gone so far in different directions since then that calling them the same thing, or one as a superset of another, is pretty ridiculous.
It's not ridiculous at all, other than the art style, can you name me a single main JRPG gameplay design that you can't also find in some western RPG? Cinematics and story driven? I can remember voice acting and cutscenes from story driven RPGs as far back as Betrayal at Krondor. Betrayal at Krondor also had many of the movement on a board mechanics that many SRPGS uses.
There are many RPG games developed in the west that if you replaced the art style with anime, would be completely indistinguishable from a JRPG. Which makes it hard to justify the "gone so far in different directions" claims.
ETA: this is probably not the right thread to continue this discussion. So I won't discuss it here any more but I'm open to continuing it in a more appropriate thread.
Like the similar point-and-click adventure before it, the JRPG has very few 'main gameplay designs' aside from being focused on cutscenes, dialogue, and story, and many of those have since been assimilated into other genres. The difference between the JRPG and the point-and-click adventure, in fact, if one ignores interface tropes, pretty much boils down to that JRPGs have battles and adventures have more in-depth/manual use of key items. Character advancement of some form is so universal these days that it's hard to truthfully call it a trait of any genre, though it will be perceived as 'RPG elements' for a while yet.
The observation I wanted to make earlier, and by which I justify the making of an entire new thread, is this: If JRPGs are similar to point-and-click adventures...
We all know point-and-click adventures declined greatly some years ago and are now pretty much a nostalgia niche.
We also know that JRPG sales haven't been that great, few JRPGs this generation are considered among the generation's top games (despite having JRPGs that rate among the top JRPGs according to many), and many have called it another genre in decline.
So: Is the JRPG in decline because, like adventures before it, its most compelling elements, character advancement and focus on a strong linear story, have been assimilated into other genres, causing the JRPG genre as such to lose its appeal to the non-genre-fan?
Back to arguing:
Superficial details like how early games had voice acting aren't relevant. The WRPG genre (again, specific individual games can push the boundaries of genre) is by its very nature not cinematic and not driven by a linear story because almost its entire nature is to be driven by a dynamic story that imposes great technical limitations on the ability to make the kind of seamless experience seen in JRPGs and other cinematic games. Mass Effect went to great lengths to overcome these limitations and was in large part successful, but it still has significant warts if you look closely and its 'cinematic-ness' was nothing we hadn't seen 10 years earlier except for the fact that it managed to do it with a dynamic, rather than linear, story.
The tile-based strategic battle system is interesting in that it was a common trend for WRPGs at one point (Gold Box games, for example) but faded entirely from sight a little before the time we started to see the first Japanese SRPGs pop up like Tactics Ogre and FFT. (There were earlier Japanese SRPGs, but I don't think we ever saw any of them. I have no idea how long they've been around over there.) Depending on how you view this, either this type of battle is an element that was formerly a trait of WRPGs, but no longer is, and is now a trait of a subgenre of JRPG; or it is a periodically-appearing trait of both WRPG and JRPG. Take your pick.
Or just say they're actually somewhat different combat schemes that are similar in design and intent but not in execution, as the SRPG uses a paradigm wherein the tile-based combat map is all there is and battles take ~30 minutes while WRPG versions have exploration separated from combat and encounters are more in the ~5 minute range.
Anyway, you reveal that your entire premise is flawed when you talk about 'many RPG games developed in the west'. Nobody gives a shit (except you, apparently) where a game was developed for classifying what genre it's in. If a game looks like a JRPG and talks like a JRPG, it's a JRPG, made in the west or not, regardless of how poorly named the genre is. Likewise, a game that is clearly an RPG of some sort that is developed in Japan - Class of Heroes, for example, or any roguelike - is not necessarily a JRPG.
You'd be laughed out of anywhere you choose if you asserted that Final Fantasy Mystic Quest and Secret of Evermore are not in the JRPG genre, or subgenre, or category or whatever. Where were they developed again? Square USA? Right. It's less obviously ridiculous to assert the same about Anachronox, but that's just because it's easier to not pay attention.
Returning to the actual definitions of the genres:
The WRPG is defined by player choice. The entire purpose behind the game design is to provide the player with the tools to play a role in a way they see fit. As such, the 'common gameplay design elements' are:
- Character creation. Almost all WRPGs allow the complete invention of the player character from whole cloth. Those that do not still allow extreme amounts of customization compared to almost any other genre. Many WRPGs allow creation of other characters as well.
- Character actualization. This is the key defining element of the genre and is present in all but the most primitive entries (which I am tempted to even consider their own proto-genre). By this, I mean that in addition to defining the character's superficial and gameplay-related aspects, one defines the character's story-related aspects (decisions). The extent to which this is true depends almost entirely upon the depth, effort, quality of writing, and level of technology involved in the game; it is very rarely if ever compromised. This includes clear developer intent that the choice be made in a manner that recognizes the consequences of actions and fits the personality of the character being 'role-played'. Though the actual realization of the consequences or availability of choices that fit many character ideals aren't always there, those things are present within the capabilities and structure of the game.
- Character advancement. In many/most/all(?) situations this is tied in with both character creation and character actualization, in that it is yet another part of role-playing. Emphasis is on the ability to choose how one advances from a vast array of choices that produce multiple viable solutions to the problems the game presents.
- Sidequests and rewards for exploration. Many/most/all(?) WRPGs have as much detail and effort placed on sidequests as they do on the 'main quest' and have a fuckton of them relative to most other genres including JRPGs. The player is typically expected to search for any and all available sidequests as new areas become available during main quest progress, with 3-5 or more typical for any given new area.
Compared to JRPGs:
- Character creation. Very few JRPGs allow any form of character creation beyond name modification, which is even going the way of the dodo due to its adverse effect on voice acted scripts. Those that allow further customization typically have highly arguable/unique genre profiles (Legend of Mana), aren't actually JRPGs as such (roguelikes and other dungeon crawls, a few obscure games I've encountered such as Dark Law: Meaning of Death), or actually predate the development of this distinction (Final Fantasy I).
- Character actualization. Very few JRPGs have anything of the sort, and those that do typically just have an extremely basic and superficial system tied to one event in the game (FF7 dates). Persona's inclusion of this in more depth simply shows that it is a game that bends genre (it also gives up cinematic-ness to do so, even to the extent of having almost no voice acting). On the other side, JRPGs that want to present a character that one 'identifies' with, rather than allowing them to make player-defined choices, typically go the silent protagonist route.
- Character advancement. In many/most/all(?) examples this is tied in heavily with the game's chosen combat system and has no, or almost no, bearing on the progression of the story except to the extent that the flavor of the combat system is tied into the story (see Magicite, Materia, GFs)
- Sidequests are typically obscure guide-or-you'll-miss-it affairs, or minigames, or otherwise much less detailed than the main game.
---
Unlike the WRPG (but similarly to some other genres such as 'platformer'), the JRPG is not defined entirely by one trait that separates it from all other genres. As such, the definition is much murkier and there will be disagreement as to what specific games fit under the label. One could even draw a distinction and say that one type of category (call it a 'genre') is defined by a trait, like WRPGs, and another type of category (call it a 'classification') is a more vague collection of tropes that combines to form something that is perceived as a genre, but does not have elements that are essentially unique to it.
Common gameplay elements:
- Story-driven. JRPGs have a tendency to push the envelope regarding how much the game's main story shapes and drives the entire play experience. Similarly, a player can typically push through the 'main' story and be assured that they will get most or all of the story-based content in the game.
- Cinematic. JRPGs have a tendency to push the envelope regarding how movie-like and realistic (and frequent) the game's cut-scenes are. As such, typically the games have to make concessions in the gameplay to keep variables from negatively impacting the cut-scene's authenticity. Recently, for example, many JRPGs have been using a model where all characters in the party are considered present for a cut-scene, despite having some be 'in your party' and some not with regards to battles. Experiments in the other direction (FF6) have been widely regarded as unsatisfying in this regard. (Yes, it's a great game, many people love it including me, but the generic cut-scene lines and general lack of your party members commenting on anything does suck.)
- Heavy focus on combat and combat systems. All but the most cookie-cutter of JRPGs (perhaps excluding SRPGs) contain unique innovations in their combat system. The game lives and dies on that system in many respects. Even a game as generic-seeming on the surface as Lost Odyssey is full of depth and its combat is a different experience from any other game. This is almost always heavily tied in with the character advancement system, such that there is little to no point to the character advancement system outside of the context of how it interacts with the unique parts of the combat system.
- Specific combat system tropes of note: tactical/SRPG, round-based (as in early FF or Lost Odyssey), turn-based (as in FFX), Zelda-like action (Seiken Densetsu), Tales-like action (Tales and Star Ocean), ATB (a variant of turn-based), pseudo-positional (as in Chrono Trigger), and multiple-action turn-based (Xenogears, Chrono Cross). Of note is that most of these share a common trait that is almost completely absent in the modern (1990s+) WRPG genre: positioning is highly abstracted and often entirely ignored. Also of note, though this may be considered superficial, is that there is actually very little if any overlap with WRPGs here. As noted above, the tactical/SRPG JRPG plays differently as a whole game from a turn-based tactical WRPG like Fallout, even though the specifics of combat are almost identical. Fable is a WRPG with Zelda-like action, but it was likely directly inspired by Zelda at a later date (and thus is reminiscent of post-OoT Zelda) and shares little with the Zelda-like JRPGs that play more like LoZ/LttP.
Compared to WRPGs:
- Again, WRPGs don't focus nearly as much on the main story, using it more as a guide and pacing mechanism to experience the short but in-depth side quests.
- Again, WRPGs are severely technically limited in the cinematic experiences they can provide due to the importance they place on player choice. Typical offenses are dialogue trees that result in the same lines being repeated, lack of voice acting for the player's lines and glossing over the player's name in VA, lack of any sort of NPC reaction to various things you'd think they'd notice (like the huge freaking dragon wings my NWN1 expansion character sported), canned and clunky animations, few prerendered cutscenes along with game engines not suited to detailed in-game engine cutscenes, etc. Most of these things aren't flaws in the games but inherent in the amount of choices that the game offers.
- Combat in WRPGs, as a rule, sucks ass. The combat is designed around the advancement system, rather than the other way around as in JRPGs, and the advancement system is designed around role-playing and player choice. This results in combat that feels like an afterthought even when it's half of what you're doing in the game. Companies go for a decade with no significant combat improvements and even sometimes make combat the same but worse and even give their shitty combat engines to other developers so more games can have identical shitty battle systems. I know I'm bringing subjectivity into this, but it's undeniable that all Infinity Engine games have almost identical combat with minor interface changes (and 3E for IWD2), and it seems unlikely that anyone would say that NWN/NWN2 are not the exact same combat system only not as good. This is a polar opposite to the combat systems in JRPGs which are their primary source of innovation and title differentiation. (And don't think that I'm just singling out one offender. Gold Box, Bethesda, Fallout 1/2, all rehashing. Arcanum copied Infinity Engine. Bloodlines is basically the same as Bethesda's games IIRC. Mass Effect adds cover to same. ToEE shines as a lone example of WRPG combat that does not suck ass, too bad about the rest of the game.)
- Combat tropes in WRPGs: Shooter, tactical, and real-time turn-based pausable. If you go WAY back into the past, you can find other tropes, some of which (Bard's Tale, I think?) actually have abstracted positioning like JRPGs do, but these have long-since gone the way of the dodo at approximately the time when alternatives (like the rather odd but undeniably positional Eye of the Beholder system) were invented/feasible/whatever.
RPGs or RPG-like games that are neither WRPGs nor JRPGs:
Zelda.
Diablo and clones. This is possibly a subset or superset of roguelike, but probably not.
Roguelikes.
MMORPGs. This is possibly a subset of Diablo-style games.
Monster Hunter. I haven't played enough of this to know, but it might fit into one of the above categories.
I'd also argue that there is a third major single-player 'true' RPG genre, which I call CRPG for reasons I don't entirely understand. This basically refers to the very beginning stages of role-playing video game development, pre-dating any distinction between W or J or whatever else you like. The games that don't have a strong main narrative or innovative combat so aren't JRPGs, don't have worlds, stories, or characters affected by player choice so aren't WRPGs, and don't have random dungeons so aren't roguelikes.
Unfortunately I'm not familiar enough with the older games to actually say which would fit into that category and which would be WRPGs. I was thinking Class of Heroes was a prime example of a modern version of this, but I forgot it has random dungeons and stuff so it can fit under the roguelike heading. Though I hear the people who actually like roguelikes get angry if you put anything under their heading they don't approve, perhaps including games with more than one dungeon.
However, if this category were created, I'd probably put Final Fantasy I and Dragon Quest I in it, though that would perhaps be controversial. Maybe even a few other proto-JRPGs. It was FF3 that invented the combat-and-advancement-system focused RPG, as far as I know.
Important thing to note before making any further stupid statements:
Genres are not all-consuming entities taking any opportunity to grow bigger by assimilating the competition; they are classifications of games based on common elements. As such, the presence of a single game in a genre that has a particular trait does not mean that that genre has that trait. Examples: Time manipulation is not a trait of platformers, despite four platformers off the top of my head using it as a major gameplay element. Character advancement is not a trait of point-and-click adventures, despite Quest for Glory. Platforming is not a trait of shooters, despite many shooters containing places where you have to jump between platforms. Having cutscenes that aren't really clunky, likewise, is not a trait of WRPGs, despite Mass Effect having quite a few. Having combat systems that are unique and innovative is not a trait of WRPGs, even if a few do (The Witcher maybe? I recall it being different-ish.) Having detailed interaction with characters and making choices that affect the world is not a trait of JRPGs, despite Persona. Nonlinearity is not a trait of JRPGs, despite FF6 and SaGa Frontier.
And finally, since it's not off-topic here, and some people probably don't have the context, here's what started all this. (Red added by me.)
spamfilter wrote: »The entire dichotomy between WRPG and JRPG is a flawed description of the situation. JRPG is not a separate entity, it is really a specific niche type of RPG with a certain common combat system and animation style, produced mostly by developers in Asia. Whereas the WRPG is really the entire RPG genre, which encompasses multiple different types of combat and game play. There are even some RPGs made in the west and plays like a JRPG.
The RPG's base audience had always been pc gamers up until recently. JRPG really is nothing more than developers in Japan rehashing 80's combat style RPG that existed on PCs. They were able to dominate the console market because the developers of the more advanced RPGS in the west stayed on the PC platform.
It was until the 00's that there was finally a massive shift to the console for all developers. And as soon as western developers RPGs started to develop on consoles, by contrast the Japanese RPG developers who have made very little advancement in their game mechanics immediately looked dated in comparison.
I think finally we're starting to see some Japanese RPG developers realize that faced with competition from the Western RPG developers on the console platforms they have can no longer afford to be stagnant.
Just to clarify: the premise of this post appears to be:
- JRPGs are just rehashes of PC games from the '80s. Riiight. It's the art style that differentiates Tales of Vesperia from Ultima, nothing more.
- WRPGs are full of innovation and modern-ness. Fallout 3 is not at all yet another rehash of TES: Arena, for example, and Mass Effect was way more than a solid refinement of KOTOR, right? (which itself was a refinement of NWN, which was a majorly crippled variant of BG).
- The RPG has a 'base audience' on PC (what does this even mean?) and somehow this makes the PC style RPG superior or having a superior fan-base even though the sales of PC style RPGs didn't take off until they hit consoles.
This post may have hit upon some truth in the idea that WRPGs are outperforming JRPGs on consoles at the moment simply because WRPGs are newer to the console gamer. But really, both genres are horrifically stagnant in different ways and both are showing evidence of progress and evidence of not-getting-it and evidence of not-progress-but-it's-a-damn-fine-game-anyway.
kurokaze on
0
Posts
The JRPG's only main distinguishing characteristic is the art style. The WRPG encompasses many diverse types of game design, the type and variety in them far out number JRPGs. Every type of gameplay mechanic found in JRPGs also have something very similar be found in games that are traditionally classified as WRPGs. But the reverse is not necessarily true.
Therefore the JRPG is not a stand-alone game genre from WRPGs, instead the WRPG actually is the entire RPG genre, with JRPG being a sub genre with a particular art style.
The difference in design direction constitutes a separate genre label. It's the difference between a movie being labeled Thriller as opposed to being labeled Horror. I don't really see why there's such a fuss over the clarification.
All right, people. It is not a gerbil. It is not a hamster. It is not a guinea pig. It is a death rabbit. Death. Rabbit. Say it with me, now.
Platinum FC: 2880 3245 5111
I feel like it'd be horribly pretentious of me to say "you must align your discussion with my framework, so here are my demands" -- but maybe I can inform the discussion by going home and typing up some passages from books. I run the risk of twisting the authors' words so they say something they didn't mean to say, by quoting them potentially out of context -- so if you promise to be on guard for that unintended effect, maybe I can help the discussion.
XBL Michael Spencer || Wii 6007 6812 1605 7315 || PSN MichaelSpencerJr || Steam Michael_Spencer || Ham NOØK
QRZ || My last known GPS coordinates: FindU or APRS.fi (Car antenna feed line busted -- no ham radio for me X__X )
So what happens when western RPGs (KOTOR comes to mind, Mass Effect, NWN2 to a lesser extent but not the expansions as much) are character focused and the player becomes at best a guide and at worst a mute observer?
spamfilter's off on what makes the differences, but he's more spot on about the difference. There's less distinction between a JRPG and WRPG than there is between a turn based and real time strategy game, and even they aren't generally afforded the prestige of entirely separate genres. Every attempt I've ever heard, on this board or other, to draw the line comes down to "I don't want THOSE games in MY genre."
In What Video Games Have to Teach Us About Learning and Literacy James Paul Gee talks about his young son's observations while he plays some Sonic game where he plays as a dark Sonic, as a bad guy trying to help take over the world or whatever. His very young son had no problem telling the difference between the intents and value systems of the character and the intents and value systems of himself, the player. Just like I can play GTA without wanting to see any of those things done in real life, a young boy can play a Sonic game as a "bad guy" without himself becoming bad or desiring to do bad things.
I've barely had enough time to play RPG's of either genre, but I wonder: does that characterization seem to fit WRPG's that forum members have experience with? Do nearly all of the games considered WRPG's offer a blank slate character? That doesn't mean the game must be an ideal sandbox that permits all possible good and evil interactions -- but the game doesn't force a specific value system, maturity level, way of thinking, or other personality upon the player's character.
Is that accurate?
XBL Michael Spencer || Wii 6007 6812 1605 7315 || PSN MichaelSpencerJr || Steam Michael_Spencer || Ham NOØK
QRZ || My last known GPS coordinates: FindU or APRS.fi (Car antenna feed line busted -- no ham radio for me X__X )
(Spoilered for H-scroll.)
> This is the point kurokaze was making.
.
> This is your head.
I know it's not art style that makes them JRPGs.
By any chance have you heard of the series 'Dragon Quest'?
Platinum FC: 2880 3245 5111
But I would argue that what is traditionally classified as WRPGs have both character and player centric games. Making it the more encompassing genre.
Sure, there are games like the Elder Scrolls that allow you to customize your own character in every way.
But what about games such as Betrayal at Krondor. You play pre-established characters. Or games like Lord of the Rings the Third Age, where you also do that, or even the Diablo series where you have to choose one of several pre-set characters.
Dragon Quest is actually the ancestor of the JRPG genre.
LOTR: The Third Age is actually an example of a western developed JRPG.
It's an obvious Final Fantasy X clone.
In fact, most of the games people think about when you mention wrpgs are turn based.
Besides, the whole genre thing is kind of arbitrary. Yes, I know the roots of wRPGs with wizardry and might and magic and all, but QfG has far more in common with most wRPGs than the elder scrolls games.
There are obviously gray areas in between the two, especially in terms of character progression (FFV is absolutely a JRPG, but you get to customize all the characters.) If you were to classify diablo 2 this way (and I kind of dispute that it's even an RPG), it would be a JRPG style game.
JRPGs were the standard for a long time because of hardware limitations more than anything else. As soon as gaming hardware in the sense of storage became widely available you started seeing elements of 'WRPG' style.
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
Romancing SaGa, non linear story, play choice matters, wide open world, tons of sidequests.
SNES Game.
edit:
I should add that there are two sub-genres that really should be removed from this type of classification. These are dungeon crawls (Diablo) and SRPGs (Disgaea), which are both generally mechanic-centric.
All right, people. It is not a gerbil. It is not a hamster. It is not a guinea pig. It is a death rabbit. Death. Rabbit. Say it with me, now.
okay.
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
Video game.
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
One question I have is how the Persona games fit in. They are clearly JRPGs but they are also quite side quest driven and more player directed. Are they just one of the inevitable exceptions or could something more insightful be said about them.
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
in a JRPG you read an adventure
There's pros and cons to both and you suck more cock then a sorority girl on pledge week if you hold the definite opinion that one form is superior to the other
Oh okay shit I don't like JRPg's and find WRPG's superior in entertainment value.
Fuck I suck.
Well that depends on what you call an RPG, contrasting nicely with my previous comment. I think the term is tossed around much too losely, and should be restricted to games where you can actually have an influence on the plot.
I look to the first two words in the acronym Role Playing a little too strongly, I suspect. Of course, really, any great game will ask to you adopt a role and play it. GTA IV asks you to become a gangster in NYC. STALKER asks you to become a hunter/gatherer in a radioactive wasteland.
FF doesn't ask you to become something, but rather asks you to watch the story, outside of the combat scenes.
So is Metal gear and RPG? You gather and use items
But the demographics do skew different, and the markets have diverged. But you can really only call it a decline in the mindshare of a certain type of gamer. I know plenty of folks who are well outside the bubble who continue to play turn-based RPGs in any form they can find them in. And typically those are Japanese these days.
Early cRPGs didn't have anything like the player becoming anything at all. It was quite possible to finish those games with a different set of characters than those that you started the game with. For instance, if they died and resurrecting them was too expensive to be worth it.
RPG isn't to be taken literally in this context, it just denotes an attempt to recreate some aspects of PnP RPGs in a computer game.
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
"Progress" is a fairly subjective and potentially loaded word; let's use "innovation" instead, as both have positive contexts, but "progress" suggests that it is the next big thing, while "innovation" simply means that it is new and doesn't have the same level of subjectivity.
- FFXIII: The battle system's premise appears to be (and is pretty much called this by devs in some interview) designed as an interactive and hyperactive version of the cutscenes-that-make-you-say-"whoa" that brought the genre to popularity with FFVII. This could represent the best hope for a second renaissance of the JRPG (note that story-driven cinematic games had this once before FFVII with Myst, so the possibility of more than one massive popularity surge for a story-driven cinematic game is already proven).
Additionally, Square continues to prove that they aren't considering themselves constrained by player expectations with controversial decisions like full heal after battle and no MP, though this isn't exactly new as all Final Fantasy JRPGs since X have been highly innovative and often controversial in this respect.
- Resonance of Fate: The first follower in FFXIII's cinematic battle footsteps, though we know so little about the game that we can't judge any further.
- TWEWY: To be honest, I haven't played this or even looked into it, but everyone says it's both innovative and excellent, right?
- Lost Odyssey: Genuinely good storytelling in a JRPG. Translated or not, I dare to say that the writing here is superior to that in any other game I have played, which includes all the usual WRPG suspects.
Hopefully in the sequel they'll use good writing for the actual game too. (The writing I was referring to, of course, was only that in the dream sequences.)
Also, rather than a combat system that provides new bullet points to add to the box, they started with the absolute basics and simply refined it to be the best it possibly could be (if perhaps a bit high on the difficulty particularly early on). Innovation is almost meaningless if we don't build on what's come before, and the tendency to innovate in JRPG battle systems seems to love throwing out the good with the bad; this may be a sign that someone is paying attention.
- Lost Odyssey, Tales of Vesperia, FFXIII to an extent: Heroes that are actually not the same damn adolescent whiny boy as every other JRPG since FFVII (despite Cloud not actually being an adolescent whiny boy; I never understood this.) It's happened every now and then in the past but it may be on the increase recently, or I'm just seeing things.
- The new Crystal Chronicles on Wii: I honestly wasn't paying any attention because I don't plan on getting a Wii and whatever was innovative about this game went in one ear and out the other but it has something, I remember that much.
- Persona and the popularity thereof: WRPG-like choice and social elements. I strongly believe this is the wrong direction for the genre to go, as its strength lies in cinematic-ness which is actively harmed by adding choice (see: Persona's lack of voice acting), but it's a direction.
Not a stunning list, to be sure, but it more than justifies my original statement, which is:
"[JRPGs] are showing evidence of progress and evidence of not-getting-it and evidence of not-progress-but-it's-a-damn-fine-game-anyway."
Side note: On reviewing my original post, I appear to have accidentally implied that the combat in Fallout 1 and Fallout 2 sucks ass. I apologize for this error. Fallout 2 rehashes Fallout 1's combat system, however, the combat system in question is quite good. I also retract my poorly-thought-out statement, considering that the name 'Fallout' was right next to it, that Temple of Elemental Evil is the sole WRPG I've played with combat that did not suck ass; Fallout 1 and 2 also share this honor.
That's the key difference between j and w RPGs, at least during the golden ages. jRPGs were designed as video games, with all the emphasis on leveling up to see little +1s, while wRPGs were designed to emulate the feel of a PnP game. Of course, now that's all thrown out the window, so I don't really know what my point is