008Zulu said:
Xander_VJ said:
And here we go again...
Man, the strategy of saying "that's not really a JRPG" and then twist its definition to your own benefit is old (and annoying) as hell.
And besides, even in your last sentence you are wrong.
I dare you to play "Lost Odyssey", "Valkyria Chronicles", "Tales of Vesperia", "Demon's Soul" and "Persona 4" and saying they are "virtually identicle", either in gameplay or art style.
And when I say playing, I mean PLAYING.
Not seeing 5 screenshots in Google and two Walkthrough videos in YouTube, as 95% of JRPG haters do.
Shadowrun is a western rpg that was first made in to a computer game in 1986 by an Australian company. Technically its an ARPG (either A is for American or Australian)
Mario RPG is an action/platformer hybrid with RPG elements, this does not make it a JRPG.
Yes I have played them, try not to faint. Oh, FYI, I own Lost Odyssey and several Final Fantasy titles. And heres whats identicle about them;
1 Emo(ish) loner finds him/herself drawn in to a global war where the fate of all is decided, on his/her way he/she meets and gathers a small group of people to help him/her. There is the plucky comic relief, the love interest, the wise old veteran and the man/woman with a mysterious past. After a long and arduous journey, including self discovery, they finally meet the big bad who they defeat, though for some reason despite gathering a small army they choose to engage of a group of 4 or 6 at a time. Emo and Love Interest hook up. The End.
This is what was meant by virtually identicle. Too subtle?
Nice try, kiddo.
It doesn't cut it.
The "Mario RPG" games aren't "action" games in the slightest. Actually, they are exactly the opposite of your definition: RPGs with platformer elements.
Only because it has platforming as secondary element it is not a JRPG?
That's the nonsense I was talking about before. If a JRPG hasn't a turn-based combat system, random encounters, relies on grinding and follows the Square FF plot formula, then it's not a JPRG, hence it doesn't count in the hating... when someone points out that it doesn't have those traits (whether is one or ALL of them). Before that, they are included as well.
Seriously, the hell with that! That ignores most of what this genre has to offer. But still, haters just select some easy targets that fit their narrow-minded definition of the genre (sometimes clinging to ONE usual trait, even if it doesn't have the rest) and affirm that the rest of the games are exactly like that, whether it's true or not.
About the second paragraph, if you have really played the games I said, or even just informed about them... Why the reluctance of speaking about them?
And again, your "Lost Odyssey" definition is another EPIC FAIL.
There is not "old veteran" in that game. No "man/woman with mysterious past". Heck, there isn't even a "love interest" that hooks up with the "Emo" in the end. As a matter of fact, the "emo" is MARRIED from the beginning. The "hooking" part is between two of the supporting characters.
Even the "emo" main character doesn't fit the stereotype JRPG haters complain about the whole time. He is an immortal, with the body of a 30 year-old man (meaning he is not a teenager, nor spiky hair for that matter), he NEVER whines in the whole game. Actually, he is more a tragic serious character than a JRPG emo.
And all that without talking about the main theme in the main plot (immortality) or even the sub-stories. If you find those "JRPG cliche", sorry, but you don't know the first thing about this genre at all.
You say you have the game, but surely it doesn't look like it. And even if you do, for how long did you play? 20 minutes?
And if you claim to "own several FF games" and nothing more, you embody the usual JRPG hater: someone who only really knows the FF series and little more.
