JRPG don't need to be WRPG. *Read post, before posting*

[Savagezion]

That's what the whole debate of whether "JRPG's" qualify as RPG's boils down to really. WRPG dictates that you should be given a choice in what you want to do. I personally think both count as RPG's. JRPG's can count as RPG's due to the sheer amount of customisation you can do to your characters, regardless of them being pre-created. By your definition though, games like the Ultima series would not be RPG's as you may be given the option to save a kingdom, but if you don't do it you can't exactly progress in the story.

It's not like I'm calling your opinion wrong, because you do make good points. I just believe that even if a game is linear (take FF), the customisation, battle-style/system and such allows it to be classified as an RPG. I think the best bit I found in your post was about Mario, which has had numerous RPG incarnations. Super Mario RPG, Paper Mario, etc.

I think the reason the split happened is because when video game versions of RPGs came out, they had to be linear. (8-bit cartridges and all) There just wasn't enough memory to offer much more. With the SNES era you began to see more steps towards offering alterations. Then for some reason it went stagnant on consoles although PC RPGs swung the other way for some time. The split happened when the western world decided to embrace the "role" nature of the idea behind D&D. Whereas the japanese market for the most part embraced the combat mechanics.

PC has practically always seemed to try and emulate D&D campaigning. Which D&D campaigning is all a game can ever hope to accomplish. As in Commander Shepard did the equivalant to saying "yes" to help save the kingdom and you go on from there. It is pretty open after that. Sure it could be more open, but without any content to have there, why open it for the sake of opening it IMO. It does allow you to doddle and progress further into the campaign whenever you want to, one mission at a time. There is also the ability to respond differently though. And believe it or not this get big points for me into being an RPG.
Another thing I credit ME for is allowing your charactor to move forward in the sequels. as this, to me, gives the impression that ME1 is a campaign and ME2 is a new campaign. And that is how sequels to RPGs should be done. As far as I am concerned I want a ME17 if they could and/or would. I wouldn't mind seeing alot more RPGs offer this.

Where Mass Effect loses points is that the stats don't really contribute much to the game or to Shepard himself. On one hand, I don't think the combat mechanics really should define this genre. But on the other hand, I feel that the charactors stats should weigh in. Making an RPG about a garage mechanic should not require the player to be knowledgable about engines. Making a space special forces RPG should not require the player to be trained in FPS tactics. So I could go both ways on that. I personally didn't find the combat that rough in ME1 but could say it could use improvement. I do like real time combat, but see where it makes stats less important. Perhaps a new style of combat should be invented.

I do not in fact count Ultima and many other WRPGs as true RPGs either. JRPGs are not the only ones I hold to my standard. I don't think there will ever be a video game with the free will pen & paper RPGs offer. But I am confident that we can get damn close to a campaign. I wish Alpha Protocol wouldn't have tanked. Or at least I hope it made a big impression on the RPG market. (At least with WRPG devs) I think we are finally getting there. Arcanum has had me pining for this level of freedom in RPGs for about 10 years. SO I am excited.

I think the original NWN had an interesting idea behind it and I am curious as to what they are planning for Neverwinter. I think they have something there but I am sure that it is more a step towards something than stepping into where we need to be.

The problem with leveling your charactors = RPGs is that ALOT of games have started to encorperate this including many FPSs. Personally what I feel seperates the idea of pen and paper RPGs from any ol video game is the freedom. Not "open world" freedom but the way you interact with NPCs and the story going on around you. This is why I think Bioware could pull off a truly awesome MMO as it is doable. It always has been. But that hasn't been the aim for any MMO I can think of. I am not saying they will for sure, just that it is reasonably possible.

 

[poiuppx]

Wow.

Y'know, when Gygax and company sat down to figure out what would happen if some of their little miniature guys went off and beat up evil seperate from the main army, and subsequently gave birth to the role-playing genre, he went on record at some point there-after as saying he hated the term role-playing, since it sounded too pop-psychology for his taste. He was a man all about the hacking, the slashing, the puzzle solving, the insanely overpowered WTF spells, and the even more insanely unfair dungeon crawls.

If that's all it took for the man who gave birth to the genre, methinks the lot of us are overthinking it a little.

 

[Fidelias]

JRPG's don't need to change their style, they just need to get their ass in gear and try to make something GOOD for a change. The only recent JRPG's that I've played that are actually any good are either re-released or remakes. WRPG's are on the rise right now because they've improved on everything in the last few years and are visibly(not sure if that's the word I'm going for but fuck it it's 12 o' clock) trying to improve themselves even more.

Edit: By the way, here are my thoughts on what it means for a game to be classified as a "Role-playing Game"

Any game that places emphasis on it's characters, story, and/or atmosphere as opposed to gameplay or cinematics. I don't believe that an RPG MUST allow you to make decisions or be non-linear (though I prefer these).

Well, I agree that the best JRPG's are the remakes. So what sets the remakes apart from modern JRPG's? It's the WRPG influence on modern JRPG's.

I must ask though, how have WRPG's improved. How is Dragon Age any improvement over KOTOR? How is Oblivion any improvement over Morrowind?

Just curious because I just don't see it.

Dragon Age ISN'T an improvement in my eyes, but Mass Effect was a HUGE improvement. Sure, nothing can beat Kotor's story, but that's just because it is known to have one of the best plots in gaming. But the story in Mass Effect isn't bad, and it's characters are AMAZING.
And I can't really talk about Oblivion, couldn't really get into it.
However, none of these were complete failures. Many enjoyed the games for what they were, and they were all considered good, if not great, games.

Now take a look at Final Fantasy 13. Sure, you have some people who love it, but you have just as many more calling it total shit. The major problem with this game is that the only innovations are the stuff it is critisized about. Mainly it's boring combat and extremely linear gameplay. Like I said before, I don't mind whether a game is linear or not, but it is something that just shouldn't be done in Final Fantasy.

You have Final Fantasy 14, which has been given horrible reviews everywhere I look.

You have Resonance of Fate, which did try something new, but neglected it's story and characters.

And in all of these recent JRPG's you have the same criticisms about overused types of characters (Lightning=Cloud Vanille=That_annoying_girl_I_can't_remember)

Now, don't get me wrong, I LOVE JRPG's.
Some of my favorite games are:
Final Fantasy 7
Final Fantasy 8
Persona 3
Fire Emblem

And I can't really quite put my finger on why I dislike the new ones. But here is my opinion.
Also, no offense intended. I realize that you and I have different opinions, and I was just sharing mine.