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

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

man where is s69-5? normally he would be the leader of such a thread, i was anticipating seeing his wall of text to defend jrpg with all his might.

snip of mighty wisdom

good stuff! i might have to try out a few of those games you mentioned (demon souls i have tried, it took a hell of a lot of time, too much for me at the time i was playing it but if i ever find a month where im not working i might pick it up again)

also i might have to try that trinity universe, it sounds interesting, and i never played the first two worlds, so i might have to give that a go.

 

[Ken Sapp]

snip

I never claimed otherwise. The great thing about it being an RPG is that you are there to play a role and you can play it. How many RPGs can you name where you are 'the only one who can save the world'? Let's face it, in Oblivion it was fate that you got stuck in the cell which housed the Emperor's escape route. As soon as you leave, that moment of fate is over and you're a speck in a big world. You can choose to follow the story or ignore it and pave your own way. You can't impact the main story, but that's because you're insignificant. You are a means to and end and nothing more. Martin was important, the Emperor was important.

So many games put you in the shoes of the only hero who can save the world because deep down most people, if not all, want to be the Hero rather than the one who aids him from the background. Personally, Oblivion became boring to me far too quickly and I stopped playing. I don't know what it was but something was missing.

 

[auronvi]

JRPGs are great, but they're not true RPGs, since they almost always just stick you in the role of a predetermined character (i.e. you get no control over character creation), and the story is linear (i.e. you get no control over the story). You're not "role playing" any more than you are in action games or shooters.

I hate this arguement...

Where does the word ROLE imply freedom? An RPG can BE an RPG with linear story telling elements and no character creation.

I agree that JRPGs need to change but I also don't think they should just change into what everyone is already playing. I thought Final Fantasy XII was a step in the right direction but everyone hated on it so much the company was afraid to try something new and then we got the railroad of a game we call Final Fantasy XIII.

I like my Final Fantasy but the day they start making the bland, everyman hero main character (The John Shepard Character) and follow him intimately through his life on a fantasy world is the day I stop liking Final Fantasy. We'll see, I trust some Japanese developer will come out with something good. FF vs XIII is what I'm waiting for.

 

[rockyoumonkeys]

JRPGs are great, but they're not true RPGs, since they almost always just stick you in the role of a predetermined character (i.e. you get no control over character creation), and the story is linear (i.e. you get no control over the story). You're not "role playing" any more than you are in action games or shooters.

I hate this arguement...

Where does the word ROLE imply freedom? An RPG can BE an RPG with linear story telling elements and no character creation.

Sigh. I hate this argument.

In order for what you say to be true, you have to basically say that ALL video games are RPGs. In Super Mario Bros, you are "role playing" Mario. In Madden, you are "role playing" football players. In Need For Speed, you are "role playing" a race car driver.

So...really? You're basically rendering the term "RPG" completely meaningless with your argument. Or are you now going to start adding qualifiers to your definition until it finally encompasses only the games YOU want it to represent?

 

[Akihiko]

JRPGs are great, but they're not true RPGs, since they almost always just stick you in the role of a predetermined character (i.e. you get no control over character creation), and the story is linear (i.e. you get no control over the story). You're not "role playing" any more than you are in action games or shooters.

I hate this arguement...

Where does the word ROLE imply freedom? An RPG can BE an RPG with linear story telling elements and no character creation.

Sigh. I hate this argument.

In order for what you say to be true, you have to basically say that ALL video games are RPGs. In Super Mario Bros, you are "role playing" Mario. In Madden, you are "role playing" football players. In Need For Speed, you are "role playing" a race car driver.

So...really? You're basically rendering the term "RPG" completely meaningless with your argument. Or are you now going to start adding qualifiers to your definition until it finally encompasses only the games YOU want it to represent?

The fact of the matter is the term Role-Playing Game is so vague that everyone has to make their own definition of what one is. I personally think BOTH WRPGs and JRPGs are both equally RPGs. They both require you to choose how you do things, just in JRPGs it's more to do with what you wear, what you use, and how you fight. I also hate the idea that you have to create a character to play a role. The term Role-Playing Game does not suggest that in the slightest.

 

[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).

 

[Fusioncode9]

I enjoy both JRPG's and WRPG's. Final Fantasy 13, in my opinion, was a great game despite the linearity. JRPS's I play for a good story. WRPG's I play for freedom. I'm happy with both

 

[mattttherman3]

I will never play a JRPG by Square Enix again until they get rid of turn based combat, and make it good(not that shit infinite undiscovery)and NEW writers. I call FF13 bullshit modified turnbased combat. Now the Tales JRPGs fucking rock.

 

[auronvi]

JRPGs are great, but they're not true RPGs, since they almost always just stick you in the role of a predetermined character (i.e. you get no control over character creation), and the story is linear (i.e. you get no control over the story). You're not "role playing" any more than you are in action games or shooters.

I hate this arguement...

Where does the word ROLE imply freedom? An RPG can BE an RPG with linear story telling elements and no character creation.

Sigh. I hate this argument.

In order for what you say to be true, you have to basically say that ALL video games are RPGs. In Super Mario Bros, you are "role playing" Mario. In Madden, you are "role playing" football players. In Need For Speed, you are "role playing" a race car driver.

So...really? You're basically rendering the term "RPG" completely meaningless with your argument. Or are you now going to start adding qualifiers to your definition until it finally encompasses only the games YOU want it to represent?

Yes... the term RPG in itself is meaningless and a terrible name for a genre. JRPGs were the ONLY RPG video games for many generations. Everything by Square Soft and Enix from the Super Nintendo and before. They were pretty much the only ones making good RPGs. They are the games the developers of todays games were playing when they were kids.

So to completely dismiss JRPGs as "not true RPGs" is unfair to the genre itself with JRPGs being the ones that spear-headed Role Playing Games in video games. We aren't talking D&D or table top RPGs either which is where the root of most Japanese RPGs was and still is.

So what we really have is the Eastern representation of RPG and Western. Neither one is more correct in doing what they do but they both share the basics of RPGs which is rooted in D&D. Dragon Age: Origins plays very much like a Final Fantasy game.

If you don't like JRPGs then don't play 'em but to call them "not true RPGs" is just ignorant.

I enjoy both JRPG's and WRPG's. Final Fantasy 13, in my opinion, was a great game despite the linearity. JRPS's I play for a good story. WRPG's I play for freedom. I'm happy with both

^^ This man has wisdom.

 

[Weaver]

Here's my take on the JRPG situation in a nutshell.

JRPG's are pretty much stagnating. Yes there are exceptions, and yes those exception are usually great and YES I like JRPGs a lot. However, even in Japan there is a lot of boredom with the genre which I can sympathize with.

Thus not to admit there is a problem I find foolish, however, pointing to WRPGs as a solution is not really a good thing to do. IMO The Japanese need to find their own solution to the stagnation issue less the games simply feel like WRPGs which is pointless, as JRPGs have a massive amount of potential while providing us with an experience that only the Japanese know how to do.

 

[migo]

I find it sad that we have to include "read before posting" in the title.

 

[Agayek]

I also disagree about "epic story" is the reason you are not allowed options. There may be epic moments in some of them but overall they round out. Japanese romance is torture to watch and has bad writing all over it usually. Their charactors tend to be a mix between stereotypes or just very 2 dimensional. Now it isn't just JRPGs that suffer from this, alot of games in general do. But that is my point. No JPRG story stands out as anything exceptional to what else we have out there in any other genre or even just the RPG genre. It is about on par. It isn't like the "epicness" of JRPGs story puts even the rest of the RPGs on the market to shame. If anything it blends just like the rest.

That is entirely the fault of that particular writer rather than the genre/game design. The fact of the matter is, linearity allows for significantly more precise and tight storytelling. It won't inherently make the story better, and there's pros and cons to both, but a linear game is significantly easier for the writer to create set pieces and the like that have real impact. Simply put, it's easier to tell a story when you don't have to worry about branching paths, which (theoretically) should lead to a higher quality story over all.

The problem, as I see it, is probably primarily cultural. JRPG stories are typically very... emasculated, for lack of a better word. It's a product of Japanese culture which doesn't transfer to the West very well.

What I would like to see for the genre would be to hire creative teams from the West. Not necessarily developers, but the people that come up with the overarching story and character designs. Get some foreign story ideas in, then bring in the Final Fantasy (or whatever) team in and let them go to town. It would solve a lot of the issues I have with most JRPGs nowadays.

Edit:
They don't even have to go that far though. I'd be perfectly happy with just new character designs. In just about every JRPG in the last 5-10 years, there's set stereotypes that every member of your party will more or less fit into, ranging from "Whiny Hero" to "Entirely-too-happy Girl". I'm just sick of playing the adventures of the cast of FFVII over and over again.

 

[Bakuryukun]

I've always hated the terms JRPG and WRPG, sure there are differences between how Western and eastern devleopers approach RPG's....but the terms we use just seem kind of silly.

I mean what's next should we call Ninja Gaiden and Devil May Cry Jaction games, and Enslaved and God of War Waction games? It sounds equally silly to me.

I like both methods of RPG's equally, but really just because there's no character creation etc. in most Japanese RPGs doesn't make them NOT RPGs to me, because I know of some people who play D&D with pre-made characters and Scenarios and I wouldn't consider the way they play as any LESS of a pen and paper RPG.

 

[ultimasupersaiyan]

I think they need to find their own unique innovation to make them fresh again without having to make them WRPG.

As a huge fan of JRPGs I agree they need to find their own innovation. Creatable characters are starting to show up in JRPGs a lot lately and this is a good step forward in my opinion. I'd like the games to just have more sidequests that are relevant to the story without being necessary. The story is the base of the JRPG pizza and the combat whether it's turn-based or action based is the chesse. Character creation is 1 good topping to add to the pizza and I think more robust and story enhancing sidequest can be another good topping and online parties like in Blue Dragon Awakened Shadows and Dragon Quest IX are another great topping too. There are probably some other things that could be done without bending to the will of the majority but still be appealing to them. All we need to do is leave them alone to make what they want instead of what Bioware and Bethesda want. I can't help but think Bioware and Bethesda rag on them because they are a threat to them and if they try to copy western games, they'll run themselves into the ground because of lack of diversity. I know I'm using pizza as my premise, but I'm hungry and want pizza.

Also to those who have never played JRPGs but are ragging on them play these first then ***** about them! Chrono Trigger, Final Fantasy IV,VI,VII,VIII,IX,X, Persona 4, Dragon Quest(any of them), Kingdom Hearts(any of them), Tales Of games(any of them), Lost Odyssey.

 

[rockyoumonkeys]

If you don't like JRPGs then don't play 'em but to call them "not true RPGs" is just ignorant.

I love JRPGs. I just don't think they're true RPGs, that's all. As someone else said, it's a vague term that's become almost meaningless over time due to misuse.

All I'm saying is that if you insist that JRPGs are true RPGs, you have to accept that so are Dead Space, Bioshock, Ratchet & Clank, and Batman: Arkham Asylum.

 

[vanthebaron]

Anyone that says JRPG's are "real" RPG's is feeding to a no true Scotsmen. I actually prefer the well written story of a JRPG up the wank that passes as a story in most WRPG's

 

[tetron]

I think their own unique innovation would be good. But you have to remember where they come from.

WRPGs are derived from Dungeons & Dragons mostly. Wherein you create a character and go through a world. Creating your own story and choosing the kind of hero you want to be.

JRPGs are mostly derived from anime and manga. Where you play the role of a character going through a set story.


If you think of them as books then JRPGs are like an interactive novel while WRPGs are more like choose your own adventure books. Each have their ups and downs and are pretty much polar opposites. So I definitely don't think either of them should change because then the RPG market would become stagnant and boring. The world doesn't need another Dragon Age, because you can just play Dragon Age.

 

[tetron]

The first RPG I ever played was a JRPG. Lufia 1 on the SNES so I can't really swallow the idea that only WRPG's are real RPG's.

Great game. Loved how they did Lufia 2 as a prequel. Made complete sense in terms of the story in that series.

My only complaint was that you had to select groups of enemy types, instead of single enemies (unless they weren't in a group), to attack. Made it less exact and the computer would sometimes attack the wrong individual in a group (ie. not finishing off a weakened foe).

Was it Lufia that had that deep dungeon with an insane amount of floors, basically acting as one of the earliest examples of post-game bonus dungeon content (even though it was available before endgame)? Or was that another SNES RPG?

That was Lufia, they had that dungeon with randomly generated floors and treasure that just kept going down and down and down O_O.

 

[Something Amyss]

The last couple of console generations, we've been sort of at a crossroads in terms of games as a medium. There has been a push in two directions for games. One is as an interactive movie-style experience and one is towards open world and freeform games. Neither's inherently wrong. Also, neither is a perfect fit for JRPGs vs Western RPGS because there's some overlap on both ends, but it's hard to define really what games should be. Even JRPGs derive from games which were a lot more freeform, even if not truly so.

However, technical limitations can still be a problem. Demands for voiceovers can limit freedom even within WRPGS. Look at the complaints over having a voiced main character in the next Dragon Age. As a result, it's fairly easy to complain about the loss of things we've gotten used to. Freedom (or the illusion of such) is one of those things that's easy to lose.

For a more cinematic style, it's even more difficult though. So at some point, there's a decision to be made in terms of how much you want the gameplay to interfere with your cutscenes. I'm being facetious, of course, but you get my point.

A lot of JRPGs are only RPGs in the sense that they inherit elements from prior games and are kind of "In the style" of those games. That's fine. I like a good story. A game with a good story will engross me. I'm not necessarily roleplaying, though.

I love the style of Japanese games, but when you look at the freedom of Western RPGS as opposed to Japanese RPGs, it's easy to see why people want them. But they don't need to be WRPGS. Maybe just take a few notes.

 

[Naheal]

Keep in mind that we don't get half the JRPGs outside of Japan. How many more Seiken Densetsu 3s have we had? How many have we missed? These games are primarily what a JRPG should be, but we never actually get games such as that.