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

[Sanglyon]

How is turn-based combat NOT rpg?

That's an argument I don't get. Did any of the people arguing that jrpg are not rpg because of turn based combat, ever play an actual pen-and-paper rpg? The whole point of turn based combat is that it's your character skills that determine the outcome, not how good you are at mashing buttons. I don't want to loose a battle because my reflexe are bad when my character is a skilled warrior in the first place.

Anyway, Final Fantasy isn't the only jrpg out there, but it seems to be the reference people use to define the whole "genre"... which it definitely isn't.

I'm currently playing Shin Megami tensei: devil summoner 2. Combat are real time, I decide where I put my skill points, what "spells" my demons can use... There are side quests alongside the main story. I may not decide what my character looks like, but I don't care.

Let's talk about Dragon quest IX: you choose the sex and appearance of your character, his skills, his job, his clothing. You can build your team the same way. You can explore the map as you want, ignoring the main quest while doing side quests. Not so different from a wrpg...

I won't say "you're not allowed to criticise if you didn't play it", because Shamus said it's a fanboy argument, but if Final fantasy is all you know about jrpg, you can only have an opinion about Final Fantasy, not jrpg.

 

[Agayek]

I see where the arguement of linearity = better story comes from but I disagree. Linearity makes it so the story is easier to tell from the developers angle. They control when, how, and what part of the story you meet. But I disagree that options even offer a chance of making the story worse. I may actually care more about the story if I can encounter it on my own terms. Bioware has definatley proven that choices don't mean the story cannot be driven with a linear plot. By keeping the player focused on a particular goal and keeping the game centered around that goal you can still offer choices in a linear structure. Alot of the choices in Mass Effect are there for atmosphere and really change nothing. Most of the dialogue options you get throughout the game are basically "Would you rather your charactor said this - or that." Ultimately, the result will be the same but you will just have a few dialogue scene options as to how you get there. Sure, some offer branches but Bioware never lets it get out of control, so to speak. Meaning the story conveyed is not changed, just told a little differently than the last time you experienced it.

Everything that linear storytelling offers (climactic introductions, forcing the player into a "tough spot", etc.) can all be offered with choices equally. In fact, I think it benefits it personally because then you can meet the game on your terms which may help the player be in the mood to listen to any long winded stuff JRPGs are prone to. Alot of JRPG story telling is ruined by boring cliche writing about something I don't give a damn about and alot of times drawn out by them trying to make me care in case I don't. I feel alot of the stories out there simply try too hard and ruin an otherwise decent story. As if the more they talk about it, the more I care. As an example the well recieved FFX does this ALOT.

I actually agree with you. Incorporating player choice into the story is the "better" choice in games, in my opinion. I was just trying to convey the reasons, as I see it, behind the use of linearity.

On a somewhat related side note, removing player choice does have its place. There are times I want to experience a story instead of telling it. It's no less valid than a full-on Morrowind-esque free world, it just appeals to different people.

 

[Aiden_the-Joker1]

Personally I don't think people hate JRPG's or want them to be like WRPG's. I think that they just have a problem with them being called RPG's because they don't necessarily follow the template of the RPG's they have grown up around or are used to.

 

[DaisukeVulgar]

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.

So playing as a predetermined character and helping him/her to complete their mission in a universe is not you taking on the role of that character? This is news to me. You said it yourself, you're taking on their role, so you are in fact role playing.

It seems like a false misconception in that an RPG must have you, the player, in it to be an actual role play.

 

[DaisukeVulgar]

Personally I don't think people hate JRPG's or want them to be like WRPG's. I think that they just have a problem with them being called RPG's because they don't necessarily follow the template of the RPG's they have grown up around or are used to.

I think this is the real case right here. A lot of people are used to being able to insert their own character into a game, an from youth have identified these as "RPG's". So the inability to play as yourself in a game, and instead playing as a character doesn't compute as role playing.

 

[poiuppx]

I think the problem is that JRPGs got away from what made them great. I look back on the JRPGs of my day- FF7, FFT, Star Ocean: Second Story, Wild ARMs 2, and Breath of Fire III -and I see games that offered you a clear cut storyline, but gave you the feeling of:

*A grand sweeping world
*Characters with more depth than a deep sea ravine
*The ability to both take themselves lightly AND present killer and at times freaking dark storytelling
*Puzzles that were reasonable without making you feel like either a moron or like it wasn't worth your time
*Build up to bosses that made fighting and beating them MEAN something to you every time
*Enough optional bonus stuff to choke a yak

In other words, minus the variable conversation options and the branching storylines... a WRPG. So what happened?

The spectacle happened. JRPGS became so much about LOOKING good that they forgot how to BE good. Companies like Atlus still know that BEING good is what matters, and so they focus on making fun games with a fair bit of fun gameplay in them.

The thing is, when you have an insanely story-heavy game, you NEED to be a damn good storyteller AND have killer gameplay. In games like Fallout 3 or the Elder Scrolls series, you're making half the gameplay yourself thanks to the freedom afforded you. So when you decide you're tired of playing nice, you can chuck a nuke into the marketplace or what have you, cackle gleefully, and then reload or just play along with the bit.

JRPGs as a whole should remember that it's not about looking amazing or JUST telling a story... it's about the game itself, and making the game feel fun and involving. Dial it back from the FF XIIIs, which I'll freely admit LOOKED great, and with some tightening to the in-game storytelling might have READ great, but as a game just fell on its face.

 

[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.

So playing as a predetermined character and helping him/her to complete their mission in a universe is not you taking on the role of that character? This is news to me. You said it yourself, you're taking on their role, so you are in fact role playing.

It seems like a false misconception in that an RPG must have you, the player, in it to be an actual role play.

Seems like you completely disregarded the rest of my posts. You're perfectly free to call JRPGs "RPGs", as long as you call every other game ever made an RPG. Since hey, apparently the only requirement is that you "take on a role".

Also, lol at the phrase "false misconception". Try harder to sound smart.

 

[Lordmarkus]

I'm all out western gamer and have a very hard time for JRPG's and games that share their estestics, yes I'm looking at you Kingdom Hearts.

But they shouldn't become like WRPG. JRPG is a beautiful genre as it is but some innovation wouldn't hurt as I've heard that the genre as stagnated for several years now.

Innovation or just re-release Chrono Trigger or Skies of Arcadia.

 

[Savagezion]

I actually agree with you. Incorporating player choice into the story is the "better" choice in games, in my opinion. I was just trying to convey the reasons, as I see it, behind the use of linearity.

On a somewhat related side note, removing player choice does have its place. There are times I want to experience a story instead of telling it. It's no less valid than a full-on Morrowind-esque free world, it just appeals to different people.

I am there with you on that. I actually like playing through Uncharted and having the story told to me. It doesn't make the story any better than a WRPG, but it allows me and the developers to be lazy and probably allow the dev to save a bit of money without sinking money into branches.

How is turn-based combat NOT rpg?

That's an argument I don't get. Did any of the people arguing that jrpg are not rpg because of turn based combat, ever play an actual pen-and-paper rpg? The whole point of turn based combat is that it's your character skills that determine the outcome, not how good you are at mashing buttons. I don't want to loose a battle because my reflexe are bad when my character is a skilled warrior in the first place.

Anyway, Final Fantasy isn't the only jrpg out there, but it seems to be the reference people use to define the whole "genre"... which it definitely isn't.

I'm currently playing Shin Megami tensei: devil summoner 2. Combat are real time, I decide where I put my skill points, what "spells" my demons can use... There are side quests alongside the main story. I may not decide what my character looks like, but I don't care.

Let's talk about Dragon quest IX: you choose the sex and appearance of your character, his skills, his job, his clothing. You can build your team the same way. You can explore the map as you want, ignoring the main quest while doing side quests. Not so different from a wrpg...

I won't say "you're not allowed to criticise if you didn't play it", because Shamus said it's a fanboy argument, but if Final fantasy is all you know about jrpg, you can only have an opinion about Final Fantasy, not jrpg.

You could argue that turn based means tactical/strategic, not RPG. I grew up playing D&D and it wasn't the taking turns during combat as to why we all played it. We played it to see what people would do in situations. I have killed a teammate for a gem that turned out to be worthless. I killed a teammate because I knocked up his wife and figured he would kill me if he found out. I have even been killed for backtalking a teammate one too many times (in-game backtalk not RL backtalking). The scenarios is why we played, not the combat. D&D would be boring if all I got to do was control my guy during battle and perhaps buy a new item every now and again. I ran into a DM that gamed like that twice, where they told you what you charactor was doing. I fought it, saw that it was not a 'rule' up for neotiation and withdrew because I was bored. The DM may as well just do all that stuff for me and let me know how it went. He is telling the whole story otherwise, all I get to do is roll dice for him sometimes when he lets me. Kind of like a kid that want to help you cook so you let him pour in the pre-measured cup of milk into the bowl.

Also, you only cited 1 game and then made it speak for the whole genre. Xenogears, Parasite Eve, Xenosaga, etc. The problem is while you may have you Chrono Triggers or Devil Summoners 2 on occassion we are not talking the exception tot he rule. If you threw every JRPG in a bin, or even just the successful ones, odds are you will pull out the linear duds people have been describing. Because it isn't us but the japanese game trends that makes FF such a good reference. Many, Many, many JRPGs use Final Fantasy as a mold for their own game due to its popularity. It is a valid enough comparison. Yours on the other hand is not.

Some people like to go all the way back to wargames on the definition, but I personally use D&D as the first time a game stepped outside of the wargame mentality and into the title of RPG. And in it came alignments and the ability of free will on a single charactor. I will elaborate after this quote:

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.

So playing as a predetermined character and helping him/her to complete their mission in a universe is not you taking on the role of that character? This is news to me. You said it yourself, you're taking on their role, so you are in fact role playing.

It seems like a false misconception in that an RPG must have you, the player, in it to be an actual role play.

By the above definition, (my definition) to make a role playing game you have to add in the ability to not have to play the role yet have the game continue. In a true RPG the King asks me to help save the kingdom and I choose whether or not I want to. I have the ability to NOT play that role and thus it is a role playing game. Being stuck in the role of a predetermined charactor is not an RPG. Mario is that, Doom is that, Uncharted is that, etc. These are not role playing games. By the defintion above, all games are RPGs.

It isn't about having you the player in it. It is about having a charactor that can choose whether to help or not. Red Dead Redemption is closer to RPG than FF is in this regard. (Although I wouldn't say RDR is a good RPG but it is closer in nature) But alot of sandboxes would qualify. Because D&D is a RPG sandbox so this shouldn't be shocking if this seems an odd comparison.

 

[raikounen]

I think the problem is that JRPGs got away from what made them great. I look back on the JRPGs of my day- FF7, FFT, Star Ocean: Second Story, Wild ARMs 2, and Breath of Fire III -and I see games that offered you a clear cut storyline, but gave you the feeling of:

*A grand sweeping world
*Characters with more depth than a deep sea ravine
*The ability to both take themselves lightly AND present killer and at times freaking dark storytelling
*Puzzles that were reasonable without making you feel like either a moron or like it wasn't worth your time
*Build up to bosses that made fighting and beating them MEAN something to you every time
*Enough optional bonus stuff to choke a yak

In other words, minus the variable conversation options and the branching storylines... a WRPG. So what happened?

The spectacle happened. JRPGS became so much about LOOKING good that they forgot how to BE good. Companies like Atlus still know that BEING good is what matters, and so they focus on making fun games with a fair bit of fun gameplay in them.

The thing is, when you have an insanely story-heavy game, you NEED to be a damn good storyteller AND have killer gameplay. In games like Fallout 3 or the Elder Scrolls series, you're making half the gameplay yourself thanks to the freedom afforded you. So when you decide you're tired of playing nice, you can chuck a nuke into the marketplace or what have you, cackle gleefully, and then reload or just play along with the bit.

JRPGs as a whole should remember that it's not about looking amazing or JUST telling a story... it's about the game itself, and making the game feel fun and involving. Dial it back from the FF XIIIs, which I'll freely admit LOOKED great, and with some tightening to the in-game storytelling might have READ great, but as a game just fell on its face.

I totally agree with you.
The one thing I've been missing in JRPG's was the freedom they used to have. Take an older FF like, say FFIX (which was the first FF i played). You could go around cities finding treasures, playing cards, finding hidden events, competitions and puzzles, and out in the world outside of cities you could explore and find cities and points of interest that had no connection to the general story, but some of them may have ties to some of the characters (i.e. quan's cave), and of course treasure hunting with the chocobo.

This is in stark contrast to FFXIII. Even though I must admit it was okay to play, it was so linear you could compare it to straight line and FFXIII would be the mother of all straight lines. For some reason the new JRPG's aren't as good as the older ones.

I liked the freedom in the world outside of the main story in FFXII but thought that the characters were shit. There was to much freedom in the skills and it was really hard to know what to specialize in. In the end you got everything and all your characters were quite able at everything, but none were really specialized and i missed that aspect. This is what FFXIII did alot better, though they gave us six choices.

In the next FF (if they make one) I hope There will be more of the freedom outside of the story from FFXII, more of the optional extras from the older games and more specific classes to the characters preferebly one or two (maximum three) classes per character.

 

[Casimir_Effect]

I always liked the fact that they're linear. Open world games are great sometimes but usually suffer from a complete lack of story or compulsion. It's hard to give a shit that the world is under threat in Oblivion when you can fuck around for several years before finally going to find Martin for the first time.

What I wish they would get rid of though is the usual implication of grind (see: Lost Odyssee, FF 13, The Last Remnant) and having a cast of kids or teenagers as the protagonists/allies. The kids thing annoys me the most, as it automatically gives the story an immature air. You know there will be no swearing, no romance which doesn't come off as Disney or Creepy, little violence/death (causing recurring bad-guy syndrome) and usually a shit load of bad voice-actors and lots of cringe-worthy scenes/dialogue. The only game I've played which has been excused this is Eternal Sonata, because of how it looked and, well, motherfucking Chopin.

Probably telling that my favourite JRPG is Grandia 2. It has minimal grind and only a single true kid character. The others were old-teen or adult, with Mareg being especially awesome

 

[Ildecia]

I honest-to-goodness, love JRPG's because of what they offer, and i also like WRPG's because of what they offer, and ironically, i don't have much of a liking to what bethesda have going for them, (if thats something different than the prior 2)

they all have their faults,they all have their strengths, and i like it no matter what.

games are good

herp-a-derp-a-derp-a-derpy-derpy-doo

 

[Iandiaeufaieubfeuihfi]

Im ok with Jrpgs, its just boring and linear at times. The only jrpg that was half wrpg was Final Fantasy X(choose your skills, stats,associate a little with some character) but you barely see games like that.

 

[DaisukeVulgar]

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.

So playing as a predetermined character and helping him/her to complete their mission in a universe is not you taking on the role of that character? This is news to me. You said it yourself, you're taking on their role, so you are in fact role playing.

It seems like a false misconception in that an RPG must have you, the player, in it to be an actual role play.

Seems like you completely disregarded the rest of my posts. You're perfectly free to call JRPGs "RPGs", as long as you call every other game ever made an RPG. Since hey, apparently the only requirement is that you "take on a role".

Also, lol at the phrase "false misconception". Try harder to sound smart.

Not every game implements RPG elements though, that's what makes JRPG's different from your choice of genres "action games or shooters". I did not disregard i, I zoned in on the key points.

Fact is, you don't need to call everything an RPG. By your definition of RPG's, Mass Effect should not be one because you're given the role of a character and the most you do is customise their appearance. You may make a different looking Shepard, but you're still Shepard.

I didn't realise I was "trying to sound smart." I was typing what came to mind first.

 

[DaisukeVulgar]

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.

So playing as a predetermined character and helping him/her to complete their mission in a universe is not you taking on the role of that character? This is news to me. You said it yourself, you're taking on their role, so you are in fact role playing.

It seems like a false misconception in that an RPG must have you, the player, in it to be an actual role play.

By the above definition, (my definition) to make a role playing game you have to add in the ability to not have to play the role yet have the game continue. In a true RPG the King asks me to help save the kingdom and I choose whether or not I want to. I have the ability to NOT play that role and thus it is a role playing game. Being stuck in the role of a predetermined charactor is not an RPG. Mario is that, Doom is that, Uncharted is that, etc. These are not role playing games. By the defintion above, all games are RPGs.

It isn't about having you the player in it. It is about having a charactor that can choose whether to help or not. Red Dead Redemption is closer to RPG than FF is in this regard. (Although I wouldn't say RDR is a good RPG but it is closer in nature) But alot of sandboxes would qualify. Because D&D is a RPG sandbox so this shouldn't be shocking if this seems an odd comparison.

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.

 

[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.

So playing as a predetermined character and helping him/her to complete their mission in a universe is not you taking on the role of that character? This is news to me. You said it yourself, you're taking on their role, so you are in fact role playing.

It seems like a false misconception in that an RPG must have you, the player, in it to be an actual role play.

Seems like you completely disregarded the rest of my posts. You're perfectly free to call JRPGs "RPGs", as long as you call every other game ever made an RPG. Since hey, apparently the only requirement is that you "take on a role".

Also, lol at the phrase "false misconception". Try harder to sound smart.

Not every game implements RPG elements though, that's what makes JRPG's different from your choice of genres "action games or shooters". I did not disregard i, I zoned in on the key points.

Fact is, you don't need to call everything an RPG. By your definition of RPG's, Mass Effect should not be one because you're given the role of a character and the most you do is customise their appearance. You may make a different looking Shepard, but you're still Shepard.

I didn't realise I was "trying to sound smart." I was typing what came to mind first.

Now we're back to the part where you have to start adding qualifiers so that a particular game meets YOUR definition of "RPG".

The fact is, so many of the "elements" that made JRPGs "RPGs" have been adapted for action games and shooters now, so if you're not prepared to admit that such games are RPGs, you have to reconsider your definition of "RPG". As has been said, "RPG" is so vague that everyone has a different definition of it. It's not about simply "playing a role". It can't be. But as I said, once you have to start adding qualifiers, your argument weakens.

I'm not even really trying to say that one type of game is an RPG while another isn't. My whole point has really been that the term "RPG" has become completely meaningless, since you can make an argument that every game is an RPG.

 

[DaisukeVulgar]

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.

So playing as a predetermined character and helping him/her to complete their mission in a universe is not you taking on the role of that character? This is news to me. You said it yourself, you're taking on their role, so you are in fact role playing.

It seems like a false misconception in that an RPG must have you, the player, in it to be an actual role play.

Seems like you completely disregarded the rest of my posts. You're perfectly free to call JRPGs "RPGs", as long as you call every other game ever made an RPG. Since hey, apparently the only requirement is that you "take on a role".

Also, lol at the phrase "false misconception". Try harder to sound smart.

Not every game implements RPG elements though, that's what makes JRPG's different from your choice of genres "action games or shooters". I did not disregard i, I zoned in on the key points.

Fact is, you don't need to call everything an RPG. By your definition of RPG's, Mass Effect should not be one because you're given the role of a character and the most you do is customise their appearance. You may make a different looking Shepard, but you're still Shepard.

I didn't realise I was "trying to sound smart." I was typing what came to mind first.

Now we're back to the part where you have to start adding qualifiers so that a particular game meets YOUR definition of "RPG".

The fact is, so many of the "elements" that made JRPGs "RPGs" have been adapted for action games and shooters now, so if you're not prepared to admit that such games are RPGs, you have to reconsider your definition of "RPG". As has been said, "RPG" is so vague that everyone has a different definition of it. It's not about simply "playing a role". It can't be. But as I said, once you have to start adding qualifiers, your argument weakens.

I'm not even really trying to say that one type of game is an RPG while another isn't. My whole point has really been that the term "RPG" has become completely meaningless, since you can make an argument that every game is an RPG.

Weren't you already adding qualifiers to fit your definition? i.e. that it cannot be a pre-determined character, etc. It's obvious that we have differing opinions on the matter, but saying I've had to add qualifiers isn't really necessary.

I can agree on one thing though. RPG is a very vague term, and many, many, many games nowadays add in their version of RPG elements to further help the player to feel like they're really making a difference. Genres are even being born out of RPG elements being put into play. Gearbox for example coined the term RPS, a roleplay shooter for their Borderlands. I think it's perfectly fine to keep the original definition of a JRPG, but further accept that other games, not of that genre have added these features to their own game to improve it.

 

[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.