JRPGs - Is the comeback happening?

[NPC009]

Sure, ARPG's and SRPG's are under the banner of RPG but RPG as a term is worthless due to the many variations. Putting a J or W in front of RPG helps little.

As for games that cross genre lines, call them TBRPG/SRPG or whatever applies. Atleast the people reading it will have a better idea than simply saying RPG, JRPG or WRPG. Personally, I would call games like the Elder Scrolls either QBRPG's (Quest based) or you could refer to them as OWRPG's (Open World). That's a better description than WRPG.

I think you worry about he details too much. Plenty of people like all sorts of RPGs. Even if you were to tack labels like 'Open World' on them, they still wouldn't cover everything. Fantasy Life may share all sorts of mechanical similarities with The Elder Scrolls, but they're very different experiences thanks to differences in visual styles and so on.

Plus, I can think of scenarios in which JRPG does have a useful meaning. Like the opening post in this topic. The poster is talking about RPGs made in Japan. Sure, he's being a bit vague, but nothing is stopping us from asking if he prefers old-school Final Fantasy over modern Final Fantasy or whatever.

I never said this and in fact, I am arguing that the term JRPG is worthless because there is variety in the types of RPG's coming out of Japan (and everywhere else).

Just to make one last point (as I have nothing new to say), we don't refer to Mario as a Japanese Platformer, it's just a platformer.

I'm not all that fond of it myself, but as vague as it may be, given the long history of Japanese RPG development, the word does carry some useful connotations. The trick is not to be a jerk about people using the word and simply ask for some examples if you're having a hard time interpreting their tastes.


For instance, 2-3 times a year, I walk into a comic book store and ask specifically for American and European comic recommendations. I'll give whoever is helping me some examples of titles I like. I'm not this specific because I have something against manga. I'm this specific because I follow the publishers that publish Japanese comics in English very closely (for both personal and work-related reasons) but don't have the time and energy to do the same for every other publisher. So I ask.

 

[Weaver]

The vita has a ton, and the Neptunia series appearing on steam has been great. I think there's been a nice influx of good JRPGs in the last few years for sure.

 

[Aiddon_v1legacy]

You seem to be misunderstanding. I am not saying we should call Turn based RPG's JTBRPG, I am saying we should call them TBRPG and drop the silly J and W nonsense. If people would just stop using the terms JRPG and WRPG and be more precise by saying TBRPG, SRPG, ARPG or whatever actually describes the gameplay, that would be good.

Next time you see someone asking for JRPG recommendations, look at how many genres get suggested. You will get people suggesting Dragon Quest right along side Fire Emblem. It's because JRPG is a worthless term.

Indeed, I really don't know why the term was termed in the first place. To me it just comes off as a way to imply that JRPGs aren't "real" RPGs so to speak. It's also why I have to laugh whenever someone says "typical" JRPG as if there's only one way to do it. But if someone ever implied to me that Shin Megami Tensei, Persona, Etrian Odyssey, Xenoblade, Xenogears, Final Fantasy, Dragon Quest, Dark Souls, Vagrant Story, Earthbound, Golden Sun, Radiant Historia, Mana, Parasite Eve, Bravely Default, Star Ocean, Valkyrie Profile, Saga Frontier, Chrono, Rune Factory, and Pokemon are the same then I would have to ask them to step outside wherein I would then smack them until they stopped being stupid.

As for the idea of a "comeback" that would have to imply that Japan after went anywhere. It's not like they stopped making RPGs or even made less of them, it's that the West got louder and brighter with their products and then overshadowed them in terms of presentation. Japan never really stopped innovating when it came to RPGs as we can see with the returning Persona adding social elements to the series as well as Atlus as a whole becoming a major contender in the market with its own SMT series becoming a cult phenomenon as well as expanding its repertoire to stuff like Odin Sphere and Dragon's Crown. Meanwhile we also have Nintendo expanding to stuff like Xenoblade which really does some groundbreaking stuff with open world (and adding GIANT ROBOTS!). And of course Blood/Dark/Borne/Souls which has become the go-to "I am SO hardcore!" shorthand whenever someone wants to hype their game. If that doesn't say that Japan has still got it then nothing does

 

[NPC009]

As for the idea of a "comeback" that would have to imply that Japan after went anywhere. It's not like they stopped making RPGs or even made less of them, it's that the West got louder and brighter with their products and then overshadowed them in terms of presentation.

That's not all, when people say they want JRPGs to make a comeback, they usually mean 'the stuff I played on the SNES'. Those 40 hour epic adventures (there were usually more like 15-25 hours if you weren't a dumb kid). There has been an influx of high-profile retro-inspired RPGs (Bravely Default, I am Setsuna) and to some, that feels like a comeback.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

Again, those games always existed. People just weren't aware of them due to niche status. Games like Legend of Heroes Trails in the sky have been always there. People just don't play them and then go on to decide Jrpgs are dead.

 

[gyrobot_v1legacy]

The vita has a ton, and the Neptunia series appearing on steam has been great. I think there's been a nice influx of good JRPGs in the last few years for sure.

Sure if you like V Cinema tier Panty Quests or Monster Hunter Clones.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

To me it just comes off as a way to imply that JRPGs aren't "real" RPGs so to speak. It's also why I have to laugh whenever someone says "typical" JRPG as if there's only one way to do it.

The "typical" JRPG, those classic SNES/PS1 JRPGs, aren't RPGs at all. They're really adventure games with a combat system thrown in. Take the combat out and a Final Fantasy is an adventure game. If every character is completely scripted to say and do everything with no player say outside of combat, then the game is not an RPG. There is no difference between playing as Cloud in FF7 vs playing as Batman in a Arkham game. In an RPG, influencing your character outside of combat is essential to it being an RPG.

 

[Hawki]

To me it just comes off as a way to imply that JRPGs aren't "real" RPGs so to speak. It's also why I have to laugh whenever someone says "typical" JRPG as if there's only one way to do it.

The "typical" JRPG, those classic SNES/PS1 JRPGs, aren't RPGs at all. They're really adventure games with a combat system thrown in. Take the combat out and a Final Fantasy is an adventure game. If every character is completely scripted to say and do everything with no player say outside of combat, then the game is not an RPG. There is no difference between playing as Cloud in FF7 vs playing as Batman in a Arkham game. In an RPG, influencing your character outside of combat is essential to it being an RPG.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the turn-based combat of FF7 is slightly different from the Arkham games. One is dependent on stats to win or lose, while the other is based on reflexes.

Also, assuming that the Final Fantasy games of that era are similar to JRPGs I have played that are in a similar vein (FF10, Golden Sun, etc.), then even by your definition, they meet the criteria of being an RPG. Stat system, item equipping, etc. Also, scripted? As in, turn-based combat? Because having played Pokemon for instance, while battle is turn-based, it's certainly not scripted, in as much that you have to select actions and apply those actions (as opposed to something like a Telltale adventure game, where actions are scripted, and success or failure is based on a button press).

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

To me it just comes off as a way to imply that JRPGs aren't "real" RPGs so to speak. It's also why I have to laugh whenever someone says "typical" JRPG as if there's only one way to do it.

The "typical" JRPG, those classic SNES/PS1 JRPGs, aren't RPGs at all. They're really adventure games with a combat system thrown in. Take the combat out and a Final Fantasy is an adventure game. If every character is completely scripted to say and do everything with no player say outside of combat, then the game is not an RPG. There is no difference between playing as Cloud in FF7 vs playing as Batman in a Arkham game. In an RPG, influencing your character outside of combat is essential to it being an RPG.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the turn-based combat of FF7 is slightly different from the Arkham games. One is dependent on stats to win or lose, while the other is based on reflexes.

Also, assuming that the Final Fantasy games of that era are similar to JRPGs I have played that are in a similar vein (FF10, Golden Sun, etc.), then even by your definition, they meet the criteria of being an RPG. Stat system, item equipping, etc. Also, scripted? As in, turn-based combat? Because having played Pokemon for instance, while battle is turn-based, it's certainly not scripted, in as much that you have to select actions and apply those actions (as opposed to something like a Telltale adventure game, where actions are scripted, and success or failure is based on a button press).

Stats or reflexes in combat have no barring on an RPG. RPGs were birthed from pen and paper and you just can't have reflexes/player skill have any impact just by the limitations of the medium. Video games is very much about player skill so it's only nature to allow player skill to play a role in RPGs. Plus, role-playing is much more about what you do out of combat. Out of combat, Cloud does what Cloud does and Batman does what Batman does, it's the same. If anything, you have more player agency in the Arkham games than FF7.

You're focusing way way too much on combat. Combat is almost never scripted in any game, thus having combat be unscripted is nothing unique and does not make one an RPG. An RPG doesn't even need combat as most characters don't kill hordes of enemies.

 

[Hawki]

You seem to be simultaniously agreeing and disagreeing with me, and your post is all over the place, but:

Stats or reflexes in combat have no barring on an RPG.

Wait, what?

Most RPGs have stats influence the outcome of battles. Reflexes don't play a role as often, but that's not to say that they can't (e.g. ARPGs).

RPGs were birthed from pen and paper

Only true of WRPGs, JRPGs take their cues from visual novels.

Video games is very much about player skill so it's only nature to allow player skill to play a role in RPGs.

You just said up above that reflexes have no bearing. Here, you're saying that player skill DOES have bearing.

For my part, I agree with you, RPGs are influenced by player skill, but that includes reflexes, stat/item management, etc.

Plus, role-playing is much more about what you do out of combat.

Really depends on the RPG genre we're talking about. Obviously, yes, outside combat, you're going to be doing all kinds of things (exploration, dialogue, item management, etc., but that statement falls flat for ARPGs and SRPGs).

Out of combat, Cloud does what Cloud does and Batman does what Batman does, it's the same. If anything, you have more player agency in the Arkham games than FF7.

Haven't played either, but I'm not sure what you're getting at. Out of combat, in FF7, you'd be exploring, dealing with NPCs, handling items, etc. In Arkham City/Knight, I assume you're exploring, planning your next move, etc.

You're focusing way way too much on combat. Combat is almost never scripted in any game, thus having combat be unscripted is nothing unique and does not make one an RPG.

I never claimed otherwise - you brought up the scripted nature in the first place by claiming that the combat in Final Fantasy was scripted.

An RPG doesn't even need combat as most characters don't kill hordes of enemies.

Um...what?

Okay, an RPG doesn't need combat I guess, but how many RPGs don't include any enemies? Enemies are a good way to get XP, items, etc. You can bypass combat in some RPGs, but I challenge you to name one that doesn't have any enemies whatsoever.

 

[NPC009]

Only true of WRPGs, JRPGs take their cues from visual novels.

Partly true at best. Early western RPGs, both pen & paper and digital, did have a following in Japan and did influence the evolution of Japanese made RPGs. My favourite example is Wizardry. The series has fans in Japan, so many fans in fact, that new installments are still being developed and published in Japan. Some Japanese Wizardry-inspired games are actually available in English, such as Demon Gaze and Stranger of Sword City. The series also influenced games like Dragon Quest, which took cues from the Wizardry combat system.

Also common in the eighties were choose your own adventure books, the analogue ancestors of visual novels found in both the west and Japan. Even big anime movies like Laputa: Castle in the Sky got adventure books based on it. Here's a fun fact: Shadow Gate has a notorious Japanese translation that's very unlike the original. It's uses simpler languages, has more jokes, is told from a first person perspective. It's also weird enough to be memorable, which is why you still see it referenced here and there. (Like in Hatoful Boyfriend, a very, very Japanese game.)

While it made seem Japanese and western RPG's evolved independently you, they actually share many roots.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Most RPGs have stats influence the outcome of battles. Reflexes don't play a role as often, but that's not to say that they can't (e.g. ARPGs).

I thought you were implying that RPGs should have stats heavily dictate combat results as it should be the character defeating enemies and not the player (with his/her own skills) as a lot of people feel that way. My point that I was making (at least trying to make) was that stats based combat isn't more RPG than player skill based combat or vice verse. An RPG could have combat as action oriented as DMC/Bayonetta or turn-based with numbers determining everything or anywhere in-between.

JRPGs take their cues from visual novels.

Basically what NPC009 said. JRPGs basically took the story telling from visual novels while integrating DnD-like combat while not integrating actual role-playing much at all.

I never claimed otherwise - you brought up the scripted nature in the first place by claiming that the combat in Final Fantasy was scripted.

I said that OUTSIDE of combat everything the main character does and says in a "typical" JRPG is scripted. Cloud is Cloud as much as John McClane is John McClane in Die Hard. Every time you watch Die Hard, McClane does and says exactly the same things exactly like Cloud in FF7 every time it is played by anyone. Cloud is his own character and you as a player don't have any ways to define his character that aren't combat related (like upping combat related stats or giving him better weapons).

Okay, an RPG doesn't need combat I guess, but how many RPGs don't include any enemies? Enemies are a good way to get XP, items, etc. You can bypass combat in some RPGs, but I challenge you to name one that doesn't have any enemies whatsoever.

What makes RPGs different from other genres is the ability to make decisions (story, dialogue, actions, etc.) when not in any kind of combat. You can have pen and paper RPG sessions where there's no combat, my most memorable Mutants and Masterminds moments weren't combat related at all. I realize video games are quite infatuated with combat and thus combat is almost always way too much apart of a video game RPG. Combat is definitely the much easier aspect to replicate in a video game as actual role-playing is way way way way harder to implement, thus most video game RPGs have you spend most of your time killing enemies instead of spending most of your time role-playing, the unique element of the genre. That's the core problem with almost every video game RPG. A game about being a Mafia kingpin negotiating deals, finding moles, offing people, etc. would be interesting but it's much easier to make a shooter out of that.

A big time video game RPG that did focus more on role-playing than combat is Mass Effect. Yes, the role-playing was flawed but you did feel like your Sheppard was your Sheppard. The core storyline had to follow along very very similarly for each and every player due to the limitations of the video game medium and just the immense amount of writing it would take to not do that. Where you had great role-playing moments were the side missions that don't directly affect the main plot like the Krogan genophage. I had hour+ long discussions with friends about the decisions with regards to just that alone and that's what makes RPGs special.

 

[Hawki]

I said that OUTSIDE of combat everything the main character does and says in a "typical" JRPG is scripted. Cloud is Cloud as much as John McClane is John McClane in Die Hard. Every time you watch Die Hard, McClane does and says exactly the same things exactly like Cloud in FF7 every time it is played by anyone. Cloud is his own character and you as a player don't have any ways to define his character that aren't combat related (like upping combat related stats or giving him better weapons).

I see your point and more or less agree with it (if anything, it's why I like the JRPG approach more, but:

What makes RPGs different from other genres is the ability to make decisions (story, dialogue, actions, etc.) when not in any kind of combat.

It may be a feature/appeal element - wouldn't call it exclusive though. Lots of games give you some imput on the outcome of a story that aren't RPGs. At the least, I wouldn't say RPGs are defined by them - too many games feature that option, and many RPGs don't.

A big time video game RPG that did focus more on role-playing than combat is Mass Effect. Yes, the role-playing was flawed but you did feel like your Sheppard was your Sheppard. The core storyline had to follow along very very similarly for each and every player due to the limitations of the video game medium and just the immense amount of writing it would take to not do that. Where you had great role-playing moments were the side missions that don't directly affect the main plot like the Krogan genophage. I had hour+ long discussions with friends about the decisions with regards to just that alone and that's what makes RPGs special.

As much as I like Mass Effect, Shepard is kind of an example of what I feel is a happy medium between the two approaches. One one hand, you do control Shepard, even dictating his/her backstory. Yet Shepard still feels like an individual separate from the player - dialogue doesn't match up exactly, he/she has voice acting, there's a strong core plotline that Shepard goes down, etc. Even taking out player imput, Shepard would still feel like a character. Something like the Lone Wanderer or Dragonborn wouldn't.

 

[Aiddon_v1legacy]

Only true of WRPGs, JRPGs take their cues from visual novels.

It's more complicated than that. It's no surprise Japan also imported stuff like Wizardry and Ultima and added their own spin on it which is what inspired FF and DQ as well as other titles. But that's aside the point as this thread has really emphasized what I came to realize about the term "JRPG": that it's stupid term that never should have been invented in the first place and the sooner it dies off the better. All it accomplished was creating an artificial divide between East and West

 

[WeepingAngels]

To me it just comes off as a way to imply that JRPGs aren't "real" RPGs so to speak. It's also why I have to laugh whenever someone says "typical" JRPG as if there's only one way to do it.

The "typical" JRPG, those classic SNES/PS1 JRPGs, aren't RPGs at all. They're really adventure games with a combat system thrown in. Take the combat out and a Final Fantasy is an adventure game. If every character is completely scripted to say and do everything with no player say outside of combat, then the game is not an RPG. There is no difference between playing as Cloud in FF7 vs playing as Batman in a Arkham game. In an RPG, influencing your character outside of combat is essential to it being an RPG.

Yeah peeps! If you take out the character progression part (the RPG part) then it's not an RPG anymore. Take that Final Fantasy fans!! /s

 

[Hawki]

the term "JRPG": that it's stupid term that never should have been invented in the first place and the sooner it dies off the better.

Pretty much this. It's in the same league as "walking simulator."

To me it just comes off as a way to imply that JRPGs aren't "real" RPGs so to speak. It's also why I have to laugh whenever someone says "typical" JRPG as if there's only one way to do it.

The "typical" JRPG, those classic SNES/PS1 JRPGs, aren't RPGs at all. They're really adventure games with a combat system thrown in. Take the combat out and a Final Fantasy is an adventure game. If every character is completely scripted to say and do everything with no player say outside of combat, then the game is not an RPG. There is no difference between playing as Cloud in FF7 vs playing as Batman in a Arkham game. In an RPG, influencing your character outside of combat is essential to it being an RPG.

Yeah peeps! If you take out the character progression part (the RPG part) then it's not an RPG anymore. Take that Final Fantasy fans!! /s

Um, what? How does Final Fantasy lack a character progression system? Granted, I've only played FF10, but my characters leveled up and whatnot.

 

[WeepingAngels]

the term "JRPG": that it's stupid term that never should have been invented in the first place and the sooner it dies off the better.

Pretty much this. It's in the same league as "walking simulator."

To me it just comes off as a way to imply that JRPGs aren't "real" RPGs so to speak. It's also why I have to laugh whenever someone says "typical" JRPG as if there's only one way to do it.

The "typical" JRPG, those classic SNES/PS1 JRPGs, aren't RPGs at all. They're really adventure games with a combat system thrown in. Take the combat out and a Final Fantasy is an adventure game. If every character is completely scripted to say and do everything with no player say outside of combat, then the game is not an RPG. There is no difference between playing as Cloud in FF7 vs playing as Batman in a Arkham game. In an RPG, influencing your character outside of combat is essential to it being an RPG.

Yeah peeps! If you take out the character progression part (the RPG part) then it's not an RPG anymore. Take that Final Fantasy fans!! /s

Um, what? How does Final Fantasy lack a character progression system? Granted, I've only played FF10, but my characters leveled up and whatnot.

We are on the same side here. Phoenixmgs is arguing that games TBRPG's like Final Fantasy are not really RPG's at all and that if you remove the character progression part (the combat and the systems associated with combat), they are just adventure games.

 

[Hawki]

We are on the same side here. Phoenixmgs is arguing that games TBRPG's like Final Fantasy are not really RPG's at all and that if you remove the character progression part (the combat and the systems associated with combat), they are just adventure games.

Oh right, sorry. Sarcasm doesn't always translate well on the Internet. 0_0

 

[WeepingAngels]

We are on the same side here. Phoenixmgs is arguing that games TBRPG's like Final Fantasy are not really RPG's at all and that if you remove the character progression part (the combat and the systems associated with combat), they are just adventure games.

Oh right, sorry. Sarcasm doesn't always translate well on the Internet. 0_0

You do know that the /s tag means that sarcasm has been disabled, right? Example: s]I love quest based RPG's where most of the game is spent on fetch or escort quests. Now those are real RPG's! /s]

 

[B-Cell_v1legacy]

JRPG may came back again but they still are not very good. they are waay too girly, childish and animish. cant stand animu games.