Well, yeah obviously.
As it is often discussed in other more dev directed media like Extra credits or Gamasutra, the classification of games for their mechanic structure is pointless (yahtzee barely touches on the significant points of the topic).
No other creative medium names GENRES after Functional mechanics of the experience. Movies are not, slow motion close ups, or wide lens steadycams. Instead they focus on the experiential interaction with the audience. The only game genre that we use that focuses on experience would probably be "Survival Horror", but that often looses meaning as well.
Portal and quantum conundrum are first person shooters, and Mass effect is a third person shooter... mechanically, this is true; but we all know that they are NOT really just their mechanics.
It seems that the classifications for the whole experiences are in order then, action epic, fantasy discovery, space opera, or even teenage angst romance. Nowadays the mechanics for games are so ubiquitous, and variable that the direct functional tagging seems pointless. (not that anyone will stop doing it).
Sofus said:
We already have the terms to describe these games.... namely hack-n-slash and dungeon crawler. Diablo, Torchlight, Borderlands and Divinity 2 are all good example of hack-n-slash / dungeon crawler games.
Story:
Without an interesting story then the player won't really care what happens in the game world.
Choice:
The very thing that defines a human being is our capability to make choices. Without choices we will be unable to suspend our disbelief and the game world will feel as if it is somewhat shallow.
Consequence:
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. What I mean by this is that the choices we make in a game must have some sort of consequence. Fallout 3 and New Vegas are good examples of how choice and consequence can be applied to a game. Dragon Age 2 is a fantastic example of how nearly none of your choices have any tangible consequences.
Freedom:
Without the freedom to either help, slaughter, ignore or betray the npc's that are found in the game then there can be no immersion.
JRPG is a terrible term, and the games rarely have anything to do with roleplaying.
Ok I rarely go out of my way.. but this ^^ is all wrong. Way to generalize from your own extremely narrow view.
First Dungeon crawling and hack and slash are an extremely superficial way of looking at these games, some of these appeal to loot grinding, others to story amd character progression, and others to survival. The problem is that none of it really communicates what the whole game communicate to a player.
Second: No! story is only ONE of the elements that keeps players engaged. There are MANY other ways in which a game can make itself and its world interesting apart from story. Such as discovery, mystery, competition, player advancement, aestethic pleasure, just to name a few.
Third: Choice is an abstract term, it's not definitely what makes us human by a long shot, there is no philosophical conclusion as to what makes humans human, and the question has been asked through the ages. It is even debatable that there is choice at all. In any game no matter how linear there is an illusion of "choice", and as open ended as it may be, it is still an illusion. The player just strings together predefined options within the boundaries of the game, which cause a certain structured outcome.
Fourth: Everything action has consequences, wether it be measurable or not. Only in physics does "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" apply. In the broad spectrum of experience, actions can have unexpected reactions much larger or smaller than the action itself. In fact to different people a same action can trigger different reactions. Fallout 3 and Dragon age 2 are very BLUNT and OBVIOUS examples of this, with a very clear a + b = c formulaic and largely foreseeable structure. Of course this is not bad, but it works for different types of players. I personally find both those games extremely forced into "choice" turning out blunt, plain and shallow. Other games before did much better, like Fallout 2, or the original deus-ex, where the narrative and the choices flow much better in a coherent continuum.
Fifth?: Freedom is another questionable token term that means nothing at all. It certainly has little to do directly with engagement, since you can read a book or look at a painting and feel profoundly engaged, even when you are not directly manipulating the form of the object. Again technically no freedom exists in Games, you are given a certain set of actions that you must piece together to complete scenarios in a certain way. Games like Silent hill (yeah 2 is the best), and Shadow of the colossus, don't really give you "freedom" they present you with an engaging circumstance and allow you to be part of it. They show you and allow you to feel what the action means without putting a ridiculous morality slider in your face.
I'll agree though that JRPG lacks of meaning. Not because they don't present role playing. Most have to do with the idea of empathizing with other characters and interacting with other characters, which is an important part of role playing. But because it simply means little when defining a game like Dark Souls, Persona 3, Final Fantasy or Pokemon.
On a side note, Let me play devil's advocate for a bit... I feel Yahtzee really should lay off JRPGs, I know its his style, and it is true a lot of Jgames seem silly but there are some great gems in there too. I personally don't know what I find silly-er, Final fantasy with it's ridiculous angsty soap opera dramas, or skyrim with it's meaningless power fantasy emotionally neutered power metal wet dreams.
