WRPG's & JRPG's

[Velocity Eleven]

what you'll find makes an RPG in the sense of the word that we use now, is "a game whereby a repeating a repeatable activity accumulates a series of resources which contribute to making the activities in-game easier, and these resources are limited by a limit of value rather than a limit of activities that could accumulate them" this can be found in many games, including those which are not considered RPGs by the general public...

The more "old-school" definition of RPG would literally be a game where you take a role and play them out with your own decisions effecting the storyline. Although my personal oppinion is that the old-school definition would apply more to toys than games. And I consider these "toy-like" aspects of games to be incredibly boring (but that's another story for another time)

 

[draith007]

It's not really worth getting hung up on the term role playing. There isn't really any computer game that makes role playing more effective than face to face type experiences with other people. Even table top role playing games are mostly about things like dice rolling combat and playing with character stats.

Also, using premade characters is not normally accepted as a good reason to say that a game isn't an RPG by most veterans. It's hard to get all people to agree on exactly what something needs to be called an RPG but premade characters is one thing that you can't get people to agree as something that disqualifies a game.

I see what you mean, and that's very true, definitions are what often cause controversy and confusion. I guess for me it just doesn't sit well with me. After all, if premade characters qualify as part of a Role Playing experience then games like Zelda and such would seem qualified as an RPG.

 

[draith007]

what you'll find makes an RPG in the sense of the word that we use now, is "a game whereby a repeating a repeatable activity accumulates a series of resources which contribute to making the activities in-game easier, and these resources are limited by a limit of value rather than a limit of activities that could accumulate them" this can be found in many games, including those which are not considered RPGs by the general public...

The more "old-school" definition of RPG would literally be a game where you take a role and play them out with your own decisions effecting the storyline. Although my personal oppinion is that the old-school definition would apply more to toys than games. And I consider these "toy-like" aspects of games to be incredibly boring (but that's another story for another time)

Sadly, I find that old school Role Playing like D&D was much more epic than what we have today. Seems like The Skinner box to me, Extra Credit did an episode on it.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/2487-The-Skinner-Box

 

[Nick Angelici]

Your friend is right, its a cultural difference, gameplay isnt always the difference, as for turn based, when used right it can be fun to plan out a sequence of moves and recoveries that give it a old fashioned charm I enjoy.

lets take two games, one of each type and compare:

Final Fantasy 7 and Mass Effect
these games are in no way bad, and I enjoyed playing both.

I also want to state before hand that you may not like/agree with me, and thats fine by me.

Mass effect incorperates a ton of RPG elements like stat boosting each level and new special abillities. It allows you to play a character of you choice and let you choose how to approach things. characters fill in gaps needed for a proper party and everything is number heavy.

cliches that this game has that most WRPGs contain:
-main character is a full adult, about 30-40 years of age
-game is VERY serious about plot
-numbers mean everything
-overall this game is very american feeling (or at least western)

I know these arent the best things to describe it but it still has those cliche elements most Western games in gerneral have.


Final Fantasy 7 has the classic turn based combat, seen a lot in JRPGs, in these types of games, the Story is the only reason for moving forward, while the combat can be a fun time, its boring with no reason to fight.

Cliches it contains:
honestly, this game SET the cliches of JRPGs. youthful gang of heroes, black cloaked villian, sister like connections, boy gets girl thing going on before girl dies, Giant sword of inifinity. yup, it pretty much is the reason there are a lot of similar games. but most of all, the game is so disconnected from our world. Most WRPGs, have some similarity to a time in earth's history, JRPG's tend to make a entire universe from scratch. They also tend to include a lot more ancient myth than WRPGs.

the RPG's that come out overall, have SOME influence if not a LOT of influence from where they are made. so yeah, its cultural, Japan is more family and honor, and we like to be a hero in our own way, thats just how things are

 

[More Fun To Compute]

I see what you mean, and that's very true, definitions are what often cause controversy and confusion. I guess for me it just doesn't sit well with me. After all, if premade characters qualify as part of a Role Playing experience then games like Zelda and such would seem qualified as an RPG.

I'll give you an alternative way of looking at things then with some different requirements.

1. Strategic combat at the unit level. Controlling only one character, or controlling one character at a time using turn based system.

Zelda: You only control one character but combat is action based and not strategic at all.

2. Choices in character customisation and differentiation.

Zelda: You can name Link's name and choose how many bombs to buy but the customisation is very weak.

3. Meaningful choice in gameplay and consequences for actions.

Zelda: Some Zelda games give you a choice about where to go and in what order to things and how to fight but basically all players go through the same thing. There is normally optional side content with non essential rewards.

By this standard Zelda is a very light RPG at best.

 

[draith007]

Your friend is right, its a cultural difference, gameplay isnt always the difference, as for turn based, when used right it can be fun to plan out a sequence of moves and recoveries that give it a old fashioned charm I enjoy.

lets take two games, one of each type and compare:

Final Fantasy 7 and Mass Effect
these games are in no way bad, and I enjoyed playing both.

I also want to state before hand that you may not like/agree with me, and thats fine by me.

Mass effect incorperates a ton of RPG elements like stat boosting each level and new special abillities. It allows you to play a character of you choice and let you choose how to approach things. characters fill in gaps needed for a proper party and everything is number heavy.

cliches that this game has that most WRPGs contain:
-main character is a full adult, about 30-40 years of age
-game is VERY serious about plot
-numbers mean everything
-overall this game is very american feeling (or at least western)

I know these arent the best things to describe it but it still has those cliche elements most Western games in gerneral have.


Final Fantasy 7 has the classic turn based combat, seen a lot in JRPGs, in these types of games, the Story is the only reason for moving forward, while the combat can be a fun time, its boring with no reason to fight.

Cliches it contains:
honestly, this game SET the cliches of JRPGs. youthful gang of heroes, black cloaked villian, sister like connections, boy gets girl thing going on before girl dies, Giant sword of inifinity. yup, it pretty much is the reason there are a lot of similar games. but most of all, the game is so disconnected from our world. Most WRPGs, have some similarity to a time in earth's history, JRPG's tend to make a entire universe from scratch. They also tend to include a lot more ancient myth than WRPGs.

the RPG's that come out overall, have SOME influence if not a LOT of influence from where they are made. so yeah, its cultural, Japan is more family and honor, and we like to be a hero in our own way, thats just how things are

Well said.

 

[draith007]

Your friend is right, its a cultural difference, gameplay isnt always the difference, as for turn based, when used right it can be fun to plan out a sequence of moves and recoveries that give it a old fashioned charm I enjoy.

lets take two games, one of each type and compare:

Final Fantasy 7 and Mass Effect
these games are in no way bad, and I enjoyed playing both.

I also want to state before hand that you may not like/agree with me, and thats fine by me.

Mass effect incorperates a ton of RPG elements like stat boosting each level and new special abillities. It allows you to play a character of you choice and let you choose how to approach things. characters fill in gaps needed for a proper party and everything is number heavy.

cliches that this game has that most WRPGs contain:
-main character is a full adult, about 30-40 years of age
-game is VERY serious about plot
-numbers mean everything
-overall this game is very american feeling (or at least western)

I know these arent the best things to describe it but it still has those cliche elements most Western games in gerneral have.


Final Fantasy 7 has the classic turn based combat, seen a lot in JRPGs, in these types of games, the Story is the only reason for moving forward, while the combat can be a fun time, its boring with no reason to fight.

Cliches it contains:
honestly, this game SET the cliches of JRPGs. youthful gang of heroes, black cloaked villian, sister like connections, boy gets girl thing going on before girl dies, Giant sword of inifinity. yup, it pretty much is the reason there are a lot of similar games. but most of all, the game is so disconnected from our world. Most WRPGs, have some similarity to a time in earth's history, JRPG's tend to make a entire universe from scratch. They also tend to include a lot more ancient myth than WRPGs.

the RPG's that come out overall, have SOME influence if not a LOT of influence from where they are made. so yeah, its cultural, Japan is more family and honor, and we like to be a hero in our own way, thats just how things are

Well said.

True, but as I said from seeing other JRPG's they seem to contain even fewer Role playing elements then a game like Zelda. This is just my opinion though, what one person might fancy in an RPG may not be the same thing I fancy.

 

[Tarkand]

The core of the issue is that RPG is simply a poor name for a game classification - as ultimately all game ask of you to take a role. In order to get anywhere with this discussion, one first needs to put down the assumption that every game is a rpg - They are technically, but that doesn't mean it is there genre.

In short, there is a difference between an RPG and 'the RPG genre' when it comes to videogame. They have the same name, but they don't mean the same thing.

The rpg genre goes back to game like D&D and other pen and paper rpg. Since computers are incapable of mimicking a real DM, the story are built in and what the videogame really lift from D&D (and others) are the mechanics.

So yes, when you're talking about videogames, the RPG genre means 'mechanics and system'. It means you have stats, you gain level, you juggle with points, and so forth. I mean, when CoD or whatever FPS of the month claim it has 'rpg elements', they mean you get xp and can level/unlock things, not that you need to make moral choice before you pick up a gun.

So in short, no, Zelda is not an game of the rpg genre, has it has none of the basics to be.

As for JRPG vs WRPG...

The core difference between JRPG and WRPG, is that WRPG are trying to emulate the pen and paper experience by giving us game world that can be affected by our choices - they are trying to make the computer act like the Dungeon Master. They are, in fact, trying to become 'real' RPG - not merely be part of the 'rpg genre'. Meanwhile, JRPG are quite content with sticking to being part of the 'rpg genre'.

As a result, a lot of JRPG are pretty much devoid of player's choices. You are simply following a story, much like reading a book or watching a movie. In the purest sense of the word, those games are not roleplaying games... but they are part of the 'rpg genre' - because they use similar mechanics to D&D and all those other pen and paper games.

Another example of those are MMO - aside from a few people on specific servers, there is no actual roleplaying going on. There's a scripted story which you follow, but there's no player choice. However the whole game is underlined by a solid 'leveling up' system, which makes them RPGs.

This has been explained to you before, with links even... and you simply disagree with it. That's is your option, however much like trying to convince a man that the sky is blue, there's nothing anyone can do but show it to you again and hope you understand it.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

True, but as I said from seeing other JRPG's they seem to contain even fewer Role playing elements then a game like Zelda. This is just my opinion though, what one person might fancy in an RPG may not be the same thing I fancy.

There are a lot of people who decide what an RPG is based on whim and fancy. That's why discussions about what an RPG is should be avoided since they all just add up to a lot of hot air.

 

[Velocity Eleven]

just as a follow-up... I dont get this whole "actions have consequences" thing that people like to rave on about... surely all games by their very definition have concequenses for your actions. In Pong if you miss the ball, your opponent gets a point, if you hit it then they dont. That's an action leading to a concequence... what I tend to find is that when people use the the "actions lead to concequence" arguement then they're mostly refering to alternating storylines rather than concequences in the gameplay, and alternating the storyline doesnt really mean anything in game terms.

For example, in FF7 (just as an example that everyone knows) there are tons of ways to set up materia and that will also alter the way in which you learn different abilities and party set-ups and all that stuff... but if that was taken away and all you had was a "choose your own adventure" story, then I would find that your actions would only really effect the storyline and not your in-game abilities

 

[Tarkand]

Because has long as there have been CRPG, players have been looking for that game that allows them to pull out a crazy stun that made their DM go 'Wait... you're doing what?'.

A RPG involves a certain level of 'Meta-Gaming' that is not defined by the game's rule (although it might be helped by it, rules aren't only for combat) but by interaction with the DM via his npcs.

That is what WRPG are trying to recreate and that is the whole 'Action to your consequence' or 'I can change the story!' angle.

Most JRPG don't bother even trying.

 

[Double A]

You're right about how it's weird JRPGs are RPGs. I don't think that makes the other games you listed RPGs, it just makes JRPGs not RPGs. Most games have elements typically found in RPG games, though. That's where some confusion comes from.

Your definition of an RPG is incorrect. RPGs are basically about number crunching, where you have (for example) x strength, y dexterity and z endurance and increasing these stats increases the damage, chance to hit/dodge and reduces damage received respectively. These stats can be improved by equipping certain items, or by collecting enough experience from fallen foes. With this definition, Final Fantasy VII is an RPG, but Zelda (bar Link's Adventure), (main series) Mario, Metroid Prime, Dead rising, Left for Dead, Uncharted, Far Cry, Assassin's Creed, Prince of Persia and Half-Life are not RPGs.

Also, I'd advise you to play a better series than Final Fantasy before judging the genre; I've never been happy with any of Square Enix's solo efforts.

So the definition of an RPG isn't a game where you role play as someone else, but as number crunching? The fuck kind of logic is that?

 

[Tarkand]

The kind of logic that implies there is a different between the term RPG when applied to a non-video game and RPG when applied to a videogame as a genre.

 

[Tarantius]

JPRGs being combat driven unlike WRPGs which tend to be story driven is an odd arguement to me since WPRGS are combat driven, premade character games too. As an example: Icewind Dale and Neverwinter Nights 1 are both combat based games, as well TToEE and they're western RPGs.

I never got into the newer WRPGs like Mass Effect, Dragon Age. I enjoyed but i never loved them as i did Planescape or Baldur's Gate.

The comparison of Mass Effect and FF7 strikes me as odd. A better comparison would be of games that came out at about the same time like, say, Fallout and FF7, or BG1 and FF7. Never having played FF7 i can't make that comparison. The only JRPGs i ever played were Chrono Trigger and FFX. The first was pretty nice (and had JRPG cliches long before FF7), but I could never play FFX beyond the point where Titus speaks. That voice will haunt my nioghtmares forever.

 

[Volafortis]

Turn-Based combat is not, and never has been, an RPG element. It's a strategy game element.

In order to be a role-playing game, you need to be able to define a characters' social role (to some extent). If you cannot, the game is not an RPG.

This excludes many games that are traditionally considered RPGs, mostly of the "J" variety, but that's how it goes.
A pre-made character is already pushing the definition, but can still be pulled off if you, as a player, define how he acts and interacts within his world.

Sadly, most JRPGs do not do this. Most JRPGs assume number crunching = role-playing (which is blatantly false), and your only interaction with a character, as a player is through combat and cutscenes, making most "JRPGs" actually "Adventure Games".

 

[Bourne Endeavor]

Turn-Based combat is not, and never has been, an RPG element. It's a strategy game element.

In order to be a role-playing game, you need to be able to define a characters' social role (to some extent). If you cannot, the game is not an RPG.

This excludes many games that are traditionally considered RPGs, mostly of the "J" variety, but that's how it goes.
A pre-made character is already pushing the definition, but can still be pulled off if you, as a player, define how he acts and interacts within his world.

Sadly, most JRPGs do not do this. Most JRPGs assume number crunching = role-playing (which is blatantly false), and your only interaction with a character, as a player is through combat and cutscenes, making most "JRPGs" actually "Adventure Games".

It cannot be blatantly false if that is the chosen definition. JRPGs preceded WRPGS by quite a large margin and thereby determined the title of their genre. The aforementioned was derived from similar mechanics to DnD games and the notion you are playing the role of both a character and a story that is predetermined. Whether or not you agree with this definition is your opinion, it is, and never shall it be, fact.

 

[Arehexes]

I don't get the point of arguing about what makes a RPG, I mean the early JRPGs tried to mimic how D&D played (like Dragon Quest and Final Fantasy, which those two got their inspiration from anyway). And Final Fantasy 1 and 3 had you follow a campaign where you can pick and choose your classes (and I'm pretty sure D&D games had you follow the DM's campaign). Like in FF1 you pick your party, and you can outfit them how you like and even name them with what ever you want. Also just looking at one game series isn't helpful to your case, because the Shin Megami Tensi games had choices in them where it effect the ending in some way. But it just seems this topic is dripping with someone not liking how JRPGs are RPGs and questions it. D&D was not only about the story but about the classes and stats and a few JRPGs can do the stats part pretty well. I can see why you would say the story should be a huge factor in the game, and that's true but in the end you are just following a campaign put in front of you from a dungeon master. I say lets stop fighting about it and we all just enjoy are own games, cause topic like these are nothing but flame bait waiting to happen.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

just as a follow-up... I dont get this whole "actions have consequences" thing that people like to rave on about...

It's not that complicated and doesn't automatically make a game great. It's what some people call the game world being reactive to your choices rather than you just being reactive to changes in the game world. Like, apparently in Fallout 3 there is a town that you can choose to destroy with a nuke which is a pretty significant consequence to the game world. Pong is not persistent and when you are playing you are reacting to the motion of the ball, not choosing to miss the ball because you are unaware of the negative consequence of missing the ball.

It's more about how the game world and other characters change than controlling your character, choosing what order to do things or where to go, changing the colour of your medieval pantaloons, or choosing if your character prefers coffee or tea.

 

[Velocity Eleven]

just as a follow-up... I dont get this whole "actions have consequences" thing that people like to rave on about...

It's not that complicated and doesn't automatically make a game great. It's what some people call the game world being reactive to your choices rather than you just being reactive to changes in the game world. Like, apparently in Fallout 3 there is a town that you can choose to destroy with a nuke which is a pretty significant consequence to the game world. Pong is not persistent and when you are playing you are reacting to the motion of the ball, not choosing to miss the ball because you are unaware of the negative consequence of missing the ball.

It's more about how the game world and other characters change than controlling your character, choosing what order to do things or where to go, changing the colour of your medieval pantaloons, or choosing if your character prefers coffee or tea.

I am aware that fallout 3 has a lot more variation on the concequences for your actions. I'm just saying that when people market or promote a game for having "concequences for your actions" then they are talking about the non-gameplay and narrative elements.

With your example, you said that people are refering to elements such as "choosing what order to do things or where to go, changing the colour of your medieval pantaloons, or choosing if your character prefers coffee or tea." but it really depends on how those actions effect the game. Taking your "tea or coffee" example, if it was simply that the game said "you prefer coffee" and nothing else then I hardly consider that a concequence... but if for example drinking tea changed your thirst, awareness, cafine levels etc differently that coffee did, and "prefering" one hightened the effects... I would consider that a concequence

What I'm trying to say is that the words "concequences" and "decisions" are often used for elements that are more apparent in the narrative rather than the gameplay and my personal prefence is that which changes the gameplay

I'll give you examples of this, in games where you have to create your own character (as in their appearance) this really bores me as it doesn't make a difference in the game how I look, and it annoys me that there is not a canon-ised appearance that i have to go through this instead. On the other hand when you have to determine a character's stats during the creation process, there are far more concequences related to this because it means you'd have to play the game differently depending on how you mould their stats... this takes thought and strategy