Honest Question. WRPGs and JRPGs.

[Viata]

I'd rather have a useful term that assumes some common sense than a rigid one rendered meaningless.

Exactly why we say JRPG are RPG made in Japan.

So the trillion of RPGmaker shitstains on Steam are not JRPGs despite being carbon copies of nintentard JRPGs, because they were made by american and european weeaboos? Very useful term indeed.

See, that is where we go down a slippery slope of absurd nonsense where we can't decide what is a JRPG or not.
So just decide that any game made on RPGmaker is JRPG. In no way you are going to be able to define JRPG without excluding games that are clearly JRPG. Try to define JRPG that included DQ, FF and Tales of series and at the same time exclude DD and Souls series. Tales of series do not even follow the turn-based combat, it had been real time since day 1.
But at the end of the day, it's all about "well, I like the game, but I hate JRPG, so this game CAN'T be JRPG".

 

[Grumpy Grognard]

It's an interesting question, but the term JRPG itself is.. Nebulous, to say the least.

In no particular order - Chrono Trigger, Secret of Mana, Fire Emblem, Tactics Ogre, Valkyria Chronicles, Mystic Quest/Final Fantasy, Phantasy Star, Dragon Quest, Ni no Kuni, Lost Odyssey, Earthbound, Shin megami Tensei - there's a shitload of variation and cool shit going on: interesting settings, combat mechanics, storytelling devices, character build systems, twists, art styles, blah blah...

I think the term JRPG is just too fucking broad, and a lot of gamers are ignorant of the Japanese RPG ouevre. There's a tonne of depth in RPGs made in Japan, if you care to dig. There's been a lot of derivative crap of course, but the same can be said of any culture. A lot of it's on various consoles/hand-helds, and not easily (or I suspect commonly) played by a PC RPG-loving gamer from not Japan - again, part of the problem with the OP's framing of the topic.

 

[Athelas]

But was it influential? According to Wikipedia PnP didn't become popular in Japan until after Dragon Quest and Final Fantasy popularized RPG's.

The original Final Fantasy, released in Japan in 1987 and in America in 1990, was heavily ripped off Dungeons & Dragons, starting with the six character classes: White Mage = Cleric, Black Mage = Magic-User, Fighter and Thief are exactly what they say, Red Mage is a multi-classed Fighter/Cleric/Mage, and Black Belt is the Monk character class introduced in Supplement II: Blackmoor and included in the first edition of AD&D (and making a belated appearance in BECMI D&D as the optional Mystic class). Spells are similarly divided between white magic (i.e. clerical) and black magic, with a pseudo-Vancian memorization similar to that found in D&D, and spells similar to those found in D&D.

1. FF's system is almost identical to the semi-Vancian system of early Wizardry games. The same is mostly true for the classes.

2. Later FF games quickly switched to an MP system. They even remade FF1 and replaced its magic system with an MP-based one (lol).

3. The early Wizardry games had a spell for identifying enemies and a teleport spell specifically for warping back to the entrance of a dungeon. There were no spells that summoned creatures until the latter few Wizardry games. Why is this relevant? Because almost every jRPG I've played had a 'scan enemy' spell, a 'warp to dungeon entrance' spell and a complete lack of summoning spells - even the so-called summoning spells in Final Fantasy don't summon any creatures. By contrast, almost none of the quintessential D&D spells make an appearance in jRPG's (except for the stuff that Wizardry itself borrowed from D&D). AD&D characters don't gain attribute increases on level ups, but Wizardry characters do (randomly) and so do jRPG characters.

So yeah, maybe some Japanese developers flipped through some D&D books and thought Beholders looked cool, but it seemed to have very little influence in terms of mechanics.

 

[Sigourn]

I'd rather classify JRPGs as a sub-genre of RPGs, defined by the following:

- Anime-inspired artstyle. I do think you can't have a JRPG without this.
- Heavy emphasis on the story aspect, which is usually extremely linear. Whatever side-quests there may be are usually short and to the point; you won't find a sidequest that takes too long to complete with many different actions, at best you can only advance on the sidequests a few steps at a time over the course of the long main story. In this regard, the story is the game.
- Party-based, whether because you are forced to have a party, or because the game allows you to form a party. More likely than not, you will be forced to have a party. Even if you are not forced to play with the party, the party will still be there for story purposes.
- Pre-defined characters.
- Usually have some form of turn-based combat, but this is not a requirement.
- A world you can explore, as opposed to a single dungeon.

And thus here lie the weaknesses of JRPGs:

- The artstyle is usually banal shit.
- The story sucks and it's railroaded.
- The story is childish thanks to its anime (and in consequence, Japanese, as all Japanese are children) roots.
- The characters are crap.
- The combat is boring because they can't do turn-based properly.
- And because the story is so linear, it really isn't "open world".

There can be japanese-made RPGs that aren't "JRPGs", like Dark Souls or Vagrant Story. But the label "JRPG", in my opinion, comes after the fact: that japanese role-playing games are usually characterized by the stuff mentioned above, and the label "JRPG" applies to a very specific type of RPG, very prominent in Japan.

 

[Hobo Elf]

I'd rather classify JRPGs as a sub-genre of RPGs, defined by the following:

- Anime-inspired artstyle. You can't have a JRPG without this.
There can be japanese made RPGs that aren't "JRPGs", like Dark Souls or Vagrant Story.

This is why I don't like separating the j and w between art styles. We veer ever into the direction where people reason that a game that they don't like is a jRPG and a game that they like is a wRPG. Why is Dark Souls more western than japanese? Because of the art style? Eh. Mechanically? No way. The western game industry will not in the current climate make a game like Dragon's Dogma or Dark Souls. We've had a few Dark Souls imitators, but the ones that came close to design philosophy are 2D indie games made by one person or a tiny team. And then the few bigger budget 3D games that draw from Souls are only able to do it on the most superficial level while demonstrating a woeful lack of comprehension of what made the Souls games so good.

I don't even know where to begin with Vagrant Story being anywhere near a wRPG. From the wacky S&M inspired character design, surprisingly complex plot and characters to the absolutely bananas mechanics. It's a unique experience that took risks with every single thing that it did. I don't see wRPG developers ever having the balls to take that many risks, or making gameplay mechanics that rival VS in uniqueness.

 

[Viata]

At the end of the day, it all about "the game I like can't be JRPG".

 

[Somberlain]

Typical Codexer is to jRPGs what HHR is to homosexuality.

 

[Gargall amb Mocs]

I'll start playing JRPGs the day I lose half my brain or if I ever born again and I'm 10 y/o.

 

[gunman]

I got to thinking. Why aren't these complainers playing JRPGs? Our Eastern friends have been ...

Friends?

Are you referring to those who gave birth to the anime phenomenon as "friends"?

 

[Reapa]

what is so hard about defining a fucking jrpg? i see a lot of new faces here and they are obvious morons so i don't expect much from them, but some of you are rather old and i'm a bit disappointed by your incompetence.
if it's an rpg that has anime/manga stuff and is not an aRPG it's a jrpg. there you have it. yes, that demon souls is not a jrpg because it's a fucking console action rpg, no matter how many japs developed it. now, if nier automata or whatever that crap is called has any rpg elements, it's still not a jrpg even if you can see the panties of an anime teen. it's still a fucking console arpg. i don't even care if it only runs on pcs. the 3rd person makes it a console game on its own.
if it has speech bubbles instead of a dialogue system, has no character customization in terms of stats and for some reason still wants to be an RPG it's a visual novel, i don't care what it wants. and a visual novel again is not any kind of rpg, not even a jrpg.
now if you want to know what's the difference between wizardry and wizardry clones, just play them. i imagine it's the same with diablo and diablo clones. calling them clones doesn't make them the same. it makes them similar on a very superficial level. the core of diablo is itemization, you do that poorly and even another diablo will be a bad diablo clone. the core of wizardry is a highly customizable party of which you are in full control with a character/class system based on stats in a maze without any anime/manga crap. any of these done differently and it's not a wizardry any more. now if the japanese clones have anime/manga crap in them they are jrpgs. if not, but still feel different, then they are just poor wizardry clones.

 

[Sigourn]

This is why I don't like separating the j and w between art styles. We veer ever into the direction where people reason that a game that they don't like is a jRPG and a game that they like is a wRPG.

Nah, mate. It has nothing to do with that.

Dark Souls or Vagrant Story aren't "more western". I never said that. I only said they weren't "JRPGs". And the reason I use that label to begin with is because it describes a very specific type of RPGs that only the Japanese make. And no, Dark Souls and Vagrant Story don't belong. They aren't anywhere near like Final Fantasy.

"Western RPGs" includes games as varied as Baldur's Gate or Skyrim. But there is nothing inherently "western" to them. They just happen to be types of RPGs that the japanese do not make, but that doesn't make them "western", just like I'm not "Argentine" just because I'm not black and blacks aren't a thing in this country.

 

[Jacob]

what is jrpg

 

[buru5]

At the end of the day, it all about "the game I like can't be JRPG".

If you're a fucking moron I suppose it's easy to gather just this from the discussion.

Since you've run away. I suppose you're out of bullshit to throw. Just a reminder, though, another thing that makes an RPG a JRPG is if it was clearly designed for children.

*two children offended by this post

 

[Viata]

Just a reminder, though, another thing that makes an RPG a JRPG is if it was clearly designed for children.

Then we have that SMT is not JRPG neither is the new iterations of FF. Every time you come with a definition, you are removing what everybody considers JRPG.
Also, while I can see many JRPG being made for children, there are a lot that are not for children that is still considered JRPG.

 

[buru5]

Just a reminder, though, another thing that makes an RPG a JRPG is if it was clearly designed for children.

Then we have that SMT is not JRPG neither is the new iterations of FF. Every time you come with a definition, you are removing what everybody considers JRPG.
Also, while I can see many JRPG being made for children, there are a lot that are not for children that is still considered JRPG.

Do you even have mommy's permission to post here?

 

[mondblut]

So just decide that any game made on RPGmaker is JRPG.

No, by now p.much anything can be made on RPGmaker. It just happens to be used to mostly make shit JRPGs.

In no way you are going to be able to define JRPG without excluding games that are clearly JRPG. Try to define JRPG that included DQ, FF and Tales of series and at the same time exclude DD and Souls series.

"JRPG is games similar to FF". That was easy, eh?

Genres are established by persistent repeating precedents, not by lawyers writing rulebooks. I could list a number of their ubiquitous attributes, but there is no point in that when "FF clone" suffices. Much like a "blobber" is a Wizardry clone, and "RT blobber" a DM clone. You say "blobber", I see something very similar to Wizardry. You say "jrpg", I see square enix pedos.

But at the end of the day, it's all about "well, I like the game, but I hate JRPG, so this game CAN'T be JRPG".

I got no horse in this race. Souls are fucking action games, they barely have stats.

 

[pippin]

Typical Codexer is to jRPGs what HHR is to homosexuality.

So, publicly denouncing it but enjoying it privately?

 

[Viata]

Just a reminder, though, another thing that makes an RPG a JRPG is if it was clearly designed for children.

Then we have that SMT is not JRPG neither is the new iterations of FF. Every time you come with a definition, you are removing what everybody considers JRPG.
Also, while I can see many JRPG being made for children, there are a lot that are not for children that is still considered JRPG.

Do you even have mommy's permission to post here?

"JRPG is games similar to FF". That was easy, eh?

Sure. But that would also makes you define in what way similar, since Dragon Age: Origins is similar to FFXII in a way.

 

[Hobo Elf]

Dark Souls or Vagrant Story aren't "more western". I never said that. I only said they weren't "JRPGs". And the reason I use that label to begin with is because it describes a very specific type of RPGs that only the Japanese make. And no, Dark Souls and Vagrant Story don't belong. They aren't anywhere near like Final Fantasy.

Yeah, but what is Final Fantasy then? When each title is vastly different from each other, it's kind of hard to call something "like Final Fantasy", when even the games themselves that fall under the FF title tend to not be "like Final Fantasy". FF includes RTwP, TB, story focused games, non-story focused games, games that allow full party customization with characters that have no inherent personalities, games that have characters with fleshed out backstories, MMOs and single player games. So, where do we draw the line what is Final Fantasy? The only thing that is consistent from FF to FF is the japanese art style and that they were developed by a japanese company.

 

[mondblut]

Yeah, but what is Final Fantasy then?

The nintentard bobblehead railroadfests, of course. That which made them famous.

When each title is vastly different from each other, it's kind of hard to call something "like Final Fantasy", when even the games themselves that fall under the FF title tend to not be "like Final Fantasy".

Well, the further they move away from FF2-7 template, the less of JRPGs they are, I guess. When we say "Might and Magic-like", no one assumes Heroes, Crusader or Dark Messiah. Nor 8 or even 6-7-9. It assumes World of fucking Xeen.

FF includes... non-story focused games, games that allow full party customization with characters that have no inherent personalities

Seriously? Since when Japan is a learning animal? :D

 

[Hobo Elf]

Well, the further they move away from FF2-7 template, the less of JRPGs they are, I guess. When we say "Might and Magic-like", no one assumes Heroes, Crusader or Dark Messiah. Nor 8 or even 6-7-9. It assumes World of fucking Xeen.

Not sure I agree with the bolded part. From what I've noticed, when people talk about MM they either associate it with 3, 4 & 5 or 6, 7 & 8. MM1,2 and 9 are the outliers.

Seriously? Since when Japan is a learning animal? :D

Since the very first Final Fantasy? FF1&3 for the NES have a paper thin story that is barely there and are more like dungeon crawlers with full party customization. FF1 has you pick your classes and locks you to those roles until you get your class upgrades. In FF3 you can swap classes and learn new ones as you progress through the game.

 

[Sigourn]

Yeah, but what is Final Fantasy then? When each title is vastly different from each other, it's kind of hard to call something "like Final Fantasy", when even the games themselves that fall under the FF title tend to not be "like Final Fantasy". FF includes RTwP, TB, story focused games, non-story focused games, games that allow full party customization with characters that have no inherent personalities, games that have characters with fleshed out backstories, MMOs and single player games. So, where do we draw the line what is Final Fantasy? The only thing that is consistent from FF to FF is the japanese art style and that they were developed by a japanese company.

When I say "like Final Fantasy", I'm talking about the titles I've played and which are also the most beloved of the franchise.

- Final Fantasy VI.
- Final Fantasy VII.
- Final Fantasy IX.
- Final Fantasy X.

I don't consider Final Fantasy XII to be a "JRPG", it's very different to them, and if I were to setting swap the game into Forgotten Realms no one would ever consider calling it a "JRPG". The game doesn't have turn-based combat, it's animu is very tame, the story is good for a change, there's some railroading in the story but you are free to go to many different places at once... it just isn't a "JRPG", it's an RPG made by Japanese people, but nothing more.

Those are the ones I have played.

 

[eXalted]

Looking at FF 15, I wonder if Skyrim and other western open world games (I remember FF 15 director cited Red Dead Redemption as one of inspirations) are starting to replace their positions. Also wonder how and to what extent mid-to-low tier JRPG developers will adopt those elements.

(don't know if the bunny is normally in a Pokeball tho)

... but yeah, Japan is taking more and more inspiration of games like Skyrim and Witcher 3.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

I know you people get an autist-high from categorizing things neatly, but the point of categories is to make things easier to find. The more specific you get, the easier it is to find things that don't fit.

- Anime-inspired artstyle. I do think you can't have a JRPG without this.

the core of wizardry is a highly customizable party of which you are in full control with a character/class system based on stats in a maze without any anime/manga crap. any of these done differently and it's not a wizardry any more

 

[Sigourn]

- Anime-inspired artstyle. I do think you can't have a JRPG without this.

Disgusting, but is proof graphics don't matter for JRPGs then.