VOTE - Top Codex JRPG List - Using Scores - Closed

[Duraframe300]

Ah, fuck it. Sick in bed, so I might as well do it instead of complaining.

Still though, I think I mentioned it before, but being restricted to 5 stars makes scoring hard. Not in relation to any individual title, but in relation to other titles. Add to that that my priorities are a bit jumbled when it comes to jrpgs, so my list probably isn't going to make a whole lot of sense.

So, sorry Gastrick if it looks weird.

 

[flyingjohn]

You can't emulate a scoring system that is based on a single year that is mostly being played on one platform.

If you wanna do this properly you break it down by platform and category.
How do you even start to compare Nocturne and Trigger? Objectively Nocturne is better but,they are practically different games which were designed around different things.

Also,srpg's are not jrpg's. Lumping strategy games into the mix just creates even more confusion.
Do you really wanna compare front mission to dragon quest?

Categories are there for a reason.

 

[Duraframe300]

The list itself is and the approach to qualifying titles is fair enough Gastrick (since its your list anyway). But I have hit kind of a roadblock with Kingdom Hearts, where you grouped the entire series together.

I personally rate KH1, much, much higher than the rest of the series which is why I can't just give an average here. I'm skipping it for now.

Edit: Yeah, this might take a while. Will submit later. When is the cut-off point for submissions?

 

[flyingjohn]

I don't use metacritic because it's retarded, i use gamefaqs instead, bigger database and more accurate(but not much): https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/games...&list_type=rate&view_type=0&dlc=0&min_votes=1

Gamefaq and any site that uses ratings instead if proper reviews is practically useless.That is the definition of popularity bullshit because you don't even any effort,just slam the star button and that is it.
Metacritic has trolls reviews but like steam,a single proper negative review tells me a lot more then a generic 3.5 rating on gamefaq.
In fact,gamefaq is so useless that you will garbage like galaxy angles eclipsing ring of red.

 

[Sreggin Etah I]

How do you even start to compare Nocturne and Trigger? Objectively Nocturne is better but,they are practically different games which were designed around different things.

That's retarded, Nocturne is not objectively better. Anyway, i going to rate games the way i feel about it, i gave a higher rating to old games that did something great for they time, for example i think Ogre Battle SNES is flawed as shit, i did beat it two times to know, but i did have fun with it and very innovative for its time, impressive for what they did on a SNES game.

Also,srpg's are not jrpg's. Lumping strategy games into the mix just creates even more confusion.

No, most console SRPGs focus more on the RPG side than on the Strategy. Heroes of Might and Magic is a strategy game with RPG elements, but Fire Emblem and Final Fantasy Tactics are not strategy games in any way. There's no objective or clear way to differentiate them, but if you play them you know which is more strategy and which is more RPG, i guess Strategy is more focused on micro-macro elements to win and RPG more on stats, leveling up and builds.

 

[Jasede]

They aren't strategy at all, are they? They're tactical.

 

[Sreggin Etah I]

I don't use metacritic because it's retarded, i use gamefaqs instead, bigger database and more accurate(but not much): https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/games...&list_type=rate&view_type=0&dlc=0&min_votes=1

Gamefaq and any site that uses ratings instead if proper reviews is practically useless.That is the definition of popularity bullshit because you don't even any effort,just slam the star button and that is it.
Metacritic has trolls reviews but like steam,a single proper negative review tells me a lot more then a generic 3.5 rating on gamefaq.
In fact,gamefaq is so useless that you will garbage like galaxy angles eclipsing ring of red.

There are reviews on Gamefaqs, click on the game and go to reviews. I have issues with gamefaqs but it's a lot better than metacritic.

 

[flyingjohn]

I played last year Dragon Quest 1 and Chrono Trigger on the same week, finished both of them, most people would be surprised which holds up better. Tip, it wasn't Chrono Trigger.

Now even the biggest dq fanboy will ever say bullshit like that.
Trigger is overrated,but Dq 1 is a action adventure at best with grinding and a single party member with not a lot of options for combat.

 

[Sreggin Etah I]

They aren't strategy at all, are they? They're tactical.

So we going to move Gold Box and similar games to the Tactical forum because of tactical combat ? that's retarded. Play the games and you know what's a RPG and what's a Strategy game, again there's no objectivity here.

And the whole tactical thing makes no sense, tactical is a gameplay element not a genre.

 

[Jasede]

CT as I've stated often before is a bit like Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time. I used to feel like it was very overrated because when I played them the first few times they were B+ games at best.

But they're very very elegantly designed. The art in CT has a timeless beauty and to me, the clever dungeon design of OoT is unrivaled in the series.

 

[Gastrick]

Edit: Yeah, this might take a while. Will submit later. When is the cut-off point for submissions?

I'll set it once a good amount of people vote, but should be no earlier than August 4th.

Edit: where's Arch the LAD series ?

Added it, and updated the OP.

I personally rate KH1, much, much higher than the rest of the series which is why I can't just give an average here. I'm skipping it for now.

Just rate it on the first then.

 

[flyingjohn]

most console SRPGs focus more on the RPG side

but Fire Emblem and Final Fantasy Tactics are not strategy games in any way

You mean the game with a automated level up system?

Strategy is more focused on micro-macro elements to win and RPG more on stats, leveling up and builds.

Strategy games don't focus on stat or builds? Wow,that is something new.

 

[Sreggin Etah I]

You mean the game with a automated level up system?

So does almost every other JRPG, you don't consider JRPGs to be RPGs ?

Strategy games don't focus on stat or builds? Wow,that is something new.

Now you're just nitpicking, i was trying to differentiate RPGs from Strategy games, they are subjective terms, a lof of people here on Codex still asking what's a RPG. Whatever you definition of RPGs is, at least in gaming it always about leveling up or manupulating stats in one way or another. Notice that all games have stats, hidden or not, the guns in Doom have stats so does the enemies(like HP, speed, damage).

Strategy is also a nebulous term, if it means "thinking and planning" like wikipedia says, then any game could be a Strategy game as any game involve planning. Wikipedia also says "over direct instant action in order to achieve victory" which could apply to RPGs as well and others genres, so it's nonsense. In gaming, strategy games often refers to games with large scale macro/micro, which again, could apply to a lot of "non-strategy" games.

So they are subjective terms, and in my experience, SRPGs are 100% RPGs , they don't feel like strategy games to me.

 

[Gastrick]

If anything, the user ratings are the ones broken here. Read the reviews, they're giving it negative ratings despite never having played it due to the critic rating it has.

I know, i was just giving a quick example. More reasons to not use metacritic, people rating games they haven't played, gamefaqs is better but not much.

Edit: so Metacritic put a minimum limit of 7 reviews in they "best games of all time" list: https://www.metacritic.com/browse/games/score/metascore/all/all/filtered?view=detailed

But they still journo reviews, i don't trust them.

So now that I read the Poll methodology, it looks like OP made the correct way to make a poll(unlike the shitty top RPGs Codex poll), I'm going to vote.

There's enough data now to put 40 games into the minimal-7 category (which is temporary).
Edit: 51
Edit: 147

 

[S.torch]

I voted while trying to abstain from games that I'm still undecided or have not finished yet.
The intention is loable, but this poll have many of the same problems that the other had. I already voiced those complains in the other thread, so this is a summary:

- Inclusion of games that are hardly JRPGs like Souls series and Dragon's Dogma
- The poll is STILL lacking more known RPGs like La Pucelle and Ragnarok Tactics
- While at the same time, exclusion of games that are JRPG or JRPG-esque like Undertale
- The poll lacking a ton of indie or doujin RPGs like LiEat, Grey Garden, Tetai Shoujo, etc.

While the list of best RPG on the other side of the forum is not perfect, and is certainly biased to the "western" style type of games, it has a more comprehensive amount of RPGs. While the JRPG lists have been subpar.

But everything starts in a place. And that's why I voted, maybe in a future when this polls are made again, more people and more games will be here. Making it an improvement of this first interactions.

 

[Gastrick]

- Inclusion of games that are hardly JRPGs like Souls series and Dragon's Dogma

See:

I'll put the results into two categories, one for all the games included, and one for "pure" JRPGs so one without Souls-like games.

- The poll is STILL lacking more known RPGs like La Pucelle and Ragnarok Tactics

Never heard of them, but sure, I'll add them.

- While at the same time, exclusion of games that are JRPG or JRPG-esque like Undertale

Shmup - Visual novels do not count.

- The poll lacking a ton of indie or doujin RPGs like LiEat, Grey Garden, Tetai Shoujo, etc.

I say earlier to only suggest games that you think have a chance of reaching the top rankings. These don't look like they'd break over the minimal votes count. Like with Grey Garden and Tetai Shoujo, you're the only person who has ever mentioned them on this website.

While the list of best RPG on the other side of the forum is not perfect, and is certainly biased to the "western" style type of games, it has a more comprehensive amount of RPGs. While the JRPG lists have been subpar.

Yes, I know, that one has Anachronox and this one doesn't, not nearly comprehensive enough.

 

[Gastrick]

Ah, fuck it. Sick in bed, so I might as well do it instead of complaining.

Still though, I think I mentioned it before, but being restricted to 5 stars makes scoring hard. Not in relation to any individual title, but in relation to other titles. Add to that that my priorities are a bit jumbled when it comes to jrpgs, so my list probably isn't going to make a whole lot of sense.

So, sorry Gastrick if it looks weird.

I don't mind if it does. I didn't think of that, adding half-stars.

Get well soon.

 

[Alphard]

Voted. altough i only played very few of them and almost all them were action games.
What i don't like it's the 1-5 rating. it makes impossible to distinguish between a game that is 10/10 and another 9/10

 

[Falksi]

You can't emulate a scoring system that is based on a single year that is mostly being played on one platform.

If you wanna do this properly you break it down by platform and category.
How do you even start to compare Nocturne and Trigger? Objectively Nocturne is better but,they are practically different games which were designed around different things.

Also,srpg's are not jrpg's. Lumping strategy games into the mix just creates even more confusion.
Do you really wanna compare front mission to dragon quest?

Categories are there for a reason.

Just don't vote objectively, vote for how much you like that game.

It's pretty simple really. I voted for 84 games which I played, and only a small handful got a 5 because that's how much I rate them. And to me a 5 rated game is one which I have to be able to return to and enjoy multiple times over to a high standard.

As for categorization, the mass gaming public do class strategy RPGS made in Japan as JRPGS. It surprised me when I first saw it, and I'm not saying I agree with that, but they do. I think it's better to have a poll with all the main options on there than not. We can always do more sub-genre specific ones later too.

I really don't find it hard to judge a game just on how much I like it myself. Objectivity is for discussions and possibly reviews really.

 

[Falksi]

Voted. altough i only played very few of them and almost all them were action games.
What i don't like it's the 1-5 rating. it makes impossible to distinguish between a game that is 10/10 and another 9/10

I always think of 5 ratings as a tier system, rather than a scoring system.

- Love it to bits, and can replay it almost endlessly
- Good game, but has enough flaws to go back to only more sporadically
- Decent enough game worth playing and with some enjoyment, but also one which can be as dull/annoying/whatever as it can good.
- Poor game which takes some serious effort or infatuation/retardation to get anything from
- Bag o' wank, fucking hate it with a passion

 

[d1r]

Even though I didn't play many JRPG's, I voted as well.

 

[Jaedar]

you have dozens of options but people only played a few games, mostly the famous ones, so it's not about quality but popularity.

This is why I like felipepepes ways of presenting the results, with both "average rating" and "total votes", which allows for finding "games that everyone who played them rated highly, but which few people played".

Fire Emblem

Fire emblem is essentially the founder of its own genre at this point, called "SRPG".

Also, cast my vote.

 

[Sreggin Etah I]

Fire emblem is essentially the founder of its own genre at this point, called "SRPG".

There are earlier games than that, wikipedia says Tunnels of Doom(1982) in the west and The Dragon and Princess (1982) in the east: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_role-playing_game#8-bit_origins_in_the_East_(1982–1990)

Wikipedia also says "A distinct difference between tactical RPGs and traditional RPGs is the lack of exploration" which is only true for JRPGs, western games like Ultima III already had both tactical and exploration in 1983, i guess since most JRPGs used Wizardry combat system, tactical combat JRPGs was a new thing back then, so they had to make new term for it: Strategy RPGs, however they still RPGs and later games, like Shinning Force, implement exploration as well.

 

[Red Hexapus]

Voted. As someone above already mentioned, I'm surprised Kingdom Hearts series is bundled together (remember the first one was OK, couldn't finish the second one, too much cringe). Also, any chance of adding Final Fantasy Tactics Advance and FFTA: A2 to the list?

 

[S.torch]

See

Yes, I read you were going to do that. But that's an overwhelming solution. There's little point on separating the results when half the poll is non-JRPGs and it lacks many games of the subgenre anyway. I think the major difference will be that is going to be more "pure" but still lacking.

Shmup - Visual novels do not count.

Oh no, these are some half-witted words.

Cringe.

I say earlier to only suggest games that you think have a chance of reaching the top rankings.

Then this is just a popularity contest.