Final Fantasy 13 had a great combat system
No it didn't. The nicest thing anyway can say is that it looked pretty, otherwise it was about as much a battle system as hitting special features on a DVD.
It was fast, fun and involving. I also enjoyed the stagger system. It also improved a bit in 13-2. One of the more fun battle systems in jrpgs.
Lost Odyssey 2 for X1 would do it for me.
That would get me to buy a X1
For those that enjoy these games, I hope this resurgence is all you hope for.
Final Fantasy 13 had a great combat system
No it didn't. The nicest thing anyway can say is that it looked pretty, otherwise it was about as much a battle system as hitting special features on a DVD.
Your writing style cracks me up.
While I'd like nothing more for a resurgence of the genre, it's all but dead outside a few enduring series by dedicated developers.
As it is, I don't trust anything Square puts out anymore outside the DQ series. Atlus games will always deliver, and Namco's Tales series seems to be largely hit or miss these days, though it was arguably always that way.
This is not an argument that can be had unless the person saying otherwise than the follwing is very very stupid.
The reason that Wrpgs and Jrpgs were separated has nothing to do with region.
Thus those saying it's based on region are stupid. They are stupid because in order for them to make their argument they literally have to ignore the whole reason of both terms existance, thus it's pointless arguing, The souls games are Wrpgs with Wrpg influences as much as the Kings Field games were. They are not Jrpg. Just like there are U.S. companies who have made Jrpgs. Shadow madness being one example.
Period.
As for Jrpgs to come back they would have had to have a come to, Jrpgs were never actually popular and highly adopted outside of Square games, and that was the same situation before the mid 90's. People need to get that through their head, games like tales do not sell well in the West, Games liek BOF do not sell well in the west, Games like Persona do not sell well in the west. At most they do passable and that's it. There was never a golden era of Jrpgs. it was all one company and sometimes exception were made through partnerships with that one company. Occasionally there will be one semi-hit exception that is never replicated (Tales of Symphonia being a prime example) and that's that. Things go back to normal.
The separation between "JRPG" and "WRPG" has almost everything to do with region. It's just a way to pigeon-hole Japanese and Western developers into neat little categories, ignoring the wide variety and diversity of RPGs from both regions. Many of the tropes associated with JRPGs and WRPGs often fall flat on their face upon closer inspection.
For example, the whole idea of JRPG=turn-based and WRPG=real-time is nonsense, as the majority of real-time action RPGs up until the 90s were from Japan, where the the action RPG subgenre itself mostly originated from. The idea of JRPG=linear and WRPG=non-linear is also untrue, as there have been countless non-linear JRPGs and linear WRPGs. The idea of JRPG=anime and WRPG=realistic is also untrue, as there have been countless JRPGs that aren't anime-like and WRPGs that are cartoon-like.
Also, cross-cultural influences are nothing new. The Souls and Bloodborne games are about as much influenced by Western game design as the BioWare and Witcher games are by Japanese game design. JRPG and WRPG developers have always been borrowing ideas from each other for decades, since the 1980s up until today.
As for the "golden age" of JRPGs, it wasn't just one company. Squaresoft were hugely successful, but they weren't the only ones doing well in the West. And Tales of Symphonia wasn't the only exception either. Nintendo's Pokemon was a huge phenomenon that transcended the video game industry, just as Square's Final Fantasy and Kingdom Hearts did. In addition, Sony's Legend of Dragoon sold almost a million in the US, Mario role-playing games sold milions, Camelot's Golden Sun sold over 742,000 units in the US, Tri-Ace's Star Ocean 3 sold over 630,000 units in the US, etc. And that's without including other similarly successful Squaresoft games like FF Tactics, Parasite Eve, Chrono, etc.
This is not an argument that can be had unless the person saying otherwise than the follwing is very very stupid.
The reason that Wrpgs and Jrpgs were separated has nothing to do with region.
Thus those saying it's based on region are stupid. They are stupid because in order for them to make their argument they literally have to ignore the whole reason of both terms existance, thus it's pointless arguing, The souls games are Wrpgs with Wrpg influences as much as the Kings Field games were. They are not Jrpg. Just like there are U.S. companies who have made Jrpgs. Shadow madness being one example.
Period.
As for Jrpgs to come back they would have had to have a come to, Jrpgs were never actually popular and highly adopted outside of Square games, and that was the same situation before the mid 90's. People need to get that through their head, games like tales do not sell well in the West, Games liek BOF do not sell well in the west, Games like Persona do not sell well in the west. At most they do passable and that's it. There was never a golden era of Jrpgs. it was all one company and sometimes exception were made through partnerships with that one company. Occasionally there will be one semi-hit exception that is never replicated (Tales of Symphonia being a prime example) and that's that. Things go back to normal.
The separation between "JRPG" and "WRPG" has almost everything to do with region. It's just a way to pigeon-hole Japanese and Western developers into neat little categories, ignoring the wide variety and diversity of RPGs from both regions. Many of the tropes associated with JRPGs and WRPGs often fall flat on their face upon closer inspection.
For example, the whole idea of JRPG=turn-based and WRPG=real-time is nonsense, as the majority of real-time action RPGs up until the 90s were from Japan, where the the action RPG subgenre itself mostly originated from. The idea of JRPG=linear and WRPG=non-linear is also untrue, as there have been countless non-linear JRPGs and linear WRPGs. The idea of JRPG=anime and WRPG=realistic is also untrue, as there have been countless JRPGs that aren't anime-like and WRPGs that are cartoon-like.
Also, cross-cultural influences are nothing new. The Souls and Bloodborne games are about as much influenced by Western game design as the BioWare and Witcher games are by Japanese game design. JRPG and WRPG developers have always been borrowing ideas from each other for decades, since the 1980s up until today.
As for the "golden age" of JRPGs, it wasn't just one company. Squaresoft were hugely successful, but they weren't the only ones doing well in the West. And Tales of Symphonia wasn't the only exception either. Nintendo's Pokemon was a huge phenomenon that transcended the video game industry, just as Square's Final Fantasy and Kingdom Hearts did. In addition, Sony's Legend of Dragoon sold almost a million in the US, Mario role-playing games sold milions, Camelot's Golden Sun sold over 742,000 units in the US, Tri-Ace's Star Ocean 3 sold over 630,000 units in the US, etc. And that's without including other similarly successful Squaresoft games like FF Tactics, Parasite Eve, Chrono, etc.
Don't change history because you want to, it never had anything to do with region ever period. This is not an argument. The Jrpg and Wrpg split was actually made relatively recently due the japanese stuck in the past gameplay style. That was literally the WHOLE point.
You are only looking at the terms of today (which actually stiil, much so are true, although there are more exceptions) which is your issue, Wrpgs and Jrpgs in the 90's were separated because on gameplay, otherwise the term Wrpg wouldn't have even existed and then made a Jrpg counter-part both those terms would not exist.
From Softwares Souls games are based on Western Rpgs and from the evolution of Kings Field with From outright saying they made it because of UltimaUnd wtf are you on?
Also know there was no golden age, the sales of Jrpgs in many areas were less or the same as in the SNES days, and a lot flopped, very few companies did "well" there is a difference between "well" and "wow we sold something in the U.S. without flopping" it's not close to the same thing, the most talked about Jrpgs have and still are in general, Final Fantasy when it comes to console Jrpgs. Eventually after years of making games, some other games are known but they aren't even close. Tales won't pull another Symphonia and no, that was not the only example I had. Also good job talking about portables because you seems to not realize what this argument is about.
Also I mentioned Square games being the only company who actually grew from the make believe "golden age" a quote you ignored so you can make up a claim to include Kingdom hearts to inflate the list, except that is a Square game and as i said, they are and have been the only company to actually GROW due to FF&, FF7 did NOTHING fops ANYBODY else at all and denying that is complete nonsense.
Yeah that Beyond the Beyond, BOF games, Persona games were so popular outside ***- oh wait they weren't what? How about that adoption rate, Low? Oh well ok then.
Issue with you is you don't take into consideration when the terms were made in the first place, this has nothing to do with people "taking ideas" it's the majority of Jrpgs and even now, The majority of jrpgs (including those made by americans and other on Mobile) are all stuck in the same static game design with gimmicks placed on time. I mean sure, there are tons of exception now on consoles. But remember, from say 1993-2009 the roots and meaning of the separation is pretty easy to follow:
1. Wrpgs had more in depth combat options, more interactivity, and more open gameplay in general regardl;ess if the game was designed to be Explorable or linear.
2. Jrpgs were stuck in Wizardry with some gimmicks only slightly fixing up the battle system or item management. Hell FF7 was FF6 with cinematic and some gimmicks to the battle system (that includes leveling as well). A ton of other RPgs played just like FF7-FF6 BOF2, etc, just new graphics and gimmicks over a technically outdated game engine design.
So it makes NO sense to even have this argument as it was 100& true for the majority of Jrpgs, including the most "successful" of them, which all mostly used the same mechnics. Whether just some gimmick for the leveling system, or changing the perspective you view the screen.
And no there were not other hugely successful Jrpg on consoles, and you're from Europe so this goes equally double for you. It was Square (and even then not ALL their games were hits) If you partnered with Square you also had a slightly better chance. this was literally no different than where Square was the generation before FF7.
Where are the hugely popular games outside Japan that is? (who always brought Jrpgs?) Baiten Kaitos? Tales? BOF? Beyond the Beyond? Star Ocean? Persona? Dragon Quest? Alundra? Virtua Quest? Dark Cloud? Where? Where are these Jrpgs that were hugely successful as you say, with high sales and adoption rates, that people talk about all the time that are not cult following in gaming forums? Nowhere.
You only have, as before, exception like tales of Symphonia (which still wasn't THAT good) Those 2 Pokemon Gamecube games, uh..... I guess Ni No Kuni, and uh, Papaer Mario?
Oh you must mean persona 3 and 4, Shining something, Eternal Ring, Jade Cocoon, BOF 4, Lost Odyssey, Blue Dragon, Last rebellion? Oh wait, no no you can't.
I hope they make a comeback. I like western RPGs, but they lack a sort of charm and world building JRPGs achieve.
There are more Wrpgs than Skyrim and Mass effect btw. Also world building is usually not a Jrpg trope its character building if anything.
Judging from your post anyway, it seems you mean number and not actually "comback" in that case be happy that there are a decent number of Jrpgs coming out some this month most in march.
Final Fantasy 13 had a great combat system
No it didn't. The nicest thing anyway can say is that it looked pretty, otherwise it was about as much a battle system as hitting special features on a DVD.
Yes it did, It's the only thing that kept me going to finish the game. It sad that the rest of the game was garbage. Combat wise I enjoy all the final fantasy XIII games it's the rest like character, storyline, sidequest that was awful to me
Don't change history because you want to, it never had anything to do with region ever period. This is not an argument. The Jrpg and Wrpg split was actually made relatively recently due the japanese stuck in the past gameplay style. That was literally the WHOLE point.
You are only looking at the terms of today (which actually stiil, much so are true, although there are more exceptions) which is your issue, Wrpgs and Jrpgs in the 90's were separated because on gameplay, otherwise the term Wrpg wouldn't have even existed and then made a Jrpg counter-part both those terms would not exist.
From Softwares Souls games are based on Western Rpgs and from the evolution of Kings Field with From outright saying they made it because of UltimaUnd wtf are you on?
Also know there was no golden age, the sales of Jrpgs in many areas were less or the same as in the SNES days, and a lot flopped, very few companies did "well" there is a difference between "well" and "wow we sold something in the U.S. without flopping" it's not close to the same thing, the most talked about Jrpgs have and still are in general, Final Fantasy when it comes to console Jrpgs. Eventually after years of making games, some other games are known but they aren't even close. Tales won't pull another Symphonia and no, that was not the only example I had. Also good job talking about portables because you seems to not realize what this argument is about.
Also I mentioned Square games being the only company who actually grew from the make believe "golden age" a quote you ignored so you can make up a claim to include Kingdom hearts to inflate the list, except that is a Square game and as i said, they are and have been the only company to actually GROW due to FF&, FF7 did NOTHING fops ANYBODY else at all and denying that is complete nonsense.
Yeah that Beyond the Beyond, BOF games, Persona games were so popular outside ***- oh wait they weren't what? How about that adoption rate, Low? Oh well ok then.
Issue with you is you don't take into consideration when the terms were made in the first place, this has nothing to do with people "taking ideas" it's the majority of Jrpgs and even now, The majority of jrpgs (including those made by americans and other on Mobile) are all stuck in the same static game design with gimmicks placed on time. I mean sure, there are tons of exception now on consoles. But remember, from say 1993-2009 the roots and meaning of the separation is pretty easy to follow:
1. Wrpgs had more in depth combat options, more interactivity, and more open gameplay in general regardl;ess if the game was designed to be Explorable or linear.
2. Jrpgs were stuck in Wizardry with some gimmicks only slightly fixing up the battle system or item management. Hell FF7 was FF6 with cinematic and some gimmicks to the battle system (that includes leveling as well). A ton of other RPgs played just like FF7-FF6 BOF2, etc, just new graphics and gimmicks over a technically outdated game engine design.
Tiger, you're the one who keeps trying to change history, like your denial of the North Ameican video game crash and subsequent Nintendo revival...
The terms "JRPG" and "WRPG" did not even exist in the 90s, but these terms were created in the 2000s. The only equivalent terms in the 1990s were "Console RPG" and "Computer RPG", before being replaced by "JRPG" and "WRPG" in the 2000s. And in the early 90s, the generalizations were very different from today, with computer RPG fans back then usually stereotyping console RPGs as Zelda-style action RPGs. Computer RPG fans back then "blamed" the Japanese for creating real-time action RPGs, which they considered an abomination to the "purity" of the RPG genre in the early 90s, and yet that's what most WRPGs have become today.
From Software never said King's Field was inspired by Ultima Underworld, but that's what gamers are saying based on their similarities. However, first-person dungeon crawlers like Ultima Underworld and King's Field were around since the 1980s, in both America and Japan. Ultima Underworld was most likely one of the influences on King's Field, but not the only one. As for the Souls games, From Software said it was inspired by old-school games and the Japanese manga/anime Berserk. And while they borrow some Western RPG elements, what makes them stand out are the combat system and challenging difficulty, both of which are modelled after Japanese hack & slash games rather than Western RPGs.
Like I said above, it was not just one company back then. Nintendo's Pokemon sold millions in the US, Sony's Legend of Dragoon sold almost a million in the US, Mario role-playing games sold milions in the US, Camelot's Golden Sun sold over 742,000 units in the US, Tri-Ace's Star Ocean 3 sold over 630,000 units in the US, etc. As for Europe, we don't have any sales figures to compare, but I do know that it was the PS1 era when RPGs became mainstream in the UK, mostly due to FFVII.
As for the "separation", no, it doesn't follow what you're describing. If WRPGs had deeper combat in the past, they certainly don't today, with modern WRPGs having relatively shallow combat compared to both JRPGs and older WRPGs. WRPG combat systems today seem like they borrowed more from Japanese games (whether action RPGs, action-adventures, hack & slash, or TPS) than they did from older WRPGs. Also, the dialogue choices and branching plots in WRPGs today seem like they borrowed those elements from Japanese visual novel games, which have been doing them for much longer and are still doing them a lot better.
As for your stereotype of JRPGs, it's completely false. There have been countless JRPGs with "more interactivity" and "open gameplay", such as Sorcerian, Metal Max, Romancing SaGa, SaGa Frontier, Mana, Chrono, Metal Saga, etc. However, most of the open-ended JRPGs never released in the West, so Western gamers began generalizing JRPGs with the "linear" label. Also, it's pretty interesting how you completely ignored the numerous Japanese action RPGs in your generalization. Japanese action RPGs have combat systems almost nothing like what you're generalizing. You're just cherry-picking some examples here and there to generalize JRPGs as a whole.
Don't change history because you want to, it never had anything to do with region ever period. This is not an argument. The Jrpg and Wrpg split was actually made relatively recently due the japanese stuck in the past gameplay style. That was literally the WHOLE point.
You are only looking at the terms of today (which actually stiil, much so are true, although there are more exceptions) which is your issue, Wrpgs and Jrpgs in the 90's were separated because on gameplay, otherwise the term Wrpg wouldn't have even existed and then made a Jrpg counter-part both those terms would not exist.
From Softwares Souls games are based on Western Rpgs and from the evolution of Kings Field with From outright saying they made it because of UltimaUnd wtf are you on?
Also know there was no golden age, the sales of Jrpgs in many areas were less or the same as in the SNES days, and a lot flopped, very few companies did "well" there is a difference between "well" and "wow we sold something in the U.S. without flopping" it's not close to the same thing, the most talked about Jrpgs have and still are in general, Final Fantasy when it comes to console Jrpgs. Eventually after years of making games, some other games are known but they aren't even close. Tales won't pull another Symphonia and no, that was not the only example I had. Also good job talking about portables because you seems to not realize what this argument is about.
Also I mentioned Square games being the only company who actually grew from the make believe "golden age" a quote you ignored so you can make up a claim to include Kingdom hearts to inflate the list, except that is a Square game and as i said, they are and have been the only company to actually GROW due to FF&, FF7 did NOTHING fops ANYBODY else at all and denying that is complete nonsense.
Yeah that Beyond the Beyond, BOF games, Persona games were so popular outside ***- oh wait they weren't what? How about that adoption rate, Low? Oh well ok then.
Issue with you is you don't take into consideration when the terms were made in the first place, this has nothing to do with people "taking ideas" it's the majority of Jrpgs and even now, The majority of jrpgs (including those made by americans and other on Mobile) are all stuck in the same static game design with gimmicks placed on time. I mean sure, there are tons of exception now on consoles. But remember, from say 1993-2009 the roots and meaning of the separation is pretty easy to follow:
1. Wrpgs had more in depth combat options, more interactivity, and more open gameplay in general regardl;ess if the game was designed to be Explorable or linear.
2. Jrpgs were stuck in Wizardry with some gimmicks only slightly fixing up the battle system or item management. Hell FF7 was FF6 with cinematic and some gimmicks to the battle system (that includes leveling as well). A ton of other RPgs played just like FF7-FF6 BOF2, etc, just new graphics and gimmicks over a technically outdated game engine design.
Tiger, you're the one who keeps trying to change history, like your denial of the North Ameican video game crash and subsequent Nintendo revival...
The terms "JRPG" and "WRPG" did not even exist in the 90s, but these terms were created in the 2000s. The only equivalent terms in the 1990s were "Console RPG" and "Computer RPG", before being replaced by "JRPG" and "WRPG" in the 2000s.
From Software never said King's Field was inspired by Ultima Underworld, but that's what gamers are saying based on their similarities. However, first-person dungeon crawlers like Ultima Underworld and King's Field were around since the 1980s, in both America and Japan. Ultima Underworld was most likely one of the influences on King's Field, but not the only one. As for the Souls games, From Software said it was inspired by old-school games and the Japanese manga/anime Berserk. And while they borrow some Western RPG elements, what makes them stand out are the combat system and challenging difficulty, both of which are modelled after Japanese hack & slash games rather than Western RPGs.
Like I said above, it was not just one company back then. Nintendo's Pokemon sold millions in the US. Sony's Legend of Dragoon sold almost a million in the US. Mario role-playing games sold milions in the US. Camelot's Golden Sun sold over 742,000 units in the US, Tri-Ace's Star Ocean 3 sold over 630,000 units in the US. As for Europe, we don't have any sales figures to compare, so not sure
As for the "separation", no, it doesn't follow what you're describing. If WRPGs had deeper combat in the past, they certainly don't today, with modern WRPGs having relatively shallow combat compared to both JRPGs and older WRPGs. WRPG combat systems today seem like they borrowed more from Japanese games (whether action RPGs, action-adventures, hack & slash, or TPS) than they did from older WRPGs. Also, the dialogue choices and branching plots in WRPGs today seem like they borrowed those elements from Japanese visual novel games, which have been doing them for much longer and are still doing them a lot better.
As for your stereotype of JRPGs, it's completely false. There have been countless JRPGs with "more interactivity" and "open gameplay", such as Sorcerian, Metal Max, Romancing SaGa, SaGa Frontier, Mana, Chrono, Metal Saga, etc. However, most of the open-ended JRPGs never released in the West, so Western gamers began generalizing JRPGs with the "linear" label. Also, it's pretty interesting how you completely ignored the numerous Japanese action RPGs in your generalization. Japanese action RPGs have combat systems almost nothing like what you're generalizing. You're just cherry-picking some examples here and there to generalize JRPGs as a whole.
Actually I never denied that Nintendo revitalized INDUSTRY just said they were not alone at all. With evidence showing that NES and 7800 were close to each other initially before it crashed, and that consoles were still being sold in 85 along with games being made, and it was not an "absolute" like fanboys say. But of course you now change history on a thread you even partially agree with me on in the past good one.
Yes they did after the mid 90's Jrpg was a term and Crpg was Wrpg for the same reasons I mentioned, later Crpg became Wrpg because they were being thrown on consoles mostly due to the Xbox. You are changing history and are wrong, period.
I like how you say an absolute with no evidence in regards to from software without having any knowledge instead of actually directly questioning my source. Talking about From softwares comments about souls and Not Kings Field also makes this paragraph invalid to the argument. King Field played nothing like a hack n slash, you clearly hve problem reading even your own posts. All i said about souls is that there was influence from Kings Field and then focused on Kings field.
Again, this thread was never about handhelds, handhelds were never into consideration during the imaginary Golden age, and for the separation of C/Wrpg and Jrpgs. You don't even know what you're defending any more and are spouting nonsense. pokemon is a handheld game, has nothing to do with consoles, whole point of the argument. Square Enix was the only one. All your other nonsense that wwasn't portable was estimated shipped and even if they were not were still NOT good, and continue the same trend Jrpgs were before, with the majority selling less, a few high exception, a few that picked up a little steam, and ONE huge one. Square, same shit.
Despite you using mainstream Wrpgs as a base for the whole genre, then later accuse me of genralizing is hilarious, and also Wrpgs, despite it being "shallow" as you say STILL have more depth and option and interactivity than Jrpgs. That's not even deniable, sure the line is nowhere where it once was, but there are still plenty that fis in the categories.
I also didn't stereotype all Jrpgs, I even said, again,t hat there are more exceptions now, and said the time frame from 1993-2008 or so the majority of the reasons they were separated held very well for the Majority of the Jrpgs and Wrpgs that were out, and that's true. But remembe ryou have to only read some words and from your own sentences because that's how arguing works.
All i got from this is that you read sentences than add your own words and then say that's what i said when i didn't. You are literally changing why the genres were separates using flawed excuses, and you seem to think that there was a Jrpg boom outside of Square games when there wasn't. You are also if IRC one of those people that spout about Jrpgs on the PS2, the majority of which are niches and flops, with only Square games being anywhere near the top once again. I'm sure Dark Cloud, Forever Kingdom, Persona 3, were so huge. Not really. Also remember, you said hugely sucessful, but sicne by now you may realize the whole point of the argument was not handhelds (as they had nothing to do with the split) you'll probably retract that statement.
Yes they did after the mid 90's Jrpg was a term and Crpg was Wrpg for the same reasons I mentioned, later Crpg became Wrpg because they were being thrown on consoles mostly due to the Xbox. You are changing history and are wrong, period.
I like how you say an absolute with no evidence in regards to from software without having any knowledge instead of actually directly questioning my source. Talking about From softwares comments about souls and Not Kings Field also makes this paragraph invalid to the argument. King Field played nothing like a hack n slash, you clearly hve problem reading even your own posts. All i said about souls is that there was influence from Kings Field and then focused on Kings field.
Again, this thread was never about handhelds, handhelds were never into consideration during the imaginary Golden age, and for the separation of C/Wrpg and Jrpgs. You don't even know what you're defending any more and are spouting nonsense. pokemon is a handheld game, has nothing to do with consoles, whole point of the argument. Square Enix was the only one. All your other nonsense that wwasn't portable was estimated shipped and even if they were not were still NOT good, and continue the same trend Jrpgs were before, with the majority selling less, a few high exception, a few that picked up a little steam, and ONE huge one. Square, same shit.
Despite you using mainstream Wrpgs as a base for the whole genre, then later accuse me of genralizing is hilarious, and also Wrpgs, despite it being "shallow" as you say STILL have more depth and option and interactivity than Jrpgs. That's not even deniable, sure the line is nowhere where it once was, but there are still plenty that fis in the categories.
I also didn't stereotype all Jrpgs, I even said, again,t hat there are more exceptions now, and said the time frame from 1993-2008 or so the majority of the reasons they were separated held very well for the Majority of the Jrpgs and Wrpgs that were out, and that's true.
The term "JRPG" did not exist in the 90s. Go look up any gaming magazine back then and you won't find the word "JRPG" mentioned anywhere. The term they do mention is "console RPG". Get your facts straight.
I read your post just fine. You claimed that From Software credited Ultima Underworld for King's Field, which is not true. I haven't seen any From interview where they even mention Ultima Underworld. I don't deny its influence, but the fact is From did not mention it. Also, I was pointing out that it was the Souls games that borrowed heavily from Japanese hack & slash games, making your attempt to categorize them as "WRPGs" nonsensical.
Why shouldn't handhelds count? Just because their existence destroys your argument about JRPGs never being popular? And even besides handhelds, I've already mentioned quite a few non-Squaresoft console RPGs from back then that sold more than a million, or close to a million, in the US.
Right, you love to negatively generalize JRPGs, but hate it when WRPGs are negatively generalized in return. Either way, it's undeniable that, generally speaking, modern mainstream WRPGs today have relatively shallow combat systems compared to modern mainstream JRPGs. The combat systems in the likes of Mass Effect, Skyrim or The Witcher are relatively shallow compared to the combat systems in the likes of Souls, Bloodborne, Persona, Fire Emblem, or arguably even Final Fantasy.
What you were describing as "the majority" was just one school of Japanese RPG game design, the DQ/FF-style school, out of several. The action RPG subgenre had its own school of game design and that was even more popular than the DQ/FF school in the US prior to FFVII. Even game magazines that focused on computer RPGs, like Dragon and Computer Gaming World, were stereotyping Japanese console RPGs as "action RPGs" or "arcade RPGs" up until the mid-90s, since the likes of Zelda, Ys and Mana were what came to mind. The tactical RPG subgenre also had its own school of game design, and they were very popular in Japan. To generalize "the majority" of JRPGs as FF/DQ-style games would mean completely ignoring the entire existence of the action RPG and tactical RPG subgenres. If what you mean by "JRPG" is FF/DQ-style games, then just say FF/DQ-style games. The "JRPG" label is pointless as a "genre" specification.
Yes they did after the mid 90's Jrpg was a term and Crpg was Wrpg for the same reasons I mentioned, later Crpg became Wrpg because they were being thrown on consoles mostly due to the Xbox. You are changing history and are wrong, period.
I like how you say an absolute with no evidence in regards to from software without having any knowledge instead of actually directly questioning my source. Talking about From softwares comments about souls and Not Kings Field also makes this paragraph invalid to the argument. King Field played nothing like a hack n slash, you clearly hve problem reading even your own posts. All i said about souls is that there was influence from Kings Field and then focused on Kings field.
Again, this thread was never about handhelds, handhelds were never into consideration during the imaginary Golden age, and for the separation of C/Wrpg and Jrpgs. You don't even know what you're defending any more and are spouting nonsense. pokemon is a handheld game, has nothing to do with consoles, whole point of the argument. Square Enix was the only one. All your other nonsense that wwasn't portable was estimated shipped and even if they were not were still NOT good, and continue the same trend Jrpgs were before, with the majority selling less, a few high exception, a few that picked up a little steam, and ONE huge one. Square, same shit.
Despite you using mainstream Wrpgs as a base for the whole genre, then later accuse me of genralizing is hilarious, and also Wrpgs, despite it being "shallow" as you say STILL have more depth and option and interactivity than Jrpgs. That's not even deniable, sure the line is nowhere where it once was, but there are still plenty that fis in the categories.
I also didn't stereotype all Jrpgs, I even said, again,t hat there are more exceptions now, and said the time frame from 1993-2008 or so the majority of the reasons they were separated held very well for the Majority of the Jrpgs and Wrpgs that were out, and that's true.
The term "JRPG" did not exist in the 90s. Go look up any gaming magazine back then and you won't find the word "JRPG" mentioned anywhere. The term they do mention is "console RPG". Get your facts straight.
I read your post just fine. You claimed that From Software credited Ultima Underworld for King's Field, which is not true. I haven't seen any From interview where they even mention Ultima Underworld. I don't deny its influence, but the fact is From did not mention it. Also, I was pointing out that it was the Souls games that borrowed heavily from Japanese hack & slash games, making your attempt to categorize them as "WRPGs" nonsensical.
Why shouldn't handhelds count? Just because their existence destroys your argument about JRPGs never being popular? And even besides handhelds, I've already mentioned quite a few non-Squaresoft console RPGs from back then that sold more than a million, or close to a million, in the US.
Right, you love to negatively generalize JRPGs, but hate it when WRPGs are negatively generalized in return. Either way, it's undeniable that, generally speaking, modern mainstream WRPGs today have relatively shallow combat systems compared to modern mainstream JRPGs. The combat systems in the likes of Mass Effect, Skyrim or The Witcher are relatively shallow compared to the combat systems in the likes of Souls, Bloodborne, Persona, Fire Emblem, or arguably even Final Fantasy.
What you were describing as "the majority" was just one school of Japanese RPG game design, the DQ/FF-style school, out of several. The action RPG subgenre had its own school of game design and that was even more popular than the DQ/FF school in the US prior to FFVII. Even game magazines that focused on computer RPGs, like Dragon and Computer Gaming World, were stereotyping Japanese console RPGs as "action RPGs" or "arcade RPGs" up until the mid-90s, since the likes of Zelda, Ys and Mana were what came to mind. The tactical RPG subgenre also had its own school of game design, and they were very popular in Japan. To generalize "the majority" of JRPGs as FF/DQ-style games would mean completely ignoring the entire existence of the action RPG and tactical RPG subgenres. If what you mean by "JRPG" is FF/DQ-style games, then just say FF/DQ-style games. The "JRPG" label is pointless as a "genre" specification.
Jrpg existed in the 90's it's your own stupidity that makes you think I'm talking early early 90's. Jrpgs was a term that was coined first before Wrpg, and your stupid consoel Rpg claim did nothing but solidify my side of the argument.
You're whole spot before was literally about interviews about Demon Souls, not King Field, and regardless of who's right, you never questioned for a source, instead you spoke absolute in terms of it not being true, showing you are arguing like a fanboy since isntead of having an open discussion it's NOT POSSIBLE 100% when you have no evidence otherwise, regardless of whether I am right or not you made an un-natural reaction in this argument a person who is clearly not biased would not do. The Souls games are Wprgs, Hack N Slash influence can go back to western games as well, doesn't matter, Souls games are Action Rpgs with heavy western influence and with a lot of mechanics western games tend to have, thus a Wrpg, again, Jrpg has nothing to do with region and your whole argument is based on that being true when it's not, even for the souls excuse.
They don't count because they HAVE NEVER counted, and they were NOT EVEN TALKED about in this argument that you entered without looking. That's why they don't count. And again you need to go back and read the very first response to you and the one before because you clearly aren't reading, Listing Square Jrpgs does nothing but proof my point, if you are going to make yup stupid statements without even reading than why are you arguing/ i'm reading all of your posts. Seems odd how i mentioned Square games numerous times but for some odd reason, you seem to ignore that.
I didn't generalize Jrpgs, I said there were exception. i said the majority, in a SPECIFIED TIME FRAME which you ignored, are indeed the majority in that time frame of both sides. Which is why the terms solidified in the first place. Also i like how Rpgs only have combat systems now, let's ignore everything else and also generalize Erpgs to 3 games. A thing I did not do, but you THINK I did (two wrongs make a right for some reason acording to you) During the time period stated they were the majority of Jrpgs, period.
The Action Rpgs genre, which has nothing to do with the West whatsoever and were mostly popular in japan, and again you are veering off course of the West, which is Europe, America and to a lesser extend Africa. Why are you even talking about old school Action Rpgs? how many of those were selling in the west compared to term based? Which areas made the split between them in the first place? the west. Small examples of some nonsense of "action rpgs" by a couple magazines mean nothing, I can find action rpgs being called to Western ACTION RPGS. And also Zelda is not an rpg. Again we go back in a circle, what were the majority of Jrpgs that were osld and common despite being sales flops or only doing decently with exceptions and Square? Not Action rpgs, you are now taking the wrong route to expand an argument you are failing at. Heck, you even say that tactical rpgs were very popular IN JAPAN which has NOTHING to do with this argument.
First, try not to be insulting by actually reading all the posts, second, don't do stupid side tracks to thing completely unrelated to the central argument. ff Which One: Jrpg and Wrpgs have nothing to do with region historically so arguing so is stupid, and 2. jrpgs never had a Boom, it was Square, Some exceptions, and fails/barely passable that are niche. And that gap just got wider AFTER FF7.
"Jrpg existed in the 90's it's your own stupidity that makes you think I'm talking early early 90's. Jrpgs was a term that was coined first before Wrpg, and your stupid consoel Rpg claim did nothing but solidify my side of the argument."
Show me a source of a 1990s game magazine using the term "JRPG" anywhere. If not, then you're obviously just pulling nonsense out of nowhere.
"You're whole spot before was literally about interviews about Demon Souls, not King Field, and regardless of who's right, you never questioned for a source, instead you spoke absolute in terms of it not being true, showing you are arguing like a fanboy since isntead of having an open discussion it's NOT POSSIBLE 100% when you have no evidence otherwise, regardless of whether I am right or not you made an un-natural reaction in this argument a person who is clearly not biased would not do. The Souls games are Wprgs, Hack N Slash influence can go back to western games as well, doesn't matter, Souls games are Action Rpgs with heavy western influence and with a lot of mechanics western games tend to have, thus a Wrpg, again, Jrpg has nothing to do with region and your whole argument is based on that being true when it's not, even for the souls excuse."
You are the one who made the bogus claim about From Software citing Ultima Underworld as an influence. The burden of proof is on you, the person making the claim, not on me, the person doubting your claim. Logic 101. As for hack & slash, that mostly originated from Japanese games. While the Souls games do borrow Western RPG elements, its combat system is not one of them.
"They don't count because they HAVE NEVER counted, and they were NOT EVEN TALKED about in this argument that you entered without looking. That's why they don't count. And again you need to go back and read the very first response to you and the one before because you clearly aren't reading, Listing Square Jrpgs does nothing but proof my point, if you are going to make yup stupid statements without even reading than why are you arguing/ i'm reading all of your posts. Seems odd how i mentioned Square games numerous times but for some odd reason, you seem to ignore that."
Why should Japanese handheld RPGs not count? By that same reasoning, Western computer RPGs should not count either. Your argument makes no sense whatsoever. Also, the RPGs I mentioned in my previous post are not Squaresoft RPGs. Did you even bother reading my post before posting this juvenile rant of yours?
"I didn't generalize Jrpgs, I said there were exception. i said the majority, in a SPECIFIED TIME FRAME which you ignored, are indeed the majority in that time frame of both sides. Which is why the terms solidified in the first place. Also i like how Rpgs only have combat systems now, let's ignore everything else and also generalize Erpgs to 3 games. A thing I did not do, but you THINK I did (two wrongs make a right for some reason acording to you) During the time period stated they were the majority of Jrpgs, period."
The only games you mentioned as examples for your JRPG generalization are Final Fantasy and Breath of Fire. To cite these as the sole representatives of "the majority" of JRPGs would be no different to me citing Mass Effect and Skyrim as the sole representatives of "the majority" of WRPGs. Sure, two wrongs don't make a right, but it's nice to know you at least acknowledged a wrong on your part.
"The Action Rpgs genre, which has nothing to do with the West whatsoever and were mostly popular in japan, and again you are veering off course of the West, which is Europe, America and to a lesser extend Africa. Why are you even talking about old school Action Rpgs?"
The very existence of action RPGs and tactical RPGs, both of which were very popular Japanese sub-genres with at least hundreds of games each, contradicts your claim about "the majority" of JRPGs being just Wizardry with gimmicks. And even if we ignored ARPGs and SRPGs altogother, your claim about FF7 being just Wizardry with gimmicks and cinematics is itself completely nonsensical.
"First, try not to be insulting by actually reading all the posts, second, don't do stupid side tracks to thing completely unrelated to the central argument."
Almost every post you write is full of insults. Even before I commented on any of your posts, you were already dismissing anyone who disagrees with you as "stupid". It's fresh for you to be getting offended over "insulting" comments towards yourself. If you don't want to be insulted, then don't insult others. Golden Rule 101.
"Jrpg existed in the 90's it's your own stupidity that makes you think I'm talking early early 90's. Jrpgs was a term that was coined first before Wrpg, and your stupid consoel Rpg claim did nothing but solidify my side of the argument."
Show me a source of a 1990s game magazine using the term "JRPG" anywhere. If not, then you're obviously just pulling nonsense out of nowhere.
"You're whole spot before was literally about interviews about Demon Souls, not King Field, and regardless of who's right, you never questioned for a source, instead you spoke absolute in terms of it not being true, showing you are arguing like a fanboy since isntead of having an open discussion it's NOT POSSIBLE 100% when you have no evidence otherwise, regardless of whether I am right or not you made an un-natural reaction in this argument a person who is clearly not biased would not do. The Souls games are Wprgs, Hack N Slash influence can go back to western games as well, doesn't matter, Souls games are Action Rpgs with heavy western influence and with a lot of mechanics western games tend to have, thus a Wrpg, again, Jrpg has nothing to do with region and your whole argument is based on that being true when it's not, even for the souls excuse."
You are the one who made the bogus claim about From Software citing Ultima Underworld as an influence. The burden of proof is on you, the person making the claim, not on me, the person doubting your claim. Logic 101. As for hack & slash, that mostly originated from Japanese games. While the Souls games do borrow Western RPG elements, its combat system is not one of them.
"They don't count because they HAVE NEVER counted, and they were NOT EVEN TALKED about in this argument that you entered without looking. That's why they don't count. And again you need to go back and read the very first response to you and the one before because you clearly aren't reading, Listing Square Jrpgs does nothing but proof my point, if you are going to make yup stupid statements without even reading than why are you arguing/ i'm reading all of your posts. Seems odd how i mentioned Square games numerous times but for some odd reason, you seem to ignore that."
Why should Japanese handheld RPGs not count? By that same reasoning, Western computer RPGs should not count either. Your argument makes no sense whatsoever. Also, the RPGs I mentioned in my previous post are not Squaresoft RPGs. Did you even bother reading my post before posting this juvenile rant of yours?
"I didn't generalize Jrpgs, I said there were exception. i said the majority, in a SPECIFIED TIME FRAME which you ignored, are indeed the majority in that time frame of both sides. Which is why the terms solidified in the first place. Also i like how Rpgs only have combat systems now, let's ignore everything else and also generalize Erpgs to 3 games. A thing I did not do, but you THINK I did (two wrongs make a right for some reason acording to you) During the time period stated they were the majority of Jrpgs, period."
The only games you mentioned as examples for your JRPG generalization are Final Fantasy and Breath of Fire. To cite these as the sole representatives of "the majority" of JRPGs would be no different to me citing Mass Effect and Skyrim as the sole representatives of "the majority" of WRPGs. Sure, two wrongs don't make a right, but it's nice to know you at least acknowledged a wrong on your part.
"The Action Rpgs genre, which has nothing to do with the West whatsoever and were mostly popular in japan, and again you are veering off course of the West, which is Europe, America and to a lesser extend Africa. Why are you even talking about old school Action Rpgs?"
The very existence of action RPGs and tactical RPGs, both of which were very popular Japanese sub-genres with at least hundreds of games each, contradicts your claim about "the majority" of JRPGs being just Wizardry with gimmicks. And even if we ignored ARPGs and SRPGs altogother, your claim about FF7 being just Wizardry with gimmicks and cinematics is itself completely nonsensical.
"First, try not to be insulting by actually reading all the posts, second, don't do stupid side tracks to thing completely unrelated to the central argument."
Almost every post you write is full of insults. Even before I commented on any of your posts, you were already dismissing anyone who disagrees with you as "stupid". It's fresh for you to be getting offended over "insulting" comments towards yourself. If you don't want to be insulted, then don't insult others. Golden Rule 101.
1. http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1346&dat=19990610&id=Qr4wAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Qf0DAAAAIBAJ&pg=2963,6778573
2. How is it a bogus claim you never asked me for a source (and still technically haven't which is why i have not posted one) so you wouldn't know that yet, you immediately stated that it is impossible (even if it's likely is) regardless. It's called being a fanboy. Also yes, it's combat system is one of them, it's actually closer to a first person and tp equal of Western Action rpgs than a hack n slash, comparing them in a lne from known games in those areas shows this and is why people say it's a Wrpg in the first place.
3. Yep ignore the whole fact that the imagined Jrpg boom is credited to a console game, and about consoles games after and the fact this whole conversation has been about consoles IN THE FIRST PLACE, so you can swing to an unrelated argument which has nothing to do with the subject because you are losing the argument.
4. I mentioned a ton of games, if you're going to lie why are you arguing with me? I didn't generalize either, the majority of the games were turned bases in the time period i specifies, and again, said there were exceptions, especially now. It's different because Skurim and Mass effect were NEVER the majority while various versions gimmicks included, of the Turn-Based system WERE the majority of jrpgs in the west and that's where the whole label came from. But of course, you're lying about me only naming two games os i mean I don't expect you to think logically.
5. No it doesn't because this is not about japan and this is where the last piece of your arguement burns in a fire. japanese action Rpgs in japan, have nothing to do with the whole Wrpg and Jrpg split. In fact, few Arpgs from japan were put in everyones face or released, most of the games released in the time period fit the criteria I mentioned above. Arpgs are also usually separated from the Jrpg and Wrpg debate regardless. But back to the point, it has nothing to do with ANYTHING. I ignore Srpgs and Arpgs, because they have nothing to do withthe majority of games using the same core mechanics from FF7, those games that sold the most, good sales are not, and what people saw and played often, which you are denying, which is nonsense.
But i'm sure you're behavior of twisting words intentionally and straight up lying is much better though. Ethics101. Also not sure what mean insulting you has to do with you intentionally avoiding parts of my post so you can extend an artificial argument you are losing.
1. The source doesn't say "JRPG" at all. It just says "Japanese-born role-playing games", and even that is a reference to translation issues rather than any gameplay style. The source is not good enough, but I'll give you credit for at least trying to look for a source.
2. You've had a few chances now to post a source to back up your claim, and you still haven't, implying that you clearly have no source to back up your claim about From Software citing Ultima Underworld as an influence. Once again, if you can't provide a source, then I'll just have to dismiss your claim as "fanboy" nonsense. As for the combat system, the Souls games have far more in common with Japanese games like Monster Hunter, Dragon's Dogma and Zelda in that regard than they do with Western games like Skyrim, Ultima Underworld or Mass Effect. The Souls games combine Western RPG settings with Japanese hack & slash combat.
3. This topic is about Japanese RPGs, not just console games. You're the one trying to divert the topic to just console games. And considering how most Japanese RPGs today are produced for handhelds, it's completely ridiculous to limit the discussion to just consoles. By that same nonsensical logic, we might as well exclude all Western RPGs released on PC.
4. Yes, the majority of RPGs were turn-based, but that's not what you claimed. What you claimed was that the majority of JRPGs were Wizardry with gimmicks. Nevertheless, I'll let you off for that one. As far as turn-based combat goes though, the majority of WRPGs were also turn-based, far more so than JRPGs up until the early 2000s. While JRPGs at least had many action RPGs among them, WRPGs were almost entirely turn-based up until the mid-1990s, with action RPGs few and far between even after that. If the majority of JRPGs were turn-based, then the same is far more true for WRPGs back then.
5. Like I already said above, if what you're referring to are FF-style games, then just say FF-style games. The use of the "JRPG" label to refer to just this particular subgenre is pointless. Your attempt at trying to reduce the "JRPG" label to just FF-style games is short-sighted at best or ignorant at worst.
So how much time have you guys lost writing all of that?
Well anyway I do hope that some JRPGS start coming out for the new generation of consoles. I don't know of any besides Final Fantasy XV, Final Fantasy Type 0, Persona 5, Kingdom Hearts 3, and Xenoblade Chronicles coming out so far. Besides Type 0, all of these are a long ways off on the horizon from where we are now D: well at least until we get actual release dates for them. Everyone should now by now with all the damn release date delays of last year that even when company releases a date they can still push it way further back..
JRPGs are the main reason why my Ps2 is still being used so much.. some really good ones for Ps1/Ps2 no joke. Some for Ps3 too although no where near as many or the same quality as Ps1/Ps2 era.
Although I will say my favorite RPG of all time is Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic 1 for the original X-Box, which is WRPG I guess.
Crossing my fingers. Last gen was so mehhhh! I was willing to delve deep into jrpg but that day never came. However I did some backlogging on the gen before that.
Revival? It was never dead, the genre has just moved to handhelds. This does look to be a pretty strong year, but you forgot Trails in the Sky SC and Fire Emblem (out in Japan this summer).
1. The source doesn't say "JRPG" at all. It just says "Japanese-born role-playing games", and even that is a reference to translation issues rather than any gameplay style. The source is not good enough, but I'll give you credit for at least trying to look for a source.
2. You've had a few chances now to post a source to back up your claim, and you still haven't, implying that you clearly have no source to back up your claim about From Software citing Ultima Underworld as an influence. Once again, if you can't provide a source, then I'll just have to dismiss your claim as "fanboy" nonsense. As for the combat system, the Souls games have far more in common with Japanese games like Monster Hunter, Dragon's Dogma and Zelda in that regard than they do with Western games like Skyrim, Ultima Underworld or Mass Effect. The Souls games combine Western RPG settings with Japanese hack & slash combat.
3. This topic is about Japanese RPGs, not just console games. You're the one trying to divert the topic to just console games. And considering how most Japanese RPGs today are produced for handhelds, it's completely ridiculous to limit the discussion to just consoles. By that same nonsensical logic, we might as well exclude all Western RPGs released on PC.
4. Yes, the majority of RPGs were turn-based, but that's not what you claimed. What you claimed was that the majority of JRPGs were Wizardry with gimmicks. Nevertheless, I'll let you off for that one. As far as turn-based combat goes though, the majority of WRPGs were also turn-based, far more so than JRPGs up until the early 2000s. While JRPGs at least had many action RPGs among them, WRPGs were almost entirely turn-based up until the mid-1990s, with action RPGs few and far between even after that. If the majority of JRPGs were turn-based, then the same is far more true for WRPGs back then.
5. Like I already said above, if what you're referring to are FF-style games, then just say FF-style games. The use of the "JRPG" label to refer to just this particular subgenre is pointless. Your attempt at trying to reduce the "JRPG" label to just FF-style games is short-sighted at best or ignorant at worst.
1. 1997: http://www.gamespot.com/reviews/final-fantasy-vii-review/1900-2547583/
Final Fantasy VII would otherwise be very much like any other Japanese RPG you've ever played. You still must face countless random monster encounters while keeping a close eye on your hit points and magic points, and you will witness your characters grow stronger with every experience level they attain.
1997: http://www.edge-online.com/reviews/final-fantasy-vii-review/
follows the golden rule of all Japanese console role-playing games: the player works through a pre-ordained storyline which is punctuated with frequent battles fought via a menu system...
...While most non-RPG fans will cite the frequent random-battle encounters and stop-start combat system as common Japanese RPG problems
2. Nope cause you didn't ask you went fanboy and said that it's not possible in fact like terms, so there's no point in even continuing that argument you made up your mind.
3. The argument you entered however, was not, and not only that, Handhelds would not help your case at all so pursing it, especially during the time period i specified is stupid in the first place. But again you don't seem too look where you leap.
4. That is exactly what I claimed, that during the time period most Jrpgs played like that. Also yes, i did say they were stuck on wizardry with gimmicks, Wizardry does have more than one games you know that right? Even so all of Wizardry still has the same core gameplay, and that is exactly what Jrpgs were stuck on you're right, I did say that, because it's true. The majority of Wrpgs were actually not turned based as well, especially int he time period i specified, and when they were, they did not play anything like Jrpgs, you seem to be ignoring parts of my posts a lot for some reason. If this was a conversation about the 80's then maybe possibly you may have an argument although it would still be limited because Wrpgs still played differently the closer they got the the 90's.
5. It's not pointless, because that is exactly what was known about Jrpgs as shown in the sources above. It's not short cited at all, because as you failed to realize before, the west is not japan, the majority of the games that "sold" and were released were those types of Jrpgs, FF style games is dumb anyway because there were games before FF that used the same style, FF style games isn't even an argument one could use NOW. Do we really need to list the games that came out with the same core mechanic in the time period I listed, where the Split mainly happened and was the most accurate?
Sure hope not.
@TigerSuperman:
1. Those sources are an improvement. But like I said above, the term "JRPG" itself never existed back then. FFVII was variously referred to as a "console RPG" or "Japanese RPG", but the term "JRPG" itself was never used.
2. I make up my mind based on the evidence. If you refuse to present evidence for your claim about From Software citing Ultima Underworld, then that's your loss.
3. You still have not provided a valid reason why handhelds should be excluded. Would you agree about PC being excluded too? We are talking about RPGs on all platforms, not just a particular class of platforms.
4. Your claim about the majority of JRPGs during that time being just Wizardry with gimmicks is no more true than the majority of WRPGs during that time being just Ultima with gimmicks. But even if the majority of JRPGs were just Wizardry with gimmicks (which is false), then that would just make them WRPGs according to your logic, rendering the "JRPG" label meaningless and making your argument self-contradictory. Also, the majority of WRPGs were indeed turn-based in the 1990s. Yes, there were different styles of turn-based combat, but that's besides the point, which is that the majority of RPGs in general were turn-based back then. And this was far more true of America than it was of Japan, which had a much greater output of action RPGs and strategy RPGs than America in the 1990s.
5. In that case, "DQ style" would perhaps be more appropriate than "FF style", since DQ is the original source of that style (in turn, DQ was a synthesis of Wizardry and Ultima along with the adventure game elements of Portopia and anime art of Dragon Ball). The DQ style was originally referred to as "light RPG" in Japan (compared to the countless Japanese computer RPGs that never saw the light of day in the West). What we call "JRPG" in the West was originally called "light RPG" in Japan, where it was one of several styles, along with the action RPG, strategy RPG and dungeon-crawler sub-genres. It's highly misleading to use the "JRPG" label to refer only to that specific DQ-inspired style within the Japanese RPG industry, excluding all the other varied styles of RPGs from there, both in the past (such as the countless ARPGs, SRPGs and computer RPGs from Japan) and the present (with the Monster Hunter style being the most popular in Japan today).
All I'll say is I'd take Persona 5 and Xenoblade X over Dragon Age Cisquisition and The Witcher 3 any day of the week.
Depends on what you consider a comeback. I guess quality wise it might be a small or large comeback. Maybe the drastic changes to jrpgs lately may spark huge sales as well, but I think that its unlikely. On that front though even a couple million for lesser known rpgs (at least compared to ff) can be a comeback for jrpgs in general so maybe?
Ummm? I really don't see a huge difference in Japanese RPG game flow compared to years past to the near-future. Seems like the game releases have been releasing at similar pacing.
So no, they aren't making a comeback.
That would be awesome, but I don't see it happening. Its no different today than 10 years ago. Silver lining is the few great games released in he west are usually never sold out.
you know, they didn't really die
@TigerSuperman:
1. Those sources are an improvement. But like I said above, the term "JRPG" itself never existed back then. FFVII was variously referred to as a "console RPG" or "Japanese RPG", but the term "JRPG" itself was never used.
2. I make up my mind based on the evidence. If you refuse to present evidence for your claim about From Software citing Ultima Underworld, then that's your loss.
3. You still have not provided a valid reason why handhelds should be excluded. Would you agree about PC being excluded too? We are talking about RPGs on all platforms, not just a particular class of platforms.
4. Your claim about the majority of JRPGs during that time being just Wizardry with gimmicks is no more true than the majority of WRPGs during that time being just Ultima with gimmicks. But even if the majority of JRPGs were just Wizardry with gimmicks (which is false), then that would just make them WRPGs according to your logic, rendering the "JRPG" label meaningless and making your argument self-contradictory. Also, the majority of WRPGs were indeed turn-based in the 1990s. Yes, there were different styles of turn-based combat, but that's besides the point, which is that the majority of RPGs in general were turn-based back then. And this was far more true of America than it was of Japan, which had a much greater output of action RPGs and strategy RPGs than America in the 1990s.
5. In that case, "DQ style" would perhaps be more appropriate than "FF style", since DQ is the original source of that style (in turn, DQ was a synthesis of Wizardry and Ultima along with the adventure game elements of Portopia and anime art of Dragon Ball). The DQ style was originally referred to as "light RPG" in Japan (compared to the countless Japanese computer RPGs that never saw the light of day in the West). What we call "JRPG" in the West was originally called "light RPG" in Japan, where it was one of several styles, along with the action RPG, strategy RPG and dungeon-crawler sub-genres. It's highly misleading to use the "JRPG" label to refer only to that specific DQ-inspired style within the Japanese RPG industry, excluding all the other varied styles of RPGs from there, both in the past (such as the countless ARPGs, SRPGs and computer RPGs from Japan) and the present (with the Monster Hunter style being the most popular in Japan today).
1. Yes it was as I showed you, you are now literally running in circles just because it's not abbreviated. It clearly shows what Jrpgs were considered to be at the time, Japanese Role-playing Game, very simple, it's exactly as specified, it's not an IMPROVEMENT it's literally showing you you're wrong and that it was always about mechanics even in the 90's. Stop.
2.You have no evidence, the only interview you cited was from about Dark Souls, you have no evidence of the likely influence from Ultima Underworld. So how can you possible disregard it completely as fact?
3. I did because handhelds are not FF7. Also handhelds included would not help you and would make your situation worse as they pumped out more of the generic game engine than the consoles. Another reason, again which you ignore so you can artificially extend your losing argument, is that the 'golden age" of Jrpgs that people imagine, starts with FF& and ends in the generation after, so how the hell would you think Handhelds should be involved? What sens does that even make? Again, you literally jumped into an argument about consoles and you refuse to acknowledge you jumped it spouting nonsense and are continuing to try and make it so handhelds should count, when it was never about handhelds. Nor was the context of the posts, so again, be serious or literally stop because you're not even remotely trying. YOU are talking about Rpgs on all platforms, that is NOT what the argument YOU entered was about. This is a continuous problem you have. How about you go back to the posts right before your first response, learn to read..
4. Yes it is actually, uh If we name all the Jrpgs released in NA in the time period specified that even remotely did a bit of sales, the vast majority will all literally be that. So no you have no comparison to "lol we would do the same for Wrpg it's no different" when if we did the same thing with Wrpgs, you would literally be destroyed, i invite you to even attempt this game and lose if you want let me know because you will literally fail really rally hard by actually thinking the majority of Jrpgs in the west that were released, and the majority of which even barely sold+_ where not all that the stereotypical mechanics with gimmicks over them. The fact you are even arguing against this makes no sense whatsoever. And no the majrotiy of Wrpgs in the 90's were not turned base you play very stupid games that I'm not going to let you run in circles around anymore, I'm just going to call you, prove your stupid nonsense or back off before we have to play list wars.
5. No it that's light rpg nonsense is as usual, nonsense, because other games that released with that similar system were not called light rpgs, so no that is literally garbage, Dragon W was called a light rpg, because of literally how it was designed to be as simple as possible. Has nothing to do with the mechancis, has to do with lack of depth and easy access. Also Jrpg is not misleading, it literally matched the old definition and still amtches the other definitions that accompany Jrpgs, as the examples I posted before in 1997 show, From general mechanics outside the battle system, to linearity and lack of in-depth gameplay. Which is the only reason why Jrpgs is still a used term today. (well there are still quite a few that match it entirely coming out but not as much as before on consoles)
lol people keep saying Bloodborne isn't a JRPG but they are just dumb people. JRPGs aren't set type to presets and the lore in The souls games separates it from cookie cutter WRPGs.
So is Persona a JRPG? if so Is also Final Fantasy XV or not? What about Dragon Quest?
If you answered yes to Persona 5, but also answered yes to rest but claim Bloodborne is not then you've exposed your stupidity.
None of the traditional JRPG stereo types exist in FFXV except that the main characters are Japanese and Dragon Quest also set in a mid-evil universe and neither FFXV nor DQ are turn based! Lol so why don't people call FFXV and Dragon Quest a WRPGs??????????????????
The setting, gameplay style are all independtely chosen by the dev to set their vision..the same as the Souls serise and Bloodborne. How many other JRPGs are in a mid-evil setting (Dragon Quest as shown)? Tons, if it's just that the art style is anime, then what about FFXV?
Being open world, controllable combat, or in a western setting, realistic vs anime style does not make a JRPG NOT a JRPG like trolls would like to believe.
No need to say stupid things out of envy, no WRPG achieves what the souls games do simple because it's not. Its a JRPG in a mid-evil...or now European setting and 100% Japanese creation and lore that comes from Japanese minds.
lol people keep saying Bloodborne isn't a JRPG but they are just dumb people. JRPGs aren't set type to presets and the lore in The souls games separates it from cookie cutter WRPGs.
So is Persona a JRPG? if so Is also Final Fantasy XV or not? What about Dragon Quest?
If you answered yes to Persona 5, but also answered yes to rest but claim Bloodborne is not then you've exposed your stupidity.
None of the traditional JRPG stereo types exist in FFXV except that the main characters are Japanese and Dragon Quest also set in a mid-evil universe and neither FFXV nor DQ are turn based! Lol so why don't people call FFXV and Dragon Quest a WRPGs??????????????????
The setting, gameplay style are all independtely chosen by the dev to set their vision..the same as the Souls serise and Bloodborne. How many other JRPGs are in a mid-evil setting (Dragon Quest as shown)? Tons, if it's just that the art style is anime, then what about FFXV?
Being open world, controllable combat, or in a western setting, realistic vs anime style does not make a JRPG NOT a JRPG like trolls would like to believe.
No need to say stupid things out of envy, no WRPG achieves what the souls games do simple because it's not. Its a JRPG in a mid-evil...or now European setting and 100% Japanese creation and lore that comes from Japanese minds.
Because all 3 games are linear with lack of depth in gameplay with minimal interactivity and lack of cause and effect focusing on a heavy narrative focus(applies to 2 of these). TB is only part of the issue. Also I believe two of those have random battle, whether they do or not does not remove the former. Jrpg has expanded to cover a set of similarities and isn't as restricted as it once was. The souls games are Wrpgs just like the Kings Field games are Wrpgs, whether or not you agree with the labels is an entirely different discussion, but it's not based on region which is why people are still trying to debate this in the first place. It leans heavily toward the Wrpg side than the jrpg side. Of course if we were talking the definition of Jrpgs which was the majority, as i discussed above, then i would not put Souls in either category (although still put KF under Wrpg) but that's not the modern definition of Jrpgs which stretched further.
lol people keep saying Bloodborne isn't a JRPG but they are just dumb people. JRPGs aren't set type to presets and the lore in The souls games separates it from cookie cutter WRPGs.
So is Persona a JRPG? if so Is also Final Fantasy XV or not? What about Dragon Quest?
If you answered yes to Persona 5, but also answered yes to rest but claim Bloodborne is not then you've exposed your stupidity.
None of the traditional JRPG stereo types exist in FFXV except that the main characters are Japanese and Dragon Quest also set in a mid-evil universe and neither FFXV nor DQ are turn based! Lol so why don't people call FFXV and Dragon Quest a WRPGs??????????????????
The setting, gameplay style are all independtely chosen by the dev to set their vision..the same as the Souls serise and Bloodborne. How many other JRPGs are in a mid-evil setting (Dragon Quest as shown)? Tons, if it's just that the art style is anime, then what about FFXV?
Being open world, controllable combat, or in a western setting, realistic vs anime style does not make a JRPG NOT a JRPG like trolls would like to believe.
No need to say stupid things out of envy, no WRPG achieves what the souls games do simple because it's not. Its a JRPG in a mid-evil...or now European setting and 100% Japanese creation and lore that comes from Japanese minds.
Because all 3 games are linear with lack of depth in gameplay with minimal interactivity and lack of cause and effect focusing on a heavy narrative focus(applies to 2 of these). TB is only part of the issue. Also I believe two of those have random battle, whether they do or not does not remove the former. Jrpg has expanded to cover a set of similarities and isn't as restricted as it once was. The souls games are Wrpgs just like the Kings Field games are Wrpgs, whether or not you agree with the labels is an entirely different discussion, but it's not based on region which is why people are still trying to debate this in the first place. It leans heavily toward the Wrpg side than the jrpg side. Of course if we were talking the definition of Jrpgs which was the majority, as i discussed above, then i would not put Souls in either category (although still put KF under Wrpg) but that's not the modern definition of Jrpgs which stretched further.
WOW, so much wrong in your post, I don't even need to present a counter argument. The sheer ignorance of your statement and desperate attempt to try to typecast and generalize "JRPG" to your self invisioned mold is showing it's faults.
NONE of the things you mention there are explicitly representative of JRPGs, but the things you are talking about that supposedly make those games JRPGs literally describe the Souls games.
The "minimal interactivity" comment describing JRPGs is especially funny since it was one of the main gripes about Demon's/Dark Souls world, lol get your argument straight pal you are failing hard here for your argument for Souls being WRPGs.
Also, you are not even correct in your assessment of JRPGs with claims like, "lack of depth in gameplay" lol as if WRPGs are known for gameplay depth NO that IS WHAT THE SOULS and other JRPGs SET APART. The Souls games just made WRPG devs say, "Oh shit, so that's what good gameplay looks like in the setting we use?".
WRPGs have always had shitty weak gameplay like fallout and Elder Scrolls, Deep and great gameplay is what JRPGs have always done better. Even Final Fantasy will have better and deeper gameplay than almost anything you'll find in a WRPG, FAIL.
lol people keep saying Bloodborne isn't a JRPG but they are just dumb people. JRPGs aren't set type to presets and the lore in The souls games separates it from cookie cutter WRPGs.
So is Persona a JRPG? if so Is also Final Fantasy XV or not? What about Dragon Quest?
If you answered yes to Persona 5, but also answered yes to rest but claim Bloodborne is not then you've exposed your stupidity.
None of the traditional JRPG stereo types exist in FFXV except that the main characters are Japanese and Dragon Quest also set in a mid-evil universe and neither FFXV nor DQ are turn based! Lol so why don't people call FFXV and Dragon Quest a WRPGs??????????????????
The setting, gameplay style are all independtely chosen by the dev to set their vision..the same as the Souls serise and Bloodborne. How many other JRPGs are in a mid-evil setting (Dragon Quest as shown)? Tons, if it's just that the art style is anime, then what about FFXV?
Being open world, controllable combat, or in a western setting, realistic vs anime style does not make a JRPG NOT a JRPG like trolls would like to believe.
No need to say stupid things out of envy, no WRPG achieves what the souls games do simple because it's not. Its a JRPG in a mid-evil...or now European setting and 100% Japanese creation and lore that comes from Japanese minds.
Because all 3 games are linear with lack of depth in gameplay with minimal interactivity and lack of cause and effect focusing on a heavy narrative focus(applies to 2 of these). TB is only part of the issue. Also I believe two of those have random battle, whether they do or not does not remove the former. Jrpg has expanded to cover a set of similarities and isn't as restricted as it once was. The souls games are Wrpgs just like the Kings Field games are Wrpgs, whether or not you agree with the labels is an entirely different discussion, but it's not based on region which is why people are still trying to debate this in the first place. It leans heavily toward the Wrpg side than the jrpg side. Of course if we were talking the definition of Jrpgs which was the majority, as i discussed above, then i would not put Souls in either category (although still put KF under Wrpg) but that's not the modern definition of Jrpgs which stretched further.
WOW, so much wrong in your post, I don't even need to present a counter argument. The sheer ignorance of your statement and desperate attempt to try to typecast and generalize "JRPG" to your self invisioned mold is showing it's faults.
NONE of the things you mention there are explicitly representative of JRPGs, but the things you are talking about that supposedly make those games JRPGs literally describe the Souls games.
The "minimal interactivity" comment describing JRPGs is especially funny since it was one of the main gripes about Demon's/Dark Souls world, lol get your argument straight pal you are failing hard here for your argument for Souls being WRPGs.
Also, you are not even correct in your assessment of JRPGs with claims like, "lack of depth in gameplay" lol as if WRPGs are known for gameplay depth NO that IS WHAT THE SOULS and other JRPGs SET APART. The Souls games just made WRPG devs say, "Oh shit, so that's what good gameplay looks like in the setting we use?".
WRPGs have always had shitty weak gameplay like fallout and Elder Scrolls, Deep and great gameplay is what JRPGs have always done better. Even Final Fantasy will have better and deeper gameplay than almost anything you'll find in a WRPG, FAIL.
Of course you're lack of reading skills makes it so it takes hours to read a few sentences because if you had kept reading you would have seen this:
Jrpg has expanded to cover a set of similarities and isn't as restricted as it once was
This is why media and reviewers use the expanded Jrpg guidelines for calling a game a Wrpg, a Jrpg, or whatever RPG. You keep saying i'm worring without actually looking at the reality I'm only quoting what people say jrpgs are NOW a different comparison to what Jrpg meant from 1993-2008. So when you get mad at me realize it's pretty much THE RULE and I have nothing to do with it.
Also saying Wrpgs has shitty weak gameplay using a minority of games and only mainstream ones is very stupid. but then again youi don't seem to know what's going on around you.
@TigerSuperman:
"1. Yes it was as I showed you, you are now literally running in circles just because it's not abbreviated. It clearly shows what Jrpgs were considered to be at the time, Japanese Role-playing Game, very simple, it's exactly as specified, it's not an IMPROVEMENT it's literally showing you you're wrong and that it was always about mechanics even in the 90's."
1. The one backtracking here is you. What I originally said was: "The only equivalent terms in the 1990s were "Console RPG" and "Computer RPG", before being replaced by "JRPG" and "WRPG" in the 2000s." And then you claimed "after the mid 90's Jrpg was a term", which you now admit is not true. At the very least, we can agree the term "Japanese role-playing game" existed in the late 1990s, but certainly not "JRPG".
"2.You have no evidence, the only interview you cited was from about Dark Souls, you have no evidence of the likely influence from Ultima Underworld. So how can you possible disregard it completely as fact?"
2. Tiger, have you lost your mind? You are the one who claimed From Software cited Ultima Underworld as an influence on King's Field, not me. Don't you even remember your own claims? I've already given you several chances now to back up your claim, yet you still refuse to back it up. That can only lead me to believe you were making it all up, and never had a source or interview to begin with. And now you're making up a circular argument to avoid it.
"3. I did because handhelds are not FF7. Also handhelds included would not help you and would make your situation worse as they pumped out more of the generic game engine than the consoles. Another reason, again which you ignore so you can artificially extend your losing argument, is that the 'golden age" of Jrpgs that people imagine, starts with FF& and ends in the generation after, so how the hell would you think Handhelds should be involved? What sens does that even make? Again, you literally jumped into an argument about consoles and you refuse to acknowledge you jumped it spouting nonsense and are continuing to try and make it so handhelds should count, when it was never about handhelds. Nor was the context of the posts, so again, be serious or literally stop because you're not even remotely trying. YOU are talking about Rpgs on all platforms, that is NOT what the argument YOU entered was about. This is a continuous problem you have. How about you go back to the posts right before your first response, learn to read..."
3. In that whole rant, not once did you provide a valid reason for why handhelds should be excluded from the discussion. Also, nowhere did the OP ever specify this topic was only about consoles and not handhelds. This was a condition you entirely made up yourself. Maybe you should focus less on ranting and fuming and insulting, and focus more on coming up with a valid argument next time.
"4. Yes it is actually, uh If we name all the Jrpgs released in NA in the time period specified that even remotely did a bit of sales, the vast majority will all literally be that. So no you have no comparison to "lol we would do the same for Wrpg it's no different" when if we did the same thing with Wrpgs, you would literally be destroyed, i invite you to even attempt this game and lose if you want let me know because you will literally fail really rally hard by actually thinking the majority of Jrpgs in the west that were released, and the majority of which even barely sold+_ where not all that the stereotypical mechanics with gimmicks over them. The fact you are even arguing against this makes no sense whatsoever. And no the majrotiy of Wrpgs in the 90's were not turned base you play very stupid games that I'm not going to let you run in circles around anymore, I'm just going to call you, prove your stupid nonsense or back off before we have to play list wars."
4. Your argument is extremely flawed. So the only Japanese RPGs that count are the ones that were popular in North America? What about all the RPGs that were popular in Japan? Or all the Japanese RPGs that were not popular? Why should they all be excluded? And on top of that, you even exclude all handheld RPGs... You're purposefully excluding the majority of Japanese RPGs just so you can narrow the pool of Japanese RPGs down to the ones that fit your narrow-minded perception of "JRPGs". And for the record, the majority of American RPGs used variations of turn-based combat in the 1990s. You can go look up Wikipedia's "List of role-playing video games" lists for the 1990s and you'll notice that only a minority of North American RPGs back then are action RPGs and that the majority of action RPGs during that decade are from Japan. Video game historians such as Matt Barton and Bill Longudice also stated the majority of action RPGs were on consoles (i.e. from Japan) and rare on computers (i.e. from America) up until the release of Diablo in the late 1990s.
"5. No it that's light rpg nonsense is as usual, nonsense, because other games that released with that similar system were not called light rpgs, so no that is literally garbage, Dragon W was called a light rpg, because of literally how it was designed to be as simple as possible. Has nothing to do with the mechancis, has to do with lack of depth and easy access. Also Jrpg is not misleading, it literally matched the old definition and still amtches the other definitions that accompany Jrpgs, as the examples I posted before in 1997 show, From general mechanics outside the battle system, to linearity and lack of in-depth gameplay. Which is the only reason why Jrpgs is still a used term today. (well there are still quite a few that match it entirely coming out but not as much as before on consoles)"
5. The "light RPG" label was the term the Japanese game industry used to refer to games like Dragon Quest and Final Fantasy back in the 8-bit and 16-bit days. Why? Because Japan had a thriving home computer industry that produced thousands of RPGs that did not fit the DQ or FF mould. It was a way to differentiate the more mainstream RPGs like Dragon Quest and Final Fantasy from the more "hardcore" RPGs on Japanese computers. Using "JRPG" as a genre signifier is misleading because people such as yourself only use the label to refer to one particular style of RPG, that of DQ and FF, excluding all the other styles of RPGs from Japan, ranging from dungeon-crawlers and action RPGs to strategy RPGs and tactical RPGs. These other styles are no less "JRPG" than the likes of DQ or FF.
Also, your attempt at trying to categorize the Souls games as "WRPG" is highly disingenuous. The deep and challenging combat systems that the Souls games are known for evolved from the combat systems of Japanese games like Zelda, Sword of the Berserk, and Monster Hunter, not North American games like Ultima Underworld, Elder Scrolls, or Diablo. Like I said before, while the Souls games do borrow some ideas from Western RPGs, their core combat systems have their roots in Japanese games.
@TigerSuperman:
"1. Yes it was as I showed you, you are now literally running in circles just because it's not abbreviated. It clearly shows what Jrpgs were considered to be at the time, Japanese Role-playing Game, very simple, it's exactly as specified, it's not an IMPROVEMENT it's literally showing you you're wrong and that it was always about mechanics even in the 90's."
1. The one backtracking here is you. What I originally said was: "The only equivalent terms in the 1990s were "Console RPG" and "Computer RPG", before being replaced by "JRPG" and "WRPG" in the 2000s." And then you claimed "after the mid 90's Jrpg was a term", which you now admit is not true. At the very least, we can agree the term "Japanese role-playing game" existed in the late 1990s, but certainly not "JRPG".
"2.You have no evidence, the only interview you cited was from about Dark Souls, you have no evidence of the likely influence from Ultima Underworld. So how can you possible disregard it completely as fact?"
2. Tiger, have you lost your mind? You are the one who claimed From Software cited Ultima Underworld as an influence on King's Field, not me. Don't you even remember your own claims? I've already given you several chances now to back up your claim, yet you still refuse to back it up. That can only lead me to believe you were making it all up, and never had a source or interview to begin with.
"3. I did because handhelds are not FF7. Also handhelds included would not help you and would make your situation worse as they pumped out more of the generic game engine than the consoles. Another reason, again which you ignore so you can artificially extend your losing argument, is that the 'golden age" of Jrpgs that people imagine, starts with FF& and ends in the generation after, so how the hell would you think Handhelds should be involved? What sens does that even make? Again, you literally jumped into an argument about consoles and you refuse to acknowledge you jumped it spouting nonsense and are continuing to try and make it so handhelds should count, when it was never about handhelds. Nor was the context of the posts, so again, be serious or literally stop because you're not even remotely trying. YOU are talking about Rpgs on all platforms, that is NOT what the argument YOU entered was about. This is a continuous problem you have. How about you go back to the posts right before your first response, learn to read..."
3. In that whole rant, not once did you provide a valid reason for why handhelds should be excluded from the discussion. Also, nowhere did the OP ever specify this topic was only about consoles and not handhelds. This was a condition you entirely made up yourself. Maybe you should focus less on ranting and fuming and insulting, and focus more on coming up with a valid argument next time.
"4. Yes it is actually, uh If we name all the Jrpgs released in NA in the time period specified that even remotely did a bit of sales, the vast majority will all literally be that. So no you have no comparison to "lol we would do the same for Wrpg it's no different" when if we did the same thing with Wrpgs, you would literally be destroyed, i invite you to even attempt this game and lose if you want let me know because you will literally fail really rally hard by actually thinking the majority of Jrpgs in the west that were released, and the majority of which even barely sold+_ where not all that the stereotypical mechanics with gimmicks over them. The fact you are even arguing against this makes no sense whatsoever. And no the majrotiy of Wrpgs in the 90's were not turned base you play very stupid games that I'm not going to let you run in circles around anymore, I'm just going to call you, prove your stupid nonsense or back off before we have to play list wars."
4. Your argument is extremely flawed. So the only Japanese RPGs that count are the ones that were popular in North America? What about all the RPGs that were popular in Japan? Or all the Japanese RPGs that were not popular? Why should they all be excluded? And on top of that, you even exclude all handheld RPGs... You're purposefully excluding the majority of Japanese RPGs just so you can narrow the pool of Japanese RPGs down to the ones that fit your narrow-minded perception of "JRPGs". And for the record, the majority of American RPGs used variations of turn-based combat in the 1990s. You can go look up Wikipedia's "List of role-playing video games" lists for the 1990s and you'll notice that only a minority of North American RPGs back then are action RPGs and that the majority of action RPGs during that decade are from Japan. Video game historians such as Matt Barton and Bill Longudice also stated the majority of action RPGs were on consoles (i.e. from Japan) and rare on computers (i.e. from America) up until the release of Diablo in the late 1990s.
"5. No it that's light rpg nonsense is as usual, nonsense, because other games that released with that similar system were not called light rpgs, so no that is literally garbage, Dragon W was called a light rpg, because of literally how it was designed to be as simple as possible. Has nothing to do with the mechancis, has to do with lack of depth and easy access. Also Jrpg is not misleading, it literally matched the old definition and still amtches the other definitions that accompany Jrpgs, as the examples I posted before in 1997 show, From general mechanics outside the battle system, to linearity and lack of in-depth gameplay. Which is the only reason why Jrpgs is still a used term today. (well there are still quite a few that match it entirely coming out but not as much as before on consoles)"
5. The "light RPG" label was the term the Japanese game industry used to refer to games like Dragon Quest and Final Fantasy back in the 8-bit and 16-bit days. Why? Because Japan had a thriving home computer industry that produced thousands of RPGs that did not fit the DQ or FF mould. It was a way to differentiate the more mainstream RPGs like Dragon Quest and Final Fantasy from the more "hardcore" RPGs on Japanese computers. Using "JRPG" as a genre signifier is misleading because people such as yourself only use the label to refer to one particular style of RPG, that of DQ and FF, excluding all the other styles of RPGs from Japan, ranging from dungeon-crawlers and action RPGs to strategy RPGs and tactical RPGs. These other subgenres are no less "JRPG" than DQ or FF.
1. i didn't back track at all, Wrpgs and Jrpgs were BOTH terms in the 2000's, I also said Jrpgs was a term first before Wrpgs, which is true. ***[anese role-playing games is the same term as Jrpgs, by being stupid and saying they are different terms is nonsense. Also again, jrpgs were FIRST and Wrpgs came later, as shown.
2. I did, but you dismissed it without asking for evidence. You yourself even said it was a likely influence yet also decided that it was impossible for them to be influenced by it and your only base for the reaction was a Souls interview, how do you know there weren't other interviews? Why did you just up and say "imposisble!!!!!!!!!!"
3. I did because it was never part of the conversation, you're a funny retarded little guy, don't enter arguments without reading the psot your responding to. Might help you quite a bit. And again, doing so would not help you stop.
4. No, see now you are being more retarded. I mean you literally are, because the points you were arguing before are now different from what you are arguing now. The POINT is that Jrpgs popular in JAPAN do not count for the popularity of Jrpgs of the "golden period" of the West, which does not exist. Even you said "hugely successful franchises" we were NEVER talking about japan, now you have literally gone full retard and have now said only popular in NA only when NA was not even mentioned. When was NA even mentioned? Where? Stupid. To quote you YOURSELF:
As for the "golden age" of JRPGs, it wasn't just one company. Squaresoft were hugely successful, but they weren't the only ones doing well in the West.
How the **** did this turn into popular in NA only? When did all this other crap get added? You literally forgot your own stance in this argument before, and are not arguing a completely different subject that contradict your original couple posts amazing.
5. During the time period I listed, the majority of Jrpgs where in that category, i already called you out on a listwar if you won't take it then back off or we can continue.
And once again, back to the original topic, in the "west" the era of "golden Jrpgs" which is console based (derp) had nothing but Square. no doors were open. People say Jrpgs were bigger than ever, they were ot, there were exceptions, niche sales and flops, all FF7 did was open the gap more to Square, and the effect of that can be seen STILL today. Unless you can prove other wise, pretty sure I'm 100% right.
As for Jrpgs, they were known for the mechanics and general gameplay as shown above, it was never about region, the posts above prove it with links to people in the 90's defining Jrpg traits. Here's a question for you, if it's about region than is Shadow Madness a Wrpg? No it's not. Stop. Keep in mind Jrpgs is more than just "TB" alone, as described by those same reviewers above. they are literally the same traits people put with Jrpgs for the last decade.
Also let's remember, we aren't talking about the 80's and such we are talking 1993-2008. And again the majority of Wrpgs were not turned based, but again, Jrpgs are more than just TB, But i will say that in that time period TB was the majority of Jrpgs on consoles. The rason why the term was created, as shown above. Jrpg is abbrev for japnese-role-playing game, and the exact complaints about Jrpgs for the last 3 years match 100% with what those reviewers say.
Edit: i am categorizing the Souls games based on the extended definitions of Jrpg and Wrpg today. Also stop it, Souls plays like a TP version of a real-time FP Wrpg (which the majority of TP Wrpgs play like that aren't Skyrim) more than freaking Zelda which is not an Rpg, and has shallow combat, that is not deep. in fact, by saying Souls has "Deep Combat" you sound like a looney. Sure it's not as bad as say, Zeldas combat. I especially like your terrible belief that somehow a overhead combat game or Action Rpg, can give elements to a Third-person game, when that's nonsense. Using your Zelda example, OOT played nothing like LTTP and actually played more like a FP real-time WRPG but without it being in First Person. Not that this conversation matters, point is that the extended definition put Souls under Wrpg.
Basically all your points to this argument have been destroyed unless you want to go for that PC/Console RPG release date list ware between 1993 and 2008. Already proved Jrpg has nothing to do with region (and was a thing first, and Shadowmadness is not a Wrpg) Already proved that Square was the only benefit in the "golden age" and there was no "golden age" unless number means something that the SNES days may as well been the "golden age" to. Souls leans more to Wrpg than Jrpg despite whatever nitpicks you want to throw, and Zelda is not an rpg. Also handhelds have nothing to do with the console jrpgs golden age credited by FF7, and the fact the subject was already about consoles when you first responded.
So i am standing by for list war. Just say the word.
@TigerSuperman:
1. You originally said "after the mid 90's Jrpg was a term". And now you've changed it to the 2000s. So yes, you are backtracking.
2. So you're just upset that I dismissed your claims? If you're so upset, then prove me wrong: Show me an interview where From Software mention Ultima Underworld as an influence on King's Field... Oh, right, you don't have one, but you were just making it all up.
3. You never specified anything about "console only" originally, but only made up that condition later after I listed various non-Squaresoft RPGs popular in America at the time. And then you started trying to narrow the conversation down to consoles only, because you knew very well that your argument about the "golden age" of Japanese RPGs being "Squaresoft only" would be falsified the moment handhelds are included. But even if we did exclude handhelds, I already mentioned several other Japanese developers (Sony, Nintendo, Tri-Ace) who had major RPG hits on consoles, so your argument still wouldn't hold up to scrutiny either way.
4. Have you forgotten already that we were debating two different issues? One issue is what consititutes a "JRPG". The other issue is about the "golden age of JRPGs" in the West. Point 4 of my previous post was about the former issue (what consititutes a "JRPG"), not the latter issue ("golden age of JRPGs" in the West). But you, on the other hand, appear to be using the latter issue to justify your argument about the former issue, even though they're two unrelated issues.
5. Your argument that the majority of popular Japanese RPGs in the West being like FF somehow justifies your narrow "JRPG" definition is a non-sequitor, since these are two unrelated issues. Even if we assumed most of the popular Japanese RPGs in the West at the time played similarly to FF, that does not justify your narrow-minded definition that "JRPG" should be limited exclusively to those kinds of games. That is just one style of Japanese RPG that became mainstream in the West, out of a number of different styles of RPGs produced by Japanese developers at the time.
As for the Souls games, if you honestly believe its combat system has more in common with first-person WRPGs than it does with third-person Japanese hack & slash games, then you must be very ignorant. The Souls combat systems have far more in common with third-person Japanese hack & slash games (like Monster Hunter, Dragon's Dogma, Zelda, Crossed Swords, Sword of the Berserk, and probably even Devil May Cry and Ninja Gaiden) than they do with first-person WRPGs (whether it's The Elder Scrolls or Ultima Underworld). Even your argument that Souls is like a "TP version of a real-time FP Wrpg" is self-defeating, since you even admit the perspective is entirely different. And now you're claiming even Zelda OOT is like a "FP Wrpg" too. What next, every third-person hack & slash game is like a "FP Wrpg"? Get real.
As for your "list war" argument, I've already responded to that above: "You can go look up Wikipedia's "List of role-playing video games" lists for the 1990s and you'll notice that only a minority of North American RPGs back then are action RPGs and that the majority of action RPGs during that decade are from Japan. Video game historians such as Matt Barton and Bill Longudice also stated the majority of action RPGs were on consoles (i.e. from Japan) and rare on computers (i.e. from America) up until the release of Diablo in the late 1990s." Pay more attention next time.
@Jag85 said:
@TigerSuperman:
1. You originally said "after the mid 90's Jrpg was a term". And now you've changed it to the 2000s. So yes, you are backtracking.
2. So you're just upset that I dismissed your claims? If you're so upset, then prove me wrong: Show me an interview where From Software mention Ultima Underworld as an influence on King's Field... Oh, right, you don't have one, but you were just making it all up.
3. You never specified anything about "console only" originally, but only made up that condition later after I listed various non-Squaresoft RPGs popular in America at the time. And then you started trying to narrow the conversation down to consoles only, because you knew very well that your argument about the "golden age" of Japanese RPGs being "Squaresoft only" would be falsified the moment handhelds are included. But even if we did exclude handhelds, I already mentioned several other Japanese developers (Sony, Nintendo, Tri-Ace) who had major RPG hits on consoles, so your argument still wouldn't hold up to scrutiny either way.
4. Have you forgotten already that we were debating two different issues? One issue is what consititutes a "JRPG". The other issue is about the "golden age of JRPGs" in the West. Point 4 of my previous post was about the former issue (what consititutes a "JRPG"), not the latter issue ("golden age of JRPGs" in the West). But you, on the other hand, appear to be using the latter issue to justify your argument about the former issue, even though they're two unrelated issues.
5. Your argument that the majority of popular Japanese RPGs in the West being like FF somehow justifies your narrow "JRPG" definition is a non-sequitor, since these are two unrelated issues. Even if we assumed most of the popular Japanese RPGs in the West at the time played similarly to FF, that does not justify your narrow-minded definition that "JRPG" should be limited exclusively to those kinds of games. That is just one style of Japanese RPG that became mainstream in the West, out of a number of different styles of RPGs produced by Japanese developers at the time.
As for the Souls games, if you honestly believe its combat system has more in common with first-person WRPGs than it does with third-person Japanese hack & slash games, then you must be very ignorant. The Souls combat systems have far more in common with third-person Japanese hack & slash games (like Monster Hunter, Dragon's Dogma, Zelda, Crossed Swords, Sword of the Berserk, and probably even Devil May Cry and Ninja Gaiden) than they do with first-person WRPGs (whether it's The Elder Scrolls or Ultima Underworld). Even your argument that Souls is like a "TP version of a real-time FP Wrpg" is self-defeating, since you even admit the perspective is entirely different. And now you're claiming even Zelda OOT is like a "FP Wrpg" too. What next, every third-person hack & slash game is like a "FP Wrpg"? Get real.
As for your "list war" argument, I've already responded to that above: "You can go look up Wikipedia's "List of role-playing video games" lists for the 1990s and you'll notice that only a minority of North American RPGs back then are action RPGs and that the majority of action RPGs during that decade are from Japan. Video game historians such as Matt Barton and Bill Longudice also stated the majority of action RPGs were on consoles (i.e. from Japan) and rare on computers (i.e. from America) up until the release of Diablo in the late 1990s." Pay more attention next time.
You're backpedaling and reconstruction of what people say to make up fake arguments is getting irritating, and in fact, has been said not you before by other users, heck you won't even challenge a list war and use a gimped wikipedia article because you know you can't directly challenge me so you go and spout more paragraphs extending time. I'm just going to be blunt to the arguments you already lost here:
A. "The separation between "JRPG" and "WRPG" has almost everything to do with region." But it doesn't. As already proved by various statements in the 90's, and that they also include Jrpg traits that still apply to a lot of Jrpgs today (not just TB) and they used japanense Role-playing game as label for those mechanics and game design, not region. It was never about region. Another nail in the coffin, Shadow madness, clearly a Jrpg but wasn't made in japan. Not once was it about region, and considering the vast number of JRPGS (which were then in the time period I said, mostly turn based but that was just an extra) matched the statements above, it makes sens ehwy it was labeled as such. To say it was based on region is, and i repeat, stupid. Don't do that 5 year odl "they didn't say JRPG" argument either, that is literally a pathetic argument that does nothing for you, JRPG stand for Japanese Role-playing game, people spell it out even now, with a lot of the same reasoning as was made in the 90's as shown with 3 links, JRPG is not a different term on it's own. Stop. Unless you actually have a valid statement that conunters the above evidence you lost this argument period.
B. "For example, the whole idea of JRPG=turn-based and WRPG=real-time is nonsense," Yes, except nobody actually says this. They usually add other stereo's on top of that or they include all but TB (for example Quest 64) so this is an invalid poitn.
C. "as the majority of real-time action RPGs up until the 90s were from Japan, where the the action RPG subgenre itself mostly originated from." Which is bullshit mentally insane weeaboo made up fantasy fairy dust by the great Pumpkin King. i know him personally, He was this guy in a padded cell, his real name was tom. poor tom.
Off the top of my head, you had Catacombs, Freitag, Telengrad, Zoarre, Gateway to Asphai(or was that asphal?), Super Q, ICON, etc. for realtime/Action Rpgs before Falcom even released Slayer or the same year, I'm still missing games (probably some big ones some guy will act like i was insane to forget) but these are enough for the point I'm trying to make (one could also debate the console "rpgs" at the time were action/real-time rpgs as well but that's a different discussion)
Then in 1985 it was divided like this:
West:
East:
Then In 1986 it was divided:
West:
East:
In 1987 it was divided:
West:
East:
I mean point is clear here, and keep in mind I extended the Japanese list by including japanese only released games, While including Western games that span multiple countries, including even japan. (most of the games listed on west side are American btw if not mistakne.) I can't see how anyone could even remotely claim that not only did japan pioneer Action Rpgs, which is nonsene probably gotten from Wikipedia (like the current generation number for consoles in which we should be on 9 right now instead of 8) and is filled with false listing. i did decide to actually check your list of Rpgs list, which is like 10% complete.
D. "he Souls and Bloodborne games are about as much influenced by Western game design as the BioWare and Witcher games are by Japanese game design." Uh no, the reaosn why all of a sudden people started putting Souls (no one mentioned Bloodborne nor has anyone played it to anyones knowledge yet. Don't add things into stuff) is because it leans MORE toward Wrpg than Jrpgs in general. it leans away from the guidelines that jrpgs meant before and in the present. I also like how you use a sarcastic remark like "souls uses as much inlfuence to from the West, as the Witcher does from the east" which is none, yet then go and say that they did get influenced in like the next sentence. hilarious.
E. "As for the "golden age" of JRPGs, it wasn't just one company. Squaresoft were hugely successful, "As for the "golden age" of JRPGs, it wasn't just one company. Squaresoft were hugely successful," Yes it was actually indeed one comapny. notice how I cut off the rest of your nonsense mentioning Pokemon and such because the Golden Age of jrpgs refers to consoles, started by FF7, and was the whole point of the conversation before you jumped in to respond to my first (or second) post in this thread.
Square and games related to Square were the games that were hitting the aminstream, no one else was, there were exception, the same exceptions as the gen before. pretty much, with the similar number of niche games (increased slightly) and an increase in flops having some companies bail out of releasing to the west altogether. only place were jrpgs took off was in japan, not the west, that was not a Square game. Squares lone dominance, amid exception, easily is noticeable in the generation after, where Square ocne again has the MAJORITY, more devs leave out, more games flop, and the exception become even lesser sellers with a few outliers.
It then continues to the last generation where it was all basically Square and flops with like a handful of exceptions. FFXV will easily be the biggest Jrpg this gen bar none period as well along with KH3 and whatever else Square puts out in comparison to all Jrpg companies, american or japanese.
..
Feel free to address these points directly without jumping on a merrygo round sir. Or concede.
@Tiger:
A: The stereotypes associated with Japanese role-playing games changed throughout the 1990s. In 1990, Computer Gaming World magazine, as well as Wizardry game designer Roe R. Adams, stereotyped Japanese console RPGs as action RPGs, contrasting them with turn-based American computer RPGs. In 1991, Computer Gaming World magazine refers to any computer RPG with real-time action combat as "Nintendo style" RPGs. In 1994, Dragon magazine noted that American computer RPG fans were still stereotyping Japanese RPGs as action RPGs, again contrasting them with turn-based American computer RPGs. It's not until 1997 that Japanese RPGs start being stereotyped as turn-based RPGs in the mould of Final Fantasy VII.
B: It looks like you agree with me on this point, so moving on...
C: The early North American examples you listed are Roguelikes, not action RPGs. They lack the arcade-style hack & slash combat that defined the action RPG style created by Falcom's Dragon Slayer (1984). The only ones out of those that come anywhere near are Gateway To Apshai (1983) and Icon (1984), but they lack actual RPG elements, making them action-adventures rather than action RPGs. Other early Japanese examples you missed out, by the way, include Falcom's Panorama Toh (1983), Bokosuka Wars (1983), Namco's The Tower of Druaga (1984), Hydlide (1984), and Dragon Buster (1984). Also, here are more Japanese action RPGs you missed out in your list:
1985
1986
1987
The sheer amount of Japanese action RPGs releasing during this time easily trumps the small number of North American attempts during this time period.
D: Whatever "guidelines" you might be referring to, the point still stands that the core combat systems in the Souls games have obvious Japanese roots. Also, while my comment about the BioWare and The Witcher games may have sounded sarcastic, I assure you I wasn't being sarcastic. For example, I already stated above: "Also, the dialogue choices and branching plots in WRPGs today seem like they borrowed those elements from Japanese visual novel games, which have been doing them for much longer and are still doing them a lot better." In addition, Mass Effect's cover-based TPS combat system is an evolution of Japanese TPS games like Resident Evil 4 and Kill Switch, BioWare cited Kingdom Hearts and FFXII as influences on Dragon Age, and CD Project cited the Souls combat systems (which are like Japanese hack & slash games) as influences on The Witcher's combat. If you want to argue that the Souls games were influenced by Western game design, the same could be said in reverse for BioWare and Witcher games.
E: Like I've already said above, other companies such as Sony, Nintendo, Enix and Tri-Ace were also releasing mainstream successful RPGs on consoles (with sales either in the millions, or approaching a million, in the US). And that's without even bringing handhelds into the equation. Your "Squaresoft only" argument would be flawed even if we limited the discussion to consoles. Being the market leader on consoles does not mean they were the only successful Japanese RPG company in the West during that era. Again, that's a non-sequitur.
@Tiger:
A: The stereotypes associated with Japanese role-playing games changed throughout the 1990s. In 1990, Computer Gaming World magazine, as well as Wizardry game designer Roe R. Adams, stereotyped Japanese console RPGs as action RPGs, contrasting them with turn-based American computer RPGs. In 1991, Computer Gaming World magazine refers to any computer RPG with real-time action combat as "Nintendo style" RPGs. In 1994, Dragon magazine noted that American computer RPG fans were still stereotyping Japanese RPGs as action RPGs, again contrasting them with turn-based American computer RPGs. It's not until 1997 that Japanese RPGs start being stereotyped as turn-based RPGs in the mould of Final Fantasy VII.
B: It looks like you agree with me on this point, so moving on...
C: The early North American examples you listed are Roguelikes, not action RPGs. They lack the arcade-style hack & slash combat that defined the action RPG style created by Falcom's Dragon Slayer (1984). The only ones out of those that come anywhere near are Gateway To Apshai (1983) and Icon (1984), but they lack actual RPG elements, making them action-adventures rather than action RPGs. Other early Japanese examples you missed out, by the way, include Falcom's Panorama Toh (1983), Bokosuka Wars (1983), Namco's The Tower of Druaga (1984), Hydlide (1984), and Dragon Buster (1984). Also, here are more Japanese action RPGs you missed out in your list:
1985
1986
1987
The sheer amount of Japanese action RPGs releasing during this time easily trumps the small number of North American attempts during this time period.
D: Whatever "guidelines" you might be referring to, the point still stands that the core combat systems in the Souls games have obvious Japanese roots. Also, while my comment about the BioWare and The Witcher games may have sounded sarcastic, I assure you I wasn't being sarcastic. For example, I already stated above: "Also, the dialogue choices and branching plots in WRPGs today seem like they borrowed those elements from Japanese visual novel games, which have been doing them for much longer and are still doing them a lot better." In addition, Mass Effect's cover-based TPS combat system is an evolution of Japanese TPS games like Resident Evil 4 and Kill Switch, BioWare cited Kingdom Hearts and FFXII as influences on Dragon Age, and CD Project cited the Souls combat systems (which are like Japanese hack & slash games) as influences on The Witcher's combat. If you want to argue that the Souls games were influenced by Western game design, the same could be said in reverse for BioWare and Witcher games.
E: Like I've already said above, other companies such as Sony, Nintendo, Enix and Tri-Ace were also releasing mainstream successful RPGs on consoles (with sales either in the millions, or approaching a million, in the US). And that's without even bringing handhelds into the equation. Your "Squaresoft only" argument would be flawed even if we limited the discussion to consoles. Being the market leader on consoles does not mean they were the only successful Japanese RPG company in the West during that era. Again, that's a non-sequitur.
A. You can't use small exception to what the majority of the west considered to be traits of Jrpgs. You are once again going in circles, and ignoring the dates of the items I shown above, again if you don't have a counter, you lost this argument. I provided 3 examples of instances in the later 90's showing that these traits were established at least a few years earlier for them to declare them "the unusual" for Jrpgs. I also gave you a game example, whch is celarly not a Wrpg, that you also have not actually directly countered. Please also keep in mind you are spinning out of your own argument and trying to change it by the end of this paragraph.
B. Not really, because no one says this.
C. Hard to be Rouge Likes before Rouge came out. In fact, the fact you called gateway to Asphai a rougelike is strikingly stupid regardless. Also bumping into enemies and the computer automatically attacking is a trait in a lot of the games I listed just like Dragon Slayer so you seem to be literally just trying to spin the definition. however, a TON OF GAMES on your list aren't Acton rpgs. AND A TON of the game son your list are released only in one country, while again, and you ignored this, my list were games RELEASED in multiple countries, including for a LOT of them, JAPAN. Thus my example would be what actually was over here for the west to even "look at" while your's is literally restricted. Again, what part of "West" is so hard to grasp? (Heck i included games released in Japan.) Although main point is a lot of those aren't Action Rpgs, (Hydelide really? Do you know how extensive I can make the west list is Hydelide is considered a Arpg? One of the many examples of games that aren't Arpg on the list.) You also used compilations (wow really that desperate?)
I mean if we use re-releases than almost all the previous westerngames release the next and sometimes the next two years padding the list severely, really?And then you put Druaga and zeld- you know what **** it.
Again let's do this a different way:
1982:
West:
West: 3 games
1983:
West:
West: 2 games
1984:
West:
East:
West: 3 games
East: 1 game
1985:
East:
West: 7 games
East: 7 games
1986:
West:
East:
West: 3 games
East: 6 games
1987:
East:
(I think one of these east games from your list is actually just a port of a non-japanese game but I'll look into that later, also lol at Zelda and other games not Arpgs, and lol at the compilation/rereleases. You also have a couple release dates wrong, but I'll pretend this is legit for you.)
West: 5 games
East: questionable 24 games (including packs, compilations, games that aren't Arpgs and wrong dates lol)
1988:
West:
East:
West: 4 games
East: 3 games
1989:
West:
East:
West: 8 games
East: 5 games
1990:
West:
East:
West: 4 games
East: 3 games
That's 39 games and 25 games excluding your horrid 87 and non-arpgs in others list, out f the game son your list that even qualify for your amended definition that would put East to max 30. However if Decide your list is 100% legit which makes no sense ( re-releases, Non-arpgs, Zelda, Wrong dates, and games that crosses the border with gauntlet) then it would be no more than an outlier. As The West wins more rounds excluding the 2 year head start. Which i changed up doing you a favor. But alas, realistically that 87 list is nonsense. Using the same logic used in that list I could have West destroy east, but I didn't. Because I know how to make a fair argument, In the end the West put out more games and started the genre, or at the very least, matched, Japanese Arpg output. Going past 1990 things become gradually a bloodbath in the Wests favor as well.
D. Which they don't. Souls play more like 90's Western WArpgs than 90's JArpgs. There are no similarities at all, the combat even matches some modern Wrpgs, the mechanics, the story, and the interaction is closer to Wrpgs, what you are doing is trying (and failing) to nitpick certain areas intentionally avoiding talking about the game as a whole. The same could NOT be said for the Witcher and Skyrim, who also are heavily related to previously released Wrpgs as a whole. You constantly try to say you can use the same argument but it's a desperate spin like saying that because Dragon Quest was inspired by Wizardry/Ultima, then Ultima 7 is inspired by Dragon Quest 5. it's a nonsense spin that makes no sense. You have a very terrible habit of shutting out everything about a game and focusing on one tibit. This is why nothing clicks with your brain and why people say Souls is a Wrpg, or why your Mass Effect example is horrendous. Rpgs have more than combat systems (souls combat leaning more toward Wprg than Jrpg anyway) and your whole primary argument here is only possible by pretending that only that exists.
E. All in your head. Let's look at Jrpgs released on the PSX the golden "era" pay attention to the formatting:
Underline is "Passable" to "good" while Bold is "very well" to "great" in terms of popularity, sales, and effective coverage in the west. You may notice this thing of all of these are niche releases that flopped or may have not had any effect. With the latter, most sales were from Japan. Let's be realistic here, this shows exactly what I am saying, it's literally Square (also notice I never said Square only try not being an ass) along with exception, and some ehh ok games. I can do this with the PS2/GC if you want as well. I'm just saying it's very clear this "huge successes" you're talking about barely exist. And it basiclaly remains the same for the generation after. All I see are a lot of games, not much that were actually "things" of any kind during the time. Lol at Tri-Ace, wtf are you talking about? maybe in japan sure, oh wait, you forgot we were talking about the west again? remembered I quoted YOU to remind you?
A: Dragon and Computer Gaming World were the leading American game magazines dedicated to computer RPGs during the early-mid-1990s. They demonstrate how American computer RPG fans perceived rival Japanese console RPGs during the early-mid-1990s, and the predominant perception at the time among American computer RPG fans was that Japanese console RPGs were arcade-style action RPGs. It's not until FFVII that the stereotypes of Japanese console RPGs changed. You can deny it as much as you want, but you do not have any sources earlier than FFVII to confirm whatever stereotypes it is that you have about "JRPGs", but the only sources we have prior to that stereotype Japanese console RPGs in a very different manner, as action RPGs rather than FF-style RPGs.
B: Okay.
C: I said Gateway to Asphai and ICON are action-adventures, because they lack proper experience leveling systems, but just level-up automatically when you clear a dungeon floor, much like Zelda, making them action-adventures rather than action RPGs. In comparison, Dragon Slayer and Hydlide have all the RPG statistics leveling-up as you defeat enemies, making them true action RPGs. D&D Intellivision is also an action-adventure, not an action RPG. Telengard is a turn-based Roguelike, where the enemies don't move or attack unless you move or attack. If the enemies have to wait for you to make a move, that makes it a turn-based RPG. In comparison, the enemies in Dragon Slayer and Hydlide independently charge towards you regardless of whether or not you move, and they will keep harming you unless you keep charging and bumping into them, like in the early Ys games. In Freitag and Zoarre, you just wait for an enemy to charge you and see who wins, never forcing you to attack the enemy yourself, making it just a random battle rather than action combat. I have no idea what you mean by "Super Q", since nothing comes up when searching that term. Excluding these, we have the following action RPGs:
1983
East: 3 games
1984
East: 5 games
West: 1 game
1985
East: 11 games
West: 5 games
1986
East: 10 games
West: 3 games
1987
East: 28 games
West: 5 games
1988
East: 18 games
West: 4 games
1989
East: 17 games
West: 8 games
1990
East: 8 games
West: 4 games
Total 1983-1990
East: 100 games
West: 30 games
Conclusion: Japan was producing the overwhelming majority of action RPGs during this time period.
D: The Souls games' combat systems have far more in common with modern Japanese action RPGs like Monster Hunter and Dragon's Dogma than they do with modern Western action RPGs like Skyrim or Dragon Age. The reason why the Souls games stand out are because their combat systems play differently from WRPGs like Skyrim and Dragon Age. The Souls games represent a fusion between Japanese and Western elements, so it's ridiculous to refer to them as just "WRPG". As for Mass Effect, I wasn't just referring to the TPS combat system, but also the fact that its dialogue choices and branching storylines are very similar to Japanese visual novel games, which have been doing them for much longer and still go much deeper with them. In addition, Mass Effect also borrowed ideas from Final Fantasy and particularly Star Ocean. The influence goes both ways, so stop trying to disingenuously present it as a one-way street.
E: Have you already forgotten about what I said about Tri-Ace? I already stated above: "And Tales of Symphonia wasn't the only exception either. Nintendo's Pokemon was a huge phenomenon that transcended the video game industry, just as Square's Final Fantasy and Kingdom Hearts did. In addition, Sony's Legend of Dragoon sold almost a million in the US, Mario role-playing games sold milions, Camelot's Golden Sun sold over 742,000 units in the US, Tri-Ace's Star Ocean 3 sold over 630,000 units in the US, etc." These numbers are clearly higher than the US sales figures for non-Square Japanese RPGs today. If your argument is that Squaresoft was the leading Japanese RPG developer at the time, then I never disagreed with that. What I was disagreeing with is your earlier suggestion that Squaresoft was the only mainstream successful Japanese RPG developer in the US at the time. And now it seems you've acknowledged that Squaresoft wasn't the only one.
Never was a huge fan of jrpgs but the level of enjoyment i get from bravely default is insane. I'd love another golden age of jrpgs just to experience more stuff like that.
No it didn't. The nicest thing anyway can say is that it looked pretty, otherwise it was about as much a battle system as hitting special features on a DVD.
Yes it did, It's the only thing that kept me going to finish the game.
Congratulations, you enjoyed a battle system with nothing to it other than sitting there and switching paradigms. No tactics, barely anything to manage, just a simple, straight forward, menu combat where you watch something happen on the screen. A shallow facade of a battle system.
Two of the best games of last gen were JRPGs (Valkyria Chronicles and The Last Remnant). I don't think there really is a quality problem with JRPGs. There aren't as many as there used to be, but when the market gets flooded, you have to sift through a whole lot of crap to find diamonds. I guess I'd listen to an argument that VC isn't a JRPG, though. It's kind of borderline.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment