FFXV broke even on dev costs in first 24 hours, JRPGs are dead.

@texasgoldrush Does it really matter if the souls series is inspired by ultima to some extent?

The combat, lore, rpg elements, are not. And the souls series success has nothing to do with it's ultima's or western roots. From Software is willing to make a game that trusts the players to be able to figure shit out, and has a lot of compelling lore, interesting world design and visual story telling. Dark Souls is refreshing because its NOT following western trends...

Ummmm....Ultima Underworld did the exact same thing, it trusted the player to figure things out and not only that, gave him some freedom in how to do so. Dark Souls fits right into the Looking Glass legacy and how it succeeds is almost the same way how its influences succeeded.

And? All games did back then. There's a lot more to the combat / lore / presentation that has nothing to do with with western development, Dark Souls has nothing to do with look glass's legacy now, except for a few initial inspirations from ultima/wizardry, its path is gone a separate way. There have been many more inspirations that are more core to Japanese in it now. Basically all you have is a flimsy connection to dungeon crawling where I'd argue DS isn't really. And that world building came more from ICO. That initial influence matters little considering why From Software has been succeeding now.

Has Berserk's (a fucking anime) art style, has Zelda's (a japanese game)core combat mechanic, has Metroid n Castlevania's (japanese games) brand of level design, and has a from software (japanese dev) rpgs stat progression, but it's part of the looking glass legacy.

lolk

It has ultima underworlds choice and consequence elements and old school dungeon crawler roots. Once again, here is the IGN video explaining its roots. And in fact, much of the combat and gameplay mechanics comes from their older games and most of the elements in the Souls series comes from their older games.

@texasgoldrush: He was speculating there in regards to Ultima Underworld. Take note of the words he used.

Dark Souls is very much a jRPG. Sorry your no true scotsman line of thinking prevents you from realizing that.

No, From Soft's games are once again rooted in old school dungeon crawlers, building of that. They skipped the entire Dragon Quest/Final Fantasy/Phantasy Star style of game.

Its not a "JRPG", but a western style RPG made in Japan. The JRPG follows the Dragon Quest/Final Fantasy/Phantasy Star template. Dark Souls does not.

Define this japanese style.

• Does Ys fall under it?
• Megami Tensei?
• Pokemon?
• SRPGs?
• Sengoku Rance?
• Rune Factory?
• Shiren the Wanderer?
• Hydlide?
• Dragon Slayer?
• Tower of Druaga?
• Sweet Home?

Much like wRPGs? jRPGs have a broad range of styles. Stop No True Scotsmanning.

@Maroxad: Some you listed are not what we call "JRPGs"

JRPGs follow a template set by Dragon Quest, Final Fantasy, and Phantasy Star. Hydlide, Dragon Slayer, and Tower of Daruga predate that. SRPGs like Ogre Battle fall under the template of Dragon Quest and others. So does Pokémon. Is their some variety in the template? Absolutely, but the template is still there.

Dark Souls and Dragon's Dogma do not fall under the JRPG template. Not all RPGs made in Japan are JRPGs, and some RPGs made in the West are JRPGs, like Child of Light.

@texasgoldrush: You still havent defined what the template is.

Edit: And no, those are called jRPGs. Regardless of whether you like it or not.

The template is, increasingly so through the years, an RPG where most of its gameplay revolves around its numbers game combat system and featuring a more linear story with not a lot of variance, with very little dialogue gameplay. They are basically adventure game style stories with numbers game combat systems.

The From Soft games do not have this template.

That is a lot of vague terminology in there. But awesome to know that Wizardry was a jRPG all along. Likewise, Persona is NOT a jRPG then I guess.

Hey @Jag85 what is the most vague? Baraminology or TexasGoldRush's definition of a jRPG?

@Maroxad: Persona absolutely fits the template, as does Tactics Ogre and the Ogre battle games, even though they allow you to make choices that affect things, it still falls in the template.

And no, what we consider JRPGs did not exist before Dragon Quest...once again its the template that Dragon Quest helped create. So your attempt at a joke fails because I didn't use that logic.

How so? Roughly half of Persona 3 and 4 involve engaging in dialogue with others, and if you want to min-max, scheduling dates to meet certain NPCs. When you talk to them you make multiple dialogue choices and these dialogue choices are generally significantly more impactful than those seen in Mass Effect. With some dialogue choices genuinely screwing you over. In addition, unlike wRPGs like Mass Effect, your stats as well as equipped Persona can impact the dialogue choices and outcome of a conversation with an NPC. There is a lot more gameplay in the dialogue in Persona, than there is in Mass Effect.

You do realize there were Wizardry games made after Dragon Quest 1, right? Why would... say the Dark Savant Trilogy not be classified as jRPGs? Not to mention, your definition seems extremely arbitary, as if you made that up on the fly at some point to suit your agenda.

But outside of that, Persona still lies in the JRPG camp. It just has a WRPG like feature. Do not get me wrong however, Persona is probably the best JRPG series right now because of features like this, but Persona is more rooted in the JRPG and combat is still very important.

No its not arbitrary, the JRPG genre I speak of, what was known before as "console RPGs", its a particular style and philosophy of for the most part, numbers game combat where combat is the primary gameplay experience....its the Dragon Quest/Final Fantasy/Phantasy Star type of game and JRPGs are these types of games. can they have variance, absolutely, but they use these titles as roots. From Soft absolutely skips the JRPG phase entirely and model directly after Dungeon Master, Wizardry, and Ultima Underworld type games, and brought something new to the table. Dark Souls simply put, is not a JRPG.

And Wizardry itself alone does not fit my criteria anyway as its got minimal story and the later Wizardry games are definitely WRPGs in style as well.

@texasgoldrush: Persona 3 and 4 are ass kissing simulators. Instead of saying what you want, you say what nets you the most points. By any means, that is TERRIBLE gameplay, especially for a ROLEPLAYING game. Especially since there is one objectively best path everywhere. Compare this to the likes of Kichikuou Rance (Sadistic King Rance), where you cant have your cake and eat it too. You will NEVER get a good ending with every character. You will screw up you cant achieve everything in one playthrough.

Persona 3 and 4 are a complete mess gameplaywise, both the social linking aspect and the dungeon crawling are terrible. Persona's aspects punish you for not gaming them. Sure, some paths should lead to worse results. But Rance and many others handled this so much better. Not like Persona 4's story is much better, the only way I could see someone enjoy a story with such poorly written characters and cliche written everywhere is if you have incredibly low standards. The game concerned itself with a search for truth. But the game had absolutely NOTHING to say about epistemology, and the characters were 2 dimensional and even the supposedly intelligent characters acted incredibly stupid.

But enough of my hatred for those 2 pieces of crap. You are still using extremely vague terms "its the Dragon Quest/Final Fantasy/Phantasy Star type of game" comes with no objective criteria.

How exactly does not Wizardry 8 fit into this. It features number based gameplay, witha very linear story with no real dialogue based gameplay and not a lot of variance. Are you abbandoning the very defintion you set up when it stopped being convenient for you?

Wizardry 8 still sticks with the roots. Also its formula predates the JRPG and Wizardry 8 sticks to that formula.

Sorry, but its not vague, because Dragon Quest and Final Fantasy's style (Phantasy Star was already there) evolved to be more narrative driven and the formula is built upon by Japanese developers. No longer emulating Ultima and Wizardry itself, the JRPG emulates Dragon Quest, Final Fantasy, and Phantasy Star while adding a "quirk" usually to set it apart. That's what we call "The JRPG" and that's the type of game referenced.

Once again, From Soft did not go the JRPG direction, instead continued building on its dungeon crawler roots. You could say that it has Japanese cRPG influences (which basically got wiped out), but King's Field is far too much of an Ultima Underworld dead ringer not to tie it to its influence.

Persona isn't great, its quite overrated, I will give you that, but it does beat out most console JRPG fodder today. Not much of an accomplishment. And no, Persona doesn't beat out Mass effect in choice and consequence as Mass Effect lets you alter key plot events, Persona doesn't.

You gave a criteria for a jRPG. And that definition just happened to fit in several of those games called wRPGs (which by the definition would you provided would fall under the jRPG camp).

Saying something in FF's style is still incredibly vague. There is a reason I compared your reasoning to that of Baraminology. Much like Baraminologists seem to use a non-objective criteria to determine what a Kind is (as opposed to Linnean taxonomy which is coherrent and well put out). You use vague terms and defintions because that allows oyu to move the goalposts indefinitely and maintain no standards of coherrency, much like a Baraminologist. Even Roguelike can be classified just as easily as sorting between vertebraes and invertebraes.

Roguelike means game that plays like rogue. But classifying games under that category is very easy.

• One life
• No reloading/reverting time
• Game is fully randomly generated, this does not only include maps, but also the items you come across

Anything that passes this criteria gets passed as a roguelike for most people.

jRPG just means RPG from japan. It is arguably the only non-vague criteria we can add. From Software burrowed from the likes of Zelda, Castlevania, Metroid. So there is PLENTY of Japanese in the Souls games.

How the hell does the likes of Fire Emblem emulate Final Fantasy Anyways?

@Maroxad: LOL i didn't know you know what Rance was. You played any of those sh*t?

But outside of that, Persona still lies in the JRPG camp. It just has a WRPG like feature. Do not get me wrong however, Persona is probably the best JRPG series right now because of features like this, but Persona is more rooted in the JRPG and combat is still very important.

Persona 3 & 4 are part visual novel, part dating sim, and part dungeon-crawler, a far cry from FF. And the original Persona had first-person dungeon-crawling, again a far cry from FF. As for Persona's dialogue choices, they come from Japanese visual novels, not WRPGs (though the narrative choices in Persona, as well as WRPGs, are shallow compared to visual novels). And the way social links are integrated with the gameplay, that comes from Japanese SRPGs.

No its not arbitrary, the JRPG genre I speak of, what was known before as "console RPGs", its a particular style and philosophy of for the most part, numbers game combat where combat is the primary gameplay experience....its the Dragon Quest/Final Fantasy/Phantasy Star type of game and JRPGs are these types of games. can they have variance, absolutely, but they use these titles as roots.

You seem to be referring to what was known as "console-style RPG" in the West, or "light RPG" in Japan. But that's just one type of JRPG, among several others, including ARPGs, SRPGs, dungeon-crawlers, and roguelikes, which all have their own Japanese schools of design, distinct from DQ/FF. Also, the original Phantasy Star for the Sega Master System had first-person dungeon-crawling, not unlike Dungeon Master released the same year, except Phantasy Star also had an overworld and a stronger narrative focus.

From Soft absolutely skips the JRPG phase entirely and model directly after Dungeon Master, Wizardry, and Ultima Underworld type games, and brought something new to the table.

Souls didn't "skip" Dragon Quest, but Miyazaki cited it as an influence, along with Zelda and Ico (while making no mention of Dungeon Master or UU at all). The original DQ had plenty of similar gameplay elements to Dark Souls: You had an open-ended world limited only by your abilities, only one save/spawn point, heavy penalties for failure, little to no guidance unless talking to people, and you're just a single lone warrior dropped into the world, told about the final boss, and had to work the rest out on your own. And that's on top of other Japanese influences we've already discussed extensively, from Zelda and Ico to Castlevania and Berserk, not to mention Otogi and Monster Hunter. What Souls brought new to the table was its Japanese game design, which distinguished it from WRPGs.

Sengoku

Kichikuou

Notice a pattern :P

@Jag85:But Persona still follows the template that makes it a JRPG, with a focus on its numbers game combat. It checks most boxes of what we consider JRPGs. It has dating sim elements which is unique for the genre. Japanese SRPGs also follow the template as do action RPGs like Secret of Mana. Yes, JRPGs can vary in how it deals with combat and exploration but they have a common template. WRPGs on the other hand, do not have a common template at all.

The template is erratic at first, but after the SNES era and into the PS era, it became clear. The styles between the JRPG and the WRPG become apparent around 1997.

Once again, most elements of Dark Souls comes from King's Field, which once again, is an Ultima Underworld dead ringer. Its rooted in a an old school dungeon crawler, the other influences you listed are branch influences only. They color the experience, but they are not its roots. And what Dragon Quest does for failure is the same way Ultima did it. Every time you died in Ultima, you would get revived by Lord British with an experience penalty.

But Persona still follows the template that makes it a JRPG, with a focus on its numbers game combat. It checks most boxes of what we consider JRPGs. It has dating sim elements which is unique for the genre. Japanese SRPGs also follow the template as do action RPGs like Secret of Mana. Yes, JRPGs can vary in how it deals with combat and exploration but they have a common template. WRPGs on the other hand, do not have a common template at all.

Persona doesn't follow the DQ/FF template, but follows the Megami Tensei template, which in turn is rooted in Japanese PC dungeon-crawlers, such as Cosmic Soldier (which predates DQ/FF). Persona 3 expanded the Persona template with visual novel and dating sim elements, shifting the gameplay focus away from combat, towards social simulation, so it certainly doesn't fit your combat-focused criteria. ARPGs and SRPGs are rooted in Japanese computer RPGs that also predate DQ/FF (e.g. ARPGs like Hydlide and Dragon Slayer, and SRPGs like Dragon & Princess and Bokosuka Wars). There is no common template for JRPGs.

The template is erratic at first, but after the SNES era and into the PS era, it became clear. The styles between the JRPG and the WRPG become apparent around 1997.

And then JRPGs and WRPGs evolved in the following decade, to the point where modern JRPGs and WRPGs now have more in common with each other, than they do with classic JRPGs/WRPGs from the '90s.

Once again, most elements of Dark Souls comes from King's Field, which once again, is an Ultima Underworld dead ringer. Its rooted in a an old school dungeon crawler, the other influences you listed are branch influences only. They color the experience, but they are not its roots. And what Dragon Quest does for failure is the same way Ultima did it. Every time you died in Ultima, you would get revived by Lord British with an experience penalty.

According to Hidetaka Miyazaki, he set out to make Souls into a vastly different game from King's Field, keeping only a handful of elements while replacing everything else with his own ideas. And most of his ideas came from other Japanese games (e.g. Zelda, Ico, DQ, Otogi, Castlevania, Monster Hunter) and manga (e.g. Berserk, Saint Seiya, Devilman, JoJo's Bizarre Adventure).

As for KF, the reason UU is a common comparison point is because of the real-time 3D engine (which JRPGs like Wibarm and Star Cruiser did before UU), or else KF would've been compared to earlier first-person dungeon-crawlers instead, or even FPS like Doom (which several reviews compared it to at the time). Besides, KF is heavily combat-focused (and harder), whereas UU is exploration-focused (and easier). According to your combat-focused criteria above, KF is a JRPG.

And finally, regarding the original DQ, what really made it similar to Souls is that, the world is open-ended and you can go anywhere, but what's stopping you are the tough enemies (unlike Ultima). IIRC, you were criticizing DQ for this very reason before, claiming that DQ was not truly open-ended if the tough enemies were getting in the way of exploration. And yet that's a core game design element of Souls.