Upcoming jrpg's VS Upcoming wrpg's & crpg's, which side interests you more?

@bussinrounds said:

I see Maroxad giving uninformed weeks and modern WRPG fans the old 101 on RPGs again, huh ?

I often feel that some people here in general lack perspective, and dismiss others claims because of that lack of perspective. There are so many people here denying that Persona 3 and 4 Borrowed a LOT from dating sims. Likewise, I have seen people assert that Skyrim is not heavily dumbed down, and that it is the perfect balance of depth and accessability (I would argue that the perfect balance of depth and accessability was Baldur's Gate 2). Easy enough so that my 10 year old self could get into it, but enough depth so that I can still enjoy it as an adult. On the topic of education, :P

"Learn or Burn!"

-The battlecry my Fire Emblem Conquest character uses (Note: He is a sorceror and his main spell is a fire spell called Smite Ignorance)

If you have only properly played badly written wRPGs, you probably dont have enough perspective to make a comment like this.

Planescape: Torment is the most well written RPG there, regardless of the j or w that comes before the RPG. Britannia is far more compelling of a universe than any Final Fantasy world.

Do you know what else had an open world with day-night cycles and NPC schedules? Dragon Quest III, which not only did it two years before Ultima VI, but even released a month before Ultima V. Dragon Quest IV & V also had those mechanics, and added new mechanics of their own, like DQIV's AI-based Tactics system and DQV's monster-capture system (five years before Pokemon). DQ5's storytelling was also groundbreaking, dealing with mature themes that are rarely dealt with in video game narratives to this day. And this was from Dragon Quest, the most mainstream RPG franchise in Japan. It's a shame later DQ games became so safe and stale, but the early DQ games were known for experimentation, despite being mainstream.

JRPG for me, but I am super pumped for Horizon and especially Deus Ex. After Dragon Age Inquisition, I have little hope for Mass Effect.

Souls has some of the worst combat in any RPG that i've played. Bloodborne is better than the other though. But the combat generally boils down to pure hit and run tactics where you're spending alot of time baiting or waiting for the enemies to strike. The games story/world are incredibly immersive but the combat is incredibly tedious.

I'm looking more forward to those upcoming JRPGs than I am the WRPGs.

JRPGs are yummy. I'm all game for them.

1. WRPGs are heavily reliant on tropes and cliches popularized by Tolkien and D&D.

2. Why exclude ARPGs and SRPGs? They still count as JRPGs.

3. You can complete most Squaresoft games of the 16-bit and 32-bit eras, for example, without ever really having to grind.

4. Most video game stories in general are trite garbage.

5. On the non-combat side, JRPGs often have mini-games, puzzles, platforming, or dating sim elements.

6. I'll give you this one, for the most part.

7. Why use an MMORPG as an example for this point?

Ultima 5 had NPC schedules as well ;)

But I mentioned U6 because it did them much more indepth. Unlike DQ4 which i recall only having day and night change while travelling and thus only really having 2 states. Ultima 6 and 7 would have day and night change at any point in time.

Wizardry 4 did mons before dragon quest 5 did. And Ultima 5 dealt with Mature themes before Dragon Quest 5 came out. Wizardry 7 and DQ5 came out in the same year. Wizardry 7 also dealt with mature themes. So no, DQ dealing with mature themes were nothing new.

Edit: On the topic of Wizardry 7, that game would have you compete against rival parties to complete the quest. Other parties could, if you stalled long enough snag the treasures, including the "triforce pieces" before you, if you took too long. The rival parties could also hunt down the other parties and kill them.

1. Not to the same extent as jRPGs are. Whereas most tropes in wRPGs would be found in the worldbuilding, the tropes in jRPGs would be found in the storyline itself. Of course, there is the BioWare Cliche chart, but while you can make one that is exclusive to that company, you could make one that would encompass the whole jRPG genre (of ocurse, there would be exceptions, but it would be easier to do a cliche chart for jRPGs than it would for wRPGs).
2. I am not excluding them. They do count, I was merely stating that jRPGs devs generally speaking do ARPG combat better than wRPG devs do. Dragon's Dogma, Dark Souls or anything by Falcom is definately more fun than the ilk of Dragon Age's or Skyrim's godawful combat systems. I take back my statement on SRPGs though, western games do those better (Jagged Alliance 2's combat system is significantly more indepth than Tactics Ogre, Fire Emblem, Final Fantasy Tactics and that PoS known as Disgaea). Unfortunately, the majority of jRPGs that were released had these terrible menu based battle systems that were inferior to Wizardry's system. That is what I am arguing for.
3. You do have a point there, I never grinded in Final Fantasy. However, these jRPGs are still designed around you dealing with the same random encounters over and over which can be seen as a grind, whereas something like Dark Sun: Shattered Lands every single encounter would be meaningful to either the story or meaningful in terms of uniqueness. This wasnt exclusive to The Dark Sun either.
4. Agreed. But at least wRPGs were not as prone to push the narrative on you as jRPGs did.
5. And those platforming, and minigames were generally pretty disconnected from the main experience, unless you refer to the mario RPGs. The puzzles in jRPGs were nowhere near as well designed as in those in wRPGs, and the dating sim elements... ugh. I dont know how you jRPG fans recieve them, but in the wRPG community, they get nothing but scorn and ridicule. Anyways, the reason I argue for that wRPGs have done it better is because they have done world simulation (though jRPGs are doing this too, with Rune Factory for instance), proper side quests (that can be approached in multiple ways, can be failed, can have branching paths, ect),
6. Fair enough
7. Guild Wars 1 was as much of an mmorpg as Diablo 3 was. It required an internet connection and allowed you to play with other players... but that was it. You would only ever interact with or see people in your own party, losing the whole massively multiplayer bit. But if you dont like that example, any D&D licensed game, especially the gold box games or Temple of Elemental Evil, RTwP kinda messed up some of the spells in BG2. If licenced games are unacceptable, then ADOM, Nethack. If roguelikes are not good enough, Ultima starting with 4. If you want me to do something other than gushing Ultima all day, Wizardry, especially in the Dark Savant Trilogy. For more examples, the older TES games before they whole system down to the godawful in every way system found in Skyrim. For something more modern, Divinity: Original Sin was widely praised for its magic system and while Pillars of Eternity suffered a lot due to Josh Sawyer's fear of imbalance, it still had a more compelling spell system than pretty much any jRPG I played.

JRPG for me.

Persona 5

SMT final

NieR Automata

Final Fantasy XV

Final Fantasy VII Remake

Kingdom hearts 3

I am Setsuna

Odin Sphere

Star Ocean 5

Dragon Quest XI

The only WRPG I'm excited is Horizon, I just love the look of that game.

I know. That's why I mentioned that DQ3 came out even before Ultima 5.

Megami Tensei also had the monster-capture concept the same year that Wizardry 4 released. And a Japanese computer RPG called Cosmic Soldier had it two years before both of them.

I was referring to mature themes specific to DQ5, not mature themes in general. For example, DQ5 dealt with themes such as slavery, marriage, pregnancy, and parenthood, themes that are rarely explored in video games to this day.

1. Not to the same extent as jRPGs are. Whereas most tropes in wRPGs would be found in the worldbuilding, the tropes in jRPGs would be found in the storyline itself. Of course, there is the BioWare Cliche chart, but while you can make one that is exclusive to that company, you could make one that would encompass the whole jRPG genre (of ocurse, there would be exceptions, but it would be easier to do a cliche chart for jRPGs than it would for wRPGs).
2. I am not excluding them. They do count, I was merely stating that jRPGs devs generally speaking do ARPG combat better than wRPG devs do. Dragon's Dogma, Dark Souls or anything by Falcom is definately more fun than the ilk of Dragon Age's or Skyrim's godawful combat systems. I take back my statement on SRPGs though, western games do those better (Jagged Alliance 2's combat system is significantly more indepth than Tactics Ogre, Fire Emblem, Final Fantasy Tactics and that PoS known as Disgaea). Unfortunately, the majority of jRPGs that were released had these terrible menu based battle systems that were inferior to Wizardry's system. That is what I am arguing for.
3. You do have a point there, I never grinded in Final Fantasy. However, these jRPGs are still designed around you dealing with the same random encounters over and over which can be seen as a grind, whereas something like Dark Sun: Shattered Lands every single encounter would be meaningful to either the story or meaningful in terms of uniqueness. This wasnt exclusive to The Dark Sun either.
4. Agreed. But at least wRPGs were not as prone to push the narrative on you as jRPGs did.
5. And those platforming, and minigames were generally pretty disconnected from the main experience, unless you refer to the mario RPGs. The puzzles in jRPGs were nowhere near as well designed as in those in wRPGs, and the dating sim elements... ugh. I dont know how you jRPG fans recieve them, but in the wRPG community, they get nothing but scorn and ridicule. Anyways, the reason I argue for that wRPGs have done it better is because they have done world simulation (though jRPGs are doing this too, with Rune Factory for instance), proper side quests (that can be approached in multiple ways, can be failed, can have branching paths, ect),
6. Fair enough
7. Guild Wars 1 was as much of an mmorpg as Diablo 3 was. It required an internet connection and allowed you to play with other players... but that was it. You would only ever interact with or see people in your own party, losing the whole massively multiplayer bit. But if you dont like that example, any D&D licensed game, especially the gold box games or Temple of Elemental Evil, RTwP kinda messed up some of the spells in BG2. If licenced games are unacceptable, then ADOM, Nethack. If roguelikes are not good enough, Ultima starting with 4. If you want me to do something other than gushing Ultima all day, Wizardry, especially in the Dark Savant Trilogy. For more examples, the older TES games before they whole system down to the godawful in every way system found in Skyrim. For something more modern, Divinity: Original Sin was widely praised for its magic system and while Pillars of Eternity suffered a lot due to Josh Sawyer's fear of imbalance, it still had a more compelling spell system than pretty much any jRPG I played.

1. The only real difference I see is where they get their tropes from. JRPGs get a lot of their tropes from anime and manga. WRPGs get a lot of their tropes from Tolkien and Hollywood.

2. Isn't Jagged Alliance more of a turn-based tactics series rather than a tactical RPG series? Wouldn't that make it more comparable to, say, Nintendo Wars, rather than Fire Emblem or FF Tactics?

3-4. I agree with some of these points.

5. I'd have to disagree about the puzzles. Lufia II and Alundra, for example, had some of the most well-designed puzzles I've seen in any genre.

7. I meant examples of spells, not examples of games.

Now, that I am done with that exam, I will have more time to answer.

1. From the jRPGs I have played. I have noticed some very frequently reoccuring themes. Coming of age stories, Teenage Heroes (possibly young adult), Mario is an exception for having a middle aged man. Your town gets destroyed, places of power. Actually, let me just link this, http://project-apollo.net/text/rpg.html
2. Honestly, at htis point I dont know anymore. Some people classify Jagged Alliance 2 as a strategy RPG and frequently gets a spot among the greatest RPGs ever made, others just classify it as strategy or just tactics. The game has equipment (weapons, ammo, armor, miscelanous gear), dialogue, soldiers with stats, level ups, character creation, open ended gameplay where you can speed run the game in around 5 minutes.
3. (regarding 5) fair enough.
4. On the top of my head...

Wish: You get to wish for pretty much any item or event. Type it in and there you go. Excellent with lots of potential for emergent gameplay. But also drains an attribute by 10 points.
Spell Sequencer: Store 3 level 4 (or lower) at the same time. Think dualcasting from Final Fantasy. But more proactive. Great for setting up a fight.
Levitation: It was there in morrowind and Daggerfall. I still miss it :( It allowed the user to fly.
Armageddon: Kills everyone in the world except for you and Lord British and makes the game unwinnable.
(Greater) Invisibility: Makes your character invisible, having both applications in and out of combat.
Time Stop: Stops time. Allowing you to move while everything else is at a standstill.
Trap: Allows you to place a trap one the floor. What does the trap do? You can insert spells in them. Those spells will then impact the target. You can insert whatever spell you want provided you have the mana for it. Combine this with Detonate trap, and you can truly control the pace of the battle.
Wall: Conjures a breakable wall.
Telekenesis: Move objects around. In Divinity: Original Sin, this is not a spell, but a skill though.
Mark+Teleport to Location: Mark where you stand, teleport to location allows you to teleport there.
Psimatic Chaos: May inflict random status ailments on all enemies. (Think Bad Breath in Final Fantasy, but better because status ailments are not useless).
Death Cloud/Cloudkill: May instantly kill random enemies every turn standing on it.
Midnight Oil: Creates a flammable surface which heavily slows down any who walk upon it.
Teleportation: Teleports and deals minor damage to a character.
Mass Disease: Dramatically saps the max HP of all enemies.
Smokescreen: Creates a smokescreen, preventing any line of sight passing that area, allowing you to protect against mages and archers.
Banish/Destroy Summon: Instakills a summon.
Rain: Causes a downpour, making everyone wet, putting out fires, and may even clear terrain.
Tornado: Removes terrain, as well as various buffs and debuffs on friends and foes alike.

1. There are similar lists floating around for WRPGs. For example: Western RPG Cliches. And then of course there's the BioWare Cliche Chart you mentioned before. Every genre has its own set of tropes, cliches and conventions.

2. Well, the line between SRPG and turn-based tactics is pretty thin.

3. Thanks for the spell list. Not sure if I could come up with a similar list for JRPGs (I'd need quite a bit of free time), but ones that immediately come to mind are Chrono Trigger's double-tech and triple-tech combo spells. Chrono Trigger's multi-character combo spell system was a unique gameplay innovation at the time, and helped give the turn-based combat system more of an arcade-like feel (along with the fast pace).

4. Speaking of Chrono Trigger, that also had quite a few other innovations, e.g. New Game Plus, full-blown mini-games, more than a dozen different endings, exploring the game world in multiple different time periods, etc. And again, this was a mainstream JRPG.

1. That list is a lot smaller than the one I listed. However, I agree with the tropes listed save for 2 (Which ironically is closer to the opposite, since BioWare and bethesda gaems are the ones being compared to Call of Duty, not the non-BioWare and bethesda games). 8 (Infant Immortality) is new to the genre, and in the past, it was not uncommon to be able to kill them. Fallout 1 and 2 had even a child killer reputation which would dramatically hurt your reputation. 6 is so true, and that is why I am reluctant to recommend older wRPGs. If you can dive into them, they are an absolute blast to play. But chances are most people will give up before that happens. It is not just harder controls and UI either. Another issue is that they were a lot more punishing, Wizardry 1-5 had the gone status. A permanent stat loss of 1 constitution/vitality for every death was not uncommon. Characters would age, and eventually lose stats and die.

2. That is true. I a sure you already knew this, but levelling up actually originated from the veterancy system found in turn based tactical wargames. Where a veteran was typically twice as powerful as a greenhorn and a elite was twice as powerful as a veteran.

3. The Chrono Trigger double and triple tech was interesting to say the least. But that was the system itself as opposed to the spells, the triple techs and double techs them selves were almost always a healing tech or a damage dealing tech. The only difference was Lifeline which cast auto life on everyone. The only jRPG that I can think of with interesting skill design is Pokemon. Which did a lot of the things Divinity Original Sin did, but long before. Anyways, the Double and Triple Tech system was brilliant, and it is a shame it wasnt expanded and built upon by other jRPGs.

4. New Game Plus Existed in Zelda, and Super Mario Brothers. While Chrono Trigger arguably did it first for an RPG it was done in other genres before. System Shock 1 did Minigames before, but that isnt really an RPG, so your point still stands. Ultima 2 did Time Travel before CT, but Chrono Trigger did it better. Wizardry 4 did multiple endings long before Chrono Trigger, or Megami Tensei 2 were around. In Wizardry 6, the ending you got, would have an actual impact on your gameplay the sequel, Wizardry 7. Something BioWare struggles with even today.

Personally my most hyped rpgs are Torment, Divinity:OS 2, and Mount & Blade 2, so I'll go with wrpg.

I feel like I've outgrown jrpgs for some reason. They just don't hold my attention like they used to.

He's not wrong considering the legacy and effect both of these games had on gaming. None of the JRPGs even come close to what these franchise did for gaming.

Mass Effect, Scalebound, Deus Ex(I wouldn't call that an RPG though) are the only ones Im interested in. I'm not even done yet with Fallout 4 and DAI, my goal is to finish at least 1 of those this summer, and the other by the end of the year because I need a clean plate for the Mass Effect game.

If I have more free time, I'll check out the Witcher 3 DLC.....I might be interested in more if I had the time, but Im struggling as is to finish last year RPG games so I'm only interested in what I consider absolute must-haves. Scalebound looks fun and fresh with its 4Player coop and emphasis on Dragons, but Ill be a little cautious with that purchase since we haven't seen much about it.

Deus ex I already preordered, loved the first game, huge fan of sci fi stories like that with cyborgs and the like. As for Mass Effect, day 1 no matter what.

1. The interface and controls are definitely one of the things that made older WRPGs difficult to get into, before Diablo and the Infinity Engine games made the genre more accessible.

2. Pretty much. D&D originated from Chainmail, a tactical wargame. And in turn, tactical wargames have their roots in strategy board games like Chess and Go. Even in Chess, there was a kind of primitive level-up mechanic, where a pawn can "level up" into a queen/bishop/knight/rook.

3. Fair enough.

4.Even the original Dragon Quest had multiple endings, a year before Wizardry 4. The innovation on Chrono Trigger's part was the sheer number of endings. While DQ1 and Ultima 7 had 4 endings each, Wizardy 4 had 5 endings, and Wizardry 6 had 3 endings, Chrono Trigger had a staggering 18 endings.

You are correct with point 1 and 2. As much as I prefer old school wRPGs over the modern stuff, I must admit they are not for everyone. In 90's 80's and early 00's wRPGs, I would almost always play a mage. But in the majority of modern RPGs (save for Divinity), I am always playing as a warrior. What happened unfortunately is that they streamlined the mage too much, removed too many of its toys, making it go from a potential support and control class to an archer that flings fireballs. I dont think you were around in SW back then. But I raged hardcore when ArenaNet unveiled the new Mesmer for Guild Wars 2. Turning a sophisiticated class with an emphasis on subtlety into the class with butterflies and purple lasers.

Sheer number of endings is not an innovatoin, besides, the number of endings in Chrono Trigger was absolutely dwarfed by the ammount of endings you could have in Princess Maker 2, which came out a few years prior. But you are right about Dragon Quest 1, forgot about the whole skipping saving the princess bit. I was probably wrong to say that mainstream jRPGs were static and uninnovative. Still, I wonder why they generally felt less ambitious than their western counterparts.

I must say, I enjoy discussing RPGs with you. As you are quite knowledgeable. While we have different tastes, that is great, because I am not a fan of echo chambers.

@Jag85: @Maroxad: This forum desperately needs knowledgeable posters who know what they are talking about in regards to RPGs. Keep up the good work guys.

JRPGs: Persona 5, Ni no Kuni II, Final Fantasy XV, Pokemon Sun and Moon, Star Ocean 5

WRPGs: Horizon: Zero Dawn

I guess JRPGs win.

I was around here when Guild Wars 2 came out, but I wasn't much of a regular back then. I haven't played Guild Wars 2, but is its magic system basically like other MMOs, like WOW, FFXI, or TERA?

While not an entirely original innovation, CT was pushing boundaries when it came to multiple endings. While there were a few games in other genres with more endings, CT had the most endings for an RPG when it came out. About DQ1, along with the princess thing, it had an ending where the hero joins forces with the villain (like in Streets of Rage).

Mainstream JRPGs and WRPGs were ambitious in different ways. For example, there's a 1993 review of FF4 by WRPG game designer Sandy Petersen for Dragon magazine where he describes ways in which it pushed boundaries compared to the Ultima series. He noted that Ultima felt more like playing through a tabletop RPG while FF4 felt more like playing through an interactive fantasy novel (comparing it to LOTR and Man in the Iron Mask), that in Ultima the playable party sticks together (like a tabletop RPG) while in FF4 the playable characters are individuals with their own motives (like a fantasy novel), and that Ultima had greater depth to its combat while FF4's combat was more finely-tuned for challenge.

This is one of the more interesting discussions I've had here in a while. It's nice to have a discussion with someone else who is into classic RPGs, and knowledgable about the subject.

Guild Wars 2 doesnt really have a magic system. Magic acts the exact same way weapons do. There is no mana cost for any spell. The different elements is cosmetic only. And spells damage reduction comes from armor. The debuffs have been homogenized too, -10 attack, -10 defense, ect. So no real interesting spell effects either. Fearing imbalance, they Josh Sawyered it (several years before Pillars of Eternity, nonetheless). Resulting in a metagame nearly entirely designed around numbers. Not only alienating the old GW1 fans, but also resulting in far less viable builds that was found in the predecessor. In GW1, some classes would have around 10 metagame builds, and people would make variations on those metabuilds because otherwise they were too easy to counter. In GW2, each class would have 1 metagame build. If even that.

Final Fantasy 4 definately had better and more challenging bosses than Ultima Unless you consider chucking a crystal into a fire while a nazgul is standing on it or entering 4 cards to be challenging. Wizardry definately had some challenging encounters here and there though, and the Gold Box games had a more challenging combat system as well. And what you say makes sense, I felt was one of the key differences between jRPGs and wRPGs is what experience they wanted to provide, jRPGs were into providing players with a narrative focused journey (reading a fantasy novel), whereas western RPGs were more into worldbuilding and immersing the player into the world. Not even Baldur's Gate, or other BioWare games were as focused on the journey as jRPGs were.

Of course, nearing the end of the 7th gen, the line got increasingly blurred so that the placer of origin might be the best way to define them again (though this might cause issues with games like Mount and Blade, which is a Turkish game, a country whose status as a western country is up to debate).

I heard good things about GW2 before, but that sounds like a downgrade compared to other MMOs.

I guess that's one way of putting it. In terms of mainstream titles, JRPGs were usually more focused on the journey, while WRPGs were usually more focused on the world.

Same could be said for The Witcher, since Poland was an Eastern nation throughout the Cold War and didn't officially become a Western nation until it joined the EU just over a decade ago.

I'd take Divinity 2 over any upcomming JRPG alone. Add in Deus Ex, Mass Effect, Horizon, etc......It isn't even close. Or fair.

Looking forward to Cyberpunk 2077, divinity os 2, torment, and some other less mainstream titles on steam