this is why i defend a broader definition. the definition of JRPG is very loose to begin with. i'm just showing it by bringing out the main games that supposedly "define" the genre and show how little they connect to each other. they all fit the "RPG" definition, but what makes all of them JRPGs? what puts them under that supposedly more specific flag? it's not as much an outlying feature as it is a completely different kind of game, played by different crowds with different tastes. both amnesia and resident evil are under the same "broad" flag of survival horror. after all, both games emphasize on fear, and scarce supplies to an extent. now if someone bothered making "shoot zombies" a defining factor of survival horror, or come up with a specific subgenre for it (survival horror shooter or whatever), then the games would be separated. so this is the problem: JRPG is supposed to be a subgenre, a specification of something broader (RPG), but that specification just doesn't work, as i mentioned above. the outlying features you keep talking about are what discern them inside the RPG genre, not the JRPG genre. an example of a well defined subgenre is the military FPS. it's simple, it's specific, and the outliers don't break the definition: "it's a first person shooter with a military setting".BrunoBRS

Well I suggest a few things.

1. Begin seperating each, and every JRPG into it's own sub-genre for all to enjoy

or

2. Don't read too much into it, and attempt to understand what someone means when they start talking about genres

I follow number 2 myself as the first is just too time-consuming, and would result in such a mess that nobody would use it. I don't agree with the idea of picking apart each and every game just to find one or two features that should seperate it from the rest. I understand both Resident Evil and Amnesia as Survival Horror games just as I understand both Quake, and STALKER as FPS games.

But I do keep in mind their differences for such an occasion as when someone asks for a recommendation for a game.

If they want a scary game that's unlike Resident Evil then I'll give them Amnesia

If they want a multiplayer FPS that'll put their skills to the test then I'll show them Quake, and not STALKER.

and if they want a JRPG that reminds them of their good old days of playing Final Fantasy, Dragon Warrior, or Super Mario RPG you know what I will not recommend? Dark Souls.

Boring game throughout.

No doubt the Rockstar hype train, and advertising muscle is what shot this game to 13 million. However, other games were more deserving of it based on quality

[QUOTE="SW__Troll"]

[QUOTE="BrunoBRS"]

yeah, but the key mechanic to all those games remain the same: it's in first person, and you shoot". whereas the "key mechanic" to a so-called JRPG varies from person to person, from art direction, to the way the story feels, to the combat system, etc. and those mechanics are usually very different from game to game.

dragon quest has turn based combat while tales has action combat (and let's not even bring baten kaitos into the equation), final fantasy plays, looks and controls completely different from game to game, chrono trigger has a branching storyline with more than a dozen endings, the early final fantasy games have absolutely no trace of anime influence to their character design, monster hunter, good god monster hunter couldn't be less like your typical JRPG.

those are just a few examples i came up with in 2 minutes. the differences between these games aren't the same between, say, quake and CoD. it's more like the difference between quake and gears of war. there's a small connection to them (shooting), but that connection doesn't justify an entire subgenre.

BrunoBRS

But you're still basing your argument off outliers.

And you're shoving games like Monster Hunter under the JRPG banner; not me.

As I said if you continue to ONLY look at outliers then you begin to realize that none of the genres should exist as they all borrow from each other.

Exceptions do not make, nor break, the rule.

But if you're keen to compare

If what makes a FPS is it's shooting then what makes an RPG? Because I can most certainly tell you now that combat is not the key feature of an RPG.

I wasn't talking about the games, but rather the features you were listing.

Take Elder Scrolls for example. It's outlying feature is its first person combat which involves shooting as well.

Its outlying feature does not take away from it being an RPG does it?

Despite some JRPGs sharing one or two features with some other genre does not nullify the other 100 features they share with their own genre.

As I've said multiple times if you're going to pick apart a handful of choice Japanese games, and start claiming they don't fit anywhere in the JRPG genre then you might as well refrain from using genre definitions at all.

Not all survival horror games play the same, not all platformers play the same, not all shooters play the same, nor all racing games the same.

It's not too hard to understand.

Take Resident Evil and Amnesia for instance.

Both play radically different in that they use different controls, and camera perspective. Both have different art styles, and combat mechanics, among other things.

But they're both part of the survival horror genre right?

Why wouldn't the same logic be applied to JRPGs?

yeah, but the key mechanic to all those games remain the same: it's in first person, and you shoot". whereas the "key mechanic" to a so-called JRPG varies from person to person, from art direction, to the way the story feels, to the combat system, etc. and those mechanics are usually very different from game to game.

dragon quest has turn based combat while tales has action combat (and let's not even bring baten kaitos into the equation), final fantasy plays, looks and controls completely different from game to game, chrono trigger has a branching storyline with more than a dozen endings, the early final fantasy games have absolutely no trace of anime influence to their character design, monster hunter, good god monster hunter couldn't be less like your typical JRPG.

those are just a few examples i came up with in 2 minutes. the differences between these games aren't the same between, say, quake and CoD. it's more like the difference between quake and gears of war. there's a small connection to them (shooting), but that connection doesn't justify an entire subgenre.

BrunoBRS

But you're still basing your argument off outliers.

And you're shoving games like Monster Hunter under the JRPG banner; not me.

As I said if you continue to ONLY look at outliers then you begin to realize that none of the genres should exist as they all borrow from each other.

Exceptions do not make, nor break, the rule.

But if you're keen to compare

If what makes a FPS is it's shooting then what makes an RPG? Because I can most certainly tell you now that combat is not the key feature of an RPG.

[QUOTE="SW__Troll"]

bbkkristian

...What are the X/Y variables? aka. What is being compared in the graph? :P Is it the number of "typical features of the genre?"

It's more of an analogy than anything. That's why there are no variables.

It's just the simplest way to display the concept to everyone as I'm sure most people know what a "Line of Best Fit" is.

[QUOTE="SW__Troll"]

[QUOTE="BrunoBRS"] i'm aware of those, which makes the whole "JRPG or WRPG" thing even sillier. i mean, JRPG's rules are based on iniciative to decide turn order, then dice rolls to hit, damage, defense, critical rolls, etc.BrunoBRS

Well I agree with getting rid of the term "WRPG" as it's pretty redundant.

However, as I've stated, most people understand when they're playing a JRPG. It doesn't matter how "blurry" the genre defintion may be, people still understand when they're playing one. People are just trying too hard to pick apart individual games to fuel their hatred of another fanbase who dislikes JRPGs? I don't know.

CoD isn't an RPG even though it involves leveling, and new weapon layouts.

Amnesia is still a survival horror even though it uses a first person perspective

Uncharted is a third person action game despite containing "elements" of platforming

I mean the distinction was not made simply because RPGs were being made in Japan. They were just vastly different than what Americans and Europeans were getting. So different, in fact, that people gave them their own sub-genre known as JRPG. It fits there right under the RPG blanket along with SRPG, and ARPG.

There are way too many exceptions to every genre.

It's like drawing a line of best fit.

Basically there are key elements to every genre that define them pretty well.

Take First Person Shooters for example. Despite what the haters say FPS games can play drastically different from each other.

CoD does not play like Quake which does not play like STALKER which does not play like TF2 which does not play like Counter Strike, and so on and on and on

Despite that we all know those games as First Person Shooters. It doesn't matter if they use stats, or if you can level up, or if you can melee, or w/e. They are all part of the FPS genre.

Because one or two outlying features is not going to make the genre-defintion for a certain game invalid. If that's the case then we might as well throw out every single genre in existance because they ALL borrow from each other.

At $15 a pop, don't expect games to have much more content that XBLA/PSN titles. Budgets on games need to be reduced, without impacting the quality of games (heavily).

lundy86_4

I just think it'd be better if games were priced based on their budget, and demand for it.

It doesn't make too much sense for every retail game to be $60, and at the same time there are some retail games I think could charge more than $60.

It should be treated like any other type of software. Not all computer software costs the same price, or all phone applications.

I'm not sure if it has anything to do with the console makers themselves though. PC doesn't have the same problem to the extent as the consoles. Not every new PC release gets a $50 price tag; you see $40, or $35, or $30 as well.

[QUOTE="SW__Troll"]

[QUOTE="BrunoBRS"] i hate the fact that you make so much sense despite your username :P but the problem is that people see JRPG and WRPG as two sides of the same coin. if it's not one, then it's the other. and the conventions that coined these terms are less and less visible, with the line between western and eastern development growing blurrier and blurrier. so the obvious solution is just getting rid of those terms, as they barely apply, not to mention what people like to call a JRPG is nothing more than an RPG that follows typical D&D battle structure.BrunoBRS

JRPGs follow that battle structure no more than any other RPG.

Despite not being turn-based, games such as WoW, or Morrowind actually have "dice rolls" going behind the scenes the entire time you fight which calculate the damage you do, whether you'll hit, or dodge, or block, etc.

And let's not forget all the RPGs actually created based around DnD rule sets, and scenarios such as Planescape Torment, or Icewind Dale.

Well I agree with getting rid of the term "WRPG" as it's pretty redundant.

However, as I've stated, most people understand when they're playing a JRPG. It doesn't matter how "blurry" the genre defintion may be, people still understand when they're playing one. People are just trying too hard to pick apart individual games to fuel their hatred of another fanbase who dislikes JRPGs? I don't know.

CoD isn't an RPG even though it involves leveling, and new weapon layouts.

Amnesia is still a survival horror even though it uses a first person perspective

Uncharted is a third person action game despite containing "elements" of platforming

I mean the distinction was not made simply because RPGs were being made in Japan. They were just vastly different than what Americans and Europeans were getting. So different, in fact, that people gave them their own sub-genre known as JRPG. It fits there right under the RPG blanket along with SRPG, and ARPG.

[QUOTE="SW__Troll"]

[QUOTE="TomatoDragonPSN"]Well I'd pick Dark Souls. Is it considered a jrpg as far as birth place, with western gameplay mechanics?BrunoBRS

To me JRPG is a specific genre whereas WRPG is NOT. I'd define JRPG as something that doesn't break too many of the traditions set in earlier Final Fantasy and Dragon Warrior/Quest series of games.

Dark Souls I'd consider an ARPG, or Action RPG. It does NOT share many similarities at all with your typical JRPG.

People understand when they are playing a JRPG, and when they are not. The genre may not be as specific as it once was, but people still know full well when they are playing a JRPG, and when they are not.

Look at the survival horror genre for instance. Does every game in that genre play like Alone in the Dark or Resident Evil? No. Amnesia certainly doesn't, nor does Dead Space, but these games both share MANY commonalities with earlier games which pioneered the genre itself.

That's why I don't understand the naysayers who pick apart JRPGs that might have one feature borrowed from another genre, and go on to claim it's no longer a JRPG. That's not quite how it works. Not for JRPGs, or any genre for that matter.

I'm perfectly fine with people who don't want to place Dark Souls under the WRPG genre as it's not really a genre anyways. All WRPG means is "Not from Japan", but JRPG actually became known for the style of gameplay. It was much different than the RPGs we were getting in America and Europe, and they still are much different.

But do us all a favor, and refer to Dark Souls as either an Action RPG, or just an RPG. It's not a game you recommend to die-hard JRPG fans, and for good reason.

JRPGs follow that battle structure no more than any other RPG.

Despite not being turn-based, games such as WoW, or Morrowind actually have "dice rolls" going behind the scenes the entire time you fight which calculate the damage you do, whether you'll hit, or dodge, or block, etc.

And let's not forget all the RPGs actually created based around DnD rule sets, and scenarios such as Planescape Torment, or Icewind Dale.

Well I'd pick Dark Souls. Is it considered a jrpg as far as birth place, with western gameplay mechanics?TomatoDragonPSN

To me JRPG is a specific genre whereas WRPG is NOT. I'd define JRPG as something that doesn't break too many of the traditions set in earlier Final Fantasy and Dragon Warrior/Quest series of games.

Dark Souls I'd consider an ARPG, or Action RPG. It does NOT share many similarities at all with your typical JRPG.

People understand when they are playing a JRPG, and when they are not. The genre may not be as specific as it once was, but people still know full well when they are playing a JRPG, and when they are not.

Look at the survival horror genre for instance. Does every game in that genre play like Alone in the Dark or Resident Evil? No. Amnesia certainly doesn't, nor does Dead Space, but these games both share MANY commonalities with earlier games which pioneered the genre itself.

That's why I don't understand the naysayers who pick apart JRPGs that might have one feature borrowed from another genre, and go on to claim it's no longer a JRPG. That's not quite how it works. Not for JRPGs, or any genre for that matter.

I'm perfectly fine with people who don't want to place Dark Souls under the WRPG genre as it's not really a genre anyways. All WRPG means is "Not from Japan", but JRPG actually became known for the style of gameplay. It was much different than the RPGs we were getting in America and Europe, and they still are much different.

But do us all a favor, and refer to Dark Souls as either an Action RPG, or just an RPG. It's not a game you recommend to die-hard JRPG fans, and for good reason.