214 réponses à ce sujet

[Mistic]

But the reason this works for films is because there really are some common features of national cinema genres, right? Telling me that a film's a Spanish horror film says something besides that it was a horror film made in Spain, or you wouldn't have had anything to study in those classes.

So if JRPG is useful in the same way, then there also are common factors to JRPGs besides that they were RPGs made in Japan. In which case JRPG is useful, but that's because it's conveying more information than merely the geographical origin of that RPG.

 

Yes and no.

 

It's true that there are common features of national cinemas. However, those common features aren't permanent; they change because of trends and external influences, and they influence others too. Its nature is fluid. And that's important, because if you use that label to set a model of what "Spanish horror films" or "RPGs made in Japan" should be, you are disregarding history and change.

 

Let's put a very, very extreme example: 10 years from now, Western RPGs are Dragon Quest clones while a new generation of Japanese developers are called "the new Bioware, Obsidian, etc." because their games resemble the old WRPG classics. 30 years later, Western developers still follow the anime-styled trend while RPGs made in Japan are like current Witcher or Mass Effect titles. For a generation of gamers born in that highly-hypothetical scenario, the meaning of JRPG and WRPG would be different from now, to the point that they would laugh at our fan-made definitions.

 

Also, geography itself is very useful if you want to learn the history of a national industry. After all, not everything is art criticism in film studies.

 

Why do you call them RPG's though? And let's not mince words, they are RPG's in their own way. 

 

However you answer, leads directly to the conclusion though. Gaming experience is completely different from anything else out there, but should never be used to classify something. 

 

I'm afraid I don't understand    The different gaming experiences, that is, the different ways of playing a game (as designed by its creators, in theory) have been used for a long time to classify genres in video games: RPGs, shooters (first or third), platforms, puzzles, strategy (real-time or turn-based), etc. So if there are variations among RPGs too, why shouldn't they be used to make classifications?

[Brogan]

I am mostly interested in features. I think the tactical pause and play is a step in the right direction though it is tbd whether this is actually needed in gameplay or if it just there to look pretty.

Seriously? That is literally like telling the Japanese, Hey, those samurai swords are pretty cool, you should make more of them.

[LinksOcarina]

 

 

I'm afraid I don't understand    The different gaming experiences, that is, the different ways of playing a game (as designed by its creators, in theory) have been used for a long time to classify genres in video games: RPGs, shooters (first or third), platforms, puzzles, strategy (real-time or turn-based), etc. So if there are variations among RPGs too, why shouldn't they be used to make classifications?

 

Well, if that determines gameplay experiences, how do you actually classify games fitting into multiple experiences then? What is the line for classification?

 

This is where it gets tricky now, is what I was getting at. If the definitions have multiple meanings, then the definitions become meaningless. To classify games based on mechanics is one thing, to make it make sense is another. take fire emblem for example, its an RTSRPG, while Diablo is a dungeon crawler-RPG. Those classifications tell us more than "JRPG" could, because they are specific to style and, as you say, gaming experience, whereas the standard "JRPG" term is catch-all to style, mechanics, and origin in a lot of ways, for a lot of different people. 

[Monster A-Go Go]

Yeah, I don't get the aversion to trying to classify games.  Classification is just a metric; not a judgment.  It lets us make an educated guess about what we're getting into. 

 

If I tell you we're going to see a monster movie, you probably get a preconceived idea.  If I clarify that by saying we're going to see a classic Japanese monster film, an 80's supernatural slasher flick, or a Universal Monsters movie, that gives you clarification.  Don't like guys bouncing in around in rubber suits stomping model cities?  Don't like burn victims with claw hands carving up dreaming teenagers?  Don't like Boris Karlof in Frankenstein make-up?  Well, now you know if you want to join in or not.

 

Any type of media or genre that grows broad enough needs tighter language to classify it.  With animation, for example, you can include anime style, Disney, claymation, and computer animation as part of the same large family, even though they are all very different species.  Within the platforming genre of video games, there's traditional side-scrolling, physics based, endless runners, and rogue-likes.  Within rock & roll music there's hard rock, soft rock, punk rock, rockabilly, psychedelic, glam, and grunge.

 

Yes, I can just say "animation," "platformer," or "rock music" and you'll know what I mean.  But with such a modest amount of definition, I can take us to a much more granular level of understanding.  And those distinctions are useful, because just like there are people who love punk rock but hate rockabilly, there are people who will like one type of RPG and hate another.

 

Saying that we should just call everything an "RPG" or "a game," eschewing any further attempt at description, is just a type of special pleading.  It suggests that you're afraid that someone's going use it to prejudge or disparage the genre that you love.  And maybe that's fair.  I know that when I hear "JRPG" these days, it puts my guard up.  I know enough about the genre to know that I don't enjoy the elements that tend to define the modern JRPG.  However, I'll still investigate it because: 1) I like RPGs enough to always want another to play, and 2) Because I have fond memories of classic JRPGs.  On the other hand, if I read that a game is a football simulator, then I won't give it any more of my time because f*** it; I hate football and just saved myself the money I might have otherwise spent if it were just called a "sports game."

 

In short, yes, we need these types of designations.  It saves us time, spares us disappointment, and allows us to better summarize and communicate.  If something is an exceptional example - say, Avatar: The Last Airbender, which is a Western-created, anime-inspired, fantasy, martial-arts serial epic - then we can give it that extra level of attention.  But let's be honest: exceptional examples are few and far between and the majority of entertainment product can exist quite comfortably within its specialized definitions.  RPGs, be they J, W, C, or P&P, are no exception.

[UniformGreyColor]

Well, if that determines gameplay experiences, how do you actually classify games fitting into multiple experiences then? What is the line for classification?

 

This is where it gets tricky now, is what I was getting at. If the definitions have multiple meanings, then the definitions become meaningless. To classify games based on mechanics is one thing, to make it make sense is another. take fire emblem for example, its an RTSRPG, while Diablo is a dungeon crawler-RPG. Those classifications tell us more than "JRPG" could, because they are specific to style and, as you say, gaming experience, whereas the standard "JRPG" term is catch-all to style, mechanics, and origin in a lot of ways, for a lot of different people. 

 

I think you have a point. The fact that this is being talked about makes me think there needs to be a more coherrent dictonomy for what exactly a JRPG is.

 

Some info I found with a quick google search:

 

http://en.wikipedia....le-playing_game

 

http://en.wikipedia....ing_video_games

[Seraphim24]

I often wonder whether a subset of WRPG enthusiasts feel such universal vitriol toward the incredibly diverse JRPG name because they feel they endured a "Dark Age" a couple of generations ago, back when the Japanese-made roleplaying game dominated the scene and most of their friends shrugged off Fallout 2 for Final Fantasy VII. I know I had a scant few friends who were into stuff like Baldur's Gate when I was a kid, personally, anyway, and my brief, judgmental glances at their computer screens was, regrettably, enough for me to shrug BioWare off until 2010.

Yes, I still facepalm at my young self sometimes. But I mean, really, I remember all of those friends of mine saying things like, "people at school don't want to play it because they think it won't be good since it's not from Japan and it's top-down."

Crazy to think there was an era with stories like that in some places, considering the renaissance today!

 

Quite honestly I think it's simple racism. For eons there is that whole a "woman has to be 2x as good" to get the same pay or whatever. I think a Japanese game has to be 2x as good as the X to get any attention (well, not necessarily sales-wise, but critically) from many western gamers. A lot of it just ends up being, oh it's not FF7 therefore it's trash kind of deal. Or those freaking best Final Fantasy debates. All the freaking Final Fantasies are good, 4, 6, 7, 9, 12, at least, and really, 5 was fine and heck so was 2. Even 8 and 10 had their moments (although I like them a lot less). I can't bloody distinguish between Chrono Trigger and FF6, and why would I? The fact that many people have suggests their obsession is deeper than I could ever know. For all I know, I'm a more casual fan, but acknowledging the "opposition" is not something gamers do under any circumstances, whether it's in a CoD match or comparing games from different countries.

 

I say that also because once upon a time I played Baldur's Gate, Fallout 2, and Final Fantasy altogether. I think I basically felt they were all about equal, and those other two are strong. However, actually I'd have to say the Japanese games have aged better overall. They've also still provided so many random and fun games since (Radiata Stories, or like Star Ocean I mentioned). The best western IMO was probably Baldur's Gate, but even that one has lots of dated mechanics and ideas.

[Dermain]

 

Quite honestly I think it's simple racism. For eons there is that whole a "woman has to be 2x as good" to get the same pay or whatever. I think a Japanese game has to be 2x as good as the X to get any attention (well, not necessarily sales-wise, but critically) from many western gamers. 

 

For some reason I doubt it's because of racism towards Japan...

 

Unless some sort of hive mind controls gamers... 

 

A lot of it just ends up being, oh it's not FF7 therefore it's trash kind of deal. 

 

Am I the only person that doesn't like FF7, and does not judge other games against each other? 

 

Each game is separate, and as such should not be judged against other games. I fail to see the thinking behind the "Well X game did A, B C, better than Z game did" since Game Y is not Game X, and as such should not try to be emulating Game X.

 For all I know, I'm a more casual fan, but acknowledging the "opposition" is not something gamers do under any circumstances, whether it's in a CoD match or comparing games from different countries.

 

I resent that!

 

I say that also because once upon a time I played Baldur's Gate, Fallout 2, and Final Fantasy altogether. I think I basically felt they were all about equal, and those other two are strong. However, actually I'd have to say the Japanese games have aged better overall. They've also still provided so many random and fun games since (Radiata Stories, or like Star Ocean I mentioned). The best western IMO was probably Baldur's Gate, but even that one has lots of dated mechanics and ideas.

 

Nostalgia is a funny thing. It somehow allows people to overlook all the (current) perceived flaws with older games, and still see them as being epic. Some people may point out some games in t(insert favored "JRPG" series here) as not aging well, while others will say that the (Insert favored "WRPG" series here) did not age well.

 

Nostalgia is sadly something I am not good at, but I still have the good memories from playing X, Y, Z game regardless of it's country of origin. Unfortunately, it is unlikely that I will ever go back and play them again. Oh well.

[TheChris92]

Sera, being the Wild Card, will be able to summon multiple Personas at once. That about answers it all.

[Maeshone]

Sera, being the Wild Card, will be able to summon multiple Personas at once. That about answers it all.

I wish I could like this more than once.

[Wolfen09]

ive played the final fantasy series, the fable series, pretty much anything from bethesda over the past decade, mass effect series, dragon age series, lost odessy, last remnant, another one i cant think of off the top of my head, the tales series, and many more.  There are many differences in all these games, and sadly i think the term JRPG just refers to any rpg out of japan.  I tend to stay away from the turned based ones like final fantasy now (plus they took away the option for japanese voice actors with subtitles in the american version) because they just dont hold my interest.  From a personal perspective, just making this game an rpg will make it appeal to the jrpg crowd, as it has everything i would look for in a jrpg and more (without the turned based combat, now it just needs some half naked cat girls and we would be really close)

[Mistic]

Well, if that determines gameplay experiences, how do you actually classify games fitting into multiple experiences then? What is the line for classification?

 

This is where it gets tricky now, is what I was getting at. If the definitions have multiple meanings, then the definitions become meaningless. To classify games based on mechanics is one thing, to make it make sense is another. take fire emblem for example, its an RTSRPG, while Diablo is a dungeon crawler-RPG. Those classifications tell us more than "JRPG" could, because they are specific to style and, as you say, gaming experience, whereas the standard "JRPG" term is catch-all to style, mechanics, and origin in a lot of ways, for a lot of different people. 

 

I completely agree, in fact. I see that the main problem with the JRPG concept is that many people think it has to be something more than just a purely, neutral geographical classification. Nevertheless, I still see a value in its neutral definition and in classification itself. However, as you say, maybe the best we could do would be to forget the very existence of the JRPG term and use other, more specific terms to explain what we want to say. If only to avoid further problems.

[Ranadiel Marius]

I completely agree, in fact. I see that the main problem with the JRPG concept is that many people think it has to be something more than just a purely, neutral geographical classification. Nevertheless, I still see a value in its neutral definition and in classification itself. However, as you say, maybe the best we could do would be to forget the very existence of the JRPG term and use other, more specific terms to explain what we want to say. If only to avoid further problems.

More specific terms like what? I used to use Console RPG and Computer RPG for what I now use JRPG and WRPG to describe respectively. However that has the problem of both shortening to CRPG and the distinctions not really having applied 100% since maybe PSX days. I suppose you could go with defined main character RPGs vs blank slate main characters RPGs, but that is too freaking long and has some grey areas regarding games with silent main characters.

[Han Shot First]

Hopefully nothing.

[wcholcombe]

It isn't racism, it is just a changing market.  I liked FF all the way up to FFIII.  I was not a big fan of FFVII or any of the failures that have followed it. My favorite two FF games are actually FF 1 and FF Tactics.  The biggest reason?  Choice and they are both in classically midevil fantasy worlds.  In the mid 90s JRPGs pretty much decided to take all the choice and customization away from the player and make their games more like you were playing a movie with a set script.  WRPGs also have set scripts, but there is more freedom in them, you can create your character, you can customize and equip them, they actually play in worlds that  look like they fit the mold of fantasy worlds, and the heros aren't always (ok 90% of the time) prepubescent teenagers saving the world.

[Mistic]

More specific terms like what? I used to use Console RPG and Computer RPG for what I now use JRPG and WRPG to describe respectively. However that has the problem of both shortening to CRPG and the distinctions not really having applied 100% since maybe PSX days. I suppose you could go with defined main character RPGs vs blank slate main characters RPGs, but that is too freaking long and has some grey areas regarding games with silent main characters.

 

You have provided an excellent example of why terms based on a specific neutral classification shouldn't be used to define global, subjetive fan impressions of what a certain RPG subgenre should be.

 

In your case, it was Console and Computer RPG. It's an excellent classification, in fact... as long as you were giving importance to the platform of choice, not other variables (for example, a person who doesn't have a console but has a computer and wants to play RPGs in general would find it very informative). However, expecting every Console RPG or every Computer RPG to share some features apart from being RPGs made for a certain platform is as hopeless as expecting every JRPG to share some features apart from being RPGs made in Japan.

 

The thing is that fans have a somewhat vague idea of different genres that put the likes of classic Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest titles in one place, and the likes of Baldur's Gate and Planescape: Torment in another place. Yet we see in this very thread how difficult is to make people agree on which is which. From my point of view, that can be shared or not, what I find are different trends limited to some countries and periods, trends that have been changing and will change with time. Final Fantasy XIII is very different from the first Final Fantasy, for example, and if I'm able to call them both JRPGs is because they were made by the same Japanese company. If that same company made a Mass Effect clone, it would still be a JRPG in my book.

 

I know that it's not a satisfying definition for some. I'm sorry. But at least I'm 100% sure that I know what I mean when I say 'JRPG'.

 

I like story-driven RPGs, preferably those that allow choices and some freedom to the player (but that's not the most important thing for me). I'm not picky about gameplay; tactical, action, turn-based, etc., if it's entertaining enough I'm sold. Exploration is welcome, but not essential. Good visuals and music are welcome too. I also prefer RPGs that have a good cast of companions. If a RPG fulfills those criteria, I don't care where they are made. Others do, but I hope it's because they appreciate some companies' or creators' work, not because of some classification bias.

[OptionFour]

Quite honestly I think it's simple racism.

 

Is it also the fault of racism that the Xbox doesn't sell in Japan?

 

If so, does that mean all gamers everywhere (except white folks that play Japanese games, I guess?) are complete racists?

 

Hilarious. And wrong. Annnd hilarious.

 

Sometimes different people just like different things, and there isn't actually a sinister force at work. I like A, you like B, someone else likes Q. None of us are wrong, or racist, or awful people because of it. Two people can actually completely understand/'get' a product, both experience it to its fullest, and still come away with completely different opinions of it. That's sort of what makes people awesome.

 

That said, the "you don't like Japanese games, so you're racist" argument is just bad form.

 

 

 

More on topic, I hope that nothing is done to cater to the JRPG crowd. There are lots of JRPGs out there and they are released even in the west on a much more regular basis than large western RPGs are. So there's certainly no shortage of them available if that's what people are after. There's no need to turn Dragon Age into one.

[JeffZero]

In the mid 90s JRPGs pretty much decided to take all the choice and customization away from the player and make their games more like you were playing a movie with a set script.

That actually continues to be my favorite kind of game. Although props on the FFT love! But its rather linear narrative has a lot to do with why I love it. (Matsuno did prove very capable of offering choice in game plots with its spiritual predecessor, Tactics Ogre, though. Four chapters and an isometric get-up, much like FFT, but at the ends of each of the first three chapters, you make a decision that partly reshapes the world of the next. Neat!)

Also, to the poster who asked if they're the only one who doesn't like FFVII: as a huge fan of the game, I assure you, much of the last 17 years since its release has been people asking that very question, often far more rudely. I assure you, you are not.

I know the feeling, though. I don't really enjoy Mario games and Ocarina of Time is my least favorite 3D Zelda. Certain conversations end with odd stares toward me.

[Seraphim24]

Is it also the fault of racism that the Xbox doesn't sell in Japan?

 

No it's the fault of the Xbox having a profoundly weak library of games, IMO.

 

That actually continues to be my favorite kind of game. Although props on the FFT love! But its rather linear narrative has a lot to do with why I love it. (Matsuno did prove very capable of offering choice in game plots with its spiritual predecessor, Tactics Ogre, though. Four chapters and an isometric get-up, much like FFT, but at the ends of each of the first three chapters, you make a decision that partly reshapes the world of the next. Neat!)

Also, to the poster who asked if they're the only one who doesn't like FFVII: as a huge fan of the game, I assure you, much of the last 17 years since its release has been people asking that very question, often far more rudely. I assure you, you are not.

I know the feeling, though. I don't really enjoy Mario games and Ocarina of Time is my least favorite 3D Zelda. Certain conversations end with odd stares toward me.

 

<Spoiler> I think people don't believe me or something when I tell them one of the choices is "you commit genocide on a bunch of innocent people or don't commit genocide (Ch. 1 conclusion)." It's really kind of a playable Game of Thrones, mixed with commentary on the Bosnian ethnic cleansing.

[JeffZero]

Haha, indeed.

[AlanC9]

The thing is that fans have a somewhat vague idea of different genres that put the likes of classic Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest titles in one place, and the likes of Baldur's Gate and Planescape: Torment in another place. Yet we see in this very thread how difficult is to make people agree on which is which. From my point of view, that can be shared or not, what I find are different trends limited to some countries and periods, trends that have been changing and will change with time. Final Fantasy XIII is very different from the first Final Fantasy, for example, and if I'm able to call them both JRPGs is because they were made by the same Japanese company. If that same company made a Mass Effect clone, it would still be a JRPG in my book.
 
I know that it's not a satisfying definition for some. I'm sorry. But at least I'm 100% sure that I know what I mean when I say 'JRPG'.

Sure, but this takes us right back to my earlier objection. How is your definition of JRPG useful? Unless you're arguing that the term "JRPG" isn't really useful at all? I can see the case for that, but if that really is the case then we shouldn't be bothering to use the term.

For purposes of this thread I don't see how your definition is workable; does the term "JRPG crowd" actually refer to any real people if "JRPG" means nothing more than an RPG from a Japanese company?

[Osena109]

 JRPG's have  a cartoony look  WRPGS  have more realistic look too them

[AlanC9]

JRPG's have  a cartoony look  WRPGS  have more realistic look too them

Does that make The Banner Saga a JRPG?

[UniformGreyColor]

For purposes of this thread I don't see how your definition is workable; does the term "JRPG crowd" actually refer to any real people if "JRPG" means nothing more than an RPG from a Japanese company?

 

As we have seen, the categorization for JRPG is as much diversified by its origin and what the actual content is. When I think JRPG I think Tactical RPGs that originated in Japan. The genre has really evolved over the years giving a strict definition difficult and video game genre lines as a whole have blurred IMO. I think: Kingdom Hearts series, FF VII-XII and Pokemon (which I am surprised more people don't mention) when I think JRPG, but I have my own biases just like everyone else.

[Navasha]

To me JRPG is just a classification of style.    Like Film Noir has certain characteristics instead of just calling them Crime Drama's. 

 

JRPGs to me have cartoony-styles with massively overdone elements.   Underage kids with..  Huge eyes, Huge hair, Huge weapons, Huge over dramatic movements, etc...  Basically, if it looks like an anime cartoon... its a JRPG to me.  

 

They hold no appeal to me whatsoever and when/if a developer attempts to incorporate some of these elements into a typical western RPG the effect is kind of like a slap in the face.    The two genres have completely different appeals to two entirely different audiences.   They should not be mixed.  

[UniformGreyColor]

To me JRPG is just a classification of style.    Like Film Noir has certain characteristics instead of just calling them Crime Drama's. 

 

JRPGs to me have cartoony-styles with massively overdone elements.   Underage kids with..  Huge eyes, Huge hair, Huge weapons, Huge over dramatic movements, etc...  Basically, if it looks like an anime cartoon... its a JRPG to me.  

 

They hold no appeal to me whatsoever and when/if a developer attempts to incorporate some of these elements into a typical western RPG the effect is kind of like a slap in the face.    The two genres have completely different appeals to two entirely different audiences.   They should not be mixed.  

 

I think that's kinda unfair to people who like both.