Quantcast
Is Valkyria Chronicles a JRPG?

Forums - Sony Discussion - Is Valkyria Chronicles a JRPG?

Is Valkyria Chronicles a JRPG?

Yes it is. 102 46.36%
 
No. It is not. 68 30.91%
 
Just let it go, d21. Just let it go. 50 22.73%
 
Total:220
Kasz216 said:
CaptainPrice said:
lestatdark said:
Jumpin said:
lestatdark said:
It's not a JRPG.

It falls in line with common SRPG's like Fire Emblem and Shining Force, albeit the more action oriented layout when you're choosing the actions (which made the game much easier than the referenced SRPG's)

Fire Emblem and Shining Force are both JRPGs. Strategy RPGs like that are a sub-genre. "JRPG" is a term used to distinguish the Japanese made RPGs from the non-Japanese made RPGs. There is a difference though between games like Fire Emblem and games like Advance Wars (which is not a JRPG).

 

Some games from Japan, though, are listed as RPGs when they are in fact not. The most common of these is Zelda.

SRPG's are as equal a Subgenre as JRPG's and WRPG's are. There are intrinsic differences between the subgenres that put them completely apart from one another. That's like saying that Demon's Souls is a JRPG as well, when it has nothing in common with an JRPG.

I haven't seen Zelda being called a RPG, but I wouldn't find it odd that someone did. Heck, i've seen someone saying that Far Cry 2 was a RPG XD 

JRPG is purely a geographical term. The clue is in the 'Japanese' bit. So Demon's Souls is a JRPG. It plays a bit like a WRPG, but that doesn't change the fact that it was made in Japan.

The next bit will really blow the minds of half the posters on this thread. A GAME CAN BE MADE IN A PHYSICAL LOCATION, AND ALSO HAVE GAME PLAY DISTINCTIVE OF A CERTAIN GENRE. So Valkyria Chronicles is a JRPG and an SRPG.

People who have a problem with that should ask themselves how they would classify Oblivion or Mass Effect. Surely everyone accepts that they are WRPGs and Action RPGs. So why on earth does anyone have a problem with some JRPGs also being SRPGs?

So... your saying that if Bioware suddenly moved to japan.  You would consider Mass Effect games JRPGs?  If so... why the hell does JRPG and WRPG exist as a genre?

I admit that if there were RPG dev houses in Japan almost excusively staffed by Westerners we might have to rethink the whole JRPG/WRPG thing. Until then the JRPG/distinction seems okay.



Around the Network
Jumpin said:
lestatdark said:
It's not a JRPG.

It falls in line with common SRPG's like Fire Emblem and Shining Force, albeit the more action oriented layout when you're choosing the actions (which made the game much easier than the referenced SRPG's)

Fire Emblem and Shining Force are both JRPGs. Strategy RPGs like that are a sub-genre. "JRPG" is a term used to distinguish the Japanese made RPGs from the non-Japanese made RPGs. There is a difference though between games like Fire Emblem and games like Advance Wars (which is not a JRPG).

 

Some games from Japan, though, are listed as RPGs when they are in fact not. The most common of these is Zelda.

 

I disagree, I think that a bunch of Americans living in America could make a JRPG, they just generally don't, for much the same reason no Japanese devs make traditional FPS..

 

I think that what makes a JRPG a JRPG is a similar theme, gameplay style etc, just like any other genre.

 

That said, it's all semantics and there's no right or wrong, so go on thinking what you think :)



scottie said:
Jumpin said:
lestatdark said:
It's not a JRPG.

It falls in line with common SRPG's like Fire Emblem and Shining Force, albeit the more action oriented layout when you're choosing the actions (which made the game much easier than the referenced SRPG's)

Fire Emblem and Shining Force are both JRPGs. Strategy RPGs like that are a sub-genre. "JRPG" is a term used to distinguish the Japanese made RPGs from the non-Japanese made RPGs. There is a difference though between games like Fire Emblem and games like Advance Wars (which is not a JRPG).

 

Some games from Japan, though, are listed as RPGs when they are in fact not. The most common of these is Zelda.

 

I disagree, I think that a bunch of Americans living in America could make a JRPG, they just generally don't, for much the same reason no Japanese devs make traditional FPS..

 

I think that what makes a JRPG a JRPG is a similar theme, gameplay style etc, just like any other genre.

 

That said, it's all semantics and there's no right or wrong, so go on thinking what you think :)

It also can be put into Sales if we get there.  JRPGs sell better in Japan.  WRPGs sell better in the West.  The distinction between the two makes sense for this reason.  Why I have always seen it as Genre RPG:<---Sub Genre: JRPG (or Eastern if you must)<-----Class (Strategy, Tactical, Turn-based, Action)



Torillian said:
r505Matt said:
lestatdark said:
ps3_jrpg_gamer said:
Japanese doesn 't necessery means action or strategy but japanese
it is not a GENRE
JRPGS and WRPGS have nothing to do with genres like Action to Shooters

Classifying games based solely on the country of origin is a bit ridiculous. Why isn't there separation for other genres then? JPlatformers from WPlatformers? JAction-Adventure from WAction-Adventure?

There are inherent differences between a JRPG and a WRPG, differences from story-telling, character development, battle system, story setting, etc, etc. That's what makes them different SUBgenres

 

No one saw my previous post =( at the bottom of page 2, but I want to ask you this then:

What are the differences, in exact definitions, between JRPG and WRPG? Why do we have these sub-genres that aren't very clearly or easily understood by many, when we have other genres that are very intuitive. Why even have these counter-intuitive sub-genres?

Edit: I mean "exact definitions" as in you mention there are differences, but what are they?

Far as I can figure wRPG and jRPG are two distinctions that are separate from the disctinctions of battle system: Action RPG, Turn Based RPG, and Strategy RPG.

jRPGs are defined by a linear story with little to know choice within while wRPGs are all about choice and dialog decisions and making your own character.  Sometimes a game lik Demon's Souls will take one aspect from wRPG like the character creation, but overall I would still call it a jRPG because of the lack of dialog choices and the story only having a couple of meaningful decisions. 

Separating things by battle system is much simpler, but sadly that is not the norm.  By the way, if how close a game is to FF defines it as a jRPG why are games like Kingdom Hearts which have a completely different action based battle system put under the jRPG mantle.  Seems like someone would be just as dissapointed in a Kingdom Hearts as they would Valkyria Chronicles if they really wanted something like an FF.

But those aren't adding anything to the classification of a game. I could call Halo a Real-time FPS, and people would be like "why would you even say real-time?". I get the same feeling from that sort of JRPG/WRPG definition. Fallout 3, open-world (or sandbox) action-RPG with shooter elements, or just call it WRPG? But then what about Mass Effect 2, that's not open world, very linear, lots of dialogue choices yes, but very little actual effect on the outcome (most of the time), but that's still a WRPG, but VERY different from Fallout 3.

I'm not saying that's bad, but it's confusing to plenty of people. Like you said, if you call Kingdom Hearts a JRPG, someone expecting FF will be disappointed. If I tell you a game is an action-platformer (Uncharted), you have a pretty good idea of what to expect, but with JRPG and WRPG, it's a little more nebulous. It's not a very clear genre, and there are people who don't think of it as a genre, just a geographical marker so to speak.

Genres exist to easily classify something to someone who's never encountered it before so they can decide if they want to check it out. "You hear that new band?" "No, what kind of stuff do they play?" "Indie-electronic Rock" "Oh I love that stuff! I'll go check it out". With these classifications, you have to compare a game, which takes away the whole reason for genres. "What's game X like?" "Well it's a JRPG" "What kind of JRPG?" "Kind of like Kingdom Hearts but different in ways A and B". Why not just say it's a linear action-rpg? Or for VC, turn-based tactical rpg shooter? JRPG and WRPG fail as classifications to define the main mechanics of the game.

Lastly, it's completely counter-intuitive. Calling Demon's Souls a WRPG may fit according to the definitions of the genre, but people will always say and think "but it was made in Japan, it wasn't made in the west". Why spread this confusion by using these inadequate genre labels?

 



Barozi said:

not really.
I always try to define the genre by its main features and in case of VC it's the strategic aspect.
I would just call it a strategy game, but SRPG is also okay. However JRPG misses the point.

If I had to choose one sub-genre to put it in it would be SRPG. But who said we have to pick one? Lots of games belong to multiple genres, e.g. Rainbow Six Vegas is a first-person shooter and a tactical shooter, Empire Total War is turn-based strategy and real-time tactics, Uncharted is arguably a third person shooter, action-adventure, and platformer. No one seems bothered about this except when it comes to JRPGs.

By the way, I do think the JRPG bit matters in describing VC. It has lots of the anime conventions of JRPGs including what I will politely describe as character design and wardrobe choices. It has characters talking about their feelings with their eyes closed. If someone bought it hoping for an RPG version of X-Com they'd soon be throwing up.



Around the Network

Oh, btw I voted for give it up, but my that was mostly cos I like teasing d21lewis.



The thing is, J means Japanese, W means Western, A means Action and S means Strategy, but nobody used the letter T to abbreviate "Turn-based" and most of the people use J to that, that's what bugs me...

J and W are locations, and of course, the culture behind it...
A and S are battle systems, and from now on, i'm gonna use the T also...



I love JRPGs like Lost Odyssey, Final Fantasy, Tales of Vesperia, Blue Dragon, Infinite Undiscovery, The Last Remnants, Star Ocean, etc. and all I can say is that Valkyria Chronicles is NOT a typical JRPG. It's a Strategy RPG and you'll have to kill me to make me play that game again. I stopped after 6 chapters and almost killed myself while forcing myself to play up to that far.



Currently loving my Wii x2, Xbox 360 Pro & Xbox 360 Arcade, and Final Fantasy 7 Advent Children Limited "Cloud Black" 160GB PS3

GAMEFLY & GOOZEX FTW

 

 

 

 

All JRPGs have more or less tactical elements, this is a legacy of the old turn based battle system. In the late '80s, tactical combats became quite common in RPGs, Pool of Radiance and its siblings are a good example: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/56/Pool_of_radiance_panels.png (upper right corner: a tactical combat). BTW the debate about JRPG/WRPG is a bit pointless imo.



Torillian said:
r505Matt said:
lestatdark said:
ps3_jrpg_gamer said:
Japanese doesn 't necessery means action or strategy but japanese
it is not a GENRE
JRPGS and WRPGS have nothing to do with genres like Action to Shooters

Classifying games based solely on the country of origin is a bit ridiculous. Why isn't there separation for other genres then? JPlatformers from WPlatformers? JAction-Adventure from WAction-Adventure?

There are inherent differences between a JRPG and a WRPG, differences from story-telling, character development, battle system, story setting, etc, etc. That's what makes them different SUBgenres

 

No one saw my previous post =( at the bottom of page 2, but I want to ask you this then:

What are the differences, in exact definitions, between JRPG and WRPG? Why do we have these sub-genres that aren't very clearly or easily understood by many, when we have other genres that are very intuitive. Why even have these counter-intuitive sub-genres?

Edit: I mean "exact definitions" as in you mention there are differences, but what are they?

Far as I can figure wRPG and jRPG are two distinctions that are separate from the disctinctions of battle system: Action RPG, Turn Based RPG, and Strategy RPG.

jRPGs are defined by a linear story with little to know choice within while wRPGs are all about choice and dialog decisions and making your own character.  Sometimes a game lik Demon's Souls will take one aspect from wRPG like the character creation, but overall I would still call it a jRPG because of the lack of dialog choices and the story only having a couple of meaningful decisions. 

Separating things by battle system is much simpler, but sadly that is not the norm.  By the way, if how close a game is to FF defines it as a jRPG why are games like Kingdom Hearts which have a completely different action based battle system put under the jRPG mantle.  Seems like someone would be just as dissapointed in a Kingdom Hearts as they would Valkyria Chronicles if they really wanted something like an FF.

JRPGs and WRPGs aren't defined by battle system.  SRPGS are though.  Therefore SRPG's aren't JRPGs just how if you took FF13 and changed all the gameplay to FPS gameplay, it would be a FPS not a JRPG.