WRPG's are better than JRPG's

[Profcrab]

ArtznCraphs said:

Profcrab said:

ArtznCraphs said:

Profcrab said:

 

I don't see numbers and stats as RPG playing.  By that rational, every game that has stats in any form, even a game like Ghost Recon or Rainbow Six (if you ever played any of the earlier games), is an RPG.

Technically, no video game can be an RPG unless the story is completely influenced and dependant on the character.  However, they can give the player some choice in the matter with some other potential outcomes.  If an RPG is primarily defined by its stats and numbers then the name needs to be changed because the "Role Playing" doesn't really describe it.

Many WRPGs have, at least in some form, tried to emulate more of the Role Playing aspect.  JRPGs emulate only the "rolling" aspect of it.  To me, if I see a video game that has me just pick stats and weapons, I see it as more of a strategy game than a RPG.  This is how I see JRPGs, more as strategy.

Btw, I love your arguing technique of putting "Wrong" before your supporting information.  I think it makes you look like you have big e-penis.  Hope that is working out for you.

I give that post a 9.5.

Stats in an RPG are a different animal than stats in a tactical shooter, and serve different purposes and are integrated much differently.  RPGs and adventure games both have stories and character interaction, are they the same?   There are no behind the scenes random "die rolls" in a shooter that determine who goes first or when (dependant on certain stats), if they hit or miss (dependant on certain stats), how many points of damage are done, etc.   But it's not just about stats, it's also the overall battle system and how it's weighted by those stats and die rolls in every way that distinguishes the genre.  Throw plot progression in there, and there is enough to qualify at least early JRPGs as true video RPGs

But I will say that there are WRPGs that are much truer, in terms of interaction and battle parameters, which is something I've never argued against

Personally I define RPGs by their relation to its roots in tabletop wargames like Chainmail, so that's where I'm coming from, and the fact that this type of battle system, along with some narrative is what distinguishes the genre from everything else. 

And sorry if I come off like a dick, since you are logical and have a grasp of the genre beyond the story whores.  More than these fools who think the Japanese did turn based combat first, or WRPGs are easy or just hack n' slash, which is utterly absurd.  It's like the child not recognizing the father.

 

 

 

I understand where you are coming from, but with so many games using stats, the line between an video game RPG (by your definition) and any other genre becomes blured.  Old games like X-Com which were reasonably free form, characters had stats, and the game had some sort of story progression, become RPGs.

JRPGs definitly promote the story aspect, but in action they are much more like movies where the player has no efficacy.  The player meerly views the story but does not take part.  The player choses their best weapons and strategy for the team to defeat an obsticle.  In that way, they are more closely related to RTS and adventure games where story blocks are unlocked by the player by defeating levels.

What you are arguing is definitly the industry opinion on what makes and RPG for a video game.  I just disagree with that view.  Coming from a P&P background, I have always seen the defining element of RPGs as being the act of taking the role of a character and the ability to determine that characters path.

I certainly don't expect the industry to change their labels because of one asshole like me, but when comparing to genres of games like WRPGs and JRPGs, I am given to applying my view of what makes an RPG when attempting to determine which is more suited to be called one.

I played table top wargames also, but I never considered those RPGs so I don't make the same connection between those and video games.  Those were closer to games like X-Com, Civ, and the old turn based strategy games (which most people ditched in favor of RTS). 

I give that post a 9.8.

I love this topic so just some last points:

As far as the wargaming relationship, I think origins are very important in defining things, and war games were a direct influence on D & D, which is basically the template for the genre.  I may change my viewpoint on this as I was of the same mind as you concerning JRPGs until I made the Chainmail correlation (and the fact that many of the p&p  campaigns I was in were light on NPC interaction in comparison to something like Fallout 2). 

Traditional RPG combat is a very specific type of gameplay, to me, something which the current hybridization of genres can't distract me from.  And outside of DEus Ex and System Shock, I'm not a fan of hybridization. 

Funny you mention industry opinion, because I couldn't be more disgusted by what the genre has become.  The industry doesn't believe in strategic, mentally challenging gameplay anymore.  It's all about "appealing to a broader audience," which defeats the nature of the genre, imo.  The role playing portions are even lightweight these days.

 

The role playing portions definitely have become smaller.  As the games have become more graphic intensive, they cost more to develope and we lose more in the process.  Many old computer RPGs used to have fun sideplots and in some cases completely different avenues to pursue.  Unforunately, no one seems to want to try going "backwards" to simpler graphics in order to make a much deeper experience.  I hope to see those types of games return at some point with a much lower budget with the expectation of making a profit but not swinging for the fences.

I think a fundamental difference between how you and I define the genres comes from our view on origins.  To me, even though something might have its roots somewhere, if it has grown to become a different animal entirely, then it needs to be treated as such.  For examble, tabletop wargames and P&P role playing games share little in how they are played or approached.  Wargames are strategy and P&P RPGs are imagination and improvisation.  So the situation with video game RPGs is similar to me.  WRPGs share more characteristics, but obviously not all or even most, while JRPGs share only the stats and hit or miss chances since the story is not influenced by the player.  So, just as P&P RPGs are not called tabletop strategy games, I don't believe JRPGs, which while related to RPGs, should be considered RPGs.

I give that post a 9.8.