r505Matt said:
naznatips said:
Kasz216 said:
naznatips said:
Kasz216 said:
naznatips said:
Kasz216 said:
Here is a good way to put it actually. NOBODY I know considers Final Fantasy tactics a JRPG.
I've never seen it refered to as a JRPG. Final Fantasy tactics is quite literally Final Fantasy with a different battle system.
No matter how you define WRPG or JRPG.... SRPGS aren't involved. Valkyria chronicles is just being folded into the JRPG genre because of "list wars" and nobody cares which console has the best SRPG. |
Except I don't give a damn about the PS3 or anyone's stupid lists and I still consider it and other SRPGs a subset of JRPGs. I absolutley consider FF Tactics a JRPG.... and I bet you almost anyone you ask will tell you Fire Emblem is one.
|
You are the first person i've ever met to call Fire emblem a JRPG.. so you would lose that bet. |
Maybe you should find more people to talk to? If you ask the same 5 friends who share your worldview things you'll never get a new perspective. Time to branch out, my friend.
|
I'm actually talking about these forums. If you look up a "Your favorite RPGs" thread you'll notice I often ask "do you count SRPGS" to which the answer is almost uniformly no. And that's just RPGs let alone JRPGS. SRPG isn't even really a subgenre, it's full out it's own genre. Like TPS even though the only difference between TPS and FPS is camera angle. |
Hehe I think the only reason anyone considers TPS a genre is that there are so many freaking shooters that you have to have some way to separate them. It's basically the same deal with JRPGs and WRPGs. There are too many RPGs to group them. The thing about defining SRPGs as different is that everything about the games is the same as any other RPG except for the combat system, and you can't define an entire genre of RPGs by their combat system. Most SRPGs still have exploration, sidequests, leveling and customization, parties, linear stories, etc. Mind you Valkyria doesn't have much exploratiaon, but you get the point. Other SRPGs like Resonance of Fate certainly do. Do you not consider that a JRPG?
We just can't define RPGs by combat system. There are too many.
|
I disagree with the last comment, I think we can define RPGs by merely the combat system, and should. Since the combat system is essentially most, if not all, of the gameplay, and games are defined by their gameplay, I think there's nothing wrong with that. It would be easier to understand and would be more intuitive. There wouldn't be any debate as to "What does turn-based RPG mean?", it would be very clear what it's about.
Or are you suggesting, that in 20 years, when there are even more games than now, we will need sets of sub-genres for every genre? Just because there are too many? I don't think that's the right way to look at it. Genres should help new consumers make an upfront decision about a product. As in "Hey, I like FPS, so I'll look into other games classified as FPS". The more complex that system because, the more useless it becomes in that regard. Better to strip away the complexity, and leave it basic and simple so EVERYONE understands it and is on the same page.
And there are more action games than RPGs I believe, why don't we have Waction and Jaction, or some other way to seperate action (haha Jaction sounds funny)? Why is it only RPGs that get a sort of distinction as this?
|
