RPG Genre Discussion Thread

[lestatdark]

Jumpin said:

I like RPGs with a turn-based battle system. I feel as though any alterations to that basic formula usually ends up in a cheaper feeling experience. Not always though, I found that some games have been somewhat successful adding in some action elements such as the ATB system used in Xenogears, FF4-9, and Chrono Trigger.

Games which have gone to an almost action style game (like Kingdom Hearts) are not even really RPGs anymore, they're action-adventure.

That's a very limited and narrow way to look at the RPG genre. So you're saying that games like Diablo, any ES game and many others are not RPGs, even though they have much more RPG elements than most FF games or turn-based games?.

Do you know that some of the very first computorized RPGs were not turn based too? Eye of the Beholder, the Ultima series, the Wizardry series, etc.
Your definition of RPGs is very strictly adherent to what the JRPG sub-genre is about and, i'm sorry to tell you, JRPGs is but a niche sub-genre of the entire RPG genre. 

What about Tactical RPGs? By your definitions are they not RPGs but RTSs? Or Persona games? Are they only Dating Simulators because the RPG portions only encompass a tiny aspect of the game? There are more flaws in your logic that I could pick apart, but I don't see the necessity for it.

@Crystalchild

Indeed, constantly exploring Tartarus can become a bit of a nuisance, even if there are some slight changes between the Tiers. Even so, to me, I feel that the story of P3 is much more tight and cohesive than P4's one, even though I did enjoy finding the real murderer and the scenes on December were pretty amazing. Plus, P3 Fusion Spell system and Persona weapon enhancement system were pretty amazing and it was a real shame that they weren't mantained for P4.