RPG Genre Discussion Thread

[lestatdark]

Jumpin said:

Crystalchild said:

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.

i would never blame you for calling KH an adventure game, since it got enough elements of it, though i agree with lestat - an rpg isnt defined as easy as a shooter, there's so much variation in this genre... and i mean, just looking at the difference between w-rpg and j-rpg, i mean, by the definition of either of them, the other one isnt an rpg. Japanese games tend to give you a straight path, focusing on the plot/characters and restricted character developent. looking at those requirements, KH is very well to be considered an rpg. if we only look from a western persepective, where making your own thing, and creating your own story and playstyle, define westernbased rpg's, KH is everything but an rpg.

so yeah, it depends on how you look at it, but since KH was made in Japan, and labeled an rpg by square itself, and also fullfilling the criteria,  it simply is. But again, i wouldnt blame people for thinking different, since they look at it from a different angle. even if it is the wrong one. *g*

 

edit: of course beeing made in Country X doesnt mean that a game with a certain kind of elements is automatically an RPG, its just that... .. gosh, i dont know how to explain it. i think ...  its just as it is? dunno.

 

Actually, there isn't a such thing as "JRPGs" this is a term that started being used only in the last decade. It was originally coined to disparage RPGs made with anime style vs those made with the more dark and unexpressive western style art.

 

 

lestatdark said:

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.

I am not sure of Eye of the Beholder, but Ultima was classified as an Epic Adventure game series back when it first came out; and Wizardry DID in fact have a turn-based battle system: where the user type in commands, and then they would execute in turn-based fashion; somewhat primitive compared to the simple menu-selection based experience established by the original Dragon Quest. If anything, Wizardry was a proto RPG or a dungeon crawler. While it did have a turn-based battle system, it didn't have a story outside of the manual that came with the game, and it was less in depth than the original Zelda - and Wizardry had no graphical displays of their character movement - it was all done on individual screens akin to games classified as "adventures".

Dragon Quest established the genre of Console RPG - there is no "JRPG sub-genre". the term JRPG was never used in the 80's or the 90's and only began to be used in the past decade. RPGs, whether they were Western, or Eastern, or European - really took what Dragon Quest had done and ran with it - Wizardry incorporated menu-selection systems afterwards as well. The turn-based formula isn't some "niche-sub genre": See for yourself:

Geez, what the heck was that long list of RPGs for?  The sales argument, while a quantitave one, can't be overlapsed to the qualitative analysis. Plus i'm not arguing that the JRPG sub-genre is more or less valid than every other sub-genre, especially since it's my favourite one. If you'd taken a bit to analyze a varied amount of my replies on this thread, you'd come to that conclusion quite easily (or at least have taken a look at my personal page, it's not that hard to miss).

JRPGs as a term was invented in the 90s, heck it was around by the time Crystallis released on the NES. It became proeminent during the SNES and PSX eras, when they started to compete in quality with PC RPGs, thus it was more used to separate those RPGs with similar characteristics: 
- For WRPGs it is more freedom in character development and overall world exploration and much more manipulable variables
- For JRPGs it is a heavy focus on story with defined characters but also much more management in a lot of parameters

Your take on RPGs using elements from DQ isn't completely wrong, but you're also forgetting that DQ took a lot of elements from Ultima and D&D elements. PC RPGs didn't take much from DQ, but DQ did create the entire Console RPG sub-genre.

As for niche, I meant that it's only a small frame of the entire RPG genre, in terms of qualitative differences between gameplay systems. DQ, FF, Pokemon games and so on are the pure based Turn games, but there's also Tactical RPGs, Strategy RPGs, D&D RPGs, etc, etc, etc. All those systems are different yet they share some similarities between them. If you want to group them in a whole that's fine, but you've got to be aware that they're not the same. 

For your first statement, that's basically what Roguelike RPGs still do nowadays, which are the true prototypes for the entire RPG genre. But Roguelikes have both systems implemented, as there are user commands and both RT actions that can be triggered.

Alas, I still stand by my point. It's false to categorize KH or any more action-focused RPG outside of the RPG genre, because on their core they're still RPGs. They might not be to your liking, nor appeal to the usual turn-based crowd, but they're still RPGs, they're still categorized as such and they're still percieved as such given that they have more differences between other pure action or action-adventure games than differences between RPG games.