| Leynos said: It's not a JRPG, and JRPGs didn't start turn-based. WRPGs did. JRPGs started as action and JRPG nos tied to one style of battle mechanics either. Dark Souls is a JRPG. Xenoblade is. Ys is. Dragon's Dogma is. |
People using the term Jrpg made me understand what they were referring to without them having to mention specific games.
In that sense, how classic Jrpg's started out wouldn't be a factor to someone who mainly associates them with turn based, and may not even be aware of action based titles like Dragon Slayer that predate Dragon Quest, Final Fantasy, Phantasy Star, etc, that popularized the genre and coined the phrase in the west.
Nintendo started as playing card company. But if anyone hears the name Nintendo today, that's probably the last thing they think of.
A Japanese developer can make a western style rpg, while a western developer can make a Japanese style one. But since ideas are more and more commonly borrowed between east and western style games, we often get games with elements from both. And Expedition 33 is no exception.
Expedition 33's producer said that the director "wanted to have the kind of feeling that he imagined would have remained in modern Final Fantasy-like games, if they had kept doing turn-based stuff. But he also mixed lots of different inspirations. Final Fantasy and JRPGs are definitely the preeminent gameplay heritage we have. The defense system is more inspired by Sekiro and From Software games."
People familiar with these kind of games understands what they're referring to when they mention Sekiro & FromSoft games separately from "Final Fantasy and Jrpgs".
Understanding what they mean while using those terms is what's interesting to me. Not really the semantics.
