its an On Rail RPG

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?

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.

Most SRPGs don't have exploration or sidequests... though that's a minor quible. Your not even argueing why SRPGs are JRPGS anymore... but why you think SRPGs should be considerd JRPGs... with that arguement basically being "There aren't enough of them." FPS and TPS have always been different genres though, even before there was a huge wave of shooters. Just how SRPGs have always been it's own genre seperated for JRPGs and WRPGs. Which used to be ARPGs and RPG (proper) until WRPG developers started developing stories that were more sandbox like and JRPGs started using action based gameplay.

To put it another way. There is less difference between JRPGs and WRPGS then there are JRPGS and SRPGS.

It's why SRPGS never show up in JRPG conversations or even RPG conversations in general.

Until VC for *some* reason. You seem to have an issue with the genres in general, but your letting your problem with how genres are defined in general, which is a completly different matter.

 

Someone who likes JRPGs is more likely to like WRPGs then SRPGS.

Someone who likes a "western SRPG" is more likely to like a "Japanese SRPG" then a WRPG or JRPG.

JRPG use Japenesque characters. J in JRPG doesnt say anything about gameplay.

So for VC: It is a strategic RPG, no doubt about it -> SRPG

The usage of typical japanes characters makes it a SRPG game in a J setting : japanese SRPG, therefore u can say its a JRPG

I dont think, its possible to know what kind of game your playing by calling it a JRPG. You only can expect a certain kind of story, characters and so on. there is no such thing as a typical JRPG anymore.

Kasz216 said: To put it another way. There is less difference between JRPGs and WRPGS then there are JRPGS and SRPGS. It's why SRPGS never show up in JRPG conversations or even RPG conversations in general. Until VC for *some* reason. You seem to have an issue with the genres in general, but your letting your problem with how genres are defined in general, which is a completly different matter.

VC and Disgaea 3, which is actually much closer to being a JRPG than VC is.

@Xen do you intend on doing this for more jesus let 's stop

ps3_jrpg_gamer said: @Xen do you intend on doing this for more jesus let 's stop

It's my argument, not yours.

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?

lol Jaction does sound funny. I always thought it was silly to define a game genre by region. Just seems divisive to me. Separating by battle system seems very logical and more intuitive as game genre begin to borrow from each other more and more.

OT: Valkyria Chronicles is an SRPG.

Xen said: Kasz216 said: To put it another way. There is less difference between JRPGs and WRPGS then there are JRPGS and SRPGS. It's why SRPGS never show up in JRPG conversations or even RPG conversations in general. Until VC for *some* reason. You seem to have an issue with the genres in general, but your letting your problem with how genres are defined in general, which is a completly different matter. VC and Disgaea 3, which is actually much closer to being a JRPG than VC is.

I haven't seen people cosnider Disgaea 3 a JRPG since VC came out really.  Which is another reason why I think it's "list wars" based.

Had Final Fantasy 13 Versus came out first... I doubt either would of ever been considered a JRPG by a lot of people who consider them JRPGs now.

To be fair too I don't consider Borderlands an RPG.  Mostly because the shooting is too good. 

Much how action games that have RPG elements aren't action games...

but RPGS with crappy controls compaired to action games are considered Action RPGs.