I don't really see why turn-based and action games can peacefully be JRPGs and still be divided into those groups, and strategic can't based solely on gameplay style.

I pretty much divide them by style and atmosphere, they don't have to be Japanese but they usually are. Magna Carta to me is a JRPG because KRPG is simply too geographic and Korea isn't really associated with those games so saying KRPG doesn't say anything. A MMO would be a different story, they are pretty associated with a certain type of those, and they are ones better known for them - to the point where some grindy anime-styled non-FFXI Japanese MMO is often lumped together with the Korean MMOs.

In the end though both JRPG and WRPG are purely review/fans terms. Developers/publishers call them just RPGs.
Then again Kitase goes and says that FFXIII is not a RPG. And it lacks a lot of the same things that VC does, and for the most part is just as guided battle to battle without exploration, NPC interaction, sidequests etc. Yet how many who know the term JRPG won't count FFXIII as one of those?

Dude... I just matched ME2 to every single one of your defintions. Be a man and admit your definition is invalidated, and that you need to not define genres by such ridiculous statements. A real man admits when he's wrong. Trying to defend such a silly definition after it was so thoroughly debased in every way is asinine.

There was this thread comparing PS3 and 360 JRPG sales in which Disgaea 3 was included, and I've seen it in a number of list wars of 2009.

I admit to being somewhat wrong, but as long as there are games that match these traits, I can't be completely wrong, can I?

Or to put it one other way.


People who like JRPGs are more likely to like WRPGS then SRPGS.

There are Western made SRPGS... and they're EXACTLY like Japanese made RPGS.

Valkyria Chronicles is most similar to Future Tactics: The Uprising.

This was a PS2, GC and Xbox game that was developed by Zed Two. A UK company.

Rebelstar Tactical Command is a lot like Japanese SRPGS as well... but was made by UK developers again.

When it comes to SRPGs.  The western and Japanese versions are pretty much exactly the same.  To fold a SRPG into JRPG would be doing so soley based on geography... which is the dumbest reason to assign a genre i've ever heard.

It's like saying if a Ford is made in Mexico instead of the US it's not a car anymore but a motorized cart.  Even though it's identical to US made Fords.

oh for fuck's sake, the reason you don't see people considering Disgaea 3 a jRPG now is because the argument has moved on to VC.  If this will help here:

I consider Disgaea 3 a jRPG just as I do Fire Emblem and Valkyria Chronicles

now you can stop saying you haven't seen people consider those jRPG's.

What do you consider a JRPG.  Just any RPG from Japan?  And If so... why is this a valid genre?

If yonsider a SRPG a JRPG when it has little to no difference from Western developed SRPGS.  It's soley being done on a geography front.  Although where that puts Korean and Chinese developed games who knows.

Ok, this RPG discussion is turning into the "exclusive" discussion, so I vote for some mod to make a New Rule (not like Bill Maher XD ) about the RPG definitions...

My personal view is this:

J and W (Japanese and West): Locations
T, A and S (Turn-based, Action and Strategy): Battle Systems

Well, it seems I did well to drop off this discussion XD

JRPG conversations never lead nowhere, so it's best to leave it at that.

it's an SRPG, but just let it go already