WRPG = More content, more innovations.
JRPG = Usually more story driven.

Thats how I see it. But I'm not really going to get in depth with it because people like what they like.  No matter on what you bring to the table you can't change anybody's mind.

Don't forget games like Tales of Symphonia, and the first two paper mario games. There is a considerable deal of variety and evolution on the part of JRPGs. This whole argument seems a bit silly to me.

Paper Mario did bring some great gameplay to the genre. I can't believe I forgot about that game.

An RPG should have character statistics and a method of customizable stat increase or skill points (leveling of some sort with distributable points). When you broaden the genre you can get into games where you just acquire new abilities as you progress or games that have items that level up rather than actual characters that do.

Now, Puzzle Quest and Deus Ex (I hate how everyone keeps spelling it Dues, it's not even pronounced deuce it's pronounced Day-Us) absolutely are RPGs. Bioshock is in the category of the "extended RPGs" or games with RPG elements but without that basic character stat increase infrastructure. Ratchet & Clank is just a game with a bunch of guns you can buy. Not sure why you keep bringing it up.

A JRPG is an RPG developed in Japanj obviously, but there are other things that are applied to it that separate it from the WRPG such as a strong plot focus and linear design.

BTW, I disagree that the WRPG as you define it is at all related to the Pen & Paper RPGs. More related to a children's choose your own adventure book. There are multiple endings, but they are all pre-written. An MMORPG is far closer to the Pen & Paper form.  The Pen & Paper RPG is a multiplayer experience by nature.

Ratchet and Clank is akin to Zelda in game type.  Say you were to consider Zelda an RPG, you would likewise have to do the same for R&C by those standards.

Most would agree I think that this requires a very loose definition of the term RPG. 

PS:  How did I miss this awesome discussion? 

Deus was simply a typo. I know how to spell it.

I'm only using R&C because you mentioned that some people consider Zelda an RPG (though you probably don't). R&C is about as much of an RPG as Zelda in my eyes.

So, out of curiosity, you would technically consider San Andreas an RPG while BioShock is not? I don't disagree with that, I'm just curious to know how far you go with skill points and levels. What about Crackdown? Obviously the *ahem* story of that game *chuckles* was lacking but other than that, it would seem to fit your definition, excepting that you have to practice skills to gain points instead of being allotted points by the game itself. Almost more like an MMORPG like Everquest.

I compare WRPGs to pen-and-paper games because it's the closest thing we have in modern gaming. While some games (Mass Effect) are more like a Choose-Your-Adventure novel, Oblivion could be considered a descendant of pen-and-paper games because you're constrained by virtually nothing in-game.

My opinion (which I feel is neutral, I hope):

A)
It's not so much that he's right because Japanese developers are "behind" their Western counterparts, as it is their consumers are. Sad thing about Japan is, it seems like many people have got themselves stuck in certain gaming niches. Although many countries are this way with some games, due to the Japanese consumer base being smaller than US/NA and PAL userbases, the problem is magnified. Like Naz mentioned, you have some great, unique Japanese RPGs like Odin Sphere, or games like Okami. Problem is, they don't do too well, forcing Japanese developers to rely on what they know will sell well, rather than what they want.

B)
It's not that Western developers, in my eyes, are any better than Japanese developers. There's this whole "percieved" idea that Western developers have somehow evolved into the mega-powers that they are in so many genres, within the past few years. This idea couldn't be more further from the truth. The truth is, that Western devs have always been incredibly innovative, smart, and producing unique games and genres - Sierra, Blizzard, Westwood, and Interplay were 4 huge developers in the 90s that put out some of the best American content the world's ever seen. Thing is, none of them were Console developers, and focused almost entirely on the PC market. Now, with the merge of PC functionalities, lowering profits, and changes in market trends, they've gone to consoles: always creating great, unqiue games, but now the likes of Nintendo and SquareSoft are feeling the brunt of their power.

So now we live in a market that the big N, Sega, Sony, and Square Enix are having to vie for a marketshare that likes diversity more (whereas Japan doesn't either have the capacity to, or is too traditional to) and allows for greater freedom in gaming trends - that garner profits for the developers to do what they do.

And that's what's making these developers finally notice the power of American and European developers. They've ALWAYS been there. They've ALWAYS made great titles, but the Japanese haven't always seen the titles.

Merely because, go back to the mid-90s and think about the greatest games ever built:

Warcraft
Command & Conquer
Red Alert
Diablo
Betrayl Series
Baldurs Gate
Fallout
Sim ****
Civilization
Falcon
Grand Theft
Alpha Centauri
Deus Ex


How many of those top-tier games recieved the good console treatment in their glory years? Answer: Very few, if any, until the Xbox and Playstation 2 began to change the whole trend in cross-compatability.

I'd say those are all gamse with RPG elements.

I still say that MMORPGs are closer than WRPGs. A Pen & Paper RPG should be unconstrained, this is true, but it should also be a primarily multiplayer experience. Nothing does this better than an MMORPG.

BTW I think there is one thing we can all agree on:  A little JRPG is far more likely to take chances and do something different than a big JRPG.  Not that I don't still like the big JRPGs from Square Enix and such, but I find I anticipate them a lot less because they are far more derivative.  That said, even Square Enix has some originality, just not in their high budget projects (see: The World Ends With You).

.....Or a WRPG with multiplayer :)

I can agree with that. But, classifying those games as "Games with RPG elements" opens up a huge ball of wax as far as gameplay diversity goes in the WRPG genre.

Like I said earlier, I think we're just really breaking this down into a semantical argument. Given the wide scope of what is considered "JRPG" vs. the narrow scope of what is considered a "WRPG", it hardly seems fair to me to compare gameplay diversity because once a WRPG steps out of the genre's bounds a few feet, it gets tossed into an entirely different genre.

Man, this conversation really makes me wish I kept more of my old RPGs.