By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - New name for JRPG

memory2zack on 12 June 2008

Open-world is not synonymous to RPG. In fact it alienates you from the character. I would hardly consider Oblivion a true RPG. The RPGs that embrace most RPG aspects are what Bioware did in Kotor and Mass Effect.
An RPG needs a good mix of character attachment, personality, a good amount of interaction, social and "job" development as well as a decent amount of "freedom of choice " outside of battles.



Around the Network
Riachu on 12 June 2008

The Japanese consider any game that has numerical stats to be RPGs so that might have something to do with it. I think you have a good point. JRPGs tecnically aren't rope playing games.



 

http://www.youtube.com/user/InvaderZimGuy1?feature=mhum

Kasz216 on 12 June 2008
DragonLord said:

I know that I hate it that SRPG's are considered JRPG's.

Whenever I say that the ps3 doesn't have any JRPG's coming out in the near future, I realize that Valkyrie Chronicles and Disgaea 3 are both JRPG's....but they are also SRPG's. Many people such as myself prefer one type over the other. I don't like Strategy RPG's near as much as "traditional" JRPG's. It would be nice to be able to differentiate between them.

The ps3 is getting some SRPG's, but not any traditional JRPG's in the forseeable future---which is completely unacceptable to me.


 Things were a lot easier when it was ARPG, TRPG, and SRPG.  

That's still my favored model.  Since it tells you what kinda gameplay your going to get... not where a game was manufactured. 



sc94597 on 12 June 2008

I agree. Neither jrpgs, or most wrpgs follow the definition of an rpg correctly. I would say that both did in when they started out as genres, but strayed so much they shouldn't be called rpgs anymore. Some games though still try to fit to the definition.



Riachu on 12 June 2008
Kasz216 said:
DragonLord said:

I know that I hate it that SRPG's are considered JRPG's.

Whenever I say that the ps3 doesn't have any JRPG's coming out in the near future, I realize that Valkyrie Chronicles and Disgaea 3 are both JRPG's....but they are also SRPG's. Many people such as myself prefer one type over the other. I don't like Strategy RPG's near as much as "traditional" JRPG's. It would be nice to be able to differentiate between them.

The ps3 is getting some SRPG's, but not any traditional JRPG's in the forseeable future---which is completely unacceptable to me.


Things were a lot easier when it was ARPG, TRPG, and SRPG.

That's still my favored model. Since it tells you what kinda gameplay your going to get... not where a game was manufactured.

 I would prefer that model too.  The terms JRPG and WRPG shouldn't exist but they do and because of that, people are critzcising JRPGs for not being actual role playing games

 



 

http://www.youtube.com/user/InvaderZimGuy1?feature=mhum

Around the Network
sc94597 on 12 June 2008
memory2zack said:
Open-world is not synonymous to RPG. In fact it alienates you from the character. I would hardly consider Oblivion a true RPG. The RPGs that embrace most RPG aspects are what Bioware did in Kotor and Mass Effect.
An RPG needs a good mix of character attachment, personality, a good amount of interaction, social and "job" development as well as a decent amount of "freedom of choice " outside of battles.

 The point of role playing is to let YOU be the character. Let you how you want your character to develop. There shouldn't be a prederermined path in a rpg.



memory2zack on 12 June 2008

Also, in RPGs there´s a need to be a starting point and a goal with a strong story and plot catch the player´s attention. Otherwise you get sidetracked and wander pointlessly. P&P RPGs always had a begin and an ending, and didn´t have any "sidequests".



Profcrab on 12 June 2008
memory2zack said:
Open-world is not synonymous to RPG. In fact it alienates you from the character. I would hardly consider Oblivion a true RPG. The RPGs that embrace most RPG aspects are what Bioware did in Kotor and Mass Effect.
An RPG needs a good mix of character attachment, personality, a good amount of interaction, social and "job" development as well as a decent amount of "freedom of choice " outside of battles.

 That's true.  Oblivion and the previous Elder Scrolls games are not truly immersive.  What I mean by a pure attempt is that they want the player to bring their own personality to the character since the character is devoid of its own.

I give that post a 9.8. 



Thank god for the disable signatures option.

memory2zack on 12 June 2008
sc94597 said:

The point of role playing is to let YOU be the character. Let you how you want your character to develop. There shouldn't be a prederermined path in a rpg.


 Predetermined or not is irrelevant when you can develop the character the way you want and decide what weapon, skills he will use or when its party-based and you can concentrate on the characters you want. 



Profcrab on 12 June 2008
sc94597 said:
memory2zack said:
Open-world is not synonymous to RPG. In fact it alienates you from the character. I would hardly consider Oblivion a true RPG. The RPGs that embrace most RPG aspects are what Bioware did in Kotor and Mass Effect.
An RPG needs a good mix of character attachment, personality, a good amount of interaction, social and "job" development as well as a decent amount of "freedom of choice " outside of battles.

 The point of role playing is to let YOU be the character. Let you how you want your character to develop. There shouldn't be a prederermined path in a rpg.


 Being that restricted isn't really necessary.  Having a story is fine, however for it to be an RPG, the player needs to feel that the character they are playing reflects them through their actions.  If the players actions have no effect on the story, then it isn't an RPG.

I give that post a 9.3. 



Thank god for the disable signatures option.