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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - New name for JRPG

Profcrab said:
Kasz216 said:
rocketpig said:
DMeisterJ said:
I give the OP a 0.1

I like the way we rationalize JRPG, and we should keep it that way.

It's like when Soriku tried to say that casual = Non-traditional.

Why fix something that ain't broken?

Because most JRPGs aren't really "role-playing games"?


Most RPGs don't involve Roleplaying anymore in general.

I miss the days of the nameless protaganist. Even the Voiceless protaganest is often better then the main characters who are just idiots. I can't empathize and feel myself in the role of an idiot.

Hard to get around that when you've got constant voice acting though.


In video games there will never be true open choice. The pure attempt making RPG video games comes from Bethesda, however, that can also show the limitation of the medium in that respect. If a game has a story, your options will always be limited. However, a video game RPG can have the character, within the confines of the setting, reflect some of the players whims. This does mean that the story has to have more avenues and options. It will never be a pure RPG though. Most JRPGs though don't have any of that choice that would define an RPG in the most basic sense.

I give that post a 9.7.


They rarely gave you meaningful choices by forcing your hand... but the main character stayed more "everyman".  Very few times did your main character do something where you said "why the hell would you do that..."
 and make some REALLY dumb choice.

For example with a nameless protaganist you often got the choice of say a character is trying to lead you into an ambush... and it couldn't be any more obvious.

You can actually choose to distrust the person... and then they pull out a knife on some kid or something, and your lead into the ambush anyway.

vs current RPGS where people get led into the ambsuh following the guys long black hat and cape... while the villains keeps saying "you'll really get the POINT!" twirling his thin mustached the whole time with the other hand holding a big sack of money with dollar signs on it.



Around the Network
Profcrab said:
sc94597 said:


 


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.


 Exactly, that´s how a "true" RPG should be. Also I will like to add that single endings are not a hindrance in the RPG side.



Riachu said:

 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

 


 An important point here is that this is not a criticism of games with the JRPG label.  Just because it isn't a RPG doesn't mean it is any less of a game.  It is just a different genre.  I am criticizing the label, not the genre.

 I give that post a 9.2. 



Thank god for the disable signatures option.

According to Wikipedia an RPG is:

An electronic role-playing game is a broad genre of video games. These games are originally derived from traditional role-playing games, especially Dungeons & Dragons, and use both the settings and game mechanics found in such games.

Typically, gameplay centers around one or more avatars, with quantized characteristics that evolve over the course of the game, and take the place of the gamer's own skill in determining game outcomes. Another common element in RPGs is a well-developed fictional setting. These attributes are traditionally displayed to the player on a status screen as a numeric value, instead of a simpler abstract graphical representation, such as the bars and meters favored by video games in general.

The stories featured usually involve a group of characters (a party) who have joined forces in order to accomplish a mission or "quest". Along the way, the adventurers must face a great number of challenges and enemies. These are usually monsters inspired by fantasy fiction, and, to a lesser extent, science fiction and classical mythology.

If JRPG are not RPG, I wonder what they are... And besides JPRG and WRPG are unofficial sub-genres. It's just a way to show how different those kind of games play but ultimately, they are in the same genre.



How many cups of darkness have I drank over the years? Even I don't know...

 

True, but many jRPGs are still story-driven RPGs, although with few freedom of choice, you can customize your characters the way you want, from the weapons he will wield to the skills he will learn and also have various paths. They just don´t that much of an alinear path like western RPGs.

 Also, an important factor is chaos/luck (rolling the dice) which most RPGs have, but generally Action RPGs lack.



Around the Network

I think that only games like MMO's, where there is no set storyline that you have to follow, could truly be considered RPG's. You can customizer your appearance as you see fit, and if you'd rather have a drink at the tavern than save the princess then so be it.



Kasz216 said:
Profcrab said:
Kasz216 said:
rocketpig said:
DMeisterJ said:
I give the OP a 0.1

I like the way we rationalize JRPG, and we should keep it that way.

It's like when Soriku tried to say that casual = Non-traditional.

Why fix something that ain't broken?

Because most JRPGs aren't really "role-playing games"?


Most RPGs don't involve Roleplaying anymore in general.

I miss the days of the nameless protaganist. Even the Voiceless protaganest is often better then the main characters who are just idiots. I can't empathize and feel myself in the role of an idiot.

Hard to get around that when you've got constant voice acting though.


In video games there will never be true open choice. The pure attempt making RPG video games comes from Bethesda, however, that can also show the limitation of the medium in that respect. If a game has a story, your options will always be limited. However, a video game RPG can have the character, within the confines of the setting, reflect some of the players whims. This does mean that the story has to have more avenues and options. It will never be a pure RPG though. Most JRPGs though don't have any of that choice that would define an RPG in the most basic sense.

I give that post a 9.7.


They rarely gave you meaningful choices by forcing your hand... but the main character stayed more "everyman".  Very few times did your main character do something where you said "why the hell would you do that..."
 and make some REALLY dumb choice.

For example with a nameless protaganist you often got the choice of say a character is trying to lead you into an ambush... and it couldn't be any more obvious.

You can actually choose to distrust the person... and then they pull out a knife on some kid or something, and your lead into the ambush anyway.

vs current RPGS where people get led into the ambsuh following the guys long black hat and cape... while the villains keeps saying "you'll really get the POINT!" twirling his thin mustached the whole time with the other hand holding a big sack of money with dollar signs on it.


 One game I played recently that walks the Action Game/RPG border is The Witcher.  What was interesting about the game is that some of the decisions you made in the game completely locked off aspects of the game.  In fact, it is entirely possible that you would not know what opportunity you just missed.  Sometimes it affected small things and other times larger things (like one of the games 3 endings).  Moving any story forward, however is going to deprive you of many of the choices you would make in that situation.  Again, there will never be a pure RPG on computers/consoles.  Even if there was, people would probably get bored of it.

I give that post 9.6. 



Thank god for the disable signatures option.

memory2zack said:
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".

Obviously you never role-played in any of my parties. We never accomplished shit. It wall all "side quests" that we generally made up on the fly, usually resulting in at least one dead party member and at least 75% of the rest of the party jailed for one reason or another.




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/

STOP THE POST RATING , WHEN WILL THIS STOP !!!.




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. 


Bingo, and I agree completely.  This is a  MUCH better method of classifying RPG's.  I'm a TRPG fan which the ps3 sorely lacks right now.  Enchanted Arms is the only one if you can even call that a game.



PSN ID: Sorrow880

Gamertag: Sorrow80

Wii #: 8132 1076 3416 7450