It's an sRPG.

Assuming it can only get one title, it's sRPG and not jRPG.

I suppose the argument could be made that SRPG is a distinction about the battle system style while JRPG is a distinction about the title's origin as well as the common story telling methods within. It's like how ToV is an Action RPG battle system, but we still denote it as a JRPG.

 So who's to say it can't have 2 titles?   Infinite Undiscovery is classified first as an Action rpg, but still alot of people here refer to it as a jrpg as well.  Sames goes for SO4 and Tales of Vesperia, there Arpgs and still called jrpgs so why can't srpg's? 

 Good Point there

Nothing says they can't IMO.

It's a matter of scope though.  The difference between a typical turn-based jRPG and a typical aRPG isn't that large usually.  They usually play the game, have similar stories...etc.  Except for the system used when you go into battle, the games are very similar in terms of exploration, item collection...etc. 

In an sRPG, it's usually very different.  If you want to compare Final Fantasy 7 to Tales of Symphonia to Fire Emblem X, the one that will stand out the most will be Fire Emblem.  Almost the entire gameplay is different from the other two.  It's so different that most people refer to it as sRPG instead of jRPG.

The "s" pretty much defines the whole experience of the game rather than the "j."  So sure, they could have multiple titles... but the sRPG title is much stronger and says a lot more about the game than the jRPG title.

Very true, I think the best way to define the game would be sRPG, but I also think that people who use the sRPG monicre to say that it doesn't count as a jRPG are incorrect.  sRPG is a lot more like a subset of jRPG or western RPG (dependent on the story telling) then a third genre altogether.

No it's not. Classifying VC as a jrpg is just a round-about way of touting the PS3's library. I don't care what you, Nazna, or anyone says. It's generally accepted, by everyone, and also very obvious, that Disgaea and jrpg games are in different genres.

To say that srpgs are jrpgs is implying that srpgs don't exist. There is no need for discussion beyond that point.

Also, as far as classifying jrpgs....you'll know it when you see it.

No matter how many people you get to disagree with me, you'd still be wrong.

The only possible explaination is that "srpgs" are a subgenre of jrpgs, which they are. A square is also a rectangle.....but a rectange is not a square. It's a different genre, sub or not.

I can't believe there was a huge fanboy post about this, so that PS3 fanboys could confidently claim that their console had some jrpgs on it.

If in your definition of next gen include the DS then VC is not the best rating JRPG

So if you admit this then how are sRPGs and jRPGs mutually exclusive.  And on the note of roundabout ways, I could suggest that classifying sRPGs as not counting as jRPG's is just a roundabout way of bringing down the PS3's library and discounting these titles as not counting towards jRPG lists.

Well, technically, they are correct. Sub-genres, still aren't the "same" genre. jrpg itself is a niche subgenre.

From a marginalizational point of view, they are also correct. A srpg, subgenre, is much more niche, and interests less gamers, especially in japan, than a pure jrpg.

The problem lies here. You can't tell anyone looking to buy the PS3 that "It has 2 really badass jrpgs" and NOT be bullshitting. Whoever you try to spin like that will buy the console, come hunt you down, and stab you. If that doesn't win this thread, nothing will. Do you disagree?