Torillian said: But how do you define "widely accepted or established" definitions. Here's some Wikipedia definitions.
jRPG - a Roll playing game from Japan or "the majority of console roll playing games" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JRPG sRPG - This sub-genre of role-playing game principally refers to games which incorporate gameplay from strategy games as an alternative to traditional RPG systems. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SRPG
All I have done is said that a game being a sRPG does not negate the fact that it also came from Japan.
All JRPG means is an RPG from Japan, and then there are separations within that.
|
@bold : Um, duh. Obvious statement is obvious.
Also, I define "widely accepted/established" as what 99% of websites and gamers classify games as. For example:
http://ps2.ign.com/objects/016/016467.html : Kingdom Hearts = ARPG
http://www.gamefaqs.com/console/ps2/home/516587.html : Kingdom Hearts = ARPG
http://www.gamespot.com/ps2/adventure/kingdomhearts/index.html : Kingdom Hearts = ARPG
Note that it's aRPG and not jRPG.
| ookaze said:
But you're wrong, the widely accepted definition of JRPG are just console RPG that come from Japan, and this includes SRPG, ARPG or Turn-based/traditional RPG. As long as it comes from Japan it's a JRPG.
For you FFTactics is not a JRPG, now that's a new one.
|
Final Fantasy Tactics is TBS oddly enough according to gamefaqs and IGN. Not sure if I would agree or disagree with that. There are a lot of generic units in the game but not enough to make it TBS vs sRPG. Then again, Tactics is mostly trash so it doesn't matter to me. The decent gameplay couldn't make up for the generic snooze-fest that was its story and the wholely unmemorable characters.