I think this is all semantics guys (I mentioned this before, and I think everyone except one ignored it).

Liberal doesn't literally mean liberal. Conservative doesn't literally mean conservative.

I don't think Role Playing Game has to literally be a game where you get to play a role. In fact, if we take the definition of that literally, then every game is a RPG (you take the role of somebody in every game).

Is character customization (physical attributes) necessary for a WRPG? No. Most early WRPG's only had a few premade choices, and the really old WRPGs (before I was alive) probably didn't even give you a choice to physically design your character.

Player choice is everywhere now. Splintercell: Double Agent had player choice. You controlled the outcome of the game. Most games have cop out "Press A or B" choices. InFamous had player choice, is that a RPG?

I think people haven't created a technical term and set of criteria for RPG and just link together similar games as they see fit under the names JRPG, WRPG, RPG, etc. We can debate about it, but it's all personal opinion. There's no objective criteria and fact, and meaning to the word RPG, it's all an issue of semantics and personal opinion, there's no right here.

Prince of Persia has been considerably retooled.

Resident Evil 5 is a new direction for the series.

Etc...

Just because you don't want to acknowledge it does't change the fact it happens. 

By the way, the Ant principle is meaningless when what you were doing is extracting conclusions for the larger market from anecdotal evidence. I have a friend who still plays his ps2 and the only games he plays is the yearly iteration of pes: obviously all guys with ps2 still active that's all they do, play pes. C'mon...  there's no validity whatsoever in extrapolating results from a small non-representative pick. You think Reggie says: ok, my son likes that basketball game in Wii Resorts and the Ant Principle says that's all I need to know! Greenlight it!. There might be a few ants who like this or like that, but wether those ants represent the whole nest is a different thing - and that's what you were trying to do.

But yeah, let's just agree to disagree.

Way to go Nightstriker to inform the OP. But WRPGS FTW!!! im tired of being a normal person who has some awesome vision that allows me to posess some magical weapon and with it save the world. Thats what all JRPGs seem to do anymore and i prefer WRPGs because of it

Of course there is a criteria for an RPG. People have just gotten so used to calling JRPG's, RPG's that they never sat down and thought about it hard enough.

WRPG and JPG round table discussion on the major differences between the two at RPGfan.com:

"Western RPGs came about based on the pen & paper games that arose in the '70s and '80s, and therefore focused on letting the player create the story by his/her actions, at least as much as was possible with the technology of the time. Japanese RPGs have been around since I started playing RPGs. I entered via the console forum, which basically meant Japanese-made games. There were exceptions–such as Ultima, that made it onto the NES–but by in large the majority were from Japan."- RPGfan.com

"Mark nailed it right on the head. The divide between the two boils down to that point: freedom vs. linearity. Japanese RPGs are all about telling you the story, and that's probably why they shouldn't be called Role Playing Games in the traditional sense. After all, the term came from America to refer to games such as Dungeons & Dragons, in which each of the players chose a role and along with the Game Master created the story. Japanese RPGs rarely let you affect the outcome of the story, and even when they do, it's usually not to a great degree."-RPGfan.com

http://www.rpgfan.com/features/roundtable2007/index1.html

@S.T.A.G.E. I agree with you, but it really wasn't something I wanted to argue here.

Yeah, but I refuse to be involved in a subjective debate when there are great JRPG's and WRPG's. I just hate when people talk about WRPG's, when they are the only ones truly representing the genre and evolving while doing so.

I'm not sure I follow that last statement. I relate to characters in books all of the time, despite having no control of what their actions are.

I think an RPG is simply what we make it to be. We don't need these rigid definitions for genres. Certainly the genre of RPG has expanded since the 70's.

If we were to look at music, for better or worse is a matter of opinion, clearly the Rock genre has expanded and has accepted sounds that would never have been considered as rock if solely adhering at a strict, traditional definition.

You relate to characters in books, because the book stimulates the brain and the brain creates the image. Humans imagine things in their own perspective.

You're right that RPG's have expanded since the 70's, but RPG's don't have linear storylines that we cannot control. RPG's have influenced many non-rpg things, such as sports games, action games and any other game that involves some sort of growth. Career modes of most games are based off of your own personalized growth. RPG's are DM created stories that you influence and change based on the control your character posesses. That, my friend, will never change.

No, my point was that you can relate to characters regardless of genre. You don't need to be able to control actions to relate to a character.

But it has already. Millions of people, and the industry as a whole have accepted JRPGs as RPGs. But anyway, as mentioned several other times, this is just an issue of semantics. Really no need to go any further with it.

When I say relate, I mean feeling as the character does.