I agree with this. The debate only came up because someone called Demon Souls a JRPG, when reviews have all said it's got alot of Oblivion in it. Thats all. Noone said they were bad games though.

[citation needed]

Please show me where reviewers say this.

Read the thread. Somebody already said the same thing, and we discussed it. I do not want everything going back to this point and everything go back into an endless loop.

Chrono Trigger has something around 16 multiple endings. That is a fact, and whether you like it or not it is true. Btw, these are the same people that label the games as RPGs today. So if you take them as credible back then as you do now, try to be consistent. I for one, find genres that make sense, and not because a developer or media personel labels it as such. Most Japanese developed "RPGs" fit best in the Strategy genre. Most American or European RPGs released are Action-Adventures. Neither of them are true RPGs. The video game definition of RPG isn't the same as a "real" role playing game.

Really you think those games have multiple choices, paths or endings. I'm shocked at what people think choice is? The characters. choices and paths couldn't be more linear if they tried.  Actually FF in the snes days was reffered to alot as adventure game in many magazine reviews back in the day.

Yeah, cause Mass Effect's choices aren't linear at all. "Let's see, should I diplomatically explain the situation, or punch this bitch out."

Black and white choices are pathetic, and don't in any way bring WRPGs closer to pen and paper. It's just like having 2 storylines to a JRPG. JRPGs have sidequests to the main quests too, and plenty of multiple endings. The only realistic differences are starting out with some mediocre character creation options (which you get in some JRPGs as well ala Dragon Quest) and the ability to commit random acts of violent crime.

I'm glad to know that the only difference between tabletop RPGs and JRPGs is the ability to steal silverware.

Back in the real world, RPGs for video games are completely different than RPGs as the term was originally defined for tabletop games. For a video game, it's just a game where you take on a role of a character that posesses some form of leveling and customization of a character's abilities. WRPGs are nowhere near tabletop games, and never will be. They are just more open-ended adventures while JRPGs are more linear. However, comapred to tabletop games, both generally end up quite linear, and there are always linear WRPGs (Mass Effect) and open-ended JRPGs (Dragon Quest).

Whether you prefer the style of one to the other is completely up to you, but claiming one is more of a "true" RPG is simply bullshit. And that's the end of this freaking stupid argument.

You're going to use that as an example of an important choice in Mass Effect? How about when you choose what party member to save? You know, an actually important decision in the game that has no right or wrong answer.

I can't tell whether you're being cute or being serious, I hope it's the former, or you really need to go play Mass Effect again.

Black and white choices are pathetic, and don't in any way bring WRPGs closer to pen and paper. It's just like having 2 storylines to a JRPG. JRPGs have sidequests to the main quests too, and plenty of multiple endings. The only realistic differences are starting out with some mediocre character creation options (which you get in some JRPGs as well ala Dragon Quest) and the ability to commit random acts of violent crime.

I'm glad to know that the only difference between tabletop RPGs and JRPGs is the ability to steal silverware.

Back in the real world, RPGs for video games are completely different than RPGs as the term was originally defined for tabletop games. For a video game, it's just a game where you take on a role of a character that posesses some form of leveling and customization of a character's abilities. WRPGs are nowhere near tabletop games, and never will be. They are just more open-ended adventures while JRPGs are more linear. However, comapred to tabletop games, both generally end up quite linear, and there are always linear WRPGs (Mass Effect) and open-ended JRPGs (Dragon Quest).

Whether you prefer the style of one to the other is completely up to you, but claiming one is more of a "true" RPG is simply bullshit. And that's the end of this freaking stupid argument.

I've played and beaten Mass Effect 3 times. Killing and saving party members has little to no effect on the story. For that matter neither does sleeping with them. Every story related decision in that game is completely black and white, and most of the non-story related ones are the same. One choice between two crew members doesn't make a game high art, nor does it make the game any less linear. Random scripted decisions tacked into the game don't make the game open. You really need to get out and try some more games if you believe it does.