| I learned something new today. Pretending JRPGs are a distinct genre is a subtle way of enabling prejudicial attitudes. All RPGs are the same. There's actually no difference between Skyrim and Persona 5! If you think there is, then you are a bigot! Stop noticing things! |
 |
| Did Kotaku publish garbage again? |
| MEA·MENTVLA·INGENS·EST |
Once again, the Austin Walker tweet remains relevant: |
 |
| Might want to choose two games that are actually similar if you want to make that point. You just compared a turn based game to an action based game with two completely different settings. Also, there is a difference between jrpgs and western rpgs. Characters in jrpgs are hotter. You take any jrpg, anime art style or not, and compare them to any western rpg, the jrpg will 100% have more attractive characters. And this is a non subjective, completely objective fact. |
FanofActionMay 19, 2022 7:29 PM
FanofAction said: Might want to choose two games that are actually similar if you want to make that point. You just compared a turn based game to an action based game with two completely different settings. Also, there is a difference between jrpgs and western rpgs. Characters in jrpgs are hotter. You take any jrpg, anime art style or not, and compare them to any western rpg, the jrpg will 100% have more attractive characters. And this is a non subjective, completely objective fact. It was on an Elden Ring discussion forum where I read this opinion. Someone asked if Elden Ring is like other JRPGs. Lots of people agreed that yes, it is a JRPG. And I was just flabbergasted...especially when I learned the rationale behind this thinking...Sure, it's made in Japan and it does have a lot of RPG features but come on. Elden Ring has way more in common with Skyrim than it does Dragon Quest or whatever. Maybe it was a dumb idea in the first place to label the dragon quest style of RPGs with a J but what else are we supposed to call them? |
|
| I consider 4 main genres of rpg Turn based Strategy (Grids) Action Tactical (Valkyria Chronicles) Hybrids exist like Devil Survivor games. |
rohan121May 19, 2022 8:43 PM
 |
| kotaku tier take, congrats few manage to ever reach that level of stupid |
 |
epidemia78 said: FanofAction said: Might want to choose two games that are actually similar if you want to make that point. You just compared a turn based game to an action based game with two completely different settings. Also, there is a difference between jrpgs and western rpgs. Characters in jrpgs are hotter. You take any jrpg, anime art style or not, and compare them to any western rpg, the jrpg will 100% have more attractive characters. And this is a non subjective, completely objective fact. It was on an Elden Ring discussion forum where I read this opinion. Someone asked if Elden Ring is like other JRPGs. Lots of people agreed that yes, it is a JRPG. And I was just flabbergasted...especially when I learned the rationale behind this thinking...Sure, it's made in Japan and it does have a lot of RPG features but come on. Elden Ring has way more in common with Skyrim than it does Dragon Quest or whatever. Maybe it was a dumb idea in the first place to label the dragon quest style of RPGs with a J but what else are we supposed to call them? Ah ok. So someone else had that take. Thought so, but wasnt 100% sure, hence the use of both a serious and a joke response. That does raise an interesting question. I've always just naturally labeled any RPGs from Japan a "JRPG" the same way most naturally call Japanese animation "anime". But now that I think about it, calling something like Elden Ring a JRPG does feel a bit off, more so than calling even something like Nier that. |
FanofActionMay 19, 2022 9:06 PM
epidemia78 said: It was on an Elden Ring discussion forum where I read this opinion. Someone asked if Elden Ring is like other JRPGs. Lots of people agreed that yes, it is a JRPG. And I was just flabbergasted...especially when I learned the rationale behind this thinking...Sure, it's made in Japan and it does have a lot of RPG features but come on. Elden Ring has way more in common with Skyrim than it does Dragon Quest or whatever. Okay, so, you're not the jackass with a shitty opinion. You were just quoting a group of jackasses with shitty opinions. Anyway. It takes more than just an RPG being from Japan to be a true JRPG. It's more nuanced than that . It's a mix of a game's visual character designs, the characterizations of said characters, voice direction, the game's overall aesthetic, and how the story is written given the differences between Japanese and Western storytelling. |
|
FanofAction said: epidemia78 said: It was on an Elden Ring discussion forum where I read this opinion. Someone asked if Elden Ring is like other JRPGs. Lots of people agreed that yes, it is a JRPG. And I was just flabbergasted...especially when I learned the rationale behind this thinking...Sure, it's made in Japan and it does have a lot of RPG features but come on. Elden Ring has way more in common with Skyrim than it does Dragon Quest or whatever. Maybe it was a dumb idea in the first place to label the dragon quest style of RPGs with a J but what else are we supposed to call them? Ah ok. So someone else had that take. Thought so, but wasnt 100% sure, hence the using both a serious and a joke response. That does raise an interesting question. I've always just naturally labeled any RPGs from Japan a "JRPG" the same way most naturally call Japanese animation "anime". But now that I think about it, calling something like Elden Ring a JRPG does feel a bit off, more so than calling even something like Nier that. Thankfully I am not that stupid. I've always had a very specific and concrete idea in my head about what to expect from a JRPG. Considering that 99.999% of RPGs from Japan fit that mold it's really no wonder you never really thought about it much until now. The people who hold the view in question know the difference too. They KNOW it. But they pretend not to. For some stupid reason. That's...just so infuriating! |
|
epidemia78 said: FanofAction said: Ah ok. So someone else had that take. Thought so, but wasnt 100% sure, hence the using both a serious and a joke response. That does raise an interesting question. I've always just naturally labeled any RPGs from Japan a "JRPG" the same way most naturally call Japanese animation "anime". But now that I think about it, calling something like Elden Ring a JRPG does feel a bit off, more so than calling even something like Nier that. Thankfully I am not that stupid. I've always had a very specific and concrete idea in my head about what to expect from a JRPG. Considering that 99.999% of RPGs from Japan fit that mold it's really no wonder you never really thought about it much until now. The people who hold the view in question know the difference too. They KNOW it. But they pretend not to. For some stupid reason. That's...just so infuriating! Where are you on on the turn-based vs non turn-based thing? By that I mean do you think something has to be turn-based to be a jrpg, or that it just has to have a certain look and feel to it? Do you separate all action rpgs or just ones like Elden Ring? Note: I deleted my last post for this one, because I didn't get my thoughts out the way I wanted to. |
FanofAction said: Where are you on on the turn-based vs non turn-based thing? By that I mean do you think something has to be turn-based to be a jrpg, or that it just has to have a certain look and feel to it? Do you separate all action rpgs or just ones like Elden Ring? Note: I deleted my last post for this one, because I didn't get my thoughts out the way I wanted to. Mainly, the look and feel. A certain flavor. JRPGs put an emphasis on story but primarily on developing the characters and their typically anime/manga-like personalities. The overarching narrative is often overshadowed by the interactions between your party members. It's like going on a road trip with some friends...but you just happen to gather the seven crystals and save the world along the way. Having several party members is key. Turn based combat isn't the norm for JRPGs because it's super fun and exciting. It's just the ideal way to control a group. Turn based combat over time grew unpopular especially with normies and the gaming media, so newer JRPGs try to mix up the formula with real time battles where your party members are mostly controlled by AI. I don't really like it but the all-important focus on the personalities of your main party is still there. So that's basically my definition of what a JRPG is. |
|
epidemia78 said: FanofAction said: Where are you on on the turn-based vs non turn-based thing? By that I mean do you think something has to be turn-based to be a jrpg, or that it just has to have a certain look and feel to it? Do you separate all action rpgs or just ones like Elden Ring? Note: I deleted my last post for this one, because I didn't get my thoughts out the way I wanted to. Mainly, the look and feel. A certain flavor. JRPGs put an emphasis on story but primarily on developing the characters and their typically anime/manga-like personalities. The overarching narrative is often overshadowed by the interactions between your party members. It's like going on a road trip with some friends...but you just happen to gather the seven crystals and save the world along the way. Having several party members is key. Turn based combat isn't the norm for JRPGs because it's super fun and exciting. It's just the ideal way to control a group. Turn based combat over time grew unpopular especially with normies and the gaming media, so newer JRPGs try to mix up the formula with real time battles where your party members are mostly controlled by AI. I don't really like it but the all-important focus on the personalities of your main party is still there. So that's basically my definition of what a JRPG is. I have to agree with you on the AI companion thing. I love action based games, but a crappy AI team can really hurt your expirence. Though I'm more lenient if you can still switch between party members. If all I can do is give basic commands or something, at some point I'll get bored of just controlling the main guy. If I'm playing a game with a full party, I want to be able to use every character. There's plenty of other games I could play if I wanted to stick to just one character. |
FanofAction said: epidemia78 said: Mainly, the look and feel. A certain flavor. JRPGs put an emphasis on story but primarily on developing the characters and their typically anime/manga-like personalities. The overarching narrative is often overshadowed by the interactions between your party members. It's like going on a road trip with some friends...but you just happen to gather the seven crystals and save the world along the way. Having several party members is key. Turn based combat isn't the norm for JRPGs because it's super fun and exciting. It's just the ideal way to control a group. Turn based combat over time grew unpopular especially with normies and the gaming media, so newer JRPGs try to mix up the formula with real time battles where your party members are mostly controlled by AI. I don't really like it but the all-important focus on the personalities of your main party is still there. So that's basically my definition of what a JRPG is. I have to agree with you on the AI companion thing. I love action based games, but a crappy AI team can really hurt your expirence. Though I'm more lenient if you can still switch between party members. If all I can do is give basic commands or something, at some point I'll get bored of just controlling the main guy. If I'm playing a game with a full party, I want to be able to use every character. There's plenty of other games I could play if I wanted to stick to just one character. Yeah, I really want to get into the Xenoblade games because the characters all look interesting, cool, cute and fun. But the gameplay is like an MMORPG switched to offline and it sucks the enjoyment out of it for me. |
|
epidemia78 said: FanofAction said: I have to agree with you on the AI companion thing. I love action based games, but a crappy AI team can really hurt your expirence. Though I'm more lenient if you can still switch between party members. If all I can do is give basic commands or something, at some point I'll get bored of just controlling the main guy. If I'm playing a game with a full party, I want to be able to use every character. There's plenty of other games I could play if I wanted to stick to just one character. Yeah, I really want to get into the Xenoblade games because the characters all look interesting, cool, cute and fun. But the gameplay is like an MMORPG switched to offline and it sucks the enjoyment out of it for me. Yeah...there's certain games I really hope I'll like, but I'm worried I'll end up hating, or at the very least disliking them, for the same reason. And I hate that, because I want to give them a fair chance. |
| There's certainly difference between western RPG and Japanese RPG. The one thing that stood out to me is the sandbox nature between those two. In western media there's much more freedom of choices while JRPG is linear; there's more limitation where you’ll get to a point where there's unavoidable main quest, the plot has to be advanced or it’s game over (Like Persona day by day basis for example). There's massive difference in the tropes too. You don't see hot spring fanservices or landing at boobs in western media ;) Also Elden Ring is 100% JRPG. |
 |
FanofAction said: Also, there is a difference between jrpgs and western rpgs. Characters in jrpgs are hotter. You take any jrpg, anime art style or not, and compare them to any western rpg, the jrpg will 100% have more attractive characters. And this is a non subjective, completely objective fact. I still don't understand why anybody willingly plays WRPGs. |
| その目だれの目？ |
Aroo-nyan said: There's certainly difference between western RPG and Japanese RPG. The one thing that stood out to me is the sandbox nature between those two. In western media there's much more freedom of choices while JRPG is linear; there's more limitation where you’ll get to a point where there's unavoidable main quest, the plot has to be advanced or it’s game over (Like Persona day by day basis for example). There's massive difference in the tropes too. You don't see hot spring fanservices or landing at boobs in western media ;) Also Elden Ring is 100% JRPG. It's funny you say that considering that everything you said that differentiates a western rpg from a japanese one applies to Elden Ring. There is no doubt that the soulsborne games are a spiritual successor to Fromsoft's old Kings Field series. King's Field was a pure dungeon crawling rpg experience; much akin to Ultima Underworld. |
|
Lucifrost said: FanofAction said: Also, there is a difference between jrpgs and western rpgs. Characters in jrpgs are hotter. You take any jrpg, anime art style or not, and compare them to any western rpg, the jrpg will 100% have more attractive characters. And this is a non subjective, completely objective fact. I still don't understand why anybody willingly plays WRPGs. To explore all the dungeons. Kill all the monsters and amass all the loot. To level up and become godlike. There's plenty of appeal to the western rpg formula. It's just too bad modern day AAA western devs are more concerned with making movies you watch rather than making games you play. |
|
epidemia78 said: Aroo-nyan said: There's certainly difference between western RPG and Japanese RPG. The one thing that stood out to me is the sandbox nature between those two. In western media there's much more freedom of choices while JRPG is linear; there's more limitation where you’ll get to a point where there's unavoidable main quest, the plot has to be advanced or it’s game over (Like Persona day by day basis for example). There's massive difference in the tropes too. You don't see hot spring fanservices or landing at boobs in western media ;) Also Elden Ring is 100% JRPG. It's funny you say that considering that everything you said that differentiates a western rpg from a japanese one applies to Elden Ring. There is no doubt that the soulsborne games are a spiritual successor to Fromsoft's old Kings Field series. King's Field was a pure dungeon crawling rpg experience; much akin to Ultima Underworld. No I do not think so. Sure, there's a lot of optional dungeon/bosses to be explored in Elden Ring but it because the game was built to be massive dark fantasy setting. Even so after 5-6 hours of dungeon crawling or grinding in one area (Limgrave for example) you don't really have any choice but to beat Margit and Godrick because there's nothing else to do. You have to get at least two Two Great Runes (which requires you to beat demigod) to reach the ending, you have to beat Fire Giants to get final area etc. That's basically the pattern, you get in one area, you explore it, and then you just realize you don't have any choice but to do something mandatory to continue. That's basically the limitation that I every so often found in JRPG. |
|
Aroo-nyan said: epidemia78 said: It's funny you say that considering that everything you said that differentiates a western rpg from a japanese one applies to Elden Ring. There is no doubt that the soulsborne games are a spiritual successor to Fromsoft's old Kings Field series. King's Field was a pure dungeon crawling rpg experience; much akin to Ultima Underworld. No I do not think so. Sure, there's a lot of optional dungeon/bosses to be explored in Elden Ring but it because the game was built to be massive dark fantasy setting. Even so after 5-6 hours of dungeon crawling or grinding in one area (Limgrave for example) you don't really have any choice but to beat Margit and Godrick because there's nothing else to do. You have to get at least two Two Great Runes (which requires you to beat demigod) to reach the ending, you have to beat Fire Giants to get final area etc. That's basically the pattern, you get in one area, you explore it, and then you just realize you don't have any choice but to do something mandatory to continue. That's basically the limitation that I every so often found in JRPG. Western RPGs also have a checklist of duties every character must attend to if you want to see the staff credits. Your logic is flawed. |
|
epidemia78 said: Aroo-nyan said: No I do not think so. Sure, there's a lot of optional dungeon/bosses to be explored in Elden Ring but it because the game was built to be massive dark fantasy setting. Even so after 5-6 hours of dungeon crawling or grinding in one area (Limgrave for example) you don't really have any choice but to beat Margit and Godrick because there's nothing else to do. You have to get at least two Two Great Runes (which requires you to beat demigod) to reach the ending, you have to beat Fire Giants to get final area etc. That's basically the pattern, you get in one area, you explore it, and then you just realize you don't have any choice but to do something mandatory to continue. That's basically the limitation that I every so often found in JRPG. Western RPGs also have a checklist of duties every character must attend to if you want to see the staff credits. Your logic is flawed. I spend nearly double digit hours on Mount and Blade & Sid Meier's. I never see the ending. There's obviously a way to see the staff credits because every games has an ending. But even so you can feels the plot structure in WRPG isn't linear; it was more play and less direction by the naratives. In JRPG it's like a theme park, the gamer is just along for the ride. |
PesterDrivelMay 20, 2022 10:34 AM
|
Aroo-nyan said: epidemia78 said: Western RPGs also have a checklist of duties every character must attend to if you want to see the staff credits. Your logic is flawed. I spend nearly double digit hours on Mount and Blade & Sid Meier's. I never see the ending. There's obviously a way to see the staff credits because every games has an ending. But even so you can feels the plot structure in WRPG isn't linear; it was more play and less direction by the naratives. In JRPG it's like a theme park, the gamer is just along for the ride. I love a good open-world game where you can roam around freely and complete the main story whenever you want, but that being said, wouldn't you want to eventually see the ending? I couldn't bring myself to sink hours into a game without at some point thinking "this has been great, but I just want to see the actual ending now". |
| I facepalmed the moment you said that Skyrim and Persona are the same. As in the same franchise with the exact same mechanics? I don't think so. By the way, since when is Persona an offline mmorpg like Dragon Age and said Elder Scrolls game. Also, comparing Final Fantasy to Disgaea is still apples to oranges as well. Final Fantasy is no longer turn-based and Disgaea still retains its turn-based strategy nature. "Japanese RPGs" are a still a broad breed of games. Those kind of games and western RPGs are centered on simulation in their own ways. |
Kurt_Irving said: I facepalmed the moment you said that Skyrim and Persona are the same. As in the same franchise with the exact same mechanics? I don't think so. By the way, since when is Persona an offline mmorpg like Dragon Age and said Elder Scrolls game. Also, comparing Final Fantasy to Disgaea is still apples to oranges as well. Final Fantasy is no longer turn-based and Disgaea still retains its turn-based strategy nature. "Japanese RPGs" are a still a broad breed of games. Those kind of games and western RPGs are centered on simulation in their own ways. I cant believe people are still reading my sarcastic opening post so literally. I thought I made it obvious but apparently not. Anyway, read more of the thread if you want to know what I actually believe. I think I did a pretty good job of explaining what makes a JRPG different. |
|
epidemia78 said: I cant believe people are still reading my sarcastic opening post so literally. I thought I made it obvious but apparently not. Anyway, read more of the thread if you want to know what I actually believe. I think I did a pretty good job of explaining what makes a JRPG different. Last I heard, apples to oranges are not opposites or suggest anything topsy-turvy. Furthermore, comparing apples to oranges is not funny either. |
| I understand your sarcasm here but it's getting harder these days. I could genuinely see some shit-stained game journalist posting this take |
 |
FanofAction said: Aroo-nyan said: I spend nearly double digit hours on Mount and Blade & Sid Meier's. I never see the ending. There's obviously a way to see the staff credits because every games has an ending. But even so you can feels the plot structure in WRPG isn't linear; it was more play and less direction by the naratives. In JRPG it's like a theme park, the gamer is just along for the ride. I love a good open-world game where you can roam around freely and complete the main story whenever you want, but that being said, wouldn't you want to eventually see the ending? I couldn't bring myself to sink hours into a game without at some point thinking "this has been great, but I just want to see the actual ending now". Essentially I just dropped both those games because losing interest and you felt like sometimes the efforts to see the ending just not worth it. |
|
Wavey_Nooby said: I understand your sarcasm here but it's getting harder these days. I could genuinely see some shit-stained game journalist posting this take I mean, there are real people who actually hold this view so, yeah...nerdy hobbies are at the top of the list of things that need ruining. You know how it is.  |
|
epidemia78 said: Wavey_Nooby said: I understand your sarcasm here but it's getting harder these days. I could genuinely see some shit-stained game journalist posting this take I mean, there are real people who actually hold this view so, yeah...nerdy hobbies are at the top of the list of things that need ruining. You know how it is. I think the category "JRPG" is so inflated that many people get confused about the sub-categories of these games. In a literal sense, Elden Ring is a JRPG. But if someone asks me what my favorite JRPG is I'm not going to say Elden Ring(I do love Elden Ring) because I'm assuming that's not the kind of game they're talking about. When I think of JRPG I think turn-based, FF, KH, or anything that you can tell is from Japan. I think it would be better if people just stopped lumping everything that came out of Japan as a JRPG. I think if an RPG is made in Japan but is marketed to an international audience they should just be labeled RPGs unless that game is without a doubt Japanese inside and out. |
|
| If the RPG was made in Japan, then yes, it's objectively a JRPG. |
| “Right is right even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it.” ― Saint Augustine |
ColtBuntline said: If the RPG was made in Japan, then yes, it's objectively a JRPG. Elden Ring and Dragon Quest are of the same genre? |
|
Lucifrost said: I still don't understand why anybody willingly plays WRPGs. For better or for worse, not everyone can be weeb trash. But truth be told, The Witcher is a harem series. Uguu~ |
|
epidemia78 said: ColtBuntline said: If the RPG was made in Japan, then yes, it's objectively a JRPG. Elden Ring and Dragon Quest are of the same genre? I never played them, but from what I can see on Google images, they seem to be very different types of game. But maybe people should start to use a new term, that has more to do with the type of game, and less with the country in which the game was made, so as to avoid confusion. What about 'anime-styled rpg' when you want to refer to rpg games whose characters look like anime characters? |
| “Right is right even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it.” ― Saint Augustine |
ColtBuntline said: I never played them, but from what I can see on Google images, they seem to be very different types of game. But maybe people should start to use a new term, that has more to do with the type of game, and less with the country in which the game was made, so as to avoid confusion. What about 'anime-styled rpg' when you want to refer to rpg games whose characters look like anime characters? It has been almost 40 years since the first Dragon Quest game was released. During most of that time games of it's ilk were referred to specifically as JRPGs. If you ask me it's much too late to second guess the label. Why bother changing it? It's like genres of music. Take pop for example. "Pop" is short for popular. But not all pop songs ever become popular, so are they even pop songs at all? |
|
| How can JRPGs be real if our eyes aren't even real? |
| Die like you did by the lake on Naboo. |
epidemia78 said: ColtBuntline said: I never played them, but from what I can see on Google images, they seem to be very different types of game. But maybe people should start to use a new term, that has more to do with the type of game, and less with the country in which the game was made, so as to avoid confusion. What about 'anime-styled rpg' when you want to refer to rpg games whose characters look like anime characters? It has been almost 40 years since the first Dragon Quest game was released. During most of that time games of it's ilk were referred to specifically as JRPGs. If you ask me it's much too late to second guess the label. Why bother changing it? It's like genres of music. Take pop for example. "Pop" is short for popular. But not all pop songs ever become popular, so are they even pop songs at all? I'm in favour of trying as much as possible to call things by their proper names, and also to find ways to give different names to two or more things that share one aspect but are different in another one. For example, if I have to choose between a red and a blue car, and I want the blue car, then I can just say that I want the blue car, and everyone will understand what I mean, except blind people, people who aren't blind but can't perceive the difference between colors, and people who don't understand English. But if I want a car with a specific shade of blue among many cars with different shades of blue, then I need to be more specific in order to be understood, saying that I want the dark blue or the light blue one, for example. The same can be said about JRPG; You don't need to change the label. Especially considering how RPG made in Japan that are like Elden Ring seem to be a minority, you will probably keep being understood when you use the term JRPG to refer to games more like Dragon Quest. But when the discussion really involves Elden Ring it may be necessary to adapt your vocabulary in order to make it clear that you're referring to some type of game that is a RPG made in Japan that is not like Elden Ring. You just can't blame people if they say that Elden Ring is a Japanese RPG if it really is one, but that doesn't even mean you need to call it one yourself; You can just call it RPG, or even just a video game, and it will also be correct. I'm quite sure that Japanese players don't commonly call it a JRPG either. In the case of 'pop songs' however, I really think that a song should never be called 'pop' if it's not popular. Notice how these are two different problems; In the case of 'JRPG' the problem is that it's not specific enough in some cases even though its use is still correct to refer to what it's referring to, but in the case of 'pop songs' the problem is that the abbreviation of the term 'popular' is being used to refer to songs that are not popular, and this is wrong, so people should stop doing that. Just like people need to stop using the word sex to refer to some activity that is not really sex but just an imitation of it, or the word marriage to refer to something that is not really marriage, for example... Just because people have become accustomed to misuse a term for some time, that doesn't mean the mistake has become less of a mistake or that such mistake should be perpetuated. Caring about etymology is important as a means to stay sane and prevent getting carried by the flow as some powerful people want to manipulate your way of thinking by making you accept the use of a term to refer to something whose meaning has nothing to do with such referent. |
ColtBuntlineMay 24, 2022 7:52 AM
| “Right is right even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it.” ― Saint Augustine |
epidemia78 said: It has been almost 40 years since the first Dragon Quest game was released. During most of that time games of it's ilk were referred to specifically as JRPGs. If you ask me it's much too late to second guess the label. Why bother changing it? Because your use of the label doesn't make very much sense. You might as well insist Avatar is an anime. epidemia78 said: Mainly, the look and feel. A certain flavor. JRPGs put an emphasis on story but primarily on developing the characters and their typically anime/manga-like personalities. The overarching narrative is often overshadowed by the interactions between your party members. It's like going on a road trip with some friends...but you just happen to gather the seven crystals and save the world along the way. Having several party members is key. Turn based combat isn't the norm for JRPGs because it's super fun and exciting. It's just the ideal way to control a group. Turn based combat over time grew unpopular especially with normies and the gaming media, so newer JRPGs try to mix up the formula with real time battles where your party members are mostly controlled by AI. I don't really like it but the all-important focus on the personalities of your main party is still there. So that's basically my definition of what a JRPG is. The playable characters have no personalities in Dragon Quest 1 or 3 or 9, or Final Fantasy 1 or 3, or Pokemon, or Etrian Odyssey, or any mainline SMT. If Dragon Quest 3 doesn't meet your criteria of a "Dragon Quest style" game, how else is one to describe it? I often see turn based dungeon crawlers like Etrian Odyssey described as a western genre. At the same time, the only dungeon crawlers anyone talks about were all made in Japan. What exactly are they supposed to have in common with Elder Scrolls? |
| その目だれの目？ |
Lucifrost said: Because your use of the label doesn't make very much sense. You might as well insist Avatar is an anime. Well it's a nuanced subject difficult to explain in words. Applying objective standards to describe art is a bad idea. Stop motion claymation made in Japan is technically anime. But no fucking way is that shit anime. Avatar shares a LOT in common with anime. People in the know can immediately spot the differences. Your average normie probably cannot. Lucifrost said: The playable characters have no personalities in Dragon Quest 1 or 3 or 9, or Final Fantasy 1 or 3, or Pokemon, or Etrian Odyssey, or any mainline SMT. If Dragon Quest 3 doesn't meet your criteria of a "Dragon Quest style" game, how else is one to describe it? I often see turn based dungeon crawlers like Etrian Odyssey described as a western genre. At the same time, the only dungeon crawlers anyone talks about were all made in Japan. What exactly are they supposed to have in common with Elder Scrolls? I'm glad you brought up the evolution of the Dragon Quest games. The first one was a bare bones RPG very similar to Ultima. But as the years went on the two franchises went in radically different directions each becoming the foundation of their respective genres. JRPGs and western RPGs. It is unfair to use Dragon Quest 9 to try and make a point. In the 29 years since the very first game, the features that define the series (and the genre) had been set in stone and the lack of them in DQ9 was immediately apparent. It's still a pretty controversial entry in the series. Because it is so different and basically just an excuse to experiment with multiplayer functionality; many Dragon Quest fans think it should have been made a spin off instead of part of the mainline series. Etrian Oddesy is a western-style RPG made in japan. It is basically continuing the tradition of the Wizardry franchise which originated in the USA. Wizardry became popular there while falling into obscurity in its homeland. Elder Scrolls can also trace it's lineage to first-person PC rpgs such as Wizardry. |
epidemia78May 24, 2022 3:10 PM
|
epidemia78 said: It is unfair to use Dragon Quest 9 to try and make a point. In the 29 years since the very first game, the features that define the series (and the genre) had been set in stone and the lack of them in DQ9 was immediately apparent. It's still a pretty controversial entry in the series. Because it is so different and basically just an excuse to experiment with multiplayer functionality; many Dragon Quest fans think it should have been made a spin off instead of part of the mainline series. I don't see how this has any bearing on what you call its genre. What is Dragon Quest 9, if not a JRPG? Is it another WRPG like Ultima? And I'm still waiting to hear what genre Pokemon belongs to. |
| その目だれの目？ |
Lucifrost said: epidemia78 said: It is unfair to use Dragon Quest 9 to try and make a point. In the 29 years since the very first game, the features that define the series (and the genre) had been set in stone and the lack of them in DQ9 was immediately apparent. It's still a pretty controversial entry in the series. Because it is so different and basically just an excuse to experiment with multiplayer functionality; many Dragon Quest fans think it should have been made a spin off instead of part of the mainline series. I don't see how this has any bearing on what you call its genre. What is Dragon Quest 9, if not a JRPG? Is it another WRPG like Ultima? And I'm still waiting to hear what genre Pokemon belongs to. You can work within a framework and still innovate. But how many fundamental features integral to genre A can you remove before it becomes genre B? Dragon Quest 9 removed the most important one but the others still remained. It's still a JRPG but one built on a shaky foundation. |
|
| i've noticed that JRPGs focus much more on the story itself rather than the gameplay, i mean it seems like most of them use fuckin turn based combat. Not saying turn based combat is bad, i really enjoyed it it in Xc 2 and a handful of others, but it does get very repetitive. WRPGs give you much more freedom and the gameplay itself is the often the main focus, but often leads to a poorly written story. I'll give an example out of Fallout 4 ,since you also gave a bethesda example, easily the best gameplay and world out of the entire franchise (bar 1 and 2 i havent played those) but the story is painfully average. JRPGs stick to a strict formula, WRPGs do not. The JRPGs that do break the formula (in recent history) become massive, main examples being the Nier, Soulsborne and Yakuza series. but this is biased since i dont really like turn based combat, but yeah they arent really the same |
 |
More topics from this board
» Is MAL ever going to update it's UI?Pineapplepirate - Dec 19, 2020 |
31 |
by Timeline_man
»»
2 hours ago |
|
» Rate The Last Game You Finished. ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Crzy_Minus - Apr 23, 2015 |
3719 |
by creepylurker
»»
8 hours ago |
|
» total games on your steam librarydeg - Feb 22 |
49 |
by SwordBreaker36
»»
9 hours ago |
|
» What is your favorite Elder Scrolls game?Ex-Aid - Today |
2 |
by SwordBreaker36
»»
9 hours ago |
|
» Do you guys enjoy fighting games? ( 1 2 )Dumb - Feb 11 |
50 |
by Dumb
»»
9 hours ago |