Changing JRPGs for the Better: What Can Be Done?

[veloper]

The problem may be one of different definitions.
To me JRPG is a distinct genre with strict conventions (those of the type of old skool RPG that merely originated in Japan) and not a mere point of nationality, because you don't need to invent whole game genres just for some localization.

Dark Souls? Not a JRPG, but an action RPG in my book.
A non-japanese company making a Final Fantasy clone? JRPG in my book.

That's faulty logic though. By definition, the difference between JRPGs and WRPGs is their geographical point of origin.

By the same logic, Mass Effect isn't a WRPG. It's a sci-fi shooter with a few RPG elements thrown in.

Mass Effect is RPS. That term describes the gameplay concisely.
You could call it a WRPG, but then you can call just about any game with some kind of XP system, a WRPG; not a meaningful label at all.

Not so for the JRPG. For a very long time RPGs from Japan commonly held to good old conventions and so a meaningful JRPG genre was born.

With such reasoning, you end up creating a Catch-22 for JRPG developers. Western developers can create pretty much anything and have it lauded as a great example of WRPG originality and innovation. Yet if a JRPG developer creates a game that actually does new things with the genre, all of a sudden it's not a JRPg anymore.

That is only if you consider those elements flaws. Nobody considers "bad stories" an integral element of the JRPG, but features like turn-based combat and player controlled companions, are.
Many people may not like turn-based combat, but then again, many people don't like a whole bunch of genres, so not a reason to invalidate this genre.

You end up defining the genre not by its mechanics, but by its flaws, and it therefore becomes technically impossible for anything to happen to the genre, simply because as soon as anything does happen, people class it as something else in order to avoid the stigma.

Defining the genre by it's mechanics is exactly the thing some of us are trying to do here. When the gameplay nolonger resembles the original, I reckon we should classify a game as something else.

Dark Souls is an RPG. It was created by a development team based in Japan. In my opinion, that means it fulfils every definition that matters for a Japanese Role Playing Game. It may be different from other JRPGs, but that only serves to prove the breadth of the genre itself. If Dark Souls is not a JRPG, then Mass Effect, Jade Empire and Fallout 3 are not WRPGs. And that is a whole bucket of semantics which I'd rather not get stuck into.

What's more descriptive? Labeling ME and FO3 roleplaying shooters and JE an action RPG, or just lumping everything together, along with turn-based games and RTWP games under one big WRPG umbrella?

If we're watering down the JRPG as much as the WRPG, we'll also need to coin a new genre called the "oldskool JRPG", or JRPG in short, for a very large subset of videogames that share many distinctive mechanics and features.

 

[Steppin Razor]

How about this... play a different genre and leave JRPGs the fuck alone.
Some of us enjoy them, thank you very much.

Pssh, obviously the problem here is you. If you weren't some warped sicko that enjoyed depraved things such as turn-based battles and anime-style characters, than you'd have a greater appreciation of the WRPG. The one, true bastion of great game design.

On topic
The one thing that you and all the other "FIX DA JRPGs!" crusaders seem to forget is that we enjoy all the things you want to remove from JRPGs. We would like nothing more than if you lot would fuck off and stop trying to turn our favoured genre into a bastardised WRPG-lite.

 

[Googenstien]

I would rather be able to "roll up" a character my way, instead of using some lame story based one. Give me classes, parties and customization and I am sold alot more on a RPG of any type.. let me pick the hero and what he does! A fat Orc with a giant 2h sword instead of some emo-anime elf boy.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

Xenoblade Chronicles
The Last Story
Pandora's Tower
Radiant Historia
Dark Souls

Five JRPGs from the last year alone that have received abundant critical acclaim.

JRPGs are doing absolutely fine at the minute. Indeed, I'd say titles such as Xenoblade are far superior to the majority of WRPGs that have been released this year, and show far more originality than the Western world's obsession with dragons, orcs and elves.

The problem isn't JRPGs. The problem is western gamers refusing to believe that there is anything more to the genre than Final Fantasy.

This. There is more to the genre than Final Fantasy. The FF series is not indicative of what is in all JRPGs, not even close. Next year is looking to be good too. Grand Knights History and Tales of Graces F come to mind. And there are probably many great JRPGs that never get a localization.
Edit: Also, I happen to like JRPGs. You may not. However, how about you leave them alone? Not everything has to appeal to you. So stop trying to turn them into fucking WRPGs.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

I would rather be able to "roll up" a character my way, instead of using some lame story based one. Give me classes, parties and customization and I am sold alot more on a RPG of any type.. let me pick the hero and what he does! A fat Orc with a giant 2h sword instead of some emo-anime elf boy.

Here's the thing. No.

In these games you're playing a masterly crafted linear epic and to experience those the best you need to have a characterized protagonist so that the world won't feel fake and held up by little strips of tape but actually present even without your (the player's) influence.



Some Jrpgs do do this thing you ask, the biggest one of them being Dragon Quest 9. You know what people said about 9? It's story sucked. Oh, not the world, the world was amazing, you just didn't get to experience it as well as the ones of previous DQ games cause your protagonist was made in a menu instead of by the actual world you're experiencing and same goes for your party members.

How about this... play a different genre and leave JRPGs the fuck alone.
Some of us enjoy them, thank you very much.

Pssh, obviously the problem here is you. If you weren't some warped sicko that enjoyed depraved things such as turn-based battles and anime-style characters, than you'd have a greater appreciation of the WRPG. The one, true bastion of great game design.

On topic
The one thing that you and all the other "FIX DA JRPGs!" crusaders seem to forget is that we enjoy all the things you want to remove from JRPGs. We would like nothing more than if you lot would fuck off and stop trying to turn our favoured genre into a bastardised WRPG-lite.

The bigger issue is that their "solutions" aren't even that, they're not new ideas, they're just taking stuff from other genres and haplessly applying them as though it's the makeup that will hide the proverbial mole.

Well, some of us think it's a beauty mark so screw em!

 

[Smooth Operator]

Well I wouldn't want to piss on anyones parade, some people like those kind of conventions religiously so let them keep it.

But for me personally it would have to be a bit of a western mix in the formula, let's take FF13 as an example:
- first off continuity, I would like to inhabit one consistent world and not be randomly transported into the realm of a 1950s kung fu movie where everyone takes their place on set and only one guy can move at a time
- Baldur's Gate style battle system, squad control in a continuous world, pause is there if you need an extra second for tactics but it's all optional
- explorable hub areas, I understand you want us to progress on a linear story but when we get to a place let us check it out
- one western character, JRPGs are with absurdly outlandish worlds but never with explaining things so I want one guy in there that will just go "wtf is going on here?!", and maybe make fun of all the angst

Or we could just turn this thread into a flame war...

 

[Jdb]

What can be done? I'm not sure. The whole RPG genre feels inherently limited to me. It feels limited because of character skill being as important as player skill. I have trouble thinking of RPGs that do not become easier with progression, or have the basic battle tactic be "power up, then attack with elemental weakness."

 

[gyrobot_v1legacy]

Implement Dark Fantasy tropes and themes into the JRPG Genre and rake in the dough of the immature teenager who wants to see blood, titties and sex. That will change it for the better.

It worked for WRPGs so far.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

To quote a certain excellent British movie; "The first thing you can do is to take all your medals and trophies, all your pots and all your pans and throw them in the biggest fucking dustbin you can find" i.e. all the tired tropes of the grenre need to be looked at because, apart from one Atlus shaped exception, JRPGs have been a mish-mash of totally outdated features and lack of evolution this generation.

Evolve or die and almost anywhere outside of japan JRPGs are simply dying. Sure FF has healthyish sales still but its riding on its name and has done irredeemable damage to the brand in recent years.

There needs to be a good look taken at every single feature and a long hard think about what actually makes the genre the genre and what is just dead wieght. Also im sorry but the stories, plots and the storytelling need to be thrown the fuck off a cliff. They are a remnant of a bygone age and quite frankly stink.

B..b...but didn't XIII basically change too much about FF?


That's one of the main criticisms about it. "Oh, no towns!" "Too much story, I wanna go and explore the WORLD MAP!" "The battle system is too automatic, I want it to be like previous FFs!"




Just like how games such as CoD don't change much between each title so do Jrpgs follow their own thing. Sure, some don't like that, so what. Some don't like CoD either and the fact that is modern does nothing to make these people like it more. In the end all this doesn't matter much, since there are tons of games out there for us Jrpg fans to enjoy and that's that.

 

[babinro]

Personally I'd just tweak what FF XIII gave us. The game was fantastic in it's story driven design, combat mechanics and minimalistic grind.

The major re-work would be in enabling a little more freedom without losing sight of the importance of the main quest and any urgency it holds.

The story doesn't have to be world encompassing. The characters have a right to be powerful from the get go as a means to explain their roles. It doesn't have to be the farm boy who is also apparently the strongest soldier in the galaxy despite not knowing how to swing a sword. The story can exist in a world that's easy to understand.

The rules of the world and its cinematic should always make sense to the player. I don't want to see my character perform moves that I can't. I don't want fight off 300 enemies with guns only to be halted by a gun wielding enemy in a cinematic.

In other words, take a story like Dragon Age: Origins, place it in a game like FF XIII and you have a great JRPG...at least in my opinion.

 

[Shagdawg]

Have male characters who act like MEN. They used to do this all the time. Just look at FF6. You had Sabin, Cyan, Shadow, Setzer, Locke. Hell, even Gau acted more manly than most of the male characters in JRPGs today and he was a child. It seems like they only add one or two of these guys as support characters. As much as I liked 12, they shoehorned Vaan in as the lead instead of Basch, just so they could have a whiny pre-pubescent as the main character. Why? Basch and Balthier were much more important to the story, and were far more interesting characters.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

Personally I'd just tweak what FF XIII gave us. The game was fantastic in it's story driven design, combat mechanics and minimalistic grind.

The major re-work would be in enabling a little more freedom without losing sight of the importance of the main quest and any urgency it holds.

The story doesn't have to be world encompassing. The characters have a right to be powerful from the get go as a means to explain their roles. It doesn't have to be the farm boy who is also apparently the strongest soldier in the galaxy despite not knowing how to swing a sword. The story can exist in a world that's easy to understand.

The rules of the world and its cinematic should always make sense to the player. I don't want to see my character perform moves that I can't. I don't want fight off 300 enemies with guns only to be halted by a gun wielding enemy in a cinematic.

In other words, take a story like Dragon Age: Origins, place it in a game like FF XIII and you have a great JRPG...at least in my opinion.

You'll love XIII-2 then, it is pretty much like that. I imported from Japan (to get the original voices) and I didn't regret it at all. The game has 8 different endings btw.


I did love XIII too though so I guess I'm weird like that!

 

[gyrobot_v1legacy]

Does it have standard WRPG tropes where Sara for almost no apparent reason bunks up with Noel under the bedsheets for sex? That is what seperates a majority of JRPGs from WRPGs.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

get rid of that stupid turn based combat.

 

[veloper]

Mass Effect is RPS. That term describes the gameplay concisely.
You could call it a WRPG, but then you can call just about any game with some kind of XP system, a WRPG; not a meaningful label at all.

Not so for the JRPG. For a very long time RPGs from Japan commonly held to good old conventions and so a meaningful JRPG genre was born.

Except for the ones, you know, that didn't.

Perhaps those exceptions aren't true JRPGs afteral then. I suppose a game may still qualify if loses some common features, but not all or most of them.

Look at the line up of JRPGs on the original PS1. Not only did you have the trilogy of PSX Final Fantasy games, you also had Legend Of Mana, Vagrant Story, Revelations: Persona, Alundra, Xenogears... all of these games are hailed as classic JRPGS, yet they have next to no common features about them. Legend Of Mana, Alundra and Vagrant Story don't feature turn-based combat. Persona included first-person elements and a non-medieval fantasy setting. Xenogears had mecha-based combat. Legend Of Mana itself was a highly non-linear game, allowing for multiple different playthroughs, like other games of the time such as Suikoden.

The myth that JRPGs all follow a rough template is exactly that: a myth. You can look at Squaresoft's back catalogue alone, and find a plethora of role playing games that play as differently from each other as you could possible imagine. The same with the back catalogue for other developers/publishers like Atlus. Just because people like to perpetuate the idea that JRPGs have always been highly linear, fixed character affairs with turn-based combat, that doesn't make it true.

Look at Final Fantasy 7, the archetypal JRPG. What a lot of people forget with that game is that while the characters were set in terms of name and weapon, the actual build of each character was entirely up to the player, depending on what Materia they had. One player could develop Cloud into a thief character, Tifa into a summoner, and Aeris into a healer. Another player may decide to make his entire party consist of offensive magic users. What ever the player wanted to develop his characters into, the Materia system allowed for it. The same can be said for Final Fantasy VIII and it's Junction system.

The only FF game on the PSX that forced you into using set character builds was FFIX. Does that mean that FFIX is the only true JRPG out of the series on the Playstation, and all the others were actually 'action-console RPGs'? Or does it just mean that people often forget just how much variety in mechanics and gameplay there actually was and is in the JRPG genre?

Now you're demanding more for criteria than I ever did.
A medieval setting, strict linearity and lack of character development don't make the JRPG.
As for lack of turn-based combat, some games are better described as action-RPGs, regardless if they hail from Japan or not.

That is only if you consider those elements flaws. Nobody considers "bad stories" an integral element of the JRPG, but features like turn-based combat and player controlled companions, are.
Many people may not like turn-based combat, but then again, many people don't like a whole bunch of genres, so not a reason to invalidate this genre.

Again, games like Legend Of Mana and Vagrant Story never had turn-based combat, or player controlled companions. Does this mean that they're no longer JRPGs? What about games like Fallout 1&2, and Baldur's Gate? Those games did have turn-based combat, and allowed you to control your companions. Does that mean they are JRPGs?

I consider the first two games, action-RPGs. Fallout 1&2 put companions under AI control and lacks other JRPG features. Baldur's Gate is RTWP, so again cannot begin to qualify a JRPG.
The closest example of a JRPG made by a western company would be Anachronox.

Defining the genre by it's mechanics is exactly the thing some of us are trying to do here. When the gameplay nolonger resembles the original, I reckon we should classify a game as something else.

Except that the definition you're using explicitly uses geographical location as its main differentiation. Japanese Role Playing Game does not denote or imply any form of mechanic or gameplay type. It simply denotes that a Role Playing Game was made in Japan. Therefore, any RPG made in Japan is by definition a JRPG.

You wouldn't call someone who was born in America Scandinavian simply because they were blonde-haired, blue eyed and named Eric.

The meaning of alot terms differs from the words in that term parsed in sequence. It saves you the trouble of having to describe a thing repeatedly by using a full sentence or more.

The term RPG is one obvious example. While some regulars here do argue that any game where you Play a Role is an "RPG", the vast majority don't, so Duke Nukem and Halo don't qualify as RPGs.

 

[bjj hero]

Lets get down to some real basics that I would like changing...

Let me take me whole damn party into battle or make a good excuse why only 3 of my 8 guys can fight at once (It better be good too, I only really need to leave 1 guy with the truck/cart/airship, not 3). Lowers the challenge? Then buff the enemies.

Let me change the main charecter. If you want to keep his looks for your FMV then fine but maybe I want a fighter or a wizard or a thief. It will not throw the linear story off its axis if I get to choose a different way to fight.

While we are talking FMV, lets cut the cut scenes. Most of these can be told while playing in game similar to how its done in Arkham Asylum. Even the story telling giant of Gears of war manages to do this with coms updates etc while playing. In game visuals are now to the point where you can portray emotion and drama quite well. FMV is a throw back to PS1 etc.

I dont expect to see any changes any time soon. Ive been playing JRPGs since I owned a nes and RPGs since my spectrum and Amstrad (Lords of Midnight was the the shit! 1984 and it still give you more choice than most JRPGs. did you want to build an army and take it across the land to save everyone or take the prince out on his own to destroy the ice crown? In epic mode you had to do both at once!)
FF13. I just feel jaded like Ive been there, done that and have experienced everything JRPGs have to offer.

Ive been giving JRPGs a miss ever since. Didnt even pick up Lost Odyssey for £6. Yes, that turn off them.

 

[Strife2GFAQs]

I've never liked the distinction "JRPG" anyway. A lot of games now (Persona, Mimana Iyar, Atelier) have more in line with a title like "Anime Fantasy Adventures" than anything else. I'll try and expand on what I wanted from each of the criteria I listed.

1. I have no problem with battle systems in general, unless they are bogged down by slow animations. My concern is most games feature random encounters (the older games) or end up having waves of enemies in your path anyway. There shouldn't be any reason you are forced into any battle scenario, unless it's part of the plot. If I am forced to level for a boss, that is fine. What bothers me is wanting to get somewhere in a hurry (the end of a room or dungeon), but the game's mechanics do not allow me said freedom. The "forced battle" sensation of repetition, grind, and annoyance all coalesce. A gameplay style that allows for free movement (real time in an overworld) or gives a choice (item to skip encounters entirely) provides relief from said nuisance.

2. Ever have a boss fight where you died, so you had to fight him again...except he had a long ass cutscene you couldn't avoid? I know FFX and Persona had them. Usually, you can skip bigger FMVs, but what about simple dialogue sequences? RH was developed so every dialogue sequence could be avoided completely like every other FMV. That would cut down on time for subsequent playthroughs or retries, or any instance that felt insufferable. Once again, I'm looking for the option to do so. I'll get to "visual novel cutscenes" later.

3. Warp features or instant health had more to do with "forced battle" than anything else. Still, what if you're in a hurry, but can't stop playing because the game wasn't programmed that way? Nearly every new game in existence (portable or not) has autosaves or the ability to save anywhere. It has no bearing on how difficult the battles or bosses are.

4. Once again, forced battle sensation adds tremendous stress to a game. Some stress is fine: it is meant to build fear or excitement in the experience. However, the old-school mentality of "100 random battles in a dungeon" soon gives way to sheer frustration. A game can feature exploration without feeling like a chore. Once a game feels like a chore, the enjoyment dies.

5. Persona 4 is my favorite game. It certainly fits the mold of more an "anime fantasy" as opposed to that "stupid arbitrary definition that needs renaming." I venture that more than 50% of the genre is now bent in that anime based formula. There's a way to write those cliches while not being "OMG KAWAII!" about it. Atlus tends to bend without breaking into tortuous presentation.

Speaking of which, this is where I will get to "visual novel presentation" again. It all comes down to how the games are written and produced. Altus usually doesn't screw this up, but even they are bound by the technical limitations. The setup goes like this:

*Character shows up*

*Second long pause*

*Characters portrait comes up*

*Spoken line*

*Dead space*

*Other character speaks or character model moves*

That works fine for mute characters or non-voiced dialogue. However, you run the risk of start/stop/repeat presentation by giving voices. Unlike anime or higher budget games or movies, the spliced dialogue isn't matched up properly. That "dead space" is what I find awkward. I find that especially alarming when some games (Totori, Ar Tonelico) have bad actors, voice direction, or writing.

6. I've beaten Persona 4 more than enough to know the game does offer four endings. However, that is usually the limit of "choice." Like Deus Ex: HR, you're practically given "4 levers," and that's it. A hidden boss fight or secret ending is about all you're offered, even in Atlus' system. That's similar to Catherine. You can work towards different endings, but the development and arc of the story remains unchanged. A few of Vincent's thoughts are different, but I'd hardly call that massive choice. The writing and development, while centrally controlled, is so frozen, it doesn't give you the option for many things:

Avoiding relationships with major characters (Main female almost always falls for you or vice versa)
Changing Attires (DQIX was the first game in the genre I saw that had customizable outfits to that degree)
Character Profiles/Motivations (as Yahtzee would put it, you're wheeling mannequins around from place to place)
Hauling around and listening to people you might not like (Hope is part of the game...and will be forever)

I'm not saying there should be some dramatic shift in asthetic. I am in awe of some of the settings or atmospheres these games come up with (even if it's just modern Japan). My main focus is cutting down on the things that rip me from said enjoyment or render me the lack of choice.