JRPGs and WRPGs: Can they be considered different genres?

[Foolery]

Got this idea from another thread, but I thought was interesting enough of a subject to warrant one of it's own. I'm willing to say they are but I'd like to hear a variety of opinions on this. And what are the distinctions/similarities between the two? Some detailed history on each would also be nice to know if anyone wants to talk about that. I thought that early WRPGs and JRPGs kinda developed and grew independently from each other which led to major differences between the two, but apparently I'm wrong.

 

[The Madman]

Pointless trivia time: Both 'jrpg' and 'wrpg' some might be surprised to learn stem from the same basic roots; D&D. But Madman, you say, modern jrpg are nothing like D&D! To which I respond with a wry chuckle and a shake of my head. Oh naive naive child, let me tell you about an old PC rpg called Wizardry (Inspired by D&D) which inexplicably became insanely popular in Japan, which itself would then go on to inspire a game called Dragons Quest, which in turn would inspire a little series called Final Fantasy.

And that's how a baby jrpg is born.

As for the whole jrpg/wrpg thing I think it's rubbish. Why the hell does everything outside of Japan get labeled as 'western', which itself, let's be honest here, basically implies USA. Hell the biggest 'wrpg' developer around to today, Bioware, is freakin' Canadian. Fable is British. Witcher is Polish. The new King's Bounty is Russian. The Divinity games are Belgian. Etc, etc.

All those games play completely differently, have a style all their own, and are distinctly not American yet for some stupid reason are labeled under the same classification as 'western rpg'? Bullshit. Skyrim is about as far removed from King's Bounty as a racing game is to a flight sim. Sure in both you're inside a vehicle of some sort, but they're hardly the same thing. Yet they fall under the same 'genre' because they weren't made in Japan?

What kind of dumb, arbitrary genre choice is that?

 

[alphamalet]

Pointless trivia time: Both 'jrpg' and 'wrpg' some might be surprised to learn stem from the same basic roots; D&D. But Madman, you say, modern jrpg are nothing like D&D! To which I respond with a wry chuckle and a shake of my head. Oh naive naive child, let me tell you about an old PC rpg called Wizardry (Inspired by D&D) which inexplicably became insanely popular in Japan, which itself would then go on to inspire a game called Dragons Quest, which in turn would inspire a little series called Final Fantasy.

And that's how a baby jrpg is born.

As for the whole jrpg/wrpg thing I think it's rubbish. Why the hell does everything outside of Japan get labeled as 'western', which itself, let's be honest here, basically implies USA. Hell the biggest 'wrpg' developer around to today, Bioware, is freakin' Canadian. Fable is British. Witcher is Polish. The new King's Bounty is Russian. The Divinity games are Belgian. Etc, etc.

All those games play completely differently, have a style all their own, and are distinctly not American yet for some stupid reason are labeled under the same classification as 'western rpg'? Bullshit. Skyrim is about as far removed from King's Bounty as a racing game is to a flight sim. Sure in both you're inside a vehicle of some sort, but they're hardly the same thing. Yet they fall under the same 'genre' because they weren't made in Japan?

What kind of dumb, arbitrary genre choice is that?

That was a quick /thread

Pretty much this honestly. I don't understand why we need to make a distinction on where the RPG was made, they are all RPGs! It perpetuates this whole East vs West talking point that quite frankly I am pretty sick of.

 

[piinyouri]

Pointless trivia time: Both 'jrpg' and 'wrpg' some might be surprised to learn stem from the same basic roots; D&D. But Madman, you say, modern jrpg are nothing like D&D! To which I respond with a wry chuckle and a shake of my head. Oh naive naive child, let me tell you about an old PC rpg called Wizardry (Inspired by D&D) which inexplicably became insanely popular in Japan, which itself would then go on to inspire a game called Dragons Quest, which in turn would inspire a little series called Final Fantasy.

Yup, beat me to it and took the words right from my mouth.

In a way the original WRPG would be D&D wouldn't it, since everything stemmed from there for the Japanese, which we eventually started cribbing from?

I would say more or less what we have is not so much WRPG's and JRPG's, but several different waves or iterations of the JRPG, with "WRPG's" mainly being culturally altered JRPG's, and usually with more of the D&D thrown back in.

Though I do understand why people feel the need to delineate between the two. Something like Dark Souls is about as far away from any of the Tales of games as you can get, and both of those are worlds apart from the first waves of JRPG's.

It's the big question regarding this matter, do you categorize by design style, or where the game was located? Both choices have their incongruities it seems.

 

[krazykidd]

I believe so , and i personally treat them as such . Especially since i'm assuming you got this idea from my thread . While it's possible to mix and match the two , when i say ( and think ) Jrpg i think anime cartoony style . Like i said it's possible to mix and match art styles ( I.E Dark souls ), it's very rare . You can usually tell a Jrpg right off the bat . No one would mistake Final fantasy / star ocean / Persona / SMT / atelier Iris etc... Of being a Wrpg .

 

[Strain42]

Eh, I understand using the distinction just to make things easier.

I mean yes, Persona 4 and Skyrim are both RPG games, but due to the differing mechanics and art styles, I understand why people would prefer to differentiate them a bit more than that.

What makes it so difficult is that for the most part, there seem to be two differing definitions of what "is" or "isn't" a JRPG. Some people try to use it as a term meaning the genre, and some use it to just say "It's an RPG...from Japan." and neither of those are really wrong, and they don't conflict with one another.

For instance, I once got flamed pretty badly on GameFAQs because I referred to Fire Emblem Awakening as a JRPG. The retaliation was basically "It's not a JRPG, it's an SRPG!" followed by random insults and expletives that aren't important right now.

And yes, Fire Emblem is an SRPG because...well again, people come to define a genre by its mechanics. It's an RPG that uses grid based combat, so it must be an SRPG, right? But...by saying "It's not a JRPG" are you saying Fire Emblem is...not Japanese?

It's weird and its messy, and I don't really think there is a right or wrong answer on this subject.

For me, whenever I see anyone use the terms, I usually just get what they're talking about, and it's just something where I don't feel like getting into the semantics of it.

When someone says WRPG, I can assume they usually mean a more free roaming game with real time combat, like Skyrim

And when someone says JRPG I assume they mean a random battle, turn based, etc. etc. type dealy like Shin Megami Tensei IV.

Then I just check what game they're actually talking about and go "Oh okay, that's why they said that." regardless of whether or not it fits those preconceived notions.

 

[Foolery]

snip

It's funny, I always just called Fire Emblem a Tactical RPG. But that's not quite right is it? Not all JRPGs have random battles though, or are fully turn-based. But, yeah I usually associate WRPGs with having more open worlds and an emphasis on exploration.

snip

Yup, I definitely got idea from your thread.

snip

Thanks for the explanation. Makes sense, I've heard some of it before. Is it safe to say that modern or newer JRPGs are their own genre?

 

[The Madman]

Thanks for the explanation. Makes sense, I've heard some of it before. Is it safe to say that modern or newer JRPGs are their own genre?

I don't see why not, they seem to have a flavour and style all of their own that's distinct from their original rpg roots. But I also honestly don't know enough about them to really judge, aside from Fire Emblem which as someone else pointed out doesn't even really count as a 'jrpg' I haven't gotten into a jrpg since Final Fantasy 6.

 

[krazykidd]

Eh, I understand using the distinction just to make things easier.

I mean yes, Persona 4 and Skyrim are both RPG games, but due to the differing mechanics and art styles, I understand why people would prefer to differentiate them a bit more than that.

What makes it so difficult is that for the most part, there seem to be two differing definitions of what "is" or "isn't" a JRPG. Some people try to use it as a term meaning the genre, and some use it to just say "It's an RPG...from Japan." and neither of those are really wrong, and they don't conflict with one another.

For instance, I once got flamed pretty badly on GameFAQs because I referred to Fire Emblem Awakening as a JRPG. The retaliation was basically "It's not a JRPG, it's an SRPG!" followed by random insults and expletives that aren't important right now.

And yes, Fire Emblem is an SRPG because...well again, people come to define a genre by its mechanics. It's an RPG that uses grid based combat, so it must be an SRPG, right? But...by saying "It's not a JRPG" are you saying Fire Emblem is...not Japanese?

It's weird and its messy, and I don't really think there is a right or wrong answer on this subject.

For me, whenever I see anyone use the terms, I usually just get what they're talking about, and it's just something where I don't feel like getting into the semantics of it.

When someone says WRPG, I can assume they usually mean a more free roaming game with real time combat, like Skyrim

And when someone says JRPG I assume they mean a random battle, turn based, etc. etc. type dealy like Shin Megami Tensei IV.

Then I just check what game they're actually talking about and go "Oh okay, that's why they said that." regardless of whether or not it fits those preconceived notions.

Am i the only on that says SJrpg ( Strategy japanese role playing game )? That's what i'd say of i was talking about fire emblem , Final fantasy tactics or valkyria chronicles or disgaea or growlansers . It seems pretty accurate.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

snip

Thanks for the explanation. Makes sense, I've heard some of it before. Is it safe to say that modern or newer JRPGs are their own genre?

But that still isn't accurate because of throwback games like SMT IV. I've been involved in discussions that got pretty nasty involving what constitutes a RPG and where the border is in between genres. I think that we should stop trying to label them and instead describe the games in shorthand (random encounters, turn-based combat, etc.) as they come up. WRPG and JRPG are too broad of terms. Sub-genres like SRPGs are still fine because SRPG carries a very specific description.

 

[Foolery]

snip

Thanks for the explanation. Makes sense, I've heard some of it before. Is it safe to say that modern or newer JRPGs are their own genre?

But that still isn't accurate because of throwback games like SMT IV. I've been involved in discussions that got pretty nasty involving what constitutes a RPG and where the border is in between genres. I think that we should stop trying to label them and instead describe the games in shorthand (random encounters, turn-based combat, etc.) as they come up. WRPG and JRPG are too broad of terms. Sub-genres like SRPGs are still fine because SRPG carries a very specific description.

Well sure, but a Strategy RPG like King's Bounty is fairly different than something like Disgaea. I think it's ok to note important distinctions, so long as no one gets nasty about it. SMT IV is definitely a JRPG in my eyes, but you can also see how it's like Wizardry. There's really no be-all, end-all, label for these games, and I'm fine with them being called by more than one. Treating each game individually by their own merits sounds fair enough to me. The lines in genre are always going to get blurred at some point.

 

[Gatx]

There's definitely a distinct difference between RPGs - what mostly gets termed WRPGs are usually the ones that more sandbox-y like the Elder Scrolls or Mount and Blade, while "JRPGs" have a very linear story line. The thing is most the name denotes a regional distinction but games of both types get made in Japan and by Western devs. Other types of RPGs tend to get their own monicker depending on their gameplay focus - ARPGs, SRPGs, Dungeon Crawlers (for something like Etrian Odyssey or Legend of Grimrock), just add sandbox RPGs to the mix and there you go.

Pointless trivia time: Both 'jrpg' and 'wrpg' some might be surprised to learn stem from the same basic roots; D&D. But Madman, you say, modern jrpg are nothing like D&D! To which I respond with a wry chuckle and a shake of my head. Oh naive naive child, let me tell you about an old PC rpg called Wizardry (Inspired by D&D) which inexplicably became insanely popular in Japan, which itself would then go on to inspire a game called Dragons Quest, which in turn would inspire a little series called Final Fantasy.

And that's how a baby jrpg is born.

That doesn't change the fact that Skyrim and Final Fantasy XIII are wildly different types of games despite both having their roots in D&D.

As for the whole jrpg/wrpg thing I think it's rubbish. Why the hell does everything outside of Japan get labeled as 'western', which itself, let's be honest here, basically implies USA. Hell the biggest 'wrpg' developer around to today, Bioware, is freakin' Canadian. Fable is British. Witcher is Polish. The new King's Bounty is Russian. The Divinity games are Belgian. Etc, etc.

Except they're not called "American RPGs" they're called "Western" so it does include Canada and all of Europe in addition to the U.S.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

JRPGs and WRPGs are different genres to me because JRPGs aren't even RPGs in my book. RPGs need role-playing to be RPGs, which JRPGs are almost always devoid of. The characters of a JRPG will say and do everything they are scripted to do outside of battle, there is no player agency. The key factor that determines an RPG is how much say you have over your character(s) outside of combat/battle. You take the combat out of Final Fantasy and you have literally an adventure game, you take combat out of Mass Effect and you have a role-playing experience. Therefore, to me, JRPGs are basically old-school point and click adventure games with a combat system thrown in. And that's not me knocking JRPGs, that's just what they are. I do feel JRPGs do have greater story and character potential because you are getting completely set and scripted characters and stories. JRPGs are no more an RPG then say Bayonetta because everything Bayonetta says and does outside of combat is completely scripted, she even grows stronger in health and magic, she gets new moves, she gets new and better equipment, and more; the only difference is that Bayonetta doesn't technically "level up" from like level 5 to 6 and so on, isn't that then really just semantics than anything?

 

[RJ 17]

They're not different genres, just different styles of the same genre. I would think that would go without saying...seeing as how they both have the acronym RPG in them.

Essentially the only REAL different is art style and setting. JRPGs tend to be more "creative" in their character and set designed where-as WRPGs tend to be more "traditional". By that I mean look at the difference between Final Fantasy characters and sets vs Elder Scrolls characters and sets. People dressing like they dove into a hamper and rolled around for a bit vs people wearing recognizable, "standard" fantasy garb.

The surface details might be different, but at their cores they're the same.

 

[Talvrae]

I personally don't even consider jRPG, RPG... I mean, there is no choice involved or nearly none, there is no character creation all dialogue will act exactelly the same at each game...

 

[TheMigrantSoldier]

Well, you can think of JRPGs as a genre putting more emphasis on characters and story whereas WRPGs strive in exploration and adventure but overall, I think the terms are too broad. Compare Dragon Age: Origins to Skyrim and Final Fantasy to Dark Souls. Different styles of play and "roleplaying". I also think that the "RPG" is too broad a definition but that's for another thread. RPGs should be classified individually by mechanics rather than place of origin. Ex. Elder Scrolls is an Action RPG series while Persona is an RPG/Social Sim.

 

[DragonStorm247]

This is basically an example of divergent evolution, with D&D being the common ancestor.

 

[Smooth Operator]

As a descriptive term most certainly, you say JRPG and I already know 80% of the mechanics involved in the game and that I most likely won't like it.
With WRPG you usually haveto go a little deeper because people just attribute that RPG factor every time you get an XP bar somewhere.

 

[The Madman]

That doesn't change the fact that Skyrim and Final Fantasy XIII are wildly different types of games despite both having their roots in D&D.

Huh? I wasn't trying to change anything, just pointing out a neat fact. What's your point?

Except they're not called "American RPGs" they're called "Western" so it does include Canada and all of Europe in addition to the U.S.

Again, not really sure I know what you're trying to say. Obviously I know 'western' includes all those, I just think it's stupid. That was my point. Japan vs. the rest of the world isn't exactly clear genre division.

 

[ghostrider409895]

I believe these are two separate genres; however, the location of where the RPG was developed is irrelevant. To me, a western RPG refers to a game which has RPG elements, and allows me as a player to live out my life in the game. A Japanese RPG refers to a game which has RPG elements, and allows me as a player to observe and effect the life of already established characters. I consider Skyrim a WRPG for example. In Skyrim there are RPG and action elements, but the main part, I think, that makes it a western RPG is that I am the main character. The game revolves around my own character growth and development, and I am living out my thoughts and personality through this avatar. I play Skyrim to be a character with power to affect the world around me. Now, take Final Fantasy, a JRPG. Final Fantasy games are RPGs, but I am not the main character. I might take control of a character, but that character isn't me. That character is a person with their own story and goals. All I do as the player is alter events, or aid the character through difficult tasks in the game. I play these games for an interesting story and for gameplay, but I do not live out a fantasy of being a powerful figure in game.

There are fundamentally different reasons for playing a WRPG to a JRPG, which I feel warrant enough to call them two separate genres. That being said, if the US or another western country comes out with an RPG that is focused on developing stories of characters in game, it will most likely be a JRPG; if Japan or another eastern country comes out with a game focused on allowing the player to live and grow and change in a world through an avatar in that world then it is a WRPG. Really, I think it is just poor naming (likely based on old ideas where the US and Japan were realistically the only places pumping out massive games and what Japan and the US RPGs were like at the time) which has lead us to want to associate a game style with a location.