Renaming jRPGs

[glointhadark]

I have a big fan of jRPGs for a while now and have played many of the big titles from the SNES onwards, my favourite of which has been Xenogears for the PS1. I enjoy the deep stories with memorable characters (most of the time anyway) and find turn based combat to be more fun compared to real time, providing it is implemented well.

However, a significant number of people on the internet disagree with my opinion, and, when questioned, one of the main reasons is the lack of role playing in the games. This is understandable, as the games follow a linear story with set characters, instead of letting you create a character and choose how they interact with an open world and so, if there is any role playing, it is almost always very limited.

So my question Escapists, is if there is no role playing in jRPGs, what other names could we use for them instead.

EDIT: OK, so maby renaming jRPGs was a bit much. My point was that jRPGs and wRPGs are completely different types of game, only sharing a name, and that there is no more role playing in jRPGs than any other type of game.

 

[BlindMessiah94]

Someone read Xtra Punctuation today and was inspired.

I think blanket statements are all stupid

I think some jRPG's forget the "role" part of the acronym, but most don't.

 

[xHipaboo420x]

Acch.

Right.

Here it is again.

Role-playing means two different things

1) You assume the role of a pre-existing character and generally act as they would through the course of the game; you are playing their role almost like an actor.

2) You tailor a character through whom you will act as you see fit (i.e. to the character's personality) and generally be this character.

JRPGs tend towards the former. Both are pretty similar (they both involve play a role, after all), but the differences are pretty crucial.

Both, however, are equally valid.

 

[PopeJewish]

indeed, you're playing a specific role, as opposed to say a BioWare RPG in which you can create your own role within the game. It's still a role. jRPGs are based on early Western RPGs, like Wizardry and Ultima.

That said, Xenogears is an amazing game, I'm actually playing through it again now. Too bad the XenoSaga series was terrible. That's a game that could really do with a sequel, or at least an HD remake with analog stick implementation

 

[Heart of Darkness]

...There is role-playing, just not in the same sense as Western RPGs.. There is no reason to rename them.

I usually don't do this, but /thread.

On a side topic, I hate what "WRPG" and "JRPG" stand for. They're way too vague to be accurate descriptors to what a game needs to be. If we're going to rename them, let's rename them in the vein of "strategic RPG," "sandbox RPG," etc.

 

[fletch_talon]

No need to rename them. Especially since people will still call them RPGs.
To take some examples from here in Australia.

http://www.per.marine.csiro.au/staff/dirk.slawinski/personal/ZooAug2003/images/FairyPenguin.JPG
I still call them fairy penguins regardless of what the GBLT community or politically correct minded individuals say.
http://www.seednation.com/images/seeds/fb5e494dc088368ea2d7cbb46e4d4771.jpg
I still them black boys regardless of how racist people think it is.

and so on...

Point is, people try and change the names for things because for some reason they disagree with it. Problem is its not gonna stick because people associate them with their original name regardless.

 

[glointhadark]

...There is role-playing, just not in the same sense as Western RPGs.. There is no reason to rename them.

1) You assume the role of a pre-existing character and generally act as they would through the course of the game; you are playing their role almost like an actor.

Maby so, but no more than any other type of game. I wouldn't consider Halo a role playing game because you play the role of Master Chief.

 

[Hurr Durr Derp]

Acch.

Right.

Here it is again.

Role-playing means two different things

1) You assume the role of a pre-existing character and generally act as they would through the course of the game; you are playing their role almost like an actor.

2) You tailor a character through whom you will act as you see fit (i.e. to the character's personality) and generally be this character.

JRPGs tend towards the former. Both are pretty similar (they both involve play a role, after all), but the differences are pretty crucial.

Both, however, are equally valid.

No. No.

Option one is not what the average JRPG does. Playing a JRPG is less like being an actor in a movie, and more like watching that same movie in a theater. You don't "act as the character would". You merely watch as the character plays out its own role. Not that there's anything wrong with that, it's just not role-playing.

On topic: I think it'd be pointless to change the name at this point, since everyone knows what a JRPG is and whether they believe that it contains any real roleplaying or not, the name has stuck. Some people use "console-style RPGs", but that's just as ill-fitting(if not more so), and still has the misleading "RPG" bit. I'd suggest something like "Turn-based action adventure", but it doesn't matter since even if you'd get the whole games industry to use that name (or any name), Joe Average would still consider those games JRPGs.

 

[fletch_talon]

Acch.

Right.

Here it is again.

Role-playing means two different things

1) You assume the role of a pre-existing character and generally act as they would through the course of the game; you are playing their role almost like an actor.

2) You tailor a character through whom you will act as you see fit (i.e. to the character's personality) and generally be this character.

JRPGs tend towards the former. Both are pretty similar (they both involve play a role, after all), but the differences are pretty crucial.

Both, however, are equally valid.

I'd disagree there. JRPGs contain roleplaying aspects in that you control how your character develops in regards to their abilities. Its very rare to have the ability to act out your characters actions in a JRPG since you are very limited in your choices (in other words the character you play and the story will develop in a set way, because you don't have the option to make choices other than; armour, spells, left/right in a dungeon.

Its the adjustable stats and equipment that allow you to control the development of your character.

 

[xHipaboo420x]

Maby so, but no more than any other type of game. I wouldn't consider Halo a role playing game because you play the role of Master Chief.

Indeed, but the difference is that the plot of, say, a Final Fantasy game will revolve heavily around how the characters react to the various events occurring around them, and what they think about it. Halo, on the other hand, has a plot that isn't affected in such a way, and you never really get in Master Chief's head to the extent that you do Tidus or Squall.

 

[Yoshemo]

Turn based level fighters?

 

[PopeJewish]

Maby so, but no more than any other type of game. I wouldn't consider Halo a role playing game because you play the role of Master Chief.

Indeed, but the difference is that the plot of, say, a Final Fantasy game will revolve heavily around how the characters react to the various events occurring around them, and what they think about it. Halo, on the other hand, has a plot that isn't affected in such a way, and you never really get in Master Chief's head to the extent that you do Tidus or Squall.

Also most jRPGs are about the story, Halo barely has a story.

...There is role-playing, just not in the same sense as Western RPGs.. There is no reason to rename them.

I usually don't do this, but /thread.

On a side topic, I hate what "WRPG" and "JRPG" stand for. They're way too vague to be accurate descriptors to what a game needs to be. If we're going to rename them, let's rename them in the vein of "strategic RPG," "sandbox RPG," etc.

The names exist because of the fundamental differences in philosophy that western game devs and japanese game devs take when they go about making an RPG.

Also, there are SRPGs, a la FFTactics, Disgaiea, etc

 

[xHipaboo420x]

No. No.

Option one is not what the average JRPG does. Playing a JRPG is less like being an actor in a movie, and more like watching that same movie in a theater. You don't "act as the character would". You merely watch as the character plays out its own role. Not that there's anything wrong with that, it's just not role-playing.

Well this may just be a difference of experience then. Whenever I'm playing a good ol' JRPG I tend to adopt the mindset of the character to really get into the story - in this way it does seem like I am playing this role that the game designers have made for me.

I'd disagree there. JRPGs contain roleplaying aspects in that you control how your character develops in regards to their abilities. Its very rare to have the ability to act out your characters actions in a JRPG since you are very limited in your choices (in other words the character you play and the story will develop in a set way, because you don't have the option to make choices other than; armour, spells, left/right in a dungeon.

Its the adjustable stats and equipment that allow you to control the development of your character.

But that's exactly what I'm saying. You don't get to choose much about this character, but (due to their often blank or moral personalities) they are somewhat of a canvas to put yourself into their world.

 

[Heart of Darkness]

The names exist because of the fundamental differences in philosophy that western game devs and japanese game devs take when they go about making an RPG.

Also, there are SRPGs, a la FFTactics, Disgaiea, etc

I know WHY it exists, I'm just saying the label couldn't be any vaguer if it tried.

And there exists exceptions to every rule, and the WRPG/JRPG label is no exception. E.G., Shin Megami Tensei: Devil Survivor is a JRPG, but it still focuses on choice and roleplaying with its main character and storyline. It is an SRPG as well, but someone calling it a JRPG paints it with a stigma that's not deserving of it.

Also, I probably couldn't have made that point muddier if I tried. *shrug*

 

[Sark]

If you consider any game that you "get into the preexisting character" to be an RPG then almost everything is.

Lets consider Age of Mythology. I play through the campaign as a man named Arkantos, I guide his actions during combat, and generally help him and his troops succeed. I can engage in a sidequest or two. However, I do not choose his actions outside of combat and all of the scenes that build his character are done with no choice on my part. Am I roleplaying? Is this a roleplaying game?

Lets consider Final Fantasy XIII. I play through the game with Lightning and her group. I choose how they fight during combat. I control them as they more down the endless corridor. There is also the option to do a few sidequests. I can start some conversations by pressing a button on people. Otherwise, all story and character building within this game is predetermined. Am I roleplaying? Is this any more of a roleplaying game that Age of Mythology?

 

[fletch_talon]

But that's exactly what I'm saying. You don't get to choose much about this character, but (due to their often blank or moral personalities) they are somewhat of a canvas to put yourself into their world.

I see what you're getting at now (an actor is forced to play a character how it is written, whereas WRPGs let you [the player/actor] decide what the character is like) but the problem is, too many games then get drawn into this category. FPS games often have a blank character and a story to play through. You could even say that Mario games let you play the part of an Italian plumber in a strange world set to rescue a princess.

The problem with using your definition to define JRPGs is that its to broad as it encompasses most games.

 

[Hurr Durr Derp]

No. No.

Option one is not what the average JRPG does. Playing a JRPG is less like being an actor in a movie, and more like watching that same movie in a theater. You don't "act as the character would". You merely watch as the character plays out its own role. Not that there's anything wrong with that, it's just not role-playing.

Well this may just be a difference of experience then. Whenever I'm playing a good ol' JRPG I tend to adopt the mindset of the character to really get into the story - in this way it does seem like I am playing this role that the game designers have made for me.

I think I understand what you mean, but that has nothing to do with the genre. A well-crafter game of any genre can evoke this kind of experience. I have, at times, genuinely felt emotionally connected to characters in adventure games or action games. This does not make a game an RPG. Yes, you are playing a character in a certain role, but it is not role-playing. In another thread I argued that a game like Grand Theft Auto is more of a role-playing game than the vast majority or JRPGs.

I have to add that this isn't just JRPGs though. Many 'WRPGs' lack any real 'role-playing' as well. Games like Diablo and Borderlands are often called RPGs as well, and yet they contain very little role-playing. It's just more noticeable in JRPGs since the idea of what the genre entails has shifted more from its role-playing roots than their western counterparts.

 

[Aanorith]

I have a big fan of jRPGs for a while now and have played many of the big titles from the SNES onwards, my favourite of which has been Xenogears for the PS1. I enjoy the deep stories with memorable characters (most of the time anyway) and find turn based combat to be more fun compared to real time, providing it is implemented well.

However, a significant number of people on the internet disagree with my opinion, and, when questioned, one of the main reasons is the lack of role playing in the games. This is understandable, as the games follow a linear story with set characters, instead of letting you create a character and choose how they interact with an open world and so, if there is any role playing, it is almost always very limited.

So my question Escapists, is if there is no role playing in jRPGs, what other names could we use for them instead.

jVPG. V for viewing~