Renaming jRPGs

[Fensfield]

Eeexcept 'jRPG' games do contain roleplaying. A: Because as so many above said, 'assuming the role' is as much roleplaying as 'creating the role', and B: NOT ALL RPG'S FROM AND/OR CARRYING ELEMENTS GENERALLY ASSOCIATED WITH JAPAN DON'T ALLOW YOU TO CREATE AND DIRECT THE ROLE.

First things first, we need to get over the stupid blanket assumptions people make about RPG's that happen to come out of Japan, and the moronic assumption that deep, semi-linear story and roleplay are mutually exclusive concepts. Have you lot ever even bothered playing the Suikoden games? How the hell can it not be called roleplaying when you get beaten over the head with the consequences of decisions you, as the player, just made?

Laughably, the biggest 'Oh no, why didn't I realise this would happen if I did that?' moment I've ever had from a videogame wasn't just from a Japanese RPG, but from a Japanese RPG containing adult content; Sengoku Rance. It's the game made me realise more than any other, repeatedly, 'crap, that was my fault and not the characters''. And that's Despite having little to no Western-style character customisation, and a plot based on multiple layers of linearity instead of ripping out all immediate depth in favour of giving me a sandbox.

Frankly, I think you'd do better to revoke the RPG title from games like Morrowind and give them the label 'sandbox' instead, though that would still be stupid, because then you're forgetting the OTHER facet of the RPG.

 

[Uber Waddles]

RPG's are games that focus on character development. Just cause you dont make your character doesnt mean your not developing him. All games are bound within the parameters of the game, Western RPGs are as bound as JRPGs, in story.

All RPGs have you work on your Stats, abilities, etc. Thats how you play the role; you can decide the spells, class, weapons, stats, etc. People forget thats where the bones of an RPG lie, right under the meat (the story). Not the "I can make my character look like me teehee" bullshit people ramble on about

 

[NeutralDrow]

The label fits in a perfectly comprehensible way, and has had its meaning established. Changing it is unnecessary.

 

[CmdrGoob]

A lot of good points made so far, but I don't think this discussion will get anywhere if we argue the meaning of 'role playing' as all videogames are role playing by definition and the original meaning behind calling the genre RPG had nothing to do with the words 'role playing.'

JRPG is a term we need to all agree to stop using. First off: it's racist, and before you disagree with me, distinguishing something based on race alone is the very definition of being racist. Which does, like most racist terms, make people who use the term JRPG, come off as having some sort of prejudice against the genre of games, if not Japanese people in general.

Hahahahahah, in the same vein, I'll be sure to accuse the proprietors of the nearby Japanese restaurant of being racist for the same reason. I'm sure they'll see the error of their ways.

 

[Camarilla]

JRPG is a term we need to all agree to stop using. First off: it's racist, and before you disagree with me, distinguishing something based on race alone is the very definition of being racist.

No, it isn't. The definition of racism is the belief that one race is inherently superior or inferior to another, or discriminating against someone based on race. So, saying, for example, "Japanese immigrants don't deserve to vote" is racist, because it implies that said people are somehow not worthy of the same rights due to their race. On the other hand, saying "that man is Japanese" is not racist, it is simply a statement of fact, the fact being that the person happens to be Japanese.

Therefore, the term JRPG is not racist as it simply states that the genre originates from Japan, it does not attach any negative connotations or imply any inferiority based on the fact that it is Japanese. It is in the same vein as the term French Renaissance art, in which 'French' is used to note in which country the movement started.

 

[moretimethansense]

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.

FINALLY! I'm glad I'm not the only person to understand this.

RPG stands for ROLE. PLAYING. GAME. where in that does it say anything about creating something? if any name has to be changed it should be wRPG's where you create your character.
Maybe Role Creation & Playing Games.

I should mention that I enjoy most RPG's regardless of their origin,
I simply pick a game that suits my mood at the time.

 

[Fensfield]

So in other words, Halo is an RPG because you assume the role of master chief? No, don't think it works that way. JRPGs are actually adventure games. In just about every sense.

Didn't bother reading the part about decisions and consequences, or the bit about Western and eastern sharing each other's elements, huh?

And no. The deciding factor in the end is depth of story. If story takes precedent, it's an RPG. The end fact is that RPG in general is just a bloody huge umbrella term, which /logically/ we ought dump for failing to properly describe any game it's applied to.

It's become ascribed to particular genre elements however, so unless you feel like calling your 'Western style' RPG's 'sandbox adventure games' and your 'Japanese style' RPG's 'character-centric story games' or something similar, this whole argument's going to remain redundant forever.

So yeah, frankly, this whole argument's moot. RPG is a convenient bracket for labelling certain types of games that just kind of happened on its own. If it eventually morphs into something else? Fine. But arguing one type of game is more fitting to the term's definition than another is.. really rather stupid.

 

[spartan231490]

It isnt role playing if you have no choice. sorry, but there it is. In order to role play you have to play a role, hense the name. when you have no choice, you dont play the role, you watch it. That said, I enjoy linear rpgs because, have u ever read a fantasy book where the main character ignored his duty to save the world so he could loot out every goblin cave in existance? (thats me playing oblivion) no, so whats the point of a game that encourages me to do that when all i want is to be the bada$$ from a fantasy series?

This is simply false. What part of "role" dictates that choices have to be made? "Role" is most commonly defined as a character or part played by an actor. Do you think actors have choices in what they do? You're using a very personalized definition of the word. You still play a role in linear RPGs. Hell, if you want to get technical and go strictly by definition, you play a role in pretty much every game ever created. The definition of an RPG tends to be more limited/specific than that, but it has nothing to do with it being linear or making choices that affect your game character or the story surrounding him/her

I'm not going to say that can't play the role in a linear rpg, but i will say that it is no easier than doing so in any other game. Because you have no say in what happens, there is no reason, and really no method, of role playing the character; unless you go buy a sword in the shop and start looking for your own personal level up button.

 

[spartan231490]

And by that, I dont mean that the role doesnt exist. I mean that you dont PLAY it.

 

[Cody211282]

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.

The only problem I have with the first one is every game is like that, so does that mean all games are RPGs?

 

[JRShield]

Funny hair games.

 

[Composer]

GMIJ

games made in japan
=D
OR BETTER YET!!!
game

 

[Falconus]

And no. The deciding factor in the end is depth of story. If story takes precedent, it's an RPG.

This is an absurd statement. I don't care about whether or not JRPG's should be labeled as such, I just had to tell you that this is very very silly.

 

[PopeJewish]

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.

No No. Playing a JRPG is like being an actor who has been given a scripted role. This is roleplay.

Thank you, you said it better than I could.

This

/thread

 

[Anticitizen_Two]

There is roleplaying, just not in the same way. That's why we put the "j" in the genre name, to separate them from WRPG's. There are two very different takes on roleplaying, and it's not fair to say that the Western way is roleplaying, while the Japanese way is not. No name change is in order.

 

[A random person]

Funny hair games.

Says the guy with the Super Saiyan avatar.

On topic, it is a more linear form of role-playing as far as I'm concerned, like acting (to steal s69-5's simile). Of course, I consider something based around stats to be an RPG.

 

[ManInRed]

Hahahahahah, in the same vein, I'll be sure to accuse the proprietors of the nearby Japanese restaurant of being racist for the same reason. I'm sure they'll see the error of their ways.

No, it isn't. The definition of racism is the belief that one race is inherently superior or inferior to another, or discriminating against someone based on race. So, saying, for example, "Japanese immigrants don't deserve to vote" is racist, because it implies that said people are somehow not worthy of the same rights due to their race. On the other hand, saying "that man is Japanese" is not racist, it is simply a statement of fact, the fact being that the person happens to be Japanese.

Therefore, the term JRPG is not racist as it simply states that the genre originates from Japan, it does not attach any negative connotations or imply any inferiority based on the fact that it is Japanese. It is in the same vein as the term French Renaissance art, in which 'French' is used to note in which country the movement started.

I sort of expected these responses.

Racism is not the same thing Prejudice, but usually the two go together. Believing that race or culture defines things because their is an inherent differences in the races is racism, and usually people do that to judge one culture as superior to another. I do like how you guys show examples of racist terms that actually are being used because it is the race they are defining, as they are great example of how speaking about race can be not racist. Great point! I clearly didn't fully explain what I meant.

Obviously, when defining cultural things, you're allowed to use terms defining race and culture without it seeming racist. Japanese Language. Japanese Food. Japanese being used to distinguish an event that happen in Japan. All of these are fine acceptable terms. And if JRPG was the equivalent to this, I would have to withdraw that objection.

However, there a subtle line you can cross. For example, if you state all food cook by a Japanese person is Japanese Food, it's not exactly being prejudice by saying that, but you're defining the food by the race of the cook not the type of food, and that is racist. I would argue the same is true with the term JRPG. There is nothing inherent about the Japanese culture that defines these games, I don't think Japanese when I hear: "control a party of predefined characters." JRPG games are just being called Japanese because the cook is assumed to be Japaneses. And while I don't consider that prejudice, it has the same sort of stupidity to it most racist terms have. We can do better than that.

Game genres are defined by the content of their game play, and not by the race of their developer or players. So the name should reflect the content and not a particular race.


I guess what I'm saying is ...I have a dream, that RPG games will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the region they're associated in being developed in, but by the content of their game play.