Renaming jRPGs

[PopeJewish]

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.

No, jRPGs aren't defined as "all RPGs created in Japan." jRPGs are a specific genre of RPG, done in a specific style, all of which just happen to be created by Japanese people because they're the only country that still has a large market for them, and they owned the entire RPG market during previous console generations. The games they are based on used the same or similar formulas (Wizardy, Ultima, etc) for gameplay style, but were not distinctly Japanese, as jRPGs are.

Basically, jRPG is a style of game, a genre, and it comes from the Japanese culture.

I bolded the part in which you said that it's ok, therefore, to call them jRPGs. I simply believe that jRPGs ARE equivalent as they're a cultural thing, whereas you don't.

 

[ManInRed]

No, jRPGs aren't defined as "all RPGs created in Japan." jRPGs are a specific genre of RPG, done in a specific style, all of which just happen to be created by Japanese people because they're the only country that still has a large market for them, and they owned the entire RPG market during previous console generations. The games they are based on used the same or similar formulas (Wizardy, Ultima, etc) for gameplay style, but were not distinctly Japanese, as jRPGs are.

Basically, jRPG is a style of game, a genre, and it comes from the Japanese culture.

I bolded the part in which you said that it's ok, therefore, to call them jRPGs. I simply believe that jRPGs ARE equivalent as they're a cultural thing, whereas you don't.

That's kind of my point. The genre is not "all RPG games created in Japan," it is a genre of certain game play content, so it should be name by the content not one race that happen to make games at that style.

By what definition is an RPG distinctly Japanese?

Also, how is "control a predefine party of characters" instead of "customize and make choices with an individual" distinctly Japanese? Because that is the distinction I see being made with the term JRPG most of the time.

 

[Nomanslander]

You know this is starting to piss me the fuck off, I'm not even much of a fan for JRPGs but the fact so many people are rallying over what some Bioware employee said is going too far.

Final Fantasy games and most RPGs that have come from Japan have been called RPGs since the 80s now. You have almost 30 years of these type of games being called RPGs and NOW everyone disagrees???

 

[PopeJewish]

No, jRPGs aren't defined as "all RPGs created in Japan." jRPGs are a specific genre of RPG, done in a specific style, all of which just happen to be created by Japanese people because they're the only country that still has a large market for them, and they owned the entire RPG market during previous console generations. The games they are based on used the same or similar formulas (Wizardy, Ultima, etc) for gameplay style, but were not distinctly Japanese, as jRPGs are.

Basically, jRPG is a style of game, a genre, and it comes from the Japanese culture.

I bolded the part in which you said that it's ok, therefore, to call them jRPGs. I simply believe that jRPGs ARE equivalent as they're a cultural thing, whereas you don't.

That's kind of my point. The genre is not "all RPG games created in Japan," it is a genre of certain game play content, so it should be name by the content not one race that happen to make games at that style.

By what definition is an RPG distinctly Japanese?

Also, how is "control a predefine party of characters" instead of "customize and make choices with an individual" distinctly Japanese? Because that is the distinction I see being made with the term JRPG most of the time.

I don't think either of those qualities are distinctly Japanese, especially cause they were based on old Western RPGs. What makes an RPG distinctly Japanese is its art, it's characters (and character design) and it's story. jRPGs are, in most cases, made for a Japanese audience and they're very distinct in that regard

 

[ManInRed]

I don't think either of those qualities are distinctly Japanese, especially cause they were based on old Western RPGs. What makes an RPG distinctly Japanese is its art, it's characters (and character design) and it's story. jRPGs are, in most cases, made for a Japanese audience and they're very distinct in that regard

I think you're confusing Japanese style with Anime style. Which is argumentatively targeted towards Americans, if you look at where they make their sales. Though when it comes to games, Americans typically will see the Japanese games that did very well in Japan first.

I would also argue an art-style should not be a method to labeling a game genre. Again, there are games considered to be JRPGs that are not fitting with Anime style. Historically, video game art had hit many fads across the boards, usually base on the current level of technology. The distinctive difference between Anime and Western-Art is Western-art designs character by geometrical shapes and Anime tends to focus on stylizing (hair, clothes, etc). When games we 2D spite games, over the top Anime like stylizing was the best way to make all the same size sprite look like unique character. When 3D games first came out, all games went with a more western-animation geometric style, as it was very easy to make characters looks like basic three dimensional shapes. We are now in an age of more realism, where neither style comes out that clearly, except in the surrealism art styles that have also started popping up like cell shade games. It is probably harder to differentiate the art style now more than ever, and the art style is probably not going to remain the same in any genre of gaming even if we try to define one by it.

I also would not find many JRPG games to have a distinctive Japanese or Anime style story to them. There are obviously examples of games that use every Anime archetypes instead of every western archetypes, but this does not include every game considered to be a JRPG. And when you really get down to it, a story is a story. "A band of heroes save the world" is the summary of almost all JRPG games, but I wouldn't consider that to be uniquely Japanese plot.

Again, I think the difference is you're following a story laid out and controlling a party in JRPG games. Rather than playing one individual and making decisions and moral choices to directly define who that character is, which makes the predetermine part of the game's story mostly found in the details of the world you are in.

The story remains the same.

 

[dreadedcandiru99]

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

I'm kind of partial to ACS: "action-caddy simulator." I've mentioned this on one of the FF13 boards, but when you really think about it, the role you're playing in the typical JRPG is that of the protagonists' nameless voiceless invisible caddy: your job is to steer the heroes along from one non-interactive cutscene to another, to manage their inventory, and to occasionally give them advice on how to get through fights, and that's pretty much it.

 

[PopeJewish]

I don't think either of those qualities are distinctly Japanese, especially cause they were based on old Western RPGs. What makes an RPG distinctly Japanese is its art, it's characters (and character design) and it's story. jRPGs are, in most cases, made for a Japanese audience and they're very distinct in that regard

I think you're confusing Japanese style with Anime style. Which is argumentatively targeted towards Americans, if you look at where they make their sales. Though when it comes to games, Americans typically will see the Japanese games that did very well in Japan first.

I would also argue an art-style should not be a method to labeling a game genre. Again, there are games considered to be JRPGs that are not fitting with Anime style. Historically, video game art had hit many fads across the boards, usually base on the current level of technology. The distinctive difference between Anime and Western-Art is Western-art designs character by geometrical shapes and Anime tends to focus on stylizing (hair, clothes, etc). When games we 2D spite games, over the top Anime like stylizing was the best way to make all the same size sprite look like unique character. When 3D games first came out, all games went with a more western-animation geometric style, as it was very easy to make characters looks like basic three dimensional shapes. We are now in an age of more realism, where neither style comes out that clearly, except in the surrealism art styles that have also started popping up like cell shade games. It is probably harder to differentiate the art style now more than ever, and the art style is probably not going to remain the same in any genre of gaming even if we try to define one by it.

I also would not find many JRPG games to have a distinctive Japanese or Anime style story to them. There are obviously examples of games that use every Anime archetypes instead of every western archetypes, but this does not include every game considered to be a JRPG. And when you really get down to it, a story is a story. "A band of heroes save the world" is the summary of almost all JRPG games, but I wouldn't consider that to be uniquely Japanese plot.

Again, I think the difference is you're following a story laid out and controlling a party in JRPG games. Rather than playing one individual and making decisions and moral choices to directly define who that character is, which makes the predetermine part of the game's story mostly found in the details of the world you are in.

The story remains the same.

I disagree. First off, Anime is distinctly Japanese and is of Japanese culture. Regardless of where the sales are highest, it's targeted at a Japanese audience. If you could experience an anime marketing blitz in Japan, even for an anime that's popular in America, you'd understand what I mean.

That said art style of most jRPGs, even with older technology, has always been in a Japanese style. More or less so, yes, but there's a reason popular manga artists often did character design for popular jRPG series (and sometimes still do).

Now while "a story is a story" and many of them are cliche'd even beyond the land of the rising sun, the characters and their interactions (in jRPGs) are often a very cliche Japanese style. The innocent romance, the goofy kid having several beautiful women fall in love with him, an over-the-top super-angry but with a soft side girl who always puts her fist in the air, these are staples of Japanese pop culture. They appear in other cultures, too, of course, but there are differences in how they act out.

There are of course exceptions, and some games labeled as jRPG don't fall into the common stereotypes, but that happens with any genre

 

[Billion Backs]

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.

Yes, and the first definition applies to just about every game featuring a protagonist of some kind.

 

[ManInRed]

I disagree. First off, Anime is distinctly Japanese and is of Japanese culture. Regardless of where the sales are highest, it's targeted at a Japanese audience. If you could experience an anime marketing blitz in Japan, even for an anime that's popular in America, you'd understand what I mean.

That said art style of most jRPGs, even with older technology, has always been in a Japanese style. More or less so, yes, but there's a reason popular manga artists often did character design for popular jRPG series (and sometimes still do).

Now while "a story is a story" and many of them are cliche'd even beyond the land of the rising sun, the characters and their interactions (in jRPGs) are often a very cliche Japanese style. The innocent romance, the goofy kid having several beautiful women fall in love with him, an over-the-top super-angry but with a soft side girl who always puts her fist in the air, these are staples of Japanese pop culture. They appear in other cultures, too, of course, but there are differences in how they act out.

There are of course exceptions, and some games labeled as jRPG don't fall into the common stereotypes, but that happens with any genre

If you can't clearly define a genre, then it is not a very good genre.

Also, a better name for Anime style games would be Anime-RPG or ARPG, as it fits the definition your looking for better. But I have never defined a genre of games based on the art style, and I can't think of many examples of this occurring other than Side-Scrollers and Platformers, the two names Actions games get called depending on if it is 2D or 3D.

That being said, you do bring up another point I hadn't thought of, which is the difference in marketing games in Japan have then games in America. One of the particular difference being: Women. JRPG are often actually marketed towards women, not just men between the ages of 18 and 25 like most American games. There is a reason FFXIII and FFVI had female leads, and that the main plot of FFVII, FFVIII, and FFX had an detail love story to it. Games made in Japan expect women to buy and play them (and then dress up as the characters in them, but I digress). Not only women, Japanese games tend to market to younger and older age groups more than American games. Which give most American games a sort of macho motif to them, as in America if you can get 18 to 25 year old males to like something the rest will follow. (Though I think the real truth behind that is males 18 to 25 in America tend to be the smarter shoppers and on average spot the best games)

As I originally stated, I don't think who players the games is a legitimate way to classify a game, but thinking of differences like this I can see how you might see a distinction between them. Still, a stereotype is a stereotype, whether or not if its racist. A term based on a group associate with liking the genre is used largely by the people who want to mock the stereotype, either the genre or the people who like it. When have you ever heard the term "Chick Flick" used by a woman describing a movie she liked?

Using a term based one the stereotype you expect would like this sort of thing is never a good idea, it is too likely to be abused and only real use is to mock the genre, even if fans of the genre did began to accept the term and take pride in it someday, like how the word geek usually has a positive meaning today.

Again, it all comes back to game play. That's how we categorize games. Action, Adventure, Hack and Slash, Fighter, FPS, RTS - all of them describe the game play that genre of games offers.

Anime art style is a label you can give a game, but you can give it for games of many genres, similar to saying a game looks gritty, uses cell shading, has 2.5 D graphics, and so forth. Art style is something else you add to the genre, but it should not have this notion that two art styles make the games so vastly different they need separate genre names. Because making that distinction would only be necessary by those who would want to categorically claim one style of art for the same game play was superior to another.

 

[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.

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

That's acting, not roleplaying.

And to be honest, JRPGs aren't even that. YOU don't perform the character's actions like an actor performs their character's actions. In a JRPG, those actions are performed for you. You aren't given a script and then play it out, you're merely a spectator as the script is played out for you.

 

[Onyx Oblivion]

Umm...plenty of JRPGs have this "role playing". For example, Persona has a lot of social elements and the like.

 

[Fensfield]

This whole argument's redundant; the term RPG has defined itself over time and it will redefine itself over time, whether this most recent squabble is part of that evolution or not. That's how this sort of thing works and I'm getting out of the discussion while I've still got all my limbs. Besides, it's not like a decision to re-label will have any effect on the games I enjoy. The genre, whatever the hell it's best called and whatever the people 'don't like playing it may say, is changing and evolving too fast for the other side of the planet calling it something else to impact it negatively, let alone significantly, before something else comes along with a new twist on the long-standing framework instead.

 

[JoshGod]

Acch.

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.

Both, however, are equally valid.

surely option 1 would stand up for almost any game.

 

[Doug]

jAGs. Japanese adventure games.

This.

Also, I think there needs to be an understanding from people that 'role playing' and 'acting' are two different things. Role playing is like "D&D", Acting is like "Plays" (I would have said Films, but I wanted fairly equal ground for the sake of comparsion, and unless there are professional, well payed role players, film quality is automatically higher).

 

[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.

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

That's acting, not roleplaying.

And to be honest, JRPGs aren't even that. YOU don't perform the character's actions like an actor performs their character's actions. In a JRPG, those actions are performed for you. You aren't given a script and then play it out, you're merely a spectator as the script is played out for you.

And what do actors do? They roleplay.
What the player does in a JRPG is exactly like what an actor does when give a scripted role (which is what most actors are given). What you are asking for, is for the player to be in the Director's chair, and that is not what playing a role is.

Wrong. Actors don't roleplay, they act. That's why they're called actors, not roleplayers. I know it sounds silly, but roleplaying is more than simply playing a role.

By your definition, any videogame that ever featured any character doing anything is an RPG.

 

[Drakmeire]

I guess very few games today would count as a role-playing game but I don't think the term is going anywhere anytime soon.
Oh well you can still go to RP servers on WoW and pretend to be your character, which by the way leads to some hilarious situations, like when I was playing with my cousin and we found an RPer who was dressed like an NPC and walked around the town aimlessly all day to complete the illusion.