Renaming jRPGs

[Hurr Durr Derp]

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.

Definitions aren't your strong suit, are they?

http://thesaurus.com/browse/acting
Main Entry: act
Part of Speech: verb
Definition: entertain by playing a role

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/acting
acting - the performance of a part or role in a drama
roleplaying - acting a particular role

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/role-playing
role-playing
An instance or situation in which one deliberately acts out or assumes a particular character or role

I could go on, but I've made my point.

Note: The onus is on you to prove to me that the JRPG nomenclature is a misnomer. You have not yet done so.

Oy, there we go. With that, we've descended into squabbling over semantics.

Those definitions, like most definitions in a dictionary (after all, dictionaries usually have very limited space per word) are simplified and incomplete. Not wrong, just incomplete. Which is exactly what I said before: Roleplaying is more than simply playing a role. Yes, both the actor and the roleplayer play a role. The way they do this however, is different.

An actor's role is predefined. Whether it's by a script or by real-life events, the actor knows the events that he's about to play out, acting and reacting in predefined ways. Roleplaying is more improvisional. You're still playing a role, but it's no longer predefined. A psychotherapist and a patient exploring a certain situation? Roleplaying. An person playing Macbeth? Acting. A JRPG character? Acting. A WRPG character? Roleplaying.

Saying otherwise would mean, as I said before, that every game ever featuring a character is an RPG. Hell, even movies and books would contain roleplaying if judged from your point of view.

EDIT: And by your definition, no game is role-playing because all events fall within the scripted parameters of the writer/ director. The illusion of choice is still an illusion.

This might very well be the first worthwhile argument you've made so far. You're entirely right, of course. No single-player videogame has ever been able to properly emulate an RPG, since a videogame does not have the ability to react realistically to a truly free player. In stead of trying to achieve that, most WRPGs simply offer a branching path, where the available choices are just as pre-scripted as the JRPG's linear path. The same goes for nonlinearity in both genres, it's merely a chance to choose the order you do things, not true freedom.

Still, I'd argue that WRPGs at least strive to create the illusion that they're offering a roleplaying experience by offering the freedom that defines roleplaying games, even if that freedom is barely skin-deep and entirely artificial. With current technology, it's simply impossible to achieve the freedom that real roleplaying games have, but saying that means that no game is worthy of the name "RPG" is like saying that no FPS is worthy of it's name since the shooting isn't real either.

If you'd argue that there are no real videogame-RPGs, then I would have to agree. But if the term is used for videogames, I'd reserve it for the genre that at least makes an effort to be like real RPGs, not the one that has absolutely nothing to do with it. This is not to say that no JRPG offers choice comparable to WRPGs (I loved Devil Survivor), but in general the genre and its most popular examples offer nothing comparable to a roleplaying experience. But yeah, games like Diablo or Borderlands are often called "RPG" as well, while they have as little to do with actual roleplaying as your average JRPG.

Choice is NOT what defines the RPG genre.

If that's truly what you believe, then I believe you to be ignorant of the genre's origins. Sports games are sports games because they emulate sports. FPS games are FPS games because they emulate shooting, RPGs are RPGs because they emulate roleplaying. If you've ever played a roleplaying game (and I don't mean the electronic kind), you'd know what I mean.

 

[Xander_VJ]

This is completely pointless. Not only because the change of name, besides stupidly unnecesary, would be highly disturbing, but because what lies behind this kind of discussions is not finding a good definition.

IT'S JUST WANKING PURSUING!

People who "demand" JRPGs to change their name don't really give a damn about what those games are called. They just want to be the ones who called it. To be able to say "Ha, ha! I didn't call them "RPG" because they never were! I've been smarter than all of you all along, you suckers!"

And people who defend the term are just defending themselves from the attacks to that little axiom that forms part of their little personality master column.

That's the truth in these kinds of argues.




Besides, you know why JRPGs are called RPGs?

BECAUSE THAT'S HOW JAPANESE PEOPLE CALL THEM!


Go to Japan and see for yourselves (Or just get a Famitsu scan). You can go there, go to the national TV Stations and arrange a 3 hours program trying to explain how they use the term "wrong". It won't change a thing, because that's how they perceive role playing.

Get over it already.

 

[theamazingbean]

Seeing as how there isn't really any roleplaying in western rpgs either we could change their name "i played a lot Dungeons and Dragons, but it's impossible to fully recreate that experience, so let's program a choose-your-own-adventure book that's at least kind of similar". Too long right?

 

[Hurr Durr Derp]

Oy, there we go. With that, we've descended into squabbling over semantics.

Nope, that was begun in your post. Read it again.

I'm not the one who needs a dictionary to give his point a semblance of credibility.

Those definitions, like most definitions in a dictionary (after all, dictionaries usually have very limited space per word) are simplified and incomplete.

Mmm-hmmm. Yes, Dictionaries have incomplete definitons... *rolls eyes*

That's what I said.

An actor's role is predefined.

Yup, like JRPGs.

My point exactly. Reading comprehension, much?

Whether it's by a script or by real-life events, the actor knows the events that he's about to play out, acting and reacting in predefined ways.

So on my second playthrough of FFX, does that mean it's more like your above description?
Borderline silly, your argument.

Again, reading comprehension, much? You are not the actor in a JRPG, the character is. The character moves along predefined rails.

Roleplaying is more improvisional. You're still playing a role, but it's no longer predefined.

No, that's actually called "improv" and is a legitimate form of acting. But it is just a form.

Improv acting and roleplaying are, more or less, the same thing.

Saying otherwise would mean, as I said before, that every game ever featuring a character is an RPG.

Only if that is the defining mark of a video game RPG, which it is not. It is a useful counter to the tired "Choice" as definition argument.

Then what would you say is the defining mark of an RPG? Seriously, I'm eager to find out.

Hell, even movies would contain roleplaying if judged from your point of view.

And they do. It's what actors are paid to do.

I like how you deleted part of that sentence to make your point fit. But, as I said before, Actors ACT. That's why they're called ACTors, not roleplayers.

Still, I'd argue that WRPGs at least strive to create the illusion that they're offering a roleplaying experience by offering the freedom that defines roleplaying games, even if that freedom is barely skin-deep and entirely artificial.

Though choice is not the definition to video game RPGs either.

See above. If choice isn't what defines an RPG, what is?

If you'd argue that there are no real videogame-RPGs, then I would have to agree.

Believe what you will. I have my beliefs as well. I've been playing video game RPGs (being my favourite genre) for 20+ years. And they always were defined as such until very recently when the kids decided they felt like revising history.

...because videogames of 20 years ago defined what RPGs are, am I right?

But if the term is used for videogames, I'd reserve it for the genre that at least makes an effort to be like real RPGs, not the one that has absolutely nothing to do with it.

There's a post in another thread on the same (ish) topic that explains this. JRPGs and WRPGs have different roots and thus have evolved in a different way. Neither is more correct than the other.

Check your facts, the roots of JRPGs are WRPGs. They developed in different directions, indeed. WRPGs have become closer to real RPGs, while JRPGs have moved further away from RPGs.

If that's truly what you believe, then I believe you to be ignorant of the genre's origins. . If you've ever played a roleplaying game (and I don't mean the electronic kind), you'd know what I mean.

And we finally come to the root of the matter.
PnP RPGs =/= video game RPGs.
The points that define one, are not the same as the other.

They aren't the same thing, no. That's more or less what I'm saying. However, WRPGs emulate the standards set by real RPGs, while JRPGs do no such thing. Which is the whole reason I'm saying that JRPGs have very little to do with RPGS, and their name is misleading at best.

 

[Hurr Durr Derp]

Nanana I can't hear you! I'm right and you're stupid! Nanana!

Anyway, the quoting war is rapidly devolving into something ugly that, I assume, no one wants to see, and isn't exactly helping with readability either. In stead, I'll write what I hope will be a clear and comprehensive summary of my standpoint.

What is an RPG?

Games like the early Dungeons and Dragons editions created a new genre (ok, a quick Wikipedia search tells me Braunstein was the first, but it was D&D that was published first and came to define the genre), out of the tabletop wargaming genre. These "pen-and-paper" or "tabletop" RPGs were sold both in the West and the East, but were way more popular in the West, being largely ignored in Eastern countries.

Tabletop RPGs were (and are) essentially rules-heavy games of pretend. A Game Master (or Dungeon Master, or Storyteller, or whatever) sets the scene and plays all the NPCs and monsters and whatever, and the players then get to do whatever they want within the rules of the game. While the nature and number of the rules differ from system to system, all RPGs basically amount to this.

The first cRPGs (computer- or console-RPGs) were made in the 70s, were Western, and based on the tabletop RPGs that came before them. They were very limited and entirely text-based, and due to the technology required to play them (which wasn't as universally available as it is now) they weren't played by many people. In the 80s, iconic (Western) games like Rogue, Ultima, and Wizardry were far more popular attempts to port the RPG genre to electronic media. They were great games without a doubt (considering the technological limitations of that time, at least), but they still captured only the basic mechanical building blocks of their inspiration, unable to recreate the human element which ensured that RPGs had infinite possibilities.

Over time, these games became popular in Japan as well. This success had several consequences. For example, Japan became serious about creating its own (tabletop) RPGs and started making manga and anime based on Western RPGs and the settings portrayed in those RPGs (Record of Lodoss War, Slayers, etc.). More relevant to this discussion, they made Dragon Quest (aka Dragon Warrior). The first ever JRPG, Dragon Quest was heavily inspired by games like Ultima and Wizardry, which were very popular at the time. In turn, Dragon Quest inspired Final Fantasy, and the rest is history.

Over time, Western cRPGs have been reconnecting with their RPG roots, in that they're re-establishing the role of the player as the agent controlling the actions of his character. This has been the case for quite a while, but progress is slow, and at this point the cRPG's 'choice' is still little more than a branching path and not the open canvas of real RPGs. Meanwhile, Eastern cRPGs have been moving closer to adventure games, making the player little more than a spectator to the story apart for the parts where challenges have to be overcome. Challenges that are, in 99% of the cases, represented by (turn-based) battles. JRPGs have, more and more, come to focus on complex stories and characters at the expense of player agencyFor more on agency and why it's such a big deal for RPGs, read Alexander Macris' awesome articles, here on the Escapist.. Of course there are plenty of exceptions on both sides of the fence, with WRPGs branching away from the RPG ideal and JRPGs moving towards it, but the general line is fairly clear.

What do we learn from this?
- All cRPGs share the same roots: Tabletop RPGs.
- One of the defining features of tabletop RPGs compared to other games is the massive amount of freedom the player gets to use his imagination to solve problems, relatively unfettered by rules and restrictions. This is by no means the only defining feature, but it is a very important one.

It's obvious to anyone that all cRPGs (single-player at least - many multi-player games have at least the potential for real roleplaying) have moved away from their roots. Because of this, it's not unreasonable to say that no cRPG made so far has ever been worthy of the name 'RPG'. However, WRPGs in general have always striven to emulate tabletop RPGs to a significant (if perhaps insufficient) degree, while JRPGs went off and merrily did their own thing. Note that this is not a judgment of value - being different does not mean being worse. It simply means that they're further removed from RPGs than what their predecessor has become. In fact, they're so far removed from their roots that they've become an entirely different genre. This is the basis for my claim that JRPGs aren't RPGs. The name "Japanese RPG" has stuck to the genre and will probably never change, but the truth is that games like Final Fantasy XIII have about as much to do with RPGs as Modern Warfare 2. It's just like how American football has virtually nothing to do with football (that's soccer to the Americans in the audience). Everyone knows what you mean with the term, it's unlikely to cause misunderstandings, and it's even less likely to ever to something more appropriate any time soon, but the way it's done today has virtually nothing to do with the thing from which it takes its name.

Now, as I said before, none of this means that JRPGs aren't good games, or that WRPGs are somehow superior for staying closer to their roots. Change is not a bad thing. I loved FF7 and 8 way back when as well as the SNES-era ones, and while I don't enjoy the Final Fantasy games as much nowadays there are still plenty of great JRPGs that I like (Devil Survivor and Last Remnant are two more recent examples, though perhaps not the most archetypal specimens out there).

Neither does it mean that all JRPGs have turned away from their roots completely, nor that all WRPGs are at least somewhat true to the RPG archetype. One of the games I mentioned above, Devil Survivor, has a storyline that can change in very significant ways depending on the player's actions and choices. On the other end of the spectrum, there are a lot of WRPGs that are as linear and restrictive as any JRPG, focusing on story or action without a regard to player agency. What I've described is just the general development within the genres, but with something as unlimited as human imagination no game has to conform to genre stereotypes.

 

[CK76]

Reminds me of insanity of classifying music with sub categories within sub categories.

JRPGs are "you know, those Dragon Quest or Final Fantasy type games..."

 

[Seldon2639]

How about calling western RPGS "avatar RPGs", and JRPGs "character RPGs"?

In an avatar RPG, you play an individual, with a personality (or lack thereof) of your choosing, whose development and progress and viewpoints/actions are entirely of your volition and are not tied directly to the game qua game.

In a character RPG, you're railroaded into playing "as" a character completely independent and separate from you as a player. Your choices influence only the actual game part, and the story is completely segregated from your choices. The character is his own entity, and the job of the player is to move from one cutscene to the next.

No need to argue whether they're RPGs, they both are, they just don't do it the same way

 

[Hurr Durr Derp]

Nanana I can't hear you! I'm right and you're stupid! Nanana!

snip

And with that you've been reported.
I don't appreciate words being put in my mouth.

Congratulations.

EDIT: You might want to read your tactless posts and see who was calling who stupid.
Also, for the record, quit posting the same garbage on these threads and you might find you have a more pleasant time here. I've noticed that all you seem to do is argue with people. I'm sure you must have more pleasant conversations elsewhere, but everytime I see "Hurr Derr Durp" all I can think is: Here we go again, flames are a coming! Maybe it's your posting style? Maybe it's the BS (like that which you pulled above).

It's not a quote of what you wrote but a paraphrase of the sentiment you seemed to be expressing. "[...] spout whatever nonsense you will" and all that. Good to know you care enough about this that you're trying to call mom the mods on me though. Always nice to be recognized, even if it is for trivial things.

For the record, I do have a pleasant time here on Escapist, and here in this thread as well. I wouldn't be here if I didn't enjoy it. But you're right, it's no secret: I'm argumentative. What can I say, it's a character flaw I'm well-aware of. It's also one we appear to share, given how much effort you put up defending your own point of view. I enjoy a little back-and-forth, and it's a shame to see that you allow yourself to get so worked up over it that you can no longer continue.

Having said that, I appreciate how you're now ignoring the argument and have switched to full-on argumentum ad hominem. Classy.

If you want to argue the point some more, I'd like to refer you to my <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/9.195734.6306308>earlier post. If you're only interested in calling me a flamer... I believe you said something about no longer posting in this thread?

 

[Hurr Durr Derp]

snip

Why would I listen to someone who is so obviously only interested in flaming people?

You could present the best argument ever conceived and I wouldn't listen at this point. This is due to your poor delivery. You clearly raise some interesting arguments, (much better than that other guy who was trying at the same time), but you insist too much on unnecessary personal attacks ("reading comprehension, much?"; "Nanana I can't hear you! I'm right and you're stupid! Nanana!" {A little pot calling the kettle black on that last one and was reported due to it holding no value other than to flame, which is not acceptable Escapist behaviour}). Work that issue out of your posts and maybe people will take you more seriously.

For my own argumentative nature, it has been calmed quite a bit since my younger days. I find myself abstaining from many arguments or pulling myself out before I really start to get nasty. My sharp tongue has caused me many problems in the past, enough to know when to stop.

Take my advice or not, it's no skin off of my ass. Just trying to be helpful.

How can you claim that I'm "obviously only interested in flaming people" and then, right after it, mention that I present some good arguments but that you're simply not interested in listening to them?

And flaming? Me? When have I ever flamed anyone? At most, my persistent argumentativeness could be construed as stubborn trolling, but I'd like to believe that I pick my arguments with slightly more care than that. I've only ever reacted based on what you wrote, rather than dismissing arguments for the sole reason that they were 'silly' or 'nonsense', or completely ignoring someone's arguments because I allegedly saw them flaming someone in another thread.

Anyway, let's not have this conversation. At least not here where it isn't the slightest bit relevant to the thread we're in. If you're willing to pick up the original argument where we left it, feel free. If not, then let's part in - well, perhaps not a friendly manner, but at least a civil one. Perhaps it's best to end with the notion that, no matter what they are or aren't, they can be pretty damn entertaining games. I assume that at least is something we can find common ground in.