WRPG's & JRPG's

[More Fun To Compute]

What I'm trying to say is that the words "concequences" and "decisions" are often used for elements that are more apparent in the narrative rather than the gameplay and my personal prefence is that which changes the gameplay

I see things differently and disagree with how you use the term gameplay.

An action game might have very strong "in the moment" gameplay where you are only concerned with how your avatar is performing. If in Gradius a coffee power-up gives you a laser beam while a tea powerup gives you an option then that is a strong gamplay choice. But I specifically chose examples that are only the sort cosmetic "dolly dress up" options that you get in RPGs.

What is usually meant by choice and consequence, or more specifically reactive game worlds, in RPGs is not the sort of thing that changes "in the moment" performance of action gameplay but a sort of meta strategy for what you want to achieve in the world. FF7 is famous for a scripted death sequence when one of the party characters dies. Many people were desperate to figure out some sort of secret way to keep her alive or bring her back even though the developers didn't add any such feature. They might not need to use her for combat but doing something like keeping that character alive is a strategic goal for the player that is equivalent to finishing the campaign and different to how efficient they were at clearing the combat encounters. This is another level of gameplay.

 

[Velocity Eleven]

What I'm trying to say is that the words "concequences" and "decisions" are often used for elements that are more apparent in the narrative rather than the gameplay and my personal prefence is that which changes the gameplay

I see things differently and disagree with how you use the term gameplay.

An action game might have very strong "in the moment" gameplay where you are only concerned with how your avatar is performing. If in Gradius a coffee power-up gives you a laser beam while a tea powerup gives you an option then that is a strong gamplay choice. But I specifically chose examples that are only the sort cosmetic "dolly dress up" options that you get in RPGs.

What is usually meant by choice and consequence, or more specifically reactive game worlds, in RPGs is not the sort of thing that changes "in the moment" performance of action gameplay but a sort of meta strategy for what you want to achieve in the world. FF7 is famous for a scripted death sequence when one of the party characters dies. Many people were desperate to figure out some sort of secret way to keep her alive or bring her back even though the developers didn't add any such feature. They might not need to use her for combat but doing something like keeping that character alive is a strategic goal for the player that is equivalent to finishing the campaign and different to how efficient they were at clearing the combat encounters. This is another level of gameplay.

I'm quite confused now... If we imagine that the game made it possible for the character to be revived, then I am sure that many people would attempt to regardless if how usefull/useless such a character is... I would catagorise that as an activity to please the achiever mindset. What I mean by this is that it would be one of those things that people would do for the sake of being able to do it. Where the accomplishment does not effect the gameplay directly but is used to prove the players acomplishments. The most common examples of this are games like Geometry Wars or Pinball FX 2 where people keep playing to get high-scores to "show off" so-to-speak

EDIT: ok, so I read your post again... just want to confirm that I am talking about both on-the-spot strategy and meta-game strategy, I am saying that FF7 even though has a linear storyline, there are many meta-game strategies as well as on-the-spot ones, which sometimes mix (I like it when games mix them). For example, when you get Ultima Weapon, you can equip it to give you instant on-the-spot strenght boost, however if you do then the materia equiped to it won't gain AP so you have to think both long-term and short-term

 

[More Fun To Compute]

I'm quite confused now... If we imagine that the game made it possible for the character to be revived, then I am sure that many people would attempt to regardless if how usefull/useless such a character is... I would catagorise that as an activity to please the achiever mindset. What I mean by this is that it would be one of those things that people would do for the sake of being able to do it. Where the accomplishment does not effect the gameplay directly but is used to prove the players acomplishments. The most common examples of this are games like Geometry Wars or Pinball FX 2 where people keep playing to get high-scores to "show off" so-to-speak

EDIT: ok, so I read your post again... just want to confirm that I am talking about both on-the-spot strategy and meta-game strategy, I am saying that FF7 even though has a linear storyline, there are many meta-game strategies as well as on-the-spot ones, which sometimes mix (I like it when games mix them). For example, when you get Ultima Weapon, you can equip it to give you instant on-the-spot strenght boost, however if you do then the materia equiped to it won't gain AP so you have to think both long-term and short-term

I'm not damning Japanese games in general when I'm talking about this example of fates of characters. That was an example of people hitting the limit of what they expect, consequence without any choice.

But it absolutely is something that falls into the territory of metagaming and the achievement mindset. When people say that they want consequences what they really mean is that they want the rewards they get in game to be something they have worked for and earned with their own skill and sacrifice. Why should someone else get an equally good ending when they made lousy choices all the way through the game? It's still more about the outcome than improving your character or giving you more options. It might involve making your character worse or removing options, that's more like real consequence for making a choice. Like, in Nier, if you want to see ending D, you have to sacrifice the main character to save another one at the end. To make the consequence clear the game actually deletes all of your save files when you make the choice. Getting a good ending in Disgaea requires you to play more carefully, sacrificing gameplay options.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Your definition of an RPG is incorrect. RPGs are basically about number crunching, where you have (for example) x strength, y dexterity and z endurance and increasing these stats increases the damage, chance to hit/dodge and reduces damage received respectively. These stats can be improved by equipping certain items, or by collecting enough experience from fallen foes. With this definition, Final Fantasy VII is an RPG, but Zelda (bar Link's Adventure), (main series) Mario, Metroid Prime, Dead rising, Left for Dead, Uncharted, Far Cry, Assassin's Creed, Prince of Persia and Half-Life are not RPGs.

Also, I'd advise you to play a better series than Final Fantasy before judging the genre; I've never been happy with any of Square Enix's solo efforts.

I've posted this a dozen times but here we go again.

The literal meaning of RPG is not useful as it would include any game where the player takes the role of a character in a story. If you dig a little deeper and look at the various things people assert are or are not RPGs, you find that there are two different schools of thought.

The first school is that a game must have character agency, that is, the player must be able to define their character. This could include the ability to customize your character's appearance, the ability to select classes or define things the character is skilled at, equip items that allow them to better overcome a particular obstacle and other similar things. In this case, character agency is generally defined by an interrelated system of statistics. The search for loot or the perfect build for a Rogue in WoW is an example of this form of character agency. A second form of character agency is that the player has the ability to influence the character's basic place in the world. That means they can influence how the character is perceived by other entities in the world and how their own character in turn sees the world. The ability to turn Bastilla in KOTOR is one well known example of this.

The second school is that a player must have narrative agency - that is that a player must have the ability to influence the outcome of the plot through their actions. In it's most basic form this would be a game that is generally linear but features multiple endings based upon a single choice. Better examples generally offer multiple routes through a particular sub-section of the narrative. Notable examples are games like Fallout, Dragon Age: Origins, and Vampire The Masquerade: Bloodlines.

Many people would argue that there are mechanical requirements as well. Under such an argument, success in a particular endeavor must hinge upon both the player's ability to recognize the existence of a choice and execute the proper commands to attempt it but also relies upon the character's ability to perform the action in the world space. Examples of this are any of the skill checks in a D20 system, or the possibility of missing with an attack in a game like Morrowind. Others might further assert that actions must take place in an arbitrary timeline where all disputes (combat for example) are resolved in a manner that attempts to reduce the utility of player skill to a minimum in favor of character skill (Turn based games are an example of this). In general, while a significant portion of games include some variation of the former, there are plenty of them that all but ignore the latter.

In the case of the former, the mechanical system usually serves when character agency is primarily defined by interrelated systems. Indeed the former is more or less a requirement of such a relationship. The latter on the other hand is a simple mechanical choice that allows a developer to reduce the number of variables in play at a given moment allowing for greater ease of tuning.

 

[Velocity Eleven]

I'm quite confused now... If we imagine that the game made it possible for the character to be revived, then I am sure that many people would attempt to regardless if how usefull/useless such a character is... I would catagorise that as an activity to please the achiever mindset. What I mean by this is that it would be one of those things that people would do for the sake of being able to do it. Where the accomplishment does not effect the gameplay directly but is used to prove the players acomplishments. The most common examples of this are games like Geometry Wars or Pinball FX 2 where people keep playing to get high-scores to "show off" so-to-speak

EDIT: ok, so I read your post again... just want to confirm that I am talking about both on-the-spot strategy and meta-game strategy, I am saying that FF7 even though has a linear storyline, there are many meta-game strategies as well as on-the-spot ones, which sometimes mix (I like it when games mix them). For example, when you get Ultima Weapon, you can equip it to give you instant on-the-spot strenght boost, however if you do then the materia equiped to it won't gain AP so you have to think both long-term and short-term

I'm not damning Japanese games in general when I'm talking about this example of fates of characters. That was an example of people hitting the limit of what they expect, consequence without any choice.

But it absolutely is something that falls into the territory of metagaming and the achievement mindset. When people say that they want consequences what they really mean is that they want the rewards they get in game to be something they have worked for and earned with their own skill and sacrifice. Why should someone else get an equally good ending when they made lousy choices all the way through the game? It's still more about the outcome than improving your character or giving you more options. It might involve making your character worse or removing options, that's more like real consequence for making a choice. Like, in Nier, if you want to see ending D, you have to sacrifice the main character to save another one at the end. To make the consequence clear the game actually deletes all of your save files when you make the choice. Getting a good ending in Disgaea requires you to play more carefully, sacrificing gameplay options.

This is exactly what I am talking about... you're talking about "the ending" which is a form of narrative, not gameplay. If such a player made lousy choices throughout the game then the concequenses of that is that they are presented with a more difficult game.

In FF7, a character dies, regardless of your actions previous to that. Because the chances are 100% that this event will take place, then that means that people aren't going to merit the quality of their gameplay based off it. What people WILL judge their quality of gameplay off are the in-game mechanics such as levels, materia, weapons etc.

Why "should" all players get the same ending? well, because it's the ending of the story... if the story alternated between different plots then how would you establish the "true" story? If I want something to "prove my worth" then an in-game object is perfectly fine. For example, in FF12 if you beat Yiazmat you get the "Order Of Ambrosia"

 

[More Fun To Compute]

This is exactly what I am talking about... you're talking about "the ending" which is a form of narrative, not gameplay. If such a player made lousy choices throughout the game then the concequenses of that is that they are presented with a more difficult game.

In FF7, a character dies, regardless of your actions previous to that. Because the chances are 100% that this event will take place, then that means that people aren't going to merit the quality of their gameplay based off it. What people WILL judge their quality of gameplay off are the in-game mechanics such as levels, materia, weapons etc.

Why "should" all players get the same ending? well, because it's the ending of the story... if the story alternated between different plots then how would you establish the "true" story? If I want something to "prove my worth" then an in-game object is perfectly fine. For example, in FF12 if you beat Yiazmat you get the "Order Of Ambrosia"

The ending is also something that happens in a game as well as a narrative.

If FF7 was a table top RPG and the dungeon master just decided that a player who everyone liked and wanted to stay in the game just had to die for the sake of the plot then all the players might decide that game was bad. Imagine a poker game where the person with the most chips had all of the chips taken away by the dealer because it makes the game more dramatic. By choosing to make a game an RPG the developers have more rules for what they can do dramatically than if they are writing a play, and they can choose to ignore them if they want.

There is no true story in a fully featured RPG. There is only the story that ends up being told due to the actions of the players and random chance.

And, if we establish that the driving part of the game of the game is context, the characters and the game world then the best reward for a player should be results in those areas. If you are only given perks and trinkets then it just shows that the only important thing for the player is the combat and you are playing what some people call a "munchkin" game for people who only want to competitively prove that they are "the best at winning."

 

[Velocity Eleven]

This is exactly what I am talking about... you're talking about "the ending" which is a form of narrative, not gameplay. If such a player made lousy choices throughout the game then the concequenses of that is that they are presented with a more difficult game.

In FF7, a character dies, regardless of your actions previous to that. Because the chances are 100% that this event will take place, then that means that people aren't going to merit the quality of their gameplay based off it. What people WILL judge their quality of gameplay off are the in-game mechanics such as levels, materia, weapons etc.

Why "should" all players get the same ending? well, because it's the ending of the story... if the story alternated between different plots then how would you establish the "true" story? If I want something to "prove my worth" then an in-game object is perfectly fine. For example, in FF12 if you beat Yiazmat you get the "Order Of Ambrosia"

The ending is also something that happens in a game as well as a narrative.

If FF7 was a table top RPG and the dungeon master just decided that a player who everyone liked and wanted to stay in the game just had to die for the sake of the plot then all the players might decide that game was bad. Imagine a poker game where the person with the most chips had all of the chips taken away by the dealer because it makes the game more dramatic. By choosing to make a game an RPG the developers have more rules for what they can do dramatically than if they are writing a play, and they can choose to ignore them if they want.

There is no true story in a fully featured RPG. There is only the story that ends up being told due to the actions of the players and random chance.

And, if we establish that the driving part of the game of the game is context, the characters and the game world then the best reward for a player should be results in those areas. If you are only given perks and trinkets then it just shows that the only important thing for the player is the combat and you are playing what some people call a "munchkin" game for people who only want to competitively prove that they are "the best at winning."

If in FF7 the game ended with a really lame ending, say for example Cloud falls of the edge of a cliff and dies and then Barret checks his gun and accidently kills Tifa... y'know something something really really retarded. That makes the ending really really lame, but I dont see how that alone would make the game bad.

All I'm saying is that it irritates me how often I hear people say "oh I dont like this game because of this character is unlikable" rather than commenting on the actual game

 

[Volafortis]

Turn-Based combat is not, and never has been, an RPG element. It's a strategy game element.

In order to be a role-playing game, you need to be able to define a characters' social role (to some extent). If you cannot, the game is not an RPG.

This excludes many games that are traditionally considered RPGs, mostly of the "J" variety, but that's how it goes.
A pre-made character is already pushing the definition, but can still be pulled off if you, as a player, define how he acts and interacts within his world.

Sadly, most JRPGs do not do this. Most JRPGs assume number crunching = role-playing (which is blatantly false), and your only interaction with a character, as a player is through combat and cutscenes, making most "JRPGs" actually "Adventure Games".

It cannot be blatantly false if that is the chosen definition. JRPGs preceded WRPGS by quite a large margin and thereby determined the title of their genre. The aforementioned was derived from similar mechanics to DnD games and the notion you are playing the role of both a character and a story that is predetermined. Whether or not you agree with this definition is your opinion, it is, and never shall it be, fact.

JRPGs did not precede WRPGs; Ultima was released in 1980.
Also, look up the definition of role-playing; my definition is as close to "fact" as you can get without watering down the definition of the genre to the point of worthlessness-- if you call FF13 an RPG, you may as well call Call Of Duty an RPG.

Also, DnD combat mechanics do not make an RPG. DnD combat mechanics are based on dice rolls and turn based systems simply because it's one of the only things that work well in a tabletop setting as a limiting factor. Many forms of LARPing do not involve turn based systems or dice rolls because the role playing becomes limited by personal ability. There simply need to be some limiting factor to prevent people from being ass-hats to fellow players (in DnD and LARP).

Do some research.

 

[Bourne Endeavor]

Turn-Based combat is not, and never has been, an RPG element. It's a strategy game element.

In order to be a role-playing game, you need to be able to define a characters' social role (to some extent). If you cannot, the game is not an RPG.

This excludes many games that are traditionally considered RPGs, mostly of the "J" variety, but that's how it goes.
A pre-made character is already pushing the definition, but can still be pulled off if you, as a player, define how he acts and interacts within his world.

Sadly, most JRPGs do not do this. Most JRPGs assume number crunching = role-playing (which is blatantly false), and your only interaction with a character, as a player is through combat and cutscenes, making most "JRPGs" actually "Adventure Games".

It cannot be blatantly false if that is the chosen definition. JRPGs preceded WRPGS by quite a large margin and thereby determined the title of their genre. The aforementioned was derived from similar mechanics to DnD games and the notion you are playing the role of both a character and a story that is predetermined. Whether or not you agree with this definition is your opinion, it is, and never shall it be, fact.

JRPGs did not precede WRPGs; Ultima was released in 1980.
Also, look up the definition of role-playing; my definition is as close to "fact" as you can get without watering down the definition of the genre to the point of worthlessness-- if you call FF13 an RPG, you may as well call Call Of Duty an RPG.

Also, DnD combat mechanics do not make an RPG. DnD combat mechanics are based on dice rolls and turn based systems simply because it's one of the only things that work well in a tabletop setting as a limiting factor. Many forms of LARPing do not involve turn based systems or dice rolls because the role playing becomes limited by personal ability. There simply need to be some limiting factor to prevent people from being ass-hats to fellow players (in DnD and LARP).

Do some research.

Judging by the brief information I could locate of the 1980 variation of Ultima, it had a scripted story and premade characters not unlike any other JRPG. Well no, it followed what has become a rarity in the silent protagonist role. In any event, I am well aware of the definition of role-playing as a separate entity. It does not alter the fact, JRPGs are merely a different variety for reasons already stated. Call of Duty does not have the statistics nor the mechanics to be considered a RPG, whereas FFXIII does, albeit to a lesser extent than some of its predecessors. Hence the comparison to tabletop games.

Why it is those who dislike JRPGs campaign vehemently to discredit, condemn and demand they adhere to their whining by changing their name? If you dislike them, just ignore them. I have never seen a fanbase as insecure about a title as WRPG fans can be. Note, this is a generalization and not directed toward anyone specific.

Nevertheless, this will inevitable conclude in a flame war. So to avoid such, all I say it. Like whatever you like and shut up about it.

 

[veloper]

Also, look up the definition of role-playing; my definition is as close to "fact" as you can get without watering down the definition of the genre to the point of worthlessness-- if you call FF13 an RPG, you may as well call Call Of Duty an RPG.

This has already happenend. cRPG or RPG tells you nothing about the gameplay.

WRPG is almost just as bad. Could be turn-based. Could be RTS-lite. Coud be a shooter.

The JRPG still has some defining features, but this is watering down too as people are now calling Action RPGs, JRPGs too, if they happened to be made in Japan.
Still, it's a JRPG if it does all or most of these: turn-based combat or semi-TB, recruitable party of usually 4 characters at a time, XP leveling, seperate combat screens and an over-world, spawning mobs, grinding, anime visual style and a linear story.

Anyway, we need to retreat to sub-genres like JRPG, SRPG, RPShooter, FPL diablo clone, roguelike, etc.

 

[waive]

Your definition of an RPG is incorrect. RPGs are basically about number crunching, where you have (for example) x strength, y dexterity and z endurance and increasing these stats increases the damage, chance to hit/dodge and reduces damage received respectively. These stats can be improved by equipping certain items, or by collecting enough experience from fallen foes. With this definition, Final Fantasy VII is an RPG, but Zelda (bar Link's Adventure), (main series) Mario, Metroid Prime, Dead rising, Left for Dead, Uncharted, Far Cry, Assassin's Creed, Prince of Persia and Half-Life are not RPGs.

Also, I'd advise you to play a better series than Final Fantasy before judging the genre; I've never been happy with any of Square Enix's solo efforts.

actually, role-playing games are about playing a role, pretending to be someone other than your own boring, mundane, Joe Workaday self. the number-crunching was originally nothing more than a framework for that. however, to a certain extent, by the original definition of "role-playing game" ANY video game could be defined as an RPG, since you are playing a character or role other than yourself.

Funnily enough, an old rental store had all of its games labeled Role Playing Game except a few called Action. Halo was RPG. Hell yeah.

This is pretty much true, although I think the defining definition of an RPG is that you can control what your doing more so then deciding how to blow up what ever is in your way. So with JRPG's you can travel and do stuff, but you don't make your character. With WRPG's you get to make your character, then do all the traveling.

With JRPG's your character is more easily created as a what the dev's wanted. With an WRPG your characters harder to do that with, although BioWare does it very well, while Bethesda tends to keep you more as 'whatever you want to be'.

 

[Spectrum_Prez]

For me, RPGs are games that let you decide how a character develops. That's the crucial difference between an RPG and an action adventure game that puts you in a role (so you're role-playing, sort of) but the experience is passive since character-development is linear.

There are usually two dimensions in which a character can develop, the first is skills and attributes, the second one is personality and morality. Of course, there's also a third, which is physical appearance, but that's the most shallow dimension and many RPGs don't even bother with it. How the game goes about exploring these dimensions is up to the developers, but the common mechanics used aren't themselves part of the definition of RPGs.

Let me restate that because it's important: How a game goes about exploring character development is less important than the fact that it allows you to do so in the first place. Thus, an RPG does not necessarily need experience points. It does not need grind. It does not need spells, or skills, or talents, or attributes. These are all common strategies, but they shouldn't be part of the definition of RPG.

A good analogy might be that windows aren't part of the definition of a house because not all houses have windows. However, being a place 'fit for living' is part of the definition of a house, and one of the common strategies used to make a building 'fit for living' is to put in windows.

I dunno, this is just the latest edition of my ongoing struggle to come up with a workable definition of RPG. I think the important extra condition you have to stick in is that the player must be in control of one character and one character only (at any time) generally speaking. Otherwise, strategy games become RPGs, sports manager games become RPGs, all types of stuff become RPGs and the definition becomes too wide.

 

[Volafortis]

Turn-Based combat is not, and never has been, an RPG element. It's a strategy game element.

In order to be a role-playing game, you need to be able to define a characters' social role (to some extent). If you cannot, the game is not an RPG.

This excludes many games that are traditionally considered RPGs, mostly of the "J" variety, but that's how it goes.
A pre-made character is already pushing the definition, but can still be pulled off if you, as a player, define how he acts and interacts within his world.

Sadly, most JRPGs do not do this. Most JRPGs assume number crunching = role-playing (which is blatantly false), and your only interaction with a character, as a player is through combat and cutscenes, making most "JRPGs" actually "Adventure Games".

It cannot be blatantly false if that is the chosen definition. JRPGs preceded WRPGS by quite a large margin and thereby determined the title of their genre. The aforementioned was derived from similar mechanics to DnD games and the notion you are playing the role of both a character and a story that is predetermined. Whether or not you agree with this definition is your opinion, it is, and never shall it be, fact.

JRPGs did not precede WRPGs; Ultima was released in 1980.
Also, look up the definition of role-playing; my definition is as close to "fact" as you can get without watering down the definition of the genre to the point of worthlessness-- if you call FF13 an RPG, you may as well call Call Of Duty an RPG.

Also, DnD combat mechanics do not make an RPG. DnD combat mechanics are based on dice rolls and turn based systems simply because it's one of the only things that work well in a tabletop setting as a limiting factor. Many forms of LARPing do not involve turn based systems or dice rolls because the role playing becomes limited by personal ability. There simply need to be some limiting factor to prevent people from being ass-hats to fellow players (in DnD and LARP).

Do some research.

Judging by the brief information I could locate of the 1980 variation of Ultima, it had a scripted story and premade characters not unlike any other JRPG. Well no, it followed what has become a rarity in the silent protagonist role. In any event, I am well aware of the definition of role-playing as a separate entity. It does not alter the fact, JRPGs are merely a different variety for reasons already stated. Call of Duty does not have the statistics nor the mechanics to be considered a RPG, whereas FFXIII does, albeit to a lesser extent than some of its predecessors. Hence the comparison to tabletop games.

Why it is those who dislike JRPGs campaign vehemently to discredit, condemn and demand they adhere to their whining by changing their name? If you dislike them, just ignore them. I have never seen a fanbase as insecure about a title as WRPG fans can be. Note, this is a generalization and not directed toward anyone specific.

Nevertheless, this will inevitable conclude in a flame war. So to avoid such, all I say it. Like whatever you like and shut up about it.

I never once said I didn't like JRPGs (I enjoy quite a few, such as Chrono Trigger, Demon's Souls, the Persona series, WKC, etc..) I just don't think very many can be accurately called "RPGs" because they don't have role playing systems. They have stat systems.

Also, in Ultima 1, you aren't given a pre-made character, you create a character sheet, choosing race and everything. Tech limitations prevented much social interaction, but you weren't forced into the shoes of a character you didn't choose-- you created him.

 

[Manoose47]

hmmm if its a question of which is a superior genre, i guess you could say its down to taste,
but in my experience Wrpg totally kicks jrpg's ass, because they're NOT linear... in general

Wrpg v Jrpg
Fallout 1 Final fantasy VII
Fallout 2
K.O.T.O.R.
Torment
Deus Ex
Morrowind
Oblivion
Baldurs gate
Baldurs gate 2
Mass Effect
Mass Effect 2
Risen

Now on the flipside, Most of the newer western Rpgs are complete crap;
not by gamers for gamers, but by business men for money,
Dragon Age actually has a npc offer you a quest, which if you accept;
brings you to the dlc store to Purchase the quest??
wtf?
he asked me to help him,im doing him a favor, why would i buy the quest?
Immersion killed!!!!
Suck a fuck EA!!!!

 

[Defense]

It's just me, but I think of a roleplaying game as a game where you follow a character that develops over the storyline, whether you have a big choice in their development or not. Stat balancing and buying new spiffy gear is optional, but in the most literal sense I believe RPGs to be that. It depends how much "classic" RPG elements are incorporated. Madden has stats, but no one considers it an RPG because it's more of a sports game than anything else. Uncharted isn't considered an RPG because it's a third person shooter first, but it still has elements of an RPG. Zelda is considered an RPG, but it's not a JRPG, it's an Action RPG. The lines get pretty blurry here, so I should stop.

JRPGs and WRPGs are both story driven, JRPGs just insist on telling a story and WRPGs insist on letting the players create their own story, generally of course. JRPGs are not combat driven games at all considering there are still normal JRPGs being made that use turn based combat.


Before I end this, I'll just say that both the JRPGs get a bad rap for no good reason. It's immediately assumed that because it's from Japan it has the same "stale" battle system that every other game since Dragon Warrior for the NES had. Demon's Souls is a JRPG, but it's very un-JRPG like if you compare it to older games. It's incredibly absurd how every JRPG gets the same cliche description when WRPGs aren't exactly beacons of originality themselves. It's like if I called every sandbox game an overrated, bland piece of crap that focuses too much on quantity of side quests rather than quality. Sure, I may be right about a handful of them, but I'm not going to say every sandbox game is like that because I completely forgot to look at an entire market after 1995.

 

[knhirt]

When it comes down to it, the stat is king. Haven't yet played an RPG where the holy stat wasn't revered as supreme overlord.
It's all number crunching.

I like the idea of developing my own character and making decisions for myself, but usually the experience is pretty hollow. I just completed Baldur's Gate again a few days ago, and while it was fun to faff about harassing people as my evil character, it didn't change how the story played out. There was a little wiggle room, and a bit of amusing dialogue, but mostly my decisions affected very little. Usually, when something was changeable, it had to do with a character joining me or not, some stats being changed (gold from loot or attributes from loot), maybe a rep point in one direction, basic stuff. What I recall most fondly was the option to fool a certain group of bandits into thinking I was a new recruit or opting to slaughter their whole camp.

From what I've played of JRPGs, the story is a lot more rigid and linear, but side-quests and minigames usually come in abundance. I'd probably prefer that format of storytelling in most cases, if only for the narrative. I like a good story, and adding player choice and personality into the mix either complicates things a lot or cheapens the experience.
It's too bad that most JRPGs that I've played squandered the opportunity for a great narrative by sticking to tropes and unimaginative storytelling.
BG's combat was somewhat strategic, which I liked more than menu-based combat.
I like my combat either strategic or frantic and skill-oriented.

I'm really quite sick of stat-building, but I'm sure that I'll be kissing the feet of King Stat for a long time if I want the RPG experience.