The term JRPG

[Mr Jt (Gog is king)]

So i saw an article where square actually says that they consider their games as rpgs and not jrpgs and that the term actually hurts. I think jrpgs are usually different than western rpgs so i think the term is right. Western rpgs is also a common term and i don’t see anything bad with it. Final fantasy sp games are just movie games with a skill system now and thats it. What do you think?

[Tiberius]

One thing that I agree with him is the part where he said jrpg fans like to compartmentalize the genre. Those fans are never consistent in whats considered as jrpg.

[Elucidator]

I just use the terms to define the roleplay-customization style.
western style rpgs = stat distribution, earning points when leveling to spend on stats and skills.
japanese style rpgs, fixed leveling, fixed skill unlocking, etc.

some people feel that first person rpg games are western and top down, rpgs japanese, but... I mean there are plenty of rpgs made in the west and they just had that stat/skill customization theme in common; xd

there are a few eastern work rpgs with the same mechanics or similar mechanics, but .. somehow the theme westernizes even when they do that or... or its an mmorpg.
meh-

basically, western rpgs are more personal and the main character doesn't have much personality. The main character also has to often choose dialogue options next to distributing stats.

in japanese rpgs, you're.... more or less reading a fixed story. You're still playing a role, but its less personalized.


Edit: most people indeed call the fixed stats, fixed leveling, fixed unlocks, fixed dialogue rpgs jrpgs, and all other rpgs, just rpgs.
so Disgaea for example, is a strategy rpg, and not a strategy wrpg.

rpg is the true approperiate term. jrpg is just a fan term for games made with a fixed story by good developers.

[Shodan 2.0]

sleeps님이 먼저 게시:

Jrpg is rpg but bad

Perfection.

[Tonepoet]

It is a bit of a wierd distinction to be making, because the country of origin does really change the type of game something is, and it is not even a distinction we make for other genres of games. Like, we don't call Mega Man a J. Platformer and Earthworm Jim a western platformer. They are both just platformers. Similarly, would you like Final Fantasy games any better or worse if they were the exact same games, except developed by Interplay in the U.S.A.? Would Elder Scrolls be any better if they were exactly the same, except was made by Nihon Falcom in Japan?

At this much of a surface example examination, it does seem like it could be a vaguely racist term.

However, that is only if you make a surface level examination. It does make sense for the distinction to exist to an extent, because there are a fair number of distinctions in how Japan and the west generally handle R.P.Gs. I'm not going to try and list them all out because I do not think there are any strict rules regarding which can be used in one or the other, just tendencies, but I trust most people using the terms know what the tendencies are.

It makes sense that Squaresoft would the term because most of the vocal minority of people who dislike their games generally speaking use it often. People probably use it positively in equal proportion, but if they could eliminate the term J.R.P.G. from the vernacular, it would have a net positive effect for their commercial interests because most R.P.G. fans have thought of Square-Enix positively at some point in time, so negative reactions would be less visible than positive ones if everything had to be lumped together as merely R.P.G.

However, this also proves that the distinction is somewhat useful though, since it helps people express their preferences so that other people may evaluate them and make judgements as to whether or not they will buy a game on that basis. If I see a negative review of a game claiming a disdain for J.R.P.Gs., then not only doees that help people who dislike J.R.P.Gs. know to avoid it, but it also helps people who like J.R.P.Gs. to disregard that aspect of the review.

However, Squaresoft is only one company and to be honest, I am far less interested in their opinion on the subject than I would be for a localization company likee Atlus or N.I.S.A. Those companies are not trying to be everything to everybody in the same way Squaresoft has been trying to do in more modern times. Atlus and N.I.S. know who their playerbase is and pander to their preferences. I think those companies would be adversely effected if everybody was to stop using the term J.R.P.G.

Look at the article Nisa is Localizing the Best J.R.P.G. You've Probably Never Played[www.digitallydownloaded.net] by Matt S. for example. It is a glowing review of The Caligula Effect Overdose, so I doubt the term J.R.P.G. is meant to be used disparagingly, so much as it is meant to be an S.E.O. measure, and an S.E.O. measure that worked, because I doubt digitallydownloaded.net is a popular game media outlet. I just typed in J.R.P.G. into a search engine to see what I would get. That article also tagged J.R.P.G., so you can click on the tag read their other reviews for games categorized as J.R.P.Gs. like Atelier Ryza 3.

Also, let me be frank here: Generally speaking, I do not want to hear native Japanese speakers' opinion on English language usage any more than they want to hear my opinion on Japanese language usage. I only want to hear opinions on a language from people who have a proficient and fluent understanding of the language. Granted, that may sometimes include a native Japanese speaker, but at the very least, I want to be hearing from Squaresoft's senior translators rather than a producer who needs a translator himself in order to effectively communicate with English interviewers, like Naoki Yoshida, who seems to be the main figurehead expressing disdain. Even then, any translator who has ever been paid to write the word "congraturation" on a game-victory screen, in earnest, may excuse themselves from the room during that little chat.

Speaking of Square-Enix trying to be everything to everybody, another reason that Squaresoft might dislike the term J.R.P.G. is that one of the common distinctions between japanese and western developed R.P.Gs. is that japanese games were once more commonly known to use turn based combat, whereas western R.P.Gs. tend to be action based. However, to the best of my understanding, the most recent Final Fantasy games have beeen action R.P.Gs., so the term J.R.P.G. implies something that is not true about them.

I generally do dislike the term R.P.G. though. It stands for role playing game, which is a useless distinction since the vast majority of video games have you playing the role of a character, with any numbere of eponymously named game series. It only makes way if you think of it by way of historical analogy with tabletop role playing games, and even then the distinction can be very far removed. You could just as easily refer to Elder Scrolls games as action-adventure games and not really miss much of a beat for example. However, we're a little too steeped in the terminology to be turning back now. However, the R.P.G. portion of the abbreviation is not exactly the issue at hand here.

[ZZZZZ]

jrpgs are just turn based low-strategy games, dunno how the letters rpgs ever managed to get in

[Mr Jt (Gog is king)]

Nothing wrong with turn based games but final fantasy is dead since 10 anyway

[Raelic]

Once you've created something, it's best to just let the fans do the labels and not fight it.

And it's pretty rich that a Japanese company doesn't like being singled out with a specific country label since Japan is notoriously xenophobic.