Topic: General JRPG Thread

@VoidofLight for me JRPG is a game off a specific style as it has levelling system and has a set number of playable characters and a linear story in contrast with WRPG where you make your own character and choose your own story with decisions along the way

Yes, that's it! Nice work! Mass Effect, Ghost of Tsushima, and more fit in that bracket.

@Balta666 Thing is it's fairly common for JRPGs to have multiple endings based on your choices in the game that fits your description, Persona and Shin Megami Tensai are out and out JRPG and fit that.

@jump fair, but I would argue that a linear story can have multiple endings . Western RPG you can change way more than just the endings (gameplay style, looks, etc).

Apparently I'm significantly underlevelled in Dragon Quest XI... I'm at the Hekswood, first act, and my party's around Lv28-29. I got through it in my first playthrough at level 26-27.

It’s getting to the point where all games are trying to merge into the one super genre where it’s a bit of everything and all genres are pointless.

However some like JRPG do bring a certain image to your mind of what the game is so it’s fine unlike something like an “adventure” game which has taken loads of different shapes since the good ol days.

Maybe if you only play the same AAA open world and/or live service shooter games, and are a very boring person who is looking forward to the latest Fast and the Furious movie or whatever. But otherwise, not really. Maybe if more AAA games were actually being made they'd all do that more, but otherwise most games I notice even exist fit into very obvious genres/sub-genres in my experience.

That's a pretty meaningless category though, and not one that people apply in other cases. We never separate other genres based on their country of origin. Like we don't call Mario a Japanese platformer, as opposed to Spyro being a western platformer. Clearly that's because there are no meaningful differences in style between those games.
Whereas the difference between Elder Scrolls and Final Fantasy (especially in the turn-based days) was incredibly clear. Those really were 2 different genres for all intents and purposes.

Part of the issue is that JRPGs as we typically understood them, have declined in numbers in recent years. There are only a handful like DQ11 and Persona 5 that follow that old formula. So it's not that the term is nonsensical, it's just less useful nowadays because traditional JRPGs are less common.

@kkslider5552000 Yep I was talking about AAAs.

I did laugh at your attempt to throw shade at The Fast & The Furious audience. lol

@Dezzy I'd say the only one that really fits the old formula is Dragon Quest 11. Persona 5, while being turn based, does a lot of innovative things that wouldn't be as typical.

Yeah but God of War on the PS4 frankly shares all of those commonalities as well.

@Slowdive

I'm not saying it's an RPG. I'm saying any definition that includes both Skyrim and FF12 is going to be very vague, because they're quite different games. It's different than comparing like DQ11 with FF9, which have an almost identical structure and style.

As far as I've understood it (though things certainly have blurred in more modern times)...

JRPG: centered around a party of characters with largely predetermined roles, in an adventure, that while it may have a sizable amount of side content, has a strong central narrative/goal (which may or may not have a couple alternate endings).

WRPG: Focuses on an individual, largely blank slate character, in an adventure where the central story usually plays second fiddle to a wealth of side content and/or is heavily dependant on player choice.

Further subgenres, such as dungeon crawlers, or tactics RPGs, can be either a JRPG or WRPG based on which of the above templates they stick more closely to. Whether a game has action or turn based combat doesn't play a part in definition.

That's more or less right I think, although there was also the strong association with turn-based combat in JRPGs and more real-time combat in WRPGs.

If you said that Final Fantasy 10 was more of a JRPG than Final Fantasy 15, I'm pretty sure most people would understand exactly what you meant (turn based vs action, controlling a party vs controlling a single character, linear narrative vs open world)

I once saw someone make a pretty valid point about Mass Effect. Mass Effect plays like a 3rd person cover shooter, but its still considered an RPG first. Because what people want and get from the game is still the RPG parts and specific expectations from playing an RPG vs. a shooter.

That's kinda how I take most genres like this. They're there for like expectations of what you can expect or should expect. Probably one of the reasons I love Mass Effect 1 more than say, Bioshock, because Mass Effect is here to be an RPG so I can more forgive the combat issues because being a good shooter is not the only priority of the game. But Bioshock is also very story focused, but the combat issues are more of an issue for me, despite the combat still being notably better than in ME1, because Bioshock is still about being an FPS first despite that.

It's almost like to be a WRPG you have to have a single playable character, a branching narrative and an open world.

The funny thing is the original Dragon Quest (the quintessential JRPG series) fits two out of those three criteria.

@TheJGG would not stick to the single playable character either as series like dragon age altough you talk as your own character, on battle you can swap between a 4 person team at any time

I do find that quite funny! I'd like to think that's their way of experimentation, because Dragon Quest was a JRPG before they even knew what a JRPG was. I feel that the branching narrative thing is not exclusive to WRPGs, look at Persona 4 and 5, there's so many alternate endings to enjoy.

@Balta666 That's a thing in so many modern JRPGs it's a bit confusing. DQXI, FF7R, FFX... and in two of them you can play as the characters in battle and at times in the field even. Why?!