Who wants to edit/piece together the RPG 101 Guide

[isiolia]

Look at how RPGs are cataloged it is almost NEVER from where they came from, except from fans on either side of this 'JRPG vs WRPG' bullcrap debate. Its always about what gameplay elements they have. Is it tactical, is it an action-RPG, is it a strict roguelike, is it a strict fixed outline dungeon crawler, is it a shooter-RPG? That's how you determine where a game belongs, not from where it was made. There is simply too much overlap to use the archaic, almost racist WRPG or JRPG categorization that so many people seem so fond of.

I'd agree with spiritplx. While the terms "JRPG" and "WRPG" imply a place of origin, they're more typically used to categorize the overall style of a game. If you tell me a game is a JRPG, I assume it's a linear tale with predefined characters. A WRPG, and I'll assume I have at least some influence over the characters and story. I'd call Demon's Souls a WRPG, and Septerra Core a JRPG. Actual place of origin isn't really that relevant (though probably 80-90% accurate despite that).

Are they the absolute most appropriate terms to use? Probably not. But they're the commonly used and accepted terms.

[sabrage]

I think JRPG and CRPG (computer role-playing game) are much more apt. The only CRPGs on consoles I can think of (Ultima, The Bard's Tale, uh...) are ports from older PC games. Everyone knows what you're talking about if you say JRPG, but WRPG is incredibly ambiguous (especially with Western-developed JRPGs like Septerra Core)

[Hatta]

Look at how RPGs are cataloged it is almost NEVER from where they came from, except from fans on either side of this 'JRPG vs WRPG' bullcrap debate. Its always about what gameplay elements they have. Is it tactical, is it an action-RPG, is it a strict roguelike, is it a strict fixed outline dungeon crawler, is it a shooter-RPG? That's how you determine where a game belongs, not from where it was made. There is simply too much overlap to use the archaic, almost racist WRPG or JRPG categorization that so many people seem so fond of.

Both classifications are important. Genre is more than just gameplay elements, but also style. It's not racist to acknowledge the fact that the styles are different. Games like Pool of Radiance or Betrayal at Krondor really have little in common with Shining Force or Fire Emblem, even though they share turn based combat on a grid.

There are probably better ways to describe it than just "jrpg" vs "wrpg". Figuring out the best language to use is a worthwhile endeavor; denying that the difference exists isn't productive.

There are even people on this forum who get up in arms about calling Zelda games RPGs. I believe the original was the ARPG genre defining title.

Then you believe incorrectly.

Why do people get upset at a classification system that's sole purpose is to help define what type a game is?

Because when you classify things incorrectly, the classification system fails at that purpose. RPGs have stats and experience points that affect the role you play in the game.

[spiritplx]

There are even people on this forum who get up in arms about calling Zelda games RPGs. I believe the original was the ARPG genre defining title.

Then you believe incorrectly.

Why do people get upset at a classification system that's sole purpose is to help define what type a game is?

Because when you classify things incorrectly, the classification system fails at that purpose. RPGs have stats and experience points that affect the role you play in the game.

Then please list some examples of ARPGs. Or do you deny such a subgenre exists?

[SirPsycho]

There are probably better ways to describe it than just "jrpg" vs "wrpg". Figuring out the best language to use is a worthwhile endeavor; denying that the difference exists isn't productive.

My point is the best way to categorize them is by gameplay elements. I'm not trying to discredit the aesthetic or stylistic experience, but saying a game is a certain thing based on how it looks is quite shallow and frankly immature imo.

Which is why I asked those questions, is the game you're playing an action style RPG where combat occurs in real time? Is it a hack-and-slash derivative of the action RPG? If it is an action or even turn based RPG does it have static or random dungeon layout (Rogue-like)? Does it have turn based combat? If so does it have an overhead/isometric view and focus on tactical positioning and critical thinking? So on and so forth. This is why a game like Demon's Souls would be classified as an action-RPG and not a JRPG despite where it was made, but simply describing it as a WRPG based on how it plays is also completely incorrect.

This is how programmers and creators have classified RPGs since the late 80s with the rise of simplified console RPGs like Dragon Quest. Why do we have to grossly oversimplify things to the point that certain games end up being classified incorrectly? There are too many design choices that are common on both sides of the Pacific and in Europe to simply say WRPG and JRPG. If the industry that creates these differences has moved on from those simple conventions then why do fans cling to them desperately?

[isiolia]

This is why a game like Demon's Souls would be classified as an action-RPG and not a JRPG despite where it was made, but simply describing it as a WRPG based on how it plays is also completely incorrect.

It falls under the umbrella of a WRPG due to the player making their own character, and choosing a light/dark path, etc.

I see it more as there being a split between the philosophy of the game's entire design. The exact mechanics, aesthetics, and so on aren't defined by it. Rather, it's player choice.

WRPGs are rooted in simulating the experience of tabletop role playing, with a flexible story and custom characters.

JRPGs are rooted in recreating someone else's campaign, and in turn, set characters and story.

If you put credit in Wikipedia's articles on role playing games, it's something that stemmed from pen and paper anyway, with books/manga/etc being created based on DnD campaigns (Record of Lodoss War, for example). The audience was simply more interested in hearing the stories than creating one themselves, so the direction their computerized role playing games went followed.

They're blanket terms to describe the "role-playing-ness" of the title. Again, not necessarily the most apt terms, but you'd still be using something to denote the kinds of differences they represent if categorizing games. Given that, and given the general recognition of the terms, using them makes a fair bit of sense.

[pakopako]

Why do people get upset at a classification system that's sole purpose is to help define what type a game is?

Because when you classify things incorrectly, the classification system fails at that purpose. RPGs have stats and experience points that affect the role you play in the game.

Then please list some examples of ARPGs. Or do you deny such a subgenre exists?

There are Action-RPGs and there are Action-Adventure games with RPG elements.

This is the reason why putting together an R-P-G article is going to be rough. Games with RPG elements, especially in modern day gaming where genres are crossed-over as much as the Maginot Line (with stat-racking, ability-balancing, and achievement unlocking), we have to really start with EVERYTHING peeled away. This is going to be "what games closely resemble Pencil-and-Paper" and add from there.

This is why a game like Demon's Souls would be classified as an action-RPG and not a JRPG despite where it was made, but simply describing it as a WRPG based on how it plays is also completely incorrect.

It falls under the umbrella of a WRPG due to the player making their own character, and choosing a light/dark path, etc.

Because crap like this is going to happen the more games we look at closer to 2012 as opposed to 1982.

[Opa Opa]

Was anything ever decided in the "What constitutes an RPG" thread?

[isiolia]

Was anything ever decided in the "What constitutes an RPG" thread?

Nothing everyone 100% agreed on I don't think

[SirPsycho]

It falls under the umbrella of a WRPG due to the player making their own character, and choosing a light/dark path, etc.

By this logic every single entry in the main Shin Megami Tensei franchise is also a WRPG, is that how you would classify Nocturne? Think about it, every time your main character levels up you pick a stat to upgrade and a skillset to increase aptitude in. Your decisions throughout the game follow a morality system based on Law (good), Chaos (bad), or Neutral.

But I'm sure many fans of the series would go up in flames if that was how it was going to be classified as from now on.