Chrono Trigger - 18 Years Later

[Valkyrie-Favor]

Not really

Do you mean, "No, people who like Chrono Trigger aren't really enjoying it as a JRPG," or "No, you're incorrect?

Your argument is that we must be enjoying Chrono Trigger's mechanics because it has them, but so far no one has praised anything besides the window dressing.

RPG in general is an extremely broad term, and past threads have gone on and on about what should or should not be counted as what.

...

-Why wouldn't you consider SRPGs and ARPGs and tennis-RPGs [specifically Mario Tennis GBA] to be JRPGs?

Some of them I would, some of them I wouldn't. X-COM is a SRPG. Diablo is an ARPG. Neither would fall under the JRPG umbrella in my opinion.

How can you say that my description is wrong, and that "such-and-such a game isn't a JRPG," after refusing to give a definition of your own?

[dunpeal2064]

Valkyrie is on full-blast, some really excellent stuff I need to read through. One thing I did want to touch on though:

Valk would say that disliking the mediocre or even average games in the genre does not mean you're not a fan of the genre.
But if you apparently *only* like the ones that are exceptional, then almost by definition I say that you don't like the genre - only the exceptions!
In any case maybe we only disagree on that difference in definitions.

I would have to disagree with this, and say that more often, the opposite is true, and especially so with genre's like JRPGs that offer such a variety of depth. It is often the games that are the most accessible that are hailed by the masses, not the games that are the best. I find that a true fan of the genre would want to dig deeper, and experience more of what JRPGs have to offer, whereas those that are not really fans of the genre are going to find the more accessible games to their taste.

Now, if someone said that they had tried hundreds of RPGs, and the only one they liked was Eternal Eyes, then sure, I could see claiming that they aren't true fans of the genre. I don't think disliking CT equates to this though, as it is only one of a handful of "the best rpg ever" games. What if I said anyone who dislikes Final Fantasy VII isn't a true RPG fan, just because a bunch of people like it? I'm sure at least a few people here would have something to say about that!

And, Valkyrie brought up a good point. No one has actually put up a good defense as to why this RPG is exceptional for its gameplay. If a good story, art, and music are what makes a good rpg, then why isn't Akira hailed not only as a great film, but a great JRPG?

[isiolia]

Your argument is that we must be enjoying Chrono Trigger's mechanics because it has them, but so far no one has praised anything besides the window dressing.

That isn't my argument. My point is that the combat mechanics are secondary in the overall experience that most RPGs provide, and Chrono Trigger isn't an exception.

How can you say that my description is wrong, and that "such-and-such a game isn't a JRPG," after refusing to give a definition of your own?

Well, I did give a definition. RPG is a broad genre. Personally, I would limit the term to games that actually incorporate role-playing, which would likely disqualify most JRPGs...but the common use for CRPGs is inclusive.

As I said already though, JRPG is a marker of style.

From the Cultural Differences section of the wikipedia article:

Though sharing fundamental premises, Western RPGs tend to feature darker graphics, older characters, and a greater focus on roaming freedom, realism, and the underlying game mechanics (e.g. "rules-based" or "system-based"); whereas Eastern RPGs tend to feature brighter, anime-like graphics, younger characters, faster-paced gameplay, and a greater focus on tightly-orchestrated, linear storylines with intricate plots (e.g. "action-based" or "story-based"). Further, Western RPGs are more likely to allow players to create and customize characters from scratch, and since the late 1990s have had a stronger focus on extensive dialog tree systems (e.g. Planescape: Torment). On the other hand, Japanese RPGs tend to limit players to developing pre-defined player characters, and often do not allow the option to create or choose one's own playable characters or make decisions that alter the plot. In the early 1990s, Japanese RPGs were seen as being much closer to fantasy novels, but by the late 1990s had become more cinematic in style (e.g. Final Fantasy series), while at the same time Western RPGs started becoming more novelistic in style (e.g. Planescape: Torment); by the late 2000s, Western RPGs had also adopted a more cinematic style (e.g. Mass Effect series).

The traits that are highly typical of a JRPG, as opposed to a different flavor of RPG, are the kinds of things Chrono Trigger has in spades.

Again, ideally those elements would be bolted to progression and combat mechanics that are deeper and more appealing. The same would go for the better traits of Planescape: Torment, or Skyrim, or Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines, and so on. For the most part though, combat mechanics are second to the greater character/narrative/role-play elements.

If the entire focus of a game is on the combat system, then it becomes a strategy or tactics game moreso than an RPG. There are plenty of those, just like there are plenty of pure FPS games one might compare Fallout 3 to.

[dunpeal2064]

I know this was directed at Valkyrie, who will likely have a far better response than I, but oh well:

That isn't my argument. My point is that the combat mechanics are secondary in the overall experience that most RPGs provide, and Chrono Trigger isn't an exception.

I disagree with this. If, say, I recall FFVIII, and what I enjoyed about it... the last thing I think of are the story and music. I think of the combat system, the junction system, the card battles, crafting gear, etc. Maybe those things took a back seat to the story and music for some, but it certainly isn't a universal law of RPGs.

The game mechanics in Mana Khemia hardley take a back seat to the story, the main reason anyone still talks about Legend of Dragoon is its combat system... I think CT IS the exception here, as ALL it offers is theme. Of course the combat mechanics take a back seat, they barely even exist as it is.

I also don't think the things that separate JRPGs from WRPGs should be considered key elements of what people enjoy about RPGs. Both JRPGs and WRPGs have combat and party/character management mechanics (hopefully), so of course what sets them apart is going to be the style. That doesn't mean that is why everyone plays the games. I would just as quickly play a WRPG if it had good mechanics, and I would just as quickly dismiss one if it was purely good because of its theme.

I still have yet to see why CT is the game that determains whether one likes JRPGs or not. What actually makes the game so superior that it is what all other JRPGs are measured against, when it barely contains elements often found in JRPGs nowadays? I can think of plenty of JRPGs that do EVERYTHING better than CT, including theme, music, story, etc.

You time travel, there is one (obvious) twist in the middle of the game (and the game is pretty much downhill from there imo), and it looks and sounds pretty. What else am I missing here?

And, I would like to clarify that I am not against good theme in a game, but that can't be all there is. Fallout 3, as you used for an example, has TONS of decisions to make. Yes, the theme is heavy, the setting is great... and woah, there is a GAME to play along with that. CT could literally be an anime episode and provide the same (better?) experience imo.

[Ivo]

I need to re-read some of the stuff but I would like to clarify some things:

I'm NOT suggesting that:
not liking CT -> not a fan of the genre.

I WAS suggesting that:
fan of the genre -> likes most of the genre
(but I certainly admit other definitions - that was the one I was using).
With "most" though I think just by a number counting we wouldn't be a fan of anything as there is so much stuff that fails even rudimentary quality tests (like, video games, if you count all the iOS or browser stuff, many of which are completely cruddy).
So I guess that definition is hard to make rigorous, and then it may not be very useful. But I know what I meant, it is just hard to convey it.

Also, I usually do not lump ARPGs and S/TRPGs together with the more standard RPG that is developed in the line of Dragon Warrior/Quest and Final Fantasy. But if you say that the ARPGs and S/TRPGs that are made in Japan are JRPGs because that is what the J means, fair enough. I still think they are sufficiently different to consider them different genres, and I consider myself a fan (in my definition) of TRPGs (so e.g. I really enjoyed FFT: Advance, which I think some people say is not that good), but I don't think I am a fan of the other RPGs (so for example I got fed up with Breath of Fire series: I played 1 and 2 which I thought were ok, but on 3 I stopped early on the game and decided I wasn't interested).

Finally, as it was asked, I actually like CT's mechanics, not just the window dressing. Yes, I recognise that the battle system only has a veneer of complexity and that choices mostly don't matter, but given that some boss battles are not that easy, that there are no random encounters that would have the battle system overstay its welcome, that the Active Time System and combos* actually kept me entertained during the game AND even was passable during the replays for the other endings (and if you think the game was easy the first time around... Other than a couple of the endings it gets even easier on a New game+).

* Which from a DPS point of view doesn't really help I think, it is usually best to have each character attack when ready than wait for 2 or all 3 to be able to join up.

[isiolia]

I disagree with this. If, say, I recall FFVIII, and what I enjoyed about it... the last thing I think of are the story and music. I think of the combat system, the junction system, the card battles, crafting gear, etc. Maybe those things took a back seat to the story and music for some, but it certainly isn't a universal law of RPGs.

It's not purely a matter of story and music though. As I tried to illustrate earlier, there's a structure to a game that makes it an RPG as opposed to something else. Exploration, quests, talking to NPCs, and so on. The systems you mention from FFVIII, all on their own, don't constitute an RPG.

As you say here

And, I would like to clarify that I am not against good theme in a game, but that can't be all there is. Fallout 3, as you used for an example, has TONS of decisions to make. Yes, the theme is heavy, the setting is great... and woah, there is a GAME to play along with that. CT could literally be an anime episode and provide the same (better?) experience imo.

The decisions, quests, all that in Fallout 3 are what make it an RPG. The shooter mechanics aren't great compared to dedicated FPS games, but you could rip them out and replace them with some other system and the structure of the game would still work as an RPG.

By the same token, you can rip out the combat mechanics of Chrono Trigger, and what you have left is still going to be the basic structure of a JRPG. Even if you had a better system in there, it wouldn't change the way the game plays out, it'd just make the battles more interesting.

Obviously, in either case, the existing mechanics are something you spend a good deal of time with while playing through the games, so ideally they'd be more compelling on their own. I just don't think either are what define the games/genres.

[Valkyrie-Favor]

I also don't think the things that separate JRPGs from WRPGs should be considered key elements of what people enjoy about RPGs.

Dunpeal is right again. The differences between the Western CRPG and the Japanese CRPG are merely stylistic. What's more, they're irrelevant to this topic, so let's be done with them.

Also, Wikipedia is full of nonsense. It's good enough for quantifiable, factual stuff - like a description of a game's battle system - but its analysis of pretty much anything is worthless. Rules-based vs. System-based? WTF?

I liked Chrono Trigger's battle mechanics

Do you like them enough to play them in the context of Dragon Warrior III?

To clarify: It's easy to talk about a game's battle system, and with Chrono Trigger it's the only layer worth discussing. Still, no one should restrict their discussion of "game mechanics" to the short game.

if you say that the ARPGs and S/TRPGs that are made in Japan are JRPGs because that is what the J means, fair enough.

I've already explained why ARPGs and SRPGs are a subset of JRPGs, and it's not because they generally come from Japan. Was I unclear?

I don't care what category an individual game belongs to, but this is a question of theory. The "action" and "strategy" prefixes describe how the JRPG implements its short game, and nothing more.

I haven't stated this because I thought it was obvious, but the CRPG is a strategy and tactics game. Every last one of them, no matter what subgenre it belongs to, can be considered a strategy game in its long and/or ontogenic layers and a tactics game in the short layer. Usually simplistic ones, but still.

No computer games are role-playing games. CRPGs arose from RPG battle rules - i.e. the minigame used to support collaborative storytelling - being turned into computer games. The name RPG is inherited, not descriptive, and for decades it's supported the illusion that CRPGs should be judged as anything besides strategy games.

It's not purely a matter of story and music though. As I tried to illustrate earlier, there's a structure to a game that makes it an RPG as opposed to something else...The systems you mention from FFVIII, all on their own, don't constitute an RPG... just don't think either ["presentation" and "mechanics"] are what define the genre

Tell us exactly what you think and why. No what knows what you're trying to say and we can only discuss your ancillary points because they're the only ones you've made.

[Ack]

I would like to take a moment and praise Chrono Trigger for a couple of things. First, enabling access to certain abilities when certain characters are being used at the same time in the combat system is something that I at least find interesting, and I feel it was used to even greater effect in Chrono Cross. It is a relatively minor effect on the combat system, and admittedly it is one that I did not use often due to the resources required(MP but also the necessary health to survive incoming attacks while waiting for characters to ready up). But it is a small touch I appreciate when considering character selection.

But there is another thing that I like about Chrono Trigger, and that is the use of time travel, enabling events that the characters participate in to reshape the world. In particular, letting Robo spend several centuries building a forest and possibly saving(or not) Lucca's mother from her crippling accident stand out to me. There are also quite a few events throughout the game which influence minor characters and such that appear during the end credits.

Here are some minor variations that can occur within the "original" ending(the ending most commonly obtained after the first run through Chrono Trigger):

- If you killed Magus, Frog will be in his original form, Glenn.
- If you weren’t able to punch in L.A.R.A. at Lucca’s House where you must
save Lucca’s mom from the machine, Lucca’s Mom will be sitting instead of
standing.
- If you fought Lavos by using the Epoch to go to 1999 AD, Crono and Marle
will fly off with balloons. If you didn’t, that is the time the cats will
go to the Time Gate.
- In the Guardia Castle throne room, if you freed the Chancellor after
beating the 2nd Yakra, he will be in the throne room. If not, Pierre will
be there instead.

I appreciate that Chrono Trigger does manage to at least attempt to show I have an influence in the world in a way that many RPGs don't.

[Valkyrie-Favor]

...enabling access to certain abilities when certain characters are being used at the same time in the combat system is something that I at least find interesting...

I had nearly forgotten about that. Yeah, it was a good idea. Some other games have done it better. In Yggdra Union, units near each other can fight together regardless of obstacles between them.

[isiolia]

Tell us exactly what you think and why. No what knows what you're trying to say and we can only discuss your ancillary points because they're the only ones you've made.

Or you keep glossing over what I've stated, multiple times.

The original point, at any rate, was that your qualifications for an RPG are probably too broad.
Can your otogenic, long game, and short game describe the flow of an RPG? Sure.
It also describes Gran Turismo. Or Madden. Depending on how abstract, it could apply to almost anything (I need to collect powerups/extra lives (otogenic) to last through this world (long), so I should avoid getting hit by that Koopa (short)).

Again, the precepts are solid, but basically describe well incorporated progression in most any game that has it. Hey, I just picked up a sniper rifle, and only one clip (scarcity!), there are a number of soldiers (threat!). I can avoid them, or use my limited ammo to take them out. Only, now, there are enemy snipers too. Is that an ammo box over there? Running for it might get me shot.

That's encounter/level design. Ensuring that potential upgrades are useful is also just basic design. Not bad, not irrelevant, just universal.

Either most games then count as strategy/RPGs, or there's something beyond that which really would set those particular genres apart.
That's why I say the quest/dialogue/exploration/etc structure is a lot more what makes an RPG.