I still think those definitions are fuzzy, and plenty of games can incorporate elements from one side of your list or the other. I do think I’m largely with @HANSOLOOOOOOOO, that the only real delineation between JRPG and western CRPG is where they are made. While non Japanese games can emulate elements of JRPGs, it doesn’t make them Japanese, and illustrates how broad the category of RPG can be regardless of where they are made. JRPG is far more an industry category than a true genre, just like Hollywood films are an industry category. Non-Hollywood films can emulate Hollywood style and execution, but they are not Hollywood films. Further to that, Hollywood films can be broken down further into thematic and narrative genres, and they all come under the industry category of Hollywood film, and are specifically Hollywood genre cinema. But those genres can also exist outside Hollywood, and come under other industry categories. JRPG is similar, an industry category, and within the industry category are genres like sci-fi, fantasy, etc. Games that emulate JRPGs are not made within the same industry, and thus fall outside the category. They made borrow stylistic elements common to the JRPG industry, but that doesn’t specifically render them JRPGs.
Thanks @BMO
That quote above stuck out to me, as it makes a distinction between “category” and “genre,” which I think helps in the broad understanding.
So both WRPGs and JRPGs are industry categories, and each/either can have genres like sci-fi, and they could be turn-based or action, open-world or linear etc? I think that makes sense. Like, a high-fantasy film could be made in Hollywood per its standards/tastes, but could also be made anywhere else; it’s still high-fantasy film.
I agree that there are no something as a strict boundary - or at least I want to agree because if there is, I’m too dumb to see it. And then, if the main distinction is where they are made, then this categorisation is basically pointless at this time? Maybe it should stand for what the difference was in the very beginning where the limits weren’t too difuse? I’m not familiar with anything at this point haha, but was there a point in time where a RPG from Japan was completely different than a RPG made in the west?
I think that early JRPG approach to design was different from say something like Ultima (aesthetically, mechanically), but they both took inspiration from tabletop RPGs, which is why there are often common elements like hit points, magic points, experience points, common player roles, enemy types and an element of RNG that emulates the roll of a dice, even if that last layer is not visible to the player.
Some general RPG statements
Pardon my brain that tends to squeeze things into boxes if/when possible. When I find some kind of authoritative source that defines/describes RPGs (of any stripe), I take note.
Here’s one on wikipedia from the D.I.C.E awards, (which is also cool to see what RPGs won each year):
“…an individual assumes the role of one or more characters and develops those characters in terms of abilities, statistics, and/or traits as the game progresses. Gameplay involves exploring, acquiring resources, solving puzzles, and interacting with player or non-player characters in the persistent world. Through the player’s actions, his/her virtual characters’ statistics or traits demonstrably evolve throughout the game.”
Here’s what RPG Site states (there are more caveats and such):
- "A strong narrative which asks the player to embody and ‘become’ a character.
- Significant character growth as the game progresses.
- Statistical, number-based character skill progression.
- Hit points, experience points & levels.
- A degree of player choice within the narrative, character progression or both.
- Management of equipment & skills that effect the player character(s)."
LOL. But yeah, I’ve heard half-jokes about Super Mario Bros being an RPG, as players assume the role of a plumber, grow their character (by the mushroom item, among other items/magic like the fire flower), and adventure across fantasy lands to defeat the final boss dragon.
I appreciate your points. Nailing stuff down isn’t easy. On one hand, it’s hard to define RPGs. On the other hand, most players kind of know, basically, what kind of game they’re getting into if it’s labeled an RPG. Developers typically add such labels to help classify the game. I think it helps.
Yeah, there’s obviously going to be some overlap and more than a few exceptions to the rules out there, but I think the average gamer can still get “the gist” of what they’re in for if told a game they picked up is a JRPG specifically. I personally found this post a solid enough take on the matter, though I might disagree with a point or two.
I find the Monster Hunter sort of games and the Dark Souls sort of games to be interesting participants in this general conversation. I don’t know if I’d call them “WRPGs made in Japan,” or if they’re even really RPGs in the first place (I’m generally “sure, why not” for these things, so don’t ask me). There’s definitely a Japanese flavor to them, but this sort of thing is tricky when a lot of these games are all drawing water from the same “medieval European high fantasy” well. At this point I generally see people use more specific sub-genre terms for these sorts of games to be more clear (well, “Soulslikes” for the latter, at least… I generally just see “similar/akin to Monster Hunter” for the former).
I agree to some degree with the post you linked, that now that new games are more often than not a blend between the two, the only reasonable and meaningful way to keep with the distinction is from what the differences were in the very beginning. What I do not agree is to try to force a game that is in the middle into one of two categories mostly because forcing it into a label is really subjective (in the example even they just decided that story driven is more important than combat style, which is completely subjective) and defeats the whole point of categorisation at all.
Maybe it could be a good time to start creating a middle category? Somewhere to put games that can’t easily fit one of the two?
I think that’s where terms like “Soulslikes” inevitably crop up, right? Perhaps one day that will become its own genre in most players’ eyes, just like “Metroidvania” has. (Those are technically just 2D platformers, yeah? But there’s enough of them that have this specific style and flow that the [clunky] term has become commonplace.)
At any rate it’s kinda hard to just say “let’s settle on these terms from now on” and expect the internet to cooperate. Though maybe someone with enough clout could influence things… We’ll have to see if Yahtzee’s “ghost train ride” will catch on for AAA cinematic experience games, for a silly example.
If we are ascribing specific qualities to JRPGs, I’d say Monster Hunter games are pretty damn JRPG. They are dripping with the design philosophy found in many JRPGs and I’d say MHW and MHR are the only ones that really look a bit aesthetically like a western RPG. But they ain’t no Baldur’s Gate if you know what I mean.
Some thoughts on Xenoblade 3.
General
I’m over 40 hours in. I dove in fast - the game is so good - and had been hit with tutorials and new systems like non-stop for the first 20 hours. Cool. There’s a lot…yet it gels together well.
Characters
The character driven focus exceeds my expectations and is impressive. I connect with/like the characters, even the ones I like less just b/c their personalities are strong/presented well. Seeing them overcome their differences and external odds and internal concerns through the course of the game seems to help me connect as the role-player I think.
Combat
Fighting is fun and fluid yet, despite there being several systems/mechanics at play, kind of simple. It looks crazy/complex on screen; the visual clutter can get a bit overwhelming. Yet since you only control on character at a time and have just a few arts ready to use at at time, it’s not too difficult.
Plus, despite many classes, there are generally only 3 main types, and, so far, it seems the move-sets are mostly the same between classes. Defenders are tanks - go draw aggro. Healers support - heal, buff, debuff. Attackers lay down damage - go strike in the optimal position and time. That said, it’s fun to change classes/weapons/styles/outfits to keep combat fresh.
Fusion arts seem to be just two arts at the same time, so it’s more efficient to apply damage and effects.
Ouroboros are cool. I have not interlinked beyond level 0 yet. The key advantage of them so far seems to be that they take zero damage, so you can snag your link partner out of harm’s way when needed. Plus, they have extra abilities that can be handy at times, like healing. I plan to practice using them to speed up combos.
So, the two 4-hit combos? Over 40 hours in, and I have not one time seen a 4-hit combo. I don’t think I’ve seen “Burst” at all. I’ve seen “Smash” but not after applying “Launch.” Maybe I need to “git gud.”
There’s more about combat. But know this: after XCX before, and after playing nearly 100 hours of XC1 right before my 40+ hours of XC3, as great as combat is…I still prefer classic turn-based and magic spell-heavy battle systems!
Exploration
This may be where Xenoblade shines brightest of all. It’s several superlatives strung together! What else can I say? Well, this: in big sweeping vista open areas, I like to pull the camera far out to take it all in, plus it just helps to navigate. In closed in areas or those with more lush detail, I push the camera in and slow down - back off the analog stick, yo - and walk, not run, and feel like I’m really exploring and also appreciating the developers’ attention to detail.
Mapping areas: it’s a thing. In explore mode, I set out in a new area and “fill-in the map” as I go, until I get distracted by cool stuff like hard beasts to take down or surprise caves.
I’ve got a long way to go and am really enjoying my time with XC3. At this point, it’s hard to say where it will land on my Top 10 JRPG list. I think in the top 5, and I think over XC1…we’ll see.
If XC1 and XC3 were tied overall, you know what would push XC3 above and beyond to take the win? Way better side-quests! They’re (mostly) much better at fleshing out story and characters (NPCs) and connecting with the immersive world. Like, side-questing matters more, and there are fewer overall, and far fewer fetch-quests or monster hunts.
If you liked rebuilding Colony 6 in XC1, then you’ll love side-quests in XC3 as they’re kind of like that but even better.
I’m only seven hours into XC3 but really digging it so far.
Did you see the XC3 DLC reveals in yesterday’s N Direct? A bit spoilery!
I did, but I honestly didn’t understand them at all! 
Well, I like new heroes with new abilities to combo with others, experiment, keep combat fresh. The story DLC in wave 4 is likely a 10-hour affair similar to Future Connected on XC1. But what if it’s longer, like Torna on XC2?
$60 for the base game XC3 with 100-150hrs playtime, plus $30 for another 10+hrs plus new heroes, items, and more. #takemymoney
Did anyone else see this?
From RPGSite, interesting thoughts about the term, “JRPG.”
I’ve always used ‘JRPG’ only as positive.
Also: from PlayStation
"Are all JRPGs alike?
Not at all! The JRPG has evolved significantly since its early days and now encompasses a range of sub-genres, including tactical RPGs and action RPGs, which absorb elements from other genres. The lines can get blurry, but this list focuses on more traditional titles within the genre."
And about Dragon Quest XI,
“Despite ticking nearly all the JRPG boxes, the sheer size and variety of the places you’ll see in this lovingly hand-crafted world makes it a joy to explore. “Traditional” need not feel antiquated, and DQXI pays homage to the way Japanese fantasy RPGs used to be.”
Persona 4 really was worth every minute I put into it. Emulator tricks helped me get through it by avoiding combat. Just like Shin Megami Tensei there’s a lot of grind in it with the combat unfortuntately.
Gonna have to make a go at Phantasy Star II and III, been holding off on that series too long!
@BMO ya know there’s actually a good number of decent JRPGs on Game Boy/Game Boy Color that arent actually that long. Gargoyle’s Quest comes to mind but I’ve played a few that are defintely single digit hour playthroughs.
What makes a JRPG ad JRPG… hahah! Great poll. The best way to answer this I think is to mention games that are definitely NOT JRPG… such as the Wizardry series, which despite NOT actually being a japanese series was a popular one and had many side releases. All of these were games were clearly influenced from Western Fantasy setting (Such as Dungeons and Dragons.) the JRPG as a genre seems interchangeable with ARPG (Action RPG) in the old days. But calling them one and the same is not a distinction that we can make safely make today with such titles being very ‘western’ indeed (such as Diablo 3)
In some ways its really an outdated term, in the same way Action Role Playing is ALSO outdated… But i’ve actually catalogued my whole gaming library with Role-Playing / Japanese and Role-Playing / Western subgenres, because it does seem to either be one or the other on every 8 out of ten or so RPG games I play.
So what is a Western-style Role-Playing (video)game? Generally speaking, it’s a game that is inspired by a Dungeons and Dragons Pen and Paper like experience/System versus a more narrative-focused one with stuff built up around it. Games like Dungeon Master,/Wizardry which go for a more mathy, mapperish “Crawl” Experience or don’t really rely as much on story, instead letting your character progression be the main focus of the whole game (or they go for a choices and consquences route where your decisions affect the story, like Deus Ex) Most JRPGs do have character progression, but they always have a central story that advances as you play it it would seem.
I had a lot of food for thought this week:
Is the term JRPG an insult? Was it one in the early 2000s and has it changed now? Should we be lumping these games into two boxes at all? Is Pokemon a JRPG? Is Chained Echo a JRPG but not made in Japan? Is it okay to associate a game genre with a country? What about Eurojank a positive or a negative term? Witcher 1 and 2 were often called Eastern European RPGs. Nobody does that anymore for Witcher 3, it’s just an RPG because it’s mainstream now? What genre name could we use instead of JRPG?
27 minutes into this video the term JRPG is talked about by Yoshi-P:
just now seeing your reply, sorry to not respond (i’m not so keen with checking forums. I feel like this does warrant some discussion, tho.
I think that the position here is correct, that we shouldn’t call the majority of new games that overlap all sorts of genres such terms. Modern video game industry in no way resembles the old video game industry (outside of Comiket anyway) It doesnt really serve a purpose.
Continuing to call old games (like Ys Book I, which i need to get back to playing) or newly released games at Comiket, or any independent game that stick to their roots seems appropriate though. Dropping/Changing the term sounds in every way considerably worse.
Odds are high that in a place like “JRPG Hangout”… youre going to see discussion threads on modern final fantasy (since fans evolve as genres do) So this is a strange ‘problem’ for JRPG fans that just so happen to like the older games of a series… It’s not that we discriminate, we just have discriminating taste in video games! So we better be careful what we have to say about it online!
In conclusion, the term JRPG preserves historical context of particularly design aspects in video game history. It is similar to other terminologies used to describe older genres such as fixed shooter, field shooter or gallery shooter. Older game concepts that don’t really find themselves in modern games. Tossing out the context and just calling them all ‘shooters’ though is in every way worse.
Maybe eventually the genre of ALL video games will be the same: Everything Everywhere all at Once! But until we get there i’ll continue to enjoy playing retro games and hope you do too! 