RPGs go mainstream in the west

[Retronick]

Hey, just had an interesting discussion point for the good people of the digitpress forums. What do you think ushered RPGs into mainstream entertainment here in the west? D&D or FFVII?

Personally, I think Final Fantasy VII is the game that broke down the perceived barrier that was around the genre for most gamers, but what do you think? Really just curious is all. Looking for some interesting conversation.

[Rickstilwell1]

Technically Zelda II got many gamers to play an action RPG without even realizing it was that. If it weren't for the experience points, it wouldn't be but it is.

[Tupin]

Video game RPGs didn't break into the mainstream until Final Fantasy VII came out. They were never extremely popular until then, maybe Americans preferred real-time games? Nintendo did have to give away copies of Dragon Warrior, but Final Fantasy VII and every one past that needed no help.

[Tokimemofan]

D&D was the inspiration for many early titles. FFVII mainstreamed it because it was easy to get into. Most early ones either used passwords or had 1 save slot, a deal killer for a family sharing a cart. They also tended to have a higher grind (Most Square Soft), awkward gameplay (Final Fantasy), bad ports (some Falcom), expensive hardware (Lunar, the best Falcom too.) or a high price tag (Phantasy Star series).

[Rickstilwell1]

I know as far as Nintendo goes, RPGs were mostly popular with subscribers of Nintendo Power Magazine.

[j_factor]

The fact that they made about a trillion Ultima and Might & Magic games suggests to me that they were, at least, not that far outside the mainstream. Ditto for the Gold Box series. Dungeon Master seems like it was a big hit at the time, and it was also widely imitated. I think LandStalker too, because quite a few games were billed as its successor in some way.

Its RPG status is somewhat debatable but Sid Meier's Pirates! was certainly a mainstream success. Hell, Diablo came out before FF7.

[NayusDante]

The PC market up until about 2000 is kind of funny. Not everyone owned a computer, so what sold well on the Windows platform doesn't necessarily represent the mainstream. Sure, D&D RPGs did well, but it makes sense if you think about the old computer nerd stereotypes.

I would argue that RPGs really reached the "mainstream audience" with Oblivion and KOTOR as a result of the increase in accessibility. Final Fantasy VII helped, but look at its influence on the market. Did other subsequent PSX RPGs go on to sell as well in the US?

[BetaWolf47]

Final Fantasy VII and Pokemon, really. Final Fantasy VII was one of the most popular RPGs with an immersive story. Pokemon Red and Blue gave people a simple and addictive concept that introduced many people to the concept of selecting a party and leveling up.

[Griking]

Hey, just had an interesting discussion point for the good people of the digitpress forums. What do you think ushered RPGs into mainstream entertainment here in the west? D&D or FFVII?

Personally, I think Final Fantasy VII is the game that broke down the perceived barrier that was around the genre for most gamers, but what do you think? Really just curious is all. Looking for some interesting conversation.


Lets see;

Infocom Games
Ultima
The Bard's Tale
Wizardry
Might & Magic
SSI Gold Box PGs
Fallout
Baldur's Gate

We've always loved good RPGs and they certainly existed around here before Final Fantasy came along.

So what got me into RPGs? The first game that I remember playing that got me into adventure and RPGs was Adventure for the Atari. At the time I used to always buy Electronic Games magazine with money that I made from mowing lawns or shoveling show as a kid and I would always be amazed by the previews and reviews for the computer game RPGs since they wee such an upgrade over my Atari. (I kind of consider Infocom games as early RPGs). Once I finally made enough to purchase an Apple iic there was no turning back I was hooked on adventue and RPGs. This was back in '83, before there even was a Final Fantasy.

[Blanka789]

Final Fantasy VII and Pokemon, really. Final Fantasy VII was one of the most popular RPGs with an immersive story. Pokemon Red and Blue gave people a simple and addictive concept that introduced many people to the concept of selecting a party and leveling up.

I'm inclined to agree with BetaWolf 47.

While RPGs had certainly been somewhat popular before, Final Fantasy VII seemed like a phenomenon when it came out. I remember it being THE reason to own a PlayStation. This game brought in a lot of people who had never played RPGs before, and came out at a time where many RPGs weren't being released in the US (Dragon Quest V and VI) or received limited print runs (Earthbound) due to low sales. The gorgeous cinematics, the ease of the gameplay, and the climate of gaming at the time created a near-perfect storm for this title's success.

Pokemon was (and still is) incredibly mainstream. More importantly, it introduced many gamers to RPGs, specifically children.

[Aussie2B]

It's all relative. I would argue that RPGs in general still aren't mainstream. We are not the norm. Gamers who get on online gaming message boards in general aren't the norm. The norm is stuff like Halo, Madden, Gears of War, etc. etc. Western RPGs are still basically a niche of the computer nerd stereotype. Japanese console RPGs are still a niche sector of console gaming as well. Final Fantasy VII may have sold a lot better than the RPGs before it and it may have been heavily hyped in some magazines of the time (like PSM), but it's not what made the PS1 a huge success in the US. It may have attracted some more mainstream-type gamers to give it a try, but they didn't suddenly become huge RPG fanatics buying up everything. Almost all of the other RPGs on PS1 were still exclusively the territory of hardcore gamers. Same goes for most on PS2 and so on.

Looking at singular titles, I'd say the most mainstream RPG for computers I guess would be World of Warcraft and for consoles it would be Pokemon. But, again, in the majority of cases of those who play those titles, they didn't suddenly become huge RPG fans buying stuff like Shin Megami Tensei and what have you.

[Griking]

It's all relative. I would argue that RPGs in general still aren't mainstream. We are not the norm. Gamers who get on online gaming message boards in general aren't the norm. The norm is stuff like Halo, Madden, Gears of War, etc. etc. Western RPGs are still basically a niche of the computer nerd stereotype. Japanese console RPGs are still a niche sector of console gaming as well. Final Fantasy VII may have sold a lot better than the RPGs before it and it may have been heavily hyped in some magazines of the time (like PSM), but it's not what made the PS1 a huge success in the US. It may have attracted some more mainstream-type gamers to give it a try, but they didn't suddenly become huge RPG fanatics buying up everything. Almost all of the other RPGs on PS1 were still exclusively the territory of hardcore gamers. Same goes for most on PS2 and so on.

Looking at singular titles, I'd say the most mainstream RPG for computers I guess would be World of Warcraft and for consoles it would be Pokemon. But, again, in the majority of cases of those who play those titles, they didn't suddenly become huge RPG fans buying stuff like Shin Megami Tensei and what have you.


Skyrim may disagree with you. Games like Fable, Fallout, Dragon Age, Mass Effect have also done pretty well in recent years.

[Aussie2B]

And most people playing those games probably haven't ventured outside of those. Specific games can be pretty mainstream, but RPGs as a genre can't be considered mainstream when the vast majority of them are only bought by diehard RPG fans.The typical guy that buys Skyrim or Pokemon probably isn't buying Sakura Wars, Mana Khemia, Ar Tonelico, etc.

[NayusDante]

They might not jump into JRPGs, but the casual player that played Oblivion is somewhat more likely to pick up Mass Effect or Dragon Age.

[Leo_A]

And most people playing those games probably haven't ventured outside of those. Specific games can be pretty mainstream, but RPGs as a genre can't be considered mainstream when the vast majority of them are only bought by diehard RPG fans.The typical guy that buys Skyrim or Pokemon probably isn't buying Sakura Wars, Mana Khemia, Ar Tonelico, etc.

Seems to me that you could apply that same logic to any other genre. Are racing games not mainstream because for every Forza and Need for Speed, we have a dozen other games, sometimes well reviewed examples near the top of their genre, that go unnoticed by most of the public? Huge successes are far from the norm.

For every Call of Duty and Halo, we have countless other games like Black that are ignored.

[Griking]

And most people playing those games probably haven't ventured outside of those. Specific games can be pretty mainstream, but RPGs as a genre can't be considered mainstream when the vast majority of them are only bought by diehard RPG fans.The typical guy that buys Skyrim or Pokemon probably isn't buying Sakura Wars, Mana Khemia, Ar Tonelico, etc.


The same can be said about any genre of game.

How many RPGs would have to sell well for you to consider it a mainstream genre?

[tom]

Yeah, RPGs were hugely popular on Apple 2, C64 and A8 as the above mentioned already, SSI sold vast amounts of RPGs on those platforms. Same with Origin, Sir- Tec, EA and so on. FF VII sold the equivalent in comparison but certainly didn't mainstream it.

[tom]

On the other hand, with FF 7 it probably went mainstream for the casual console gamer who never used a keyboard. Easy pad controlling made it possible.

[G-Boobie]

Lets see;

Infocom Games
Ultima
The Bard's Tale
Wizardry
Might & Magic
SSI Gold Box PGs
Fallout
Baldur's Gate

We've always loved good RPGs and they certainly existed around here before Final Fantasy came along.

So what got me into RPGs? The first game that I remember playing that got me into adventure and RPGs was Adventure for the Atari. At the time I used to always buy Electronic Games magazine with money that I made from mowing lawns or shoveling show as a kid and I would always be amazed by the previews and reviews for the computer game RPGs since they wee such an upgrade over my Atari. (I kind of consider Infocom games as early RPGs). Once I finally made enough to purchase an Apple iic there was no turning back I was hooked on adventue and RPGs. This was back in '83, before there even was a Final Fantasy.

This is the truth, right here. Richard Garriott made enough money in the course of his pre-Final Fantasy VII career that he could afford to build himself a castle in Texas and also go into outer space. Final Fantasy VII is the game that arguably introduced American gamers to the JRPG, and made that genre worth something for the course of a console generation or two, but that's as far as it goes.

And where did Richard Garriott (and the SSI Goldbox guys, and the Wizardry guys, and so on) find their inspiration? Dungeons & Dragons, which by the time of the NES was already a household name in the United States.


And most people playing those games probably haven't ventured outside of those. Specific games can be pretty mainstream, but RPGs as a genre can't be considered mainstream when the vast majority of them are only bought by diehard RPG fans.The typical guy that buys Skyrim or Pokemon probably isn't buying Sakura Wars, Mana Khemia, Ar Tonelico, etc.

So what? TEN MILLION COPIES OF SKYRIM. Three million Deus Ex: Human Revolution. Five million of the Dragon Age games, for better or for worse. It doesn't get any more mainstream than that. To argue that my little brother, who put two hundred hours into Morrowind and Skyrim, and is starting New Vegas too, isn't an "RPG fan" because he didn't also buy Growlanser: Generations is ridiculous. That smacks of elitism. "You're not as big a fan of RPG's as me: I bought Phantom Brave and all the Falcom PSP games. All YOU bought was Dragon Age and Pokemon, you poseur".



Yeah, RPGs were hugely popular on Apple 2, C64 and A8 as the above mentioned already, SSI sold vast amounts of RPGs on those platforms. Same with Origin, Sir- Tec, EA and so on. FF VII sold the equivalent in comparison but certainly didn't mainstream it.

Does anyone else remember being told at a very young age that Dungeons & Dragons was the "work of the devil?" I sure do. Consequently, as soon as we were able, we bought the books and played the game.

This, I think, is a generational thing more than anything. The folks who discovered role playing games through Final Fantasy VII will certainly remember that as the catalyst of the RPG revolution here in the U.S.; it's worth noting that this is pretty much a strictly console based phenomenon however(excepting Anachronox and the shady VII port). Meanwhile, those of us who didn't like VII and had been playing Dungeons & Dragons, and eventually Ultima Underworld and the Wizardry games didn't need to be introduced to the genre at all.

[Tokimemofan]

One major problem with most of the arguments, is that we don't have a proper definition of "RPG". A few examples:
Final Lap Twin (TG16) The highlight of this one is the story mode, which is an RPG by every definition that would include Final Fantasy.
Ys III Wanderers from Ys (Any) Very Side-Scrolling platformish but has many aspects of the genre, Faxanadu is similar.
Hydlide series (Especially the Sega Saturn one) I don't get what makes this an RPG even if we include Rogue-likes.
Keith Courage in Alpha Zones (TG16) Usually considered a platformer but is closer than Virtual Hydlide.

The East/West divide is also a complication don't know to many people who would finish Final Fantasy VII and then play Fable or vice-versa.

[Aussie2B]

So what? TEN MILLION COPIES OF SKYRIM. Three million Deus Ex: Human Revolution. Five million of the Dragon Age games, for better or for worse. It doesn't get any more mainstream than that. To argue that my little brother, who put two hundred hours into Morrowind and Skyrim, and is starting New Vegas too, isn't an "RPG fan" because he didn't also buy Growlanser: Generations is ridiculous. That smacks of elitism. "You're not as big a fan of RPG's as me: I bought Phantom Brave and all the Falcom PSP games. All YOU bought was Dragon Age and Pokemon, you poseur".

You're completely misinterpreting. It has nothing to do with elitism. I couldn't care less if someone is or isn't as fond of RPGs as me, or if they are an even bigger fan. I'm not 14, for crying out loud.

What I'm talking about is the difference between if a handful of games are mainstream, standing as anomalies in their genre, or if the genre as a whole is mainstream. Not every RPG needs to be a massive hit, but when 95% of a genre is incredibly niche and not touched by the typical gamer, how can it possibly be a mainstream genre? Look at the mainstream genres in gaming's history. Platformers, fighters, first-person shooters, etc. Obviously there were plenty of games in those genres that went relatively under the radar, but it was widely accepted that those genres at their heights were one of, if not the, most popular genres, that developers were cranking them out left and right, that practically every gamer was buying them, and they were buying more than just 1, 2, 3 of them. RPGs, outside of the select few that break through to the mainstream, are marketed to their loyal diehard audience because publishers KNOW that they aren't mainstream and that they can't count on the casual consumer to buy their product.

[G-Boobie]

You're completely misinterpreting. It has nothing to do with elitism. I couldn't care less if someone is or isn't as fond of RPGs as me, or if they are an even bigger fan. I'm not 14, for crying out loud.

What I'm talking about is the difference between if a handful of games are mainstream, standing as anomalies in their genre, or if the genre as a whole is mainstream. Not every RPG needs to be a massive hit, but when 95% of a genre is incredibly niche and not touched by the typical gamer, how can it possibly be a mainstream genre? Look at the mainstream genres in gaming's history. Platformers, fighters, first-person shooters, etc. Obviously there were plenty of games in those genres that went relatively under the radar, but it was widely accepted that those genres at their heights were one of, if not the, most popular genres, that developers were cranking them out left and right, that practically every gamer was buying them, and they were buying more than just 1, 2, 3 of them. RPGs, outside of the select few that break through to the mainstream, are marketed to their loyal diehard audience because publishers KNOW that they aren't mainstream and that they can't count on the casual consumer to buy their product.

I don't agree with your premise. There are certainly subgenres in the RPG mold that are niche products, but on the whole it's one of the most popular genres in gaming right now.

No one brought out the World of Warcraft point yet, so I'll do it. Ten million monthly subscribers. The Old Republic is at two, give or take. Rift is holding tough at a million. Fallout 3 and New Vegas did exceptionally well, and Skyrim did Call of Duty numbers. Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning is getting good reviews and is selling fairly well. The Mass Effect games are hugely popular. Ditto Dragon Age. The Fable series is one of the best regarded Xbox franchises and has a lot of cross market appeal. Deus Ex: HR did very well last year and there's talk of a follow up.

I think our difference of opinion stems from the current predominance of the western RPG and the relative niche appeal of Japanese RPGs. Even Final Fantasy is doing (relatively) poorly in comparison this generation, with some of the best games either going unrecognized and flopping commercially or being polluted by Monster Hunter or dating sim mechanics: sometimes both. Poor Valkyria Chronicles.

This only further illustrates that good old Dungeons & Dragons is the font here in the West. It's not that it's inherently superior than the eastern flavor of RPG: It's just more culturally relateable here. By the time FFVII showed up, the United States had decades of D&D, and the video games inspired by it, under It's belt already.

[Aussie2B]

I actually brought up World of Warcraft myself, but again I don't think it's representative of the norm. From what I've seen, it seems like a lot of World of Warcraft players don't even play any other games much at all, let alone specifically RPGs. It'd be like saying farming simulations are hugely popular just because people play Farmville, even though the Harvest Moon series and Shepherd's Crossing and what have you are very niche. One game doesn't make a genre.

I will admit that I'm approaching this from a console perspective and am largely uneducated on the PC side. Are there many Western RPGs released on PCs these days outside of the handful of top-tier releases? I know the 80s and 90s had plenty of stuff, but it seems like PC gaming in general is dying these days. But on the console side, these hugely popular Western RPGs make up only a tiny fraction of the genre. There have been a ton of RPGs released in the US on PS1, PS2, PSP, DS, etc., and the vast majority are ignored by Joe Shmoe gamer.

[j_factor]

I actually brought up World of Warcraft myself, but again I don't think it's representative of the norm. From what I've seen, it seems like a lot of World of Warcraft players don't even play any other games much at all, let alone specifically RPGs. It'd be like saying farming simulations are hugely popular just because people play Farmville, even though the Harvest Moon series and Shepherd's Crossing and what have you are very niche. One game doesn't make a genre.

I will admit that I'm approaching this from a console perspective and am largely uneducated on the PC side. Are there many Western RPGs released on PCs these days outside of the handful of top-tier releases? I know the 80s and 90s had plenty of stuff, but it seems like PC gaming in general is dying these days. But on the console side, these hugely popular Western RPGs make up only a tiny fraction of the genre. There have been a ton of RPGs released in the US on PS1, PS2, PSP, DS, etc., and the vast majority are ignored by Joe Shmoe gamer.

The vast majority of games are ignored by Joe Shmoe gamer. By your argument there's only two or three mainstream genres.

[TonyTheTiger]

And most people playing those games probably haven't ventured outside of those. Specific games can be pretty mainstream, but RPGs as a genre can't be considered mainstream when the vast majority of them are only bought by diehard RPG fans.The typical guy that buys Skyrim or Pokemon probably isn't buying Sakura Wars, Mana Khemia, Ar Tonelico, etc.

I don't think that's a fair comparison. That's like saying the typical guy buying Madden isn't buying Disney Sports Football and using that as an argument that football games aren't mainstream. There's tons of variation with genres to allow for one to be massively successful and another to be niche irrespective of the umbrella categories they fall under. It doesn't have to be all or nothing. The category "RPG" pretty much tells you nothing about the game. People base buying choices on details far more specific than that. The DS Dragon Quest remakes sold like crap, apparently. The DS Chrono Trigger, on the other hand, outsold the SNES version (itself pushing impressive numbers by 1995 standards) by a wide margin.


One game doesn't make a genre.

I think most people would assume (rightfully or otherwise) that 95% of people who play football games are playing Madden and ignoring pretty much every other football game on the market.

And, devil's advocate, even if RPGs themselves haven't become mainstream, their characteristics sure as hell have what with character building, stat manipulation, and a number of other aspects traditionally associated with role playing games becoming commonplace among all genres.

[BydoEmpire]

RPGs were popular computer games long before Final Fantasy or Dragon Warrior. Wizardry, Ultima, Phantasie, a million SSI games... there were a HUGE part of gaming before the NES arrived. I'd say they were already mainstream among video gamers. D&D Treasure of Tarmin on the Inty was as advanced as you'd see a console RPG for many years to come, and all the Inty D&D games were pretty popular (though Cloudy Mountain wasn't really an RPG).

In short, I think the idea of RPGs going mainstream just follows along with video gaming becoming more mainstream. I don't think it has much to do with the games because the genre was already popular amongst gamers.

Even though I loved computer RPGs, I found JRPGs a giant breath of fresh air. You mean I start off with double digit hit points? I can actually level up in less than an hour? Wow. The style of JRPGs lends itself to a wider audience, I think, because it isn't quite as demanding on the player. These days I'd much prefer a classic Western RPG than JRPG, but I can appreciate both styles and understand why people like each.

[Aussie2B]

The vast majority of games are ignored by Joe Shmoe gamer. By your argument there's only two or three mainstream genres.

I think you're toying with the definition of "ignored" here. For something to not be "ignored", that doesn't mean it must have massive sales. I already quite well laid out the characteristics of mainstream genres of the past. The very definition of "mainstream" implies that it must not be solely the territory of a dedicated niche audience, but that's exactly where the majority of releases in the RPG genre are.


I think most people would assume (rightfully or otherwise) that 95% of people who play football games are playing Madden and ignoring pretty much every other football game on the market.

I wouldn't, to be honest. I couldn't say for this particular moment in time, but that wouldn't historically be true. Sega's football games used to be quite popular, and Tecmo's farther back, and practically every publisher has taken a stab at the genre with varying degrees of commercial success. These other games may not have had the insane sales of Madden, but they got respectable sales. And the sales weren't from diehard fans super-obsessed with football video games. The purchasers were just typical gamers that had randomly decided to try whatever football game they grabbed off of the shelf. You very rarely hear of non-big name RPGs being bought by people who pick them up at random and think "Hey, this looks cool." It's always people who are steeped in RPG fandom.


And, devil's advocate, even if RPGs themselves haven't become mainstream, their characteristics sure as hell have what with character building, stat manipulation, and a number of other aspects traditionally associated with role playing games becoming commonplace among all genres.

No argument there.

[TonyTheTiger]

You're mixing up two different issues, though. You're completely ignoring that the genre itself has little to do with all the random PS2 and PSP RPGs being niche as hell. The fact that their entire presentation is what it is makes them niche as hell. That's a incredibly important difference you're not addressing. The genre really doesn't mean jack shit. You make an RPG with a huge budget, massive advertising, fantastic acting, and a dramatic story and you end up with the multimillion selling Mass Effect. You make a budget PSP RPG with anime cliches, wacky outfits, and rudimentary mechanics and, surprise, niche game is niche.

Turn Ar Tonelico into a platformer and it'll have the exact same appeal it already does. People aren't avoiding it because it's an RPG. They avoid it because it's...well...THIS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LONBTg8h0Sw). You honestly think that people who pick up Mass Effect aren't picking up Ar Tonelico because they don't like RPGs?

That's like saying fighting games aren't mainstream because most people only play Street Fighter and Mortal Kombat while ignoring Guilty Gear, Arcana Heart, and Melty Blood.

[Tokimemofan]

You're mixing up two different issues, though. You're completely ignoring that the genre itself has little to do with all the random PS2 and PSP RPGs being niche as hell. The fact that their entire presentation is what it is makes them niche as hell. That's a incredibly important difference you're not addressing. The genre really doesn't mean jack shit. You make an RPG with a huge budget, massive advertising, fantastic acting, and a dramatic story and you end up with the multimillion selling Mass Effect. You make a budget PSP RPG with anime cliches, wacky outfits, and rudimentary mechanics and, surprise, niche game is niche.

Turn Ar Tonelico into a platformer and it'll have the exact same appeal it already does. People aren't avoiding it because it's an RPG. They avoid it because it's...well...THIS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LONBTg8h0Sw). You honestly think that people who pick up Mass Effect aren't picking up Ar Tonelico because they don't like RPGs?

That's like saying fighting games aren't mainstream because most people only play Street Fighter and Mortal Kombat while ignoring Guilty Gear, Arcana Heart, and Melty Blood.

Yet "THIS" is why that game sells. 2 different markets.

[Aussie2B]

You're mixing up two different issues, though. You're completely ignoring that the genre itself has little to do with all the random PS2 and PSP RPGs being niche as hell. The fact that their entire presentation is what it is makes them niche as hell. That's a incredibly important difference you're not addressing. The genre really doesn't mean jack shit. You make an RPG with a huge budget, massive advertising, fantastic acting, and a dramatic story and you end up with the multimillion selling Mass Effect. You make a budget PSP RPG with anime cliches, wacky outfits, and rudimentary mechanics and, surprise, niche game is niche.

Turn Ar Tonelico into a platformer and it'll have the exact same appeal it already does. People aren't avoiding it because it's an RPG. They avoid it because it's...well...THIS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LONBTg8h0Sw). You honestly think that people who pick up Mass Effect aren't picking up Ar Tonelico because they don't like RPGs?

That's like saying fighting games aren't mainstream because most people only play Street Fighter and Mortal Kombat while ignoring Guilty Gear, Arcana Heart, and Melty Blood.

No, that's exactly the issue at hand. We're not talking about specific games or why some are or aren't popular; we're purely talking about the genre as a whole and if it's mainstream, and when the vast majority of the titles in that genre AREN'T mainstream, for whatever reason that may be, then you simply can't conclude that the genre is mainstream. If there were more Pokemons and Skyrims to tip the balance, then maybe you could make that call, but not with the genre as it is now.

I'm not so sure I'd call fighting games mainstream these days either, not like they were in the early/mid 90s (and late 90s for the 3D ones), at least. Capcom has only just recently started reviving their franchises, and outside of those, there's really not a ton out there.

[TonyTheTiger]

No, that's exactly the issue at hand. We're not talking about specific games or why some are or aren't popular; we're purely talking about the genre as a whole and if it's mainstream, and when the vast majority of the titles in that genre AREN'T mainstream, for whatever reason that may be, then you simply can't conclude that the genre is mainstream.

If that's the case, then most genres are not mainstream for the simple fact that so few titles ever hit the big sales figures when compared to the larger quantity of titles in that genre. That takes us back to Madden. Regardless of Sega and Tecmo's previous success, it's pretty much entirely Madden at this point for various reasons. So football is niche now? Or at least is more niche than it was 15-20 years ago?

You keep talking about the "RPG genre" as if it's all or nothing. As if there has to be a majority of success on all fronts irrespective of the content of the games themselves. That's crazy. People don't buy games based on genre alone. They base their decisions on game content. People don't go "Oh, I like Mario...guess I like God of War, too, since it's also a platformer." They very well may like both games but one doesn't beget the other. Just like if people are playing Mass Effect but not Ar Tonelico, that doesn't mean the genre as a whole isn't mainstream. Correlation is not causation. There are too many variables among the titles in the genre, every one of them can alone determine why one game succeeds and another fails. You can't ignore all of that and write it off as the entire genre being niche. If anything it just means there's a niche within the larger genre.

Seriously, if it the vast majority of titles in a genre not being mainstream renders the genre itself not mainstream then we'd be left with...I dunno...one mainstream genre? If that?

[Leo_A]

IThat takes us back to Madden. Regardless of Sega and Tecmo's previous success, it's pretty much entirely Madden at this point for various reasons. So football is niche now? Or at least is more niche than it was 15-20 years ago?

EA also has a successful NCAA Football franchise that does quite well.

Just what football games are being released that aren't doing well? I don't agree with it, but her argument is that RPG's aren't mainstream because most games in the genre don't sell in huge numbers. I didn't see anything about number of releases per year in her argument about why RPG's are still a niche genre, so I don't see what the fact that we only get two major releases per year in this subgenre has to do with the discussion at hand. She's talking about sales performance and Madden and NCAA Football sell many millions of copies every year.

Beyond those two series from EA, has anyone even tried to crack the market in years other than attempts to restart old arcade football franchises like Midway's Blitz series and Tecmo Bowl? Her argument is that most RPG's don't sell well. So how could you apply her argument to the football genre when both releases it typically gets each year are huge sellers? Unless a dozen other competitors spring up and Madden and NCAA still dominate, you certainly can't twist her argument around that way.

[G-Boobie]

EA also has a successful NCAA Football franchise that does quite well.

Just what football games are being released that aren't doing well? I don't agree with it, but her argument is that RPG's aren't mainstream because most games in the genre don't sell in huge numbers. I didn't see anything about number of releases per year in her argument about why RPG's are still a niche genre, so I don't see what the fact that we only get two major releases per year in this subgenre has to do with the discussion at hand. She's talking about sales performance and Madden and NCAA Football sell many millions of copies every year.

Beyond those two series from EA, has anyone even tried to crack the market in years other than attempts to restart old arcade football franchises like Midway's Blitz series and Tecmo Bowl? Her argument is that most RPG's don't sell well. So how could you apply her argument to the football genre when both releases it typically gets each year are huge sellers? Unless a dozen other competitors spring up and Madden and NCAA still dominate, you certainly can't twist her argument around that way.

Again: Skyrim, Dragon Age, World of Warcraft, Mass Effect, Pokemon, Deus Ex, Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning, Rift, Guild Wars, The Old Republic... These games are all million sellers or better. That's as close to mainstream as anything I can imagine. Those are big numbers for any media.

I think we're dealing with a disagreement over the definition of "mainstream".

[TonyTheTiger]

Beyond those two series from EA, has anyone even tried to crack the market in years other than attempts to restart old arcade football franchises like Midway's Blitz series and Tecmo Bowl? Her argument is that most RPG's don't sell well. So how could you apply her argument to the football genre when both releases it typically gets each year are huge sellers? Unless a dozen other competitors spring up and Madden and NCAA still dominate, you certainly can't twist her argument around that way.

Actually, yes. There was an attempt at an All Pro line of football titles with classic players but it didn't fare so well. And let's not ignore that Midway tried to reinvigorate Blitz with Blitz: The League prior to going under and I think Blitz is still alive and well under new ownership. Then there was Konami and its Disney Sports line. Tecmo Bowl Throwback specifically brought that series back from the dead. EA itself tried to do the NFL Street thing, too. If you want to look at different sports there were similar basketball games like Hoopz, recent NBA Jam outings, Mario Hoops 3 on 3, etc. Baseball has Mario Super Sluggers, I don't know if the Backyard Baseball games are still being made but they were not too long ago. The sports game landscape is faaaar more robust than EA's main line. To say that the RPG genre isn't mainstream because, for example, the PSP is a dumping ground for RPGs that push middling numbers is no different than saying sports games aren't mainstream because most people don't pay attention to anything outside of EA's flagships.

If you think I'm being unfair limiting it to football and you want to expand it to the entire sports genre you end up with EA's major franchises doing amazingly well with all kinds of fringe titles not getting nearly as much focus from the same crowd. It's no different from the RPG landscape in that regard, with a bunch of major titles pushing phenomenal numbers while the PSP (currently a bit of a niche system itself) and it's slew of budget RPGs push niche numbers. Of course games like Hexyz Force and Ys are going to be niche titles. 1) They're on the PSP. 2) They're budget games with little to no advertising. 3) They're decidedly last gen in presentation. All of those factors matter a hell of a lot more than them being RPGs. What, just because there's so many of them that ends up outweighing the mainstreamness (a word?) of the genre as a whole?

[j_factor]

I think you're toying with the definition of "ignored" here. For something to not be "ignored", that doesn't mean it must have massive sales. I already quite well laid out the characteristics of mainstream genres of the past. The very definition of "mainstream" implies that it must not be solely the territory of a dedicated niche audience, but that's exactly where the majority of releases in the RPG genre are.

So, again, how many genres qualify as mainstream to you? Three? FPS, racing, sports, that's it? Maybe minigame compilation if we count that as a genre?

[BlastProcessing402]

Yeah, maybe Nintendo had to give away copies of DW1 at one point, but maybe that's not a rejection of RPG's by gamers, maybe that was just a reflection on how DW1 was incredibly archaic even for an NES game by that point and some of us had already played things far superior on a technical level, even on consoles (Phantasy Star 1 and the NES port of Ultima 3, for instance). Don't get me wrong, I still bought DW1 (yeah, I never got one for free, dunno how I missed that promotion entirely) and enjoyed it, but I can see why it wasn't near the phenomenon here as it was when it hit in Japan years earlier.

And yet it still did well enough that all three NES sequels wound up getting released. Sure, the next two on the SNES never did, but there's a LOT more at work there than lack of demand. Enix had plans to release them, but the DQ5 code was so messy and buggy that it didn't pan out, and when they decided to just skip it and move on to DQ6, the company was going through major changes and wound up closing their US offices before it could come to fruition.

Another thing to consider, gaming itself is far more mainstream today than it was back in the 80's and 90's. As gaming has grown, so has the RPG genre.

[Leo_A]

Again: Skyrim, Dragon Age, World of Warcraft, Mass Effect, Pokemon, Deus Ex, Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning, Rift, Guild Wars, The Old Republic... These games are all million sellers or better. That's as close to mainstream as anything I can imagine. Those are big numbers for any media.

I think we're dealing with a disagreement over the definition of "mainstream".

What's that have to do with what you quoted from me? I wasn't even talking about RPG's nor did I agree with her opinion. I simply don't see how the football genre, which typically only gets two releases each year that both sell well, could be used to show the flaws in her logic. Her logic is RPG's aren't mainstream since most RPG's (Particularly Japanese RPG's) don't sell well.

Seems to me then that we would need a good number of football releases each year that aren't million sellers in order to use this as an example to show her the flaws in her thinking. Yet, we don't have all those underperforming releases in this genre each year.

[Leo_A]

Edit - Sorry about the double post, meant to edit all this into that post but forgot by the time I was finished.


Actually, yes. There was an attempt at an All Pro line of football titles with classic players but it didn't fare so well. And let's not ignore that Midway tried to reinvigorate Blitz with Blitz: The League prior to going under and I think Blitz is still alive and well under new ownership. Then there was Konami and its Disney Sports line. Tecmo Bowl Throwback specifically brought that series back from the dead. EA itself tried to do the NFL Street thing, too. If you want to look at different sports there were similar basketball games like Hoopz, recent NBA Jam outings, Mario Hoops 3 on 3, etc. Baseball has Mario Super Sluggers, I don't know if the Backyard Baseball games are still being made but they were not too long ago. ?

Those are just a handful exceptions spread out over the past generation or two.

In general, each year, we only get EA Sports football releases. And each year, they sell millions of copies. How can you apply her argument to the football genre to disprove it to her when the two releases we generally get each year are some of the biggest selling games of the year?


To say that the RPG genre isn't mainstream because, for example, the PSP is a dumping ground for RPGs that push middling numbers is no different than saying sports games aren't mainstream because most people don't pay attention to anything outside of EA's flagships.

In most years, there aren't football games outside of EA releases to ignore.


If you think I'm being unfair limiting it to football and you want to expand it to the entire sports genre you end up with EA's major franchises doing amazingly well with all kinds of fringe titles not getting nearly as much focus from the same crowd. It's no different from the RPG landscape in that regard, with a bunch of major titles pushing phenomenal numbers while the PSP (currently a bit of a niche system itself) and it's slew of budget RPGs push niche numbers.


You need to go look at what has actually even been released in these genres (Heck, you didn't even know EA had a second successful football series, yet I despise the sport and was aware of it). Looking at what has been released for the Xbox 360 at GameFaqs, a platform with perhaps the biggest sports fanbase at present, basketball has the successful and long running VirtualConcepts/2K Sports line, EA Sports revival of Midway's NBA Jam arcade line that seems to have been successful judging from how they've returned to it several times over the past year or two (Something EA only does if there's money to be had, they don't stick with underperformers), EA Sports own basketball line, a single failed Midway game, and a single Tecmo game that I doubt succeeded since I never heard of it before and it has no sequels. So 90%+ of the games in that genre on the Xbox 360 have came from two publishers that are successful in this genre every year, with only two exceptions. Hockey has even less variety (EA's successful series, 2KSports successful series, and a EA XBLA hockey arcade game that has been popular judging by sales rankings on Major Nelson's blog since release). I doubt the Wii has much more to offer in these series beyond perhaps Mario spinoff sports games that always seem to perform well or releases aimed at young children.

I'm not seeing these legions of releases in these genres each year that don't sell well that would allow you to apply her reasoning to them in order to disprove her line of thought (Which I've stated several times in this thread that I also disagree with). By and large, it's all EA Sports with some competition from the 2KSports lineup in a few areas. Both of which are successful in regard to sales numbers.

In fact I dare say the sports genre is one of the few genres out there where you couldn't use her logic to argue that they weren't mainstream due to the monopolization that has went on in recent years where one or two major publishers has a lock on each sport with little competition.

[TonyTheTiger]

First off, of course I know about NCAA. I own a bunch. I don't know why I didn't bring it up. Probably because the market for pro and college is largely the same. My point, of course, is that outside that market is a slew of non-traditional games, none of which attain the popularity of EA's flagships. And, again, expanding it to sports in general and it only furthers the point. Go look up "sports games" in GameStop's system and see just how many games it picks up vs. how many of them pull Skyrim or Mass Effect numbers.

And second, writing off my list as "just a handful of exceptions over the last few years" is blatantly moving the goal posts. Since when were we talking a slew of football (or sports in general) game releases in a single calendar year? Was that ever a parameter set for RPGs? Did anybody ever stipulate to counting releases within a set time frame? Because it's not like we're getting a floundering RPG on a monthly basis here. You asked for evidence of a bunch of sports games with middling success among the sports playing public and I provided. And now you're basically saying "Now I want more." We could do this forever with any genre where we start applying arbitrary measuring sticks and then raising the bar at each interval. What's the magic number? 8 games a year? 10? Hell, we could write off the RPG issue in an instant with an equally arbitrary "PSP doesn't count." Knock off that one system and you cut out a massive chunk of niche RPGs released over the past 6 years or so.

Besides, let's pull back a little bit and look at what the issue is. That of, say, 100 RPGs only 10 of them are million sellers therefore RPG = niche. That's essentially the argument, right? Well, what matters here? The percentage of successful games within the genre or the raw number of successful games irrespective of the percentage? Because if you give me 10 successful RPGs in a year and 4 or 5 successful platformers/football/FPSes/Fighting/etc. in a year, what does it really matter if there are 100 unsuccessful RPGs and only 15 unsuccessful of the other? It still means the public picked more games from the one genre. If anything, the high number of unsuccessful games is more evidence the genre is mainstream because it means publishers see fit to saturate the market. Who the hell would flood the market with a genre nobody plays?

[Leo_A]

And second, writing off my list as "just a handful of exceptions over the last few years" is blatantly moving the goal posts. Since when were we talking a slew of football (or sports in general) game releases in a single calendar year? Was that ever a parameter set for RPGs? Did anybody ever stipulate to counting releases within a set time frame?

Her argument is that most RPG's don't sell well. Thus, the genre can't be considered mainstream since most releases in the genre go largely ignored by the gaming public.

Since I guess we're debating now what the word most actually means, I think it's safe to say that to the vast majority of people, most at the very least means that the number in question has to at least outnumber the other number. Yet EA Sports football releases far outnumber the releases of any competition and that's been the case for years now (Since at least when Sega lost the NFL license and abandoned their well recieved NFL2K line, although I suspect even then that EA was releasing more football games in their two franchises than the competition combined).

The number of non EA football releases on the Xbox 360, for instance, is a grand total of 8 after nearly 6 and a half years (Just barely averaging one non EA football release a year). Yet the grand total of EA Sports releases in this genre, the ones that account for the vast majority and the ones that actually do well, accounts for 19 releases (Including their two releases slated for later this year, the only upcoming football games in the genre on the release calendar). Even take away EA's own NFL Head Coach and NFL Tour releases, which presumably sold poorly judging from the lack of sequels (Not including their Madden XBLA game since that apparantly was a sales success) only changes the number to 17 releases in hugely popular series to 10 failures. How exactly do the poor sales performers outnumber the successes?

The fact is, most football games do sell well. The exact opposite of her reason why RPG's aren't mainstream where only a small number of releases get any sort of attention from mainstream gamers. Thus, you can't use her logic against her because her logic would still consider the football genre mainstream since the vast majority of releases perform well sales wise.

[TonyTheTiger]

Most of EA's releases, though, are within long running series, which dodges the issue since most RPGs within long running series also sell extremely well. And why wouldn't they? That's kind of the reason a series lasts so long to begin with. Just because EA releases their football games at a faster rate than Square Enix releases Final Fantasies is effectively a non-issue since we're talking essentially repeat customers and name recognition at that point, not genre devotion. When I think of "niche" or "fringe" I'm not thinking entries into a series that number into the double digits. What if Square Enix releases 25 Final Fantasy games tomorrow? Well whaddayaknow, all a sudden the RPG genre just became the most mainstream evar! What if EA scales back and Madden and NCAA come out once every three years with updates in off years distributed through DLC? I guess football just magically became less mainstream?

My original point was merely that if you're going to say that a fairly large number of million selling titles (FF, Mass Effect, Elder Scrolls, etc.) doesn't make a genre mainstream because there's a last gen system and a handheld spending their twilight years getting bombarded with middling, budget, and often nameless RPGs then you could just as easily turn it around and say that for all of EA's success it doesn't really make sports games mainstream because all of the sales are heavily localized in a single location, distributed among very few series just the same. If you want me to change the genre then I have no problem doing that. I'm pretty sure every single genre has the same story. A handful of extremely successful franchises and a bunch of other games that are either modest successes or utter failures. That is, except for the genuinely niche genres like dating sims or Mahjong or something.

But all this doesn't even matter because, like I said, the simple fact that there are so many modest RPGs proves the genre has mainstream clout. Otherwise these games wouldn't be published.

[Leo_A]

I don't disagree with you. See post #15. :)

[Tokimemofan]

We have a bit of "Definition of is" problem I guess?

[TonyTheTiger]

We have a bit of "Definition of is" problem I guess?

Yeah, that's why there's not much of an argument to be had. Everybody is starting from different places. What's mainstream, right? I'm satisfied just saying that the genre has systematically grown alongside gaming as a whole, sharing in the successes over the past 20+ years. I don't really think anybody can ask for much more than that.

[Retronick]

Wow! Sorry it took me a bit to get back to this. I knew this conversation would be a point of contention for many but I had no idea.

I think the most interesting thing I've seen in this thread is the confusion over what counts as "mainstream entertainment". For me, Mario is considerably mainstream because he is not only popular within the gaming community, but with your average "consumer" as well. I also must apologize for not defining the specific sub-genre within the genre I was talking about. I was really interested to see which turn-based RPG really got people to take notice. Honestly, looking back you could trace this back to Phantasy Star 1, but again, that game received praise from a still fledgling (when compared with the mid-90s or today), gaming community.

As far as I know (and again, I'm no analyst), FFVII was the first turn-based JRPG to reach an excess of over 9 million sales. Much more than Diablo's 2.5 million. I'm also not doubting the success of western influences like Richard Garriott who lives in a castle and (last I heard), went to space as a tourist on account of his astronaut pedigree. I'm just saying that the people who were buying into what was considered "popular" in the mid-late 90s, we're not playing a ton of RPGs before FFVII came out.

Thanks to everyone who's added to this. It's made for incredibly interesting reading.