Bioware Writer: JRPGs are not RPGs

[Bojay1997]

I consider that an insult to actual adventure games, they don't have pointless grinding or combat like RPGs do(the crappier adventure games have arcade sequences as filler but they're pretty much separate from the rest of the game). The only thing they really have in common is that they're heavily focused on the story.

Not only are they heavily focused on the story, but rather on a very specific narrative thread throughout the game which, although you can take some minor detours, you can't ever really avoid the major story points and in many cases, the lengthy cut scenes. As such, I don't think JRPGs differ much at all from traditional adventure games.

[maxlords]

Technically....wouldn't ALL video games be RPGs then? If the purpose is to PLAY A ROLE and IMMERSE YOURSELF IN THE CHARACTER, then that could easily be applied to an FPS just as much as an RPG or JRPG. Realistically, the only difference is that you don't create your own character...in SOME action games. But as for a game like an FPS, what you decide to do DIRECTLY affects the game and changes the outcome. Come around the wrong corner guns a'blazin' and you get obliterated.

We've simply come to accept the terminology of "RPG" for a traditional JRPG and that term NOW has meaning of a story based game with menu driven battles and customizable character options. That's something we've all done as gamers and accepted for decades...it's part of gaming canon now, regardless of the origins of the terminology or whether or not some douche at Bioware things that the term is apt.

Conceptually, I don't see the difference between sitting there rolling the dice and praying that the enemy doesn't get a natural 20 and having a computer grind the AI algorithm and decide that the enemy kills you. Instead of telling your DM (dungeon master for the uninitiated) that you come running around the corner and your DM tells you what happens, you instead input your thoughts as reactions on a controller. In ANY game YOU are in control of the character(s) in the game, therefore making ANY game with characters you control a role playing game.

Just saying...

[mobiusclimber]

^ That. I can't believe I read the first post, started scrolling down, barely reading anything, waiting to post EXACTLY THOSE THOUGHTS. Thanks, Maxlords!

And, actually, I think most action games nowadays are more "play a role" than many RPGs, in that you actually do get to choose your character, in many you change the looks entirely by choosing from preset hair, eyes, mouths, etc etc. How many games have a "create a character" feature. I mean, really, that would make most wrestling games RPGs.

I think Bioware sucks, frankly, if you want another controversial opinion. I don't think they've released a single RPG, either. Games like Mass Effect or whatever are actually FPS games, not RPGs. Dumbass is just trying to justify releasing shitty FPS games over and over by calling them RPGs and making a big deal about it. And oh yeah GET BACK ON THE DAMN PC WHERE YOUR SHITTY GAMES BELONG!

Sorry, had to rant.

[Astrocade]

^ That. I can't believe I read the first post, started scrolling down, barely reading anything, waiting to post EXACTLY THOSE THOUGHTS. Thanks, Maxlords!

And, actually, I think most action games nowadays are more "play a role" than many RPGs, in that you actually do get to choose your character, in many you change the looks entirely by choosing from preset hair, eyes, mouths, etc etc. How many games have a "create a character" feature. I mean, really, that would make most wrestling games RPGs.

I think Bioware sucks, frankly, if you want another controversial opinion. I don't think they've released a single RPG, either. Games like Mass Effect or whatever are actually FPS games, not RPGs. Dumbass is just trying to justify releasing shitty FPS games over and over by calling them RPGs and making a big deal about it. And oh yeah GET BACK ON THE DAMN PC WHERE YOUR SHITTY GAMES BELONG!

Sorry, had to rant.

I'm with these guys. If Bioware has become the arbiter of what defines an RPG, then we're all fucked. Baldur's Gate is an exceptional twitch game, though.

Seriously, there's no real hard and fast rule as to what constitutes an RPG. Western RPGs are usually FPS with the ability to "level up", while many Japanese RPGs are little more than interactive cartoon adventure games. Remember those FMV games like Dragon's Lair and Space Ace where you had to click the correct button to proceed after watching a 30 second animated cutscene? That's pretty much the Final Fantasy series to me. (But wait- many purists don't consider FF to be RPGs either...)

Since I first played The Legend of Zelda back in 1988, everything I read concerning the games up until 1993 or so referred to them as the "quintessential" RPG series. But with the advent of internet trolling by nerds with superiority complexes, all of the sudden LoZ was no longer an RPG, it was, at best, an "adventure" game; at worst, a "platformer".

I'm one of the unconverted errant souls who still considers the Zelda games to be RPGs while Bioshock 2 is always going to be a FPS. Bioware's games are neither; they fall into the much broader category of shitty PC games masquerading on consoles.

[Drifter 2000]

I think a lot of this comes down to how you technically define what a RPG is. It's a debate I've seen, and been in more than a few times myself.

For me a RPG is a game that disconnects the player's abilities from those of the character on the screen. A player's skill should have little, to no effect on the success their in game avatar has when performing an action. This is why stats, skills, etc are all pretty much the common thing you see in all RPGs.

Any action that takes a degree of skill to perform should come down to the in-game character's abilities. Opening a door is something anyone can do. Repairing an engine, properly repairing a firearm, or even balancing on a thin beam are things that go above and beyond the skill of a normal person. These are things that are tested in an RPG by the use of numbers.

That's where the separation between "W-RPG" and "J-RPG" start to come into play. In a Western RPG the player basically is given reigns over designing the character they want to play. Their avatar will be skilled in whatever it is the player decides to to make him/her. This makes the avatar a more personal thing to the player; since it's their own.

Most Japanese RPGs put everything in front of the player. The characters are made, and the player simply guides their journey. However; most of what the characters can do is out of the player's hands. Damage, defense, etc are usually handled by numbers and equipment.

When player skill becomes involved...things start to lean more towards the Action RPG realm.

This is all my opinion though.

[Icarus Moonsight]

Technically....wouldn't ALL video games be RPGs then?

Yuppers. Back to the thought-destructive "Everything and Nothing" premise.

1UP: ... and I was playing an RPG earlier today...

2UP: Oh yeah? Which one?

1UP: Thunderforce IV.

2UP: That's a shooter, not an RPG moron.

1UP: Ho, not so fast. I was playing the role of a spaceship pilot in that game. If you'd rather I say PRG, fine, but then I suggest you go play a JPRG - like Pepsiman, asshole.

[Sothy]

I think of RPG's as Final fantasy1 or dragon warrior1 up to maybe star control2 the recent japanese games "newer final fantasy stuff" needs its own category.... and sucks ass.

Mass effect and its ilk stick more to actual rpg gameplay but still are not the same.


Oh yeah and " PONG IS A RPG BECAUSE IM A FUKIN SHITFACE"

[Gentlegamer]

I'll go farther: no video game is or ever will be an actual role-playing game (unless something like the Holodeck from Star Trek becomes a reality).

However, as far as the genre in the context of video games goes, JRPGs are in fact RPGs.

[Ed Oscuro]

haha @ people gettin' trolled

The guy is right, though, there's no actual role-playing in many (not all) of them. It doesn't mean it's bad, or that the tactical adventure game (which is what I think of them as) format is easier.

First off, it's important to remember there's a big difference between being a GAME PLAYER and a GAME CREATOR. The Dungeons & Dragons DMs I have known recently all liked jRPGs. But for creating D&D campaign sessions they had different objectives in mind than when playing a console game. The Bioware guy is speaking from the perspective of needing a more flexible and transparent way of letting his audience see the story from multiple angles, which is one of the holy grails of "interactive" fiction as opposed to movies etc. Some people don't care about making games so different from movies in every respect, though. The standard jRPG format seems to him to be limiting. We all know that there are some jRPGs that give meaningful choices at least at critical points, but an open game like Morrowind or Fallout lets you choose at the very least when to do things.

These game styles tend to embrace different worldviews. From the perspective of a character in a Final Fantasy game, running off to go looking for a bunch of bottle caps in the desert instead of fighting a battle now would be a dereliction of duty and putting the rest of the world in danger. From the perspective of a Fallout character, hitting the final dungeons in the name of "duty" without having explored the rest of the world for helpful items would be foolish and uncertain to achieve the objectives. (Yes, both game types can feature grinding.) In that sense both types of game show restrictions that real people face in real situations; they just deal with them differently. The jRPG stuff tends to be organized, then, more like actual military forces would be; the Western stuff we think of often (not always; this all is an outgrowth of tactical games) has a wider range of choices, including deserting the force, or otherwise doing 'dumb' things.

But it does make a difference. One thing that I see in a lot of "jRPGs" is heavy-handed nihilism. Even Vagrant Story, which is a game I have so far found excellent and with a pretty intelligent story, has its heavy-handed moments (but I didn't care). Some of that is the culture - anti-war, the whole post-Hiroshima thing, the outgrowth of this in manga and anime - but some of it is also an inherent limitation of the format. There's a heavy tendency towards depending on fantasy or being beaten over the head with "rarrrgh yu are make wrong decisions" which is really uncalled for since in these games the player rarely makes any meaningful choices.

FPSes have a lot of this too. The guy from Prey was an idiot and I hope he never gets another game, which is a shame because the setting could be interesting. That's how badly I think we can react to an unsympathetic character. But not all games have this problem: There have been relatively free-roaming FPSes for a long while, and similar types of games like Daggerfall.

Some 'jRPGs' do let you make decisions; this is role-playing. Many don't let you role-play, however. There's nothing wrong with it, except the lessons we learn best are those we actually make. So I guess that games without meaningful choices are inherently mentally crippled.

I usually resent games that try to preach to me. (The FPSes Iron Storm and the Bet On Soldier games are heavily guilty of this.)

[shopkins]

What you say about different mindsets is interesting. When I was playing Shenmue one of the things that annoyed me was that, despite how much freedom I allegedly had with Ryo, I could not make that sucker stay out past his bedtime unless it was plot ordained. His aunt worried so he went home. That conflict between what I wanted to do and what Ryo wanted to do completely broke the illusion that I was the player character for me. Instead I'm just kind of shuffling him around for a while. Like you say, a lot of JRPGs are like that, and for me they make you feel more like you're watching a character than controlling a character. I think that's a strike against them being accurately called role playing games because the role plays out the same regardless of your input.

I like the term Interactive Adventure Novel, because they do have structures similar to novels. Maybe Interactive Tactical Adventure Novel.

[Icarus Moonsight]

Oh yeah and " PONG IS A RPG BECAUSE IM A FUKIN SHITFACE"

Oh yeah dood. Shitfarce got racket-role'd play. English is like lying to the sand Bishop of Tyreel III. This Bioforce guy is no ape. Guy prolly can't even fart text like this. Chump ass.

[Gentlegamer]

Instead of telling your DM (dungeon master for the uninitiated) that you come running around the corner and your DM tells you what happens, you instead input your thoughts as reactions on a controller. In ANY game YOU are in control of the character(s) in the game, therefore making ANY game with characters you control a role playing game.

Just saying...

The key difference is that there is no limit to the "input" that you can give to a live Game Master to be adjudicated. The possibilities are endless. That is the heart of what an actual role-playing game is. No video game can be so open ended.

[Sabz5150]

The key difference is that there is no limit to the "input" that you can give to a live Game Master to be adjudicated. The possibilities are endless. That is the heart of what an actual role-playing game is. No video game can be so open ended.

With a live Game Master, there are only so many times you can do something stupid (albeit hilarious) before he decides that a five ton slab of ceiling comes down and crushes you. The computer AI will just keep saying "I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that".

[j_factor]

Not only are they heavily focused on the story, but rather on a very specific narrative thread throughout the game which, although you can take some minor detours, you can't ever really avoid the major story points and in many cases, the lengthy cut scenes. As such, I don't think JRPGs differ much at all from traditional adventure games.

I don't think many adventure game fans would agree with you.

There are both linear adventure games and ones that are more freewheeling (such as The Last Express). This is also true of RPGs. That aspect doesn't define the genre unless you radically redefine everything.

Adventure games have no combat, or some combat in some cases, but it's not the emphasis of the game. They never have a fleshed-out combat system with statistics, equipment, spells, experience, etc. Adventure games typically have no use for statistics such as attack power, defense, agility, HP, MP, and so on, or the raising of such. Adventure games rarely have boss fights. Adventure games are driven by puzzle-solving, exploration, character interaction (dialog), and/or item manipulation.

Bottom line, RPG combat = RPG, IMO. Final Fantasy has more in common with Diablo than it does with Sam & Max.