For those in denial, Dark Souls is JRPG, not a WRPG

RavenLoud

Spectacular, spectacular thread fail.

"I'm no fan of the genre westerners refer to as the JRPG"
-Demon's Souls / Dark Souls producer

"I've always loved the dark fantasy genre, from Wizardry [American RPG] right through to King's Field [Japanese, first-person RPG]. Yet games that assume that aesthetic these days are usually, at their heart, more like science-fiction. So my desire was to revisit this lost area of gaming, to rediscover a charismatic corner of the medium."
- Demon's Souls / Dark Souls producer

"...But I'd always wanted to make a dark fantasy game that drew on the Fighting Fantasy series of books [American series, by Steve Jackson]. The Demon's Souls project was that opening that I'd always been waiting for."
- Demon's Souls / Dark Souls director

Just saying - they seem to recognize that there is a distinguishing line drawn between JRPG and WRPG in this part of the world, and they specifically set out to not make what we would call a JRPG.

Makari

Just because he mentioned Wizardry, that doesn't magically make Dark Souls a "WRPG". The fact is that Wizardry, despite its American origins, has always been far more popular in Japan than it ever was in America, and as a result the Wizardry games are today produced and released almost exclusively in Japan. For better or for worse, Wizardry is no longer a WRPG franchise, but is now regarded as a JRPG franchise.

Besides, let's not forget the obvious fact that Dark Souls has far more in common with JRPG dungeon crawlers like Monster Hunter, Phantasy Star Online and King's Field than it does with any WRPGs, so the whole WRPG comparison in itself is moot.

What's kind of sad is that if people want to really get down to it, the only thing that would make a game a jrpg if it isn't about region is anime inspired characters. Random encounters, menu driven turn based gameplay or even real time game play, stats, skill trees, linear stories...all were created in the west first. Japanese even said they were influenced by Ultima and Wizardry.

So the only thing that could possibly indicate a JRPG is an anime ****..and elipses.smerlus

The first real-time action RPGs were all almost entirely JRPGs (Dragon Slayer, Tower of Druaga, Bokosuka Wars, Hydlide, and many more), with very few exceptions (the only one that comes to mind is Dungeons of Daggorath, which took inspiration from the Japanese arcade game Space Invaders). Western gaming publications had for a long time associated real-time action combat with Japanese console RPGs, not Western computer RPGs, up until the early 2000s.

I don't remember Ultima or Wizardry having any skill trees, but the concept can easily be found in early JRPGs like Xanadu and Final Fantasy II. As for linear stories, the first video games to have any kind of story or cut-scenes in them were Japanese arcade games: Gun Fight, Space Invaders, Sheriff, etc., all of which predate the likes of Ultima and Wizardry.

You're really that daft? I already gave examples where that other guy's version of scratch damage came from and he/she conceded their point. Haven't you already been burnt when insulting my intelligence? You didn't even know there was another version of scratch damage until i taught you it. The FF overstylized comment was a lure. The guy said that my overstylized comment was unbelievable as i offered one example, he offered two and then admitted there were more than just FF games and then linked to another one. For someone that called BS on my statement, he ended up giving more examples of my statement than I did. It wasn't a straw man like people like to throw around here every time their stance is beaten. I apologize for using underhanded tactics to back up my point but i believe in other people doing my work when they can. The only actual mistake i've made in this topic was assuming that the guy i was arguing with was aware of the definitions of the words he/she was using. In MvC and probably earlier in the Xmen vs Capcom games, i can't remember, have it where your characters take damage from attacks but some of can be healed if no further damage is done either by blocking or by taking that character out of the fight. Also Two World's poison works as the Poison will remove a portion of the player character's health that won't necessarily kill the person however direct damage will. smerlus

I conceded? No, you failed to prove your original statement which was this:

everything that a JRPG has in it has been done before by a western developer except for Anime . smerlus

You bringing up the origins of "scratch damage" was not only a logical fallacy, but it demonstrated that you did not understand how the game worked. It was only after it was explained to you how "scratch damage" worked in the game that you suggested it originated in fighting games, many of which are Japanese. You failed to state which fighting games (up until this post) and how the system actually worked.*At this point, I had decided it was clear that you had no argument and left the discussion. It was clear enough for another user to comment on your posts.

Another point of contention was your "it's still a turn based game comment." This meant that no matter what changes a JRPG employed, you would not recognize the changes. It was impossible to argue with you to begin with, because your position made it logically impossible for you to be proven wrong, because no proof would be recognized.

To put it simply, you were not worth debating with.

*The connections you've provided in this post are vaguely similar, but seem to be individual kills rather than an entire system as it is employed in RoF. They hardly seem like a means of alternate damage dealing (switching off between characters).Regardless, Marvel vs. Capcom is a Japanese game.

I have an Idea :idea:... why don't we just call it an Action adventure RPG?

Lol... you guys are still going with this? Look at all these essays Jesus Christ.

Lol... you guys are still going with this? Look at all these essays Jesus Christ.

6yadayada9

I was done, but I didn't want him to get away with suggesting that I had "conceded." :roll:

JRPG=RPG made in Japan

WRPG=RPG made in US or Europe

end thread

Shenmue_Jehuty

[QUOTE="Makari"]Spectacular, spectacular thread fail."I'm no fan of the genre westerners refer to as the JRPG" Demon's Souls / Dark Souls producer"I've always loved the dark fantasy genre, from Wizardry [American RPG] right through to King's Field [Japanese, first-person RPG]. Yet games that assume that aesthetic these days are usually, at their heart, more like science-fiction. So my desire was to revisit this lost area of gaming, to rediscover a charismatic corner of the medium."Demon's Souls / Dark Souls producer"...But I'd always wanted to make a dark fantasy game that drew on the Fighting Fantasy series of books [American series, by Steve Jackson]. The Demon's Souls project was that opening that I'd always been waiting for." Demon's Souls / Dark Souls director Just saying - they seem to recognize that there is a distinguishing line drawn between JRPG and WRPG in this part of the world, and they specifically set out to not make what we would call a JRPG.Jag85

What's kind of sad is that if people want to really get down to it, the only thing that would make a game a jrpg if it isn't about region is anime inspired characters. Random encounters, menu driven turn based gameplay or even real time game play, stats, skill trees, linear stories...all were created in the west first. Japanese even said they were influenced by Ultima and Wizardry. So the only thing that could possibly indicate a JRPG is an anime ****..and elipses.smerlus

It plays nothing like FF7-8-9 JRPGs and plays very close to most WRPGs

That is why people call it WRPG, even though it is a JRPG

JRPG = often very little innovation, very little risk taking

WRPG = often more innovation and risk taking

+20 points to Dark Souls for not conforming to the majority of JRPG equation of derivation.

Hey, I remember this thread.

Still wrong.

EDIT: I might have said previously that it was a WRPG, which I retract. It leans toward WRPG, but it's neither.

It's a Japanese made Action Role Playing Game. Why is everyone up in arms about this? Because it doesn't have horribly written dialogue and long haired angsty teen protagonists?skrat_01

Super Mario Galaxy is a Japanese made 3D Platformer, and yet we don't slap the "J" in front of that genre now do we?

Maybe because the distinctions come from something other than location? Nah, that couldn't be it.

If Dark Souls is a JRPG, than Lost Odyssey is a WRPG, its made in Hawaii.....loltexasgoldrush

JRPG's = stuck in the past, still using dated techniques.

WRPGs = thriving and progressing.

I can't think of one JRPG, I've liked in the last 10 years.

How has this topic reached 24 pages? Why is the distinction even important at all? BibiMaghoo

It seems like many new gamers (CoD/Halo babies) think that JRPG/WRPG refers to the creation or origin of the game.

This has never been true, any old school gamer knows this. When we used to refer to a JRPG or WRPG it was a gameplay/genre distinction, since the two game types are wildly different.

DS is more of a wrpg, by a insane amount, than a jrpg. This is a fact. Even the devs agree.

[QUOTE="BibiMaghoo"]How has this topic reached 24 pages? Why is the distinction even important at all? Jankarcop

It seems like many new gamers (CoD/Halo babies) think that JRPG/WRPG refers to the creation or origin of the game.

This has never been true, any old school gamer knows this. When we used to refer to a JRPG or WRPG it was a gameplay/genre distinction, since the two game types are wildly different.

DS is more of a wrpg, by a insane amount, than a jrpg. This is a fact. Even the devs agree.

yep, originally they were called console RPGs and computer RPGs

but with the advent of the original Xbox, we started seeing more and more computer RPGs on consoles, so the names were changed to JRPG and WRPG

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"]If Dark Souls is a JRPG, than Lost Odyssey is a WRPG, its made in Hawaii.....lolrilpas

[QUOTE="rilpas"][QUOTE="texasgoldrush"]If Dark Souls is a JRPG, than Lost Odyssey is a WRPG, its made in Hawaii.....loltexasgoldrush

EDIT: just checked, you're right

[QUOTE="rilpas"][QUOTE="texasgoldrush"]If Dark Souls is a JRPG, than Lost Odyssey is a WRPG, its made in Hawaii.....loltexasgoldrush

[QUOTE="skrat_01"]It's a Japanese made Action Role Playing Game. Why is everyone up in arms about this? Because it doesn't have horribly written dialogue and long haired angsty teen protagonists?SW__Troll

Super Mario Galaxy is a Japanese made 3D Platformer, and yet we don't slap the "J" in front of that genre now do we?

Maybe because the distinctions come from something other than location? Nah, that couldn't be it.

[QUOTE="SW__Troll"]

[QUOTE="skrat_01"]It's a Japanese made Action Role Playing Game. Why is everyone up in arms about this? Because it doesn't have horribly written dialogue and long haired angsty teen protagonists?skrat_01

Super Mario Galaxy is a Japanese made 3D Platformer, and yet we don't slap the "J" in front of that genre now do we?

Maybe because the distinctions come from something other than location? Nah, that couldn't be it.

don't forget Wizardry

[QUOTE="skrat_01"][QUOTE="SW__Troll"]

Super Mario Galaxy is a Japanese made 3D Platformer, and yet we don't slap the "J" in front of that genre now do we?

Maybe because the distinctions come from something other than location? Nah, that couldn't be it.

rilpas

don't forget Wizardry

If this is what some people think of when they hear JRPG, thats completely understandable. As a matter of fact, thats what i think of when i hear RPG, but any role playing game made by japanese developers constitutes a JRPG, it doesnt matter if it doesn't fit in the traditional turn based/strategy JRPG formula established in the 90s.

As a matter of fact, thats what i think of when i hear RPG, but any role playing game made by japanese developers constitutes a JRPG, it doesnt matter if it doesn't fit in the traditional turn based/strategy JRPG formula established in the 90s.AgentA-Mi6

I thought it was an RPG...That's not enough?

le truth

[QUOTE="Jag85"]Wrong. Did he ever use the term "Western" in reference to Dark Souls? No. And what are the two games he used as reference points instead? Wizardry, a formerly American but now entirely Japanese franchise, and King's Field, a purely Japanese franchise. Do you see any purely Western-developed franchises like Ultima (excluding the NES/SNES ports) or The Elder Scrolls mentioned anywhere? No. Just because he mentioned Wizardry, that doesn't magically make Dark Souls a "WRPG". The fact is that Wizardry, despite its American origins, has always been far more popular in Japan than it ever was in America, and as a result the Wizardry games are today produced and released almost exclusively in Japan. For better or for worse, Wizardry is no longer a WRPG franchise, but is now regarded as a JRPG franchise. Besides, let's not forget the obvious fact that Dark Souls has far more in common with JRPG dungeon crawlers like Monster Hunter, Phantasy Star Online and King's Field than it does with any WRPGs, so the whole WRPG comparison in itself is moot.

Wrong. Neither Ultima nor Wizardry used any "menu" system prior to Dragon Quest, but both relied on a text parser interface where the player types in the commands directly on the keyboard. Dragon Quest's use and popularization of selection menus in console RPGs was an innovation that arose from the NES pad's inability to enter keyboard commands, and was primarily inspired by the Japanese adventure game Portopia Serial Murder Case rather than any RPGs. The first real-time action RPGs were all almost entirely JRPGs (Dragon Slayer, Tower of Druaga, Bokosuka Wars, Hydlide, and many more), with very few exceptions (the only one that comes to mind is Dungeons of Daggorath, which took inspiration from the Japanese arcade game Space Invaders). Western gaming publications had for a long time associated real-time action combat with Japanese console RPGs, not Western computer RPGs, up until the early 2000s. I don't remember Ultima or Wizardry having any skill trees, but the concept can easily be found in early JRPGs like Xanadu and Final Fantasy II. As for linear stories, the first video games to have any kind of story or cut-scenes in them were Japanese arcade games: Gun Fight, Space Invaders, Sheriff, etc., all of which predate the likes of Ultima and Wizardry. texasgoldrush

Oh wait, you seem to forget Ultima Underworld which helped inspire the King's Field series.

And just because Wizradyis more popular in Japan now doesn't mean its a Japanese franchise.

And NO RPG franchise has done more to influence the genre than the Ultima franchise, a western franchise.

And wrong again, you forget games like Adventure and Zork which had far more detailed stories than Japanese games in the 70's.

Wrong again. Ultima IV is not real-time, but uses timed-turns, much like FF III on the NES. If Ultima IV and FF III were real-time, then that would make the 1982 turn-based strategy game Utopia (which also uses timed turns) a real-time strategy game according to your logic, which as we all know would be completely false. Beyond video games, we'd also have to start calling tounament chess (which also uses timed turns) a real-time strategy board game according to your definition. The fact of the matter is that the first actual real-time action RPGs were Japanese games, like Dragon Slayer, Tower of Druaga, Hydlide, and to an extent Bokosuka Wars.

Many RPGs used first-person perspectives long before Ultima Underworld, both in Japan (i.e. Megami Tensei, Phantasy Star, Star Cruiser, Shining in the Darkness, etc.) and America. What made Ultima Underworld stand out from the crowd was its use of ray-casting graphics, later used in the FPS games Wolfenstein 3D and Doom, but otherwise there wasn't much else to differentiate it from earlier first-person RPGs. Besides, the 1988 Japanese first-person RPG, Star Cruiser, was already using full 3D polygonal graphics long before Ultima Underword, so it didn't have anything particularly new that Japanese RPGs hadn't done before. It's possible that Ultima Underworld may have been one of the influences behind King's Field though, at least in aesthetic terms.

No. The reason Wizardry is a Japanese franchise is because of the fact that nearly all the Wizardry games produced in the past decade have been produced in Japan almost exclusively for a Japanese audience. Despite its American origins, Wizardry is now a Japanese franchise, whether you like it or not.

You act as if Ultima was the only major Western RPG franchise in the early years, when in fact there were other more popular franchises at the time, most notably Dunjonquest and Wizardry. It wasn't until Ultima III that the series started having any influence. Besides, Ultima III is the only Ultima game that had a major influence in Japan, where the series was largely forgotten after Dragon Quest. Wizardry was the one that had a bigger influence in Japan. Ultima certainly had a big influence on the RPG genre, but so did the likes of Dunjonquest, Wizardry, Dragon Slayer, Dragon Quest, Phantasy Star, and Final Fantasy.

And finally, Gun Fight predates Adventure, while the other two I mentioned, Space Invaders and Sheriff, predate Zork, so my point still stands that the first video games with any kind of story in them were indeed Japanese-developed. And you also forgot the other point I made: that Japanese games were the first to use graphical cut scenes, i.e. visual storytelling. While early American adventure games were entirely text-based, the early Japanese games relied on visual storytelling rather than just text. And to some extent, this still might be the case to some extent even today.

Yeah, kind of a dick move of me, but I didn't want to dignify that stuff he was saying with a response. People promptly go back to totally missing the point and treating JRPG as a geographical term rather than a statement of the game's style, in direct contravention of the people that created and used the term. Nice.Makari

The people who created the terms "JRPG" and "WRPG" were internet fanboys, who had no clue about how genres are classified. All other video game genres are classified by gameplay mechanics, so why make an exception for RPGs? There is no clear definitions for JRPG or WRPG (terms that are only used in the West but never in Japan), but there are clear definitions for action RPG, turn-based RPG, tactical RPG, dungeon crawler, etc.

There are no magazines from the 90s or earlier that ever even used the JRPG or WRPG acronyms, but they used terms like "Japanese RPG" or "American RPG" to strictly refer to country of origin (while the term "Western RPG" was certainly never used). Even the so-called equivalent terms "console RPG" and "computer RPG" were never used in the same way that fanboys today use "JRPG" and "WRPG". In fact, gaming magazines in the late 80s and early 90s often used the terms "arcade RPG" or "console RPG" to mainly refer to fast-paced / real-time RPGs, whether action-based like Secret of Mana or semi-real-time like Final Fantasy, while "computer RPG" was mainly used to refer to the more slower-paced turn-based RPGs, like the Wizardry and Ultima series. This was the complete opposite to how fanboys today use the terms "JRPG" and "WRPG".

Noone cares how the game is labeled and what category it is in really

[QUOTE="smerlus"]You're really that daft? I already gave examples where that other guy's version of scratch damage came from and he/she conceded their point. Haven't you already been burnt when insulting my intelligence? You didn't even know there was another version of scratch damage until i taught you it. The FF overstylized comment was a lure. The guy said that my overstylized comment was unbelievable as i offered one example, he offered two and then admitted there were more than just FF games and then linked to another one. For someone that called BS on my statement, he ended up giving more examples of my statement than I did. It wasn't a straw man like people like to throw around here every time their stance is beaten. I apologize for using underhanded tactics to back up my point but i believe in other people doing my work when they can. The only actual mistake i've made in this topic was assuming that the guy i was arguing with was aware of the definitions of the words he/she was using. In MvC and probably earlier in the Xmen vs Capcom games, i can't remember, have it where your characters take damage from attacks but some of can be healed if no further damage is done either by blocking or by taking that character out of the fight. Also Two World's poison works as the Poison will remove a portion of the player character's health that won't necessarily kill the person however direct damage will. hakanakumono

I conceded? No, you failed to prove your original statement which was this:

everything that a JRPG has in it has been done before by a western developer except for Anime . smerlus

You bringing up the origins of "scratch damage" was not only a logical fallacy, but it demonstrated that you did not understand how the game worked. It was only after it was explained to you how "scratch damage" worked in the game that you suggested it originated in fighting games, many of which are Japanese. You failed to state which fighting games (up until this post) and how the system actually worked.*At this point, I had decided it was clear that you had no argument and left the discussion. It was clear enough for another user to comment on your posts.

Another point of contention was your "it's still a turn based game comment." This meant that no matter what changes a JRPG employed, you would not recognize the changes. It was impossible to argue with you to begin with, because your position made it logically impossible for you to be proven wrong, because no proof would be recognized.

To put it simply, you were not worth debating with.

*The connections you've provided in this post are vaguely similar, but seem to be individual kills rather than an entire system as it is employed in RoF. They hardly seem like a means of alternate damage dealing (switching off between characters).Regardless, Marvel vs. Capcom is a Japanese game.

Noone cares how the game is labeled and what category it is in really

loosingENDS

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"][QUOTE="Jag85"] Wrong, Ultima IV had a combination of real time and turned based combat.

Oh wait, you seem to forget Ultima Underworld which helped inspire the King's Field series.

And just because Wizradyis more popular in Japan now doesn't mean its a Japanese franchise.

And NO RPG franchise has done more to influence the genre than the Ultima franchise, a western franchise.

And wrong again, you forget games like Adventure and Zork which had far more detailed stories than Japanese games in the 70's.Jag85

Wrong again. Ultima IV is not real-time, but uses timed-turns, much like FF III on the NES. If Ultima IV and FF III were real-time, then that would make the 1982 turn-based strategy game Utopia (which also uses timed turns) a real-time strategy game according to your logic, which as we all know would be completely false. Beyond video games, we'd also have to start calling tounament chess (which also uses timed turns) a real-time strategy board game according to your definition. The fact of the matter is that the first actual real-time action RPGs were Japanese games, like Dragon Slayer, Tower of Druaga, Hydlide, and to an extent Bokosuka Wars.

Many RPGs used first-person perspectives long before Ultima Underworld, both in Japan (i.e. Megami Tensei, Phantasy Star, Star Cruiser, Shining in the Darkness, etc.) and America. What made Ultima Underworld stand out from the crowd was its use of ray-casting graphics, later used in the FPS games Wolfenstein 3D and Doom, but otherwise there wasn't much else to differentiate it from earlier first-person RPGs. Besides, the 1988 Japanese first-person RPG, Star Cruiser, was already using full 3D polygonal graphics long before Ultima Underword, so it didn't have anything particularly new that Japanese RPGs hadn't done before. It's possible that Ultima Underworld may have been one of the influences behind King's Field though, at least in aesthetic terms.

No. The reason Wizardry is a Japanese franchise is because of the fact that nearly all the Wizardry games produced in the past decade have been produced in Japan almost exclusively for a Japanese audience. Despite its American origins, Wizardry is now a Japanese franchise, whether you like it or not.

You act as if Ultima was the only major Western RPG franchise in the early years, when in fact there were other more popular franchises at the time, most notably Dunjonquest and Wizardry. It wasn't until Ultima III that the series started having any influence. Besides, Ultima III is the only Ultima game that had a major influence in Japan, where the series was largely forgotten after Dragon Quest. Wizardry was the one that had a bigger influence in Japan. Ultima certainly had a big influence on the RPG genre, but so did the likes of Dunjonquest, Wizardry, Dragon Slayer, Dragon Quest, Phantasy Star, and Final Fantasy.

And finally, Gun Fight predates Adventure, while the other two I mentioned, Space Invaders and Sheriff, predate Zork, so my point still stands that the first video games with any kind of story in them were indeed Japanese-developed. And you also forgot the other point I made: that Japanese games were the first to use graphical cut scenes, i.e. visual storytelling. While early American adventure games were entirely text-based, the early Japanese games relied on visual storytelling rather than just text. And to some extent, this still might be the case to some extent even today.

Yeah, kind of a dick move of me, but I didn't want to dignify that stuff he was saying with a response. People promptly go back to totally missing the point and treating JRPG as a geographical term rather than a statement of the game's style, in direct contravention of the people that created and used the term. Nice.Makari

The people who created the terms "JRPG" and "WRPG" were internet fanboys, who had no clue about how genres are classified. All other video game genres are classified by gameplay mechanics, so why make an exception for RPGs? There is no clear definitions for JRPG or WRPG (terms that are only used in the West but never in Japan), but there are clear definitions for action RPG, turn-based RPG, tactical RPG, dungeon crawler, etc.

There are no magazines from the 90s or earlier that ever even used the JRPG or WRPG acronyms, but they used terms like "Japanese RPG" or "American RPG" to strictly refer to country of origin (while the term "Western RPG" was certainly never used). Even the so-called equivalent terms "console RPG" and "computer RPG" were never used in the same way that fanboys today use "JRPG" and "WRPG". In fact, gaming magazines in the late 80s and early 90s often used the terms "arcade RPG" or "console RPG" to mainly refer to fast-paced / real-time RPGs, whether action-based like Secret of Mana or semi-real-time like Final Fantasy, while "computer RPG" was mainly used to refer to the more slower-paced turn-based RPGs, like the Wizardry and Ultima series. This was the complete opposite to how fanboys today use the terms "JRPG" and "WRPG".