Untitled

To be fair they were originally called Light RPGs over there. Just like how SRPGs were Simulation RPGs.

Attached: 466909-vandal-hearts-ii-playstation-front-cover.jpg (800x799, 157K)

You call fucking walking simulators "games" too, you dopey fuck. Doesn't make it true.

>OP doesn't know what roleplaying game means

Yes they are

Yes they are

I agree. With few exceptions, JRPGs have the player controlling a third-person character, rather than taking the role of that character themselves.

The term JRPG, I think, is to describe its relationship with the historic use of mechanics inspired by and based on traditional RPGs like D&D, rather than literally being RPGs.

Theres a clear difference between the two, do you consider every game with roleplaying mechanics an RPG?

The bare minimum to a roleplaying game is some sort of character progression, freedom of choice, and that choice leads to consequence in the progressing story.

If your actions don't shape the world it's another genre, likely with RPG elements, but thats it. Most JRPGs couldn't be more linear in their story progression if they tried.

Attached: 0b15d2367332f1e4.jpg (1024x1366, 198K)

When you stop being underage.

JRPGs are the only real role playing games

True but genre categorization in vidya in general is stupid.

Shut up and post more of whoever this is.

>JRPGs have the player controlling a third-person character
Just like the vast majority of WRPGs, then.
Where's the problem?

I love how a long-established and perfectly apt term is suddenly refuted by some pleb on Yea Forums looking for (you)s.

It is for japaneses, especially in games featuring white peoples.
They wish so much to be us that they larp as us in these games.
Did you ever wonder why so many Asian-Whites relationship are displayed in these games?

Can you assign stats in CoD too?

I would argue that yes, Call of duty is an action role playing game when it includes a "loadout" system allowing you to change your ROLE on the battlefield. For that matter, Battlefield is definitely a role-playing game.

Any game that includes a talent system allowing you to specialize your ROLE in a group, whether it's a group of AIs or players, is going to be a role-playing game. Dark Souls and Final Fantasy definitely count.

Only in the west. For example they call metroidvanias "exploration platformers" in Japan, and SCHLMUPS "shooting games." Maybe we can learn a thing or two from them.

...

yes

>actual role-playing
RPGs evolved from Chainmail and are primarily about tactical combat and adventuring. The popular Dragonlance modules even had stock characters to play as rather than creating your own.

Attached: 1530204766269.jpg (637x445, 53K)

Attached: file.png (278x238, 10K)

Finally something we can all agree with.

> Battlefield is definitely a role-playing game.
is this what goes on inside the head of a weaboo?

Attached: 1506321986946.jpg (500x590, 79K)

Good argument, you really got me

What about JRPGs that are role playing games.

Attached: file_56693_growlanser-wayfarer-of-time_001.jpg (480x273, 61K)

You aren't worth argueing with if you think a class based multiplayer shooter can be classified as an RPG

Don't be autistic. You know what I mean -- not a third person camera, but a third person narrative.

In Mass Effect, you explicitly take the role of Shepard. Your choices are Shepard's choices -- and the game tries to give you some ability to make somewhat meaningful choices to the outcome of the game. It tries to balance narrative with allowing you, yourself, to play the role of Shepard. The narrative is first-person.

Meanwhile, Final Fantasy is nothing like that. It is entirely scripted. You might mainly control Cloud, Noctus, Zidane, Tidus, whoever, but it's always from the perspective of watching Zidane's story. There is no attempt to put you in that characters role. There is no role playing. The narrative is first person.

this is a complete bastardization of what "role playing" means. It is quite an autistic interpretation of the term that literally looks at the literal meaning of the word rather than trying to understand what people mean when they say it.

Growlncer has tactical combat and choices that change the story in meaningful ways.
Your MC is also a silent protagonist. You cant customize him but you can make him a hero coward a stud jerk or a fagot as much as you like.

There is no role playing. The narrative is third person.**
Because I'm a fucking faggot that doesn't proofread.

>You have to be able to make the choice of sucking cock or choosing not to suck cock if you want it to be an RPG!

CRPGs aren't either.

Role playing means you play a role, NOT that there's player choice or multiple different out comes. You can role play a fixed role.

it doesn't matter whether they are roleplaying games or not.

>A role-playing game (RPG and sometimes roleplaying game) is a game in which players assume the roles of characters in a fictional setting. Players take responsibility for acting out these roles within a narrative, either through literal acting or through a process of structured decision-making or character development.

RPG mechanics have been added to nearly every other genre. All that is required is a narrative, as long as there are protagonists and antagonists, you can have a sandbox narrative even in the absence of a prescripted "story".

I guess this makes me a fan of JRPGs and a hater of RPGs, then.

They are and always have been. No amount of bitching or crying will change that.

I feel that there's a lot of JRPGs where you're doing turnbased combat, but not any roleplay.

Games (that are still good) like Earthbound and Skies of Arcadia don't really have you playing a role. The Ness you start as in a game Earthbound generally going to be the same at the end of every game you play, plus or minus a few levels. There is a set of best equipment, not a set of best equipment based on your build.

Same thing with Skies of Arcadia. Your endgame characters are generally going to be the same each playthough.

Wrpg fags just can't stop embarrassing themselves

Look, it's just in reference to DnD style statsy shit in a fantasy setting.
In the same way progression systems are called "RPG mechanics"

From this perspective, are games like The Witcher or Deus Ex RPGs? On the one hand yes, we are given quite a bit of freedom with regards to character class and choice that we essentially play those roles, but unlike Mass Effect the characters we play as in those games are not blank slates. We have choices in their dialogue, but those choices are also predicated on what those characters would do based off their own personality. Parts of those games are also dedicated to exploring the story more intimately from their perspective, with regards to stories and incidents of their respective past that we do not have a choice in. Not too dissimilar from a JRPG (or more specifically, a Final Fantasy title)

I said I'm not argueing with a retard, can't you read

I agree with this, but the typical JRPG doesn't have you playing any sort of role -- you're watching scripted characters. It's like watching a movie except you have to interact with it to make the story progress.
Dark Souls is, arguably, an RPG. Final Fantasy is not.

>In Mass Effect, you explicitly take the role of Shepard. Your choices are Shepard's choices -- and the game tries to give you some ability to make somewhat meaningful choices to the outcome of the game.
So, Fate/Stay Night is a roleplaying game because you can get a different ending or a different route depending on which dialogue choice you tick, like Mass Effect games or The Witcher?
>Meanwhile, Final Fantasy is nothing like that.
Good thing there's more to JRPGs than Final Fantasy.
How come you don't complain about, say, Gothic games being entirely on rails? Even FFVI as shit as it is gives you more meaningful choices than anything in G1 or G2, yet I never see you people complaining about that.

D:OS2 is acclaimed as a masterpiece of roleplaying, yet none of the "options" you choose have any impact on the story until a speech choice in the very last battle that leads to a series of slightly different ending cutscenes, which have nothing to do with what you did up to there, and the game is also linear as shit with a pathetic battle system too, yet it's hailed as the second coming of christ.

On other matters, how does any of the actual gameplay of Mass Effect classify the game as an RPG when it's a mediocre sci-fi TPS like Syphon Filter? Mass Effect plays nothing like an RPG either, you could play a Battlefield game and get the same exact experience (actually even better when it comes to shooting), yet Battlefield isn't an RPG but Mass Effect is, despite sharing almost the same exact systems, complete with loadouts, class names and EXP.

Attached: 1557011497262.png (767x847, 455K)

I disagree strongly about having choices leading to consequence in the story for RPG video games.

As a tabletop element it works because you're actively engaging with a gamemaster and the story develops from that.
With a videogame though, the story is already written, and the only way to give the player the illusion that they're choices effected the story is by creating branching plotlines for them to select- which ultimately just leads to them choosing ALL the paths in multiple playthroughs because they know they're missing out on content otherwise, thus making the whole point of having those choices useless.

Flavor text options give the player more opportunity for expression within the game because they make the choice based on their whim, and not on which ending they want to unlock this time.

I'd say most of the SMT games are RPGs, even by the standards of the people in this thread. You have a choice on the type of character build you want to make (some may be outright better than others dependent on the game but the choice is there) and in most games the story progression is 100% made up of the choices you make, drastically changing things such as route, bosses, allies, and ending.
Other one off the top of my head is the first Tactics Ogre (cant speak for the other ones) where even though we have more of a defined character, we still have a ton of freedom when it comes to individual character class in addition to the makeup of the army, and while there are specific choices that have more route impact than others, those choices are present.

>What is a "class"?
It's what defines your role in a group
>Where does that term come from?
Role playing games
>What is Battlefield?
A military themed role playing shooter

Those games are played where you take the role of the main character, even if they don't give as much freedom of choice. So yes, I'd say they are RPGs. They're not as hardcore RPG as, say, Oblivion, but Witcher and Deus Ex have mechanics that emphasize a first-person narrative.
This is completely different than Final Fantasy, which is more akin to an omniscient narrative.

I haven't played Fate/Stay Night, but a few choices that let you pick a dialog wouldn't make it an RPG. I think the defining characteristic is like I said above -- do the game's overall mechanics emphasize a first person narrative or third person?

Mass Effect is just an easy example, I think. I purposefully chose something that wasn't as open-ended as Oblivion, where it's too obvious, but things that are very on-rails make it harder to point out the RPG qualities as it becomes, arguably, more about how the game feels than demonstrable mechanics -- where feels is told by how the game interacts with the narrative. Divinity qualifies as an RPG because it's being told from a first-person narrative.

Danganronpa, while being a visual novel, is RPG. Persona is more RPG-y than Final Fantasy. Final Fantasy, Fire Emblem, Xenoblade, these are not RPGs.

Good thread.

>Witcher and Deus Ex are first-person narratives
>Final Fantasy is an omniscient narrative
>Final Fantasy is a first-person narrative

Okay, so which is it? Further, now that you're using these terms in this manner, how do you define these exactly?
First person I would assume means that we're viewing the world specifically from that character's perspective, but what exactly do you mean by omniscient perspective?

>This is completely different than Final Fantasy, which is more akin to an omniscient narrative.
Oh, so now it's "omniscient" narrative but in your previous post it was first person narrative?
What does any of this nonsensical tripe have to do with RPGs either way?
>I haven't played Fate/Stay Night, but a few choices that let you pick a dialog wouldn't make it an RPG.
And yet you say Dangit Ronpaul is an RPG despite being exactly that.
>things that are very on-rails make it harder to point out the RPG qualities as it becomes, arguably, more about how the game feels than demonstrable mechanics
So Wizardry or things like the early Ultima games aren't RPGs now, let alone 90% of the western RPG production.
>Divinity qualifies as an RPG because it's being told from a first-person narrative.
Actually, the game is being told from the Narrator's perspective, so even beyond this absurd statement, you keep contradicting yourself.
>Persona is more RPG-y than Final Fantasy
By being exactly like Final Fantasy but with a shallow dating sim?

Attached: 1556641297040.jpg (600x1147, 67K)

based

see

Also dropping out of this convo because of fucking autism and boring.

She goes by LVPLASTIC