Talk:Role-playing video game/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

Why so much of a focus of WRPG vs. JRPG

Both types of RPGS have a problem, usually western RPGS are bland and have the same "LOTR" like setup and mashing real time events. JRPG also have a problem usually weak storylines with stereotypical characters and less roaming.

THIS SHOULDNT BE A DEBATE FORUM OVER WHICH IS BETTER!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thanatos465 (talk • contribs) 04:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Correct on that last point, but the main article should note the comparison and contrast as other reliable sources do and we're just trying to keep things balanced because it can be is a controversial issue.陣内Jinnai 17:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Videogame magazines are not reliable sources for information on game mechanics and elements. Videogame magazines are notorious for not complying with journalism ethics. Every single one of those so-called "reliable sources" is an editorial written by a game reviewer who makes unsupported statements. The fact is even a little bit of research would prove that all of the elements common to Japanese produced computer RPGs are also common to "Western" (American) produced ones. Linear and non-linear narratives (example: Wizardry, Ultima, and several Baldur's Gate titles all have linear narratives), religious references (again, Ultima series has lots of references, as do many of the D&D titles), and games with "cute art" (example: World of Warcraft) are made by developers irregardless of their country of origin. The section should be removed because although it quotes sources, those sources are unreliable and a little bit of fact checking proves the "cultural differences" are merely a perception stemming from ignorance.--67.11.170.39 (talk) 09:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
And if you need visual proof that game reviewers are NOT reliable sources then you should check out an article from a few months back about the number of bribes they receive and willingly accept http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2010/09/scared-to-open-the-package-adventures-in-game-writer-bribery.ars --67.11.170.39 (talk) 14:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Looks like particular cases that should be brought up at WT:VG陣内Jinnai 17:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Distinct sub-genres

Just asking here, an edit I made was reverted. The text said "The role-playing genre eventually diverged into two distinct sub-genres, Japanese role-playing games and Western role-playing games, due to cultural differences." I removed it because it is unsourced and untrue. While there are some differences, there are no "distinct sub-genres", or even indistinct ones. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 19:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

sub-genre might be the wrong word. Classification might be better, but there is evidence that the two are disict. The word might not be the correct usage. The statement is supported by the remainder of the section. It's a summarizing statement and thus doesn't need to be sourced since sources exist elsewhere in the article that support the claim.陣内Jinnai 19:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't think sub-genre is exactly it. "Style", maybe. But any implication that JRPG vs. WRPG is a major dichotomy that takes any precedence over other differentiators should be avoided. And for the record, the only time in my entire life I have encountered the term WRPG is in this article, which does not make me think well of the term's level of cultural currency. —chaos5023 (talk) 20:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)::At the time I didn't realize there is a convo at WT:VG on this topic, so I'll hold off on any editing in that direction. My main feeling was that "distinct sub-genre" is misleading, almost like you'd buy a game and there'd be a sticker saying "JRPG" or "WRPG" with no middle-ground.▫ JohnnyMrNinja 20:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
WRPG is far lest used by the media, but it crops up when comparing the two types and in some academic sources.陣内Jinnai 21:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
"Style" might be better. "Classification" still sounds a little too stiff. SharkD  Talk  02:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

This should be brain numbingly obvious to anyone who has played a single example of both genres, and understands the meaning of the word genre, but JRPGs and WRPGs, despite names, are not styles, or cultural designations (Sonic Chronicles is a JRPG made by BioWare, for example): they are quite simply separate GENRES entirely, or at least incredibly distinct sub-genres if you take the overall RPG genre to mean a game with "Level Ups", though THAT in turn would contradict what we traditionally mean by an RPG. At any rate, they belong on separate pages. Every single page I've seen on videogame RPGs say far has been, politely, a fucking mess. Look at this shit, for example. Not only do we arbitrarily force together THREE distinct histories that have no relation to each other onto one page, we then randomly give them the titles "Computer RPGS" and Console RPGs" when we mean to say WRPGs and JRPGs, even though the first history includes games that are on consoles (eg. The Elder Scrolls) and the second includes games that are on PCs (Knights of Xentar), AND we've already said on this page that "Computer RPGS" can refer to games from BOTH genres. You'd have to be a savant to decipher this stuff! Solution: Separate pages for JRPGs and WRPGs, and their respective histories/chronologies. Sam250 (talk) 12:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest going to WT:VG#cultural differences in RPVGs where there is an ongoing discussion.陣内Jinnai 15:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Cultural differences

There are two problems with this section. The first is it only describes JRPGs, while no description of WRPGs is given. The other is that it makes claims that JRPGs are relatively unknown and unpopular in the west. This couldn't be further from the truth, Final Fantasy, Chrono Trigger/Cross, Phantasy Star, Pokemon, Shining Force and Dragon Quest along with many others have been hugely successful in the west. I am aware that they are not as popular as they were in the 90s, but they still are well liked and the most expensive RPGs have been developed in Japan. DreamsDreams (talk) 22:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)DreamsDreams

I restored some content regarding WRPGs that got deleted by an anon not too long ago. SharkD  Talk  22:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Sales data needs better verification in Popularity section and elsewhere

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_role-playing_video_games#Popularity

I was going to just delete the citations but I'll instead give opportunity to fix them, as there are better sources out there for sales data on major titles like Final Fantasy and Pokemon games.

As an example of something I would be deleting:

The best-selling RPG series worldwide is Pokémon, which has sold over 200 million units as of May 2010.[236][237][238]

The three sources given are Kotaku, a broken IGN link, and a Nintendo press release.

Kotaku is not a reliable source for sales data. For example, the Kotaku article in question does not cite any source for where that sales data came from and how it was decided it was the best selling RPG series.

The Nintendo source should be reliable BUT it does not say anywhere in the press release that it is the most popular selling rpg series worldwide.

The reliability of VGCharts is also in question so any sources derived from VGCharts can't be deemed reliable.

The Magic Box is also cited as a source for sales data but looking at their website they do not appear to state where they are receiving their data from. http://www.the-magicbox.com/ --Therpgfanatic (talk) 17:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Here's a link to the IGN article, but I'm not sure whether it's actually relevant. SharkD  Talk  22:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I checked again and in the third section the article says: "Off the top of my head I'm pretty sure it has [won]: ... Best selling RPG of all time: Pokemon Red/Blue ... Best selling RPG franchise of all time." Not a very solid source, however. SharkD  Talk  13:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:DRN thread

For any involved editors who haven't been notified yet, there is a discussion about this article on Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. The thread name is "History of role-playing video games". Thanks. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 23:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, we seem to be continuing on from here. Forgot to mention that. SharkD  Talk  00:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Split/merger

We're discussing a split of History of role-playing video games that may affect this article. In order to proceed with the split, some content will need to be moved here making this article a bit larger. See [1]. SharkD  Talk  08:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Amateur vs. independent?

Regarding these edits: [2][3]. I would hardly call RPG Maker games and the like "independent" by the usual industry meaning of the term (i.e. small developers, but professional and for-profit efforts). I've yet to become aware of any that have received notable press coverage or achieved anything noteworthy in terms of sales. I would instead call them "amateur" efforts, as most are created by fans and hobbyists for little if any charge, and few are able to make a living out of it. Thoughts? SharkD  Talk  14:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Not that I wouldn't call the game "ametuerish", but Super Columbine Massacre RPG! does meet your criteria for "notable press coverage".陣内Jinnai 03:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
It's notoriety can be attributed to controversy, not to any level of professionalism. SharkD  Talk  14:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Narrative

An anon objected to the following (bolded) remark in the article: "Western RPGs tend to focus more on open-ended, non-linear gameplay, with less emphasis given to narrative, dialogue, and plot development; and are also more likely to allow one to create and customize characters from scratch." (Loguidice & Barton 2009, p. 79) He provides BioWare as an example of WRPGs with story/narrative. While I agree BioWare's RPGs are good examples, they do not by themselves represent a trend. I think as a compromise it would be OK to mention BioWare in that context though. Comments? Here's a recent article that discusses narrative/story in BioWare/Obsidian titles. SharkD  Talk  22:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Bioware is not the only one.....Obsidian, Lionhead, and CD Projeckt are other key examples, so are the Deus Ex games. In fact MORE emphasis is given to dialogue because most WRPGs use dialogue trees in which what the player chooses to say affects the outcome of the plot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.53.135.175 (talk) 00:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
RPGs with substantial plot diversion are nearly as absent in the West as they are in the Japan, and the volume of text and/or voice acting in JRPGs is just a lot larger, typically. (Or, at least this was true at one point in the past.) I think JRPGs are able to have more narrative in them simply because they are linear, but that they are one-size-fits-all narratives. On the other hand, a small handful of WRPGs allow you to role-play within the narrative by selecting dialog responses or otherwise directing the game's outcome.
You're also confusing narrative with role-playing: being able to choose the direction the plot takes counts as role-playing, and is secondary. A narrative can exist with or without players choosing its outcome. In fact, a non-linear narrative requires substantially more text [ed. only a small portion of which the player will experience at any one time], as you now need to consider and write for every outcome, and developers are limited by a budget.
Lastly, you're forgetting the dozens of WRPGs (especially in the early days) that feature little or no plot whatsoever, and are just filled with combat, after combat, after combat.
Overall, I think JRPGs feature lots more narrative than their Western counterparts. (Though maybe this is starting to change.) And, for one reason or another some players may not find them as memorable and thus discount them when favoring the recent Microsoft consoles. SharkD  Talk  08:45, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Wrong, Ultima and Wasteland, as well as many other WRPGs were narrative heavy. Dozens of JRPGs as well are filled with noting but combat as well with very little story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Texasgoldrush (talk • contribs) 05:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Look at the Ultima games, Richard Garriot created a fleshed out story filled world even before the first JRPG was made. In fact, the Ultima series was even deeper than almost any JRPGs in that time period when it comes to storytelling. Compare Ultima VII to say Final Fantasy IV...which game has the deeper story and narrative? Ultima VII far more. Nevermind the fact that the Ultima series narrative flows throughout the installments. The dialogue even in the early days was far more fleshed out in WRPGs. Don't forget the often overlooked Gold Box games. Its around 1993 and 1994 when JRPGs were able to catch up and match WRPGs in narrative depth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Texasgoldrush (talk • contribs) 05:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Please, if you can't find sources to back up what you're saying, stop changing the article! I think the theme is pretty consistent across our sources that Western RPGs tend to focus more on combat (action or turn-based) rules and Japanese more on highly-involved (and linear) storytelling. Yes, there are going to be a few exceptions. SharkD  Talk  12:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I raised this issue on the dispute noticeboard, here. I'm not sure if we're supposed to continue discussing over there or stay here. SharkD  Talk  13:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Wait a minute. Unless I am missing something here, Texasgoldrush has made two attempts to change the article with a month in between his edits. That is not an edit war. Going to dispute resolution seems a bit premature. You never even tried to communicate with him directly about your issues; it looks like the first post to his talk page was your notice of the dispute process. Also, I think he has a point. Barton points out a cultural difference that is valid, but to represent it in terms of narrative and dialogue is not a good idea. Many Western RPGs have a strong central narrative and they certainly often have a great deal of well-written dialogue. That has nothing to do with how open-ended they are. The difference is more in linearity. Western RPGs let you do a lot of side quests and take a lot of detours while allowing the player to ignore the main plot for hours at a time. JRPGs generally keep the player focused on the plot almost exclusively and have few side quests, and most of those right before the end of the game. That is the difference. Baldur's Gate, KOTOR, the Elder Scrolls games, Torment, the Ultima series, etc. all have a strong narrative arc and interesting dialogue, so presenting the differences using those descriptors creates an incorrect analysis. Indrian (talk) 16:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
This wasn't specifically aimed at Texasgoldrush. An anon has been editing the article as well. That said, I don't think the focus in Western RPGs is so much on narrative and a single, coherent story to the exclusivity of other things as it is in Japanese RPGs. Western RPGs add other things like decent combat systems and exploration into the mix. I also think the number of combat-centric hack-and-slash RPGs with minimal plot and story is far greater in the West. I.e. story is often secondary, and the focus is more on "narrative as told by the player" as opposed to "narrative as told by the writer". And it's not just Barton, we have: "In recent years, these trends have in turn been adopted by Western RPGs, which have begun moving more towards tightly-structured narratives (along with dialogue tree systems), in addition to moving away from "numbers and rules" in favour of streamlined combat systems similar to action games[102][130]", "As a result, Japanese console RPGs differentiated themselves with a stronger focus on scripted narratives and character drama,[204] alongside streamlined gameplay[130]", and "JRPGs' tightly orchestrated, linear narratives emphasize intricate plots and development of a single character within the story[392]". Will check for more here in a bit. SharkD  Talk  17:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
You get no argument from me when it comes to focus versus non-linear, but just because Western RPGs offer more diversion does not mean they do not also focus on plot, dialogue, and character as well. That is why the single sentence that essentially states that Japanese RPGs favor narrative and dialogue and Western RPGs don't is just silly. That is the only sentence I object to in the entire section, and changing it does not make anything else in that section or anything else you have argued above any less true. Indrian (talk) 18:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
The statement is not that narrative is non-existent - just that the emphasis placed upon it is less. SharkD  Talk  19:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Like SharkD said, the sentence is saying less emphasis on story, not non-existent story. It simply means JRPGs are more likely to be linear and favour story over gameplay, whereas WRPGs are more likely to be non-linear and favour gameplay over story (regardless of how well developed the plot or gameplay mechanics are). This is the general picture presented by many of the sources used in this article, but that doesn't mean there aren't exceptions. Just as there are many WRPGs that are linear or story-centric, there are also many JRPGs that are non-linear or gameplay-centric. Nevertheless, we have to go with what the sources suggest, as Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. If Texasgoldrush or the anonymous editor(s) wish to add their own points of view, I would recommend they start looking for some sources to support their view points. Here are a few good places to find reliable video game sources online: WP:VG/RS, Google RS, Google Books, and Google Scholar. Jagged 85 (talk) 20:07, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Wrong, story is more than just a linear plot. JRPGs do have a stronger and more structured linear plot, however, to say that WRPGs put less emphasis on storytelling is WRONG. It is done in a more non linear format in where side quests are more emphasized. In fact, Fallout has deep story telling, however, instead of railroading you into the plot, you uncover the story as you explore. Also, the idea that JRPGs put more emphasis on dialogue is ludicrious. Never mind the fact that WRPGs have dialogue more involved in its GAMEPLAY in which what your character says can change the outcome of the game. WRPGs put far more emphasis on dialogue than JRPGs do. Look at Planescape Torment and then compare it to a JRPG. Its not even close. Sources can be incorrect as well, ever consider that. I am removing the word "dialogue" from the article suggesting that JRPGs put more emphasis in that area because its simply not true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Texasgoldrush (talk • contribs) 06:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
The article you used as a source makes no mention of JRPGs, so it cannot be used as the basis for comparison. SharkD  Talk  04:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
And just to add my own personal opinion, I don't really agree with the whole Japanese/Western categorization of RPGs to begin with, as both Japanese and Western RPGs are far too diverse and overlapping to be considered separate genres, not to mention there are far too many exceptions on both sides that don't fit the usual generalizations. Nevertheless, we have to stick with what the media/industry/academic sources say, regardless of whether we agree or disagree with them. Jagged 85 (talk) 20:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
As I've mentioned before many a time, I agree with SharkD.
EDIT: This is not a commentary about which is "better". Both types of game have their own strengths and weaknesses. There is no "better" version.陣内Jinnai 03:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Further, I think Texasgoldrush *is* the anon, which would make this the seventh or eight time he's edited the article. SharkD  Talk  04:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments About the Controversy Section

I noticed from other comments that this section has been edited and restored before so I thought I'd just give suggestions rather than going ahead and fixing it myself.

In the first paragraph of "Controversy" section it overuses quotation marks too much. I understand that sometimes it is used to imitate an outside voice to call attention to a word colloquially or informally, but it shouldn't be used so much in an encyclopedia. Quotes usually are whole sentences or sentence-fragments that are exactly reproduced from a specific source.

Another thing is that the article is way too long for what it says. It seems to reiterate the same thing multiple times and things that were already said in the 'Cultural differences' section.

The general thesis of the section seems to be a subtle defense of Japanese RPGs. The westerners come off as judgmental and JRPGs as woefully misunderstood. It has a few criticisms of JRPGs and then defenses against them. There are no defenses for criticisms of western rpgs. Both types of games have a large fan-base despite criticisms. I suggest having a quick paragraph stating the controversy including flaws of Western RPGs and flaws of Japanese ones, then have a couple of quotes by video game authorities (Greg Zeschuk, Shinji Mikami or whomever) talking about specific examples and then done.

Also I suggest moving the paragraph starting with the lines, "Finally, the largely secular nature of Japanese culture results in heavy usage of themes..." from the "Cultural differences" section to the "Controversy" section because it is describing a controversy.

Many thanks 174.29.171.53 (talk) 06:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree the "quoting part of a" sentence and then "another part of a sentence" in a single "line of the article" is a bit annoying. Not sure if the religion stuff should be moved. Lastly, we're running short of sources, so it's a bit hard to tailor the format of the section to how we want it. Or, at least, it would require a fresh set of eyes since I'm kind of burnt out on this article. SharkD  Talk  13:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree their could be better balance, but as SharkD said, we're running low on sources that can be criticial and defend for WRPGs.陣内Jinnai 03:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the section as a whole is overwrought. The two kinds of RPGs both have significant role-playing aspects to them, and both are obviously descended from early CRPGs. One style is predominantly gamist and delivers a professionally crafted dramatic experience instead of offering any narrativist play: a step-by-step guided tour of a static, polished, richly-developed story with strong characters and strong battle/leveling mechanics. The other is predominantly simulationist and with partial narrativism: it focuses more on freedom and flexibility, involving more player imagination and decision-making to round out the characters and story, and often the battle and leveling mechanics are less dominant in the gameplay. Fans of either or both have various opinions on which are better or purer or more RPGish or whatever, and others think video games can't possibly be RPGs at all since they can't offer predominantly narrativist play. If there are a handful of legitimate sources that can succinctly cover this, in as few words, then that should be all there is to say about Eastern vs. Western or the controversy. If not, then I think it all needs to be removed entirely as not encyclopedic and as unnecessary confusion and editorializing that harms the article. 74.200.46.3 (talk) 18:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

CRPG

Do I really need to go to acronymfinder.com to find out what CRPG means? This article failed to let me know the meaning of this acronym (the C part), while using it multiple times. Atommalac (talk) 12:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I could have sworn that it was in there at some point. I've expanded the acronmym the first time its used in the article. Thanks for pointing it out Atommalac.Caidh (talk) 13:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

PC action RPGs

Quote: "In the past, the reverse was often true: real-time action role-playing games were far more common among Japanese console RPGs than Western computer RPGs up until the late 1990s, due to gamepads usually being better suited to real-time action than the keyboard and mouse.[53]" I think the mouse is what made ARPGs feasible on the PC; it was the keyboard alone that was a barrier. And for certain action genres (i.e. first person shooters) the mouse is even better than a joystick. My 2 cents. SharkD  Talk  14:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The citation doesn't appear to support the quote and I smell original research. It's worth pointing out however that I'm in complete agreement with the first half of that quote. I can't think of a single early ARPG that came out of the West, but I can think of a handful from Japan. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 15:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)0
Some early TES games.陣内Jinnai 20:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Yeah that's early for PC ARPGs, but Arena came out a full decade after Dragon Slayer (which incidentally was released for computers as there were no major consoles in Japan). ButOnMethItIs (talk) 21:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Quest for Glory series. It's a quasi-action/rpg and one of the first computer games sporting more than 4 colors.陣内Jinnai 23:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Not sure which citation you were looking at, but the Barton citation does support what's written in the article. To clear any doubts, I've quoted what the source stated with the citation, which matches what the article is stating regarding the controls. While it's true that the keyboard-mouse combo is widely used for first-person shooters, the FPS genre itself was not popularized until Doom came along, just before action RPGs started taking off on PCs (especially with the arrival of Diablo). Up until the mid-90s, the keyboard & mouse were often not seen as ideal controls for an action game like a gamepad was. Jagged 85 (talk) 23:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
I still think that the change can be attributed to mice becoming ubiquitous on PCs. I.e. once developers could be confident that PCs all had mice, they could start developing for and targeting that interface. SharkD  Talk  02:11, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Here is a site that lists Western action RPGs dating back to home computing's early days, but does also mention that they appeared more often on consoles than computers due to the computer crowd being elitist. SharkD  Talk  03:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

East vs. West split

The article says the split occurred in the "2000s", but this article says it occurred in the 1990s. Which is correct? SharkD  Talk  01:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

What the Joystiq article above is saying is that the console vs computer divide happened in the 90s, but later became a JRPG vs WRPG divide in the 2000s. It's not quite the same as the current split, which is more cultural, whereas the previous 90s split was a more platform-based division. Jagged 85 (talk) 00:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't see that in the article. He says that whatever differences there are, they were at their height during the 1990s. Then he lists two games from 1993 to serve as counter-examples. There's no discussion of heightened cultural differences during the 2000s versus the 1990s as far as I can tell. SharkD  Talk  23:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
From the moment Yuji Hori and Koichi Nakamura decided to translate the Ultima and Wizardry games that they loved into something simpler and more accessible for the Famicom demographic, there has been a divide in the styles of the Eastern and Western RPG. It's not really something that has shifted primarily in the 1990s or 2000s or now. In general, Japanese RPGs are more character/story based and Western RPGs are more exploration/mechanics-based. Obviously many RPGs cross this line on both sides, as no absolute or stereotype ever applies 100%, but really hyping an East-West split is really kinda silly. Its just two evolutionary paths, one born out of translating D&D mechanics to gaming and the other born out of presenting this style of gameplay to a younger/more mainstream audience. That is more of the key paradigm shift than the cultural mores of either side, though of course one's culture is always going to come into play in the games one makes too. Indrian (talk) 00:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Maybe "cultural differences" is the wrong title for that section, since culture is only one of the several ingredients that differentiate the two genres. Not sure what we can rename it to though, as everything else I can think of sounds worse. SharkD  Talk  02:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I mean there certainly are differences and that should be addressed, but I am not sure "cultural differences" is the best way to present it either. I mean some of it is culture. Graphically, the Western preference for strict realism and the Eastern preference for stylized characters has been well documented across multiple genres, for example. But the core gameplay difference in RPGs is really more about the divide between making games for the 6-14 crowd and making games for the 14-24 crowd. The ages don't break down that way anymore, of course, but that is why the divide happened in the first place. In the 1980s, high school and college students played D&D, and games like Ultima and Wizardry were representing that for the microcomputer crowd, which was older than the console crowd. In Japan, younger kids played the Famicom, so Dragon Quest and Final Fantasy evolved simpler mechanics to reach that crowd. I don't think that was a cultural choice as much as a demographic choice. Indrian (talk) 03:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, there are multiple factors to take into accunt, including platform, culture, developer, target audience, current trends, etc. For example, there's the fact that there exist Japanese computer RPGs (which have a lot in common with Western computer RPGs) and Western console RPGs (which have a lot in common with Japanese console RPGs). In addition, different developers have their own different styles even within the same region (whether it's BioWare vs Bethesda in North America or Square Enix vs Atlus in Japan). Also, both regions have had changing trends over the years, with genres slowly changing to reflect that. For example, as the Famicom kids starting growing up and as Japanese RPGs started getting more female audiences, the trends in Square and Enix games slowly changed to reflect that, and likewise, as Western RPGs started moving to consoles and attracting more mainstream audiences, the trends in BioWare and Bethesda games slowly changed to reflect that. The article currently seems to be more focused on cultural differences, but deals very little with the other differences, including platforms, developers, demographics, etc. I've tried bringing in those other factors into the article, though a lot of it is still related to culture, since that's what the gaming media seems to be more focused on these days. Jagged 85 (talk) 14:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
That's not exactly I was talking about. What I meant is that the start of the article mentions how the terminology has changed from a platform distinction in the 90s to a cultural distinction in the 2000s. Back in the 90s, it was more commonly termed as console vs computer, but as the platform differences started to blur, it was replaced with JRPG vs WRPG. Jagged 85 (talk) 14:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
I see what you mean now. But I still think you are overstating things. Things didn't suddenly change from a clean divide of console vs. computer to a clean divide of Western vs. Japanese. SharkD  Talk  20:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
It may be overstated a tad, but I think I see the point. From the NES to the PS2, the Japanese were dominant in the console field with the exception of a few specific areas like sports games, so the cultural mores of Japan, whether based on actual cultural differences or other factors like target age group, were essentially the only game in town on consoles. You had a few exceptions with games like Tomb Raider and Goldeneye, but these were outliers. This was because top-line American developers shifted to microcomputers after the crash of the video game industry in the 82-84 period and chose not to jump on the NES bandwagon right away for a variety of reasons, causing them to largely miss out on that market and subsequent console generations. The xBox managed to start luring the top PC developers like Bioware, Bethesda, Epic, and Valve over to the console side, which brought some of that PC aesthetic into the console scene in a major way. The top console developers in Japan were not as adept at satisfying the Western taste in games as these PC developers and lagged technologically as well in terms of tools and pipelines, so their influence began to fade. This was compounded by the fact that the hardcore audience in Japan had shifted to the PSP due to certain cultural changes in the country relating to free time and commuting patterns favoring handheld gaming to console gaming, but the machine was dead in the United States and Europe, so much of Japan's AAA effort was going into a platform the West simply did not care about. This decline in Japanese console influence was picked up by the specialist press quite strongly, leading to a paradigm shift in referring to Western and Eastern developers being locked in a struggle for cultural dominance and causing all differences between the games coming from these two regions to be evaluated in a cultural light first and foremost. Therefore, while in past decades the press was content to look at platform differences or demographic differences or other more apt and nuanced reasons for divergent game design, they have now moved to a rather simplistic East vs. West stance on everything. It may be kind of silly, but its how the debate is playing out today whether it is valid or not. Indrian (talk) 23:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Opening sentence contains disputable opinion and undefined terms

"Role-playing video games (commonly referred to as role-playing games or RPGs) are a video game genre where the player controls a character, and lives as this character when immersed in a fictional world."

Useless, especially for an opening sentence. "Lives as this character?" And I submit that "immersed" is hot-button word.

Not a bad article, but that sentence needs a rewrite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.90.229.199 (talk) 19:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I will try and come up with something better. SharkD  Talk  23:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
OK. Here's a possible definition via Rowan Kaiser at Gamasutra: Quote: "A role-playing game involves a character or small group of characters presented with obstacles. Overcoming those obstacles improves the character(s) ability to overcome future obstacles, and published random numbers are used to determine success or failure of various actions." I.e. a character grows in a measurable way. I think it's a good definition. However, the point of the article is that he's found an example (Mass Effect) which he doesn't feel fits this definition.
Here's another definition, this time via Casey Hudson of BioWare: Quote: "1. Story plays a central role, and the player's involvement as the character can change the outcome of that story. 2. Combat is more considered than a pure action game and incorporates tactical concepts. 3. The player's character grows over the course of the game developing skills, abilities, etc."
Andrew Doull of Gamasutra simply says: "What defines a computer RPG is progression..." and goes on to say, "and at the same time, there is nothing more greatly abused in RPG design."
Lars Doucet of Gamasutra tries to define RPGs as merely a set of shared mechanics, but goes on to say, "Still, I'll concede the point that a central focus on character growth is about as close [to a definition] as it gets.". SharkD  Talk  01:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

"Controversy"? More like Battlefield

The "Controversy" section, splendidly sourced as it is, is just a coatrack for a highly opinionated, completely pointless back and forth. It should be moved to the talk page wholesale, to preserve sources and maybe to integrate some of the content into a completely rewritten section reporting on –as opposed to the current rehashing– the differences in taste and opinion. --87.79.106.130 (talk) 23:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Controversy section is not neutral

Upon reading the criticisms against JRPGs and WRPGs, the overall balance appears in favor of the former. While the WRPG section is as mentioned about criticisms, the JRPG section is more of a wide debate with every criticism followed by a defense. Granted the reason for this could be argued that currently JRPGs are the ones being criticized more, thus needing defense that is easily referenced yet this hinders the neutrality of the article. Either add defenses for WRPGs or as the sections are labeled as "criticisms", trim down the unbalanced amount of immediate defenses. Considering this debate appears to be a "hot topic" for some, I am strongly suggesting this for the sake of balance. Further more I've noticed this has been brought up here in the past without change or discussion. Thank you.

EDIT: Also I'd like to mention that the placement of a number of counter points are not in response to previous EG developer response to other developer, but rather just a general defense that would work if the section were a debate section, which it is not. Thank you. Stabby Joe (talk) 09:55, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Checking back in with this article, little improvement has been made, yet small controversial edits and revisions are still being made. I'd suggest merging the two sub-sub sections into a general critism section. I would like more opinions. In the mean time I'll try and create further balance.
EDIT: Personally however I would like to point out that the key points are already mentioned and worded much better and balanced in the proceeding section. The more I look into it, I am seeing less of a need for a criticism-centric section, period.Stabby Joe (talk) 18:30, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Article too big (again)

Sigh. The article is once again near 150KB, and is taking a long time to load. Is there a way we can split the article further into smaller articles/topics? SharkD  Talk  00:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The best candidate to me looks like the Popularity and notable developers section. —Torchiest talkedits 02:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Considering the grindhouse that Criticism section has become, my vote is to just split the article into two, one about jRPGs and one about wRPGs. Each with their own history, gameplay, examples and (if it's so necessary) criticism sections. 213.216.70.34 (talk) 11:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Status changes

"Characteristics" section should have a subsection for status changes (eg. poison, sleep, etc.), as they apply to nearly every RPG game I can think of.    DKqwerty    05:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Images?

Erm... where have all of them gone? There's no way in Ivalice the reader can get a decent picture of what an RPG is from this. I'd think we should have screenshots to illustrate a typical overworld map, a typical turn-based battle, an action-RPG battle, and a tactical RPG battle, at least. Keep in mind not all of these would have to be non-free; I'm sure some RPG Maker games would work - but it would help to include at least a couple of the well-known and successful RPG franchises (Final Fantasy, Pokémon, Dragon Quest for JRPGs, Fallout, Mass Effect for WRPGs). Tezero (talk) 15:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

" Another oft-cited difference is the prominence or absence of kawaisa, or "cuteness", in Japanese culture, and different approaches with respect to character aesthetics.[1] Western RPGs tend to maintain a serious and gritty tone, with predominantly male protagonists exhibiting overtly masculine physical features and mannerisms. JRPG protagonsists tend to be designed with an emphasis on aesthetic beauty, and even male characters are often shōnen or androgynous or bishōnen in appearance. JRPGs often have cute (and even comic-relief type) characters or animals, juxtaposed (or clashing) with more mature themes and situations; and many modern JRPGs feature characters designed in the same style as those in anime.[2] The stylistic differences are often due to differing target audiences: Western RPGs are usually geared primarily towards teenage to adult males, whereas Japanese RPGs are usually intended for a much larger demographic,[3] including female audiences,[4] who, for example, accounted for nearly a third of Final Fantasy XIII's fanbase.[5] "


JRPGs have Shonen Jump-like Shonen male characters if not bishonen...

Young boys would fit in JRPG... Ni no Kuni?

Definition

"a video game genre where the player controls the actions of a protagonist immersed in a fictional world" can be applied to almost any videogame, from PacMan to Dear Esther. If the keyword was supposed to be "immersed" then it is a poor pick, because "immersion" is a highly subjective factor. 213.216.70.34 (talk) 13:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Whoever wrote this article has no idea what an RPG is to begin with. They rely too heavily on a source by Ernest Adams and Andrew Rollings which is mostly incorrect. The authors confuse "gameplay" elements (which is what defines genre) with "features", "settings" and so on, yet they are used here as a "source". I'd rewrite the article myself, but I know Wikipedia long enough to know that it will likely end up in an Edit fight, with people reverting any changes they don't personally agree with.
The solution would be to heavily support the true version of what is an RPG with several alternate (and obviously reliable) sources but, unfortunately, most of the people who were present in the birth of the genre, and were essential sources, are now all dead, and left very little written about it.
Since original research isn't acceptable, we have to live with Wikipedia articles filled with misinformation like this, fed by videogame reviewers and other media who never researched the subject (at least not properly).
The article isn't all bad, though. The culture sections are, for the most part, good enough. It's the early section, that summarizes what a RPG game is, that needs heavy alteration.
I'll still leave this message here so anyone who bothers check the Talk page can see that this article is not meant to be taken very seriously, at least at this date. Raven-14 (talk) 18:28, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
As you probably well know, there are a lot of edit-wars and talk-page-fights over various aspects of RPGs. Just to name a couple: there is a long-standing campaign (mostly dissolved but still lingering) to use WP as a platform to insist that only tabletop RPGs with people using voice-acting to dramatize their characters can be called "RPGs," and also a perhaps even longer-standing fight over how and why Final Fantasy-style games came to be known as RPGs or console RPGs or JRPGs, and how to properly categorize them all. These drawn-out battles have definitely left many articles dealing with any kind of RPG in an ugly state, and serve as a warning to anyone who wants to try to start up the fight again.
I definitely feel that the one thing all RPGs have in common is that the gaming aspects that actually make it a game must involve to some degree actually gaming a character itself - dramatizing the character, or building the character, or developing the character, or making decisions for the character in a customized fashion based on its unique talents/abilities relative to other characters, etc. - rather than merely puppeteering the character as-is, such as a board game piece or a digital avatar, to execute game aspects exclusively external to the character. This is playing the role as opposed to otherwise merely playing a game. While this aspect can play out in many very different ways (an improvised play-acting conversational RPG having seemingly nothing in common with a linear scripted console-style RPG video game, for example), it is nevertheless what seems to be common among all things called RPGs, and significantly or completely absent from things not called RPGs.
But genre classification in art and media is necessarily fuzzy. People want to draw hard lines, but they cant exist, and wars erupt in the gray area. If there was a good source out there that covered all this, I'd love to cite it, but perhaps it's just too much of a cultural dynamic to make for good factual encyclopedia articles. The Yar (talk) 17:39, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Role-playing video game. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:27, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

The meaning of CRPG seems to be shifting

I'm new at this so please excuse any transgressions.

The term "CRPG" seems to have taken a turn. In 2014, Pillars of Eternity was announced as a revival of "CRPGs" and there are a few more similar games on the way.

In this context, people seem to consider certain games that ran on the infinity engine (such as Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale) to be what is meant when one uses the word "CRPG".

A quick google search comes up with several game journalism articles that fit with this loose definition, and my personal experience (I know this is anecdotal) is that this is how the term is used in forums as well.

I actually came to this page to see exactly what was meant by the term "CRPG" people were throwing around all the time nowadays, and the entry provided varies vastly from the definition I got from using context of modern conversations on the internet.

JeneralBen (talk) 00:04, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

This is nothing new. Some people believe "CRPG" should only be used to refer to _computer_ role-playing games (emphases on the "computer" versus "console"), that are mostly played using a mouse and/or keyboard. These games are often more "hardcore" than ones on consoles, with more intricate rules, stats, dialogues, etc.. since it can be a PITA to do the same stuff with just your thumbs on a gamepad.
On the other hand, there are console RPGs that are pretty "hardcore" like Dark Souls and some of the console tactical RPGs which are ridiculously difficult. And there are ports of CRPGs to consoles such as Morrowind and Divinity: Original Sin; multi-platform releases such as Fallout: New Vegas and Skyrim; as well as many of the Wizardries, Ultimas and Gold Box games. Since the arrival of the Xbox it has been especially difficult to pin labels like these on games.
I mostly agree with you. But we're likely not going to find reputable sources discussing these terms in such a way. SharkD  Talk  20:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Role-playing video game. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:04, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Role-playing video game. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Role-playing video game. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:09, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Role-playing video game. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:49, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposed Changes

MMO Section - Simutronics reference for MUDs: Could I recommend a reference to the Simutronics' brand of MUDs released as early in 1990? The game was available via AOL. I recently went back to the game, and it still has a thriving community of approximately 300 players at any time. Back in the early 90s they would have between 1,300 and 2,200 players on any given servers, and they had multiple servers running (I think). Simutronics also published a few other MUDs including a unique futuristic-style cyberish game. They also took one of the most generic gaming domains when the Internet stood up around 92 (play.net). They definitely are worth a reference. BTW - I really appreciate the reference to the first MUD (MUD1)... I was wondering where they got that term from. If we do add them, can we please mention that these games are still alive - in case anyone wants to experience some sweet epicness? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.235.199.112 (talk) 06:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure we need to expand that section more, since it's only meant to be a summary. You might ask to add the info instead to MUD. SharkD  ☎  01:29, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Disregard my previous comment. If you have citations from reliable sources, go ahead and add the new content. SharkD  ☎  05:41, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Genre Criticism

Similar to many other genres, there have been game designers opposing the very idea of Role-Playing video games for different reasons throughout the history of the industry. Most of the criticism has been in form of interviews and devblogs, for I remember having read many. But much can't be found online anymore. Can someone start a section and provide physical or archived online sources to improve this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.198.91.233 (talk) 12:59, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference barton_evw was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference vintage_d was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Barton 2008, p. 223
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference nzg_evw was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ Ishaan (December 22, 2011). "A Closer Look At Final Fantasy XIII-2′s Performance In Japan". Siliconera. Retrieved 5 April 2012.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Role-playing_video_game/Archive_7&oldid=1169607272"