What [not shmup] game are you playing now?

[Blinge]

It makes me shit my pants tbh

[BulletMagnet]

It makes me shit my pants tbh

But would you describe it as JSMP or WSMP?

[Sumez]

WSMP

[Blinge]

ahahah. genius.
I remember hearing about that on a podcast and they misnamed it as " Try not to shit "
which has been my go-to game encouragement phrase ever since.

[drauch]

Sounds like a good time for a new poop thread.

[Ajora]

Blood via NBlood. It's good, silly fun.

[Squire Grooktook]

Yeah, I feel that "WRPGs" are about as well defiend or commonly understod/misunderstood as JRPGs. Both are arbitrary terms with some leeway to how you can use them.

One thing I do think is commonly unfairly used to seperate them is the ol' "WRPGs offer total freedom and open worlds, while JRPGs are completely linear" which is only looking at like the top 2% most popular examples, and then even ignoring major aspects of those.

It's not about linearity, or at least not totally about it. IMO the main thing is complexity and accessibility. Japanese RPG's mostly developed on consoles, and Western RPG's mostly developed on pc's. As a result Japanese produced games have kind of a legacy of streamlined mechanics and user interface mandated by both console controls and the "family friendly" console markets themselves.

A thing I always find fascinating is that Japanese Table Top RPG's tend to have a similar design ethos to their video game brethren. Games like Nechronica, Tokyo Nova, Tenra Bansho Zero, and Ryuutama (to name a few notable examples) tend to immediately offer much more streamlined mechanics with an emphasis on fast pace and immersing you in the particular "feeling" of the game and setting. They even have a bit of the "linearity" in the sense that they often offer (more as a suggestion than a hard rule) approaches to structuring sessions and plots into distinct phases (this is usually attributed to the busy Japanese schedule and players and gm's wanting a way to quickly set up and run a game on the spot at conventions).

[Vanguard]

It's not about linearity, or at least not totally about it. IMO the main thing is complexity and accessibility.

Most of the complexity in WRPGs comes from them being badly explained and having consistently terrible UIs. They are, for the most part, very simple and straightforward once you know the rules. Difficult to learn, easy to master is the WRPG genre's motto.

[vol.2]

Japanese RPG's mostly developed on consoles, and Western RPG's mostly developed on pc's. As a result Japanese produced games have kind of a legacy of streamlined mechanics and user interface mandated by both console controls and the "family friendly" console markets themselves.

And it's also important to note that the earliest JRPGs were overtly using western games like Ultima and Wizardry as a template, and translated many of those older RPGs to consoles like the NES. It was an interesting time because those "remakes" of Ultima and Wizardry games on the NES were actually updates to what you could play in the original games. Imaging buying an NES game because the graphics were better than a PC.

Another important "W" CRPG dynamic to consider is that PC RPGs cooled-off considerably in the 1990s. When you get to about 1993, you have a few stragglers like Ultima 8 coming out, and you have the development of first person CRPGs like System Shock, but the classic model of CRPG has been eroded by 1994 and we don't get many mainstream titles released until much later when indie gaming happens. System Shock and Thief felt, to me, like the logical continuation of the CRPG model in the US market at the time. It felt like a continuation of Ultima Underworld and Eye of The Beholder, a feeling aided by a shared creative vision at Looking Glass Studios. Once the early 2000s happened, games like Arx Fatalis were outliers and not typical titles.

So, in other words, it's not so much a question of JRPG V WRPG, it's more a matter of "what exactly is a CRPG in this day and age, and do we ret-con the 1990s CRPG experiments?"

Japanese Table Top RPG's tend to have a similar design ethos to their video game brethren

The same can't be said about American table tops. There is an incredible variety of tabletops that span many different approaches.

Which I would say is another important point. Both the tabletop RPG and the CRPG genres are far more diverse and developed in the west. Especially now that many western game companies have incorporated many of the conventions introduced by Japanese game companies over the years, one could make the argument that there is no longer a meaningful distinction other than the historical one. If the only meaningful distinction is a historical one, then it has to be this:

Japanese RPG's mostly developed on consoles, and Western RPG's mostly developed on pc's. As a result Japanese produced games have kind of a legacy of streamlined mechanics and user interface mandated by both console controls and the "family friendly" console markets themselves.

[Squire Grooktook]

It's not about linearity, or at least not totally about it. IMO the main thing is complexity and accessibility.

Most of the complexity in WRPGs comes from them being badly explained and having consistently terrible UIs. They are, for the most part, very simple and straightforward once you know the rules. Difficult to learn, easy to master is the WRPG genre's motto.

Hence accessibility. JRPG's, whether they be digital or played with pen and paper, are generally designed to get you smoothly into their world with minimal delay.

And it's also important to note that the earliest JRPGs were overtly using western games like Ultima and Wizardry as a template, and translated many of those older RPGs to consoles like the NES. It was an interesting time because those "remakes" of Ultima and Wizardry games on the NES were actually updates to what you could play in the original games. Imaging buying an NES game because the graphics were better than a PC.

And yet even the Nes "remake" version of Ultima 3 feels like an unplayable clusterfuck compared to its direct competitor at the time, Dragon Quest 1 (which is not exactly an easy game compared to titles it would influence itself). I feel even back during this 8-bit era, the groundwork of the diverging genres and design style was being laid down, in no small part because developers were looking at eachothers works and experimenting with the bounds of what worked on a console.

The same can't be said about American table tops. There is an incredible variety of tabletops that span many different approaches.

This is certainly not what I meant, and it's pretty mean to take my point out of context!

The original point was that they do tend to share (to varying extent) a sense of accessibility and a natural knack for it alongside several other more subtle design influences, which strikes interesting parallels with the console rpg's produced by the country*. But thematically and mechanically speaking many Japanese TTRPG's are radically different from eachother and anything else you might compare them to. I'd be hard pressed to find games that have as distinctive souls, settings, and gameplay mechanics as Nechronica or Golden Sky Stories, two titles made by the same developer that couldn't be farther apart in terms of content.

*(My personal theory is that the console and P&P games were jointly influencing eachother, combined with the aforementioned cultural issues with freetime and work that affected both)

Especially now that many western game companies have incorporated many of the conventions introduced by Japanese game companies over the years, one could make the argument that there is no longer a meaningful distinction other than the historical one.

This is also something to take into account, especially in the indie scene where there are many western developers who grew up on Japanese console rpg's and are either influenced by them or are totally homaging them without pretense. Still, at the very least the distinction has some interest historically as well as practically since for many notable developers much of the same sense of aesthetics and design ethos remain totally relevant.

[vol.2]

This is certainly not what I meant, and it's pretty mean to take my point out of context!

I was agreeing with and adding to your point. What I meant was this: yes, it's interesting that Japanese tabletop RPGs are reflective of the console games to a large degree. It seems to me that the narrow focus in mechanics is a parallel to the western CRPG market V the historical JRPG one.

I don't think I was making any assumptions about your point, forgive me if I did or it seemed that way.

[Squire Grooktook]

This is certainly not what I meant, and it's pretty mean to take my point out of context!

I was agreeing with and adding to your point. What I meant was this: yes, it's interesting that Japanese tabletop RPGs are reflective of the console games to a large degree. It seems to me that the relative lack of diversity is a parallel to the western CRPG market V the historical JRPG one.

I don't think I was making any assumptions about your point, forgive me if I did or it seemed that way.

Ah, forgive me! I took it as a "gotcha" in saying that the games lacked diversity or were formulaic in some way. I don't see them as such for the most part (there is a certain roleplaying system over there, called SRS, which tends to get a lot of reskinned titles using its basic rules, I like to think of it as the Japanese equivalent of GURPS), the point I was making was more that I feel western and eastern RPG's (at least the most popular/notable ones) both have certain diverging influences and schools of design present and noticeable, all the way from pen and paper to video games.

[Sumez]

I'm playing Vagrant Story right now, and I'm not sure I can agree with this generalization about JRPGs XD

It's definitely making stuff much more complex than it needs to be via obscurity.

[Vanguard]

Vagrand Story does feel a lot like a CRPG now that you mention it. There's a million stats and a lot of them aren't intuitive at all and a lot you can ignore safely. But also a few of them are of the utmost importance and there isn't really a good way to figure out what's what beyond rote trial and error or just looking stuff up. iirc instead of spending a million years making the best weapon, you can get by just fine with one blunt, one slashing and one piercing weapon, and maybe equip element gems if the boss is obviously a fire dude or whatever. It is in no way worth the effort to create a specific anti-lizard sword or anything like that. Success and failure depend almost entirely on how you prepare for combat, how you handle the combat itself barely matters.

It's also got lots of directionless wandering around in a big semi-open world, but I don't dislike that part of VS or CRPGs.

[vol.2]

I'm playing Vagrant Story right now, and I'm not sure I can agree with this generalization about JRPGs XD

To be fair, I think we (well, I think S.G. and I did anyway) kind of settled on the distinction mostly being of historical significance, and how the legacy of that history shows itself in continuing and widely understood "flavors" of RPGs, while fully acknowledging that both genres have long since begun to incorporate elements from all places, including other game genres altogether.

[Mortificator]

I don't think "JRPG" was useful for much beyond a regional indicator, even historically.

And yet even the Nes "remake" version of Ultima 3 feels like an unplayable clusterfuck compared to its direct competitor at the time, Dragon Quest 1 (which is not exactly an easy game compared to titles it would influence itself). I feel even back during this 8-bit era, the groundwork of the diverging genres and design style was being laid down, in no small part because developers were looking at eachothers works and experimenting with the bounds of what worked on a console.

A 17-year-old math student's homework in '86 would seem like an incomprehensible clusterfuck to a 9-year-old math student in '86, but contemporaneous comparisons don't mean much when each party's at a different level of development. Japanese devs at that time were just staring out in a genre that Westerners had been putting out games in for 6 years at the professional level (and 11 years at the doujin). Compare Dragon Quest I to Ultima I and Rogue, if not single-character mainframe RPGs.

There's also the issue that Dragon Quest's remit is explicitly Wizardry I for the simpleminded. Megami Tensei also had a Wizardry base, but instead of dumbing it down, added its own layer of complexity which is probably more obtuse than the familiar character classes. Final Fantasy I was made with eyes primarily on Western tabletop standby Dungeons & Dragons itself rather than intermediaries. Falcom's games started with a Rogue concept for Dragon Slayer and hybridized in platformer and Zelda-esque elements. Moving forward, Ultima Underworld would be taken one direction to get King's Field, another to get The Elder Scrolls, and another to get System Shock. There was always this web of styles and influences instead of "JRPGs walk like this and WPRGs walk like this!"

[Vanguard]

To be fair, I think we (well, I think S.G. and I did anyway) kind of settled on the distinction mostly being of historical significance, and how the legacy of that history shows itself in continuing and widely understood "flavors" of RPGs, while fully acknowledging that both genres have long since begun to incorporate elements from all places, including other game genres altogether.

Around the turn of the millennium, WRPGs definitely started turning into a hybrid of JRPGs and older CRPGs that doesn't really capture the appeal of either. I think the modern JRPG is mostly just an evolution of what they've been doing since the 80s, but also the great majority of modern JRPGs I've played are doujins so maybe the modern big name stuff is more WRPG-like and I just never noticed.

[Blinge]

It's hella useful for a loose term, and a quick reference. for ACKSHULLY-tier purists? probably not.
You say JRPG to me and I assume
-probably turn based battles.
- a character oriented story rather than forging your own tale.
- usually a party, not solo.

WRPG is a regional indicator to me tho.

[Squire Grooktook]

but contemporaneous comparisons don't mean much when each party's at a different level of development.

It does when they stayed at that level.

This argument would make sense if later jrpg's "developed" to be more like Ultima 3, but they didn't. If anything JRPG's got even less complex and more streamlined than games like Dragon Quest 1, to say nothing of Ultima!

There was always this web of styles and influences instead of "JRPGs walk like this and WPRGs walk like this!"

I never said JRPG's weren't influenced by Western RPG's, that's a big point misser. You can be influenced by something and still develop your own style, and I think it's crazy to say that console rpg's (where Japanese rpg's were at home) didn't develop and then maintain a unique (albeit broad) gameplay style and direction compared to (western dominated) pc rpg's. Just being on consoles alone forced a rethinking of how to execute these games.

Megami Tensei also had a Wizardry base, but instead of dumbing it down, added its own layer of complexity which is probably more obtuse than the familiar character classes.

Just wanna address this one, but while the first two SMT's are indeed very obtuse and frustrating compared to the Final Fantasies and Phantasy Stars of the time, from what I know of Wizardry the mechanics in early SMT are nowhere near it, and probably would have come off as forgiving and accessible in comparison at the time. And the series as a whole would become more and more accessible and user friendly with each installment, even as it embraced the image of being the more "hardcore and challenging dungeon crawl" jrpg series with Nocturne and the like.

[Licorice]

I take the J and W quite literally. So yeah, to me, Anachronox is a WRPG and Dark Souls is a JRPG, and IMO this makes perfect sense.

As to their history, I think the whole "JRPGs are Wizardry battles and Ultima exploration *points to the first Dragon Quest*" is very simplistic, if not downright wrong. Of the two, Wizardry has more influence, but AFAIK it didn't influence the first JRPG - Koei's Underground Exploration - and by the time you get to DQ1, there's a wealth of wholly Japanese RPG precedents for every element in the game.

It's also worth noting how radical the departure from Wizardry could be. Masanobu Endo made Druaga to explicitly capture the heart of Wizardry while being a completely different *game* based on Pacman.

Wizardry 4 is cited as the precedent for the monster capturing in Megami Tensei, now a common element in JRPGs, but Black Onyx, a Japanese PC88 game, albeit designed by a Westerner living in Japan, introduced this mechanic.

As for Ultima influence, people love to point out the shop keepers in Xanadu being traced from Ultima 3 and the ensuing drama when Falcom negotiated bringing the game to the US with Origin and Richard Garriott stormed out of the meeting. But actually playing the game will reveal something a lot closer to Hydlide, which itself is a clear variant on Druaga, than Ultima. The conclusion here is, that at least in Xanadu's case, the Ultima influence is wholly superficial - the designers wanted a Western look so just found something popular in the West to copy the style, but not the substance, of.

As for JRPGs evolving on consoles and WRPGs on computers, I don't think that aligns well with the history. JRPGs started on JPCs, and they held out on PCs much longer than other game genres. In the 80s the majority of JRPGs were for PCs, and for the first half of the 90s, I wouldn't be surprised if there were as many JRPGs on the PC98 as there were for the SFC. The PS1 was the tipping point, as it absolutely dominated Japanese gaming, but even so I think it's only after you got the PSP and NDS that JRPGs became more or less divorced from the PC.

[vol.2]

There was always this web of styles and influences instead of "JRPGs walk like this and WPRGs walk like this!"

I never said JRPG's weren't influenced by Western RPG's, that's a big point misser. You can be influenced by something and still develop your own style, and I think it's absolutely absurd to say that console rpg's (where Japanese rpg's were at home) didn't develop and then maintain a very different gameplay style and direction compared to (western dominated) pc rpg's. Just being on consoles alone forced a rethinking of how to execute these games.

I think it's totally fair to say that JRPGs had their own take with RPGs like Dragon Quest and Shining in the Darkness for example. Yes, there was a strong Ultima and Wizardry formula, but that completely ignores the cultural content that found it's way into those games, and then evolved into the 80's Square games and such. You can see and feel the lineage quite obviously, and that is the essence that IMHO people refer to when they point out a difference.

I think it makes a lot more sense if you look at the method of cultural appropriation that defines the Japanese milieu from a much higher level. The weird cross-talk we are getting in this conversation stems from the fact that there is a fairly strong, unified Japanese cultural personality (less so now than in the 80's, but that's a whole 'nother topic) and that informs every cultural article created by most media and art producers.

There is indeed "a walk" to reference, in general when it comes to many things like TV shows, anime, manga, video games, movies, food, amusements, cars, wrist watches, and even stuff like pens.

On the other side of the equation, we have the "western" stuff. That's vague. It's too broad to compare to the cultural output of one of the most homogenous countries in the world. The only reason we can have a conversation about "WRPGs" at all is because CRPGs are a relatively new cultural product that required expensive equipment to play, and therefore was only available to a select, relatively wealthy group of people, generally only in the US, Canada and some European countries (UK, Germany, France) until later on. So we had a limited number of people creating this stuff and they mostly knew one another.

Fast forward to the mid 90's and that starts to get eroded because people want new stuff and tech changes, and so on. However, in Japan, we still have artists that are producing stuff reflective of their unique culture.

So yes, it's not "one walks this way" and "the other walks this way." And I don't think that S.G. was saying that at all anyway. However, there is a clear personality to JRPGs that is not always consistent, but shows up in both game mechanics and writing. The same thing can't be said to encapsulate all "W"RPGs, but you can lump them into "everything else."

[Licorice]

I also want to add that it seems to me that most JRPGs people are familiar with in the West are products aimed at a younger audience, but there were just as many Japanese products aimed at older audiences. For whatever reason, the latter weren't brought to overseas markets very often.

I mean compare something like Sword World on the PC98 (1992) with the first Lunar on Sega CD (1992).

[Vanguard]

Just wanna address this one, but while the first two SMT's are indeed very obtuse and frustrating compared to the Final Fantasies and Phantasy Stars of the time, from what I know of Wizardry the mechanics in early SMT are nowhere near it, and probably would have come off as forgiving and accessible in comparison at the time. And the series as a whole would become more and more accessible and user friendly with each installment, even as it embraced the image of being the more "hardcore and challenging dungeon crawl" jrpg series with Nocturne and the like.

I don't know anything about pre-Nocturne SMT, but the first Wizardry is pretty dang bare bones. Cruel and unfair, yeah, but in a really straightforward way. My understanding is that they were all mechanically very basic games that squeeze moderately high to extremely high (in The Return of Werdna) amounts of sadism out of simple gameplay ingredients up until Wizardry 6 which is both much easier and plays very differently.

[vol.2]

SMT 1 is a pretty weird beast. It never felt anything like Wizardry to me.

It's maybe not quite visual novel, but SMT far more story-driven in what you have to do.

It's impossible to ignore the influence of Wizardry on any first-person RPG, but that's where the similarities end IMO.


That reminds me though, I never actually finished SMT. I'll have to fix that sometime soon.

[BareKnuckleRoo]

Some of the best Wizardry games are the Japanese made ones. Wizardry Gaiden IV: Throb of the Demon's Heart is exceptionally good, and finally translated. The first Wizardry game is definitely bare-bones and not really a good example of what the best of the series has become.

[XoPachi]

Last few years I've gotten really picky with 3D action adventure games and just really have been looking for the sort of stuff I loved from N64 to PS2. There's like none but I'm trying to find more that might just not be talked about.

So far I've discovered a game called Glyph and another called Raji.
Glyph is almost there for me. While I can definitely see this being a speedrunning favorite, it's pace is a bit fragmented to me. Little too floaty to have as much flow as I'd like. It's a good little platformer with interesting approaches to jumping. It's like someone watched people play platformers over the years, noted all the little nuanced ways people try to cheese just BIT more height and distance, and they made a game from it. It's interesting and quite satisfying. I think the problem I'm having is that the levels kind of constantly ask for this precision where you absolutely need to slow down and look below you since landing anywhere but stone is death. It's not *hard* per se, but it makes you want to just rush so you make a lot more mistakes than you should be. I still like it a lot though. Your little bug automaton friend is extremely cute too. He's always so happy to see you and curious about the history of each level in his travels. Good level secrets too.

Raji has a great style and looks like it tells a really nice story. Feels like Prince of Persia but more accessible. It's a bit chunky and unpolished though. Not buggy or anything, but just not as smooth. Though I think that's more to do with the rather lackluster animating. I'm also not looking for an isometric perspective, but it'll have to do. I love the cutscenes too. These kinds of tales are always really captivating. Straight to the point, great narration, and mysterious. I like some of the combat techniques even if they're a bit stiff like running up walls and jumping off into slam attacks or spinning around poles to dish out a radial attack similar to Sora's Buzzsaw technique in KH3. Seems like it'll be a good mix of platforming and combat.

[Marc]

Started Sexy Brutale last night. Really good Groundhog Day / gothic Cluedo mashup with you restarting the same day over and over to tail folk around an isometric mansion and discover ways of preventing them being bumped off. Moves a little slowly, but the puzzles so far have been logical and relatively straightforward, and the visuals and soundtrack are sublime. Probably the nicest looking isometric game I've ever seen. Cracking little game, highly recommended.

[Blinge]

I take the J and W quite literally. So yeah, to me, Anachronox is a WRPG and Dark Souls is a JRPG, and IMO this makes perfect sense.

This is where personal takes, mine included, really lose their usefulness.
Calling Dark Souls a JRPG is just no.
no, no, no.

[Stevens]

20 hours into Atom.

Slow game, slow start, but starting to pick up pace. I finally have some gear, plenty of money, and missions to choose from.

If I have a complaint to level it is that chatting with people just isn't very organic - Your character asks the same four or five questions to every NPC they meet, the writing is good enough though. Complaint aside you definitely have plenty of choice.

Combat is simple enough. Strong enough that I was able to kill a few cult members solo. RIP Fidel.

I'll be seeing this one though to the end no doubt.

[vol.2]

20 hours into Atom.

I remember when that came out. It looked interesting. I read a review that said it was basically Fallout 2 with updated graphics and characters, etc.