Poll Should Japanese-Made Role-Playing Games Still Be Called JRPGs?

I can't say I've seen JRPG used as a negative term and I get what he's saying about from their perspective they're just RPG'S and to be fair back from the 8/16 bit era's they were just that. I think I only started using the term when more action style RPG's came around to differentiate turn based ones.

These days as the scope of games have become so vast, terms like JRPG don't make much sense anymore, is something like FF7R really like Octopath Traveller for example? Whilst FFXVI seems to share many elements from games like The Witcher and even Devil May Cry and I certainly don't hear either referred to as JRPG's

Yes, because they're from Japan.

Everyone's getting so sensitive about everything now. JRPG isn't a derisive term. If anything I hold it in high esteem as I often prefer Japanese RPGs to stuff made in the West.

I don't think those who are just calling them RPGs with no J ought to be corrected, but I don't think it's an unuseful distinction for fans discussing different games.

It's splitting hairs over genre definitions, which has gone on since the birth of media, but because there's a cultural aspect to the grouping, there's a little more sensitivity in its use. Western fans are happy to talk about manga and anime, while few in Japan see their country's media as something completely different from comics and cartoons.

If something can stand entirely on its own merits and gain mainstream appeal, it doesn't really matter which label the audience puts on it afterwards. People used to call Zelda an RPG, and I don't think I've seen anyone call it that in 25 years.

As someone who generally prefers JRPGs to western ones (WRPGs?), I've certainly never thought of it as derogatory. But like most genre designations, it is necessarily reductive and can be misleading if that's the only thing you know about a game.

Especially as RPG elements have seeped into nearly every genre from action games to sports titles, the lines are incredibly blurry.

It would be hard to dispense with genres altogether. People like a bit of structure to help make sense of so many choices. But I think that most players understand that genre is a broad top-level categorization and that they'll have to read some reviews to get a deeper understanding of what the game is really about.

I generally call them what they are based on the combat method. Turn-based or Action RPGs. Though I will still use the term JRPG from time to time when describing the look of a game as opposed to the gameplay. Many Japanese games just have a distinct look compared to what you would see from pretty much anywhere else in the world and that's a good thing, not a bad thing.

In the end it really doesn't matter one way or the other. Genre definition in video games has always been murky at best and unorganized at worst. It's a fun discussion topic though.

Meh, I lost interest in Final Fantasy after FF IX. Tried FF 15 multiple times & didn't get into it. 12 was the last good one. But I'm old and irrelevant opinion.

If a developer doesnt want a game they made to be referred to as a jrpg , such as in this case , then maybe just respect their wishes

In my opinion no.. when I was a kid, this term didn't even exist, an rpg was simply a role-playing-game, categorized by different other parameters such as: action, turn-based, tactical, anime-style, point-and-click etc etc

If we identify an rpg based on where it was developed then we should also define an American-RPG, Chinese-RPG, F-RPG (France), I-RPG (Italian) and so on... it's just ridiculous.

And what if an rpg game were developed by an homogeneous group of people, such as black/African people or homosexual people? We should perhaps define them as Black-RPG or Gay-RPG? It doesn't seem the case.

@Luminous117 ok, but so Ridge Racer and Gran Turismo are J-Racing games while Forza Motorsport is an A-Racing game?
What's the difference in genre/type between a J-Racing game and an A-Racing game?

Hmmm I think the term is useful mainly as a reference to styles and mechanics, rather than an actual description of where the game is from. By those lights I agree, FF16 does not really look like a JRPG!

To me, the "J" referred to Japanese-style, as in turn-based gameplay and distinctive from Action RPGs. Since the lines are so blurred today, describing what something does/is rather than where it is from is more useful.

I too never remember the term being derisive. But then again, I did not start playing RPGs until they were much more accepted (mid 1990s). Certainly, I can see that the term may be used dismissively by some individuals who did not like that genre of gameplay. But that would have been decades ago.

I tend to call most Japanese rpgs that stick to older gameplay styles a Jrpg usually those that are turn based or something like most of the Tales, Star ocean and Xeboblade games which lend heavily into traditional design of a Jrpg but with action combat. Something like Final Fantasy 15 felt more like an open world game with rpg elements in. I have never personally seen anyone use the term in a bad way just to separate the style of rpg the game is since they can be vastly different from a traditional western rpg or a strategy one.

@riceNpea Bar the odd exception (Diablo and Witcher mostly) I find most western RPGs to be highly derivative whereas JRPGs have more imagination.

Yes and no.

I'm on team "JRPG isn't a genre," so I do think you would need to call all Japanese RPGs... JRPGs. And calling Western-developed RPGs that are inspired by/derivative of Japanese classics JRPGs seems asinine to me. But I'm also OK with retiring the term, as it doesn't serve a purpose any more.

@mike_intv 100% this.
I consider it in a sense like "French Pastry" or "Irish Stew" - it's a style of a thing with many variations; this style originated and was defined in one place, but has been exported around the world and inspired people everywhere to make similar things.
FFXVI is a Japanese RPG, but not a JRPG; Sea of Stars is not a Japanese RPG, but it is a JRPG.

Language exists to describe things in meaningful ways, and so we must use it in ways that convey useful information.
"This RPG is from Japan" USED to imply a lot about the style of game it was, but that no longer applies so much, so we must let the term mean what was always IMPLIED by its place of origin instead of just the literal interpretation of the words.

JRPG and WRPG are still important labels for defining the general genre of two very distinct genres of games. I don't think the country of origin necessarily matters (Soulsborne isn't a JPRG because it's made in Japan, but at the same time I wouldn't call Soulsborn an RPG at all, it's just an action game with RPG-lite elements really. Elden Ring does happen to be a lot closer to an actual RPG than other soulsborne games though.)

Maybe J/W doesn't make as much sense anymore as the name specifics but they're generally understood labels at this point.

One big schism is "back in the day" on PC, "RPG" meant Wizardry and ARPG meant Diablo, and that was that. On Console, "RPG" meant FF and CT. We didn't define by "JRPG" and "WRPG" because it was really "console players had one idea of what is an RPG and it happened to be be a genre that was made in Japan, and PC players had a different idea of what an RPG is and that happened to be Fallout, Wizardry, D&D-based games, etc." Each group was basically unaware of the existence of the other.

It wasn't really until PS3 that each group really started getting exposed to the other, and that's when the confusing of J/W started happening.

The naming made sense, they were two different styles of games by origin. We could have said PC RPG vs Console RPG, but that distinction would make even less sense today since both are on both, so J/W is still more meaningful. But I don't think a game is a JRPG game just because it was made in Japan, and I don't think a game is not a JPRG game just because it wasn't. And we simply lack better terms to describe the two types of games, and even if there were better words getting everyone to agree on them would be next to impossible, so J/WRPG is really the naming we have to work with to describe two subgenres.

OTOH I don't trust Yoshi-P's idea of anything much these days because everything he says seems to indicate he'd rather just be making action adventures and doesn't like RPGs at all despite directing an MMO.

@87th To be fair, that might be because Zelda 2 was an RPG (Miyamoto himself has called it that) so anyone that started around then may have just gotten used to calling it one. It's been argued that BotW is in fact a return to being an RPG as well. I don't agree, but I wouldn't necessarily argue against, either. Elden Ring and Genshin Impact both have clear BotW inspiration after all.

I still think it's useful, as although lines have blurred in recent years, I think there is an important distinction, even though they have shared inspirations deriving from table top RPGs.

(W)RPGs are more about the individual (a blank slate you craft to your specific desire), and while they typically do have a core narrative, of equal or greater importance are the various side quests/activities (they're more about your own individual adventure rather than a pre-ordained one set out for you).

JRPGs are more about the group, a set of typically defined individuals who have a specific purpose (though this can vary) coming together to form a whole. While side activities usually play a part, the core narrative tends to be the main attraction.

It's a cultural difference (not a gameplay one "turn based" vs "action"). Western RPGs are an individualist power fantasy, while Japanese RPGs are about finding your place in society.

Got to love how the most talked about thing from a FFXVI interview is whether or not we should use this term to define a video game, or is it now offensive to use. This is the most "modern audience" thing ever lol.

I've heard some complaints about traditional JRPGs getting stale lately, or having too much "anime BS", but it still seems like a stretch to consider the term "JRPG" an insult.

I think the real question is whether something is an RPG at all: what do RPGs have to do with role playing, anyway? The connection is obvious in a lot of older and/or western RPGs, where you create and develop a character, make lots of decisions, etc. But a Final Fantasy game from the '90s? It's a linear, story-driven tactics game with RPG trappings. And when you swap out the battle system for DMC-style action, while dialling down the RPG elements further?

Not saying we need to reclassify Final Fantasy or other RPGs all of a sudden! Genre labels like "RPG" mean something, and most people understand what they mean. I just think it's interesting how definitions drift over time.

Sure while there are many action rpgs being created in Japan, there still are many who follow the same old patterns laid down from years before, long convoluted stories, turn based battles, anime tropes, and for some reason with the exception of Persona 5 lot of them use the same old ugly UI and fonts, people follow a formula, like the same way why do many soulslikes need the same crappy saving system that's in dark souls? Is that what gives it a soulslike label? Same goes for jrpgs, which parts of a whole make something a jrpg? Usually its gonna be things people expect, if final fantasy wants to not be a jrpg good for them i suppose, but I don't think the term is harmful

I just call them "RPGs." Always have.

(if it's an action RPG, then that's what I call it. see also, strategy RPGs and adventure games.)

however, I think "JRPG" is fine and when we make the distinction, we all know what we are talking about, don't we?

PS- I didn't vote because I don't see my position reflected in the poll 👍

Yes, we should call it jrpg. I love jrpg, I love it ever since I played ff7 back on psone day, I never think the term jrpg as "bad", especially since it's my favorite genre.

@themightyant Elden Ring is an action game with an XP system. There's no role-play to be had.

So does this person think it's bad if we referred to him as a Japanese male? The term has nothing to do with discrimination, and more to do with the fact that these games come from Japan. Pointing out an origin isn't discriminatory ffs.

This is especially true when there is a distinct stylization when we look at the way these games are made and played. Nobody bats and eye when we say Japanese anime, I've never encountered a person that found that term sincerely discriminatory.

I think it's pretty silly that we have "JRPGs" and "WRPGs". Japan is a singular country, the west is... half of the entire planet. What would you call a Chinese made RPG? A CRPG? Nope, that acronym is taken by computers (another silly distinction, all role playing video games are technically CRPGs because consoles and even phones are computers, just not in the same way as a desktop or laptop PC running Windows).

He mentioned that the period when JRPG was used in a negative light was around 15 years ago, and that's what I was thinking of. It was similar to when 2D games were out of fashion in the late 90s. This was when Elder Scrolls was building popularity with Oblivion having already been out with Skyrim on the horizon. Mass Effect was popular. Dragon Age was a thing people liked. There was definitely some preference in some circles and in gaming media for western RPGs for a bit. RPGs have evolved so much that more sub categories would be helpful, as RPG, WRPG, and JRPG aren't very descriptive. But there might be some help if there's still a difference in common game mechanics and approach to storytelling. As long as there's utility in the differentiation, then I'm for it.

JRPG is a type, yes it used to mean Japanese, but now a days it just means turn based.
And Final Fantasy stopped being a JRPG from 11 onwards and it became an ARPG.
But to be fair, WHO GIVES A CRAP?? There is bigger things in the world right now than to be arguing about this.

I get both sides of the argument but for me and some others in my age group JRPG meant a genre to look for and it was a style that only the Japanese could make because it went through their cultural lens. I grew up on JRPGs and hate seeing western or non Japanese made rpgs given the moniker because they might be turned based or something. Because there is a certain identity and essence that an actual JRPG has that no matter who tries to mimic it, imo they can’t. RPG for me is the overall genre but subgenres are used to help people find what they are looking for specifically and that imo should never go away. It’s no different than searching for a book in a library. You go to the history section but if you don’t know the subgenre you will be there all day. JRPG has always been positive for me but it sucks that small minded people tried to use the nationality and cultural viewpoints of the devs as a negative.

Always taken the term from a gameplay (more menu based especially then transitioned depending on the market/audience), theme and characterisation standpoint. Real Time and Turn Based or Tactics or Strategy RPG are fine but also a mouthful/a lot to type and sometimes abbreviations are hard to read.

I hate the term character action game, it's long and vague. Hack n slashes I know come from Diablo isometric type games supposedly but I call them action RPGs instead, and more so HnS games your DMC and such instead and put Beat Em Ups different from their differences.

People still get what you mean though based on where it comes from and the type of things people usually experienced if comparing to other games or the era they came out in especially for turn based/menus heavy focus in JRPGs.

Nowadays while it differs a lot with various combat systems in JRPGs these days or saying the Job system in FF games versus whatever else in another game with a DMC or a uniquely different turn based combat system like say Eternal Sonata or Conception (both completely different design and goals) even some descriptors are easier to tell/explain, hardly was it ever westerners being discriminatory on the internet because people overseas misunderstand the original intentions.

Besides that well some terms/words stick and others don't, many words go out of fashion or gain more and more meanings over time it depends.

They have their differences and while Japan has their real time ones like western or even in hack n slash/character action game ways I'd say they are different but less so these days.

I mean they were solely turn based, more focus on menus, party members were always a focus than an individual, visual novel like story moments (or textboxes for characters to speak even) among other details being more common in the past and western RPGs had their different gameplay, goals and so on.

They are both roleplaying in different ways, not one is more better or more RPG like than another they offered differences that justified the term that way I think.

I think taking offense to it is stupid. Of course it's 'RPGs' to them it's in their country but what RPGs are of a norm to them in game design is what it is also. For us in the rest of the world is different. Anime is animation to them but the rest of the world uses Anime as Japanese or Asian animation because it's easier we use words from their country (besides it's an easier word to say in conversation too like many shortened words over the years) to make it clear what it is, most people already know what it means when said and we say cartoons is that an issue too?

Their way of having European fantasy worlds in their RPGs is different than the rest of the world (as far as I know anyway) it's easy to see what differences and elements they understood about such fantasy worlds from books and movies and how they put it into games compared to how WRPGs are and focus on such elements in games.

I've never taken it from a 'oh this is from the US and this is from Japan'. Couldn't care less. Never taken it as an offensive or racist term ever but if they did then sure without understanding why people used the term not to just discriminate which if people do why, what reason is there to other than social nonsense and misunderstanding.

I mean CRPGs are computer RPGs they aren't Cztech RPGs or Chile RPGs and don't care if there is no EU or otherwise RPGs because to me the gameplay differences that 'genres' have purpose for such definition is more important than stupid social complaining people can have about what a JRPG or WRPG are then it's intended meaning and that the games were different and the line has blurred differently over time in game design that Japanese devs see a need to to appeal to markets or experiment.

@mike_intv Even turn-based WRPGs feel very different.
To me, at least, JRPG and WRPG are no longer about from where they originated, but from which style of gameplay they have.

True, JRPG and WRPG styles did exclusively come from Japan and the West, respectively, but it is becoming less and less exclusive to each region as time goes on.

JRPG no longer exclusively means "RPG made in Japan", but rather "Japanese-style RPG".
Forgive me for the food analogies, but it's like food.
You would still call New York pizza Italian food, even though it's made in America, because it still primarily follows the Italian style of food. And even with some American DNA in New York pizza, it is still primarily an Italian style dish.

I'm completely fine with the term "JRPG". I see it as a seal of quality. Meaning that the game comes from the country that gave us the absolute best in the genre (Final Fantasy 6, Chrono Trigger, Earthbound, etc.) and still gives us great games (Octoparh Traveler, Dragon Quest 11) to this day.

However, I do recognize that it's gotten a bit complicated. Games like Final Fantasy 7 Remake & Rebirth play more like Action-RPGs, while Western-made games like Chained Echoes or Sea of Stars look and play like the J-RPGs they are clearly inspired by and are paying tribute to.

Personally, I always preferred to separate the games by how they play. Turn-based RPGs are just "RPGs" to me. Action RPGs are their own separate category. And Strategy/Tactics RPGs are a different category also.