Good choice, Arcanum is an amazing RPG.

JRPGs are considered RPGs. Your argument is invalid.

By whom? They share passing similarities, but I wouldn't lump them in the same group at all.

By the majority of people, they both fall into the RPG category. JRPGs aren't western RPGs, but they both fall into the domain of role playing game.

Go to almost any gaming website. They will likely have a "Role Playing" or "RPG" section. JRPGs and western RPGs are both lumped into that category even if they are notably different.

Mass Effect games are like 'playing' a movie...with many, many different choices that can affect what happens in the sequels. You do end up playing as Commander Shepard, but he or she is really just a shell that you can make good, evil or a shade of grey like any other decent RPG.

I remember having a lot of fun with the original Heroes of Might and Magic. It might not be an exact match to what you're looking for, but it's worth a look.

I wasn't aware it had been firmly established that the "majority" believe one way or another. From my experience, in fact, quite the opposite is true: there are clear differences in design between cRPGs and JRPGs, just as there are certain elements which are similar. It's like saying first-person and third-person shooters are in the same category - depending on how broad your definition is they might be, but if we get right down to the specifics they really are quite different.

Let me start by saying that I really enjoy both styles of game (and indeed all kinds of games) but ultimately I play JRPGs and cRPGs for vastly different reasons.

First of all, cRPGs are less about raw statistics and more about what those statistics represent, ie: the uniqueness of your character. There is a radical difference between a character with high intelligence and one with high strength, etc. Really great RPGs will even reflect this difference in the dialogue options that are available, or in how NPCs react to your character. In contrast, JRPGs generally only care about stats as far as they affect combat, and NPCs more or less react the same regardless of your character build. They do share some features like gaining levels and increasing the abilities of your character through experience and so forth, but their overall intent differs.

Second, JRPGs rarely offer branching storylines or variations to complete objectives, with only Chrono Trigger as the notable exception, and even then only in limited terms. A really deep cRPG will instead offer various routes to success, and the choices your character makes on their journey reflect their chosen personality and traits. This goes back to the pen-and-paper traditions of having a game master that could tailor a campaign to the input of his group of players, offering a great range of actions and resulting consequences - greater than is possible in even the most complex cRPGs that try to emulate this behaviour. This is completely unlike JRPGs, which are very rigid in their presentation of the storyline, where the player usually has no control over which direction events should take. If there's no choice in the outcome, how can the player have any real influence in playing their role?

A small sidenote: there is a great difference between being able to do a particular quest in various different ways, and having the option to do various different sidequests in only one possible way. Having a binary choice between doing a quest or not is no replacement for having real control over your character's modus operandi.

Third - more than anything the divide between JRPGs and "Western" RPGs is cultural. Like the difference between fantasy and sci-fi, there are certain conventions that define each uniquely: Japanese RPGs tend to have characters that rise to near-godlike status and solve all the problems of an entire world with one efficient quest, and while this is sometimes also true of cRPGs, there's generally more involving character development and depth to the setting. Where in a JRPG you usually set out to find a magic sword, mystic sage, and/or ancient prophecy in some form or another, cRPGs vary between such storylines as discovering why your brutish character cannot die, the intricacies of vampirism in modern LA, or the consequences of blindly following prescribed virtues.

Of course, though the general traits I've listed have been pretty well established, not every cRPG follows the same mold, and neither does every JRPG. The Witcher and Mass Effect have less flexible, largely-predefined character options, but the trade-off is that their storylines have a context which better reflects their central character (rather than the more generic responses in, say, Elder Scrolls games.) It's a fine balance between offering the player enough freedom to define their own character through their actions and unique abilities, and also having exciting, cinematic plotlines that motivate the player to keep following the story.

In the end, the real depth of an RPG comes down to how unique each character can be, and whether or not you can have a different experience each time you play. If there are only a few possible builds or outcomes, then it's more of an adventure game where the player follows a preset path and responds to stimulus as it arises, but ultimately cannot affect the final result. The hero in Dragon Quest 8 may choose spears over swords, or may have Angelo specialise in bows instead of staves, but it's not possible to avoid parts of the story or choose another path (except the Dragovian one for the alternate ending, but that's a different matter.) On the other hand, Fallout can be completed within fifteen minutes because the central "plot" isn't relevant to the 90% rest of the gameworld and the effect a player's character can have on it. You could say the difference is that in JRPGs your character is always at the center of the events that occur, and in cRPGs they are more of a random bystander in a world which exists despite them.

TL;DR - There is a difference between "Western" cRPGs and JRPGs.

I base my observations on my experience with games from the last couple of decades, not what may or may not be written on a gaming website for sake of convenience.

When reading CptJokers post, please listen to the following music. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COPKiVmEim8

What game is that ?Im guessing the others were PST and VTMB. Tht sounds like it could be interesting, now to hope my laptop could handle whtever it was... And fix the damn screen to play it.

I think thats changing, in Skyrim for an example, im the listener, nightengale, arch mage, harbinger, civil war hero and dragon born... I mean seriously they may aswell already declare me Talos 2.0, im not just chosen one s the DB, but for pretty much everything.

New vegas was like that too, just because im in the 38, legion and ncr are suddenly interested in me. I cantjust say "[censored] you all" and leave the mojave. And for some reson im the only guy who can win the damn war. legion have shown to be more than compewtant at defeating NCR, NCR shouldnt worry about huse becuase the guy is confined to the strip without a pair of human hands. And somehow just becase I was delivering the chip, that makes me obligated to serve him in his eyes. Why am I so damn important ?

Mass effect,I have visions, then Anderson belives you based on nothing at all, and only you can save the galaxy. Going so far as to have cerberus bring shepard back from the dead for no god damned reason other than "your Shepard." Add in everthing conveniently happening to aid me, or because im shepard.
God I hate that vid...

I don't know what games you have played, but here are the first non-Bethesda RPGs that come to mind.

The Diablo Series.
Icewind Dale.
Baldurs Gate.
Arx Fatalis.
Knights of the old republic.

Saints Row: the Third, is packed with RPG elements, but it's probably not the setting you are looking for. But the game is hilarious and would probably cure your boredom.

I can vouch the Diablo series, mind you it is incredibly addicting, that and Starcraft were the prime reasons for my streak of low grades in school.

It's kind of just which box you want to put Mass Effect in, I don't think it matters that much. But the story isn't that different in form to other RPGs. You often just have to complete the mission and get the game ending battle or whatever in RPGs. In Mass Effect you can choose how you want to settle all the other quests along the way. They are keeping track of some nutty number of plot choices for ME3 I hear. You play Shepard but in other games you play "Child of Bhaal" or "Nevarine" or whatever and don't have a choice in that. You do always at least have good, neutral and jerk options for everything in Mass Effect, which is more than you can say for TES. I played once through as good and once through as kind of "detached", which ended up almost exactly half and half paragon and renegade. They did feel like different characters. But one more "jerk" playthrough and that would probably be it, I admit. Maybe some can come up with a rationale for a different mix of choices, I dunno.

Where it doesn't seem RPGish to me is in the stats for your character. I don't think there are that many ways to play each class. But each one seems quite different from each other and fun at least. I can see why people would not consider it an RPG.

JRPGs and Western RPGs are definitely very distinct, but they're both RPGs. You can't say any one is less an RPG than another. In the same way first person shooters and third person shooters are different, but they're still both shooters.

Ultima V, when the Avatar returns and finds out that blind faith in the virtues has led to all kinds of unvirtuous repercussions.

Sadly, true. It's one of the reasons why I feel RPGs are becoming somewhat "weaker" as they lean more and more towards powergaming, where players are more concerned with min-maxing their class type and winning every possible achievement, rather than sticking to a clearly defined role. Like I said elsewhere, as much as RPGs should allow the player freedom to develop their character, RPGs should also be restrictive over the choices the player makes, with some clearly mutually exclusive. It's almost impossible to reconcile being part of the Dark Brotherhood and the Imperial Legion in terms of logical narrative, and the end result is like that one over-excitable kid at RP sessions who wants to be the best at everything and doesn't quite understand the concept of restraint. Think of it like playing a bland role in a movie: if the protagonist can have bullets ricochet off him, defeats all enemies single-handed, and generally has no real flaws, there's not really any tension or fear of consequence, and it all lacks a certain humanity and grit. Of course, Bruce Willis does eventually always save the day, but it's more adventurous if he gets cut-up feet from all the broken glass, his nose is busted, he gets shot, and generally goes through hell to win in the end - now that is what a hero should be. Though John McClane is hardly complex, he at least is a very well-defined character, even if it's just that he shoots people well and can keep going despite the odds; he doesn't suddenly break character and become a hacking genius to trigger some unrelated plot device. Pick a story and stick to it, people! The magic of (and the skill in making) RPGs is having many of these stories exist side-by-side, and not just allowing the player to pick and chose arbitrary sidequests like a fat guy at the buffet.

Again, it depends on where you draw the line around your definitions. In a very broad sense yes, you do shoot things in both first-person and third-person shooters, but can you really compare Max Payne to Half-Life? Or Dead Space to FEAR? Sure, they have similarities, maybe even share some features and settings, but modern FPS now have levelling up and experience points, and that hardly makes them RPGs. Purely basing this definition on mechanics alone is not enough - I feel it's closer to the truth to look at the overall intent of the games, and whether or not they fall into the same narrative structure and gameplay objectives, which they clearly don't. Name one JRPG that offers even a modicum of the same character choice as the Elder Scrolls, Ultima, or Baldur's Gate, or the dialogue-tree complexity of Mass Effect, Vampire: The Masquerade, or Arcanum.

I hope you do name one, actually, because I really would like to play it.

Im somewhat guilty of that, like my NV character started as a sniper, then after all dlcs, he was also an amazing scientist, melee fighter and all round master of ll trades, iirc only speech and EW were left low. I could have taken a trait, bt I liked the other traits too, also I found it annoying. I dont want him to pick up more skill points, however perks like tunnel runner (think that it) added to who he was. I wanted the to further excell at the skills I picked for him, but to do tht I had to level up others I also svck somewhat at rping, I cant get my morality out of my characters, I cant support ncr, kill companions even if they annoy me, etc.

But I would like it if I couldnt do everything, but sadly it seems to be more common.

Thanks. But you didn't follow my advice and check nearly every single video game related website did you? There are differences between western RPGS and JRPGs, but JRPGs are considered RPGs by the vast, vast majority. I can say that knowing almost any real life person I would talk to about video games would agree with that statement.

There is no possible way you can make that claim. The presumptions are so fallacious, I highly suspect you're not even interested in any sort of level discussion.

If that's your only riposte, consider me thoroughly unimpressed.

Not about a word that is essentially already defined by the gaming industry. This is like discussing what the word "theory" means in a thread about science. As in, the information is out there but you have ignored it and instead redefined a word to suit your feelings on the subject.

It would just devolve into pointless off-topic debate about the true definition of an RPG, just like every other RPG thread on this forum.

Most people here have probably played both so it's just semantics... No big deal. Last JRPG I played was FFIX on a Playstation emulator (not really a [censored], just come across that way sometimes). There was a lot of depth in the way you built your party. I thought it was great. Before that I played FFT, also tons of depth.

BTW I play these games in Japanese since I can read it, guess I am kind of [censored] really

Edit: That word is censored, starts with wee and ends with boo.

I have a very clear definition of RPG myself which has been used among the industry for over 20 years until recent marketing noobs started to mess things up. Since this is Green Sentinel asking for RPGs, then its for him to decide which is the suitable title for him.

For JRPGs I enjoy Legends of Heroes series quite a lot. It's a good break away when I had enough of western RPGs.

Good man. FFT is the bomb. If Chapter 1 was a little more streamlined, I'd probably have put in more play throughs, I just hate how it flips between 4 and 5 member party through out.

I think I have played the entire Tactics series in Japanese. Had the cartridge of Tactics Ogre for the Super Famicom. These days with emulators it is a breeze. And you can have the script in another window with a bookmarklet to look up words you don't know. If I had to choose it is probably my favorite ever game series. I thought Grimoire of the Rift was truly excellent, feel free to judge me now.

FFTA... meh. I mean, I suppose it was an enjoyable experience, but it never really stuck in my head as one of the greats. Wasn't really good enough to interest me in playing the second advance game.

Oh come on if you are on console you gotta be kidding me not to mention Valkyrie Profile!

FFTA has a nice story. I was hooked. The next one is for the DS but easy to play on an emulator. It is low tension as you might say, just like a nice Ivalice holiday, but with a very nice job system. I played Hunter, it was great.