Talk:Role-playing video game/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Worst article on Wikipedia?

This is a truly terrible article: its entire premise is based on original research, and fleshed out with lazy, sometimes offensive, generalisations.

'Cultural differences' in RPGs exist only between the most extreme outlying examples that have diverged from traditional RPG design, e.g. Fallout and Final Fantasy 7. Mainstream RPGs produced in the west and east, such as Dragon Quest and Wizardry, are overwhelmingly similar, and in no way warrant the existance of this article, any more than Super Mario Bros. and Little Big Planet support the idea that there are significant 'cultural differences' in platformers. 82.132.139.111 (talk) 01:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Some areas rather underwritten

I find the story elements of the Western RPG aspect sorely lacking, and I don't believe all, or even msot, Western are lacking in details on their story elements. By contrast, the Eastern RPG part is written to well. Oh, and Sudeki is NOT a Japanese RPG. It was developed in England, and is about as Western as Fable 2 is. I think this article is grossly underwritten as a whole. Perhaps it would benefit of an experts on both sides of the circle put an effort into this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.132.3.6 (talk • contribs) 03:31, 25 June 2009

Supremacy?

The article doesn't reach a conclusion as to which genre of RPG is the superior and which is the inferior one; an omission that requires urgent and obvious correction. Can someone add a comment at the end giving an answer, otherwise the entire page somewhat lacks a point. You can't just talk about the differences without saying which one is the best. --122.29.10.235 (talk) 13:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no need for that. "Best" is a relative concept, and answering this question will necessarily be a racist and ethnocentric statement. Avoid trouble and leave it as it is. --143.106.1.146 (talk) 16:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

"Western?"

I'm pretty sure most of the articles are based on original research and are more likely to make comparisons based on limited experience with so-called "Western" RPGs (and most these do not even include gamese developed in Europe). See Western Culture

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 161.38.223.219 (talk) 21:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

Finish the Sentence

I don't understand the last sentence in the "Comparisons" section. "[T]here are some Japanese RPGs ... and some Western RPGs" -- which what? It looks like the sentence is incomplete, and as I have not played either of the games listed, I couldn't guess what was left out. It doesn't look like the article went on to explain, but was later edited; no, the sentence just ends. Sobolewski 20:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Bump. -Anonymous

Some of the context for the sentence was removed I think. Originally, there was something right before it along the lines of "Most Japanese RPGs are for the console and most Western RPGs are for the computer", *but* there are in fact some important exceptions... etc. I'll go fix it now. -- Solberg 09:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)Solberg

Console RPG & Computer RPG split

I recently moved this section from the computer role-playing games page and added more information to it. Tell me if you like or don't like the changes. This was part of a large scale (successful I think) attempt to split CRPG and cRPG into two pages and create subpages to enable more expansion and elaboration of material in the future regarding the two subgenres. -- Solberg 10:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Solberg

Admittedly I only briefly scanned the article, but it didn't seem to define the terms CRPG and cRPG. These should be defined in the beginning of the article. --Xyzzyplugh 14:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Good point, I will add wikilinks to the top so that these terms will be drawn to their respective articles (where definitions and nomenclature are described). -- Solberg 20:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Solberg

I think one of the main problems with this is that some people see the terms cRPG and CRPG to only mean what type of platform the game is released for, and to distinguish them from PnP RPGs. Such people exclusively use "Western" and "Japanese" to refer to the two different style genres. I would argue that the latter distinction is more accurate, since both types have been common on consoles. This article starts with the Western/Japanese distinction, but then somewhat confusingly goes on to use CRPG and cRPG to describe the distinction. --The Yar 19:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Especially with platforms like the Xbox and Xbox 360 bridging the gap between PCs and consoles, the cRPG/CRPG distinction is no longer as relevant as it used to be. AFAIK, the Western/Japanese distinction is strong as ever, though. Perhaps a page rename is in order. — Wisq (talk) 20:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Sourcing

I don't see anything particularly inaccurate with this article, but it badly needs sources. Ace of Sevens 02:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

CRPG's Vs. cRPG's: Original Research?

Looking through the article, and its links, they reference computer RPG's as CRPG's and console RPG's as cRPG's. Not only does this seem confusing, I'm suspecting original research here. While I have seen CRPG refer to "Computer Role Playing Game" I've never seen the term "cRPG" used in any gaming publication and searching Google for "cRPG" mostly gets hits refering to "CRPG" with a few forum posting refering to "cRPG". Does anyone have any legit sources for the term "cRPG"? --Mitaphane _talk 21:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The onyl place I've ever seen the term "cRPG" is here and a few other Wikipedia pages. Ace of Sevens 21:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

So what do we do about it? I changed the lead section in the article to reflect the more accurate East Asian/Console Western/Computer headings, but that's just the tip of the iceberg. Outside of the acronyms CRPG/cRPG, there are a ton of CVG articles that refer to "console RPGs" and "computer RPGs". I think, ideally, East Asian/Western labels should be used as they are no longer exclusive to one platform(e.g. Diablo is on the PSOne & FF VII is on the PC). Plus it would be much easier for non-gamers reading the wikipedia to understand. --Mitaphane _talk 22:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe if we can find the first Wikipedians to work out this CRPG/cRPG thing (like whoever created the redirect page), we can ask what their sources are for the cRPG acronym. I also have not seen this in wide use outside Wikipedia. -- Solberg 07:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)Solberg

RmR was the to use the term "cRPG" in the article Console role-playing game as far as I can tell. He also was the first to alter the CRPG article to reflect the "cRPG Vs. CRPG" state it is currently in. Given the nature of his first edit on the CRPG I suspect it was a neologism he was pushing. I sent him a message regarding the issue to see if he had any sources to clear this up.

If he doesn't response or doesn't have any sources, I suggest we go to the effort of getting rid of all the wikipedia CVG references to "cRPG" & "CRPG" in lieu of the more descriptive western/east asian RPGs. As daunting as it may be, it will make the CVG articles a lot less confusing. --Mitaphane _talk 09:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, historically, most of the gameplay design differences (not with things like visuals and characters) were due to the unique memory and control hardware restraints against both PCs and consoles. Although this is arguable, I think most people saw it as a console vs. PC thing rather than an East vs. West thing, which due to market circumstances was also true. The console vs. PC thing is even more evident now, as most major Western PC RPGs are being designed for console-then-PC, rather than the individual tracks they used to be on. --SevereTireDamage 05:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely. So whether or not to use Console/Computer or East Asian/Western is the smaller of the issues here; it's the prescriptive vs descriptive language thing rehashed. In some ways both sets of terms have their accuracy. I'm all for using the terms interchangably. I guess the important thing is consistancy so that it's not confusing for the reader.

The other, more important, issue is the acronyms cRPG & CRPG. JRPG,WRPG seem to be valid with listing on the free dictionary here and here and on Gamespot here and here. A search on gamespot for "CRPG" ends up here, they do not seem to make the distinction between "cRPG" and "CRPG". The Free Dictionary seems to make no difference either "CRPG" goes to a page that says it could refer to Console or Computer RPGs.

As I see it, cRPG & CRPG are a fan distinctions, created so that the reader instantaneously knows whether it is a console or computer RPG. This is important when the format is short forum posts as their is no context. However, Wikipedia is not a fan forum. Most of the time on the Wikipedia acronyms are used in context; RPG could refer "Rocket Propelled Grenade" or "Role Playing Game" depending on the topic(e.g whether we are talking D&D or military conflicts). Unfortunately, context is a bit trickier in this case since CRPG lies in the same topic of video gaming. In this case, the context has to be the article (e.g. whether we are talking about Final Fantasy or Baldur's Gate). Given this, I say the appropriate thing to do is we use "CRPG" universally and link to either Console_role-playing_game or Computer_role-playing_game depending on the right context.

If anyone has any differing thoughts or insights please reply. --Mitaphane _talk 14:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The east/West thing is what's used by most actual publications. It certainly would be appropriate to explain how these were shaped by their usual platforms, but these days, you have a lot of Western RPGs on the consoles and the console/computer terminology was never in wide use, so it would be inappropriate to use it for the name of the subgenre. Ace of Sevens 17:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not arguing for the little c vs. big C thing, that does seem to have originated from the need to distinguish the two in a single computer role-playing game article before the split earlier this year. However, certainly "computer RPG" and "console RPG" terms have been used to distinguish the platforms for a long time. For instance, there's this History of Console RPGs (dated June 1999) on GameSpot back in its videogames.com days, though it uses "PC RPG" instead of "CRPG" to talk about computer games, which was also commonly used. Square Enix self-describes Valkyrie Profile as a "console RPG"[1]. I'm sure similar finds of "computer RPG" are also available. But I may be confused about what you're saying here. --SevereTireDamage 18:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

What a mess. The question isn't whether we should rip out the cRPG acronym, since it appears to be a neologism, but what exactly to replace it with. Should we just simply use the entire phrase "console role-playing game?" It would appear that using JRPG as a substitute for cRPG is a tad misleading especially given recent trends like cross-platform CRPGs. I was tempted to say we should use both the (East/West; Console/Computer) distinctions in this article, but use the correct one in whatever was being compared/contrasted at a given instant (for example, we may say "console role-playing games tend to be more linear than computer role-playing games", presuming that the difference is due to architectural rather than cultural reasons. The problem is that this will probably lead to lots of assumptions and more original research or POV material. It could also be argued, with some plausibility, that this could not be the case as Chrono Trigger was relatively nonlinear for its time, and it ran on an SNES. Regarding the lack of citations in this article, btw, it seems that the problem is that a lot of the information is considered common knowledge among fans. P.S. Looking at this article, I just thought of something, maybe we could just use a Western CRPG v.s. Japanese console RPG distinction, which is more accurate. Western cRPG(sorry, this neologism is too convenient) and Japanese CRPGs tend to disobey commonly perceived trends. Not completely my idea, someone seems to have been driving at a similar point already into the intro paragraphs with statements like "A fundamental difference between Western CRPGs and Japanese cRPGs is the way the games’ stories are structured." Since Western CRPGs and Japanese cRPGs are the two main branches, I think it is fair that a comparison article should focus on these two subtypes rather than on the other two variants (Eastern CRPG and Western cRPG). The two minor variants can be pointed out in small tangential examples. Does anyone think this idea will work? We're going to have to go through a lot of Wikipedia's digital RPG pages changing the terminology in either case. -- Solberg 20:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Solberg

I think replacing with JRPG would actually be appropriate. The title of the article is "cultural differences" not "platform differences." Western RPGs on consoles (such as Elder Scrolls) still largely follow Western conventions and the PC ports of the Final Fantasy games still follow Eastern conventions. For that matter, Korean RPGs are almost entirely on PC and follow Eastern conventions. The traditional associations with platforms and how those influenced the mechanics should be explained, of course. Overall, this article is about stylstic differences between North America/Europe and East Asia, though, not between consoles and PCs. Ace of Sevens 01:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point from earlier, which is that we can't be certain what can be attributed to cultural differences as opposed to architectural differences. To create a CRPG v.s. JRPG distinction just seems, intuitively, absurd, maybe it's just me. We'd be pitting a distinct architecture's tradition v.s. a culture's tradition. Still, I'd like to hear what everyone else thinks. -- Solberg 04:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)Solberg

It wouldn't be CRPG vs JRPG. It woudl be WRPG vs JRPG. I realize some of the convetions grew out of the platforms, but but as the platforms changed, the conventions stayed. Overall, it's the culture. Besides, things like not following D&D rules had nothing to do with the limitations of the NES and everythign to do with culture. Ace of Sevens 06:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard the term CRPG/cRPG on any gaming cite. Just on wikipedia. RPGamer isn't called CRPGamer. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Although I agree with the point you're trying to make, the argument you're using doesn't work because the term RPG itself refers to classical role-playing games, thereby making the site's name incorrect in either case. -- Solberg 04:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)Solberg

Postscript: Dude, I just checked and your example is even more wrong than I thought, that site is dedicated to both computer AND console role-playing games, so even if the acronym cRPG exists there's no way it'd be called either CRPGamer or cRPGamer. -- Solberg 04:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)Solberg

Plan of Action

• Ok, we can all agree on one thing: cRPG/CRPG has got to go. I'm going to start nixing it out of all CVG articles in favor of just CRPG with description and a link to clear up ambiguity. Example:

Final Dragon Mystical Quest V is a console RPG (CRPG) for the Okama Gamesphere...

And as long as the rest of the article refers to CRPG, it should be all good.

• Given that there isn't a clear consensus(just like in the world outside of the wikipedia) on what to do about about the whole East Asian(Japanese)/Western vs Console/Computer RPG deal, I say we just handle it on a per article basis. We'll let the authors of the specific article emphasize the title based on whatever they think is appropriate.

• For example, FF would perhaps best be described as Japanese RPG (JRPG) since it has spanned both PCs and consoles and comes from the mold of traditional style Japanese RPGs. Likewise, Baldur's Gate would perhas best be described as a Computer RPG (CRPG) since its only been on the PC platform. As long as we address the issues of East Asian(Japanese)/Western vs Console/Computer, on the articles Computer_role-playing_game & Console_role-playing_game it should be clear to anyone what type of game is being refered to.

• Finally, I've created redirects for JRPG & WRPG so if anyone wants to use those acronyms links for a article they will go to their appropriate locations.

--Mitaphane _talk 11:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Original Research JukoFF (talk) 21:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Fantasy/sci-fi

From the article:

Fantasy/Sci-Fi hybrid settings (such as swords and sorcery elements coexisting with modern or futuristic technology) are rarely featured in Western RPGs. An exception is Arcanum: Of Steamworks and Magick Obscura, a steampunk style game.

The three major WRPG series - Ultima, Might & Magic, and Wizardry - all mixed fantasy and sci/fi at various times, M&M and Wizardry to an extreme extent in their later games. Other games such as Blue Byte's Albion were heavy sci-fi/magic mixed as well. The fact that the "big three" of PC RPGs were sci/fi fantasy seems to discredit any idea that Arcanum was some sort of exception. I'd suggest this paragraph be removed; it seems to be entirely original researched from somebody who hasn't really played the games being discussed on this page. (Which, honestly, is something that's going to pervade this entire section as a whole.) --220.253.126.249 11:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Original reseach

Is there really the cultural difference in western and eastern RPG?I would like to contribute the difference to the difference style of drawing in RPG games.--Ksyrie 03:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Fallout 01.jpg

Image:Fallout 01.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Fallout 01.jpg

Image:Fallout 01.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Japanese gamers vs western gamers

I didnt see a section (I mightve missed it) about the differences of the different audiences. As an editer of the Marl Kingdom series, I think it is notable that Japanese gamers are much more accepting of cute, colorful games, whereas western gamers tend to shun such games and view them as girly or too childish. Because of this, lots of games have had poor sales or have not even been localized.Evaunit666 05:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

MMORPGs

I think a section on the cultural differences vis a vis MMORPGs is much needed. The differences are striking! SharkD 03:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

All wrong!!

This article is horribly messed up!! It's describing Western RPGs as PC-based and Eastern RPG's as console based, whereas the article's own source only describes Western RPGs as literally made in the West (i.e. US) and Eastern as made in the East (i.e. Japan). Someone please put this stupid article out of its misery and nominate for delete, on grounds of OR.Scott 110 (talk) 05:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

This topic can easily fall due to "subjectivity", as it is easy to become biased towards one side or the other. As for OR, check the discussion on sourcing above. KyuuA4 (talk) 06:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I found the article very detailed, informative, and true. Western RPGs have their roots in PC, they only switched attention to consoles in the 21st century; Eastern RPGs are almost exclusively console-based. --217.172.29.4 (talk) 17:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Curiousity

Does this type of topic (Eastern vs Western) apply to other video game genres? KyuuA4 (talk) 19:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Not really, RPG is the only major genre where the difference is so evident. --217.172.29.4 (talk) 17:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Citing Sources

It can be agreed upon that this article is in desperate need of concrete sources and citations. Now here is my question. Can we cite individual video games for sources, like saying...

"Final Fantasy XII uses the license board system..." could we actually cite the video game as a source, since it is verifiable proof of what it contains?

If so, I should be able to go through in a day and make all the necessary citations. If not, I'll scour google and such for articles about games which talk about what we need. Fllmtlchcb (talk) 07:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The general consensus is that a video game itself can be cited as a primary source should you only be lifting off plot details about it. Let's get citing, eh? Fllmtlchcb (talk) 18:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You can't use a video game in that manner. That means you're evaluating evidence and giving it a position of prominence independent of a reliable third party source doing it first. It is a violation of WP:OR.--Crossmr (talk) 08:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Way late to the debate, but the issue's still relevant: Sure we can. Done properly, that you're making uncontroversial descriptive statements that are apparent from the works themselves. It is completely in line with primary sources as described in WP:OR. Forbidding the contents of works from being used in describing them would make our work unreasonably difficult for little gain in credibility. We cannot cite Romeo & Juliet to state that it has an underlying theme of misogynism, but we can cite Romeo & Juliet to state that Juliet dies, and I don't see how it is wrong to give what clearly happens a position of prominence without waiting for someone else. --Kizor 19:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you can use this article as a source. I haven't read it yet, so I don't know how helpful it is. SharkD (talk) 06:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Comparison Section

I notice in the Comparison Section there are a couple citations in the initial paragraph but that is it. Do the citations cover what is in the rest of the giant list of supposed prominent differences between the two genres? I noticed statements using words like "tend to" and other subjective opinionated language. If the citations don't cover those kinds of comparisons (and each one needs to be able to be found in the citations) we have a bit of an issue with WP:OR, WP:V and WP:OR.--Crossmr (talk) 06:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:FFXII License Board.png

The image Image:FFXII License Board.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• Image:RomancingSaGaSFBox.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Death in rpgs

Although I'm not sure for certain, I pretty sure baldur's gate games had permanent deaths if you met a certain requirement. Such as, a move that completely obliterated the character's body, like disintegration. I'm not 100% sure.

Cut Scenes as a CRPG/JRPG difference

Might it be more accurate to describe -differences- in cut scenes, rather than to say they're more common in JRPGs? I think I know the -type- of cut scene being referred to - but CRPGs have a ton of cut-scenes. Perhaps they didn't back in the day, and nowadays they tend to be done in-engine rather than pre-rendered, as most JRPG ones, but saying they're more common in JRPGs doesn't seem quite accurate comparing present CRPGs to present JRPGs, in which both have a fair amount of scripted/cinematic content. 99.192.90.41 (talk) 19:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Article is about the differences between CRPGs and JRPGs, not across all genres

This article currently focuses on the differences between the CRPG genre and the JRPG genre rather than the cultural differences in RPGs across all genres. It does a fine job of this but it's title is misleading. I believe that the state of the article is due to how western culture (specifically America) initially predominantly approached the RPG genre in video games and how eastern culture (specifically Japan) initially predominantly approached the RPG genre. It also likely has much to do with the discussion about merging the two topics and why they need to stay seperate. The issue with that is that it fails to address how the cultures approach ARPGs, MMORPGs, TRPGs (which in the west are commonly clumped together with [Turn-based tactics] games), and Rougelikes differently. It also brings up the question about referring to JRPGs as Eastern RPGs when there is only a single non-Japanese game listed. Korean game developers seem to predominantly make MMORPGs so clumping them together with Japanese developers seems off. UncannyGarlic (talk) 22:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Tone

This article is far too long and focuses too much on specifics. The main difference between games developed in US than those of Japan(and whatever other countries one would associate with them) come from cultural differences between those territories and the creative process that drives the creation of these titles.

Also, it looks like this article is the product of some forum argument somewhere about which types of games are better (I.E. PC VS Console, East Versus West.) The easiest source or citation that leads me to believe this are the comments above this one. and the existence of the Computer Role playing game (CRPG) acronym.

I think this whole article needs to be deleted or rewritten to talk about the differences in development styles between these two territories. Unfortunately I know nothing about this because I am not a game developer. Nor American Or Japanese.

So what I will do Is list the main differences I see in Fallout 2 and Final Fantasy XIII (If Fallout 2 is too old then I would cite The Elder Scrolls: Oblivion) I want to cite Dragon Age: Origins but I have not played it yet. In any Case here I go.

Art Style: Fallout 2 has more of a realistic look whereas Final Fantasy XII has more a futuristic look. (Not to say that the world of Fallout is any more plausible than the world of Final Fantasy XII) Futuristic is unfortunatly the only word I can think of describe the world of Final Fantasy XII, Characters in both games drive vehicles, use guns, walk on floors and both wear clothing that looks like its made from the same material. The simplest way to see this differences is to Google both games.

Open End/ Linear : Fallout 2 allows one more freedom in their actions(In regards to choosing different ways to complete quests, fight battles, finish the story ect.) Whereas Final Fantasy XII is more linear in these aspects.

Background/Context: Both games seem to have the same amount of background information(I define this as information that is not required to know the story.) Final Fantasy XII's is more organized however. (There is an Ultimania guide from square enix that is the "official source" whereas Fallout 2 lacks such organization) This being said the background story of the main character in Fallout 2 (Along with his companions) is much more Vague than the information one is able to obtain About Lighting and her partners in Final Fantasy XII. Also Lighting Character develops as the story progresses, the same can not be said for the protagonist of Fallout 2.

Hmm, I did not compare Length and Real time/Turn based Gameplay.

For length I would have to say that is is same unless you want to replay the game again. (Fallout 2 has more incentives to do this than Final Fantasy XII) The easiest Example I can think of this is that if you make your Intelligence Stat low enough, your character will have different lines to say and is treated differently, also in regards to battle, depending on your skill set you can play the game guns blazing or play the game like its Metal Gear.

Turn Based/ Real time Gameplay:

The only reason I skipped this is because Fallout is purely turn based like Final Fantasy XIII.(Granted, your turns are much shorter than in previous Final Fantasies but you and your enemies both stand while they are waiting for their opponent to finish acting. Plus Final Fantasy XII has a lot of visual noise.) I will cite Baldur's Gate 2 as an example of a game which allows you to switch between real time and turn based gameplay with the press of a button. I can't think of no other game with such a feature. In order to stop this into turning into a big argument I will define Real Time Gameplay as gameplay in which you don't take turns or where such turns are imperceptible, also in a real time game you and your opponent can attack at the same exact time.

Soundtrack: The only way I can explain it is this, I have many, many console Video Game soundtracks while I only have one from a PC game.

Addition or modification of in-game assets: This is a fancy term for Mods. Basically games are made on PC's and developers that create exclusively or mainly for that platform tend to release tools that allow gamers to do as they please.(sometimes releasing the same tools that they have used to create the game) One can say that this is why modding has not been done on consoles, I disagree I think it is more about how much the audience cares(or knows about the industry)about their token product or game, than anything else, it is probably possible to release modding tools for the Xbox 360 and PS3 games however videogame creators tend to release DLC for these consoles while such things are released for free for the PC. A Console Gamer(if there is such a thing) is much more bound to pay for things developers offer to PC gamers for free. (On the same note I like the comment about DLC that is on the Final Fantasy XIII Page.) Although this might be because developers are not allowed the same freedom on PC than they are on console, which reminds of Development styles. 75.43.34.78 (talk) 06:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah, Fallout 2 so violent to the point that one can disembowel enemies with a critical hit, while in Final Fantasy XII the females have big breasts and dress provokingly.

- Having played both console and PC games a lot, I pick games based on Depth and Quality. I define Depth as how complex a particular system or mechanic is and how much noticeable impact one can have on it.

I would define quality but I want that definition to stay close source.(How much something improves)

Both console and PC have plenty of these games, however I find that there are more quality PC games than console games (although this might be because consoles games a have a broader market, shorter lifespan, and that there are so many of them.)

Merge to Role-playing video game

During the AfDs for console and computer role-playing game articles it was discussed that given the quality of the article, the amount of original research and uncited sources that it would a good idea to merge any cited items into Role-playing video game.陣内_Jinnai 20:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Another merge target might be History of role-playing video games. SharkD  Talk  03:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's gather some material first, to see what is salvageable and what isn't. Here are the referenced articles in synopsis form:

East, meet West gaming is largely the purview of Western developers, and the PC RPG evolved from early classics like Hero's Quest (Quest for Glory) and Ultima. PC RPGs and Western RPGs have gone hand-in-hand to such a degree that the two are largely synonymous. The RPG can, at times, overlap a bit with the adventure genre, but the greatest defining characteristic of Western RPGs is "open-ended game design," or as The Elder Scrolls: Arena website puts it, "be who you want and do what you want." Which, perhaps ironically, is one of the biggest reasons for the genre's slow demise. (...) On the other hand, the Japanese RPG market has been always console focused, and has primarily aimed to keep players on a single path. By the time Final Fantasy VII for PlayStation came around, Japanese console RPGs were approaching the sheer complexity of their PC contemporaries, like The Elder Scrolls II: Daggerfall. But much of that complexity was based on exploring a world where events moved around the characters. Japanese RPGs rarely try to re-create the feeling for players of being one of the gang at a D&D game; they try to create the feeling of being the game master, guiding powerful characters and enjoying trying to figure out how the world they exist in will react to them.

— Joynt, Patrick (2006-03-29). "The Oblivion of Western RPGs: Can Oblivion save a genre it helped bury?". 1up.com. Retrieved 2006-08-14. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

---

While the modern electronic role-playing game was created by Westerners, in the mid-80s the Japanese took the basic elements of the genre and began creating a very different beast. Today, Japanese RPGs tend to be linear and story-based, while Western games are often more non-linear and feature more character customization. Each approach has its merits ... and detriments.

Benjamin Turner:

Most JRPGs seemed to follow similar formulas and trot out predictable cliches, and I was no longer able to lose myself in their plots for hours on end. (...) In fact, I noticed that the games were starting to repeat themselves. (...) Some people enjoy the conventions of JRPGs, but I'm past the point where they can interest me. I want to create my own characters instead of playing someone else's; I want to explore a world at my own pace rather than being shuffled through a pre-planned, linear progression. Most of all, I want to be able to replay a favorite game and have a very different experience. Thanks to an emphasis on player freedom above plot, this is where many CRPGs excel. (...) I would later find that some of these traits, like greater freedom and player-developed characters, were common to many CRPGs, just as long, linear plots were endemic to Japanese games.

Christian Nutt:

It's often suggested that Japanese RPGs' battle systems all boil down to hitting the same button until all of the enemies are dead, and often games come up with nothing more imaginative than that. However, the best games offer systems that emphasize strategy and timing. (...) I could list tons more console RPG's with a variety of great battle systems, but I'll stop here. Conversely, it seems that many Western RPGs (KOTOR, I'm looking at you) are more concerned with the rules underlying the battle system rather than the experience of battle itself, and I don't find that nearly as engaging. (...) The character building system in Japanese RPGs is [also] typically much less flexible, but it's also much more focused. (...) As far as story goes, dialogue is vastly important to these games, and while it's interesting to have choices and explore different paths, the narrative of Western RPGs is often less than focused. (...) That sums it up: every aspect of a great console RPG is impressively fine-tuned. While there are entertaining elements to Western RPGs, such as dialogue trees, that I'd like to see Japanese developers experiment with, the way that all of the design elements of a great Japanese RPG work in concert to offer a truly engaging experience as a whole is what really excites me the most.

— Turner, Benjamin and Nutt, Christian (2003-07-29). "Spy/Counterspy Case File 07: RPGs - East vs. West". GameSpy. Retrieved 2006-08-14. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

---

The biggest and most notable difference is, of course, colour. (...) There is no doubt that realistic-looking Western RPGs backgrounds can, and do, look breathtakingly gorgeous, but the Japanese have it in spades as their spectacular mythical landscapes seem to spring out at us and come to life before our eyes.

(...)

Character creation is another area where the East/West gap is wider than a sword span. Western faces are created on computers and based on real life, yet Japanese artists are masters at portraying a character's meaning and intent with just a few lines. (...) Western RPG game developers strive for male characters that are manly and strong, well muscled and toned beneath their flashing armour. (...) [The Japanese male character] seems more inclined towards being a fashion model than a fighting man. (...) Japanese female characters are usually portrayed as innocent girls who participate in combat almost unwillingly. (...) Western women are more likely to be bold and brash, almost mannish, in their behavior ... [and] look more like they belong on the pages of Playboy.

(...)

A fixed camera gives the Japanese developer the opportunity to give the player the exact view and experience that he envisioned when he created the game. (...) Having said that, the Western idea of a free-ranging camera does allow the player much more flexibility and freedom. (...) The story line and its accompanying side quests are secondary to the free-roaming adventure that can be had on their own. The personal freedom to go anywhere, do anything and cope with challenges as they arrive appeals to the Western mind. The Japanese RPGer, however, likes to know what's coming next so they can lay plans, and a linear game caters to that need. The Japanese player actually feels uncomfortable with the unknown and would much rather have clearly defined goals by which to progress.

(...)

Combat is approached and treated differently in Western and Eastern RPGs. The Japanese view it as a means to an end, while Western developers tend to use it as a focus point. The defeat of a final boss in a Western RPG marks the climax of the game and is a signal for the credits to roll. But because a Japanese RPG is more story-driven, after the end game boss has been beaten to a bloody pulp the game continues and the story's final scenes play out to reach a gentle, sometimes tearful, close.

— Sherrin English (07/01/2008). "Japanese and Western RPGs - The Differences". NZGamer. Retrieved 2009-09-09. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

---

I'll shy away from trying to define what I mean by "Western" and "Eastern." It's obviously be stupid to try to generalize about such huge, diverse groups of people. Still, just looking at the games, I think we can notice a few very obvious differences.

(...)

Kawaisa is a term Kohler uses to describe Japan's obsession with "cuteness," which Kohler believes began with the Hello Kitty phenomenon of the 70s. A quick glance through any collection of anime, manga, or Japanese videogames will reveal the prevalence there of kawaisa. For instance, let's consider this cover shot of Final Fantasy XI Online. (...) On the one hand, you have three characters that would look at home in any Western fantasy game. Then you have a...what is that? Some kind of teddy bear? At least for folks like me, this character seems out of place against the other ones.

(...)

Let's look at another example. (...) Let's compare the cover art for the original Japanese version [of Dragon Quest] compared to the "Westernized" version exported to the US. [The US version is] a scene straight from any of the popular AD&D books of the time--a heroic looking European slashing a sword in the face of a menacing-looking dragon. (...) [The Japanese version is] a bit hard for an American to parse. It looks distinctly cartoony, and I'd probably guess it was intended for young kids. (...) What we're confronting here, essentially, is the realism of the Western style vs. the highly stylized art of Japan.

(...)

As Kohler points out in his book, the Japanese have a much different attitude towards religion and Christian imagery than we do. In a word, it's not held as sacred, and often used in surprising ways that could easily be misconstrued as "blasphemous" by American audiences. For this reason, Nintendo made every effort to "cleanse" the religious stuff from its American imports. A quick example is the game Devil World by the famous Shigeru Miyamoto. The game was considered simply too Japanese and was never released in America.

(...)

In short, what I see when I compare games like Pool of Radiance and Dragon Quest, or Neverwinter Nights and Final Fantasy, is a great cultural rift. It seems to me that folks who grew up playing Japanese games on their NES and later SNES systems probably developed an affinity for Japanese style art and themes that have created a sort of "East/West divide" right here in the US.

— Barton, Matt (2006-08-10). "Kawaisa! A Naive Glance at Western and Eastern RPGs". Armchair Arcade. Retrieved 2006-08-14.

The fourth source only examines a few superficial aspects that aren't necessarily limited to RPGs, alone. There's a fifth source I don't have access to. And, the third source doesn't strike me as particularly reliable. SharkD  Talk  03:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

This article consists largely of weasel words such as "these RPGs often contain" and original research as to the characteristics of either type of RPG. The "Armchair Arcade" source is based on a blog post while the NZGamer one doesn't seem reliable and also seems to contain as much original research as the article itself. For example, the author contends that women in JRPGs are always submissive, versus bold women in WRPGs, but it doesn't mention archetypes like tsunderes anywhere. The archetype including Mysterious Waif type women is only a part of JRPG tradition. A list of cliches can work when citing specific examples via original research such as on TVTropes, but not in an encylopedia where generalizations are necessary.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

NZGamer I'd say should be marked as an unreliable source. Looking at what I can tell none of the people there are experts and the site looks like it has no editorial overview. Their contact page lists a bunch of writers and zero editing staff.

As for the first one (1Up) while its normally a RS, I'd have to treat this aspect with a bit of caution. The review mixes and matches terms and usage and phrases like "On the other hand, the Japanese RPG market has been always console focused," tell me he is not an expert on Japanese RPG market. I'd have to therefore say, in this circumstance WP:DUE comes into being for this as it is giving too much weight to an writer who clearly does not understand the Japanese RPG marker (else he would never have made such a claim). He goes against mainstream expert opinion in stating that GTA isn't an (action-)RPG. Does that mean we shouldn't use him? Not necessarily, but his view should be proportionate to his credibility and some things I think he does get right.

In contrast, the gamespy article which gives 2 opposing viewpoints is probably more relevant, albeit only on the surface level. Basically boiling down to: in the west, RPGs have been more focused on the idea of a sandbox with limits whereas the Japanese-style rpgs are more focused on the storytelling and narrative drive. Neither give very good dividing line though and rely more on clear examples of the obvious iconic representations of such so its hard to pinpoint down where the barrier between the two exists. This leads to an unclear at best definition. Finally the problem also arises in that games from both sides buck this trend: Secret of Evermore is a linear western RPG and Uncharted Waters is a non-linear trade-based Japanese RPG.陣内_Jinnai 23:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

"The review mixes and matches terms and usage and phrases like 'On the other hand, the Japanese RPG market has been always console focused,' tell me he is not an expert on Japanese RPG market." Could you explain this in more detail? Why is he wrong on this point?

"He goes against mainstream expert opinion in stating that GTA isn't an (action-)RPG." Are you sure about that? I've never seen it called an RPG. SharkD  Talk  11:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

For the first point its a matter of systematic bias. Because all that gets translated mostly are console RPGs most English-speakers think Japan must be heavily console-RPG focused; in truth, many of the RPGs (and indeed many of the video games in general) in Japan are produced first or concurrently for PC. If they aren't they are quickly ported to PC in Japan. True, not all of them are, but the other way is also the truth - many PC rpgs are never ported to console in Japan.

i've seen it called an action-rpg, although I admit it may not be labeled as such by everyone.陣内_Jinnai 22:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be a small amount of info that can actually be merged. Most of the article should just be tossed out outright due to original research and unreliable sources. I really don't see the article's subject matter being relevant for anyone other than a hardcore role-playing gamer, and even then as 'trivia'. Plus, stuff like this does it better, though it doesn't compare the two types, but those kinds of comparisons can often be innacurate.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It may be of more use to something like a general cultural differences between Japan and the US (because that's what this mostly seems to boil down to from most of the sources). Of course I agree most of it cannot be merged, but we should probably figure out what information can be so we aren't accused of violating WP:PRESERVE.陣内_Jinnai 21:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

merge and rename

There is no real reason to have Computer role-playing games seperate from console role-playing games article-wise. They should both be under Video game role-playing games. The differences are marginal beyond interface. Indeed Turn-Based Role Playing Game links here, but RPGs on computers have turn-based combat as well; if anything, that was the origin of such combat.

Sure, there are enough differences to warrant separate sections to talk about them, but these are generally limited ones.

Cultural differences in role-playing video games is based on 1 single reference and is mostly a bunch of original reasearch and opinion. Eh nm...looks like it talks abotu East/West, but the points about that particular article still stand.陣内_Jinnai 22:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not arguing for or against this, but I'd like to draw your attention to Role-playing game (video games) as a possible merge target if you do go ahead with it. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

If you think it might be better then that's fine. It's just that the differences between the two seem largely original research or based on their interface devices.陣内_Jinnai 17:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

While I think the quality of both articles is not very good, I disagree with the merger. It's not uncommon to deal with each type separately, especially when it comes to their history. See: The History of Computer Role-Playing Games, Parts I - III. SharkD  Talk  03:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, while this isn't a reliable site, it gets linked to frequently in blogs/forums (including GameSetWatch, Destructoid, GayGamer and the PC World blog). Finally, IGN still awards computer and console RPGs separately. SharkD  Talk  03:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

While not directly related: Ten golden rules of Japanese RPGs and Ten classic mistakes made by the modern RPG which doesn't mention any PC RPGs as far as I can tell. SharkD  Talk  03:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Why is a merger repeatedly being recommended? "Console RPGs" are not "PC RPGs". The two major console systems are manufactured in Japan, as are the two major handheld systems these games are released on. The overwhelming majority of console RPGs are of Japanese origin. Because of the limits of the medium compared to personal computers, they tend to have different design goals. They also tend to use different game mechanic systems (often designed specifically for the game), whereas most Western computer RPGs are based on a tabletop system (ex. Knights of the Old Republic is based on d20 and Fallout is loosely based on GURPS).

Console RPGs as a subgenre of videogames is widely accepted and has been for decades. Google, "console RPGs" and then google "PC rpg" if you don't believe it; the former will bring it hundreds of links talking about Japanese console rpgs and the latter will bring up Western personal computer RPGs. Recommending that this article be merged with computer roleplaying games is like suggesting the children's literature article be merged with the fiction article--Crmartell (talk) 10:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

If its not from any reliable sources it's just an unfounded opinion. Even if it is the truth (which i am calling into question), Wikipedia requires verifiability of it and even more so when it is a contriversial subject like this one where I expert opinion isn't enough.

Crmartell what you are describing is not a console/PC divide, but an east/west divide. You are, like so many others, confusing east=console with west=pc when that is historically not true as many of the console games in Japan are ported to PC and vice versa. Not all, aye, but enough that there is clearly more evidence needed from a perspective beyond one that comes from just a standpoint of the US where there is systemic bias towards such given the console crash of 81 and its impact.陣内_Jinnai 18:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

You're claiming there isn't any reliable sources because you've done no research. A simple check of the GameFAQs website (which lists pretty much every single commercial videogame, is heavily intertwined with the largest videogame journalist site Gamespot and is owned by CBS) shows the majority of console RPGs are in fact of Japanese origin; especially when you look at those produced before '98. In fact, when you look at the way GameFAQs organizes games, it has a specific subgenre called "Console-style RPG"; Every system has a "Games by Category: Role-Playing > Console-style RPG" subsection. PC-rpgs are considered their own sub-category and a RPG videogame released on a console can in fact be considered a "PC-style RPG" due to certain elements in the gameplay; that is why there are PC-style RPGs for consoles. Give it a rest guys; you're mistaken. The label isn't a matter of opinion; it is an easily verifiable fact that console RPGs are considered a distinct genre of computer RPGs. Whether you personally feel the label is right or wrong is irrelevant here. The point is that the majority of the English speaking world and the whole of the videogame professional community considers console-style RPGs a unique subgenre different from first person RPGs, PC style RPGs, MMORPGs, and Action RPGs. You're dissecting the literal meaning of the label more than you should be. If you want to be literal, all videogames are roleplaying games. The point you're missing is that the labels were not chosen for their literal meanings but for the style of gameplay they have and where the origins of that gameplay came from.

Edit: One of the very first Google results is an article on Gamespot about the history of console RPGs, all but one (Shadowrun) of which is Japanese origin. http://www.gamespot.com/features/vgs/universal/rpg_hs/index.html There is yet another reliable source.

--Crmartell (talk) 10:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

That first is original research and if that is the basis then you have just bolstered the reason for merging.

For the second, first that is just one opinion and it does not also note what defines is as different than something made for PC. That is the crux here: just being made on a console isn't enough because that is content forking which requires substantial reason. Furthermore, your assertion that console RPGs are mostly Japanese in origin just bolsters my argument that at best, this is an east/west divide if anything as some of those games, notably the first one released, was released Dragon Warrior was released in Japan at the same time for a computer system, MSX further evidence that the difference that this article is not one that should exist.

GameFAQs is not original research; it is a reliable source. and how the website categorizes games is not an opinion but a fact. Nor is the label an east / west divide. "Console-style RPG" is a genre heavily rooted in Japanese videogame development and Japanese developers are the primary creators of these games. However, there are a few non-Japanese produced games that fall into the "Console-style RPG" genre. The point is that it is a distinct genre separate from the larger computer roleplaying game category. The only reason there is content forking is because some Wikipedia users are trying to be politically correct and in the process trying to re-define what these games are called. "Console-style RPG" is a genre. The game does not have to be on a console to be a console-style RPG. Again, you are focusing too much on the literal meaning of the label.

Yet another source: David Perry (game developer) has a book titled David Perry on Game Design. His "Game Genres" chapter has Console-style RPGs as their own unique category, separate from MMORPGs, Action-RPGs, and so forth. [2] He lists the Final Fantasy series as an example of the genre. You will notice he considers Action RPGs (Secret of Mana and Legend of Zelda) a distinct genre and does not classify them as Console RPGs despite that these games have only been released on console systems.

Lastly, CNET considers "Console style RPGs Games and gear" a unique subcategory for its reviews,here and here you can see for yourself.

Professional news organizations, professional game designers and large online retailers are using the label to specify a specific kind of computer RPG and the label is not used to cover every RPG game on a console. Reliable sources are verifying common knowledge.

--Crmartell (talk) 02:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

You do not understand the definition of original research. OR is when you use a source, even a reliable one like GameFAQs data pages, to extract that because X, Y and Z games are listed as such they A, B and C must be true. That is called synthesis and that is what you are doing here.

As for the rest, while the term i know has been used, it is used inconsistantly by various reviewers. So the part that it should be noted in wikipedia is not disputed, but this is a fork say computer rpgs are not the same as rpgs because japan makes most of their rpgs for consoles and US makes most of theirs for PC.

Finally the use of retailers cannot be used as evidence to support anything because they label stuff in order to sell stuff. If Ninendo thought Zelda games would sell better labeled as Action games or RPGs they'd do so.陣内_Jinnai 21:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the OP that the articles should be merged and sectionalized. It's confusing to have two articles on two types of RPGs that will most likely be combined. JRPG's have been released for PC, for example, The Last Remnant. They're not strictly for consoles anymore, so the term is completely defunct. Also, not only JRPGs are released for consoles. I think the merge target should be Role-playing video game.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

←My two cents: As someone mentioned in WT:VG, perhaps a good way to merge this content is to have it go to a general article on Role-Playing Games, which discusses the common points about all RPGs, then has sections on the specific notable types of RPGs (action, turn-based, MMO, etc.). The specific device on which the game is presented is completely secondary to what type of game it is - Chrono Trigger, a turn-based RPG, could have been presented on the PC instead of (or in addition to) the SNES, and it would be the exact same game either way. Arguing about whether a game should be called a Console RPG, PC-RPG, Computer RPG, or what have you, seems silly to me, when discussion should really be about the game's design and presentation. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I concur, the platform is completely irrelevant - it should not be in the title of a GENRE article. I don't think they should be classified by region either, just by genre. JRPG style games can be made by Americans, and vice-versa, just because the majority of JRPGs are on consoles doesn't mean that all of them are.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

JRPG is something different than what you believe it is. And you guys are completely missing the point; "console RPG" is a genre, not a label given to all computer RPGs on a console. It is a very specific kind of computer RPG and it just so happens the genre is defined by Japanese computer RPGs released on consoles in the 80s and 90s. That is the history behind the label and that history determined what the genre was called. I'm unsure if you guys know enough about games to be making these decisions, especially when you're ignoring how the term "console RPG" is used in the greater gamer community, gaming press and the gaming industry. That "console-style RPG" is used by sites like GameFAQs, Gamespot and CNET to apply only specific computer RPGs on a console (and not all RPGs released on a console) ought to indicate the issue isn't as cut and dry as you want it to be. It seems to me you want to merge the article because you don't like the label and even if I cited every article about console RPGs as a distinct subgenre within computer RPGs you still wouldn't be happy. The fact is console RPGs is a distinct GENRE of computer RPGs, the same way Visual novels and MMORPGs are a distinct GENRE of computer RPGs. You are mistaken in the belief that console RPG is any RPG released on a console and your desire to merge the article is based on your mistaken viewpoints. As was pointed out in prior move requests, "console RPG" is the most common and widely known term, it is a distinct genre and this article does not need to be moved. The only problem with this article is that it is trying to be "all inclusive" and treat all computer RPGs released on a console as a console RPG. Granted, as with all kinds of art there are some games which blur the lines between genres but that does not mean that genres do not exist.

--Crmartell (talk) 05:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

As someone who has been close to the games industry almost all his life, I resent being told I'm not qualified to be editing articles on games. Now, every place that I have seen the term "console RPG" used, it has meant "RPG released on a console", while JRPG has meant "Japanese RPG" or "Japanese-style RPG". — KieferSkunk (talk) — 06:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Now, lemme ask you this: Take a game like Final Fantasy VII. The game would qualify as a "console RPG" because it was released on a console, right? But the game was also released on the PC, sometime later. Is it still a "console RPG"? If so, then why is it considered that when it's available on multiple platforms, at least one of which is not a console? And if it's not classified as a console RPG anymore, then what is it about the game that caused it to stop being one? Does it only have to do with where the game was released first? Does it refer to a particular style of game that is independent of the platform it's released on? Where are you getting the actual definition of a Console Game from? All I've seen are arguments based on the aforementioned synthesis from GameFAQs and similar sites. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 06:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, you are not listening to what I'm saying. All of the questions you have asked, I already answered. JRPG refers to Japanese tabletop roleplaying games such as Sword World and Alshard; in fact, there is an article about them here on Wikipedia, which I linked to before. Hell, calling any videogame a JRPG is actually neglecting the fact there are Japanese roleplaying games.

It's not hard to find information about what defines the genre. There is an article already on Wikipedia about it; it's just mis-labeled and trying to be politically correct. [3]

The majority of the Final Fantasy series falls under console RPGs category; there are exceptions, such as the MMORPG and Chrystal Chronicles (more of an Action RPG). However, being ported to a PC has nothing to do with whether its genre changes; FF 7 and 8 both received ports to Windows; the games remain classified as console RPGs [4] [5]. In Japan, I believe the genre is called "light RPG" or something along those lines. The genre shares very early roots with PC rpgs but the commercial focus on developing games for home gaming systems (such as the NES and Sega Master) had a large impact for why the genre evolved differently than in the West (which focused its commercial rpg game efforts on distribution to personal computers). The console RPG genre is largely defined by minimalist gameplay and heavy emphasis on a pre-determined dramatic storylines with little opportunity to customize characters or explore the world beyond information that pertains to the scripted story. The story usually has "main characters"; the party and the plot revolves around these characters. The Console RPG genre originates in what methods game designers developed to work around the limits of console systems in the 80s and 90s (which lacked much of the power and flexibility that personal computers did). There is also emphasis on creating custom battle systems for each new game instead of re-using previously designed systems. Final Fantasy, Dragon Quest, Phantasy Star, and Shin Megami Tensei defined the genre.

On the other hand, the genre of PC-style games evolved out of interactive fiction (sometimes called, "text-based") computer RPGs and are heavily focused on emulating complicated tabletop RPG systems such as D&D and GURPS. This gameplay was feasible due to the hardware differences between consoles and PCs. PC-style games tend to be more open-ended than console games; they allow players to fully customize their characters and are less focused on story-driven events. Because of keyboard driven interfaces, there is usually more complicated systems for interacting with NPCs and the environment; all NPCs may even be killable and perma-death may exist outside scripted events. Ultima (note that the NES port of Ultima is considered a PC-style game, Bard's Tale, Wizardry, and Baldur's Gate [6] define the genre.

Presently, there are many Western designers that incorporate "console-style" elements into their games and Japanese designers that incorporate "PC-style" elements into their games. The actual system the games are played on is irrelevant; the labels are holdovers from the era these genres originated in. Example: Atlantica Online is considered to have "console-style" game elements even though it is a MMORPG. [7] An IGN.com interview with the Korean creators has them refer to the game having these "console RPG" elements,

And we hope to attract console players with our goal-driven action and the turn-based combat system. Having them make the transition to world of MMOGs is the main opportunity with the game since it combines console RPG and MMO features. [8]

The game is advertised as being "like a console RPG" [9]. Note he does not say what makes it like a console RPG; because of how universal the term "console RPG" is for a specific genre, the designer likely believes a deep explanation is unnecessary. Just as it is unnecessary to explain what an Action game or first-person shooter is every time one talks about that type of game.

That the gameplay caters to console RPG fans is stated in a 1up.com review of the game [10]. What elements in the game do you suppose they mean? Could it possibly be the reviewer is assuming "console RPG" is such a widespread and commonly understood label that no further explanation is required? I would say so given that the term for this genre has existed since the 80s and has appeared in hundreds of game review magazines, forums and common discussion. The game in question has a turn-based system of party vs party combat, much like Final Fantasy 7, which is probably one of the first games you'd think of. You wouldn't think of a Zelda because that is an Action RPG (Zelda games, I'd like to point out, are categorized as "Action Adventure" [11] by GameFAQs; Final Fantasy games are considered "Console-style RPGs" [12]).

Again, why do sites like Gamefaqs have a "console-style RPG" subgenre for roleplaying games released on console systems? Logically, the reason is because all RPGs released on a console are not viewed as belonging to the console-style RPG subgenre.

The [cultural differences] article should actually be split into PC RPG and Console RPG articles because "Western RPGs" and "Eastern RPGs" are very recent labels and largely used by those who are trying to be politically correct or don't know what the proper labels are.

Again, the historical development of the genres were defined by the systems these games were played on during the videogame industry's early years. As I already said earlier, you are focusing too much on the word "CONSOLE" and less on what the labels have meant to gamers for the past two decades. The entire reason internet search results for "console RPG" bring up legions of results about Japanese RPG videogames and hardly any Western RPG videogames is because Japanese developers just so happen to produce the majority of these games; not surprising since the genre originated in their country, as do the consoles systems these games primarily appear on. I view your desire to merge this article with "computer roleplaying games" akin to wanting to merge the "anime" article (anime being a label not used in Japan yet universally understood to mean "Japanese animation" in the English-speaking world) with the "Animated cartoons" article just because they are both animation. If anything, the computer roleplaying game article should be a short article that provides short summaries of the subgenres and links to the full articles because "computer roleplaying games" have many subgenres; console RPG being one of them.

To put is more simply; The Legend of Zelda and Ys series are Action-RPGs games. Final Fantasy 7 and Chrono Trigger are console RPGs. Fallout 3 is a first person RPG. Baldur's Gate is a PC rpg game. They may all be RPGs which have seen releases on consoles, but the game structure and goals are distinct enough that they are considered separate genres.--Crmartell (talk) 10:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I see what you're saying: The industry seems to use the term "console RPG" to refer to the style of RPG popularized by such games as the FF series, and the term refers specifically to their style, not their platform. That makes sense, and I can also see how someone could interpret those terms the way I did above - "Console RPG" meaning "RPG released on a console" rather than "RPG following the style of earlier games released on consoles".

It makes sense for there to be a "console-style RPG" (my term, meant to be a clarifying expansion of the industry term you're talking about), as differentiated from open-world/sandbox RPGs (Oblivion, Fallout 3), MMOs (World of Warcraft, Everquest), Action RPGs (Zelda), and D&D-style RPGs (games that follow the strict rules and presentation of D&D-style tabletop games). As you correctly point out, this distinct type of game is well-suited to consoles with limited capabilities and limited controls, allowing the player to essentially interact with a story rather than really "role play". There are numerous sources that will back this bit up.

So, that said, I still support consolidating content in a way that makes sense and gives equal weight to each genre. Perhaps the specific names of genres that were originally called out don't make as much sense given your explanation, but the individual subgenres should be clearly linked from a main article on role-playing games in general, since even Console RPGs have things in common with other types of RPGs. By "consolidating", I mean ensuring that a main page covers at least the basics of each genre, and for those genres with enough notable, verifiable, sourced information, we provide a {{main}} link to the individual page. The end result will likely be not merging this page with the master, but rather cleaning up the content so that it's more clearly understood. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Problem is though KieferShunk, that is blantaly in violation of WP:SYNTH unless we have a RS say something to that effect. Now we could have a category of say Category:Console role-playing video games, but as article content, that is the very definition of what Wikipedia does not allow as part of one of its core policies.陣内_Jinnai 22:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

(nod) I'm aware of that. The sources given in the lengthy explanation above are still largely GameFAQs, though there are a couple of other sites represented there as well. What we really need is a source that actually talks about the genre, not just examples of the genre, because you're right - drawing the conclusion from examples ONLY is WP:SYNTH. But likewise, drawing an opposite conclusion lacking any sources would also be synthesis. Generalizing to the next-best thing that is documented reliably would be the only way out of that.

That said, I have confidence that this can be reliably sourced with more than just sparse examples given from GameFaqs sites. This is one of those fuzzy areas, though, where industry terminology just happens without there being a whole lot of thought behind it, and Wikipedia is supposed to be flexible enough to capture that sort of content as well. Especially in video games, there are a lot of cases where subjects are not perfectly sourced and yet are still notable enough to warrant WP articles.

Crmartell: As Jinnai has said here, the problem with your argument isn't so much the content of the argument at this point - I think I've understood what you've said, and it makes sense to me. But unfortunately, most of the sources you've pointed to (the majority of which are GameFaqs articles and listings that simply show examples of this categorization) don't qualify as reliable sources to base notability and definition of the genre as a whole. Can you point us to a specific article or two on a reliable source (meaning, not a blog or forum post or a game listing) that actually describes the genre in similar terms to what you posted above? If so, I'd accept that. (Can't speak for Jinnai.) Unfortunately, what you have above is somewhat equivalent to saying "The definition of water is water, because everybody uses the term water to describe water." — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem with meeting Wikipedia's standards is all of the "reliable sources" would be old game magazines and design books I no longer own; and even then, they are opinion pieces (although they share a widely held opinion). Most of the stuff you will find freely available is stuff like forum conversations [13], fan programming projects [14], fan sites [15], and articles [16] [17] [18] [19] on sites like RPGamer like this and this, where the term is going to be used with the expectation the reader knows what it means. Then there is the way websites organize games by genre [20] [21] [22]. There is also the odd use of the term for marketing games that emulate console-style rpg gameplay [23] [24] [25], such as with the tabletop RPG Super Console [26]. You're simply not going to find many scholarly essays about roleplaying videogame genres on the internet because it is such a niche subculture. The closest I can find is this and I doubt it meets your standards since it's a copy of the older version of this very Wikipedia article, prior to when it started being edited to apply to every RPG released on a console. I'm still searching for a more definite source though; I'm positive I can find one. --Crmartell (talk) 01:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

If you know which magazines those are, then someone might have them. However, at best it would be a historic piece because those items have largely been blurred much like how once there was distinction between computer games and video games. Even so, it is doubtful it deserves its own entire article as well. And finally it may also be purring undue weight on the idea from a western perspective compared to Japan since in the west video game rpgs are not as significant as in Japan in terms dominance.陣内_Jinnai 03:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Why do you keep bringing up an accusation of Western bias? This is the English Wikipedia, not the Japanese one. As I stated before, they don't call Japanese animation "anime" in Japan; in Japan, "anime" refers to all animation regardless of country origin. They also refer to all comic books as "manga", whereas we don't do that in the English speaking world. An English encyclopedia should be reflecting what words in English mean and not trying to dance around what they mean in other languages. That is extremely unhelpful to those trying to find accurate information.

Anyway, I've sent a request to GameFAQs staff asking for them to put a page up that clearly explains how they categorize games. The old magazines would have been stuff like Nintendo Power, EGN and GamePro. --Crmartell (talk) 23:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

On the first point, that is because just because this is an English Wikipedia does not mean we can exclusde non-English viewpoints. How much weight they are given is a matter for WP:UNDUE and, FE, given much weight to what Russian sources use to categorize video game RPGs doesn't meet much importance because they haven't had historic impact in the field.
Japan isn't. Almost every notable game of impact in the video game RPG subgenre can link themselves heavily to a JRPG. Even PC games like Morrowind and Baldur's Gate cannot completely escape this impact. To ignore the impact and the viewpoints of Japan would be akin to ignoring the German viewpoint in WWII articles on Wikipedia simply because this is a "English" wikipedia.
Now to your second point, that may still not be deemed a reliable source. At the very least, it would have to have a wider discussion before it could be used, if GameFAQs even posts such a page. It also would be, as noted, just an US prespective.陣内_Jinnai 04:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

This isn't like holocaust denial. This is properly labeling what the game genre is called by the overwhelming majority of people who play the games. Also, if it's perfectly okay to cite three opinion articles to justify the cultural differences article then it should be acceptable for the citations I've listed to be used as evidence the genre is NOT called JRPG, but console-style RPG, and that every game on a console is not considered a console-style rpg. JRPG is a relatively new term used by those who don't really know much about the genre and don't acknowledge the existence of tabletop RPG games like Sword World and Alshard, which are HUGE franchises in Japan. You're basically acting like a rules lawyer here; you're cherry-picking when a rule should apply based on your own bias. You haven't even provided any evidence for what Japanese gamers consider a console RPG to be, so all the declarations you're making are just your own opinion. I've at least cited many sources backing up my opinion. Hell, I even cited a Korean game designer referring to Atlantica Online as having console style RPG elements, showing a high probability that the term is not limited to the English speaking world.

Besides, the Wikipdia article on Neutral point of view says, "the most common name used in English-language publications is generally used". And the most common name is definitely console RPG, not JRPG or whatever you'd like to call it. And the most common opinion is that there are subgenres within the videogame RPG. Trying to deny that is silly because even if people disagree on what the genre is called it is universally agreed there are differences between the subgenres.

You are getting so wrapped up in rules when the spirit of the rule should be applied here. This is a topic about a niche subculture. You're not going to find scholarly essays. And game reviewers are not trained experts with degrees in game journalism (there are no academic programs for game journalism); they are just sharing opinions. What we have here is a situation where, if you applied the rules to the letter of the law, there shouldn't even be an article. So this essay should apply more [[27]].

The reality is this article is inaccurate and misinforming. It does not reflect the prevailing view within the gamer community. It should be reverted back to how it was before it got warped by people that wanted to include every console game imaginable. And the fact that the most popular websites for every-day gamers to categorize, review and discuss games (such as GameFAQs) considers console-style RPG different than PC-style games ought to be proof enough. Do you really need a list for something that should be common sense? Can you prove that my interpretation of how GameFAQs categorizes games is wrong? Surely you can rules lawyer and say it doesn't meet Wikipedia standards but can you actually prove my judgment is mistaken? If your conclusions are the same as mine, then common sense should apply here. --Crmartell (talk) 09:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)It doesn't matter that this isn't a holocaust denial or something akin to it; this is an encyclopedia of human knowledge and as the history of video games shows, the primary video game industry is in Japan. "This is an English Wikipedia" is not a cop-out from neutral point-of-view and undue weight.

Your claims such as "This is properly labeling what the game genre is called by the overwhelming majority of people who play the games." are based on what? Your interpretations? The majorty of American players? The majority of English players? Because I'll be frank; the sales data shows that the majority of video-game RPGs sold are in Japan with a few exceptions (for this check the many video game articles out there). The evidence you provided fails synthesis.

As to what Japanese players consider the rpgs on a console to be, that, I do not know. However, I do know neither I nor you have evidence to support they have these distinctions put here from console and computer rpgs. It's the lack of evidence, except evidence that violates no original research policy and evidence from blogs, forum posts, etc which fails verificablity policy that you use.

We do not need to find scholarly essays or the like. Information from a magazine like Wired would suffice.陣内_Jinnai 19:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Jinnai you've provided no evidence for any of the claims you've made. All you've done is point out how the evidence I've shown can be rejected by Wikipedia standards if the spirit of the rules are ignored. As I've already proven, the only websites that keep track of videogames do not define games by country or culture. "Japanese roleplaying game" is a relatively new term; "console-style RPG" predates it. If that was not the case then sites like GameFAQs (which was created in 1995) would be calling them "JRPGs", like you do. GameFAQs is not some random blog; it is a websited owned by CNET, which is in turn owned by CBS Corporation. CNET also owns Gamespot. Most of CNET's websites (including GameFAQs) are listed by Alexa as within the top 500 most trafficked English language websites [28] [29] GameFAQs itself is 124# in the US.

So I stress again, when the largest gamer news sites list "console-style RPGs" as a genre, that means millions of people believe the genre exists. You will notice "Japanese roleplaying game" is not a category for videogames. It's irrelevant if "console-style" is a misnomer; that's what the genre is called and it's been called such for the past two decades. When systems like the NES and Sega Genesis were out in the US, most of us didn't even know they came from Japan because many companies formed North American subsidaries (such as Capcom USA or Square Soft, Inc) to distribute their games. --Crmartell (talk) 16:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the "Japanese RPG"/"computer RPG" split is more common than either "Japanese RPG"/"Western RPG" or "console RPG"/"computer RPG". I think the latter two were simply created in reaction to the first. But that's just my 2 cents. SharkD  Talk  04:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Summarizing positions

There's a lot of text above, so lemme take this section to summarize the arguments in an easier-to-read format:

• Original Poster (Jinnai): "Console" and "Computer" RPGs are essentially the same and refer mainly to the platforms they are presented on. This article should be merged with a parent article, since the only major differences between Console and Computer RPGs have to do with their interfaces. (Update: Basing notability or definitions of the term "console RPG" on GameFAQs sites that simply list examples of games in the genre violates WP:SYNTH.)
  • Percy Snoodle suggests Role-playing game (video games) as a merge target. Apologies, but the page has already been moved to Role-playing video game (a title without the disambiguation). Therefore, I'm just going to change the merge tags from "combine" to point to that article. I agree with Jinnai's point as well, in that the classifications are arbitrary and often incorrect.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
• SharkD opposes a merger, saying that it's not uncommon to deal with different types of RPGs in separate articles, particularly when there is a lot of info about each type. He references several sites that discuss modern RPGs, Japanese RPGs, etc.
  • I've changed my position to Neutral. The differences between console and computer RPGs can be adequately expressed in a single article. SharkD  Talk  17:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
• Crmartell opposes a merger, saying that "Console RPG" is a distinct genre all its own, and points to many uses of the term in the industry to refer to games in the style of Final Fantasy and similar. After some argument from other users, including KieferSkunk, he explains how the term is used to refer to the style of game, not the platform specifically - the general style (minimalistic RP aspect, minimal exploration, more-or-less linear storylines, simplified controls, etc.) was born from the limitations of earlier consoles for which the games were developed. However, similar games developed for the PC would still be called "console RPGs", while "PC-style RPGs" generally refer to more open-world games like Oblivion.
• KieferSkunk initially supported a merger, saying that a master page that discusses all the different genres as sections should be sufficient, but now opposes a straight merger and instead thinks we should make sure there IS a master RPG article, with appropriate {{main}} links to sub-genres. He also understands what is meant by "console RPG" and thinks that this article should more clearly define that in terms of the style as differentiated from the platform.

Feel free to correct me if I misinterpreted anyone's positions here. Thanks. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Also that the only evidence given, primarily by Crmartell, would violate WP:SYNTH and i would oppose anything on that kind of ground as it would compromise our core Wikipedian principles.陣内_Jinnai 22:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Partial resurrection

I resurrected part of the original article, removing all non-History related content. It was simply too bulky to merge into Role-playing video game. I suggest the new merge target to be History of role-playing video games, along with History of computer role-playing games. SharkD  Talk  18:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I copied the History-related content from both articles to History of role-playing video games. I screwed up the location of this Talk page in the process though. SharkD  Talk  18:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The misplacement seems to be fixed. SharkD  Talk  19:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Abstract

This article can be expanded by referring to all RPGs abstractly. KyuuA4 (talk) 20:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Done Miqademus (talk) 15:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)