Action vs "Classic" JRPGs

When people say "JRPG," the image that seems to always come to mind is something akin to Final Fantasy, Dragon Quest, or even Shin Megami Tensei games. Turn based menu-selection combat, a linear world, and the same coming-of-age "you are the chosen one, this is the bad guy and that's basically all that matters now go kill shit" story.

Why are games that break this stereotype in one way or another still considered JRPGs – or at best, "Action-Oriented JRPGs" – and why are these "classic" games not more commonly assessed and categorized as the very niche subgenre as they are instead of being the prototypical "JRPG" full-stop?

Games like Tales of Symphonia, Secret of Mana, Star Ocean, Dark Cloud, and Odin Sphere (Leifthrasir) can all be described as JRPGs, but what do all of these games really have in common other than being Japanese… and furthermore, what do these games have in common with Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest that makes them "JRPGs" and not something else entirely?

It's just really frustrating, because my entire life I've abhorred turn-based combat in non-strategy games and I've always gone for the more action-oriented JRPGs of the bundle, but it's so difficult to actually find games that fit this profile because of the all-encompassing title of "JRPG."

Somebody address this.

Turn based games are fine and you have autism. Seek guidance, preferably with our lord and savior Jesus Christ.

JRPG, WRPG, and all of those other terms are memes. There's turn-based games and action-based games, and some of these have character customization. There has never been a proper roleplaying adaptation into the computer format.

Oh boy here we go. "JRPG" simply means an RPG game from Japan. That is the classical definition, but it tends to be used to label a specific style of game that you so aptly described. Honestly, I'd rather just drop the bullshit and come up with something a lot simpler. We don't categorize platformers by whether or not the main character use a primary attack or not, so why should we go through so much effort splitting hairs when it comes to RPGs?

Japanese
Role
Playing
Game

because they're japanese and RPGs.

they are RPGs

Just search for action combat and JRPG together


Turn based can be done right, but in most JRPS and western ones too it's done so poorly that it manages to ruin the genre.

How so?

Not only it breaks immersion compared to freely acting the same way you do when outside battles but most of the time it's just braindead combat where tactics are nowhere near as useful as stats.
It's been a staple that when you going to play an RPG game it's acceptable to walk around then suddenly explode into a fight where you must order your character to beat shit by itself until it either wins or loses.
There are games out there with good, deep turn based combat but if it's not used for controlling only units that are not your own character, there's no reason not to give you full control of your own character while still having that depth.

Turn based games, especially the ones these days, actively resent your presence and would very much rather play themselves

all final fantasies sux

prove me wrong

No.

All of these games pretty much copy the Wizardry formula since it was the first CRPG that landed in Japan. Nips went absolutely bonkers over it, which made it the dominant formula. The reason this didn't happen in the west is that we had series like Ultima and the Gold Box games to develop in different directions, always pushing in new directions since the market was packed full.

You're going to have a rough time. What you should look at are tactical and strategy JRPGs, the majority of which can be found on PC-88 and PC-98. If you want action JRPGs, you're left with slim pickings.


And even among those few, that's just mostly From Software. Good luck.

While there's certainly a stereotype to be had, the "J" in JRPG is just a descriptor of region of origin. Same with the "W" in WRPG. You can add further descriptors to those as well to provide a more accurate idea of what a game is like (turn-based, real-time action, traditional, strategy/tactical, etc).

If you want a good turn-based combat JRPG, play Monster Girl Quest
no kidding

Also might add that there's potential for some subsets within the realm of "turn-based," like standard turn-based, ATB style, and more input driven ones like Paper Mario, Mario and Luigi, Shadow Hearts, etc (not entirely sure if there's a clenching term for it; the execution of combat for all of those have some similarities but I find are still different enough in weight of variety of action with timing of action).

who cares they're all shit

Turn-based menu combat is cancer. No thought or tactics ever required.
Turn-based juggle combat like in Valkyrie Profile and Endless Frontier games is fucking gimmick and more of a mini-game, than combat.
Grid-based tactical combat in the vein of Tactics Ogre and Front Mission really varies from game to game. In shit like Disgaea it's just thoughtless grinding just like in traditional JRPGs, while in Front Mission it's almost impossible to grind, so you should actually use your brain or you'll hit a brick wall and will need to replay the entire game from the beginning.

Random encounters with real time combat like in Tales series or Raidou games is fucking annoying, I can't stand it, ESPECIALLY if core combat system is good. Transitions break flow of the game and constantly remind you that instead of being character in the fantastic world, you're a dude playing video game watch micro loading screen. Fuck that.

All of the above, except good grid-based games, should not be made anymore, since those decisions were dictated by hardware limitations.
What is actually good is true, in-the-field real time combat like in Megaman LEgends/Kingdom Hearts/Dark Souls/Phantasy Star Online games, no matter if enemies are pre-set or randomly spawned, such encounters keep flow of the game, keep immersion, require skill and situational awareness, and overall is fantastic game design.
There is no excuse for jap RPGs to not have such system with current technology, ESPECIALLY since MML and KH existed on PS1 and PS2 respectively.

Tales barely does that past Eternia, at least as far as the entries we've gotten here in the west go (Legendia and Hearts R aside).

I enjoyed Last Hope. I haven't played the former games, but from what I heard on here, they're supposed to be better. I thought the planet-sized space dragon laser was pretty cool.

Well I only played a few really old, sprite based ones. You can replace that with sword craft story or KH Chain of Memories.
Thankfully therearen't much franchises doing that.

Eternia at least had a pretty well balanced encounter rate compared to it's predacessors. I've heard that Phantasia SFC was way too frequent (I would expect Destiny PS1 was also similar), and the PS1 remake of Phantasia felt like it honestly had too low of one, to the point I was actively having to seek out encounters at times when I wanted to level, or needed materials to progress (fuck those basilisks in the desert). Eternia though wasn't too high or low to come off as annoying in either direction, and with the combat being so fluid compared to the prior entries, I really didn't mind. Anyhow, since then, Symphonia, Abyss, Vesperia, Graces, Xillia, Xillia 2, and I want to say Zestiria and Berseria (have yet to play the former and the latter isn't out in the west yet) all have on-the-field encounters with enemy icons you can evade, or plan out how to approach for combat to gain an advantage.

The World Ends With You did everything "wrong" and it fucking worked somehow.


The problem with turn-based combat is without a gimmick it's fucking boring. With the way experience curves work you can expect the player to just grind instead of implementing some form of skillful play.