interesting article for consideration from Polygon writer Kazuma Hashimoto. here’s the opening:
In February, Final Fantasy 16 producer Naoki Yoshida sat down in an interview with YouTuber SkillUp as part of a tour to promote the next installment in the Final Fantasy series. During the interview, Yoshida expressed his distaste for a term that had effectively become its own subgenre of video game, though not by choice. “For us as Japanese developers, the first time we heard it, it was like a discriminatory term, as though we were being made fun of for creating these games, and so for some developers, the term can be something that will maybe trigger bad feelings because of what it was in the past,” he said. He stated that the first time both he and his contemporaries heard the term, they felt as though it was discriminatory, and that there was a long period of time when it was being used negatively against Japanese-developed games. That term? “JRPG.”
From video gaming to card games and stuff in between, if it’s gaming you can probably discuss it here!
Please Note: Gaming memes are permitted to be posted on Meme Mondays, but will otherwise be removed in an effort to allow other discussions to take place.
See also Gaming’s sister community Tabletop Gaming.
This community’s icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
- 0 users online
- 55 users / day
- 225 users / week
- 422 users / month
- 800 users / 6 months
- 1 subscriber
- 1.35K Posts
- 18.9K Comments
- Modlog
This is a very valid point that I don’t care about Yoshi “Black People can’t exist in FFXVI”-P bringing up lol
Oof. Thanks for mentioning this.
Yes, while I am open to the idea that defining a genre by nationality could be discriminatory, it seems Japanese RPG designers have done everything they can to cultivate the distinct tropes and stylings of that genre (including perhaps some latent misogyny and othering of their own).
People don’t refer to every game from japan as “Japanese game”. You could argue that Death Stranding is an RPG, but no one would think to call it a JRPG.
But, I’m open to see more arguments why it is a discriminatory, it’s not outside the realm of the possible or anything and perhaps I haven’t thought very deeply about it.
I have, in fact, talked to people who are insistent that any RPG made in Japan is a JRPG and any game not made in Japan isn’t. They argued that Dark Souls is a JRPG. They were entirely serious.
Did they also argue that a hot dog is a sandwich?
That would be a ridiculous position to hold.
A hot dog is clearly a taco.
Yuck, I just looked up his statements about that. Yeah, I don’t know if I will be playing FFXVI. There are plenty of games that don’t have that problem. Diablo 4 is a good example.
I dunno I find the JRPG tag akin to the anime tag. If you get down to it anime as a category covers a wide range of genres, art styles, animation styles , and so on. That said there is a DNA throughout that does unite a lot of anime. Series and creators are inspired by other older anime and manga and games and even the non japanese pop culture that influences the creators is filtered by the impact that thing had in Japan.
As a category JRPG used to refer to a very specific story heavy game with turn based combat and usually random battles and leveling up that originates in japan. There are many modern games that have evolved beyond that old school system and look, but the DNA is still there. FFXV despite being open world, having action based combat, and realistic graphics still feels more like a classic final fantasy than it does like Fallout or elders scroll.
I also feel like that there’s a bit of revisionism towards bias against JRPGs. I was chronically online in the 00s on gaming message boards and RPGs were held up as a gold standard among a lot of gamers and I bet even today you’d find quite a few “BEST GAME EVER” lists that would put FFVII and VIII and chrono trigger up there as some of the best of all time.
In the console space at least in the US the default RPG was JRPG for the longest time. There were some western RPGs on consoles but they were few and far between and not nearly as popular. It wasnt until the xbox into the 360 and ps3 gen that C-RPG devs started releasing on consoles. After years of being low sellers on PC this subgenre hit the mainstream and felt like a breath of fresh air especially with this not being the best year for many landmark JRPGs like Final Fantasy.
It is at THIS point in the late 00s into the early to mid 10s that things start getting toxic because gamers are gamers and have abrasive and bad communication skills. I feel like even then these kinds of dickheads werent in a majority and sales of big name Japanese RPGs along side the slow trickle of formerly japan only RPGs like Dragon Quest show that the demand and success is still there. At most there was a brief dip as many Japanese “style” games in general fell out of fashion with western gamers as western devs started getting more and more of the console pie.
I dunno it feels more like there was a blip in sales and the dev is trying to rationalize it as racism based on toxic gamer culture. Which is a fair assumption to make towards gamers but they still sell millions.
I mean, it’s not the rest of the world’s fault that Japan produced enough Final Fantasy clones to create a whole genre. But I guess we can try to call them something else. FFRPG? Linear RPG? Grindy-RPG? Not-Really-RP-RPG? Semi-Open-World Turn-Based Narrative? What would be preferable?
Lol, yeah this is such a bizarre take. Like, no one calls Elden Ring a JRPG even though it’s made in Japan. JRPG is a genre, full stop.
The WRPG is also a thing. There is a very clear difference in how developers in the West versus the East approached the adaptation of the TTRPG to the video game format, which is what all RPG’s are rooted in. Square/Enix/Falcom and others used prebuilt parties and turn based combat, with a heavy emphasis on story, while western developers put way more control into players hands with character creation and role play (and often real time rolls/gameplay), with less developed stories and side characters. No approach is the “correct” one.
What would be really interesting to hear reported on is whether this was rooted in player preference. Like, did Japanese TTRPG players gravitate more toward prebuilt campaigns and characters? Did Western players indulge in more varied self expression and try to break the game while disregarding the story the DM was trying to tell? Tbf, the former sounds much nicer to DM.
I’m guessing the divergence came from one set of games being designed for a console controller that had only a few buttons and the other set being designed for computers with keyboards and mice. The original Final Fantasy was much closer to D&D than modern entries, but modern entries still have a lot of DNA from the first Final Fantasy.
“they deserve to be othered as a country of developers because of square enix”?
I didn’t say that. Which of the alternative names would you prefer to describe a thousand clones of the same game?
The article presents a lot of evidence for this othering, but I still think back to my own aversion to the genre at the time. To this day, I still don’t play a ton of JRPGs, but I played Chrono Trigger back in the day, and I’m finding some fun in the old-school FF7 for the first time lately. If I were to attribute reasons to the general distaste for JRPGs in the 6th gen, it would be a couple of different things:
And while I’m sure that 20 years ago we absolutely had trouble in the west accepting Japan’s fashion and gender norms, charitably, the best I can say from my own recollection is that those protagonists were frequently just very unrelatable and/or uninteresting. You can call it something like an obsession with masculinity, but people think Dante is cool and want to be him, which makes it fun to live out that fantasy of virtually being cool like Dante, but no one really wants to be Tidus.
So you’re saying it is use derogatorily by people who dislike the mechanics?
Kind of, but none of those complaints define modern JRPGs, for instance. You can hear people, including myself, groan about open world games and then still enjoy an Elden Ring when it comes around.
I’m more offended they’re even called RPGs when you have no real freedom of choice.
Absolutely. The appeal of an RPG for me is to be able to immerse myself in a story and decide for myself how i act and what i chose. It bothers me that it is so rare these days that i can control my characters attitude to a problem instead of just choosing the outcome of a situation. Like in Cyberpunk 2077 where the main char is a rude asshole with dumb ideas no matter what you do.
Tabletop RPG: “Role playing game”
Computer RPG: “stats and levelling”
Yeah, they are more like “story games with combat”.
Not really shocked to read the reaction in these comments.
People always get irate when someone points out that language they’ve been using for a long time is actually inherently problematic and perform all kinds of mental gymnastics to avoid admitting it.
Yeah… I wasn’t aware of the feeling of the Japanese developers, I grew up using the term, and when I saw and interview and realized how it felt for the developers? Heard that they cringe when they hear it, feel cut out of some game mechanics because of stereotypes, that they feel it means they don’t make “real RPGs”, I decided I was going to drop it.
While I had never said it to hurt anyone, they were hurt none the less.
I’m trying to take it out of my language and there was a time I went around announcing I was a big fan of the genre specifically!
Same honestly, pretty eye opening to how we just flat out miss things like that. I also always loved touting the genre as my favorite. Communication like this is pretty important because it’s a reminder that things which seem innocent could actually be an issue to others.
I mean, I do understand that JRPG is somewhat problematic.
The problems it’s not going to change because it’s too deeply ingrained, and if you try to introduce another term it’s just going to end up being either nobody understanding what you mean, or what is already happening where we try to briefly describe JRPGs as something else and people point to this other genre with that one mechanic that is still massively different from JRPGs.
Like we could just say “Dragon Quest-Clone”, or “Final Fantasy-Clone”, or “pokemon clone” but that’d be significantly more insulting to devs I feel, but really what people want are the kind of turn-based combat you’d see in Pokemon, Earthbound or Final Fantasy. But like the only way it’s changing 30 years later is if you use a term that’s much more “There’s no way you don’t know what this is” than JRPG.
I think those are honestly fair points, and I don’t see it changing in the mainstream either. That doesn’t mean that we can’t approach the situation with respect and understand that we can describe games using different terminology, even if it’s a little more difficult to do so.
I find it interesting that this article doesn’t mention any of the Soulsborne games/Elden Ring/Sekiro, despite them ostensibly all being Japanese RPGs.
It’s because they are not. An Rpg is not a jrpg just because it’s made in Japan. JRPG refers to a very specific type of game, turn based largely linear. Final fantasy, Dragon Quest, Chrono Trigger, Octopath Traveler, etc etc. That’s what most people think when you say JRPG and if so they would be right to say that they like or dislike the genre. This is a non issue as usual.
I’m not sure how you classify a western RPG versus a JRPG, but the thing that stands out in my mind is that those games are full of elements that commonly define each of them, and that makes sense, given the lineage of each branch of “RPG”. Western RPGs stick closer to tabletop stuff, as that’s what developed in the PC scene. JRPGs started out that way, but whisper-down-the-lane and iteration on what they’d already made tended to make different characteristics more prominent. So Miyazaki was likely more familiar with JRPGs, but he’s also said that he was inspired by the difficulty in understanding English D&D, which is why Souls games feel so much like both western RPGs and JRPGs.
Because, what no one wants to admit, it was used to specifically call a text heavy game with no skill required. It’s very clear it was used derogatorily when a game the “hardcore’s” likes comes from Japan and you are playing a role and it is lore heavy, “oh but it’s not really a rpg” uh huh…
There was a time JRPG meant anime characters and clicking through lots of text to get through the story. Also, the “role playing” portion of the story usually went around characters that were hard wired into the game with no customization beyond their name. That’s changing for a lot of games, but the classic JRPG still survives. Maybe the classic kind of JRPG just needs a new name to avoid “othering”.
The “J” isn’t othering any more than any other genre modifier. It sets up my expectations for what type of RPG it is, just like a “C” does. It also doesn’t mean that the game comes from Japan, because Sea of Stars looks to be a JRPG, and Anachronox already was back in the day; it just means it’s the Japanese style, which is neither inherently good or inherently bad.
But the developers have told you how they feel and literally the style isn’t about Japan at all anymore? I don’t understand why you would be do determined to keep it?
Because everyone knows what I mean when I say JRPG, and I’ve never used it as a pejorative. I’m not sure how you’d describe those games better or more succinctly.
I mean, when people said JRPG, they were basically just saying “What game can I play that’s like Final Fantasy?”, which I feel would’ve been way worse for non-Square developers.
Or we could’ve said a game like Pokemon. I feel that would’ve been possibly worse.
And you can’t really do turn-based RPG anymore because people would confuse it with tactics RPGs.
But really we just never made a language-neutral name for the genre of Turn-Based non-Tactics RPGs.
But many CRPGs are turn based without having tactical movement.
Right, but up until post 2000-2010 every JRPG was turn based. CRPG might be too broadly labeled (in fact a couple of the ones I found listed like PoE are also labeled Isometric RPGs)
It’s more problematic when compared to tactics RPGs, because similarly every tactics RPG is turn-based, but to a dramatically different sense from the JRPGs.
Seems kinda whiny. I’ve never heard jrpg used in a bad way.
I’d like to see a poll or something to hear if most japanese devs feel this way. I bet it’s just a vocal whiny minority.
I love jrpgs, chrono trigger is one of the best games ever made, and I’ve put a big chunk of my life into dragon quest games.
i mean, beyond the fact that you’re calling a very established Japanese developer a “vocal whiny minority”… the article literally touches on how opinions aren’t homogeneous (because obviously they won’t be), and provides a link to how the Xenoblade Chronicles X developers feel about the term. here are their thoughts, for context:
it just also thinks the balance of evidence supports its claim, even if some Japanese developers embrace it or are ambivalent to it: that the term is primarily used to other the genre. you can take or leave that claim—it’s not wrong to not agree with it—but this specific point is something that makes me assume you didn’t read the article, just the title or maybe a paragraph.
Eyes narrow for fuck’s sake what is this
That’s definitely something to consider. In my head ‘JRPG’ was used in the same vein as ‘manga’ and ‘anime’, where it’s used to group games that share a ton of stylistic choices. Stuff like being particularly plot-heavy, some sort of level progression system that leads to a grind, lots of secrets, intricate combat mechanics.
Didn’t realise there was baggage behind the term for some of the devs. I’m thinking the term ‘JRPG’ doesn’t mean what I think it means - perhaps for a lot of people it just lumps together all RPGs from Japan.
Hard for me to say. And to be honest, it’s been a long time since I exclusively thought about RPGs as a ‘RPG’ vs ‘JRPG’ kind of deal so the term actually hasn’t popped onto my radar unless I’m talking about squeenix/monolith/etc. games.
I’m not sure I agree, to me the difference between JRPG and RPG is like the difference between anime and animation. In a western audience, the label has been coopted by games closer to home with tropes we’re more familiar with. That doesn’t make the labeling of Japanese media othering in that sense, so much as it allows us to understand what contexts it is both from and for.
I can see how, to some people, it might be a turn-off (just see all the people that turn their nose up at anime conceptually even if they’d like it) – see the people that may have seen edge of tomorrow in theaters and enjoyed it, but would likely sneer at being told to read all you need is kill, differences in media notwithstanding. But as the media landscape changes and grows it’s useful to have different ways to sort of illustrate the differences in audience as well as the differences in creative context.
Honestly feels like a bit of a gross misuse of the word “othering” given what material horrors are associated with the process. Especially bitter coming from Mr Naoki “economics justifies transphobia” Yoshida.
I feel like there’s an important point in the valence of the word shifting as the American games industry and its colluders in the gaming press started trying to cut foreign and indie developers out. I think I completely missed out on the process of the word becoming pejorative, because I was mostly playing Nintendo and retro games during that era and not really talking about them online outside of people that also liked those kinds of games.
I do think it’s interesting and sad though that negative valence can be attached to an entire region, and specifically a region outside “the West”. “Slavjank” would be another example; meanwhile the endless litany of very poor quality games coming out of the UK in the 80’s and 90’s was never given a simple and catchy term…
But that leads to a point that there’s also something to be said that valence can be contextual. “Jank” means different things to different people and can be meant appreciatively or pejoratively.
Within my friends with the same background and from the same (console) generation as me, and who like the same kinds of game as me, there is definitely a subgenre of RPG with a high degree of mechanical depth and novelty, typically made in Japan, that we crave more of; so some kind of catchy subgenre term is useful.
Half serious but I think the real solution is to start describing mechanically over-streamlined Hollywood wannabes as WRPGs.
I respectfully disagree with Yoshida. I never considered JRPG a “discriminatory” or “othering” term. JRPGs have their own style that’s distinct enough to warrant identifying, like the industry distinguishes between “first person shooters” and “third person shooters”. To a non-gamer, the difference may seem trivial, but to people who actually play the game, it’s huge.
That being said, I’m surprised that someone so closely involved with gaming would make such a statement. If anything, it sounds unnecessarily defensive.
This is interesting because I can see where he’s coming from, but like others I see it as more of a distinct genre from Western RPG. There is no general RPG genre which a game can be categorized as to represent “the norm” which jrpgs are aberrant from. That being said, labelling western rpgs and jrpgs doesn’t indicate the design philosophy which is actually indicated by those terms. The west has produced many jrpgs and Japan has produced many western rpgs, and that doesn’t make sense unless you know what those terms actually mean.
I wonder what these genres could be called which would be better indicators? Dragon Quest-likes and Ultima-likes?