Talk:History of Eastern role-playing video games/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2

Merge desperately needed

There is a fundamental problem with defining genres by platform. While RPGs on consoles and computers have certain tendencies, it is impossible to discuss them intelligently if both aren't included.

For example, the popularity of the western computer RPGs Ultima and Wizardry were the predominant influence on Dragon Quest, the predominant archetype in Eastern Console RPGs. Further more Dragon Quest was, itself, released on various computer formats including the MSX.

A game genre cannot be defined by platform. Period. It's bad enough both entries claim the term "c-RPG" which is never used outside of wikipedia. This whole thing is a mess. Let's merge the entries and discuss the different schools of design as part of one broad genre, which they are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I somewhat agree with this, to an extent. This article helps to give information to someone new the the concept but to a gamer this article is basically senseless jibber-jabber just here to justify the article itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm with you for merging the articles. There are enough similarities between them to bring the articles together and traits from "computer-" are used in "console-" games and vice-versa. Both articles seem unnecessarily and unweildly large. I've been playing RPGs since Dragon Warrior and have never used the term CRPG or even JRPG. Appart from the Gamespot reference, I've never seen the conventions used in the gaming websites I read. If anything, I would prefer something like RPG (console-style), as console RPG appears to apply the game released on a console (not a game in the stlye of an original console RPG). If you want to invent a genre, invent a name that isn't confusing. Ost (talk) 23:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I have seen the term "Computer RPG" used outside of wikipedia to describe (generally older) RPGs developed for computers and which fail to fall into any RPG sub-genre. I've only ever seen the term "Console RPG" used to describe a game as a RPG developed for consoles, not as a genre descriptor, and this article should be split into two articles: "History of role-playing games on consoles" and "Japanese role-playing games (video games)". I requested a move a while back but I really didn't do a good job of it as the people opposing the move failed to even understand what this article was about. UncannyGarlic (talk) 22:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Console RPG List

Best to either Complete this list with ALL Console RPGs; and post into a separate article. OR Completely omit this list. KyuuA4 17:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Anything classified as "some of the most significant, influential or well-regarded CRPGs of all time" is complete subjective. KyuuA4 17:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Currently this looks like a list of all notable RPGs for consoles rather than all CRPGs as there are ARPGs and TRPGs on the list. It raises the question of whether this article is about RPGs for consoles or a (sub)genre of RPGs. UncannyGarlic (talk) 02:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Chronology of console RPGs

Note: This is not a complete list of all console RPGs, but a list of some of the most significant, influential or well-regarded CRPGs of all time. Note that a number of console-specific RPGs were later ported to other consoles or to the IBM PC.

See Chronology of console role-playing games for a more comprehensive list.

Flagship RPG series

I recommend changing the series listed in the example line so that it only lists a few of the highest respected and most influential series, series that have quite a bit of history behind them and that represent some of the most important RPG companies & consoles. Not to speak negatively on any of the titles that are up there currently as I've enjoyed all of them to varying degrees, but it seems odd that series with only a few entries (or just 1 in the case of Legend of Dragoon!) or with entries that vary widely in quality are on the list, whereas more influential series are excluded. A short section with a sentence or two description of each series and why it's a worthy RPG flagship series might be a good addition as well.

My personal recommendations: Dragon Warrior & Final Fantasy - Beyond obvious. The two best selling and best known RPGs (aside from the next one on the list). Represents Square Enix.

Pokemon - Best selling CRPG of all time. Represents portable CRPGs and CRPGs aimed at younger audiences. Represents Nintendo.

Megami Tensei - Between the main series & its many spinoffs, there are around 30 RPGs here, most of very high quality. The flagship mature/dark/"not stereotypical fantasy/sci-fi" CRPG series. Represents Atlus.

Phantasy Star - An innovative early CRPG series that was later reborn as an online Action/RPG. Lots of games here (4 SMS/Genesis games, major remakes of the first two games, the 3 Phantasy Star Onlines, Phantasy Star Universe, the 2 Game Gear games, the Meganet games, various ports & collections, etc.). Represents Sega & their various systems (SMS, Genesis, Dreamcast).

Tales - The flagship example of introducing Action battles into otherwise typical RPGs. Represents Namco.

Ys - Represents Action/RPGs, PC/obscure consoles CRPGs, and harcore gamers well. Represents Nihon Falcom.


I've never considered the Legend of Zelda series RPGs. I thought it was the general consensus that it is an action/adventure game. What are everyone else's feelings on it? Cdwillis 07:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Same here. Anyone want to remove it? -- Solberg 20:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)Solberg
I also agree, and have removed it from the list. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 20:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. In case it's not obvious to some bystanders, having stats is not sufficient to say a game is an RPG. As noted on another page, stats and skill systems have been extensively exported from the RPG genre to many other genres, particularly action and FPS. -- Solberg 20:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)Solberg
Actually, I would guess that FPS didn't come about until long after RPGs. An interesting twist, however, is that one of the differences between action/adventure and RPG was the separate battle screen. However, Final Fantasy XII is clearly (IMHO) an RPG, but does not switch to a battle screen. I'm guessing definitions will evolve over time, but at present most RPGs allow you to form a party, often able to switch characters in and out, including the original character. An action/adventure is basically a single character that may have other characters in a "party", but the other characters are usually quite different. For that reason, I'm not sure that Kingdom Hearts is *really* an RPG, and if it wasn't created by Square, I'm guessing that most people would call it an action/adventure more than an RPG. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 20:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't recall whether the FPS genre was created before the RPG genre but it doesn't make a difference either way. At some point, the RPG genre began exporting many features (mainly stats-based gameplay) to the FPS and action genres (Zelda, Deus Ex, System Shock, Oblivion, etc are all products of this). Whether the FPS genre was made first or second is not relevant. The separate battle screen is mainly a relic from Ultima III (essentially the ancestor of both computer and console RPGs) and a nice convenience because of classic consoles' insufficient memory to easily represent dynamic characters and battles on the original screen (Chrono Trigger was a delightful exception to some of the above comments though), and not really an RPG specific feature necessarily. In fact almost no computer RPGs (past or present) use the battle screen and increasingly few modern console RPGs use it as well. -- Solberg 03:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)Solberg
Bah. If Zelda's not a cRPG, then a whole bunch of games ceases to be as well (Shining Force, Chrono Trigger and Seiken Densetsu to name a few of the most notable). It's top-down, you advance in stats, advance in the plot in a more of less fixed environment (as opposed to having different "stages"), interact with other characters (unlock features by talking to other characters for example), purchase items... only thing I don't recall is being able to choose which lines you'll say, but then it's been a long time. It is an action RPG, is all. RafaelLopez 23:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
RafaelLopez, being top-down, advancing in stats etc. does not make a game an RPG. RPGs are where battles are separate from the adventure screen. EG, Final Fantasy, Tales, Chrono Trigger... they all also have levels. Zelda doesn't have levels!!! LuGiADude 15:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Zelda has historically been called an Action/Adventure game, not a RPG. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 17:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
"RPGs are where battles are separate from the adventure screen"... Wow. I've hardly ever seen worse definition of RPG. Henceforth Gothic and Ultima VII or later can't be called RPGs anymore. Also: "historically being called an Action etc.." Historically? By whom, you? RafaelLopez 01:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Back in the days of SNES, the separate battle screen was considered one of the obvious differences between action / adventure (like Zelda) and RPGs (like Final Fantasy). As mentioned above, RPGs and Action / Adventure games are moving closer together, but there are still basic differences between the two. As for historically, I was talking about back in the NES / SNES time period. The fact that a consensus agreed that Zelda didn't fit indicates this is not an isolated opinion. You can go back over old gaming magazines, and you should find most classified Zelda as Action/Adventure and Final Fantasy as RPG. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 16:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems to me like Rafael has been pretty much pwned. Er.. two years ago, anyway. Zelda = Not an RPG. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


Does HP really stand for Hit Points? I always saw it referred to as Health Points... -- 20:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Both have been used before, but "hit points" is more common. I wikilinked the term to the definition pointing out synonyms. -- Solberg 19:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)Solberg


I request that someone please write a detail account of the story for Lunar:_Silver_Star_Story and Final_Fantasy_VII. Lunar SSS and FF7 are classic RPGs, but their story section is highly summarized. For an example of a detail account of the story, section, please look at FF6.

In the story section of Final_Fantasy_VI, a lot of details are given, such as Kefka poisoning the water supply in the siege of Doma Castle, Terra unable to accept herself being a half-esper, the balance of the world is destroyed, etc. However in the summarized FF7 story section, nothing is mentioned about the death of Aeris in the hands of Sephiroth, Meteor threat, Tifa helping Cloud overcoming his psychological problem, etc.

Request: If anyone have free time and can write a good article, please spend some time writing a more detail story for Lunar SSS and FF7.


I'll be re-writing this over the next few days. There seems to be some RPGers on Wikipedia who are intent on killing any information on cRPGs and CRPGs. This needs to be more informative and pictureful. ~~VincentVivi, 07:55, 20 June 2006


The original author of this article presents cRPG in a negative tone, as if these central elements that define the game are somehow lesser than that of computer role-playing game. Readers may resent this as the reason they play cRPG games is for its simpler and more entertaining gameplay than that of the often extremely involved and complex nature of computer role-playing game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 21:23, 19 June 2006

Agreed. Removed most of the POV and harshness that I can see. Comment on other stuff that may be too over the top. -- Solberg 06:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Solberg

This is stupid. "More entertaining gameplay" is just as POV as your criticism. In fact, the entire article fails to mentioned the cRPGs aren't RPGs at all. RPGs are defined as Role Playing Games, where you play a role. cRPGs are not RPGs in any sense of the word. You play a predetermined character, and have few, if any, choices on how to solve quests or develope your characters. The story is completely linear. If anything, cRPGs are closer to Adventure games, than actual role playing games. This should be added to the article.

"More entertaining gameplay" is indeed POV, but that's not in the article, just someone's comment on the talk page. The idea that console RPGs are not RPGs is already mentioned in the Criticism section. Opinions can be mentioned in Wikipedia articles, but they must be stated fairly and the article should not appear to take a side. With this stipulation, feel free to add to the article. -- Solberg 11:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)Solberg
Before saying that cRPGs "aren't RPGs at all", one should verify wether all cRPGs really offer "a predetermined character", "few, if any, choices on how to solve quests or develope your characters" and if all cRPGs really are "completely linear". I'm more into computer RPGs so I can't speak for consoles, but the fact is, a number of PC RPGs offer just as many options as you'd have in a regular pen-n-paper Dungeons & Dragons session (non-linear solutions, the same stats and spells, dynamic evolution of stats, even alignments, etc.), except for the choices of what the characters have to say (although one must notice this was already fixed in human-controlled CRPG environments such as MMORPGs). So stating cRPGs aren't RPGs at all might equal saying D&D isn't RPG at all (which is arguable, but I'm not in the mood for *that* argument hehe). RafaelLopez 23:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Major changes

I have made several major changes to this page, the computer role-playing games page, and will soon create a new page. Voice dissent and assent, I will reply within a day. Overall, I believe the changes are good though. -- Solberg 04:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Solberg

Hi. First of all, I would recommend you place {{inuse}} at the top of the page while you're editing a page for a long time to avoid direct edit conflicts, as you are right now. Second, it's a good thing you're removing much of the slightly harsh POV out of the article ("real role-playing", etc.). I think this article should be as dry as possible when referring to these conflicts, as it's really not notable at all that there are small groups of hardcore fanboys on either side that refuse to acknowledge the other.
While the comparison to computer RPGs is important, the entire article shouldn't be devoted to it, it should focus more on the specifics on console RPGs without constantly saying "console RPGs do this, but computer RPGs do this" in every section. It should be simply contained to one or two sections. There's enough difference from them, with its own identity, history and information that this topic can cover. I think half the "Controversy and Criticism" section as it is should be cut. It's an argument that just doesn't really need to be covered that throughly. But statements like "Lastly, there is a small but vocal segment of the gaming community which abhors RPGs in general. Among this segment's criticisms are that RPGs involve no skill, are unrealistic or overly abstract, and do not offer strong gameplay." don't need to be in this at all!
So far it's mostly pretty good, though I think there are some language issues and the reference to RPGCodex is totally unnecessary (and a borderline advert), but I'll wait until you're done with your editing. --SevereTireDamage 06:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I referred to RPGCodex to provide evidence of such a community. It's not an advert because the site is just a forum, i.e. it doesn't sell games. Remove it if you want, I agree it does look like a "bump on the log" so to speak. Just not sure how else to supply evidence of such gaming communities. On your first point, thanks, I've dealt with fanboys from both sides and I usually try to remove as much POV as I can and unnecessary harshness. Regarding the "abhors RPGs" statement, I'll rephrase it. Controversy is a bit too strong a word perhaps. And sorry about the in-use thing, I didn't know that there was such a tag. -- Solberg 06:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Solberg
Ok, I removed the reference to the RPGCodex and simply just used "some players" since apparently the criticism is pretty famous (judging by the Comparison page content written by previous authors) so there's no need to point out a specific gaming community. I removed the Zelda reference because it's not really that big a deal. The rest of the criticism, although it may be reformatted, I think does belong there. I would disagree if your point is that Wikipedia should not document disagreements between fanboys. So long as it's done in a respectable, dry manner to both sides it's fine I think. Nothing wrong with mentioning (intelligent) criticism. Note that there is also a (pretty long) criticism section on the CRPG page too so this is nothing new. -- Solberg 07:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Solberg
Mostly done now. That took a while, any improvements are appreciated, overall I think the split between the two articles and the comparison page works pretty well. A good place to improve in article (besides general elaboration) is the history section, which has lots of missing gaps. -- Solberg 09:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Solberg

"console"-style computer RPGs

Making an incomplete list of console-style RPGs that are for computers (not necessarily IBM PC, could be PC-98 or FM-Towns). These Japanese/Taiwanese games fit in more with the characterization of the console role-playing game article (except the hardware limitation part) as opposed to computer role-playing game article. This initial list happens to contain many eroge simply because the overwhelming majority of the Japanese computer game market is eroge, and my list of Japanese and Taiwanese computer games are very incomplete. Tactical RPGs are not listed here because I didn't notice the main article counted tactical RPGs initially, and because tactical RPGs don't quite fit the description of the console RPG article.

  • 1989
    • Dragon Knight series debuts
    • Rance series debuts
  • 1990
    • Dragon Knight 2
    • Rance 2
    • Toushin Toshi
    • Xuan Yuan Sword series debutes
  • 1991
    • Rance 3
  • 1992
    • Words Worth (original version)
  • 1993
    • Rance 4
  • 1994
    • Toushin Toshi 2
    • Dragon Knight 4
    • Xuan Yuan Sword 2
  • 1995
    • Rance 4.1
    • Rance 4.2
    • Dangel
    • Xuan Yuan Sword side story: Dance of Maple
  • 1996
    • Ikazuchi no Senshi Raidi
  • 1998
    • Oudouyuushya
    • Pastel Chime
    • Desert Time - Mugen no Meikyou
  • 1999
    • Men At Work! series debutes
    • Ikusamegami
    • Wordsworth (Windows remake)
    • Kurenai no namida
    • Xuan Yuan Sword 3
    • The Twin Heroes
  • 2000
    • Persiom
    • Phantom Knight - Mugen no Meikyou 2
    • Brutish Mine
    • Men at Work! 2
    • The Twin Heroes 2
  • 2001
    • Yorugakuru
    • Card of Destiny
    • Izumo series debutes
    • Xuan Yuan Sword side story: Scar of Sky
  • 2002
    • Ikusamegami 2
    • Rance 5D
    • Men at Work! 3
    • Xuan Yuan Sword 4
    • The Twin Heroes 3
  • 2003
    • Danger Angel
    • Mugen no Meikyou 3 Type S
    • Vagrants
    • Fantasia Sango
  • 2004
    • Dungeon & Doll (part of the "Alice no Yakata 7" )
    • Izumo 2
    • Rance 6
    • Hitogata Ruin
    • Xuan Yuan Sword side story: ??
  • 2005
    • Pastel Chime Continue
    • GalZoo Island
    • Sonic Dive
    • Fantasia Sango 2
  • 2006
    • Men at Work! 4
    • Xuan Yuan Sword 5
  • Coming soon
    • Sengoku Rance (Rance 7)
    • The Twin Heroes Episode 0
  • Unknown dates
    • Dragon Knight 3
    • Legend of the Fairy Sword and Strange Heroes series: 1,New,2,3
    • Legend of the Condor Heroes
    • New - Legend of the Condor Heroes
    • Legend of Chu Liu Hsian
    • New Legend of Chu Liu Hsian


I added MSX to Dragon Quest. I believe Ys was released on almost every platform at the time, but I'm not sure of all of them. I also added a couple of games. I think something about the MSX should be mentioned near the beginning of the history as a lot of early NES games including Metal Gear were also released on MSX and NES could have even been an afterthought at the time. Also, I don't know anyone that calls these games CRPGS that is almost exclusively used for PC style games. Everyone I know uses JRPG whenever they have to distinguish them. I know its been defined in dictionaries to the contrary, but I'm talking real world use. Plus its just not practical and very confusing to call both divergent genres CRPGs.

I agree and in fact we had a discussion about this several months ago but unfortunately a definition is a definition. If you can find some reputable sources that show CRPG is used almost always for PC rpgs and JRPG for console RPGs (often made in Japan) then you could start a new debate maybe. Until then we have to stick with what appears to be the definition, practical or not. -- Solberg 19:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)Solberg

CRPG style Console RPG problem

This article has a big problem in my opinion.
Console RPGs derived from computer RPG are classified with console JRPGs, and they have totally different style.
There are few of them but these are completely different from formal console JRPGs.

  • BioWare Corporation
    • Star Wars:Knights of the Old Republic(Xbox, PC)-2003
    • Jade Empire(Xbox)-2005 *PC version in early 2007*
    • Mass Effect(Xbox 360)-2007 TBA
  • Bethesda Softworks
    • The Elder Scrolls III Morrowind(Xbox, PC)-2003
    • The Elder Scrolls IV Oblivion(Xbox 360, PC)-2006
  • Obsidian Entertainment
    • Star Wars:Knights of the Old Republic 2(Xbox, PC)-2004
    • Alien RPG(Xbox 360, PS3)-TBA
  • Irrational Games
    • Bioshock(Xbox 360, PC)-June 2007 *Bioshock is claimed as a FPS by developer but this one absolutely has RPG factors a lot*

Features of these games are totally different from what is described in console RPG article in Wikipedia.
All the features in these games are similar to computer RPGs and actually all these companies are still developing PC RPGs.
So, in my opinion, this article is completely wrong; Full-scale editing is required for this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Team56th (talkcontribs) 04:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

Ugh this keeps coming up and up again and the real problem is that real life usage of the term is a total mess. I don't have the time to formally back this up now, but using google, you can find (notable) sources for virtually any description of console RPG, some of which lean towards "console RPG = JRPG" and some of which lean towards (on the other spectrum) "console RPG = RPG on a console."
IMO this article should, for the most part, pretend they are synonymous, with a disclaimer at the top that (1) console RPG is usually synonymous with JRPG, but (2) not all console RPGs exhibit JRPG characteristics, especially not *ported games* (duh), and (3) the XBox is pretty much a stripped down personal computer in terms of architecture. -- Solberg 03:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)Solberg
I disagree, I think that this article needs to seperate the two as one is a genre descriptor (RPG with A, B, C, and D) and one is a platform descriptor (RPG for X types of systems). As has been said earlier, I haven't seen CRPG used a genre descriptor for Console RPGs but I have seen JRPG used in such a fashion (and wrongly used to include all RPGs from Japan). If this is going to be an article about RPGs for consoles then it's set up entirely incorrectly as it currently is mostly about the term as a genre descriptor. If it's going to be about both then they need to be clearly separated into a section on "(History of?) RPGs for consoles" and "CRPG as a genre" with appropriate subsections. UncannyGarlic (talk) 07:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Noting of exceptions

Apparently, the article didn't emphasize much "cRPGs" that have exemptions to the rule - for instance, there are many RPGs that are not turn-based but instead act in real-time, and that they can see the enemies on the field. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 09:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

The article is designed as an overview of CRPGs. Real-time battles and the ability to see enemies on the field are fairly new developments (IMHO) wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 14:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Not really. Tales of series has started in SNES which have real-time battles. This also goes to Star Ocean as well in SNES. There's even Super Ninja Boy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 12:45, 5 April 2007.
The gameplay section needs cleaning up and should probably contain a Turn-Based section and a Real-Time section describing how each usually works. Also note that the Seiken Densetsu series are not Console RPGs but Action RPGs and that both KoTOR games (only KoTOR II is mentioned) are Computer RPGs. A recommendation I have for this article is that only games which are classified or should be classified (discussion probably required in most cases before the change) as console RPGs on their Wikipedia page should be discussed. UncannyGarlic (talk) 07:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Merge discussion

There are a lot of problems stemming from this being listed as a separate genre from console role-playing games, as well as how they are termed. While they are large entries, and merging them will require work, it needs to be done.

  • They aren't separate genres. They're distinct styles within the same genre. There are distinct styles of role-playing games, but computer role-playing games (like, say, Ultima) influence console role playing game (like Dragon Quest) and vice versa. They both draw from the same foundation, and share the same defining elements. They are merely different sub-genres.
  • "console" and "computer" are not the appropriate terms for distinguishing these styles. Many, many of these games have historically been multi-platform, and many that play more like what the console article describes were, in fact, computer games (The original Megami Tensei, for instance), as well as console-originals that play more like what the Computer RPG article describes (X-Men Legends).
  • Even if those terms were more generally accurate, it is very bad form to define a genre by platform. What system it's on doesn't determine what kind of game it is.

It's really self defeating to try to break these up this way. It makes it impossible to honestly discuss the development of the genre, and is frankly very misleading in general.

Thoughts? Frogacuda 21:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I moved this discussion to the bottom of the page, which is where new sections are normally placed.
Do not merge — I don't agree with the argument that console and computer RPGs are the same thing. (Disclaimer - I don't play any games on PCs, only on consoles, but my son keeps trying to get me interested in Computer RPGs). Most of the Computer RPGs that I have looked at are quite different than the console RPGs that I normally play. While there are some games that are on PCs as well as consoles, they seem fairly rare. It was a big deal when Final Fantasy VII was ported to the PC. Granted, it seems easier for X-Box games to get ported to PCs, so maybe the two sets of games will become closer to each other, but as of yet (IMHO) they are different. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 02:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Of course they're not the same thing. Japanese Adventure games, like say Snatcher or Phoenix Wright are very different from Sam and Max and Monkey Island, but there's still only one article for adventure games, because they're still part of a cohesive genre, with many common traits. Please at least pretend to read what I wrote. Frogacuda 01:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I did read what you wrote. That's why I said I didn't agree with it.  ;^) Notice that I never stated you were wrong, just that I didn't agree with the claim that they were the same genre.
Again, I haven't done much with Computer RPGs, but I have played a lot of console RPGs. The computer RPGs that my son keeps trying to get me to play are quite different than the console RPGs that I play (like the ones from Square). The main thing I noticed were the first person perspective (which I hate) and the need to define the starting stats and/or job class. The other thing I noticed was that most of them involved a main character that had no personality with little or no additional characters in the group. Compared to Final Fantasy, for example, they are like night and day, IMHO. Granted, there are some console RPGs where you can control growth, but in many cases the growth paths are pre-defined (e.g., when EXP=X, you reach level Y.) In general, I found computer RPGs to involve a lot more configuration than console RPGs, although I admit that the more recent console games give you more control over how each character evolves.
Now, before you come back with a list of computer games that are like console games, remember that I am not familiar with computer games, but I do know that the number of versions of my favorite console RPGs (like Final Fantasy) that also runs on PCs is quite small. ;^) I also know that my son's favorite computer RPGs (Baldur's Gate) have almost nothing in common with Final Fantasy. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 20:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Do not merge Computer RPG and Console RPG are not the same. Period. Nobody ever talks about them the same and they have very different mechanics. Just because a specific Computer RPG plays like a Console RPG or vice versa does not make the two equivalent. Some of these games were multi platform but the majority are not. This goes especially for the flagship titles of each genre. Baldur's Gate, PS:T, Arcanum, Fallout, Darklands, Daggerfall, etc for example were all never ported to Console. And we'd be crazy to say that (for example) Oblivion, KOTOR, etc aren't console RPGs because they play like Computer RPGs. They are console RPGs because they were made on consoles and that's that. Console RPGs, being normally dominated by the Japanese, tend to have a certain style, but violating that style doesn't not make a game a console RPG. Rather than being misleading, this category is unfortunately a necessary evil because we don't really have a better term, except possibly JRPG, which is listed as synonym (which it's not, but hey, it's close enough these days.) -- Solberg 04:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Solberg
This is ridiculous. I never said they were the same. I said that they aren't entirely different genres. There's a great deal of influence between the two and it is completely impossible to discuss the genre's history intelligently with them segregates. Furthermore, the defining traits of each genre are the same. While there are a lot of distinct conventions of Computer and Console RPGs, the things that MAKE THEM RPGs are the same.Frogacuda 01:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
They're not entirely different but they're different enough. Influence between the two? Only at the very beginning (i.e. early Ultima and Dragon Quest days) and a bit recently (KOTOR, Oblivion). Besides that, very little. Anachronox and Septerra Core were famous because they were exceptions. If the genres were really that close nobody would've batted an eye. It is in fact easy to discuss the two subgenres' histories intelligently with them as segregates. That's what we're doing right now and nobody has found it difficult on the History of computer role-playing games page. What is so difficult about it? What are the "defining traits" of each genre and why do you think they are the same? You'd have to use a pretty broad criterion, like "the genre uses numbers," an argument easily defeated since many other genres (action/adventure for instance) use statistics heavily. The things that "make them RPGS" are in fact not the same and that's why there is a long internet debate about the merits of each. If you will recall, the computer RPG is traditionally steeped in Pen and Paper (and some amount of wargame) mechanics whereas the console RPG evolved from this substrate, but went in a decidedly more narrativist direction focusing not on dynamics associated with P&P but with a linear, storyline driven approach. -- Solberg 10:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)Solberg
I came back to make another post because I really don't understand your perspective Frogacuda. I'm not sure it makes any sense at all. I'll provide some examples and maybe you can humor me by indicating what exactly makes them close enough to merit inclusion within 1 article. Here are 10 famous computer RPGS, tell me what they influenced or were influenced by in the console RPG world at around the same time: Fallout, Arcanum, Diablo, Nethack, Ultima 7, Baldur's Gate, Ultima Underworld, System Shock 2, Neverwinter Nights, Ultima 4. -- Solberg 11:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)Solberg
I can't speak for newer games because I don't play them much, but pre-2000 console and PC RPGs really have far too many mechanics differences to be considered the same. I believe, however, if style, complexity and mechanics differences are acknowledged, the information on both could be in the same page. (I'm new here, still don't know what is the appropriate way to place these comments, bear with me folks ;) ) RafaelLopez 22:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment RPG's on PC and consoles used to be extremely diferent but now the gap is much narrower. I dont know how wikipedia's rules would affect this, so if they wouldn't allow this then just say and forget i ever said it, but would it be possible to have a "history of role-playing games" page, which would talk about these diferences in detail, and a "role-playing games" page, which would breifly talk about this, but go on to talk about role-playing games more generaly? Mattyatty 15:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
If the article becomes too long splitting is definitely allowed (see Wikipedia:Article size) and some RPG articles already mention electronic RPGs (albeit briefly). Having said that, this is going to be a big undertaking. There's already History of computer role-playing games, Chronology of console role-playing games, Chronology of computer role-playing games, and probably others. The whole thing's a mess. GarrettTalk 01:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
We already have the article Role Playing Game. Should we merge that article as well? The fact that this article and the one on Computer RPGs are both decent-sized articles indicates that there is enough material to support an article. I think trying to merge the two articles would end up with a large mess. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 04:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
What I was thinking was to have one article for pen and paper and one for "electronic" RPGs. See User:Master Thief Garrett/RPG rewrite for a rough example of how east and west could fit into one article. I didn't rewrite the additional sections (History and Chronology, etc.), only the intro and gameplay-related parts. GarrettTalk 06:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Eh, know that obviously I don't support the merge, so I'm biased, but the rewrite doesn't look all that good to me. The subgenres/genres (whatever you want to refer to them as) are divergent at enough locations that the rewrite switches back and forth like it's compare/contrast essay rather than an exposition on one single thing, which is ideally what an article should feel like most of the time. -- Solberg 10:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)Solberg
How is the gap much narrower? It's hard to argue with someone unless they're willing to put forth some actual evidence, as I've already done in my first comment. I've been playing games in both genres since the early days and I do not see this as self-evident. -- Solberg 10:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)Solberg
Split most of the article into a JRPG article. Merge the rest with the Computer RPGs article. SharkD 02:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Too many speculations and lacks sources.

I feel there are several very good sections in this article. However, the single reference is a user-submission-based online dictionary entry of the acronym "CRPG." I understand that on a topic such as this, there's alot of information that comes from first-hand knowledge, leaving it unsourced, but can greatly contribute to the article.

This particular paragraph, appeared to me to favor Ultima and Wizardy while degrading Dragon Quest and Final Fantasy nearly to mere hacks thereof. I have played all three games mentioned here very breifly, but none extensively; thus my intent is not to deny, but rather to challange the veracity of what is presented here as fact.

>Dragon Quest and Final Fantasy both borrowed heavily from Ultima.

-A very bold, unsourced, statement. If I had made either of the former I might even consider it an accusation. Nothing less than a quote from a developers leaves it as speculation.

I have read before that DQ was heavily inspired by Ultima, and then toned down to its basic parts to make things more straight forward and appealing to the general person. Obviously considering what happened (in Japan), it worked. Go play DQ1, it really IS quite obviously inspired from Computer RPGs (you have to choose stairs from the menu to walk down stairs, for instance). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 12:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
It's not my intention deny that it's true, but even if it's obvious and commonly accepted, such statements are exemplary of content that needs to reference a very reliable source. ExpatJApan 05:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

>For example, leveling up and saving must be done by speaking to the king in Dragon Quest, and in order to rest and get healed, the characters must visit the king (Dragon Quest) or stay the night at an inn (both games). The games are played in a top-down perspective, much like the Ultima games, as well.

-Such things are also common in pen-and-paper role-playing games and fantasy novels. Rather than comparing them and saying Dragon Quest and Final Fantasy borrowed the top-down perspective from Ultima, why not write something like "Ultima was the first console RPG played from a top-down perspective." (I don't know if that's true or not but, you get the idea.)

>The combat style in Dragon Quest was borrowed from another series from the personal computer market, the Wizardry games.

-Quite an accusation, one would think they just copy&pasted the code over into their own game.

>Dragon Quest's medieval setting was also remarkably reminiscent of Ultima.

-This is a personal point of view.

>Dragon Quest did not reach America until 1989, when it was released as Dragon Warrior, the first NES RPG and thus one of the major influences of early CRPG development.

-This should be sourced to an interview of someone saying they were influenced by Dragon Quest or something like that.

Maybe the "Navigation" section could be expanded into "Setting" or something like that and make mention of the common time periods portrayed in console RPGs.

I also would like to suggest removing the "Chronology of Console Role-Playing Games" in favor of simply adding a See Also link to the main article of the same title. The chonology of the major developments (e.g., "Ultima introduces first top-down POV RPG") should go in history.

I don't understand the WikiTML language at all so I just thought I'd leave a couple suggestions rather than accidently screwing things up beyond repair. ExpatJApan 04:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Quite honestly this article is trying too much. Dragon Quest and Final Fantasy were early introductions to Japanese Style RPG's. which btw has a decent article. That doesn't need a citation, all it needs is to state the year they came out in Japan and the US, with links to thier series pages. User:bloodycelt


The word "console" is too broad and generic, and implies that the differences in hardware are the sole reasons for the differences in gameplay and content. There are many amateur game projects which easily fall into this category. There are also console RPGs that do not fit in this category. Also, I've never heard of "CRPG" being used for anything besides "cumputer role-playing game" outside of Wikipedia (I think consoles are computers, which adds to the confusion). I think that "JRPG" is much more fitting and more common. SharkD 18:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The word "JRPG" is kind of broad too and implies that the games within the category are much closer than they really are. And it doesn't solve the problem of games that aren't made in Japan but nonetheless are regarded as console RPGs. Would you put computer games that are heavily influenced by JRPGs (eg Septerra Core) in the new article? Where would you put games that obviously aren't computer RPGS (because they only appear on console) but are obviously not JRPGs (Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance)? What will you do with games that are Asian but not from Japan (eg Sword of Xuan Yuan)? Or games from Japan that were heavily inspired from computer RPGS (eg early Dragon Quests)? -- Solberg 06:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Solberg
I would put games that are similar in style in the category, regardless of hardware. SharkD 20:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
What about the other questions? You only answered the first one. Would you put games like Sword of Xuan Yuan and Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance into JRPG too? That wouldn't really make any sense, if anything, it would make even less sense than the current distinction which is at least grounded on some reality. How about early Dragon Quests and other JRPGs? Would you put these into computer RPG since they had the same style (the "JRPG" style was not yet developed). And how can one be certain at all that there are only 2 styles? -- Solberg 18:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Solberg
Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance is essentially a Diablo clone, just like Champions of Norrath, and like Diablo is an ARPG (the article on Wikipedia agrees). I'm with SharkD on this, I've never heard or seen the term CRPG refer to anything other than Computer RPGs while JRPG is all over the place. That said, I agree that neither term is a good descriptor, just as computer in CRPG isn't a good descriptor, but Wikipedia or, more specifically it's users, don't determine the standard descriptor terms, it just uses the most common label. I think the point would be to change the article to be label JRPG instead of CRPG and list CRPG in the opening as an alternate label (like the TRPG with SRPG article) or do such with the JRPG label. I haven't played the early Dragon Quest games but my impression from what I've seen is that it falls under the JRPG category. UncannyGarlic (talk) 02:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Just noticed that there is an article for Japanese role-playing games and that JRPG redirects here. I know why it does (this article is about the genre which both labels describe) but there needs to be a link to the Japanese role-playing games article at the top of the section linked to. UncannyGarlic (talk) 02:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Made the change to the redirect, will now list links to both pages. UncannyGarlic (talk) 03:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Hardware limitations on design

I decided to remove this section because, not only is it unsourced, but... well, it's a load of crap, quite frankly. The lack of visible enemies on the world map is because of limited memory space? Then explain the hundreds of console action games where the enemies are all visible in the field. Save points are occasional because of memory limitations? How can that possibly be the case when a save will take up the same amount regardless of where it is made? The rarity of branching stories might be memory-related, but it's not like it was unheard of before the era of disc-based media (there's the Romancing Saga series on the SNES, for a start).

And finally, there is the idea that dialogue in console RPGs is short and concise because the text is hard to read from a distance. I don't know where to start with this one. Console RPGs typically have MUCH more text than other types of console games, and anyone playing one will have to become accustomed to reading a large amount of text, so the idea that developers would limit themselves for this reason seems bizarre. In any case, the amount of text varies wildly from game to game, and the summary that "text in CRPGs is concise, usually displayed in large fonts and limiting game dialogue and messaging to a short paragraph" is a ridiculous generalisation. Ironically, where it is accurate, sometimes the reason actually is limited memory: older translated RPGs sometimes ended up being very terse because there wasn't enough space for a thorough translation.

It might be worthwhile to re-incorporate the information about trends in game design into the article, but the baseless speculation that these things are down to memory limitations (and, in the last case, the text being hard to read) has surely got to go. Philip Reuben 18:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you should have discussed this before removing it. SharkD 02:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
The comparison in hardware limitations on design is being made between computer and console RPGS, not console RPGs and other console games. The difference between a computer monitor (usually very high resolution) and a television (usually very low resolution) is pretty staggering when it comes to reading text. The reason you don't notice this is because the font is usually pretty big in console RPGs. Unfortunately the size of the font also means that text takes up a lot of screen space-- thus, relative to computer RPGS, there is much less text on the screen at any time. About storyline branching, the section doesn't say it was unheard of before the era of disc-based media. It just said it was rare. Like you just did in fact. So I'm not sure what is your complaint there either. On the other hand I don't really care enough to put the section back in, nor to find citations for it. -- Solberg
Memory limitations easily affect game design. For example, consider Save Points. If you let the user save anywhere in the game, then the location of the save must be recorded. This will require X & Y coordinates, and possibly Z, if a character can climb a ladder, for example. You would also need to record the existence and location of any enemies in the area, especially if they are being displayed on the screen. (You don't expect all the monsters to be regenerated after a save, even if they aren't visible.) Most Save Points are in safe areas where there are no enemies around. When you leave the safe area, you expect all the monsters to be regenerated. All that is needed to record a save in this case is the number of the save point.
So the choices are (at a minimum) X and Y values versus a single value. If we figure that there aren't more than 256 save locations in a game, we are talking about 4 bits to record a save. Depending on the resolution, it would take considerably more bits just to record the X & Y locations before we even think of saving the state of the game.
You young-uns don't remember what it was like in the old days when memory was measured in K. We would spend hours rewriting routines just to save a little bit of memory. Are you familiar with Bill Gates' famous comment that 640 K should be plenty of memory for anyone writing computer programs? wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 17:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
8 bits actually, for 256 save locations. And don't forget that you'd also have to store the location of each save spot in ROM. It might actually be better overall to just store the X, Y, and Z values each time you save, unless you have significantly more ROM then you have space for save files. What's one or two more bytes compared to, at the very most (with 256 different save locations, and a Z value on top of it) 768 bytes? Given that, either there was very very little memory for save files, or they just wanted to control where you could save. Sure, your enemy prospect has some merit, but only in games where enemies were actually on the screen. A work around for those games would only be to allow players to save on enemy-less maps.
And as for having limited game data space, it could easily be worked that save files store X, Y, and Z locations as opposed to a value which would then be referenced by a list, all the while still having save spots. That'd just be a tile on the map that you'd have to be standing on to actually save the game - or something of that sort; perhaps even a whole map would function as a save spot. (That'd be incredibly easy to do, memory-wise; one 0 or 1 value for each map. In pure memory saving form, even with 256 maps you could get it down so you only use 32 bytes. Granted, it might take a biitt more code to manipulate the data, but I'm unsure on that and even then it could likely be make very efficient. Sorry for ramblins!~ 21:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


I steal your list of JRPGs for "my" JRPG article ru:JRPG, but I've excluded from it a computer-style RPG's, I wonder what they're doing here. Uniting of genres only because it was released on console makes really nonsense. Good luck to you, I hope my knowledge of English doesn't make nonsense from my sentences... --Simon the Dragon 00:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Maybe a special section for PC/Console ports should be created? SharkD 01:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Of course. Seeing of TES series, which are computer RPG to the backbone, in the list of console RPGs and near all these JRPGs looks absolutely weird. --Simon the Dragon 11:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I think the TES games are moving more and more in the direction of JRPGs. Oblivion is hardly a CRPG to the backbone. SharkD 19:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Citation is nonsense

The one, single citation present in this article is nonsense. First of all, the site is mirrored in Wikipedia. Secondly, users are able to submit new definitions. This creates a Negative Credibility Feedback Loop (NCFL), given that Wikipedia is an editable resource, itself. SharkD 02:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't the one who made that citation but I was there when it was made. The cited page did not mirror Wikipedia before. My guess is that once people on the other side realized we were linking to them, they decided to link back as courtesy. So while it's not quite as bad as you think, it is a loop now and thus looks ingenuous. Also, if users can submit new definitions, then that is also an issue. Do you have an alternate recommendation for an unbiased, respectable source that can define the term? -- Solberg 09:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Solberg
I don't have a better recommendation. I think the current citation needs to be removed. SharkD 19:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Go ahead then, I don't think anyone will stop you (be sure to mention the reason in the comment box though). -- Solberg 18:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Solberg

multi-move proposal

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The fact that a number of RPG games on console are computer-styled but labeled as "console RPGs" and/or vice versa has been a running point of concern/contention for quite a long whlie. By slightly altering the names, it makes it more clear that it's just the labeling of a style. -Afker 14:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd oppose that, unless you want to make it "Computer-style role-playing video game" and "Console-style role-playing video game"; since computer role-playing games and console role-playing games are role-playing video games, not role-playing games. Percy Snoodle 16:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
You're not being very clear in your proposal. What exactly are you planning to move, and to where? And why? If this at all involves the merges of role playing game, computer role-playing game, and/or console role-playing game I'd also oppose it. I've been clear on this before-- just because things have similar names doesn't make them the same thing. As for the style, when I originally edited the console RPG article I tried to make it as explicit as possible that the categorization people have developed is ad hoc, somewhat arbitrary, in the nomenclature section (see below). Any reason why this is not sufficient? Couldn't our problem be solved by adding to this section, elaborating it? I really don't see why any merging, splitting, or any other operation is necessary. -- Solberg 09:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Solberg
The original proposal was the following:
  1. Console role-playing game -> Console-style role-playing game
  2. Computer role-playing game -> Computer-style role-playing game
I want to argue that, the misconception caused by the article titles (which you went to great pains to explain inside the article) can be greatly reduced by adding a single word ("-style") to each. The articles themselves already use that terminology from place to place, and I do believe reading them as "console-style RPG" provide much more clarity and precision compared to "console RPG", despite there's a full an essay that explains it is a just a style/genre. Percy Snoodle wants to add the word "video" in there. I currently don't have a response/opinion to that yet. -Afker 10:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I do indeed. My objection to only adding "-style" is that it greatly increases the existing confusion between role-playing games and role-playing video games; but if you also add "video" I'm fine with "-style" as well. I do wonder whether a better solution is to merge the common details of both articles into Role-playing video game, make sure all the differences are in Cultural differences in computer and console role-playing games, which could be moved to Cultural differences in role-playing video games; and then redirect both the CRPG articles to role-playing video game. Percy Snoodle 10:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I oppose. The page names should accurately reflect the terms the genres are already known by. SharkD 20:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Oppose The terms Computer and Console imply video game. While it is quite common to hear somebody talk about computer and console RPGs, I have yet to hear somebody talk about console-style RPGs. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 20:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 07:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


For historical, cultural, and hardware related reasons, console role-playing games have evolved a very different set of features that mark them distinct from other electronic RPGs. Because the vast majority of CRPGs originate in Eastern Asia, particularly Japan, CRPGs are often referred to as Japanese role-playing game (JRPGs), although there are many non-Japanese and Western console role-playing games in existence.

A computer role-playing game (also referred to as CRPG) may be marked as a "console-style RPG" by the gaming community if its gameplay and design philosophy is similar to that of most console role-playing games. Examples of such games that actively pursued an Eastern style of RPGs include Anachronox and Septerra Core.

The categorization between console and computer role-playing games is sometimes ambiguous for cross-platform games such as the Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic series, or for games that are ported from one format to another, such as Eye of the Beholder or Final Fantasy VII. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Solberg (talkcontribs) 09:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

In the above passage quoted from the article, "computer role-playing game" (beginning of second paragraph) is used to mean "an RPG that uses computer as the hardware", as opposed to being a genre. The second paragraph also uses the term "console role-playing game" to mean games using console for hardware, as opposed to being a genre that goes beyonds hardwares. When the genre is being referenced in the second paragraph, the exact term is the target of my move proposal ("console-style RPG", if you ignore the diff between "RPG" and "role-playing game"). I believe this supports my proposal to call the genres "blah-style RPGs" to reduce confusion. -Afker 10:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I like the idea of adding -style, but in a sense wouldn't it be Original Research? We'd have to find sources that actually call it those, or else (unfortunetly, I'd say) the articles should probably stay as they are. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I feel that "console-style RPG" is no more "original research" than "console RPG". I don't feel either term have an especially established presense (when used to refer to the genre). Or to put it differently, when most of the people use the term "console RPG", they are actually only thinking about RPGs using console hardware, instead of referring to a hardware-transending genre. When referring to the overall genre, we don't really have data on how many people actually call the genre "console RPG", vs "console-style RPG". So unless we turn the article into one about games on specific hardware instead of a genre of games, it would be better to go with a name that causes minimal confusion. IMHO. -Afker 13:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
And the name that causes minimal confusion is JRPG. SharkD 20:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
There *are* sites that refer to games as "console style RPG," but this is a term usually used for games that appear on PC. [1] (It would be redundant to call a console RPG "a console style RPG."" Console RPG is not original research at all, many people refer to these games this way. [2] -- Solberg 19:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Solberg
I always considered JRPG to indicate that there are minimal choices involved in the game. The description I once heard was that playing a JRPG were like watching a movie which pauses occasionally for you to click a button to progress. When playing American RPGs, however, the player was able to make choices that would control the eventual outcome of the game. So, if you are asked a question, and it doesn't matter what you answer, that was an indication that it was a JRPG; if, however, the answer mattered, then it wasn't. Now, I'm not saying that was a correct description, but rather that what you think are JRPGs may or may not be what somebody else says are JRPGs. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 19:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
That is only part of what makes a JRPG a JRPG and it is too broad to be a genre descriptor as it would include games like Devil May Cry and Metal Gear Solid. There is a standard core to how their combat is handled (though as I say elsewhere, we should probably make a section for Turn Based and Real Time or refine it to the point where such is not needed, which I'm not sure is possible) as well as menu layout and world interactions. UncannyGarlic (talk) 08:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


The chronology list as it stands is POV; it simply asserts each game is more notable than other games released at the same time. It should be pruned to only those games for which a reference can be found to establish that it is particularly "significant, influential or well-regarded". Ideally it should also state why that's the case. Percy Snoodle 12:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


This article has a tag saying that it has too many examples of CRPGs. I would like to help reduce this problem, but am afraid of removing an item that should not be removed, so after I finish, could someone else review it and restore the deserving franchises? Thanks. Larrythefunkyferret 07:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Finished. I left four series; I hope it's not too trimmed. Larrythefunkyferret 07:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

More than a month has passed since your edits, since there are still four good examples on the page and nobody has raised any further points here, I'm going to remove the examplefarm template.Someone another 18:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
"Some of the more notable franchises within this genre include Dragon Quest, Final Fantasy, Fire Emblem, and Pokémon."
The article doesn't explain why they're notable. Also, what does this have to do with the rest of the section? How does it contribute to an Overview of the genre? Maybe move it to the top of the article, or to the History section, and explain what makes them notable. Or, remove the sentence entirely. SharkD 18:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I see. I think removal would actually be the best solution here - three of these four series are in the end of the article and labeled as best sellers, with links to sales figures (but not properly referenced). If I reference those now then there's some context given and the information itself is reliable. How's that? Someone another 19:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Ref'd and sentence removed.Someone another 19:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Good job. The rest of the article still sucks, though. SharkD 23:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I take that back. It's really not that bad. SharkD 23:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

List of companies

So many of these companies made other games besides RPGs that I think the list is debatable. I also am not sure the list is relavent to the article. SharkD 00:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


"At the widest levels, an overlying world map is often used for traveling between countries, continents, or planets."

At the widest levels needs to be changed. Unfortunately, I can't think of anything better. SharkD 00:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Not really. I'll come back to it when I think of something better. SharkD 02:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
How about "World maps vary in scale, and can represent individual countries, continents or entire planets"?Someone another 12:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

removing first nomenclature paragraph

The following paragraph is so full of misinformation, illogic and/or generally useless verbage it's completely unsalvagable. It's either a gross misrepresentation or some kind of fallacy(very different from computer RPGs? hardly) (often called JRPGs? Been playing games for 20 years and never even heard the term before).

For historical, cultural, and hardware-related reasons, console role-playing games have evolved a very different set of features that mark them distinct from other electronic RPGs.[clarification needed] Because the vast majority of CRPGs originate in Eastern Asia, particularly Japan, CRPGs are often referred to as Japanese role-playing games(although there are non-Japanese console role-playing games in existence). (talk)

Truthfully, I think we should consider a merge between Console RPG and Computer RPG into Role-playing game (video games). Any further information about cultural differences can be put in the Cultural differences in role-playing video games article. I agree that having separate articles here constitutes original research -- there might be a slightly separate history, but not separate genres with completely separate gameplay. Randomran (talk) 18:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Historically, the two types of RPGs (console/Japanese/Asian-style vs. computer/western-style) were quite different in terms of gameplay. For example, traditional Japanese RPGs were often characterized by "mine-stepping" random encounters, a relatively fixed battle system where two groups of characters (PCs and enemies) attack each other with menu-driven commands, while Western RPGs had more diversed battle systems (Might and Magic have a completely different battle system from Betrayal at Krondor, for example). But starting from late 90's both camps are starting to borrow elements from each other, so nowadays the differences are generally becoming less and less. (talk) 06:45, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
As I read through the Nomenclature section, I see that the first paragraph argues that the appropriate term should be Japan-style or Japanese RPG, then the second paragraph refers to Eastern style. Yet the title of the article is Console RPG. IMHO, Console is too broad and misleading, as noted by earlier discussions. Many of the Ultimas saw releases on Consoles, but they are not Console-style. Japan or Japanese is too narrow, as this kind of RPG tends to be the main RPG style created in all of Asia. Eastern-style or Asian-style seems to be about the right area. But, and here's the main crux, is there research to support any of these terms? Dawynn (talk) 02:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Console RPG vs. Japanese-style (Asian-style) RPG?

I think the term console RPG is a misnormer, it should be more accurately called Japanese-style, or Asian-style RPG, since it's a style of RPG that's common for both console and PC RPGs in Japan/Asia. And there are many notable Japanese/Asian RPGs on PC, for example those from Falcom (Legend of Heroes series, Ys series) and TGL (Farland series) of Japan, Softmax (Rhapsody of Zypher, Magna Carta) of Korea, and The Legend of Sword and Fairy from China. I think this fact should be noted somewhere in the article. (talk) 06:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree it's kind of a misnomer. The divisions between these two articles is kind of based on a few unreliable sources and a lot of original research. For the most part, the games are similar. The differences could be covered in a few paragraphs. We really need some better research. Randomran (talk) 17:57, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Japanese roleplaying games[[3]] are traditional roleplaying games like Dungeons and Dragons, not videogames. The label "Console RPG" to refer to Japanese console games is because the overwhelming majority of console RPGs are of Japanese origin and have common characteristics that PC RPG games don't usually have because they are primarily developed by Western companies (ex. Blizzard) who have different design philosophies. --Crmartell (talk) 11:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Research for topic...

I've gradually come to realize that this heading of Console/Japanese/Eastern/Asian-Style Role Playing Video Game is primarily the style of game I like to play. While its fairly easy to find support for calling one game or another an RPG as opposed to a Sports game, I have found very little outside research for calling a game an ERPG as opposed to a WRPG. Sites that provide some sort of genre indication (allgame, gamefaqs) generally delineate by 2D vs 3D instead. Moby Games often does indicate the proper style, for the games that they review, but for older consoles, they revied so very few games.

Has anyone else found research indicating which games are which? I'd definitely prefer something that might attempt to give comprehensive lists for both English games, and non-English games. As noted previously, the Chronology of console role-playing games attempts to list every RPG, and RPG-related game released on consoles, including Action, Tactical, Rogue-like, Eastern, and Western RPG's. I'd like to be more discriminating, breaking by true genre. Gamefaqs and Allgame have helped in separating out Action, Tactical, and Roguelike, but not for splitting the Eastern and Western RPG's. Dawynn (talk) 11:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm starting to think the distinction is almost entirely original research. There are far more similarities between Eastern and Western RPGs than there are differences. That said, I do think there might be enough support for the current Cultural differences in role-playing video games, and I think there is a lot of room to discuss how to arrange our lists of games (e.g.: console versus computer). But more and more, I think we should merge the console/computer RPG articles to the main Role-playing game (video games) article, and move any remnants to the cultural differences article. Randomran (talk) 03:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

World Map Choices Instead of Movement

The part "For some games, the player never actually travels on the world map, but rather selects an adjacent location, which repositions the player to that location." is referenced to Wild ARMs games, where only a few have this as a main mode of transporting the character (Wild ARMs 3 and 5 has this for their trains, but only 4 has it for everything.) It would be better if it referenced the Grandia Series instead, as Grandia, Grandia II and Grandia Xtreme have this (like Wild ARMs 4), whereas Grandia III has a world map that you can move around in on an airplane with the ability to optionally auto-travel to previously visited places. Furthermore, you can always reference to Strategy RPGs released on consoles instead (Such as Final Fantasy Tactics.) Iyeru42 (talk) 21:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was consensus against move--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Requested Move

The title for this page seems to be drawn from a single article[4] dealing with the history of RPGs on consoles rather than Console Role-Playing game as a genre, making the the title for the article orginal research or at least the non-dominant descriptor. I believe that Japanese Role-Playing game is the standard term used to describe the genre and I have found it used by the following: IGN[5][6], Gamespot (CRPG vs JRPG), Yusuke Naora[7]. and Eurogamer[8]. This may also require that the current Japanese role-playing game page have (tabletop) added to the end of it's name. UncannyGarlic (talk) 09:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Fixed link and removed repeated statement. UncannyGarlic (talk) 10:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose JRPG's are only one sub-genre/style of RPG's. That would be like wanting Action game moved to "Hack 'n slasher". TJ Spyke 17:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Note that the current Console RPG article is about the JRPG subgenre, not RPGs for consoles. It's about putting the proper name, the most widely used name, on the article. Am I misunderstanding your objection? UncannyGarlic (talk) 19:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
It does talk about a couple of western RPGs. The article should be about RPGs in general since that is the title. Maybe include a few examples of western RPG's (like Fable and Mass Effect) and get rid of the line that console RPG's are also known as JRPG's (since that would be like saying shooting games are also called FPS's. since FPS's are just one style of shooters and JRPG's are just one style of RPG's). TJ Spyke 21:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
This is not an article about RPGs in general nor is it about RPGs for video game consoles, it's about a genre of video games referred to predominantly as JRPGs and incorrectly labeled Console RPGs here. The name of the genre originated from Dragon Quest, Final Fantasy, or other RPGs for consoles from Japan, it doesn't mean that all RPGs of this genre are Japanese. My guess is that whoever originally created the article was trying to avoid that confusion by calling the genre Console RPG, which, of course, creates different confusion. Granted, the article is full of problems which need to be fixed and a seperate articles about the history of RPGs on Consoles may be prudent. UncannyGarlic (talk) 22:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose: If the current article is too focused on JRPGs, that can be fixed. But it would be ridiculous for Console role-playing game to redirect to a page that's only about Japanese games. For example, I would expect a game like Fable to be covered on this page. Oren0 (talk) 23:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
JRPG is a label for a genre, not a criteria for what falls into the genre. If the article is to be about RPGs designed for consoles then the article should be split, leaving the opening paragraph and maybe the Nomenclature paragraphs while the rest is put into an article about JRPGs. If that is to be done then the Console RPG article should focus on the history of console RPGs and not attempt to do what this one has and incorrectly use it as a label for a genre (which may have arose in confusion due to Computer RPG being something of a broad RPG sub-genre). UncannyGarlic (talk) 00:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I have no opposition to the existence of an article about Japanese console RPGs. I do have an opposition to this article being moved to that. I welcome you to perform a split. Oren0 (talk) 00:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

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.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.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.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. 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. [9] 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.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. [10]
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 [11] [12]. 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 [13] 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. [14] An 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. [15]
The game is advertised as being "like a console RPG" [16]. 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 review of the game [17]. 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" [18] by GameFAQs; Final Fantasy games are considered "Console-style RPGs" [19]).
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.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 [20], fan programming projects [21], fan sites [22], and articles [23] [24] [25] [26] 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 [27] [28] [29]. There is also the odd use of the term for marketing games that emulate console-style rpg gameplay [30] [31] [32], such as with the tabletop RPG Super Console [33]. 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.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.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 [[34]].
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.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 [35] [36] 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.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)