Another JRPG Rant!
Unknown | 10:33 PM |
16-Bit Gems (a videogame review show hosted by Blistered Thumbs and Retroware.tv) recently did a rant about people who dislike the term JRPG.
I decided to counter the rant. Watch my response.
UPDATE: Roo (host of 16 Bit Gems) responded to my video in his comments for the video on Retroware.tv;
Roo: Fanatic, I'm actually rather disappointed that your video was not up to the normal quality of your other work, which I usually enjoy. Beyond the fallacies, opinions presented as fact, a whole lot of strawman arguments, little to no evidence, and some personal attacks peppered in for flavor, I found one salient point that I did not address in my video - and that's the question about games like Secret of Mana above.
As I said earlier to Cynic, I don't mean for the term JRPG to be an exclusive and monolithic term. In the case of Secret of Mana, I would call it a JRPG and an action RPG. Video games straddle genres and subgenres all the time. Look at Portal - FPS & puzzle. Lost Vikings - Action platformer & puzzle. Metroid Prime - FPS & action & adventure. You get the idea. Other than the turn-based battle aspect, it shares many other aspects of JRPGs, such as the simple level up system. Thus, it's a cross-genre game.
As for the "people who disagree with me are racists!" argument (I once again point to my video as a response, since you did not rebut it at all), that tactic is really old hat and goes a long way in destroying credibility when it's used superfluously. I'd suggest you tone that down if you want people to take you more seriously in the future. You are not some video game civil rights martyr fighting to right a inherent wrong in a governmental system. You are just like me - some guy on the internet who's arguing over the exact classification of a small subset of interactive entertainment. Step back and breathe a little.
And just to be clear, I don't know your history with Retroware, and in no way was my response related to the application you sent them months ago. I never even knew you reached out to RWTV. As I've had to say many times to several people: neither Retroware, nor Blistered Thumbs, nor Reviewtopia, nor anyone else but me has editorial control over my videos. If you have a problem with this particular site, I would suggest talking to John and/or Lance about it in private instead of taking it out on me through a public rant without fully understanding the situation.
Consider this my full and final rebuttal on the JRPG topic. For two reasons:
1.) If you can talk so much yet say so little on this subject for 20 minutes, then I doubt there's anything else of value to be brought to the debate.
2.) I really just don't care that much about this issue to go beyond the 3 minutes or so I talked about it in my previous video. I laid out my argument and haven't seen a good enough rebuttal to change my stance (though I can understand moderate positions on it - like Cynic's). I'm not interested in prolonging this e-pissing match for the sake of arguing. I can go to Fark for that.
Also... I generally keep my soap in the bathroom.
show more show less
Here is my reply;
RPG Fanatic: Roo, I covered this in my video but again, please respond to the following points:
1) Did you or did you not dismiss the term "console-style" and "PC-style" as if they had little use or history despite them used by GameFAQs, which has been in operation since 1995 and is hardly a small site. Despite this you called those who use the labels a "small movement".
You implied the terms "JRPG" and "WRPG" had history behind them, whereas "console-style" and "PC-style" did not. This is factually incorrect and demonstrates you did no research into the subject.
2) Did you not generalize "JRPGs" as having turn based combat systems when you know many of them are real time based?
3) Did you not point to relatively new games like Fallout and Mass Effect as being representative of "WRPGs" and completely ignore the overwhelming majority of "Western" made computer RPGs that have turn based combat and linear narratives?
http://www.gamefaqs.com/pc/list-48
Not a complete list but a good start.
The majority of computer RPGs simply do not have non-linear narratives, let alone the majority of those made by "Western" developers.
It is true that many game journalist claim "WRPGs" are basically games like SW: Knights of the Old Republic. These "journalists" do not cite their sources and largely expressing opinions based on their limited knowledge of computer RPG history. They also tend to completely ignore games not released by a large publisher. Anyone with actual knowledge of the genre knows they are wrong and I was extremely disappointed that you would tell your audience information you did not check the facts of because it just hurts the efforts of people like myself who are trying to get people to stop making assumptions that are hurting the industry.
Sure, you can argue that games "straddle" genres but that is just excusing that you, during a defense of the term JRPG, tried to define them and failed to adequately do so. You're also ignoring that definitions that are only good some of the time are not useful for classification; it just confuses people.
The three critical arguments of the "Stop calling them JRPGs" movement is that...
1) Japanese developers make too many different types of computer rpgs for one label to define them all.
2) American / Canadian / European developers make too many different types of computer rpgs for one label to define them all.
3) The term "JRPG" is used with the term "WRPG" as its opposite. This implies that "The West" or Americans, make games that are vastly different than the Japanese. This is actually false and anyone who does even a little bit of research can see that. It is not hard to find lists of computer RPGs, even Wikipedia (which I strongly dislike) has lists. The use of these terms imply an "Us Vs. Them" mentality that is absolutely 100% racist.
You ridiculed these three points. You did not give them the merit they deserve.
And even if you want to label games by their graphical style, there are many computer RPGs made by non-Japanese that have "anime-ish" graphics (examples: AdventureQuest, World of Warcraft, Farmville, Frontierville, and lots of the indie stuff by small places like Rampant Games or Zeboyd). Therefore graphical style cannot be used to classify them either because it's not a reliable method.
The only reliable method to classify games is by looking at their actual mechanics, not their nationalities. Even if there are differences in popular art styles or narrative devices, these devices are very inconsequential (games made for kids or meant to be comedic always look more colorful and cartoony regardless of what region they come from; games with narratives always have archetype characters common to the culture the game is primarily designed to appeal to). These elements really are not worth pointing out when trying to define game genres.
Now, Google "define:racism". One of the results is, "A set of incorrect assumptions, opinions and acts resulting from the belief that one race is inherently/genetically superior to another. It occurs when people are not treated fairly because of their cultural or ethnic differences....". This is most definitely how the term "JRPG" is being used. There are numerous editorials about how the "JRPG" industry is dying and the "WRPG" is being so gosh darn great and innovative. These editorials ignore actual facts like sales numbers of the big titles released by Japanese and American developers (they have pretty similar sales numbers) and the entire indie industry.
If you had only said that "JRPG means computer rpgs made by the Japanese" and nothing more, that would not be an assessment I'd take issue with. The problem is that you attempted to define "JRPGs" by mechanics that, in reality, a substantial number of them do not share and simply are not unique to the Japanese developers. This is the problem. This is where you expressed a racist viewpoint.
And what you did was indeed rant. Calm as it was delivered, it is clear you wrote it without any research into the topic and there are indeed portions of it where you were rather dismissive toward those of us who have done the research. By your own admittance you wrote it to, "...challenge this assertion before it gains too much steam."
I also took offense that you would dismiss the arguments without doing any research into the topic and clearly having not put much thought into it either. And then there is the issue of the "THAT'S RACIST!" ending the rant with a black kid shouting. Seriously, what the hell was with that?
I will admit that "console style" and "pc style" are not the best terms. However, they are certainly more politically correct. That said, I am attempting to come up with better definitions for computer RPGs that are not misnomers so as to lessen the extraordinary amount of confusion players have about these games when they use the currently popular terms.
http://cmartell.blogspot.com/2011/04/proposal-for-new-genre-classifications.html
I decided to counter the rant. Watch my response.
UPDATE: Roo (host of 16 Bit Gems) responded to my video in his comments for the video on Retroware.tv;
Roo: Fanatic, I'm actually rather disappointed that your video was not up to the normal quality of your other work, which I usually enjoy. Beyond the fallacies, opinions presented as fact, a whole lot of strawman arguments, little to no evidence, and some personal attacks peppered in for flavor, I found one salient point that I did not address in my video - and that's the question about games like Secret of Mana above.
As I said earlier to Cynic, I don't mean for the term JRPG to be an exclusive and monolithic term. In the case of Secret of Mana, I would call it a JRPG and an action RPG. Video games straddle genres and subgenres all the time. Look at Portal - FPS & puzzle. Lost Vikings - Action platformer & puzzle. Metroid Prime - FPS & action & adventure. You get the idea. Other than the turn-based battle aspect, it shares many other aspects of JRPGs, such as the simple level up system. Thus, it's a cross-genre game.
As for the "people who disagree with me are racists!" argument (I once again point to my video as a response, since you did not rebut it at all), that tactic is really old hat and goes a long way in destroying credibility when it's used superfluously. I'd suggest you tone that down if you want people to take you more seriously in the future. You are not some video game civil rights martyr fighting to right a inherent wrong in a governmental system. You are just like me - some guy on the internet who's arguing over the exact classification of a small subset of interactive entertainment. Step back and breathe a little.
And just to be clear, I don't know your history with Retroware, and in no way was my response related to the application you sent them months ago. I never even knew you reached out to RWTV. As I've had to say many times to several people: neither Retroware, nor Blistered Thumbs, nor Reviewtopia, nor anyone else but me has editorial control over my videos. If you have a problem with this particular site, I would suggest talking to John and/or Lance about it in private instead of taking it out on me through a public rant without fully understanding the situation.
Consider this my full and final rebuttal on the JRPG topic. For two reasons:
1.) If you can talk so much yet say so little on this subject for 20 minutes, then I doubt there's anything else of value to be brought to the debate.
2.) I really just don't care that much about this issue to go beyond the 3 minutes or so I talked about it in my previous video. I laid out my argument and haven't seen a good enough rebuttal to change my stance (though I can understand moderate positions on it - like Cynic's). I'm not interested in prolonging this e-pissing match for the sake of arguing. I can go to Fark for that.
Also... I generally keep my soap in the bathroom.
show more show less
Here is my reply;
RPG Fanatic: Roo, I covered this in my video but again, please respond to the following points:
1) Did you or did you not dismiss the term "console-style" and "PC-style" as if they had little use or history despite them used by GameFAQs, which has been in operation since 1995 and is hardly a small site. Despite this you called those who use the labels a "small movement".
You implied the terms "JRPG" and "WRPG" had history behind them, whereas "console-style" and "PC-style" did not. This is factually incorrect and demonstrates you did no research into the subject.
2) Did you not generalize "JRPGs" as having turn based combat systems when you know many of them are real time based?
3) Did you not point to relatively new games like Fallout and Mass Effect as being representative of "WRPGs" and completely ignore the overwhelming majority of "Western" made computer RPGs that have turn based combat and linear narratives?
http://www.gamefaqs.com/pc/list-48
Not a complete list but a good start.
The majority of computer RPGs simply do not have non-linear narratives, let alone the majority of those made by "Western" developers.
It is true that many game journalist claim "WRPGs" are basically games like SW: Knights of the Old Republic. These "journalists" do not cite their sources and largely expressing opinions based on their limited knowledge of computer RPG history. They also tend to completely ignore games not released by a large publisher. Anyone with actual knowledge of the genre knows they are wrong and I was extremely disappointed that you would tell your audience information you did not check the facts of because it just hurts the efforts of people like myself who are trying to get people to stop making assumptions that are hurting the industry.
Sure, you can argue that games "straddle" genres but that is just excusing that you, during a defense of the term JRPG, tried to define them and failed to adequately do so. You're also ignoring that definitions that are only good some of the time are not useful for classification; it just confuses people.
The three critical arguments of the "Stop calling them JRPGs" movement is that...
1) Japanese developers make too many different types of computer rpgs for one label to define them all.
2) American / Canadian / European developers make too many different types of computer rpgs for one label to define them all.
3) The term "JRPG" is used with the term "WRPG" as its opposite. This implies that "The West" or Americans, make games that are vastly different than the Japanese. This is actually false and anyone who does even a little bit of research can see that. It is not hard to find lists of computer RPGs, even Wikipedia (which I strongly dislike) has lists. The use of these terms imply an "Us Vs. Them" mentality that is absolutely 100% racist.
You ridiculed these three points. You did not give them the merit they deserve.
And even if you want to label games by their graphical style, there are many computer RPGs made by non-Japanese that have "anime-ish" graphics (examples: AdventureQuest, World of Warcraft, Farmville, Frontierville, and lots of the indie stuff by small places like Rampant Games or Zeboyd). Therefore graphical style cannot be used to classify them either because it's not a reliable method.
The only reliable method to classify games is by looking at their actual mechanics, not their nationalities. Even if there are differences in popular art styles or narrative devices, these devices are very inconsequential (games made for kids or meant to be comedic always look more colorful and cartoony regardless of what region they come from; games with narratives always have archetype characters common to the culture the game is primarily designed to appeal to). These elements really are not worth pointing out when trying to define game genres.
Now, Google "define:racism". One of the results is, "A set of incorrect assumptions, opinions and acts resulting from the belief that one race is inherently/genetically superior to another. It occurs when people are not treated fairly because of their cultural or ethnic differences....". This is most definitely how the term "JRPG" is being used. There are numerous editorials about how the "JRPG" industry is dying and the "WRPG" is being so gosh darn great and innovative. These editorials ignore actual facts like sales numbers of the big titles released by Japanese and American developers (they have pretty similar sales numbers) and the entire indie industry.
If you had only said that "JRPG means computer rpgs made by the Japanese" and nothing more, that would not be an assessment I'd take issue with. The problem is that you attempted to define "JRPGs" by mechanics that, in reality, a substantial number of them do not share and simply are not unique to the Japanese developers. This is the problem. This is where you expressed a racist viewpoint.
And what you did was indeed rant. Calm as it was delivered, it is clear you wrote it without any research into the topic and there are indeed portions of it where you were rather dismissive toward those of us who have done the research. By your own admittance you wrote it to, "...challenge this assertion before it gains too much steam."
I also took offense that you would dismiss the arguments without doing any research into the topic and clearly having not put much thought into it either. And then there is the issue of the "THAT'S RACIST!" ending the rant with a black kid shouting. Seriously, what the hell was with that?
I will admit that "console style" and "pc style" are not the best terms. However, they are certainly more politically correct. That said, I am attempting to come up with better definitions for computer RPGs that are not misnomers so as to lessen the extraordinary amount of confusion players have about these games when they use the currently popular terms.
http://cmartell.blogspot.com/2011/04/proposal-for-new-genre-classifications.html
2 comments:
Just Mirror this from RTV, for convinience:
1. I'm on your side in the debate (see RTV), but even I find this rather... insulting. As I said on youtube: educate, don't insult.
2. The clear-cut nature of genre is a myth, at best. Ask any undergraduate student in film studies, and he will smack your head with theories of poststructuralistic/postmodern origins. Same for TV, where the notion of genre is even less useful, to the point that it's on it's way out, replaced with the concept of "format". At Video Games this isn't already the case, but it's a rather young medium. Give it time, and this will happen there. too. I'm absolutely for the formation of genre theory on ALL medium, but to state them as absolute is just not true. If you get really fancy, actor-network-theory alike, even the formation of genre isn't something that is man made.
3. You aren't helping much with dogmatism. Period. Time and time again this was shown in history. I respect your opinion, that differ at some points from mine, but largely you have the better points. Tel them in a objective manner and you might get your, true, message across. Insulting is not the way to go. Same for Roo, btw.
Narrative genres are not going to "go away". They are used by the general public AND studios / publishers.
I am an undergraduate film studies major, by the way.
My "insults" come down to questioning Roo's fact checking, how experienced he actually is in the gaming scene since he didn't seem to believe "console-style" was an old or common term, and that he was expressing ignorant and racist viewpoints.
You call them "insults". I call them pointing out the flaws in his arguments.
Post a Comment