The JRPG As Genre

I share Michael Abbott’s fond recollection of Chrono Trigger and Final Fantasy IV (III in the US), so his post got me thinking recently about the JRPG.  The stagnation and repetitiveness of these games are undeniable, but the JRPG actually interests me the most because it seems to have carved itself out a niche as an actual discrete genre, separate from the RPG as a whole.

I think many people would recognize the distinction between JRPGs and classical Western counterparts modeled on the Dungeons & Dragons universe.  But although the latter have always been a large portion of the Westren RPG market, they’ve never been the exclusive representative of it - at least, not since the days of the NES.  That is, although there have been a number of Western RPGs that have first modeled themselves on the Japanese style, it seems like Western developers have been much more willing to take creative risks in the styles that their games take. 

Japanese RPGs, on the other hand, have ossified - but into a distinct set of conventions that actually seem to me to be representative of their own sub-genre.  The classic character design (ambiguously gendered protagonists, large weaponry, typical character archetypes), plot (the epic style of plot would require too much elaboration, but follows a standard arc), and gameplay (everyone’s familiar with the turn-centric and statistic-heavy approach to this element in JRPGs) have actually become so standardized that they’re recognizable simply by the term “JRPG.”

I bring this up not to condemn them, but rather to point out that complaining that JRPGs are old hat is, to some extent, condemn genre itself.  It is a condemnation equally applicable to action games, sports titles, 1st person shooters, and so on… but I would suggest that it is misguided, because it assumes that for games to be valuable, they must be increasingly different, a conception of gaming that assumes that they are “progressing” to some higher plane.  It’s somewhat similar to the notion of evolution as the betterment of a species, rather than simply adaptive changes. 

I’m not sure that this is the case.  Although there’s indeed value in innovation and doing things differently, so too is there always a place for games that are simply fun, even if they are retreads.  I realize, of course, that Abbott isn’t saying any differently in his post - but I think it’s something that’s worth reminding ourselves of every so often.