I think there's some confusion regarding what's a Roleplaying game and what is a Japanese Roleplaying game.
Dark Souls isn't a JRPG. It's just an RPG (or, as it's sometimes referred to, Western Roleplaying Game) from Japan.
Final Fantasy VII is a JRPG. Because it follows the tropes and conventions of the JRPG genre.
See the difference. RPGs and JRPGs are genres and games are either depending on whether they follow the tropes of any given genre. It has nothing to do with where the game was made or what nationality the developers are.
I understand it might be a bit confusing, since JRPGs, as the fucking name suggests, originated in Japan but... Come on guys, I mean...
Anyway!
I haven't played too many JRPGs so I can't really have a justified and well rounded opinion on them. Other than the fact that they seem really neat with some really creative and imaginative stories. Much more original and interesting than most Western RPGs have to offer. I mean, how many fucking times have I saved the cocksucking world from some braindead evil that wants to destroy the world because the contrived bullshit, hack plot says they want to. Yeah. Sounds so fascinating huh?
Unfortunately, the reason I don't play JRPGs is because of one horrible game system that's been plaguing the genre since I was a toddler: Turn-based fucking combat. Uuuuuuugh. Turn-based combat can go fuck itself sideways. I hate it. It's so unimmersive and skilless. The combat devolves to a stat 'em up. Who ever has the shiniest sword wins. Skills, tactics, reflexes, pattern recognition, all of that flies out of the window. Stats based combat pissed me off equally much in Morrowind as in Knights of the Old Republic. But add to that turns which you cannot do anything but watch yourself get disintegrated. Oh boy. Recipe for making me cry, right there.
Games that understand the rules of the system know how to mitigate and use the favour/disfavour in each round to the games advantage, managing to create real tension and suspense. Each time you click that end turn button, you don't know what's going to happen! But the competent designers, like the dudes who made XCOM Enemy Unknown, understand that it's about careful manipulation. You have to trick the player into thinking that he's about to lose. That way he'll be forced to adapt and adopt a new approach to the problem. Unless you're genuinely up against a much larger threat. Then you have to retreat.
Still, games like XCOM are the exception. Not the rule. I can't be bothered with restarting a game 100 times because oh shit, the fucking game just randomly decided to make one of my dudes miss their shot or swing, and now because of that, I'm fucked. Remember kids, arbitrary outcomes of any action taken by the enemy is a sure way of ensuring that the player is frustrated. Why? If he isn't rewarded for taking the time to learn the patterns, tactics or whatever of the enemy, then what's the point? If everything's random, why play at all. You might win sometimes yeah but you'll be losing an equal amount. And every time that happens, it's not because you suck, it's because the coding dictates it. Sounds like fun...
Bought Shadowrun Returns on the Steam sale. I want my fucking money back... Excellent example of how not to program and design combat. I've literally stood right in front of an enemy with 4 dudes, all having 80+% to hit him. Yet, for some reason, all of my dudes miss. All of them. RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE ENEMY. Yeah I don't know, I can't justify how shit turn-based combat is, especially if designed poorly, like SRR, any more than that. I'm of the mindset that kind of shit belongs on paper. We've moved past the technilogical limitations of the days old and we need fresh new eyes and minds to create new engaging and skill based game systems which are harder to grok and master and requires the player to think about each fight tactically and try to perceive and learn the enemies move set. Games are about learning patterns and understanding formal systems. So that's what designers should be focusing on.
