Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/February/9
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
February 9[edit]
{{Wrpg-videogame-stub}}/Category:Western role-playing video game stubs/{{Jrpg-videogame-stub}}/Category:Japanese role-playing video game stubs[edit]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Result was delete. As templates are currently in use, they'll be redirected to the generic {{rpg-videogame-stub}} until they can be cleared. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 10:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- While it may be easy to populate these categories, this distinction is not helpful to stub-sorting. These are not sub-genres, these are merely where the game was produced. There are not matching parent categories (Western RPGs, Japanese RPGS). Seeing as how even Japanese games are published in the West with English dubbing and menus, this doesn't do much to help separate them. Templates link to an article on cultural differences that was deleted and redirected for similar reasons. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 20:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or merge stubs into an "RPG-videogame-stub" category. These categories are somewhat arbitrary. Nomader (Talk) 21:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Even the term "Western" paints too broad a brush. Is that to include all games made by Canada, Mexico, Brazil, United States, Britain, France, Spain, Germany, etc etc? While "JRPG" only focuses on those made in Japan, at the expense of Chinese, Korean, Indonesian, etc games? They are silly categories, with one focused only on one nation and the other stacking several countries against it. The people who use these labels are obviously bias. --Therpgfanatic (talk) 21:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete While trends do exist, the categories should be deleted as they can be loaded terms in and of themselves and many games are not distinctly labeled as such.陣内Jinnai 21:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a point of clarification. As can be easily read about at Role-playing video game#Cultural differences, and History of role-playing video games#Cultural differences, the terms "Western" and "Japanese" here have nothing to do with the country of origin, although games made in Japan and other eastern Asian countries tend to follow the "Japanese" pattern, while those made in the US and Europe tend to follow the Western pattern. Japanese games are extremely linear, use pre-made, typically pre-named characters, and focus more on a plot line than on the character. Prime examples are Dragon Quest and Final Fantasy. Games made for consoles, where controls are very simplified, typically fall into this category. Western games typically allow for the user to define their own characters, allow for open-ended gameplay, and focus more on building the character, sometimes not even caring whether the player follows a plot. See the main games of the Elder Scrolls series for an extreme example. (Daggerfall was a huge world that had a plot, but didn't care at all whether the user paid attention to the plot) It's a fine line of distinction, and often difficult to find sources that indicate what category a particular game falls into. I initially tried to draw this distinction, and have since lost interest in maintaining it. Since few other seem to care, I'm OK with deleting, as long as both classifications are removed. Dawynn (talk) 23:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That cultural differences article is in dispute due to unreliable sources; as in, all the sources are editorials who do not cite their research. --Therpgfanatic (talk) 04:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Did not know that. I will freely admit that you can almost never find any references in reviews to anyone calling an RPG a Western RPG. But it is not uncommon to read about one referred to as a Japanese-style or console-style RPG. However, even that distinction does not come up often enough for reputable citing. Dawynn (talk) 10:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]