>>3838501
>Most jrpgs let you choose how your character behaves in combat based on your equipped items.
Are you out of your fucking mind?

>Yes I can. I played the role of rogue government agent just fine in Deus Ex.
Ah, 'tis bait isn't it. This statement is so flabbergastingly retarded I'm out of words.
>Deus Ex
It's an action adventure game. It's role-playing mechanics play way too little role on the gameplay. System Shock 2 had less of them, yet they affected so much more gameplay-wise, even it has more right to be labeled RPG than Deus Ex.

>Because if we try to define by combat then 90% of all rpg games would be excluded since its handled in vastly different ways between games.
Some jfags once attempted to use an argument that JRPGs somehow have proper combat because it derives from Wizardry. And yet they completely miss how shallow JRPG combat is even to 1981's Wizardry 1, which had enemy and party positioning play a huge role - the enemy flanks from the rear couldn't be reached with melee, and the party members from the rear couldn't attack unless they had bows. Wizardry 1 also had class actions like the priest's and bishop's dispell, and in the famicom ports they ported hide for thief from Wizardry 5.
Computer RPGs often do combat differently, but the general complexity is roughly the same. JRPG combat is either dumbed down Wizardry 1 ripoff or fucking mini games.

>If you have a better definition for RPG I'd like to hear it.
A game that has mid-strong emphasis on character building, a fully interactive world presenting the player with choice and consequences of even his smallest actions, and tactical combat. Additionally I'd also say environmental puzzles as they were extremely common trait of 80's and 90's first person RPGs, but that's more niche. JRPGs are not RPGs because the first and second criteria is not presented, and the latter is severely dumbed down.