Well? What do you think?
Printable View
Well? What do you think?
Nooo. Adventure game.
action/adventure with puzzle elements in dungeons to keep it fun :)
In the dictionary yes, you take the role of Link and play as him.
In the practical sense Action/Adventure with a touch of puzzle for good measure. Final answer, no.
Adventure yeah
You don't get stronger by fighting!
I don't know, the term "Role Playing Game" is such a complex, controversial, and convoluted term it has little to no substantive meaning, so why the hell not?
Some people say that the statistical basis for the characters is the glue that holds the genre together, so while Zelda, on its face, seems no less an RPG than, say, Demon's Souls, it still doesn't meet this criteria.
I think Zelda is the game responsible for the junction of puzzles, combat, and exploration that define the majority of today's action/adventure games. So let's go with that. Adventure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by qwertysaur
I think Sequel is its genre.
Sure it does. Take A Link to the Past. You increase Health (pieces of Heart), damage (4 upgrades to his sword), magic (first when you get the latern and then through the "curse"), and defense (his various tunics). Those are stats. Maybe Link's character sheet is less convoluted or pure-number based than some, but they are still stats, and you are still upgrading them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolivar
RPG is such a broad, ambiguous term that contains a lot of completely different games (see: Baldur's Gate vs. Final Fantasy), so I couldn't really disagree with someone who wanted to throw Zelda into the mix as well. But like the majority here, I would consider it more of an Adventure game.
Its an RPG.... Period!
no, because RPG is not a role-playing game as in actual role playing
So being Link does not make it an RPG.
Technically, every game could be considered an RPG as well if you include the "stat" raising stuff of heart tanks, upgrading weapons etc. That would qualify Ninja Gaiden as an RPG, because you upgrade weapons, increase health, and upgrade magic. But we all know Ninja Gaiden is not an RPG. Metroid could also be considered an RPG as you get different weapons, different armor, and in some games you can even choose to unequip certain upgrades.
There's a reason people classify all RPG's now as more than just RPG's. You have games like Fire Emblem, which are strategy RPG's. You have games like Oblivion, which is a Western RPG (probably the most like D+D of the RPG game categories). And then you have games like Final Fantasy, which is a Turn-Based RPG, or a Japanese RPG. And then the last big category is an Action RPG, like Kingdom hearts. Zelda is not an RPG in any of these terms. It's an action/adventure game which may have RPGish elements.
THE JACKEL
Oh snap. The complexity continues!Quote:
Originally Posted by SkybladeSure it does. Take A Link to the Past. You increase Health (pieces of Heart), damage (4 upgrades to his sword), magic (first when you get the latern and then through the "curse"), and defense (his various tunics). Those are stats. Maybe Link's character sheet is less convoluted or pure-number based than some, but they are still stats, and you are still upgrading them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolivar
This basically. Using the logic that finding heart containers and weapon upgrade makes Zelda an RPG would mean that the Mega Man games could be classified as RPG's as well. I don't think you'd find anyone who would agree with that claim.Quote:
Originally Posted by ljkkjlcm9
Action/Adventure without a doubt.
Action/AdventureRPG 3 games combined into one which makes for the best genre ever. There are plenty of the three in there that creates this delicious mixture.
I wouldn't even consider Zelda an action game. But I am tempted to consider it an RPG. Which is weird because while thinking deeper, God of War plays about the same as a Zelda game. Upgrading weapons, items, and abilities as well as health and magic. But I'd never consider a God Of War game an RPG. Same with any of the other examples. So I can't consider Zelda an RPG. I think its just because its set in a fantasy world and has a really slow pace its more RPG'ish. But like I said, Its definitely not. And neither is it an action/adventure game, in my opinion. Its just an adventure game
I think you're confused about your genres.
Video game genres - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I need to correct myself as it's a mix of two not three.
How about this-- it's a game.
Not everything in the world needs a label or classification.
In all games you play as a character; you don't play as yourself unless it's like the Sims or something. We don't call those games RPG's. This is no different. I agree with people saying it's an adventure game.
Adventure Game!
It's human nature to label and classify things. It allows us to more easily organize, store and recall information.Quote:
Originally Posted by Momiji
And calling it a game is already giving it a label. Why not just call it nothing? Then we won't be giving it any classification.
Okay, correction. Not everything needs to be categorized into pointlessly specific labels.
How the hell else are you going to convey the general essence of a game in as few words as possible? If you say Final Fantasy is an RPG you have a good idea of what it's all about without even knowing anything else about it. If these labels were really pointless, people would never actually use them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Momiji
"It's an RPG!"
"No it isn't! It's an Adventure game!"
"smurf you no it isn't, it's an Action-adventure game!"
*catfight*
It's an action adventure game. Just because the dude carries a sword in a fantasy setting doesn't grant it the all mighty RPG classification. Though, Zelda II has RPG elements, I still say even calling that game a full blown RPG is a stretch.
I would say action/adventure. Though it does have some role-playing elements in there.
I would not really classify it as pure adventure; that genre is saved for games like Zork, King's Quest, Secret of Monkey Island, Grim Fandango, the Myst series, etc.
Either way, it's not really that important and this debate could go on for awhile. Just enjoy the game instead.
people used to use "RPG" as a pejorative term to describe games played by d&d nerd types, and in that sense almost any game with swords and fantasies and dragons and goblin-like-things is an RPG. But by that definition Fallout 3 is not an RPG, even though Fallout 3 is way more an RPG than any Zelda game I've ever played.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephex
Is Diablo II an RPG?
So how would you define an RPG? Bolvar said it didn't contain stat boosting, so that disqualified it. I simply pointed out that it did. What do you think it needs? Huge plot involvement and character development? It has that (especially in the later versions). Sure, the plot may be almost the exact same overall plot for every game, but it is always there. There may also be recurring characters, but the games are getting more and more characters in general, and far more developement of their personalities. Do you need to be able to walk around town talking to NPCs, having an immersive game world even outside of combat? The games have that as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivi22This basically. Using the logic that finding heart containers and weapon upgrade makes Zelda an RPG would mean that the Mega Man games could be classified as RPG's as well. I don't think you'd find anyone who would agree with that claim.Quote:
Originally Posted by ljkkjlcm9
Action/Adventure without a doubt.
It's hard to cut a clear definition of RPG, especially since the genre is not actually mutually exclusive with the other genres the way most are. It is quite possible to have a shooting game that is also an RPG (like Mass Effect), even though there are plenty of other genres that cannot cross with each other nearly that easily. Since RPGs can cross over with practically any other genre, it can be hard to differentiate between what is a game from one genre that is also an RPG, and what is simply a game from the other genre with some RPG elements. But, for me, Zelda's characters, story, and character improvement systems have pushed it into the category of being an RPG. It might not be just an RPG, but it is an RPG nonetheless.
Action/Adventure gets my vote.
I'd say no, because there's much more fighting action than character talking, random encounters (except for Zelda II), and other RPG elements.
People always seem to refer to it as an RPG, teamed with some other term, in reviews and the like. I'm undecided. One could call it an action RPG?
It is an action-adventure game. Any and all RPG-elements it does have are also shared by many other games of the same genre. Health upgrades, weapon upgrades and such are found frequently outside the RPG genre. Those alone can hardly make a game a RPG, unless you want to consider a plethora of other games like Assassin's Creed, Prince of Persia, Ninja Gaiden, etc... as RPGs. Nor would a specific plot element really make a game RPG, since most RPGs are in essence "saving the world", but plenty of other genres have that too.
A key RPG element is the depth of character stats. I am talking about than just health upgrades. Plenty of RPGs will give you stats such as Strength, Defense, Magic, etc...which can either be controlled by the player (e.g. most Western RPGs) or will level up naturally depending on your character's class/job which may or may not be changeable (e.g. most Final Fantasy's). Many RPGs also involve being a part of a team or group of heros/adventurers/misfits/what-have-you who join you in battle. These characters can be controllable (e.g. early FF), NPC/given various AI styles (Kingdom Hearts, Person 3) or a mixture (Dragon Age: Origins, FFXII). There are exceptions to this like Fable I, but then again it involves in-dept character customization (referring more to stats and abilities than actual physical features). From here we can address the whole Western vs Japanese RPG, but I think that'd be taking it too far.
tl;dr, Zelda may have RPG-like elements but that is it.
I think of it as both an RPG and Adventure. I know it's an Adventure but I started playing it at a young age and partnered it up with FF.
Quote:
It is an action-adventure game. Any and all RPG-elements it does have are also shared by many other games of the same genre. Health upgrades, weapon upgrades and such are found frequently outside the RPG genre. Those alone can hardly make a game a RPG, unless you want to consider a plethora of other games like Assassin's Creed, Prince of Persia, Ninja Gaiden, etc... as RPGs.
Yeah, don't you know that everyone is a RPG gamer nowadays. The genre isn't just reserved for geeks anymore. Industries have realized the now the addictiveness of RPGs and now they're mainstream. Industry still keeps the whole from the sectional seperate. Classification now comes to how much RPG involvement is there in the game to label it with the just RPG or any kind of hybrid.
The Zelda series has high elements in both fields of Action-Adventure and RPG, to create that rare genre which is an Action-Adventure/RPG.
Okami is another that shares it.
Puzzle game with adventure elements :colbert:
I'll bite since I got my head chewed off by Roto on another forum for saying this but I'll say it is an Action Adventure RPG.
The true irony here is that the modern definition of an Adventure game (a story driven game with exploration elements that is about becoming a character and seeing their daily life all using a text based interface. I.e. Fate/Stay the Night, Syberia, and Leisure Suit Larry) today is almost the complete opposite of what Zelda is. Zelda to me hearkens back to the roots of early RPGs where exploration and puzzle solving were key elements to gameplay as opposed to convulated stories and intricate stat based customization systems with turn based combat. Considering Zelda inspired the creation of Dragon Warrior (the earliest form of the JRPG) then I would say Zelda is literally the primordial RPG. It has stat based growth which is built upon by a players advancement through the title and skill level. It has a story focus (despite Zelda plots being fairly simple) which ties in most elements of the game together. It has a focus on using both the players mind to figure out puzzles and enemy weaknesses as well as just upgrading and "strong arming" your way through combat, and it has bosses that are given to the player in a non-linear (though suggested) path of encounter. It has an overworld map and cities and dungeons within in it as well.
If you compared Zelda to RPGs back in the NES and SNES era, I feel it would be easy to say Zelda is an RPG, its only recently when RPG became a loose term used to describe most types of games that I feel it lost its genre. To be honest, it would be difficult to define what RPG itself is especially since it is synonymous with the definition of Adventure titles. JRPG are close to Adventure titles while Zelda would be closer to a Western RPG where you take on quests to gain upgrades and skills in a decentralized world left to the players own initiative to explore.
So yeah, Zelda is hardly a JRPG but I feel its close enough to the "WRPG" to say it warrants the RPG title. As for saying games like God of War, DMC, or Ninja Gaiden can be considered RPGs under this terminology, it cannot simply because at the core, all these games are about combat and action. The point of GoW, DMC, and NG is to lop off an opponents head and then use your wicked skills to juggle it in the air for twenty minutes. The upgrades in these games are simply rewards for advancing to the next level, they grant you more options for the core elements which is the combat system (stealth for AC) so you can't consider them RPGs cause the core gameplay elements are not an RPG, it is about kicking ass with style. Which is really nowhere in the definition of an RPG unless we want to count gross empowerment" as a core trait of RPGs. :p
I agree that Zelda shares a lot of characteristics with oldschool RPGs, but I disagree that in modern terms it's similarly close to a WRPG. WRPGs are much more individualized (in that each playthrough can be a unique experience) and nonlinear for any Zelda title to fit in it, and Link is too defined as a character.
That being said, the WRPG and JRPG distinctions are there to differentiate between two different "kinds" of RPGs which are actually wildly different. Perhaps the term "RPG" has gotten so broad that it's time for an ARPG subgenre which would incorporate Zelda.
Adventure games are a type of puzzle game. But I still stand by and say that no, Zelda isn't pure adventure. It's got many action and role playing elements to it which puts it into a completely different genre than adventure games (see my previous post for examples).Quote:
Originally Posted by Jiro
You are quite right, its been awhile since I was able to stomach my way through a WRPG, but I was mostly alluding that the similarities are from the WRPG holding onto exploration and side quests as core elements to the gameplay as opposed to JRPG where the story and combat are the driving forces.Quote:
Originally Posted by Raistlin
As for the definition of RPGs, yeah, its a bit hard to say which is why I do feel that Zelda most likely would exist under its own RPG genre that's different from the other genres.
I suppose I may as well post in my own thread.
In my opinion, Zelda would be an Action Adventure. Action is put there because, as Wolf said, an Adventure game is:
Quote:
Originally Posted by WolfKanno
So calling it just "Adventure" is silly. Even Metroid Prime 3 is closer to Adventure game than Zelda. So, "Action" is added on, because you're adventuring, and it's action based. If you just call it an adventure game, you're associating it with the wrong crowd.
But then, if you call it an RPG, you're also associating it with the wrong crowd. RPG fans may recognize the fantasy setting, but even comparing the original Zelda to say, Dragon Quest, the gameplay is totally different.
Yes, Diablo II is an RPG. To be more specific thougth it's generally classified as an action/RPG.Quote:
Originally Posted by eestlinc
As for Zelda, I've barely played the games, but I've always heard that it was an action/adventure game with puzzles thrown in. However, I could be wrong.
That's just about right.Quote:
Originally Posted by the AJmanYes, Diablo II is an RPG. To be more specific thougth it's generally classified as an action/RPG.Quote:
Originally Posted by eestlinc
As for Zelda, I've barely played the games, but I've always heard that it was an action/adventure game with puzzles thrown in. However, I could be wrong.
I've always called it Hack 'n' Slash or Dungeon Crawler RPG...Quote:
Originally Posted by the AJmanYes, Diablo II is an RPG. To be more specific thougth it's generally classified as an action/RPG.Quote:
Originally Posted by eestlinc
As for Zelda, I've barely played the games, but I've always heard that it was an action/adventure game with puzzles thrown in. However, I could be wrong.
as for Zelda, Action Adventure (or, semi-linear sandbox).
I said yes.
HOWEVER: it's more like an ARPG . . . but . . . without much of the RPG stuff. I guess it really is more Action/Adventure with RPG elements . . . but . . .
Whatever it is, it's perfect!
Since there is, as I mentioned before, a decided problem in that there is no hard and fast definition of RPG, I decided to simply look the term up.
Somewhat suprisingly to me, dictionary.com had only one definition:
If we accept this definition, and assume that in the electronic universe, the Game Master (defined as the person who controls a role-playing game) is either the developers who created the game or the computer itself, then there is almost no difference between role-playing games and adventure games.Quote:
role-playing game
–noun
a game in which participants adopt the roles of imaginary characters in an adventure under the direction of a Game Master.
Of course, there are plenty of gamers who would disagree with this definition, I'm sure, but I thought it was something interesting to make note of.
Definitions are always interesting! But I wouldn't be so quick to accept that definition since it's a fairly recently established term and any official definitions it might have are still somewhat arbitrary and likely formulated by people with no real insight themselves. To me, the disambiguation page on Wikipedia seems far more relevant:
Quote:
- Role-playing games, games in which the participants assume the roles of fictional characters.
- Role-playing game (video games), video games which incorporate settings and game mechanics found in role-playing games.
Me and Kanno are right.