Printable View
* You clearly play a role: you're Link.
* Link has hit points/levels (hearts).
* You get equipment and an equipment inventory screen to manage it, and equipment upgrades over time, including new weapons and armor and magic spells.
* You can customize your character, by skipping optional hearts/equipment.
You don't have much character development in Zelda games, but you don't have much of that in Chrono Trigger either, which is clearly an RPG.
Legend of Zelda: RPG or not?
As Darksiders was called Adult Zelda and has action and rpg elements, I would say, yes, it is. At least somehow. An Action-Adventure-RPG.
Considering all Zeldas are part of a multiversal tree - that does not make sense by the way, even with Link's reincarnation - he has character development as there is much to tell about his character.
RPG is a spectrum, not a dichotomy. In my opinion, it falls right near the middle of the spectrum.
Are we talking the series, or the original game?
My experience with the series as a whole is limited; I've put a lot of time into a few games but little or no time into most of them. Overall I would consider it to be an action-adventure series more than an RPG. There are definitely RPG elements involved, of course. And it had a lot of influence on the genre.
I sort of think along the lines of Wikipedia here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
I actually rather like how the original LoZ is nothing but running around and stabbing things with your sword. It's very hack-n-slashy and fun. :plotting:
It's an action RPG.
It's an action-adventure game. That's the genre it's officially classified as so it's the genre I'll recognize it under.
Zelda II is an action RPG; the others are action-adventure games with RPG elements.
Though I kind of agree with Spuuky's response too.
What's the difference between RPG, Action RPG and Action-Adventure?
Traditional RPGs are generally turn-based, though I guess a case could be made that that's becoming less and less the case these days. To me an RPG has to at least have experience levels and things like that to qualify as an RPG, but other people might have different qualifications for what makes an RPG, and to be honest, the definitions are pretty nebulous anyway.
That actually makes a lot of sense. I'm switching my answer to action-adventure.
FF2 didn't have character experience levels, but it's an RPG. Also Link has heart pieces, that's kind of like levels. There's also the rupee system.
Why isn't Adventure RPG a thing? Link does go on a lot of adventures, I'll give you that.
The heart pieces are kind of like levels but you don't have to pick up experience points to gain levels (although I guess a case could be made that the pieces of heart in all the games from LttP are kind of like experience points, but it's a stretch). To me the thing that makes Zelda II very much more an RPG than the other games in the series is that it actually has experience points and levels.
It is certainly worth wondering why adventure RPGs never caught on.
Levels are not the only means of character advancement in an RPG; FFII still has definitive stats and skills that develop based on the player's input.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Unne
People need to use the Pen-and-Paper games as a basis of what's an RPG as that's the origin of the genre, and I think considering Vampire: The Masquerade doesn't have levels and was very much an RPG that proved quite influential, it fits the description. I have a hard time thinking of Zelda working as an RPG considering there's little to no transparency or obvious logic to how damage, speed, and all that good stuff is calculated.
Damn, I feel like I'm running out of terms for types of RPGs. I don't know about you guys but I use action RPG ("ARPG") to refer to very dungeon-crawly and often top-down lootfest games like Diablo, Torchlight, and Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance.
In fact if we're making the case that the original LoZ is an RPG then it probably falls into that category more than it would any other.
Personally I'm still more apt to place something like Ocarina of Time more alongside Grand Theft Auto or Assassin's Creed, both of which have RPG elements but which I would not really consider RPGs. But as many of us have said in this thread, it's kind of a nebulous definition.
the term "rpg" is pretty wide these days. I would say there is no way to define mass effect 2 and 3 as rpgs without self a also fall falling within that definition.
as for the term action rpg, I count games that utilise some sort of hit box detection to determine if attacks hit or miss.
My instinct wants to say it is an adventure game as it lacks some of the nitty gritty details associated with RPGs. Final Fantasy II still has experience points; it's just a hidden counter that affects individual stats instead of a central level bar that affects every stat (if that makes sense). Zelda games typically only have advancement through hearts and equipment and those are either bought or found -- though there are probably RPGs where progression is purely monetary based.
But yeah look RPG is a loose term that can apply in a lot of ways. Don't take it literally though. Every game has you taking some kind of role. Duh.
Action-Adventure for me. The closest the series ever came to having an RPG was with Zelda II, and that was still a bit too actiony to be considered a full on RPG.
I think I'm more inclined to go with the action-adventure crowd.
If I was going to label it though... it would be an action-based, role-playing, character-centred, adventure simulation game.
I'm not sure why the thread continued past this comment, as it's the most correct thing that was said. RPG-ness isn't binary. Zelda games contain some RPG elements but lack others.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spuuky
Not to really hijack this thread, but: For those who say "it's not really an RPG", what game are you using as your standard for what an RPG is? I'm just curious.
No, that is an excellent question, Denmark.
There are many games that most people label as RPGs, and that the developers/publishers also label as RPG, but in reality do not have significantly more RPG elements than many of the zelda games (or most action adventure games, really) do.
Even if the game does not use traditional levels, leveling up is not the only valid method of "increasing character strength through statistical numbers" or whatever. Replacing your Common Sword with the Ultrasword, your leather armor with the Forcefield Armor, finding items that eventually increase your max hit points. These all serve the same purpose as leveling up does; Getting stronger through means that are not tied to the player's skill increasing. Of course, items might not be grindable, like exp typically is, but be honest with me everyone, are you really going to argue that the grind is what defines a RPG?
As far as I can remember, Mass Effect 2 and 3 were pretty much like this. You did not have regular levels, but you could acquire tech powers for your weapons, you could increase the strength of individual combat skills, you could change to stronger weapons, etc. These games are still called action RPGs.
Taking God of War as another example. Remember those red glowing orbs that you would get from killing enemies, which in turn would be used to power up skills? How is this in any way different from exp? The only difference is which part of the character the exp is affecting. While your HP is not affected by gaining exp, every combat skill you have can be powered up by it, including your bread and butter standard attack. GoW is an action RPG as well!
ME2 and 3 had levels and experience.
I see it definitively as an adventure game but there aren't many meaningful reasons why it can't make claims to the RPG pedigree.
The one exclusion I see is that Link's attributes progress in fixed increments, as in Assassin's Creed or God of War, whereas RPG progression has an element of randomness to it, and an interdependency amongst a number of related scores like Character strength, weapon damage, accuracy, proficiency bonuses, etc.
Also, three years ago, calling Zelda an RPG would have gotten you excommunicated from General Gaming.
The "genre" of a game is not best represented in words, but in a radar graph with whatever genres you think exist as the outside points. Here is an extremely simplified version of such a thing for my approximate opinion of LTTP.
Attachment 51360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Unne
No one would consider Super Metroid and RPG and it falls into all of these same categories to varying degrees.
I think the biggest difference in all of it is that you can sit there and kill a bazillion octowhatevers or a tribilizillion creepy crawly on zebes and never get any stronger or gain any new skills. All of these skills and power ups are just acquired through an item.
In an RPG, I think it is important for the character themselves to grow outside the items they acquire through training and learning new things. This aspect is where most games fail the RPG test. There are those that sit on the edge in someway shape or form (Borderlands...my bullets do more damage because I got stronger...what?).
Also, I love the highly detailed graphic Spuuky
Did you do that yourself or get it from a website? It would be cool to see this for many other games.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spuuky
I made it myself, as you can tell by the fact that it was lazily asymmetrical and made in Paint.
Character development is not something restricted to just one character. You may not get much development for Crono, but you get tons for the other characters. In The Legend of Zelda you don't get character development for anyone.
There's also character interaction to think of. Compare the number of NPCs in Final Fantasy to those in The Legend of Zelda.
As for the difference between Action RPG and standard RPG, I think it lies in the way the world is built. An RPG builds its world through characters, while an Action RPG does so via level and world design. Spira exists and is so immersive because of the people in it (despite the many problems with the world from a technical standpoint). Hyrule has such a firm lodging in people's minds because of how the world itself is put together. The characters accent the world, but don't define it.
Easy test: when you look back to a game, what do you remember? A character moment, or a dungeon?
What about FF1?
I was talking about FF1. It was built around the NPCs and story, especially for the time it came out. Sure, it was simplistic and cliche, but finding out what happened, the Garland/Chaos twist... Those were huge parts of the experience.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Unne
The characters honestly stick out more to me in Zelda games than the dungeons, but I'm weird like that. I think you could argue the character development point in some of the Zelda games though (unless you're talking about the very first Zelda). I don't have much experience with Majora's Mask, but I'm pretty sure characters see development as you do their side quests or just follow them around and ignore side quests. Honestly, all I hear about the game are those characters and the side quests. Link doesn't change much, but he has a definite personality and character in Wind Waker (as do everyone else). Ocarina of Time has some fantastic characters too. Most everyone is pretty static, but they do spend time building the personality and such of a lot of those characters. The characters make that game for me, honestly.
I won't get into arguing whether Zelda is an RPG though. I don't really care what genre it falls under.
It totally makes sense if you read the official timeline.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth
The timeline is still smurfing insane but it gives you a decent context.
Zelda has little in relation to the pen-and-paper games the genre is based on and was not formed from the elements found in those games.
Therefore, it's not an RPG.
The Zelda games I've played I would classify as an Action/Adventure game
I wouldn't really take story elements as being indicative as to whether or not a game's an RPG, or that you play a role. There are lots of games that have both of those that are never classified as being RPGs (like most Point and Click adventures.) The same goes for things like inventory management and the acquisition of items, skills, and health. There are lots of games which have all of those that we typically don't call RPGs. Metal Gear Solid, for example, has the player's inventory capacity and maximum health increase after every boss fight. The first four Metal Gear games (MG1, MG2, MGS, MGGB) play a lot like Zelda but with stealth, but we tend not to call it an RPG.
What we'd call RPG elements pervade many other genres, so I totally agree with the earlier statement that RPGs are a spectrum and not a dichotomy.
>>> Zelda 2 was an RPG right?..:luca: