Is Legend of Zelda an RPG?

[Jiro]

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.

[Sephex]

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.

[Bubba]

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.

[Denmark]

RPG is a spectrum, not a dichotomy.

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.

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.

[Mirage]

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!

[Del Murder]

ME2 and 3 had levels and experience.

[Bolivar]

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.

[Spuuky]

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.

zelda.jpg

[edczxcvbnm]

* You clearly play a role: you're Samus.
* Link has hit points/levels (Energy/Energy Tanks).
* You get equipment and an equipment inventory screen to manage it, and equipment upgrades over time, including new weapons and armor and abilities.
* You can customize your character, by skipping optional energy tanks/equipment.

You don't have much character development in Super Metroid games, but you don't have much of that in Chrono Trigger either, which is clearly an RPG.

Super Metroid: RPG or not?

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

[Del Murder]

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.

zelda.jpg

Did you do that yourself or get it from a website? It would be cool to see this for many other games.

[Spuuky]

I made it myself, as you can tell by the fact that it was lazily asymmetrical and made in Paint.

[Skyblade]

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?

[Dr Unne]

What about FF1?

[Skyblade]

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.

[Scotty_ffgamer]

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.