Comments 303
RPG: Role Playing Game. All games that have you play as someone else that isn't representing you the player is an RPG by definition soooo...basically most games that exist are RPG's. People usually think turn based combat when reffering to RPG's, but that really isn't the case when you think about it. If you play as link and not yourself, you are role playing as link (even if he is meant to be a blank slate to express yourself in, link is not specifically you). Therefore, an RPG
It’s an action adventure game with lite RPG elements... which is every game made these days. So in a sense, every game is a RPG. Which is why RPG is the best genre and everyone is a nerd.
Gaining jars, weapons and and abilities like swimming in deeper waters and using gloves to pick up heavy items are all indications that Zelda is an RPG. Just because you don’t put skill points into a certain ability doesn’t take away from the RPG elements in Zelda games.
On a side note, because of the way botw was built with go anywhere anytime mechanics I’d suggest that it was less of an RPG that any of the other traditional 3D games.
@PBandSmelly RPG means a game with character growth. (levels; skills; exp; etc) while playing as an avatar. (predefined character or a custom one). Zelda has no real character growth, just story progression. So that would make Zelda not an rpg.
Games that are RPGs:
- Skyrim
- Kingdoms of Amalur
- Bravely default
- Fire Emblem (rpg/rts)
- Octopath Traveler
- Animal Crossing (yes, animal crossing has character growth)
- (any) Pokémon
The Zelda series has more in common with The Tower of Druaga, a Namco developed arcade game which was an attempt of putting an RPG-like game into an arcade cab. It had to be action-focused to be an arcade game to keep the playtime to a minimum. Shigeru Miyamoto took notes about Tower of Druaga and made his own game, which became the Legend of Zelda.
Is it an RPG though? Kinda... Kinda not. It takes elements, but it has way more to do with Tower of Druaga over Dragon Quest and Final Fantasy, which are games that people do call RPGs.
@sanderev
From a gameplay standpoint you are correct. I was talking within the definition of which RPG originally stood for
Yeah - back in the 80s before RPG became a major console genre I'd say so. Now I think it's the quintessential adventure game and obviously not what we typically consider an RPG.
@sanderev Fire Emblem is in no way, shape, or form an RTS. Also, Animal Crossing has no experience points or leveling system and is therefore not an RPG.
I don't care one way or the other, and you can call it what you want, but, there's a few people on here claiming it's not an RPG because it lacks XP or similar. I could argue that gaining hearts/weapons/armour/accessories is just another way of "leveling up" your character. But, the one thing I would say with certainty is that this debate should not be taken too seriously.
Stay awesome everyone!
@PBandSmelly True, but if you compare the original Legend of Zelda to the original Final Fantasy, you can easily tell that one of them is an RPG.
When I was a kid, it was called an action-adventure game. RPGs were all those text-based things where you had to make actual player choices with consequences, as well as all the table-top games they were trying to emulate.
ROLE PLAYING, game. Meaning, you pretend to be someone you are not, and try to think outside of the box. Like an actor. That's what role playing is! So when I see a game that awards players experience points for progression and then say erma gerd wees an RPG, I'm like nope. There's no role playing. You are using the rewards system of an RPG, in an action game. Call it an action game, we can figure out the rest, lol.
Sorry, I did tabletop gaming for nearly 20 years, SO I KNOW THE TRUTH OKAY
NINJA APPROVED
The other eternal question:
Is RPG a Zelda [1]?
[1] see Dirac if you don’t get Science Girl’s joke and you do get modern science.
Zelda II: Adventure of Link is the only game in the Zelda franchise that I'd call an RPG. It's also weird to say character upgrades make the game an RPG. You can collect health and missile upgrades in Metroid as well as new abilities for Samus but because of those features I wouldn't say Metroid games are RPGs. Upgrades like that aren't like level ups in RPGs.
Zelda II is the most like an RPG. It has stats that you level up for Attack, Life, and Magic (along with spells that you learn along the way).
Edit: @Tourtus You beat me to the punch.
Zelda often takes from all genres, so it is a bit of an exercise in futility to try to make it fit into any one genre. "Role-playing games" have existed for millennia, long before the modern table-top and eventual video game adopted rules, text or turn-based gameplay, and statistics, which the genre is now most known for. The answer is that Zelda is both an action adventure game and an RPG. Yes and no, really, depending on how you define the genre. On the other side of the argument, is every game that measures progression through ascending statistics (ie: do something, the numbers go up) an RPG? Is the RPG today merely a sequence of numbers that ascend over time as you play it, or is it about immersing yourself in a role? If the former is a more accurate definition than the latter, then maybe it is time to devise a more appropriate genre title, if role-playing games are no longer explicitly about role-playing. How about SMG, statistics-management game? SDG, statistics-driven game? CSDG, choices and statistics-driven game? Perhaps the true issue here lies in the fact that the title of this genre is outdated and is particularly and increasingly unsuccessful in describing what it is meant to describe.
It's like saying rock, or any other contemporary genre one is most likely to think of if asked to provide an example of a musical work, is not a genre of music because what preceded it lacks the specific characteristics that define music today. The fact that the landscape of mainstream music in the past century has changed to the point that it could be reasonably described as being almost exclusively comprised of autotuned divas singing or rapping two and a half minute songs written by teams of ghostwriters (rather than the long-form symphonies and sonatas of old) does not take away the "music" status of classical music. In other words, the fact that a medium like music has changed dramatically over time does not necessarily make it distinct or separate, as it is still music at the end of the day (for the sake of this argument, at least). Therefore, the fact that the RPG is known for qualities other than role-playing today (ie: level-based progression) does not mean that adults who role-played as people they were not 1,000 years ago for fun were not playing a "role-playing game," nor does it change the fact that you are role-playing when exploring Hyrule as Link.
Come on. It's an adventure game. Fallout is not in a "fantasy world" as such, but it's a first person RPG. Borderlands has RPG elements. Paper Mario for some reason stopped being an rpg. Of I don't get experience points, it's not an rpg.
I once wrote a whole fanzine textwall on the video game genres, asking myself this question among others. But I have long come to embrace the distinction between "RPG" (clear emphasis on numerical stats and gaining levels through an experience counter) and "action-adventure" (clear emphasis on the abilities and enhancements acquired through plot and side activities) in the years since. "Roleplaying" itself no longer distinguishes either too much anyway - there are numerous genres to play [and steer] a role in. Hence the peculiar subgenres like metroidvania whose specimens can be RPGs or actventures in terms of growth.
Among Zeldas, The Adventure of Link is certainly an RPG through that prism, but BotW? The only tangible numbers are related to equipment, but even its perks often fall back on GUI elements, not to mention food bonuses - and unlike AoL, Link's health and stamina are only boosted through "activities", passing shrines and earning the needed "currency" for the upgrades. Killing a bunch of bocoblins will net you angrier and stronger bocoblins, but never a piece of that stamina wheel. Well, unless bocoblin camp chests hold something I don't know about yet.😅
Well Zelda 2 is without question, to be honest I think many games could qualify as one genre or another and its more down to you what you actually categorise them as. Most in the series I can see the arguments for not being one but Zelda 2 or Breath of the Wild are certainly hard to argue against being an rpg
It straddles the line between action adventure and RPG especially with games like Zelda 2 and BOTW, so it is and it is not a RPG series.
I don’t really care to be honest. Most games are RPGs by some definition of the word.
Zelda is an RPG in spirit, but not in the strictest sense. It's very clearly derived from them, but most games in the series lack overt stats and experience. I do find EXP/levels/stats = RPG overly simplistic though because by that metric Kid Icarus is an RPG. Especially on the FC/NES, a whole lot of games got RPG elements added in the wake of DQ. Is Rygar an RPG because it has strength and HP experience?
Well, it’s a game where you play a role....... So, yes it’s a role playing game! And there is no XP to gain, but you upgrade your health and stamina. Come on people, it’s a RPG.
"Take care, Damien McFerran. What you say is heresy!" - Tartarus
(Sorry, the quote jumped into my head what I read of it's an RPG or not 😂)
@Boxmonkey yes. That's called story progression. In BotW you can complete the game by beating just the story.
An RPG would block you from going to the final boss as soon as you leave the Great Plateau. And even if you did, you would be absolutely no match for Ganon. BotW doesn't do that, you can still beat him. With 3 hearts and a simple sword.
Try beating the Elite 4 in any Pokémon game with just your starter Pokémon at lvl 5.
I'm Not Sure.
I'm not going to pigeon hole it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVyRkl5qNb8&t=2s
@dsparil Kid Icarus has RPG elements, yes. RPGs must have experience points (or the equivalent) but having experience points doesn't automatically mean it's an RPG. It's like how all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.
I think it depends on the game. Ocarina of Time and Wind Waker didn't feel very RPG like at all and more like standard adventure games which is probably why they're my favourites (I'm not an RPG fan) The 2D games and more recent 3D games definitely have more RPG like elements I'd say.
No. You don't get to roleplay your character. It's an action adventure game. You don't get to make meaningful choices about the direction the story takes, or how your character interacts with the world, so no. Besides, there's no annoying level up stats (except for Zelda II).
I remember the games mags back in the ‘late ‘80s and early 90s used to class it as an RPG, possibly because Zelda II was quite RPG-esque and the idea just stuck.
So I’ve always thought of Zelda as a sort of RPG-lite genre, it does have some progression in stats and weapons, but it avoids all the numbers and equipping that you normally see.
I see that people are unaware of how genre work again. I will try to explain.
First, genre are merely a method of explaining mechanics in a work. Art, Literature, Movies, Animations, Games. All are different "Forms of artistic work". And as such can be defined. Those definitions are genre.
Genre are also broken up into Macro-Genre and Micro-Genre (Following forward, MaG and MiG to make it easy). Macro-Genre are large scale and encompass vast majorities of arts. Micro-Genre are extremely specific and narrow in focus. Neither MaG nor MiG require 'Preventing other Genre from applying'. A game can be both a (MaG or MiG) as well as another (MaG or MiG) or another genre completely.
So Macro-Genre RPG can also be a Macro-Genre Horror for example.
The next step is to define the MaG and MiG. Macro-Genre have to be very widespread, but also simple to understand. "RPG" brings across an element of "Playing a character", but it also has a requirement of "Stats (not necessarily known to the player) are applied to things, and Mathematical calculations are applied to determine results." and a following requirement of "Those stats are somehow permanently increasable through normal gameplay."
This means, Zelda with upgradeable weapons (damage increase), upgradeable HP (more heart containers), upgradeable skills (learning new swordplay or the ability to swim) all follow the requirements and make Zelda games part of the Macro-Genre RPG. In comparison, Mario games have HP and upgrades like the Fire Flower, but they are not permanent. The only improvement in playing a mario game is the player's skill improving. Which is not inside the game itself so the game isnt defined by that.
Conversely, Micro-Genre RPG is more narrow focus, significantly more narrow focus. Just some of the requirements involve equipment (with stats), RNG aspects involved, and more of a focus on tactical advantage. Such as planning out your equipment spread before a boss battle or finding ways to negate status effects.
Zelda is Not a Micro-Genre RPG game. It is an "Action-Adventure" which is a sub-genre of MaG RPG, but separate from MiG RPG completely.
To better define Macro- and Micro- Genre, consider the Genre of Horror. Horror is fairly simple to define. Something with a scary focus of narrative. But What "kind" of horror is it? Zombie Apocalypse? Monster attacks? Serial Killer? All of those are merely Micro-Genre of Horror.
@sanderev I see where you are going, but some of those things on the list aren't RPGs.
Take Skyrim, for example. Where is the consequence for your player choice? No matter what text the game gives you, it all amounts to "yes, no, leave conversation/maybe fight." There's not a lot of role playing, to be had when the game limits that function so much. Morrowind would have been a better example, as that game has real, permanent consequences for almost all your decision making.
Have you ever played any table-top RPGs, where you have to PRETEND to be the character you are playing as? Games you mentioned like Final Fantasy, are closer in that regard to those style of games, but even then they are like "RPG on rails," because there is no player choice.
It's just become common convention to accept a game that awards experience points and has random battles to be RPG, but those are actually more like story books where you read the story at the pace the game sets out. I call them RPGs for the sake of conversation, but I don't believe they are RPGs, because there is zero role playing.
NINJA APPROVED
@Damo
(Author UN?)
Thanks, I like this sort of article and the interesting responses! I could misunderstand, but RNG is present for item drops and which attack monsters use etc.
Annnnd. Are you being a sneaky trickster? and making people ardently defend or harshly revoke their support of the latest Paper Mario as a “real” RPG bc of the same reasons ?!?!
@the4seer Zelda 2 is lovely, but that is a side-scrolling platformer that happens to award experience points and uses an over-world for exploration.
NINJA APPROVED FOR ZELDA 2 REFERENCE KEEP IT UP BOYS & GIRLS
BoTW is definitely an RPG.
It’s light on stats and has an unconventional levelling system but...
...you have the option to play the game with completely different setups (that affect the underlying statistics of the character).
Link can be a stealthy ninja with 3 hearts who runs across half the map without taking a breath before sniping a distant enemy with a long range bow or he can be a dark shadow of himself with 20 hearts who kills up close with brutal scythes.
It’s an RPG. Yes the levelling is unconventional and the battle system is action based but outside Dragon Quest every traditional RPG series has been bending at the margins for decades now anyway.
Older Zelda games however are not rpgs. Also the question of whether it is satisfying as an RPG or even any “good” when viewed purely as an RPG... these are different questions (& I’d suggest that the answer to both is leaning towards “no”).
@BloodNinja I don't know about you Ninja, but I had to GRIND like CRAZY to beat Zelda 2. Thus, it's an RPG in my book 💯
Oh... Also, you cannot fight on the overworld map, my friend. If I'm not mistaken, I also remember Random Encounters.
How is it not an RPG?
@BloodNinja what you said about role playing board games is the way to look at this, I think. It's the progenitor of the video game genre, and if a game focuses on emulating stats, rng, etc then I think it's attempting to be an rpg. Those elements may exist in Zelda, but the focus is on interacting with the gameworld and not stats or a "build".
@Losermagnet I agree with you completely, I think that gaming where it currently is seems to only be able to emulate the rewards systems that were set up in table-top RPGs!
NINJA APPROVED
@the4seer Oh, I had to grind for those levels, too! But, an RPG needs to involve actual role playing for it to be considered one. Many games these days simply emulate the rewards progressions built into table-top RPGs, but they lack any actual kind of role playing! They are usually other games, with experience point systems, which is great but they aren't RPGs!
NINJA APPROVED
Zelda has RPG elements but it is not an RPG.
The problem is that the incorrect definition of the wordt RPG was chosen. The definition for role-playing game was chosen but the author should have looked at the (wikipedia) definition for “role-playing video game”.
Which is: “A role-playing video game (commonly referred to as simply a role-playing game or an RPG as well as a computer role-playing game or a CRPG) is a video game genre where the player controls the actions of a character (and/or several party members) immersed in some well-defined world, usually involving some form of character development by way of recording statistics.”
Zelda games don’t use recorded statistics. There is no “party”. There is no character development (as intended in the definition).
Still my favorite IP in all of gaming though
It's the game that created the action-RPG genre, without really being an RPG in the typical game sense. I'm not one to concern myself too much with what genre a game falls into (focusing too hard on that creates rigid, limited thinking IMO) but in regards to the question, I would say no. It is an action adventure game. It could be compared to a game like Bayonetta or Devil May Cry, which both take place in large game worlds and allows the player character to get stronger over time with new equipment and upgrades but doesn't involve real number crunching or RNG.
@LordGeovanni It looks like you aren't making a key distinction between "finding" upgrades and "earning" (can't think of a better word for it, but I'll explain) upgrades. In Zelda (except Zelda 2), you increase health by "finding" heart containers in the environment, which is a mechanic not (typically) found in RPGs. In RPGs, you (can) "earn" health increases directly through experience (or the equivalent) point increases, and/or by spending the "earned" points. In the same way, this is also an example of why the more recent Paper Mario games are also not RPGs.
@LordGeovanni Your micro-essay on genre is excellent, A+! I will add that many gamers these days don't actually know the roots of RPGs, which would be table-top games such as Dungeons & Dragons or Vampire: The Masquerade! So it makes them think that while they are playing a game that simply awards XP, they are playing an RPG. Not the case! Where is the decision making, the acting, the stepping into and out of character, etc.
NINJA APPROVED
@the4seer Did you see the argument above where using that line of logic means Pac-Man is an RPG, at which point pretty much any game is an RPG, at which point RPG and game are synonymous, at which point there is not a debate or discussion?
@everynowandben I did see that... I'm actually arguing about Zelda 2 is an RPG.
Did you see my argument above?
Ninja said that it wasn't because you are not playing a role... I have no idea how he was defining a "role". I guess, by a Class System?
@the4seer You're good! Yes, it's a role in the most minimal sense possible: you are only able to control the player's movement and attacks. When I speak of roles in the role playing game sense, I am talking about make-believe; stepping outside yourself and stepping into a character, just the same way as an actor steps into a role in a film.
The chief difference between simply playing a role as presented in a video game, vs. role playing, is that there are choices beyond controlling the direction the character goes, and there are permanent consequences for the choices so you have to really think about what you are doing.
For example, in Zelda 2, you control movement, combat, and character level progression, by collecting items and points. That's the end of role playing.
Whereas, in Morrowind, you speak with a character, read their text, and make choices based on what they are saying and then the game will log those choices and give you a static answer based on what you chose that impacts the flow of the game.
Additionally, in a table-top RPG, you are pretending to be someone you aren't. I am not me, anymore, I stepped into character and I am Ragnar the Red, Paladin of Antarctica or something. So for me to role play, I can't act as if I am BloodNinja, I have to act as if I am this fictional person, Ragnar the Red. The person running the game for the players, often call the story-teller, is also acting, but they are acting for all the NPCs, while also making changes to the game as we go based on our actions.
The key difference between a table-top game and an RPG like Morrowind, is that the choices in Morrowind are static, and the choices in a table-top game are dynamic, like real life. There's no set consequence made by the limits of a program. Instead, my Ragnar the Red character can say something completely off cuff and the story-teller can role with it however they want.
So yeah, in order for role playing to happen, there has to be a dynamic story with choices you can make to impact the flow of the story, and there has to be a way for the player to act and interact with the story beyond just player movement!
NINJA APPROVED
@everynowandben
I would say that defeating a boss for a heart upgrade is most certainly based on a challenge. I would also say most heart containers are specifically locked behind some logic and skill to obtain. With this oh, I have to say that I disagree with your assessment.
@BloodNinja
I have been feeling that the RPG genre has been getting eroded overtime and I strived for a way to accurately explain what is RPG. Over the last decade I have narrow down my concept into my previous post. It is simple, RPG cannot solely be a micro nor a macro genre. It has to be both. And if it is both, it is simply better to have two genres of RPG.
@the4seer It seems to me like you're focusing on the wrong aspect of what makes Zelda 2 an RPG. It's much less about "playing a role", and much more about progression via earning experience points.
@everynowandben : I can't attest to other Zelda games, but Breath of the Wild does have a hidden "experience" system, where points are accrued by defeating enemies throughout the course of the game. That is why Bokoblins, Moblins, Lynels etc. may spawn in their stronger forms over time (while some are pre-set to never "upgrade" regardless of one's "experience").
I noticed this myself some time ago and figured that there was some form of metric "under the hood" designed to make the game gradually more difficult for more seasoned players. There is a great video on YouTube that explores this in more detail (after having data-mined the game). But the accumulation of experience (and heart/stamina etc.) do not necessarily make it any easier to defeat any of the enemies in the game, which is a hallmark of the RPG genre.
Having said that though, I wouldn't particularly consider Zelda to be an RPG series. It may have elements from the genre, but it would be disingenuous to pigeon-hole it in such a way. It would be like claiming that the main series Pokémon games fall under the "fighting" genre because the fights are predominantly one on one and that there are health meters involved.
@LordGeovanni I disagree. When you get the heart container for beating the boss, you found it after fighting the boss. The actual act of beating the boss didn't allow you to "earn" a health upgrade, it allowed you to "collect" the health upgrade afterwards. The same exact logic applies to upgrades "specifically locked behind some logic and skill to obtain."
Edit: To add to this, if it were an RPG, it might be possible to beat the boss and not earn enough experience points to get to the next level and therefore not increase your health. In Zelda, you ALWAYS unlock the heath upgrade when you defeat the boss.
No. This does not diminish it AT ALL. I think videogame RPGs are those that can reflect the experience of tabletop RPGs. Either in system ( stats determine the outcome of actions you take) and/or you make decisions in-game that are consistent w/ the character you are playing.
In Skyrim, my character was a devout Talos worshipper, so he sided against the Empire for repressing his religion. The perks I picked determined the effectiveness of actions my character took in combat, the merchant's prices, how well he could pick a lock.
Zelda is ADVENTURE. Its about exploration and puzzle solving. There are not decisions to make that define your character. My Link is pretty much the Link everyone else is playing.
@everynowandben Ok... I can tell that you might have missed my original and stronger argument for Zelda 2. No worries, my friend:
1. You MUST grind to have any chance of beating the game.
2. Battles cannot take place on the overworld map.
3. Random encounters.
Sound good?
@LordGeovanni I feel the same thing happens with Rogue style games, as well as Metroidvanias. I've had this argument with people for the past 2 decades, and it's always with people who want to over-simply the genre into "I got XP therefor it's an RPG." Part of that is poor marketing in games industry, because that's how they market that sort of thing so it's teaching people incorrectly. Anybody that has played a table-top role playing game will know right away that Final Fantasy is a text-based adventure, and not an RPG, for example. Zelda is the farthest thing from RPG, possible!
NINJA APPROVED
Zelda is zelda. IMO, I would call the series an action adventure rpg. No other series is quite as unique though. However, it treads the line of being an rpg in so many ways, that by today’s standards, a game like botw, which people called zelda Skyrim, is an rpg, but I wouldn’t don’t think I would consider skyward sword one, despite it checking some rpg boxes. Twilight princess or windwaker are zelda games and I don’t think you can argue they are rpgs.
@Donutman Zelda is it's own thing, I agree, but it's nowhere close to being a role playing game, where you step into a character and act out player choices with permanent consequences, like in Dungeons & Dragons or Vampire: The Masquerade. Role playing games have to involve actual role playing, just like acting or make believe. The only interaction most video games offer a player is player movement and menu interaction/combat. To this day, there hasn't been a video game released that can accurately portray the dynamic interactions possible in table-top gaming/acting. But they sure do borrow a lot of the progression systems from those old table-top games!
NINJA APPROVED
there is just one definition of RPG - Dungeons & Dragons ...... D&D created what we now call RPG and thus RPG is when you play a certain role (not a defined role, but you can choose amongst a few roles), you play your role, you improve your role, you gain new abilities, weapons and your playing affect the world or story
this is RPG and nothing else, just this definition
@dsparil Exactly this point! Just because an experience progression system exists in a game means we can slap RPG on everything!
I grew up playing text-based adventure games, which involved player choices with consequences. Before those, I played table-top RPG games, where you had to sit around a table with your friends and be amateur actors and pretend to be the character on your sheet. To this day, there is still no game experience that emulates the table-top style of role playing.
NINJA APPROVED
@the4seer I agree with your outcome, but not with your reasoning. None of those things, even in combination, definitively make a game an RPG. Some RPGs don't have those qualities, and games that are not RPGs do have those qualities.
@PBandSmelly That is indeed not the case my man. Zelda is not an RPG.
For it to be an RPG you have to be able to alter the "character" with for example choices to stats spells and other character development stats and gain XP to lvl up your character. No! Zelda is not an RPG it's an action adventure game. AND! This is just my opinion. 🙏
@EriXz nope, the only RPG element in the Zelda series (except Zelda II) is that you can somehow make Link stronger but in a very very very simplistic way .....the rest is a mix of adventure and action game
@everynowandben
I see that you will try and nickel and dimed any argument into either being yours or wrong. Zota follows macro genre RPG processes. It is merely that it does not follow micro RPG processes which involves the mechanics you are fixated on.
This is abundantly clear when you recognize that action adventure games are always Macro RPG as the directly require the exact requirements of macro RPG already. Other action adventure games would include Skyrim, Mass effect, and fallout. They can still have properties of micro genre RPG oh, but I am fairly certain a good amount of people would also call them action adventure. Does not matter in regards to macro genre oh, they're all RPG.
@everynowandben Oh... Name 1 game, other than Zelda 2, that has all 3 of those qualities that is not an RPG.
Literally the only thing that separates Zelda from what most people consider to be RPG’s is numbers. Zelda has everything a typical “RPG” has if we’re going by the basic dictionary definition, but it’s all represented as icons (health is represented as hearts rather than as numbers above the character’s head) and tangible attachments to the character (attack power is manifested in a physical sword that often becomes stronger over time, and in whatever other weapons and items that are gained along the way).
The other things people think are required to make it an RPG, like turn-based combat and narrative choices, aren’t actually required to make it an RPG. That said, if the modern concept of an RPG means numbers, turn-based combat, and selectable narratives, then no, Zelda does not meet that definition.
@Silly_G That is very interesting about BotW - I was unaware of that. I think I would say it's still not an RPG though since it's only the enemies that are "leveling up" while the player character is not.
@BlackenedHalo Does that mean in your view Final Fantasy san a few exceptions is not an RPG series?
Didn’t Nintendo themselves give BotW the RPG label at one point? Or place it in the RPG section in the Eshop... can’t remember exactly.
It’s an RPG to me. It might not be as in depth as say the Elder Scrolls or even Fable, but it has the feel of an RPG to me... at least BotW does.
@idrawrobots Eh, nope. That's only as true as much as you are willing to limit the world "role playing."
If you've ever played an actual role paying game, such as Dungeons & Dragons, Vampire: The Masquerade, or Warhammer Fantasy, where you actually have to act your character and you will get penalized for stepping out of character and rewarded the better you act your character, then you are simply playing a pre-defined role.
The key difference is that in Zelda, you are given something predetermined that you cannot influence. You can only control movement, combat, item collection, and level progression. Those are systems introduced by role playing games, but those are not actual role playing.
Look at what happens in a role paying game:
You step into a tavern after a long march in the rain. Your armor drips wet and feels as heavy as ever from your fatigue, and the seedy types at the bar are all eyeing you wearily. The inn-keep gestures for you to take a seat. When you reach the bar, two armed men prevent you from taking a seat. What do you do?
In that case, you are playing a role, and there will be a dynamic consequence that the story teller will invent for you on the fly based on how you respond to what he is telling you. There are literally zero video games that offer such dynamic level of choice, where you have to think outside of yourself and go, "what would my character do," and then act accordingly.
The "role" you are given in a Zelda game is just that. It's all predetermined, there are no choices beyond which way you move and how you fight. It is a role, but extremely stripped down to the bare minimum of fight or flight.
NINJA APPROVED
@idrawrobots To address Final Fantasy, even that is not a role playing game, because again, the role is predetermined and there is zero way for the player to influence the story based on the choices you make.
The very definition of a role playing game, is that you the player are the one who invents the role, and then shows the rest of the group how that role would play out. It's dynamic, filled with choices and lots of player to player interaction, and is almost never predetermined. It's just like acting in a film, but is closer to various types of acting improvisation. You step into something else, other than yourself. You are not given the role, you CREATE the role, throughout the whole gameplay process.
Final Fantasy games are story-books with experience points for level progression. You are given the story, and besides choosing "yes/no" aren't given a way to really drive the story yourself.
That's the key difference between an actual role playing game, and a game like Final Fantasy where the story is being given to you. In role playing games, YOU are dynamically crafting the story with your actions and interactions with the other players at the table. In Final Fantasy, you are GIVEN the story, and read it at a pace that is mediated by your gameplay and the game itself. Final Fantasy is just like reading a fantasy novel, only you get to control the movement and fighting.
NINJA APPROVED
Zelda was always considered an "Action RPG" back when that genre used to be commonly used, for decades, in the past. Now, people don't use "Action RPG" much anymore, if at all, but, not sure why. So, yes, its technically an RPG, just in the "Action RPG" genre.
In the traditional sense, not really. But I would say most Zelda games have RPG elements.
It really depends on what an RPG is to YOU. To some that means xp, leveling up... to others it just means an adventure where you can choose to make different decisions. Wheel of Fortune on the Nintendo Wii allows you to choose an outfit, customize your mii, unlock new stages and costumes, you can choose how your “character” answers the puzzles. It technically has RPG elements. Does that make it an RPG? Sure why not. If you want to call it that, technically your not wrong. Technically...
All the Zelda games are action RPGs. An RPG is an adventure game in which you improve your character and make gradual progress en route to a final goal, which is usually killing an evil lord who wants to conquer the world. In these games, you are made to feel as if you were the main character.
Compare that to Super Mario Bros, in which you control Mario but you aren't made to feel that you ARE him.
Even in the first Zelda game, you improve your character gradually by getting heart containers, weapons, and defensive items. You make progress by completing one dungeon at a time, and when you put all the pieces of the Triforce together, you can go to Ganon's final dungeon and challenge him. Because of all that, not only do you control Link, you feel that ARE him. You level up by improving your character, which is done in many ways in this game. Experience points are just a numerical representation of how powerful you are - is that all it takes to make an RPG? Zelda tells you how strong you are by showing you how many hits it takes you to kill enemies.
The term "role-playing game" has evolved to become too vague and broad for what it should actually be. Whenever someone talks about RPG, they're usually talking about turned-based games whether it's turned-based inputs or real-time inputs. HOWEVER, it's not wrong.
That's where the sub-genre, "Action Role-Playing Game" comes into play. Obviously, it's a portmanteau of "Action-Adventure" and "Role-Playing" and I believe that is where The Legend of Zelda fits in (with the exception of Zelda II. I believe it falls under the Metroidvania genre as one of the unnamed pioneers of the genre).
@BAN You're missing a key distinction in that the heart icons are "on" or "off", whereas gaining experience doesn't necessarily mean you've gained an increase in anything but a number in and of itself. Even when you find a heart piece, which is similar to what I'm getting at (in that you've increased "something" without receiving an actual benefit [besides getting another step closer to an actual benefit]), you've still "found" it like a physical item (because it is a physical item) instead of "earning" it like a conceptual and/or numerical increase via experience points (or the equivalent).
Zelda has primitive RPG concepts.
Usually you start the game with three hearts. The level progression results in: More hearts (20 hearts in the end) and more stamina.
It is not saying "wow now you are level 4...". You have 4 hearts, that's it.
The equipment update exists too, but it is tied to level progression.
That's why it is considered by many an Action RPG.
It is an exploration action game with primitive concepts of RPG (which turns out in something simple with wider audience)
@ModdedInkling @NinChocolate Experience points and turn based battles =/= role playing game. Dynamic player choices, acting in-character, dynamic improvisation between players at the table are all definitions of what a role playing game is. Just using the rewards system present in those games doesn't make it anywhere close to what a role playing game actually is.
Which Zelda game gives you choices besides choosing "yes/no" to do something? Which Zelda game gives you a choice other than where to move and what to fight and what item to collect?
In order for something to be "role playing," it has to give players the ability to ACT as the character themselves down to the tiniest detail, not just a progression system. I'm not playing a role because I'm fighting monsters and gaining XP, for example. But I AM playing a role if a story teller describes a scenario, and I dynamically make a decision based on "what would my character do, and not me, the person playing the character, do?"
Ever played Dungeons & Dragons, where you sit at a table, make a character sheet, create your character's backstory, etc? In those games, you get REWARDED when you act "in-character," because you are playing a role, much in the same way a comedian is rewarded by laughter by staying in-character during improvisation. In role playing games, the story teller (if they are good) will penalize you for stepping out of character, because you stopped playing your role.
Video games have simplified this concept way too much, and part of that is due to the limits of the medium. The game can only GIVE you choices, and GIVE you the story. It cannot give you dynamic choice, based on saying whatever you want, so there's role VIEWING but not role PLAYING.
NINJA APPROVED
I think Zelda is an adventure game with som RPG elements.
Yes you might not level up the same way as you would in a traditional RPG (Except perhaps in Zelda 2).
But there is clear character growth. Upgrading items, weapon and gear makes Link stronger and upgrading your heath is also there.
Items replaces abilities and spells of a classic RPG.
And there is plenty of story and sidequests in most zelda games.
So yeah I think it's fair to call it an adventure game with RPG elements.
@BloodNinja I disagree. It is typical in Western RPGs to create your own role, but a typical characteristic of Japanese RPGs is to play the role of a pre-defined character. It seems to me that you are saying that "western RPGs are the only true RPGs," which I believe is simply untrue.
I'd say the only one that stands out as an rpg is zelda II. You level up your attack, health, and magic. Sounds pretty rpg-ish to me.
@everynowandben No, I'm saying that most video games DO NOT contain role playing, I'm not talking about whether they come from the east or the west.
Create your own role? That's not true at all, outside of physical appearance or stats. You can't create your backstory down to the last detail, and then play the character based on that backstory because that would require an infinite amount of programming to determine every possible outcome. The medium is literally the limit, here. A video game, western or Japanese, cannot emulate what role playing actually is.
Western RPGs and Japanese RPGs both play out exactly the same. You are given a role, you read the story as you go along with whatever combat system they give you, and are able to make some brief "yes/no" choices that don't really impact things much. Some of them allow character customization. That's not role playing, that's the same as selecting a loadout. Major difference!
When you are in an actual table-top game, where you have to create your backstory, and then play it based on what you wrote and get penalized if you stray too far from it and rewarded the deeper you get into it, now you are finally role playing. It's just like comedy improvisation. The comedian is rewarded the more they stay "in character" during their improv routine, much like a player gets "bonus xp" when they stay "in character" during gameplay.
The key difference is that a video game gives you everything, because it has to. It's a limited medium. Besides movement and progression, you don't have much in the way of role playing. But a table-top RPG, where you have to act and improvise based on what the story-teller and other players are doing, is completely different than simply reading a story, progressing on an over-world map and fighting random monsters to gain XP. In one, you have actual role playing, in the other, you have a turn based combat game with a story you get to read along which will then award you XP for fighting. Again, totally different experiences.
That's what I'm saying, no idea how you got the "east vs. west" stuff LOL
I'm saying that video games simply cannot recreate the experience of a dynamic table-top role playing game, at least not yet
NINJA APPROVED
I find it odd when people say that experience points are the defining element of RPGs. If you took Final Fantasy 7 and removed experience points, and instead let the characters simply get stronger by finding items, would it suddenly be a completely different genre? And what genre would it be then?
@BloodNinja
That may be what RPG started as back before it became a video game thing.
But games like these has been known as RPG's for over 30 years so I think that by now that definition has changed.
@DaniPooo That's how it had to market itself, I'm merely challenging the word usage, because it's vastly inaccurate to what role playing is. Here, play this role playing video game, that has literally zero role playing contained in it. But, it's a catchy name, and nobody really bothered to change it. I think that's closer to what happened, rather than it being redefined. People still play actual role playing games; D&D is on it's 5th edition handbook, for example. That genre of gaming never went away. But in video games, they are borrowing the progression systems used in table-top games, and then trying to say they are the same. Nope, not even close. I challenge it and will until a game comes out that offers actual role playing, and doesn't just simply use a progression system from a role playing game.
@BloodNinja This is from https://gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/377559/what-defines-a-jrpg-and-how-is-it-different-from-an-rpg
"JRPGs focus more on storytelling with well-established characters. WRPGs focus more on letting the player live out fantasies and express their player-character the way they want. JRPGs tell the player a story through the eyes of one of the characters. WRPGs let the player choose what kind of person they want that character to be and then the game shows the player how the story plays out with their character in it."
I believe the above to be generally true, and to me it sounded like what you were talking about in regards to why you don't think FF is an RPG. I mistook exactly what point you were getting at. My apologies, and thank you for clarifying.
Anyway, are you then saying only TTRPGs are true RPGs and the video games that people call RPGs don't count?
@chipia But when talking about a meaningful, working definition, we should look for a common denominator, which I believe is experience points (or the equivalent).
To further clarify, my belief is: all RPGs must have experience points (or the equivalent), but, not all games with experience points (or the equivalent) are RPGs, and may simply contain RPG elements.
@everynowandben That's marketing nonsense. There isn't a western RPG that lets you live out a fantasy and express the character however you want. They are marketed that way, but the experience is always the same: Character creation, body sliders, choose equipment, read the story that is given, make choices that are akin to "yes/no/fight/flight." That's not playing however I want, that's playing within a firmly set amount of rules, same as JRPGs. The only difference between a JRPG and a WRPG is that the JRPG basically keeps you on the main story line, whereas a WRPG offers side-quests and the ability to ignore the main game, if you wish. That's just ONE choice, play main quest/ignore main quest. That's NOT playing the game "however I like."
The key difference is that in some WRPGs, you can ignore the story and just focus on side-quests. Okay, that's nice, but so what? It's not role playing. I already told you I'm not arguing that point, I'm talking about the abject LACK of actual ROLE PLAYING in a video game genre named ROLE PLAYING GAME. LMFAO
NINJA APPROVED
@BloodNinja By virtue of imitation, A Link to the Past essentially spun off a generation of action-RPGs that nearly all took elements from that game. Zelda has been considered an action-heavy-light-RPG since the 90’s. You really can’t just divorce it from that with definitions because too many RPG’s owe something to Zelda. No other series has done that for the RPG category. So it’s both, simultaneously—it’s a legacy, and legacy trumps narrow definitions.
@BloodNinja I'm not arguing that point either, I already conceded my friend. You said "no idea how you got the "east vs. west" stuff" and I was just explaining where I got it - I wasn't arguing a point. No need to fly off the handle.
@NinChocolate Calling a Link to the Past an RPG is narrowing the definition of an RPG. Good job.
There's an abject LACK of role playing in a Zelda game. Most people that grew up with ALTTP considered it a Zelda game. Nobody called it an RPG, and even people that called Final Fantasy an RPG in my social circle were laughed at, because we all played table-top RPGs, where you actually have to play a role and are not spoon-fed one.
The fact of the matter, is that video games had to strip away the dynamic level of player interaction available in table-top gaming because it's impossible in the medium, and people who have never played TTRPGs just accept it and move on, because that's what they are told.
So it limits the genre by saying that such a simple game as Zelda is an RPG, when it's literally the furthest thing from that experience.
NINJA APPORVED
@everynowandben Point out where I "flew off the handle," lol. I'm being descriptive and emphasizing words with bold text to prove a point, nothing more. And cool, if you weren't arguing, I wasn't sure why you were throwing more definitions at me. That's usually akin to arguing, so if that's not your heart, I see you! Thank you for clarifying!
NINJA APPROVED
@BloodNinja you’re never going to divorce the Zelda series from its historical connection to RPGs. Call it whatever genre you like, it still has significant connections to many games in the RPG genre.
@everynowandben Zelda actually has an equivalent to Experience points. After defeating a boss you get a Heart Container that raises your HP. It's like getting experience points for boss fights.
In BOTW the Spirit Orbs you get the end the of the shrines are like experience points, as they are used to raise your stats. You can even CHOOSE which stat you want to raise, as is common in many traditional RPGs.
I also think that money can be considered an equivalent to EXP in some Zelda games.
For example in Zelda 1 you get money after defeating monsters (like EXP) and you can use this money to raise your defence Stats by buying rings (equivalent to leveling up).
@everynowandben @BloodNinja Is it East versus West?
or man against man?
Can any nation stand alone?
@BloodNinja The part where you put text in caps and in bold, and then the part where you were laughing your f***ing a** off. Seemed like things someone would do if they were not in calm and collected state of mind.
Also, wondering what you think about immersive sims like Thief, Deus Ex, System Shock, etc. Surely you must admit those games provide more choice than "yes/no/fight/flight"
@BloodNinja
Well thing is, you are on point the the table top facts.
I played some tabletop RPG's as well.
And yeah try to emulate that in a videogame.
It's not possible, at least not yet. Because everyone who is playing is contributing.
So in order to make a videogame that played the same or in a similar way would require huge amounts of AI and stuff to be able to generate the game as you play it based on your actions. (not just a few predefined options)
That would be really cool.. But over 30 years have passed and we are still not there yet.
The RPG's we have are not the same thing as tabletop RPG's.
But they are still borrowing a lot from the tabletop's
Some games more than others.
I would say that the Elder Scrolls does it pretty well. (Especially pre Skyrim)
jRPG's tend to borrow less, and focus more on a RPG like combat system and growth system.
But most people agree that Final Fantasy for example is an RPG (jRPG), and it's about time we just accept that RPG tabletop and RPG video game are not the same thing and they are defined differently.
I always thought of it as an action rpg in my head but guess it’s less rpg than it is action lol
@NinChocolate I don't ever remember reading any interviews saying that the creator of Zelda was inspired by table-top RPGs, but I could be mistaken. He always mentions wanting to make something akin to exploring a cave or a forest, and that was how Zelda was made. Never heard him say, "Oh man, I played this totally rad thing called a table-top RPG, and I wanted to make Zelda based on that." It feels more like they did their own thing, to be perfectly honest!
NINJA APPROVED
@chipia The items you're talking about are items, and they would "be there" whether or not the player character is "there" or not. Experience is conceptual, and only "there" when the player character is there to earn it. That's the difference.
@DaniPooo Totally agree, especially about pre-skyrim ES, I just think that to call a game a role playing game, and then have it contain zero role playing, is silly. But, that's the genre name they decided to run with. Changing it now would be equally silly and confuse people.
NINJA APPROVED
@BloodNinja I don't entirely disagree with one of your latest comments regarding the inspiration for Zelda as it was originally envisioned, but it is worth mentioning that it is not an either or scenario. It is possible to take inspiration from more than one source. I appreciate your well-considered arguments.
@Menardi Of course, I totally get that! I'm just saying I've never heard it, and could be mistaken!
NINJA APPROVED
@everynowandben Heart containers and money actually also only appear when the player is there and kills the boss/enemy.
Action-Adventure RPG. Blending the 2 definitions at the top: Playing as a character you can at least name yourself (in most of the series), you’re working through a story/quest, gradually unlocking permanent upgrades/skills as you go. “Link” at the end is a more powerful warrior than at the start.
Zelda 2 even more so, with actual EXP and random encounters.
It must be said though, by this logic, any Metroidvania is also an RPG. And a lot of other games borrow RPG-elements from this. But most core Mario, DK, F-Zero, Kirby or StarFox games? Ain’t RPGs.
@BloodNinja When RPGamer.com takes down their countless Zelda reviews, many of which reference and compare elements of RPGs (without the need to take a hard stance of ‘Zelda not-RPG’), then I’ll say Zelda has nothing to do with RPGs. As I’ve been reading that site since 1998, it’s the authority for my views.
@chipia I'll copy paste the distinction I made above:
When you get the heart container for beating the boss, you found it after fighting the boss. The actual act of beating the boss didn't allow you to "earn" a health upgrade, it allowed you to "collect" the health upgrade afterwards.
To add to this, if it were an RPG, it might be possible to beat the boss and not earn enough experience points to get to the next level and therefore not increase your health. In Zelda, you ALWAYS unlock the heath upgrade when you defeat the boss.
heart icons are "on" or "off", whereas gaining experience doesn't necessarily mean you've gained an increase in anything but a number in and of itself. Even when you find a heart piece, which is similar to what I'm getting at (in that you've increased "something" without receiving an actual benefit [besides getting another step closer to an actual benefit]), you've still "found" it like a physical item (because it is a physical item) instead of "earning" it like a conceptual and/or numerical increase via experience points (or the equivalent).
@everynowandben @chipia To add to that, experience points are supposed to represent an experience that you went through and learned something and got better as a result, not picking up a heart container.
NINJA APPROVED
@PcTV It's not actually an opinion. You might argue in favor of one system of classification over another, but whatever system you use, opinion has nothing to do with anything. It is not opinion, for example, that chimpanzees are apes and apes mammals. Thus when you refer to my assertion as an opinion, what you are actually doing is admitting your own ignorance on the matter. That's to be expected, of course, from someone who preemptively insulted everybody who disagreed with them by proclaiming them to be "simpler folk".
@BloodNinja I’m going to regret asking this, but: what about optional side quests in games like Zelda or Final Fantasy, where you can be rewarded with equipment / playable characters that are not essential to the story, but can affect the journey, thus allowing you a small modicum of control over thaw outcome?
I mean, sure it’s not the limitless control of a D&D dungeon master, but it’s more than, say, reading a book.
@BloodNinja Miyamoto said in an interview that the idea for Zelda came because Computer-RPGs where popular in Japan in the mid-80s and he also wanted to make such a game.
Of course he wasn't talking about TT-RPGs. That's not the point of this discussion as obviously Table-Top-RPGs and Computer-RPGs are two totally distinct things that only have similar names because Computer-RPGs were INSPIRED by Table-Top-RPGs. Hence in my book an Computer/Console-RPG is any game that is inspired by TT-RPGs. Zelda fits the bill as it is based on Hydlide and Tower of Druaga, games that were inspired by D&D and Wizardry.
@gaga64 They are giving you a modicum of control, you're absolutely right. I'm not saying there is zero control of outcome in games, I'm saying there is zero role playing in a genre called role playing game, lol. Definitely more than reading a book, though books tend to have more room for dreaming, depending on which game or book we are talking about.
NINJA APPROVED (Don't worry, I don't bite)
Sort of a "Paradox of the Heap" scenario. I think Zelda 2 is obviously an RPG (or an RPG-Metroidvania hybrid, more precisely). Otherwise it's a question of how many standard RPG features can be removed before a game becomes not an RPG anymore (or how many need to be added before a non-RPG becomes an RPG). I think Mario and Luigi Superstar Saga is an RPG (even though it's more about being good than about being smart or level-grinding). What about Secret of Mana, which seems more Zelda-like than most RPGs but more RPG-like than most Zelda games? Is Zelda also a 3D platformer, since it can involve jumping and Ocarina of Time was originally meant as a sequel to Mario 64? Is it a collectathon, as all Zeldas contain many collectibles (heart pieces, Korok seeds, spirit orbs, gold Skulltullas, Poes, gold bugs, sword moves, photographs and figurines, and more)?
@BloodNinja I’m not the one leaning solely on narrow definitions, rejecting anything more expansive...so much for elevated thinking
I mean not many action adventure games that i know of have as many rpg troupes that Zelda has. You have an overworld with mobs, towns to visit, and dungeons that you have to progress through to advance the story. Most action adventure games don't really offer that and are pretty straight forward in that regard aren't they?
Sometimes it feels like Zelda is an rpg in all but stat raising which is only 1 characteristic of an rpg. But despite that i still wouldn't know what to classify it lmao
@NinChocolate No you're not.. You are leaning on a website's opinion instead of your own...
I have always said it's an Action-Adventure RPG. The most RPG-like in my opinion being ADVENTURE OF LINK.
@DaniPooo I cited no opinion from any website on the matter. I related the observation that one of the oldest digital voices for RPG’s has comfortably counted Zelda in it’s fold. That website also isn’t the origin for that thinking. It just gathers steam for the the un-scientific argument that Zelda is both RPG and Action.
I often associate RPG with 'artificial' progression: you can play the same way, you're just buffed to confront future enemies and not being one-hit.
In Zelda there is no buff, you could be good enough to confront the final boss with the starting gear and 3 hearts. What the items does is often providing new gameplay to solve puzzles (including when beating bosses) and unlock regions.
@NinChocolate You’re literally narrowing everything down to a single website, and I’m trying to expand upon things based on history, and have been arguing that gaming as a limited medium is the issue, what the heck are you going on about? Ugh, no approval.
@Menardi This is how I see it. Form your views from multiple sources not just one. And think for yourself.
For me it makes sense that an RPG fan would like to call Zelda an RPG because there is plenty there for the RPG fan to like. And the Zelda games are pretty awesome in general.
But to form your opinion on one webbsite alone is something I would never do.
I chose both as that looked like a fun choice.
But for me (I haven't read any other comments as there are too many), you can't fashion Link into a character of your own choosing. EDIT: Yeah you can change his name, but he's always Link, the champion as defined by that game, and that's who he will be.
So it's a role-playing game, but without a role to play.
However, if you take it to the extreme, every computer game is a role-playing game.
@BloodNinja “everything”...you’re disingenuous. Posts 145 and 151 were the basis of my thinking and made no mention of a website. I then included an example of a cultural backing to said thinking. Without it, posts 145 and 151 still stand, if you’re unwilling to accept cultural examples in this conversation.
Q: "Is The Legend of Zelda an RPG?"
A: "It's both."
Whoever writes these polls clearly doesn't try at all.
@DaniPooo That makes sense. I believe the website mention by @NinChocolate is a supporting part of their broader argument, that the website is one of many sources one can reliably cite as trustworthy in its equal treatment of both Zelda and "more traditional" RPG games.
@NinChocolate Get some kind of foundation for your argument then come back to me, but don't come here being directly insulting to me because you lack the ability to reason beyond a single website.
Like most JRPGs, the Zelda series are adventure/puzzle games. A role playing game would be one where player choice can change the outcome of the story, or at least the way it is told.
@BloodNinja No one’s coming back to a conversationalist that suddenly disregards everything that’s been said.
@NinChocolate LOL
Bring more information to the table =/= "disregard everything that is said."
Please try again.
@BloodNinja no offense, but it did seem like Nin just cited an example they thought was good and you pounced on it as if they had no other sources. You didnt ask for more sources, in fact "think for myself" just came off as "put a cork in it"...no biggie but really weren't opening up to convos, you should be aware. I dont think its rpg either
I don't think it makes sense to call Zelda an RPG.
You basically don't need to grow your character. It's not an essential part of the experience.
You can upgrade your character is a bit RPG like though.
Action RPG is a relatively new term. It's kinda like if you took Zelda and threw on some RPG growth mechanics and threw away the puzzels.
But without the RPG machanics then your left with just action.
Yes Zelda has some growth mechanics in the form of items, gear and heart containers.
But same goes with many non-rpg games. If thats all it took you could probably call Ratchet and Clank an RPG as well. You even sort of level up in those games and get more health.
Nah I think and RPG video game requires a more traditional RPG system were a character has mutiple stats, and the character grow stronger by fighting enemies.
Growing stronger by finding an item or upgrading a weapon is not enough to qualify it as an RPG.
But I understand that many RPG fans would like to see Zelda as an RPG.
It has the story and feel of an RPG, but not the gameplay.
@everynowandben Experience points do not make a game an RPG, being able to grow your character does. All Zelda games offer this to some extent or another, but BOTW and Zelda 2 offer it the most.
@roboshort I disagree, lots of games allow you to "grow your character" that are not RPGs.
@DaniPooo In Zelda 2 and BOTW, though, growing your character is a large part of the experience. So those are definitely RPGs. In BOTW though you have to seek out shrines (which are what gives you experience). In other Zelda games much of the growth is not really a choice so I think they are somewhat RPGs but not full RPGs.
@CammyUnofficial No offense taken! But, they literally said until RPgamer removes Zelda from their site, they will consider it an RPG. Not my bed to lay in! Yep, I can be opinionated sometimes, very strongly! So I'll say things like that sometimes, I own it I'm not ashamed.
NINJA APPROVED
@everynowandben Maybe those games are RPGs, but you'd have to name them for me to say. A lot of games these days are RPGs.
RPG means "role playing game" and is defined by character growth. It's simply not necessary to have experience points. That is just one mechanic to facilitate character growth. Like some tabletop RPGs do not have experience points.
“ When RPGamer.com takes down their countless Zelda reviews, many of which reference and compare elements of RPGs (without the need to take a hard stance of ‘Zelda not-RPG’), then I’ll say Zelda has nothing to do with RPGs.”
@roboshort My argument is that experience (or the equivalent) is necessary. You'd have to name the specific TTRPGs you're talking about and explain the specific character growth systems that do not feature experience (or the equivalent) you're referring to in order for me to comment on them.
Here are just some of many, many games that feature character growth that are not RPGs: Metroid, Mega Man, Paper Mario: Sticker Star
Summary of post #145: Because of how much Zelda has contributed to many RPGs over the decades, it is a part of the RPG conversation. Many elements of Zelda are included elements in other notable RPGs. The JRPG genre has a quantifiable ‘Zelda factor’ in it. Thus the RPG genre expands to include Zelda in it, not as a serial factor, but as a contributor. And that’s significant.
@everynowandben I’d argue there’s a threshold when such a game both takes enough inspiration from a genre and contributes a certain amount to it, it is inseparably a part of the conversation.
@BloodNinja so by “role playing”, are you saying it’s about the individual adopting an alternative identity and acting that persona out in a fictional scenario? Is that not the essence of all video games, right the way back to PAC-Man or Donkey Kong? The player is controlling an avatar with an admittedly limited set of options, but generally having been set a goal that they are attempting to fulfil, regardless of what the player would do in real life.
If a gorilla was throwing barrels at me from a construction site, I’d run a mile. But the games master Miyamoto has tasked me with rescuing the fair damsel, so I shall play the role of brave carpenter and scale those girders like a hero.
Or if you want a marginally more complex example, Goldeneye asks you to play the role of James Bond, super spy, with a range of tools to complete your mission however you see fit. (Sure, the options are mostly stealth vs genocidal maniac, and half the time the choice is taken away by the developers forcing your hand, but still... and occasionally you’re tasked with something more complex, like “hacking” a satellite, or escorting an idiot)
@QueenOfHearts38 That characteristic makes the game an action adventure, not an action RPG.
@everynowandben say it how you will. But sooner or later the evolutionary elements of a genre become more important than the traditional definitions of it.
Zelda is that game.
@everynowandben Zelda nuances the definition making in this instance. Since the 90’s, from many outlets, Zelda has been considered an RPG-like/light. When you look at the Japanese action-RPG catalogue, there’s a lot of Zelda in there. To say then that Zelda is not a defining quality of the JARPG genre, is short-changing. It totally is to the makers of these games.
@gaga64 It is that way in games, but as I've been constantly saying, games are offering an experience that is vastly more limiting due to the medium, when compared to table-top role playing, where the choices are dynamic and have immediate interaction with the story teller and his NPC characters, rather than a video game that has to give you a set outcome, due to programming limitations. Playing a video game is no different than using a remote controlled car.
The examples you gave are not roles you are playing, but roles you are given. The distinction is different. In a table-top setting, most of the time you (unless you are very new) are tasked with making your character completely from scratch, and then acting (role playing) that character as if it were an alternate persona, just like a comedian doing improv comedy.
NINJA APPROVED
@everynowandben I agree in theory but BOTW actually does have an EXP system behind-the-scenes based on number of enemies killed (each enemy gives a certain amount of EXP) and as this EXP level gets higher, better weapons and stronger enemies appear in the overworld. BOTW blurs the line between action-adventure and RPG heavily in terms of Zelda.
@Nerevarine76 Excuse me, but simply gaining XP isn't "blurring the lines" between action/adventure and RPG. Games have been doing that for literal decades. It would be blurring the line if in addition to using systems borrowed from table-top games, if it also added character interactions other than what you fight in random encounters on the map that significantly impacted the world around you, or added a way to cause you to play a particular way if you had chosen some kind of custom back-story for the character.
RPG is such a bull**** term anyway because almost all games are role playing games! If you play a racer you play the role of a driver. If you play a beat-em-up you play the role of a fighter. An example of a rare exception would be Tetris.
So who cares if Zelda is allowed to be included in the ridiculous terminology that is 'RPGs' anyway. I've always thought there is some snobbery around the term and I prefer Zelda to be non-associated with all that nonsense.
Action adventure is a far better term for it anyway. So RPGs can keep there stupid label as far as I'm concerned.
@brunojenso The key difference between a role playing game and what you are saying: in a role playing game, you create the role from scratch, writing out backstory, rolling stats for your character sheet, and then acting the character how you think the character should act, based on those ideas you made. The better you play "in character" the better the story teller rewards your XP and such.
Whereas, in video games, your role is always given to you, either by a character you adjust in a character creator or by a set character that fits into the story of that particular game. Games don't give you the opportunity to play the role, they allow you to interact with a role that someone else thought up for you, which is great and fun, obviously I'm on a games site so I play games. I'm just saying that it's a pretty vastly different experience that goes beyond semantics, as you seem to suggest!
NINJA APPROVED
@BloodNinja There are bunch of factors that go into whether a game is an RPG in the video game sense; most RPGs share a handful of these genre factors. Most RPGs have XP and equipment progression (which Zelda does but through items; the kokiri sword in oot does 1 damage, master sword does 2, biggoron 3 or 4 - BOTW even has explicit numbers on the weapons and armor). Some have customizable characters and parties, others don't (JRPGs are generally far more restrictive in customization than western RPGs for instance). Some focus on freedom of choice, others focus on a linear story.
It's a heuristic, there's no "rule" that defines the genre. An RPG doesn't just have to be DND, it can be all over the place. Paper Mario is an RPG. Kingdom Hearts is an RPG. World of Warcraft is an RPG. Mass Effect is an RPG. Disco Elysium is an RPG. Pokemon is an RPG. Fire Emblem is an RPG. Modern Assassin's Creeds are RPGs.
I'm just saying BOTW is the closest Zelda since Zelda II to being an RPG. It has equipment numbers, a hidden EXP system that controls enemy scaling, equipment upgrades, a full inventory system, a quest log, and more. This is very close to something you'd find in an Elder Scrolls game. I'd still define it as an action-adventure but it does have strong RPG elements. Also note there are other adventure-like action games like the Witcher series that are definitely RPGs.
@NinChocolate I still disagree. Having RPG elements doesn't make a game an RPG. No one is getting "short-changed" by what genre a game is defined as.
@Nerevarine76 Someone else pointed that out, and I have to say that it's interesting, but as I understand it, the enemies and equipment are leveling up, not the player character, and therefore it's not an RPG.
@Nerevarine76 Okay, Nerevarine, you have clearly played some RPGs from pre-Oblivion
I agree that D&D isn't the only tabletop RPG, there are literal thousands. But, a genre is actually a set of rules that defines the qualities of an experience. You're not going to enter into a string quartet playing a Bach piece, and walk out going omg, "that rap song was great," because they read a poem in between a piece they played. Same with a Zelda game having an XP gauge and a to-do journal (that's what I call annoying quest journals from modern games lol.)
When I tried out BOTW, I didn't walk away from it feeling like it was an RPG experience, because other than a couple of progression gauges, it didn't share the experience I have had with something like Morrowind or Everquest. BOTW felt more like an exploration experience than anything else. Oh, and they tacked on RPG rewards systems. That's nice, but it's not an RPG just because it has a version of an RPG rewards system.
Heck, Everquest is probably the closest a game has ever come to simulating a table-top experience, due to role-play servers. I know it's not the only game that has done that, but it's the only one I have played, in that regard.
I understand that there are no inherent rules to these things, but there are many qualities that certain experiences have that seem to repeat themselves, hence why we make up things like genres. I played saxophone in a death metal band, for real, I'm serious. But, when we headlined at certain clubs, we headlined as a metal band, not as a jazz band. "Experimental," also was a part of our experience. Yes, it was f*****g weird. LOL
My point is that Zelda is chiefly, an exploration experience, and that anything else that gets added to it may add to the Zelda experience, but I wouldn't say it changes it's genre to be RPG no more than adding my squawking saxophone playing to a metal band changes us to a jazz ensemble.
NINJA APPROVED
I am more of a purist on this point and wouldn't even call Diablo clones "RPG" (probably why the name hack n slash was invented). But this days everything with a loot system is called an "RPG".
Note that levels are not an RPG requirement; in the pnp world D&D is pretty much the only major system still using them. Almost everything else simply lets player spend their XP on development as they please.
@Darlinfan Sorry but I disagree entirely. It's madness to ignore the literal meaning of the term RPG and be content to use such a broad sweeping term for a set of very specific games. It's actually laziness that lets this ridiculous debate continue. RPG should be used in the broad sense and not the narrow. That would be intelligent non-lazy use of language, and to continue to use it as is, is to deliberately dumb-down the way we use language. I'm not scared of looking at the subtle differences between game mechanics and labelling accordingly. But when we vehemently defend the wrong terms to begin with then what on earths the point. I'd like to see the term RPG and the snobbery surrounding it to disappear - since it is close to, but not quite, a synonym for games in general - like it or not.
@everynowandben Zelda has contributed too many refinements to the feel and success of an adventure game, action or RPG, many times over, across both the formative eras of 2D and 3D gaming, and all during the generation of Japanese developers fleshing out what the adventure of an RPG should evoke, and how well it should play, and the secrets it should have in store.
It is not just an RPG, and the best RPGs are not just iterative of Zelda, but Zelda is very much an RPG, by all honors.
I've always thought of it as such, but apparently I'm wrong on this one and it's just a big action adventure game.
@BloodNinja I think I agree with your post 100%. All those factors play into how a game "feels" and because it's not a hard rule, I think factors + "feel" is what determines if a game is really an RPG or not (so it's a bit subjective I believe). I also walked away from BOTW feeling like it was an action-adventure, not an RPG. I just think it's interesting to see these extra mechanics Nintendo took from the traditional RPG genre.
@everynowandben To the above point, I agree with your ultimate outcome (it's probably not an "RPG") but I think the idea that "the weapons and enemies are leveling, not the character" making it less of an RPG is splitting hairs a little bit. Increasingly powerful weapons (and armor exclusively) are primarily designed to make Link himself stronger. Enemies scale to align to Link's power level. These are strong RPG mechanics even if they aren't traditional EXP.
Ultimately it depends how broadly you define "RPG" - broadly Zelda could be considered an RPG, but when you think of the "RPG" genre it probably isn't.
@NinChocolate Zelda (outside of 2) does not have experience points (or the equivalent) and is therefore not an RPG.
I'm using specific criteria for a working definition. Your argument is not based on concrete criteria, but on vague concepts and feelings, and therefore is weak by comparison. Come up with a set of criteria we can compare against if you want to be taken more seriously. Not trying to be rude - trying to help you form a better argument.
@Nerevarine76 Definitely! When they included some light weight RPG rewards systems in Zelda 2, that made the game better, imo. I love those types of systems because when done well, I feel they add to a games replayability.
NINJA APPROVED
@Nerevarine76 Having RPG mechanics doesn't make a game an RPG. Definitions of an absolute nature will undoubtedly lead to splitting hairs when deciding what counts and what doesn't, and I'm arguing that it doesn't count.
@everynowandben I don't think there's a rule that says a game must have experience points to be an RPG. There's very little functional difference between BOTW's weapon levels increasing as you kill enemies vs traditional RPG's XP leading to higher attack statistics.
Additionally there are some RPGs that don't have XP. Chrono Cross being the most notable. In any case it's not really experience points (which is just a representation of progression) that makes a game an RPG.
You're right that having RPG mechanics doesn't make a game an RPG but there is really no absolute measure to determine if a game is an RPG or not. So if a game has RPG mechanics, that needs to be considered a factor, among others, in favor of potentially being "an RPG".
@NinChocolate and @brunojenso have it right, by my estimation. It is a little arbitrary to restrict the definition of a role-playing game to just the immediate modern understanding, which is in its infancy compared to the far more accurate meaning of the term used long prior to its corrupted use in the modern video game industry (notably, its modern use outside of this one industry still mercifully and aptly describes the things it is used to describe. This is a problem unique to the video game world, if that sheds any light on things).
The genre title as it is commonly applied to video games simultaneously describes a broader selection of titles than the expected narrow collection of traditional "RPG" titles by virtue of its name, while failing to explicitly describe what those titles are in the same way more direct genre titles do (ie: Puzzle game, Sports game, etc.). Not even the most restrictive "role-playing video game" definition is safe from being reasonably countered with examples of games that fully meet its strict criteria; games which surely wouldn't be considered "RPGs" by the purists among us. Additionally, Zelda has clearly influenced the modern titles that are traditionally associated with the term to an inseparable degree; it really cannot be reasonably excluded, regardless of one's interpretation of what makes a video game a "role-playing game." The Zelda series is, at its heart, both an adventure game and an RPG, perhaps an unconventional RPG at worst by the modern video game-specific definition.
The key issue really comes down to how ineffective a genre title "role-playing game" is in its application to describing video games. It is an overly-broad term traditionally, and incorrectly, applied in an overly-narrow, often hyper-specific way that fails to account for unconventional or more subtle implementations, hence the difficulty in saying one way or the other what games fit or don't fit its simultaneously all-encompassing and yet absolutely exclusive criteria.
@BloodNinja Sure ,you make an interesting point that I need to consider more. I think I'd say even in the games you mention you don't really 'create the role from scratch, writing out backstory'. I mean maybe Animal Crossing fits that idea more than most traditional RPGs, but it's still all predetermined through a (sometimes complex) set of options laid out for you. So I'd say you are still given it all from the game developers intention - but I kinda get your point and it makes me want to play them more. But even if what you are saying is true (and I think it is) most people try to single out RPGs because they have turn based mechanics etc...
So isn't the whole reason we are having this debate is because of potentially broken semantics? If it goes beyond semantics then I guess we can call anything anything and it doesn't matter. And I guess that's kinda true - it doesn't really matter, so I'm off to bed
I guess I just don't like the term RPG and the way it is presented like some special club only for special games or something. It's just another type of game.
Btw, it's cool that you like you Ninjas and all, and I'm really not going on the attack or trying to suppress your rights or anything - and this doesn't really matter either - but genuine question: Is the Ninja approved thing maybe getting just a tad old now? No problem if you want to carry on. I'm just gently asking the question. And I'm sorry if it's out of order to mention it.
@Nerevarine76 Of course there is no rule, or this poll wouldn't exist. We're all debating what the rule is or should be.
I've not played Chrono Cross so I can't comment on that unless you'd care to explain it to me. Sorry!
In regards to having RPG elements, a game could be defined as something like "Twin stick shooter with RPG elements" just as a random example. That doesn't make it an RPG.
What do you think the rule for what an RPG is if not what I said?
@everynowandben XP has nothing really to do with it, RPG per definition is first of all about roleplaying as someone (not just playing a character), which is why the only actual RPGs you have are those of BG1 and BG2, Icewind Dale, Tides of Numunera, Pillars of Eternity and etc...
@TAndvig I'm unfamiliar with the specifics of those games - Do they have experience point systems?
Edit: I looked up those games, and yeah they all have experience point systems, so... Yeah. My point still stands.
@brunojenso No offense taken! Sometimes ninjas have to approve things, and I know to the laymen that it can look odd but this is our way. Deepest apologies.
But yeah, a lot of the problem with genres, in general, becomes the semantic usage behind them. Sometimes I wonder if we even need them, other times I appreciate them because it helps me just organize my thoughts and games LOL
NINJA APPROVED
@everynowandben I would say that the vast majority of hearts in most/all Zelda games do not come from simply finding containers. Most of them come from things like beating dudgeons/shrines and completing quests. Even if I’m off on the balance, there’s no denying the fact that a meaningful portion of Link’s growth is tied to him performing specific actions (especially if you include the various tools he obtains over time), which in turn helps him better perform other actions down the line.
How is that any different from gaining experience points by completing missions and quests? You did a thing and your character’s ability was enhanced in some way as a result. The only difference is that in Zelda it’s represented in a practical form that you can easily interpret into useful information, whereas in other more-obvious RPG’s the reward is a data point.
@Wavey84 Yes, but have you played the romhack that fuses Link to the Past with Super Metroid? It's literal bonkers.
@BAN I'll copy paste the distinction I made above (twice):
When you get the heart container for beating the boss, you found it after fighting the boss. The actual act of beating the boss didn't allow you to "earn" a health upgrade, it allowed you to "collect" the health upgrade afterwards.
To add to this, if it were an RPG, it might be possible to beat the boss and not earn enough experience points to get to the next level and therefore not increase your health. In Zelda, you ALWAYS unlock the heath upgrade when you defeat the boss.
heart icons are "on" or "off", whereas gaining experience doesn't necessarily mean you've gained an increase in anything but a number in and of itself. Even when you find a heart piece, which is similar to what I'm getting at (in that you've increased "something" without receiving an actual benefit [besides getting another step closer to an actual benefit]), you've still "found" it like a physical item (because it is a physical item) instead of "earning" it like a conceptual and/or numerical increase via experience points (or the equivalent).
And that's how it's different.
Here's yet another example of the difference: In Zelda, you can can decide not to collect a heart container. In an RPG, you earn the experience points from defeating the boss whether you want it or not. In other words, you don't collect it, you earn it in an RPG. In some non-RPGs, such as Zelda (except 2), you do earn the chance to collect the upgrade (hear container, coins, etc), but this is philosophically different than earning the upgrade itself (experience points, coins, etc).
These are examples of the conceptual difference, and are not meant to be taken as blanket statements defining what an RPG is or is not. The blanket statement is that an RPG must have an experience point (or equivalent) system, although not all games with an experience point (or equivalent) system are RPGs.
@Wavey84 Me too! Love that game. The SMB2 in Japan is good, but I always have to give myself a pep talk before playing LOL
Nope. For me, an RPG must have stats you can tweak and grow. I'll concede that the stamina and heart meters could be considered two 'stats', but I think every RPG is most commonly defined by building characters through extensive stat growth.
@SwitchVogel Well, then Zelda II is the most RPG of all Zeldas. Stat points to level up your character, surprises enemies, items, etc.
Nintendo has Ocarina of Time 3D labeled as an Action/Adventure/Role-Playing, Majora's Mask 3D is labeled Action/Adventure and Breath of the Wild is labeled as an Action/Other/Adventure/Role-Playing...This is a discussion over what seems to be Zelda's tertiary genre label at best, so no, Zelda shouldn't be defined as a RPG and isn't its defining genre.
@BlackenedHalo this is straight from wiki:
A role-playing game is a game in which players assume the roles of characters in a fictional setting. Players take responsibility for acting out these roles within a narrative, either through literal acting, or through a process of structured decision-making regarding character development.
it's an adventure RPG mate, it really is. I can go on on the different elements in narrative (link not having voice to represent the player) the choice making on literally all games, and on gameplay but I think I made my point clear already.
@Zequio Honestly, it was. I barely consider it to be a Zelda game though, it's gameplay was so different.
I've never let classification get in my way of enjoying the Zelda series. I'd personally define it as an action adventure with RPG elements. On one hand, Zelda doesn't have common RPG trappings like EXP (except for Zelda 2) and multiple party members. On the other hand, there is a clear sense of progression as the game continues: you gain more health, magic (depending on the game), stamina, and different means of attacking through
tools. Zelda has never been as reliant on numbers as more traditional RPGs, but BotW included additional RPG elements in the form of upgradeable "magic" through the Shiekah Slate and upgradeable armor. In short, some Zelda games are more RPGlike than others.
@DownRightSam I would have to say at the very least, Zelda 2 has RPG elements. I wouldn't say it's a perfect example of a typical RPG, however, if I saw it labeled as "RPG" somewhere, I'd think that was fair, or at least not totally inaccurate. Gun to my head, yes or no, I'd say yes. However, I think Zelda 2 is probably best described as "action adventure with RPG elements."
I think it’s a “lite” RPG. You do level up a bit in terms of life and stamina bars, upgrade gear and do quests. Standard RPG stuff. You don’t really have much way to play link as yourself but with conversations being fixed etc.
The series just as easily falls into the action/adventure genre which are traditionally more on-rails affairs, which most Zelda titles largely are even if they mask that a bit in some cases.
I’d go with Zelda being Action/Adventure at best. RPG elements, fantasy....sure. But I wouldn’t classify it as an RPG.
BotW sure is riding the rims of RPG though. It’s dang close.
The first Zelda was advertised as a mix of Arcade action game with computer RPG elements.
Breath of the wild has lots of simmilarieties to both Skyrim and The Wicther and people call those RPGs
Not every RPG is the same. Not every RPG is like Final Fantasy or Dragon Quest.
So, yes it is an RPG. Or an RPG with action/adventure elements.
But still an RPG
I can understand why people get confused about this since the majority of RPGs use experience points. But RPGs are not defined by them as experience points is only one way that you can advance a character.
I should have qualified it slightly more in that you choose have some choice in your player’s growth. Without that you aren’t really advancing the character, the game already made those decisions for you. Like In Mega Man and Metroid, there is very little choice as you have to get the power ups in order to progress. And I can’t say anything about Sticker Star since I haven’t played it but it could be an RPG.
There are many other possibilities for character growth such as skill trees. Class changes, jobs etc are another means. Affinity like in Fire Emblem are another. BOTW uses shrines instead of experience points. Zelda 2 uses point bags. Final Fantasy Legend 2 has the monster race that eats meat from fallen enemies to level up and the robot that collects parts. It would be an RPG even if it only had monsters and robots.
@divioxxdivio Could be. The lines between types of games can be a bit blurry. It was always classed as an Action Adventure game in the media when I was growing up, and I always saw RPGs having a group of characters rather than one person. Almost any game could be classed as an RPG in one way or another.
@BloodNinja “The examples you gave are not roles you are playing, but roles you are given.”
It may be somewhat pedantic, but I would argue that they are still roles being played, no differently than an actor playing a role in a film. But yes, the role is definitely given rather than built from scratch.
An actor in a scripted sitcom, rather than improv comedian. Still playing a role, just not completely inventing the role.
And surely even in the improv version, whilst the role may be created, there are still limits to that creativity (you surely can’t just start the game saying “today I will be role-playing as an omnipotent god, or as a sentient gas cloud”) and the player still has to play through scenarios set by external forces? It’s just that the breadth of variety is vastly different, and the scenario won’t radically adapt on the fly to player input (in which case it would seem to me that the difference is not in the role being played, but the game being presented).
@roboshort I've not played FFL2, but I did (an admittedly tiny amount of) research and discovered that "stats increase randomly" after battles, which is clearly the equivalent of experience points. Fire Emblem uses experience points to level up characters. Zelda 2 also uses an experience point system. PM Sticker Star is not an RPG, as there are specific, individual physical items that must be found and collected in order to increase stats such as hearts (extremely similar to heart containers in Zelda games) to increase health, and disposable one time use stickers with various strengths and abilities that are used as weapons. Shrines in BotW are not equivalent to experience points in that you find and collect spirit orbs, which are specific, individual physical items which are also not conceptual in nature.
Experience points are typically "earned" and/or "awarded" to the player for winning in combat, or satisfying specific conditions (such as completing quests or discovering a secret area for example), which is philosophically different than finding and collecting a specific physical item such as a spirit orb or heart container.
You didn't name a single game that contradicts my point, and therefore my point still stands. RPGs must have experience points (or the equivalent) but not all games with an experience point (or equivalent) system are RPGs.
Edit: Added reasoning regarding PM: SS, and further explained differences between items and experience.
@Grandiajet That is a sheer fact. I had a hard time talking with the forums section that BOTW is NOT RPG.
Seriously, who thinks that Zelda is RPG?
@everynowandben Why does it matter if the reward is conceptual? If the spirit orbs in BOTW were called "Experience Points" would it suddenly be an RPG, although the game would play exactly the same?
Is there a point to create a separate genre for a game just because it uses slightly unusual vocabulary, although it does not affect the gameplay?
@EriXz " Players take responsibility for acting out these roles within a narrative, either through literal acting, or through a process of structured decision-making regarding character development"
Zelda has nothing of this
I really do not get this discussion. On Switch there are Baldur's Gates, Icewind Dale and even Planescape Torment. These are the purest RPG ever made. Now compare them to Zelda. Are there any similarities? No? No, because Zelda is not RPG. End of the story...
@chipia That's like saying, "What if an ice hockey game was called NBA Game 2021? Would it be a basketball game?"
Both an RPG and an action-adventure?
Personally, I'm not so sure what an action-adventure is. It's sounds a bit amorphous to me. Someone said you could describe Mario as an action-adventure because it has action and adventure but it's clearly a platformer. Can it be both? What is a platformer if not also an action-adventure?
I also don't get the hang-up with people insisting that RPGs have level and stat progressions. I play in TTRPGs without level or stat progressions. The key element of these games is the role playing. You make a character. You pretend to be that character. And let's be serious, some video games we accept as RPGs have zero role playing elements.
@Darlinfan You make many good points so thank you and I'll think on them. Just two things though. If someone asked me to recommend them an RPG of course I'd not be the person you describe. I'd simply recommend them games based on the conventions already established. I understand its an establish term, even if I'm not a fan of it.
Also your suggestion that is all on me about the 'special category' of RPG is unfair I think. There is clearly that particular stigma present in the games industry, in this thread and on game sites going back decades people have been defending the idea that the likes of Zelda should be allowed in the 'club'. People care if something qualifies as an RPG even if they shouldn't. Thats pretty much what this whole article pivots on, so I don't see why your putting that on me alone. I on the other hand (like you) don't think it matters - and that's my main reason for disliking the terminology in the first place. There simply IS a snobbery around it - and I have not imagined it thank you very much.
You originally suggested people are stupid to challenge the use of the term RPG in its narrow sense. I didn't appreciate that much and so challenged it. That's all. But your right that it is the established term now and any discussion around the topic is a bit mute since what I regard as bad wording, isn't going anywhere. Its similar with people who don't like the Metroidvania moniker (which I do like). Their debate equally amounts to farts in the wind - BUT I don't regard those people as stupid for challenging bad semantics. Maybe the genre titles will still evolve and mutate over time.
@BloodNinja xenoblade, final fantasy, Skyrim, dark souls are all rpgs, different styles but rpgs nonetheless. Why is botw not an rpg? It has dark souls like combat, open world, side quests, you can choose how to play and can beat game under endless scenarios. It can have brutal difficulty on master mode. I also consider it as much a “zelda game” as much as hyrule warriors is. I just think each zelda is different in its own way and is only defined as being it’s on genre... a Zelda game.
@Donutman It’s not an RPG because there is no role playing, you’re only able to control Links physical actions. Scroll through some of my other posts up above for further explanation, I’ve already pretty thoroughly explained my points. I’m not trying to be dismissive, I’m typing on a tiny phone right now and that makes me frustrated LOL
NINJA APPROVED
@Purgatorium Yeah, I guess that’s supposed to be implied, but I still don’t like vague poll options. 😛
And I don’t feel too strongly about it, but you make some good points. Action adventure is a mostly useless genre descriptor, and Super Mario is definitely a platformer. (An imperfect but mostly solid genre descriptor.)
What ever happened to Action RPG? With that you kinda get the gist that it’s simplified because of real-time combat, but you’re still “playing a role” in an immersive world and likely with some light stats and items.
@everynowandben I named several and listed several other mechanisms for character growth, but you have already made up your mind and keep bringing up experience points.
1) RPGs are defined by advancing your character(s).
2) So-called experience points are not necessary for doing that, since I named several other mechanisms for advancing your character that can be used which contradicts your point that experience points are required for character growth.
Honestly, I would probably go further and say you don't really have a character unless your choices for how you build the character affect the game narrative in some way, but I won't do that here.
I figure you won't change your mind but I don't really understand why you'd want such a narrow view of what an RPG is anyhow (i.e. that it needs experience points) as that limits what developers can do in the genre.
@roboshort The title of the article is "Is Zelda an RPG or not?" I'm creating a working definition of RPG, and then checking whether or not Zelda fits the definition, and I'm concluding that Zelda does not fit under that definition.
I never said experience points are required for character growth, I said experience points are required for whether or not the game counts as an RPG.
You did list games where a character can grow in different ways - that doesn't change, alter, or contradict my definition of RPG since those games either do not meet the criteria I defined for what an RPG is, such as PMSS, or, do use an experience point (or the equivalent) system, and do qualify as an RPG under my working definition, such as Fire Emblem (although FE is better defined as a strategy RPG).
My viewpoint/opinion has no effect whatsoever on "what developers can do in a genre."
@everynowandben You have shown how Zelda is not an RPG based on your artificial categorization of "no XP = not an RPG" but the other poster's point is that a better categorization might be that RPGs require "progression" but it doesn't have to be in the form of XP only. Again for instance Chrono Cross is universally considered an RPG but does not have traditional XP - this flat-out violates your categorization.
I really don't think theres one hard-and-fast rule you can point to that's an accurate litmus test for whether a game is an RPG or not. I think there are a variety of factors such as focus on progression, customization, choice, narrative, dialogue, lore, exploration, etc that make up the core of what an RPG is. Zelda certainly fits some of this criteria , especially BOTW, though again I hesitate to classify it as an RPG outright.
Though i don't claim my categorization approach is the correct one, i have given some thought to it and have posted about it on my blog (not sure if i can link it here, I'll try: https://goodgamersociety.com/the-great-campaign-reference
@everynowandben No it doesn't, XP is not what dictates if something is an RPG, it is a common trait of the genre but it is not the essence. RPG is about roleplaying, hence the name R-P-G = Role Playing Game. >.>, so no matter how much you want to, you're not right.
By your logic, almost EVERY game is an RPG then, because the XP system has become a common trait in games because it is a way for publishers/devs to more easily monetize their games.
@Nerevarine76 Might you please explain how character and/or stat progression works in Chrono Cross? As I mentioned, I have not played that game.
I checked out your link, and that system of measurement is certainly thorough, but here are 2 major problems I see with it:
1. Who decides what "score" is assigned to each aspect? Why does that person get to decide?
2. Are these measurements not subjective in nature, and therefore debatable, and therefore doesn't solve the issue?
@TAndvig First, yes it does. My argument has stood so far (maybe Chrono Cross is the breaking point, but I don't know enough about it to say right now).
Second, I mentioned many times that just because a game has experience points (or the equivalent), it doesn't automatically make it an RPG, as said game may just have RPG elements in such a case.
@everynowandben Please take a look at the "battle" section here on the Chrono Cross wiki article for more info: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrono_Cross#Gameplay
Thanks for looking at the post. I'm actually using that metric for my own reviews as part of an RPG retrospective series I'm doing, and it is inherently subjective in nature, to a degree at least. My point is that i don't think there is a purely objective measure to determine if a game is an RPG or not because there is no agreed upon definition of what an RPG is or really a single pure common mechanic. I think there are a handful of objective factors to look at to support an ultimately subjective determination.
For instance, I'd argue Zelda 2 is definitely an action RPG die to its inclusion of an XP based levelling system that directly increases character stats and items that increase these stats. I don't think most other Zeldas are RPGs because though they have some character progression (stronger weapons, more heart containers) they have almost purely skill based combat, little to no choice in customizing link, virtually no choice in narratives, and very few explicit statistics.
Again I think BOTW toes the line because it has features such as explicit stats on weapons and armor, a scaling system based on hidden XP obtained by killing enemies (the sort of system pioneered by famous RPGs like the Elder Scrolls), freedom of choice in narrative path (BOTW has a do-anything approach), lots of customization of Link, and combat where the quality of your equipment and the quantity of your consumables (which can be crafted, another RPG staple) is nearly as important as your own personal skill. I could see how in light of all these features some might define it as an action RPG, not just an action-adventure with RPG elements.
Ultimately... RPGs are hard to define.
@Nerevarine76 This is from Wikipedia's entry on Chrono Cross:
"With each battle, players can enhance statistics such as strength and defense. However, no system of experience points exists; after four or five upgrades, statistics remain static until players defeat a boss. This adds a star to a running count shown on the status screen, which allows for another few rounds of statistical increases."
Sounds Iike you are awarded stats from battle, and can apply those stats to your character. That is the equivalent of experience points.
Please feel free to explain in more detail, and correct where/if needed.
Edit: We posted about the same time, I'll read the link you posted about CC and respond
Edit 2: 😄 same source I quoted above.
Your system seems like it would be great for reviews and/or recommendations.
The thing is, I don't think "RPG" is hard to define.
@everynowandben Just as Chrono Cross's stat upgrades could be considered the equivalent of experience points, it could be argued that spirit orbs are also equivalent to XP. Additionally Link acquires more powerful weapons with higher attack power as he kills more enemies - this could also be considered equivalent to gaining stat upgrades from battle (i.e., increases in weapon and shield stats). I feel you are stretching the definition of experience points to cover all the RPGs that don't have explicit XP but are arbitrarily refusing to do the same for BOTW when it has very similar mechanics.
@Nerevarine76 I disagree. Orbs/Heart containers are found, stats are earned. Please see above where I thoroughly explained the distinction between objects and concepts.
Equipment and enemy growth is not equal to character growth.
@everynowandben You are entitled to your opinion, I personally feel like that distinction is arbitrary in nature. For example in BOTW it is, for all intents and purposes, impossible to attain stronger attack and shield stats without killing enemies when playing normally. The details may be different but ultimately you must battle to gain stronger stats just like traditional RPGs. Links power growth as a character is practically indistinguishable from him acquiring progressively stronger weapons. For example, sink 60 hours into BOTW and then attempt to fight enemies using low tier weapons - it is effectively not possible or at least certainly not intended. The game is designed to increase Links power by giving him stronger equipment. I don't know if that makes BOTW an "RPG" but is definitely a similar mechanic to explicit XP in practice.
@Nerevarine76 The distinction is not arbitrary at all. It's literally the same difference between reality (object) and imagination (concept). You cannot hold an experience point in your hands.
It's also quite easy for anyone to distinguish a character getting stronger versus a weapon the character is using getting stronger.
"Similar" is by definition not a synonym of "equal."
i consider the Legend of Zelda franchise a Action adventure game, not a RPG, the only game in the franchise that can be considered a RPG is Legend of Zelda 2 Adventure of Link and maybe Legend of Zelda Breath of the Wild too since we have many status altering potions, equipament upgrade and the game have a hidden XP system that determine the enemies strengh.
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...
