Fair enough I never said it didn't I just said it wasn't a necessary part of the game and was optional which it is.HUBILUB said:Guild Wars still has grinding. You're not going to change my opinion on a game I've actually played.Glademaster said:Guild Wars has absolute minimal grinding you don't have to do any extra work to do anything I mean most people are level 20 and have plenty of money to buy max armor by the time they leave "Noob Island" of their respective campaign. Just by actually playing story you get all you need.HUBILUB said:I've played Guild Wars, it has grinding.Glademaster said:HUBILUB said:I know that, but massive grinding is a defining part of MMORPG's.Zildjin81 said:You know that MMO stand for "massive multi player online" or something like that, right? The only difference in the definitions of RPG an MMORPG are that one is online.HUBILUB said:That is MMORPG's, not RPG's. RPG's don't need grinding to be RPG's.No playing with other people is the defining part of MMOs WoW and others like it have given it this grinding type image.Onyx Oblivion said:Yes, but MMOs do tend to have a strict focus on the grind, to keep you playing, to make more money off of the player.Zildjin81 said:You know that MMO stand for "massive multi player online" or something like that, right? The only difference in the definitions of RPG an MMORPG are that one is online.HUBILUB said:That is MMORPG's, not RPG's. RPG's don't need grinding to be RPG's.
Some though have changed and made a different type altogether like Guild Wars which is a CORPG just because WoW is full of grinding doesn't mean that they all are.
I didn't say the defining part of an MMORPG is grinding, I said a defining part is.
I understand what you said but I don't see grinding as a defining part of it I just see it as a part to it like every other RPG it doesn't define the genre by any stretch of the imagination but it has become so prevelant in copies that seems like it.
Half-Life is an RPG, Metal Gear Solid is an RPG, etc.Augg said:You take the role of Link....and you play a game about him....that makes it a role playing game lol
I fully agree with this idea here. If we want classifications, obviously I would like to see people get them right. The issue with games is that there are only a few pre-determined categories we do use, and obviously it has to fall into something. Everyone warps the definition a bit though, so in the end, deal with it. If Zelda or Metroid Prime(Has enough there by these definitions to be one to me) can't be seen as RPGs, obviously Zelda can't be seen as Adventure by itself either. Action-Adventure works well though, and is what it is by most companies, specifically Nintendo.Raykuza said:If we really wanted to get picky here (I assume we do as it seems to be the entire point of this topic), people should stop describing Zelda, Metroid, and the like as "adventure games" and start describing them as "action-adventure games." Adventure games are titles like Myst, Tales of Monkey Island, Heavy Rain, and Grim Fandango that have point-and-click gameplay. There is pretty much no action at all, and most of the focus is on story and puzzle solving. Action-adventure games are the one like Zelda, Metroid, Ninja Gaiden, etc.
It's amazing how you say that with so much authority even though you clearly too don't know what RPG means.asinann said:Zelda was originally classified as an adventure game, ignorant masses have since started calling it an RPG because they have no clue what an RPG is.
And by that definition, every game is a god damn RPG. People have to stop taking the definition in a literal sense because that is where these stupid semantics come in. Zelda shares NO qualities of a RPG at all. "playing the role as X" does not define an RPG, it's the mechanics surrounding it that do. Zelda has always been clearly defined as an Action adventure game, where people get this RPG nonsense is beyond me. RPG's in terms of video games and even table top game have always had clearly defined characteristics like stats, skill learning, leveling up, open decision making ect. For god sake just wiki RPG and it clearly defines what an RPG, and Zelda is no where close to being an RPG.crystalsnow said:It's amazing how you say that with so much authority even though you clearly too don't know what RPG means.asinann said:Zelda was originally classified as an adventure game, ignorant masses have since started calling it an RPG because they have no clue what an RPG is.
I'll say it again, RPG = Role Playing Game
In Zelda you're role playing as a fairy boy in tights, therefore it is a rpg.
While I still disagree that Zelda is anything close to a RPG, I think your points were best stated and therefore the only argument anyone should listen to if they think that Zelda is not a RPG. If your words don't sway the opinion, then nothing can.CrystalShadow said:...
Honestly.
The definition of the game is action/adventure. (or at best, action RPG).
But everyone being so nitpicky about what constitutes an RPG should go back to basics.
Stats do NOT make an RPG, let alone grinding.
Story and character progression make an RPG.
Your character improves with time, and becomes more powerful.
Wether this is due to fighting alone, or something that makes sense in context... (Several pen& paper RPG's reward experience based on how well you got through the story, not your ability to fight monsters.)
So... Zelda...
Well, you get stronger as the game progresses, and it has a story which is a major focus of the game.
Also... (and this is amusing if you get into the history of D&D), you spend most of your time wandering around Dungeons.
By the definitions that RPG's started with, it's close enough.
It may not be what is generally thought of as an RPG computer game, but it has the main elements that define RPG's generally.
Turn-based combat is, after all, a contrivance born of necessity, and not at all required for a computer game.
It has a definable progression, based on known goals within the game (you gain 'hearts' primarily through completing dungeons - Eg. You get stronger, or 'level up')
It also has a lot of superficial tropes related to the RPG genre (which you'll notice with JRPG's), for instance, the NPC's in villages, and things like that
I notice some people bring up Metroid as a comparison; While it's certainly true that they are very similar in style (or at least, used to be) - There is a notable lack of any significant story elements there...
Metroid might have an intro, and an ending, but beyond that, it's really just you and the environment.
Zelda has a lot of people to talk to, and far more structure and context to what you're doing than the older metroid games ever did.
So... Bottom line, Zelda is not an RPG by the definitions of the computer game genre, but by the wider defining characteristics of RPG's, it is pretty close to one.
If you don't agree, perhaps you need a wider perspective on just what an RPG actually is...
well actually now that I think about it some more, it does have more grind-like features than I originally thought, now that you meantion the need to re-visit areas and such... though I still wouldn't say it's enough to classify it as an RPG thoughzeldakong64 said:See, I think that this is where we differ. You can "grind" to find all the heartpieces. Just like in WoW, you have to explore, fight enemies, and revisit places you've been over and over?that is, if we accept "grind" as a standard for the RPG. I don't think an RPG necessarily has to have grind. To me, this is what makes Zelda an exemplary RPG, the fact that finding heartpieces is considerably more fun than doing that in WoW would be. That fact is, it boils down to "you are playing the role" of Link. The style of game lends itself to the RPG genre very well in my opinion, but I admit it is less than orthodox. I can see your side of the action-adventure argument, but I just can't agree. It doesn't really feel like one to me.Velocity Eleven said:...with Heart Pieces, I see that as just a adventure-game enhancing mechanic as it rewards players for exploration and you cannot "grind" these improvements.
If that is what an rpg is, may they never make another rpg ever again. I cannot think of anything more tedious.Velocity Eleven said:Zelda games are not RPGs because there is no significant grindable mechanics whereby the player can perform repeated tasks to decrease the difficulty of certain tasks. All improvements and upgrades that the player can accumulate are based on several one-time events, many of which are simply alterations to the gameplay features rather than optional increases. The only grindability that comes from Zelda games is the way the player can collect items from enemies and grass although this mechanic is incredibly minor. This is not saying that RPGs require an exessive amount of grinding in order to succeed, but rather the game has options for the player to grind. In actual fact many RPGs do require grinding even if it is to such small extent that the only grinding requirement would be to fight the battles you find on your way, as long as there's an element of grind involves