Zelda Is Not An RPG

[Deleted]

Who said it was?

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

That is MMORPG's, not RPG's. RPG's don't need grinding to be RPG's.

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.

I know that, but massive grinding is a defining part of MMORPG's.

That is MMORPG's, not RPG's. RPG's don't need grinding to be RPG's.

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.

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.

No playing with other people is the defining part of MMOs WoW and others like it have given it this grinding type image.

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've played Guild Wars, it has grinding.

I didn't say the defining part of an MMORPG is grinding, I said a defining part is.

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.
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.

Guild Wars still has grinding. You're not going to change my opinion on a game I've actually played.

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.

 

[Vlane]

You take the role of Link....and you play a game about him....that makes it a role playing game lol

Half-Life is an RPG, Metal Gear Solid is an RPG, etc.

Just because you take the role of somebody doesn't make it an RPG.

 

[Rathy]

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.

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.

 

[Sightless Wisdom]

RPG=Role playing game. That all I should need to say. Call it action adventure call it role playing...call it whatever the fuck you want, it's fun and that's all I care about.

 

[crystalsnow]

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.

It's amazing how you say that with so much authority even though you clearly too don't know what RPG means.

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.

 

[Caligulove]

I remember someone argued a point that all games are RPGs since it stands for role playing game... and you never really play as yourself in any of these games.

And while thats more of a funny point to make for this, a more serious point is that it's zelda... it's action/adventure. I don't understand why anyone would think, or WANT it to become more like an RPG. The fun would really be lost in a lot of it

 

[Heart of Darkness]

Protip: Every game is technically an RPG (not the genre) as you play a role.

For a game to fit in the RPG genre of games, you need a more solidly defined system of leveling, stats, ets....which Zelda doesn't have.

So yes, Zelda isn't a game in the RPG genre, but it still technically is an RPG.

 

[-Seraph-]

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.

It's amazing how you say that with so much authority even though you clearly too don't know what RPG means.

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.

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.

It's annoying how people take the term RPG so literally without actually looking into what RPG's originally were. This is the biggest problem with a genre labeled as "RPG", it gets caught up in these dumb wars over semantics.

 

[Ironwampa]

Legend of Zelda is not an RPG but it still has an RPG like feel to it.

 

[FiveSpeedf150]

No stats. Linear game progression. No choice as to which "Role" you play. Pre-determined upgrades to items (you don't pick which sword you want to use, use just use sword of goodness until the stage in the game where you get the sword of awesomeness.)

Action Adventure all the way. Of course, you could call it grilled cheese and I'd still like the games.

/shrug.

 

[Georgie_Leech]

*sigh* Look, guys, RPG is a genre that was based off of the ORIGINAL, non-video game Role Playing Games where a bunch of friends sat around pretending to be Lokthar the Wizard or whoever, adventuring to save the world, rescue the princess, (insert RPG motivation here), rolling dice and whatnot to decide the outcome of events. In short, any game based loosely of the premise of "have sword, will travel" plus storyline is dubbed an RPG. This includes Zelda. Now, in real life, your experiences tend to make you better at whatever it is you do, but that's kind of hard to simulate when dice determine the fate of the universe. Thus, "levels" were created to make tasks easier for role-players: do enough stuff, and you get bonuses. Since many video games do NOT rely on dice to determine the fate of the universe, levels are unnecessary, as a player will get new items and improve in their own skills. Thus, many of these games, like Zelda, decide to scrap them, since it often means that either the game gets too easy, or you have to fight the same enemy over and over and over again to progress. In short, "Levels" are not necessary at all for an RPG. Most do, but it doesn't have to be like that.

Also, Zelda 2 was an RPG in the cliche sense, with levels, side-quests, and *gasp* a jump button.

 

[Darth Pope]

Well I suppose Zelda II is sort of an RPG...

 

[Signa]

...

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...

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.

So yes, I have a very clear, defined (and possibly too narrow) idea of what a RPG is in my head, and this argument didn't change that, so can we stop with the "you play a character so it's a RPG DURRRR" bullshit? I want more arguments like this one stating the similarities between real RPGs and Zelda while showing the differences between Zelda and other Action-Adventure games.

 

[Rahnzan]

This thread in its entirety is making me lose faith in all of you.

Grinding? Turn Based? These aren't the parts of the game that define its genre. Go open up a dictionary, go back a little farther than video games, and you'll find a thriving source of inspiration that didn't depend on the same two crappy series' ripping off one of the same two sources for all things either sci-fi or fantasy.

...God damn.

God...damn.

I'm not reading 4 pages of guk least I lose more of my faith, just responding to the first page.

Just a heads up, they dont call it Grinding because working the grinder is a very fun activity, if you've found yourself in a position where you cannot acertain what fun is you need to step back and reaccess what I call your gaming career.

They call it grinding because it's tedious work that artificially lengthens gameplay and difficulty.

Edit: I'm aware the modern definition of an RPG. Two points
1) Modern =/= good
2) I hate this ignorance.

 

[Velocity Eleven]

...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.

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.

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 though

 

[joshuaayt]

As a rule of thumb, if you start off weak (Or too weak to defeat the end boss), and can potentially end up strong enough to defeat the end boss (And there IS an end boss, come to think of it) than it is probably an RPG. Now, forgetting the fact that you need the master sword (Which is a single, necessary gain) to kill Ganon, was he not easier to kill than fricking Gohma?
I don't think playing a role makes it an RPG, as you play a role in all games.

 

[Deacon Cole]

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

If that is what an rpg is, may they never make another rpg ever again. I cannot think of anything more tedious.