[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/vr/ - Retro Games


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



File: zelda.png (197 KB, 574x655)
197 KB
197 KB PNG
Friendly but firm, objective reminder that the developer intends for Zelda games to be RPGs.
>>
>>5550623
>3DS
not really retro.

>zelda is rpg
the main similarity it has with rpgs is they are both very easy to beat, meant for 5 year olds to crush. And there is progression you build up a character I guess.
>>
>>5550637
I know the screenshot isn't very retro but the developer no longer has retro things on their website. Zelda isn't just similar to an RPG, it is one. Swords, magic, no guns, roleplaying as an elf, sidequests, unnecessary amount of bad dialogue, the list goes on.
>>
>>5550623
Reminder that marketing is an entry-level profession that any nimrod can get into, and they don't even need to be knowledgeable about the products they promote.
>>
>>5550623
More proof Nintendo is clueless.
>>
>>5550623
Was always an rpg in the 80s and 90s until recent (((revisionist history))) and autists claiming a monopoly on category definitions
>>
>>5550623
>developer
It's a weird way to spell "marketing people".
>>
>>5550646
How the fuck does a fantasy setting is equal to an RPG?
>>
who gives a shit
>>
every single game is a role playing game
>>
File: 1556746306335.jpg (31 KB, 387x461)
31 KB
31 KB JPG
>>5550623
I'm gonna roleplay my dick up your ass OP if you keep this shit up.
>>
If Zelda is an rpg than literally every videogame is an rpg.
>>
>>5552479
>game is based on swords and magic
>multiple paths to choose how to complete the game
HURR DURR ITS NOT AN RPG
>>
>>5550973
No it wasn't.
>>
>>5552479
yes, but only because """rpg""" is a retarded term and a non-genre
>>
File: 498896.jpg (716 KB, 1280x720)
716 KB
716 KB JPG
>>5552541
So Tower of Mystara is an RPG?
>>
File: metroid3_22.gif (30 KB, 512x446)
30 KB
30 KB GIF
>>5550623
Daily reminder that Zelda and Metroid have almost the exact same gameplay structure and are really only different in theme and viewing angle. If you think Zelda is an RPG, you must also consider Metroid to be an RPG. Unless what you think makes an RPG is either a fantasy setting or top-down view in which case you're a full blown retard.

RPGs are the genre of games that developed out of mimicking the mechanics and experience of pencil and paper roleplaying games and Zelda doesn't do any of that. Someone in Nintendo's marketing department is a full blown retard when it comes to video games and that's both hilarious and not at all suprising.
>>
>>5552564
Doesn’t really feel like one, it takes less than an hour to beat right? Also, it has no puzzles whereas in Zelda puzzles are a main part of the game. Also the plot and dialogue is a main part of Zelda but not Shadow. Seems like two completely different types of games if you’re not retarded (so for you they’re the same).
>>
>>5552541
RPG doesn't mean swords and magic. Pokemon is still very much an RPG, Golden Axe deffinitely isn't.

Outrun has multiple paths to choose how to complete the game. Presumably you're not stupid enough to think it's an RPG.
>>
>>5552567
How much story and dialogue does Metroid really have? Can you level-up the character’s health stats over time? How about an inventory? Stop being a mongoloid, wake up and smell the Hyrule Field’s roses.
>>
>>5552570
>time
>puzzles
>talking
So is Catharine an RPG?
>>
>>5552570
>Also, it has no puzzles whereas in Zelda puzzles are a main part of the game.

And not a key part of what makes something an RPG.

>>5552576
Story isn't what makes something an RPG. Zork, King's Quest and Silent Hill are not RPGs.

You build both health and inventory in Metroid in a similar fashion to Zelda. You don't have levels or inventory in either the way you do in actual RPGs such as Final Fantasy, Dragon Quest, Ultima etc.

Congrats, you're as dumb as a Nintendo PR stooge!
>>
>>5552582
>>5552586
Disagree all you want, contrarian hipsters. The facts are that Zelda has more features of an RPG than any other genre, and the developers themselves categorize the games as RPGs. Eat shit you stupid fucking try-hards.
>>
>>5552593
Lol. Clueless retard.
>>
>>5550623
it's not an RPG and everyone and myself will tell you that until the world falls apart.
>>
>This game is so special, we even packed it in gold. What's so different? It has the fast action you'd expect from an arcade hit, along with the depth and advanced role playing of personal computer games. The best of both worlds!
>>
>>5552710
>Nintendo has no idea what an RPG is

This just gets funnier
>>
>>5552972
More likely they just assumed that the kids buying Nintendo Power were never going play an actual CRPG so they'd never know the difference. But they wanted to market it so those kids would feel like they were playing a "grown up" kind of game. It's pure marketing spin, no one who's played both would ever mistake the two as being part of the same genre. And to be fair it was a smart move since this >>5552541 >>5550646 is the intelligence level of the average Nintendo fan.
>>
>>5552576
>Can you level-up the character’s health stats over time?
Metroid and Zelda has identical systems for this: find item to upgrade health.
>>
>>5552593
>The facts are that Zelda has more features of an RPG than any other genre,

Honest question, what do you think the features of a game in the RPG genre are?
>>
Final Fantasy Adventure is better than the first Zelda
>>
File: nintendofunclubdq.jpg (578 KB, 1280x1713)
578 KB
578 KB JPG
>>5553136
>If you liked Zelda, you'll love other RPGs too!
What did they mean by this?
>>
Zelda is an action dungeon crawler point n click adventure. It's like police quest, you get item, use item to solve puzzle, advance
>>
File: Beach_Ball_(demo).gif (1.6 MB, 408x308)
1.6 MB
1.6 MB GIF
>>5553160
That Nintendo can't tell the difference between genre and theme. Their website even lists fucking Terraria as an RPG. It's super funny.
>>
>>5553181
Hence action-adventure, the genre of games Zelda actually is.
>>
>>5553160
Wasn't Roto renamed Edrick for Dragon Warrior due to NoA censorship?
>>
>>5553259
How is that censorship?
>>
>>5550623
What baffles me about these threads is why is OP so invested in LoZ being lumped in with RPGs when the gameplay has almost nothing in common with actual games of the type. Does he want to say he plays RPGs hoping for some kind of internet street cred? Is he insecure about the action adventure genre? Is he legitimately too stupid to tell the difference? Is it all just a long game troll? He puts a ton of effort into these and it's hard to tell why.
>>
>>5553286
The shocking part is that a lot of people try to define RPGs in a way that doesn't include Wizardry.
>>
>>5553290
It actually includes seeing as how in wizardy you get to create your characters unlike the visual novel RPG hybrids
>>
>>
>>5553307
There are dating sims like True Love that let you pick your character traits.
>>
>>5553331
>they think Zelda is deep

So much about Nintendo makes sense now.
>>
>>5553338
Yes. True love is more a RPG than shit like ff7, or chrono trigger or breath of fire will ever be. True love is a true RPG actually
>>
>>5553290
It's sad but not really that shocking. Just look at OP of this thread's post to see how clueless some people can be.
>>
Nintendo would call it a cover based shooter if they thought it would help the game sell.
>>
>>
>>5552567
I don't get it either. Never saw Zelda as an RPG yet tons seem to believe it is. Its just an adventure game with some progression that is more like rewards rather than actually building your character with builds like a wrpg or just stats like a jrpg. Something tells me that these Zelda fans pushing it do it because they want cool points or something when its perfectly fine if the Zelda games aren't RPG because they are still amazing. They don't have to be an RPG to be great. I think these fags want so desperately for it to be an RPG though.
>>
>>5553867
>Never saw Zelda as an RPG yet tons seem to believe it is
Because RPG wasn't some narrow category for autists to foam about in the 90s, it was a broad category that included games like Zelda, FF, Wizardry, etc. The problem arises from people who grew up in that era, saw every magazine list Zelda as an RPG, and now, two decades later, zoomers with an entirely different conception of what the RPG category means keep say how they never saw Zelda as an RPG.

We didn't even really have the terms "JRPG" and "WRPG" back then, these are all internet era concepts, there was simply the category of RPG, and it generally extended to certain thematic elements in these games moreso than a strict definition based on what "role playing" means.
>>
>>5551107
It's not irrelevant. That said >>5550646 seems pretty stupid and I doubt he'd be able to make a real, non-lazy argument for why Zelda should classified as an RPG.
>>
>>5552567
>Daily reminder that Zelda and Metroid have almost the exact same gameplay structure and are really only different in theme and viewing angle.
No they aren't. Metroid is a platform game based around mostly shooting weapons and Zelda is a top-down adventure based around melee-style action combat.
If you think that's merely different "theme" and "viewing angle" then you are a retard who doesn't understand the terms.
>>
>>5553881
I grew up for the entirety of the 90s and never once saw Zelda games as RPG's. They always were simply adventure games that rewarded exploration by giving you cool gadgets or extra hearts. If what you are saying is true than why isn't DMC or NGB RPG games? Why isn't any game that does this also an RPG? RPG were always games about stats and builds. Sure you can broaden the definition but then you might as well say every game is an RPG then.
>>
>>5553881
>>5553904
And to add just a bit more to what I was saying.

In MGS you kill bosses and that upgrades your health. You also can explore a world although a more linear world you still explore Shadow Moses similar to how you do in Metroid and Zelda. You can get cool new gadgets or guns. Just like how in Zelda you can do these things. Yet Zelda is the RPG here while MGS isn't? Makes zero sense. I don't give a damn what Nintendo says. They are marketing it wrong. Hell even GTA San Andreas had some minor RPG elements to it. More so than any Zelda game actually because you actually had some stats you could progress through your characters actions. I think we better say San Andreas is an RPG and its a deeper one than any retro Zelda at that.
>>
>>5553904
I grew up for the entirety of the 90s and never once saw Zelda games as adventure games. They always were simply RPGs that rewarded experience by giving you cool gadgets or extra hearts. If what you are saying is true than why isn't DMC or NGB adventure games? Why isn't any game that does this also an adventure game? Adventure games were were always games about a text parsers and point and clicking. Sure you can broaden the definition but then you might as well say every game is an adventure game then.
>>
>>5553881
>RPG wasn't some narrow category for autists to foam about in the 90s, it was a broad category that included games like Zelda, FF, Wizardry, etc.
How old were you then? Five?
If anything RPG was a much more clearly defined genre in the 90s. Virtually no one considered Zelda an RPG at that point. If you were calling Zelda an RPG in the 90s, either people were just nodding politely at your silliness or you were a millennial child surrounded by people who didn't know jack shit about anything related to real RPGs.
>We didn't even really have the terms "JRPG" and "WRPG" back then
Yeah we did.
"Console RPG" evolved into JRPG.
"Computer RPG" evolved into WRPG.
More importantly, looking back the distinctions are clear as fucking day to anyone with better than tard level pattern recognition skills.

Videogame RPGs are descended from tabletop RPGs like D&D, while D&D itself evolved from tabletop strategy war gaming. JRPGs and WRPGs split in the late 80s, with JRPGs focusing on streamlining and mainstreaming the Wizardry model and had more of an anime/manga influence. WRPGs focused on trying to replicate the tabletop experience.

Zelda came from a completely different direction and featured arcade-style action with puzzle elements, structured in a continuous adventure in a single world (something that couldn't reasonably be done in arcades at the time).
>>
>>5553624
Wow, it's almost as if game journalists have always been retarded.
>>
>>5553920
Zelda is action-adventure. It's literally arcade-style action gameplay with adventure elements and structure.
It was not anything like the vast majority of RPGs which were far more focused on tactical combat and complex stat systems.
There are many other distinctions as well such as having a different style of setting and approach to world-building.
>>
I have schizophrenia and make lists of video games by genre all the time. I always put Zelda games under RPG. Specifically, it's an ARPG because of the combat, but due to the puzzles, setting, character leveling-up, etc. it's definitely a RPG.
>>
https://web.archive.org/web/19990218203542/http://www.rpgamer.com/games/zelda/z1/z1.html
>>
There are arguments on GameFAQs about this going back like 20 years. Wouldn't be surprised if it goes back to usenet and beyond. Not focusing on the name "RPG" itself, anyone will tell you that most Zelda does not feel similar to Baldr's Gate or Dragon Quest.
>>
File: zeldarpg.png (53 KB, 577x521)
53 KB
53 KB PNG
>>5553994
>>
Stop replying to these shitty bait threads.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action-adventure_game

The way video games distinguish these genres is purely mechanical, which is to say RPGs must involve statistical features that are at least somewhat similar to traditional tabletop games like D&D. It has nothing to do with actually playing the role of any particular character in the game. This would be too abstract of a concept to use in quantifying a game's genre since virtually every game would register as an RPG. So why call it a role-playing game? Again, purely for statistics. And while that may make 'role-playing' a bit of a misnomer as far as video games are concerned, that's just how the definition of video game role-playing has developed.

Action-adventure games may be similar in theme or presentation to RPGs, but they don't have any statistical features. If a character in an action-adventure game becomes stronger, then it's certainly the result of finding a limited selection of power-ups or tools that increase character health or power in increments. These are adventure (search and discover) elements, not RPG (grinding statistics) elements.

If we look at a series like Zelda, then the only game that should qualify as an RPG is Zelda II since Link does indeed earn experience levels. Everything else falls under action-adventure.
>>
>>5554012
Yes, the author of that post was saying that Dragon Warrior, Zelda, Ultima, and Wizardy are all similar.
>>
File: zeldarpg2.png (35 KB, 539x446)
35 KB
35 KB PNG
>>5554021
So Zelda's an RPG then
>>
>>5554023
>>5554023
If I take a screenshot of this anon>>5554017 will you shut the fuck up?
>>
>>5550646
>swords, magic, and elves = defining elements of RPGs

Thank you for letting me know your opinion on anything is worthless. Thread hidden.
>>
Well looks like we finally solved it, guys. Only Zelda II is the RPG, and the rest aren't.
>>
File: zelda rpg.png (47 KB, 575x493)
47 KB
47 KB PNG
>>5554032
Sounds like someone is mad that people have been calling a Zelda an RPG longer than you've been alive.
>>
>>5554049
How come you can only post cherry-picked screenshots and not come up with an argument as to why it is an RPG? I'll wait for your reply before declaring checkmate.
>>
>>5552576
>Story and Dialogue
The games have always had a story mostly told through the manual and environmental storytelling. Super Metroid has about as much dialogue as Zelda 1 with the opening cutscene and Samus' narration.

>Level up health stats
Yes, you pick up energy tanks just like you find heart containers in Zelda.

>An inventory
You collect upgrades and weapons just like you do in Zelda and increase your ammo capacity with upgrades just like in Zelda.

What was your point again?
>>
>>5554049
People were wrong about the sun traveling around the earth even longer than we've all been alive, so should we go back to the geocentric model of the universe? Turns out people can be wrong in the past, too.
>>
>>5554071
>those old guys are wrong because they're older than me
zoom zoom
>>
>>5554074
>still no argument
>>
>those old guys are right because they're older than me
>>
>>5554074
Nope, they're wrong because Zelda is not an RPG, for all the reasons people have been telling you in this thread. You're the one trying to say that the age of their posts somehow legitimizes their incorrect opinions.
>>
You think OP is a masochists and enjoys being called retarded?
>>
>>5554080
>magazines called it an RPG
>websites called it an RPG
>actual game players when asked for games like it get suggested more RPG games
>actual game players when talking about RPG games bring up Zelda as one

>it's not an RPG because I said so
>>
File: zelda rpg.jpg (818 KB, 1280x1590)
818 KB
818 KB JPG
>>5553938
>How old were you then? Five?
14 or so

>If anything RPG was a much more clearly defined genre in the 90s. Virtually no one considered Zelda an RPG at that point. If you were calling Zelda an RPG in the 90s
Sounds like you're talking about the Playstation / Saturn era when RPGs really took off, prior to that RPG wasn't clearly defined at all nor was it the kind of genre that had massive cultural appeal like platformers did. I'm quite sure you're younger than me if you think the concept of RPG in the early 90s (exactly when LttP and LA came out) is the same thing as it was when games like FFVIII were coming out.

>Yeah we did.
No we didn't, find any reference to "JRPG" in the NES era, when Zelda was at its height, we never heard of such a thing. In fact even the term RPG was new, at first, when it came to NES games, the categories were simply adventure games or sports games. Soon adventure games broke down into a few loose categories, one being RPGs.

>Videogame RPGs are descended from tabletop RPGs like D&D, while D&D
This is not how the definition was applied in 80s/90s for console games in magazines nor in the culture at large. For computer RPGs this largely held true, but they weren't nearly as mainstream as console games which didn't adhere to this definition at all.

>>5553904
>I grew up for the entirety of the 90s and...
Were you around for the early 90s at all, heck even in the late 90s with OoT it was still being considered an RPG, pic related. The term action RPG practically came into use because of Zelda, to separate games like that from the other games we now traditionally understand to be RPGs like FF, which were becoming as mainstream as Zelda. I wish I had my old EGMs or Game Informers laying around to screenshot here which would very regularly have Zelda in its list of "upcoming RPGs," and they didn't do that in defiance of the culture at large, that's generally how we understood it until the RPG explosion of the late 90s.
>>
File: what is an rpg.png (1.61 MB, 744x1022)
1.61 MB
1.61 MB PNG
>>5553938
To add to your false claim that RPGs were clearly defined or whether we had terms like JRPG back then, pic related, this was a very new concept to the culture at large.
>>
>>5554087
>regular folk called them clips
>books called them clips
>FPS games called them clips
>movies and TV called them clips

>but it's a magazine because I said so
>>
File: 1541467178231.jpg (50 KB, 720x720)
50 KB
50 KB JPG
Is this thread about if Zelda was considered an RPG at one point or it is about if it is actually considered an RPG by today's standards?

OP's appears the latter, but now the argument has changed to the former.
>>
So is Pluto a planet or not?
>>
>>5554106
Pluto is best girl.
>>
>>5554097
The definition of RPG changed, and people who weren't alive back then pull their hair out screaming that Zelda was never an RPG.
>>
>>5554114
I was born in the mid 80s. Had a Link to the Past and FFVI. I definitely remember Zelda being called an RPG, and I definitely remember disagreeing with the label. Thankfully we all understand that the definition has changed to be more descriptive and less of a marketing buzzword.
>>
File: tenor.gif (2.31 MB, 498x280)
2.31 MB
2.31 MB GIF
>it's another episode of /vr/ being to dumb to ignore obvious bait threads.
>>
Yeah Zelda was called RPG by magazines. Stuff like golden axe or knights of the round weren't beat em ups, they were called hack n slash and after burner is a combat flight simulator according to journalists
>>
>>5554209
They'd be correct with every example you provided.
>>
>>5554216
Wrong again, shitter. Golden Axe is obviously a lefty-righty-fighty
>>
>>5554216
Yes and shadows mystara is RPG. You get new gear, you make dialogue choices, you shop, you have an inventory, there are traps, you can give your character a name, you level up
>>
>>5554247
>D&D
>not an RPG
>>
Is the list called "top down action adventures" games, or "top down action RPGs"? https://vretc.neocities.org/img/charts/2D_ARPG.png
>>
>>5554253
Dragon strike is my favorite dnd rpg
>>
>>5554278
Feeling brave tonight? How brave? Brave enough to do battle with hideous monsters, hm? Brave enough to play a board game with included VHS cassette tape?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FF1_IHliRhI
>>
>>5553867
Not really though. Outside of these threads it's super rare. Most people understand what rpgs are and know that's not what Zelda is. Different games are different it's totally normal.
>>
>>5553881
>Because RPG wasn't some narrow category for autists to foam about in the 90s, it was a broad category that included games like Zelda, FF, Wizardry, etc.

FF and Wizardry yes, Zelda no. It's another type of game.
>>
>>5554284
They chopped someone's head and showed blood
>>
>>5554310
Just asked my wife what kind of game Zelda is, even she immediately knew it's an RPG. So, the people that think Zelda is an RPG are:

Normies

The developers themselves

/vr/ chart makers as linked here >>5554258


The people who don't, are:

A couple of angry contrarians, probably just autistic JRPG fans who don't want a "casual" RPG like Zelda lumped into the same category with thier "hardcore" weaboo shit
>>
>>5554405
Remind us again what youre definition of an RPG is? You keep avoiding that question.
>>
>OP still can't define what an RPG is
Well I guess that settles it. Zelda is not an RPG.
>>
>>5554468
There are a lot of types of RPGs but one example is a semi open ended game where you run around a fantasy setting as an elf with magic swords solving puzzles and doing quests, adding to your inventory, leveling up your health, naming your character, talking to NPCs, etc. It also helps when the developer themselves says it’s an RPG
>>
29 newfags detected
Go back to /a/
>>
File: zeldarpg3.png (87 KB, 619x712)
87 KB
87 KB PNG
>>5554640
This guy gets it.
>>
>>5554640
>zelda
>open ended
Well I guess that settles it. Zelda is not an RPG
>>
>>5552541
>Being this retarded in 2019.
I hope you are trolling.
>>
>>5552593
>the developers themselves
They don't do marketing you retarded fagot.
>>
>>5554097
>>5554114
I was alive back then and it was pretty clear what an RPG was.
The called Zelda an RPG not because it was one, but because the didn't know how to call it.
Today we have action-adventure as a genre and still sounds bad.
>>
>>5554698
>bosses are undefinable until a particular level
Yeah this guy gets it. 100% agree.
>>
>>5554698
I'm sure you could work up a shitpost about how in the past everyone only referred to beating games as "solving" them. Probably get a fair amount of (you)s
>>
>>5554089
>No we didn't, find any reference to "JRPG" in the NES era, when Zelda was at its height, we never heard of such a thing. In fact even the term RPG was new, at first, when it came to NES games
The term RPG was not new in the 80s. In the late 80s, you had FF1 and Dragon Quest on consoles, and you had stuff like Wizardry, Ultima, and the Gold Box SSI games on Home Computer/PC. These were NOT called adventure games. They were RPGs. And yes, I called Final Fantasy an RPG I don't know anyone who didn't. It was an RPG for Nintendo. None of us called Zelda an RPG although it was kind of like one. Obviously the "JRPG" term wasn't used, specifically, but anyone with half a brain could see that Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest were more similar to each other than to Pool of Radiance.
>This is not how the definition was applied in 80s/90s for console games in magazines nor in the culture at large.
Yes it was, stop basing all your conceptions on magazines that were mostly nothing more than glorified advertisements.
>>
>>5554092
So your source for how regular people classified games is some stupid marketing bullshit aimed at retards.
Marketers will stick any label on a game they can if they think it will stick and lead to more sales.
>>
When it first came out we referred to Zelda 1 as an RPG although it was obvious that it was different from others that had turn based combat. Still, we called it an RPG because it was closer to that than an action game.
>>
>>5554640
- Zelda's fantasy setting is not like most RPG settings. Most RPG settings from that era are either a realistic area of a campaign setting (WRPG style) or a simplified representation of an entire planet (JRPG style). Zelda is built much more like an action game with 9 levels plus the overworld. The world is designed entirely around the action, with fantasy aesthetics and adventure theming for the elements, and there's no attempt to connect it to any kind of real rolepaly world. It's a fairy tale setting that's it.
- NPC interaction in Zelda is nothing like what is typical for an RPG. But it's very typical of an action-oriented game.
- Puzzle elements are common in many games and are not genre-defining for RPGs.
>>
>>5550623
>intends
That's nice, but they're adventure games.
>>
>>5554640
No you're confusing theme with genre. Fantasy setting and swords has nothing at all to with wether something is an RPG.

Video game RPGs are very simply the genre that emerged out of video game versions of tabletop RPGs and the mechanics from them. Ultima, Final Fantasy, Wizardry, Dragon Quest. Zelda is not one of those games. It's a fine game, but it's not an RPG.
>>
>>5555540
Oh, you're one of those guys who fetishizes RPGs as menu only style games.
>>
>>5555554
I don't fetishize anything, that's simply what the term refers to. Genre relates to the type of gameplay something has, not the themes or setting. RPG doesn't mean "fantasy adventure" it means a game based off tabletop RPGs and lumping games like Zelda which is an action adventure puzzle in with them is utterly pointless.

I don't even love RPGs either western or Japanese, I just think calling two completely different kinds of games the same genre just because of magic and elves is completely retarded.
>>
>>5555554
And see the really confusing thing about all this is that Zelda already has it's own genre which does make total sense and is why that's what everyone calls it.

Look at King's Quest or Space Quest amd what you do in those games. It's an adventure, you play the role of someone in a weird setting and you explore around talking to people, figuring out what the story is, going on quests and solving puzzles along the way. Those are called Adventure Games cause that describes the core gameplay of going on an adventure. You'll notice they're not referred to as RPGs because though you go on adventures in both D&D (or Gurps or whatever) and King's Quest, King's Quest isn't trying to replicate those role-playing game mechanics that games like Ultima and Final Fantasy were.

But King's Quest etc are menu and point-click based. But if you take that core Adventure Game idea and build an action game around it so it's got all that plus fun running around and sword swinging then you have an Action-Adventure! Which is what Zelda is, and it's a perfectly fine and respectable genre to be part of.

And of course you get more health as you go along, because it makes sense gameplay wise but that doesn't mean it's an RPG.
>>
>>5550623
Not entirely inaccurate. It is a nebulous term. Any game in which you control a character, whether it be Sonic the Hedgehog, Robotron 2084, or Panel de Pon, could be described as an RPG.
>>
>>5555637
Zelda has nothing in common with games like King's Quest
>>
>>5555554
>RPGs as menu only style games.
This is a retard's way of articulating it, but it's on the right track.

- Wargames heavily focused on tactical decision-making.
- RPGs used the same tactical game systems and added a layer of long-term character development and fantasy roleplay.

A key feature of RPG combat is an emphasis on tactics involving units with a variety of stats and traits. This is true whether the system uses a turn-based system or not. Games that emphasize technical skill over tactical decisions are rarely considered RPGs. Even most action-RPGs are usually at least as much about character stats and tactics than skill-based action gameplay.
>>
>>5555908
>could be described as an RPG.
This is postmodern bullshit and you know it. If someone says they're looking to play a JRPG and not a WRPG you know what they mean.
>>
File: MM is an RPG.png (181 KB, 1920x1080)
181 KB
181 KB PNG
>>5550637
>>5550646
>>
>>5556153
By your twisted logic, Y's is not an RPG.
>>
>>5556193
no it doesn't, you're just too stupid to understand the logic.
In Ys, you walk into monsters, which automatically triggers the stats-and-equipment based combat algorithms. The emphasis is on deciding when and which enemies to engage and which to avoid. There's a bit of a dynamic element to avoiding enemies as they walk around but there's no way you can credibly call this 'action combat' like you have in Legend of Zelda.
Sure, the "tactical decisions" are braindead simple. But that's still how the game is oriented.
>>
>>5556193
incidentally, Ys also has a more typical RPG setting where the game environment is meant to feel like part of a fantasy world. It has towns and an organic appearance, it isn't just 9 levels connected by an overworld level.
>>
Point and click adventures, with their focus on environmental interaction and dialogue, feel more like tabletop RPGs than dungeon crawlers. The only reason combat rules take up more of the books than anything else is because it's the one area that demands objectivity. But retards take that for being what the game is, and as far as adaptations go, number crunching and empty corridors happen to have been easy to program in the early days. Shadowgate is way more of an RPG to me than Wizardry. But Zelda? Zelda doesn't even fit into the equation.
>>
>>5550623
Miyamoto has said Zelda is an RPG. Yuji Horii also agrees it’s an RPG.
Face it, it’s an RPG
>>
>>5556238
Zelda is just Y's with a Fight command
>>
>>5552541
>Sordz n Majig means ids an RBGee :DDD

so how come there are futuristic Sci-Fi RPGs?
what DEFINES an actual RPG? I tell you what:

>level up mechanics
>different skills to unlock by leveling up
>character stats that get raised by leveling up
>perhaps a system of elemental types that act as multiplier on top of a base attack
>certain elements that are weaker or stronger against other elements
>occasionally turn-based but not necessarily so
>deep, engaging storyline and development of characters
>dialogue choices leading to different pathways and different endings in a game
>gameplay choices leading to different pathways and different endings in a game

so what RPG elements does any Zelda have?
Expanding heart containers that makes your player character take more damage and some Level 2 items that replace a Level 1 items, same thing with finding a better sword or shield + the occasional elemental weakness for certain enemies. that's all it has and nothing more. so it's not an RPG, it's an action adventure with little ass RPG elements.
>>
>>5556146
A lot more than it does Final Fantasy.
>>
>>5556332
I thought I was excessively mean in the last post when I called you retarded, but you just confirmed it.
>>
>>5550646
>Swords, magic, no guns, roleplaying as an elf, sidequests, unnecessary amount of bad dialogue, the list goes on.

None of those are aspects of an RPG. You don't even know what you're talking about.
>>
>>5556398
>level up mechanics
>different skills to unlock by leveling up
>character stats that get raised by leveling up
>perhaps a system of elemental types that act as multiplier on top of a base attack
>certain elements that are weaker or stronger against other elements
>occasionally turn-based but not necessarily so
>deep, engaging storyline and development of characters
>dialogue choices leading to different pathways and different endings in a game
>gameplay choices leading to different pathways and different endings in a game

So what you're saying is this game is more an RPG than any Final Fantasy game.
>>
>>5556447
That's an action RPG, which is indeed a variety of rpg
>>
>>5556467
It's not an RPG though.
>>
>>5556447
no, not at all and I think you're only trying to be funny because I was just talking about a general baseline and I actually thought about modern Castlevania Action RPGs right after and I know them quite well. Just yesterday I finished Curse of Darkness. I know FF games pretty well too and FF games usually have more RPG elements in total than Metroidvania Action RPGs although it just depends with certain entries that aren't Ivalice-based or classic FF or just the new ones where you really can't tell because so much of the battle system calculation runs in the background and you don't see any of that (just look at something like The Last Remnant albeit it's no FF game but might as well be).
>>
>>5556495
You said it yourself, Ecclessia has all those things you say make an RPG, while Final Fantasy barely ever has half. Besides, this thread proved Action RPGs don't exist because RPGs can't be action games. RPGs don't reward reflexes and skill.
>>
>>5556398
>perhaps a system of elemental types that act as multiplier on top of a base attack
>certain elements that are weaker or stronger against other elements
>occasionally turn-based but not necessarily so
These are all a subset of "emphasis on tactical combat." (>>5556153).
Elemental strengths and weaknesses are just one example of a system designed around tactics more than technique. RPG combat:

1. Oriented around individuals and small group combat in adventure environments, not armies on a battlefield.
2. Heavily governed by stats and resource management, which can usually be leveled-up, accumulated, or customized per character.
3. Decide on formations, movement of characters, and target selection based on these stats to gain tactical advantage. (eg elemental strengths and weaknesses)
4. Risk vs reward decision.

Look at how LoZ stacks up:

1. This one fits.

2. No. Stats like hearts and sword strength play a small role. Zelda is designed such that a good player should never get hit. You aren't intended to spend or wager your hearts in the same what you you are typically required to spend or wager hitpoints in an RPG. Sword strength is more a way of adjusting the difficulty as you progress so you don't have to waste time fighting early game enemies you've already mastered.

3. Tactical positioning is typically a consequence of reflexes as you try not to get hit, while damage is done opportunistically using good timing on button presses. There's some strategy and tactical decision-making involved but it's clearly not the emphasis.

4. Most RPGs involve decisions about things like whether to heal or attack, which is an implicit risk+reward proposition. Sometimes it's even more obvious with a decision beween a low-damage ability that hits every time vs a high-damage ability with a low hit rate. More importantly, this type of decision is a routine, every turn sort of thing, not just 2 heal potions.

So Legend of Zelda is 1/4 on RPG combat traits.
>>
>>5556508
>You said it yourself, Ecclessia has all those things you say make an RPG, while Final Fantasy barely ever has half.

I didn't say that, you just decided to put these words into my mouth. I just think that it's a simplistic perspective if you put it this way. OoE has a lot of RPG elements but the focus on the game lies on the action, clearly. FF as a series is a totally different beast. it's tough to compare to CV for several reasons. Following the narrative and actual RPG elements come through way more than it ever was the case with Metroidvania XYZ and so the focus lies more on that than the action elements in Metroidvanias. I also believe that it is hard to make a very clear distinction like that because of the developer's creative freedom and intent that is involved in order to create something unique and literally playful.
>>
>>5556495
Metriodvanias aren't really Action RPGs. That's why the term Metroidvania exists in the first place. And again, you'll find half the answer here (>>5556513). Most of the other half involves the world design. Even with NPCs and story, Metroidvanias typically have a world of interconnected action levels more than a fully-realized roleplay setting.
>>
>>5550623
All "Reminder" posts are bullshit. Refrain.
>>
>>5556529
I find it really silly that you act as if I couldn't figure out the genre distinction of Metroidvanias (which started with SotN which you can only brand as action RPG regardless because it's a broader term than you'd think so that it would also include something like Fable and Diablo 2 etc.). But nice try, it won't grant you any intellectual authority and authenticity on that topic.
>>
>>5556482
It's an action rpg.

People get so confused by simple changes in perspective. Take OoE and make it top-down instead of side scrolling and everyone would recognize it as an ARPG.
>>
>>5556447
How do any of those points not apply to FF?
>>
>>5556593
In Final Fantasy you buy skills from a store
Final Fantasy does not have a deep engaging story, development of characters, dialogue choices that lead to different paths or endings, or gameplay choices leading to different paths or endings
>>
>>5556330
It's the exact same as when an indie dev makes one aspect of their game random and then slaps the "roguelike" label on it with hope it will make it gain attention.

Video game genres are determined by gameplay structure and mechanics. Zelda has almost none of the ones that define something as an RPG and almost all that define it as an Action-Adventure. The only reason to ever label it as an RPG is complete confusion over what the term means and assuming theme and genre are the same, or deliberate mislabling because they perceive one genre as being more popular than the other.
>>
>>5556597
>Final Fantasy does not have a deep engaging story, development of characters, dialogue choices that lead to different paths or endings, or gameplay choices leading to different paths or endings

Sure but none of those are features of the RPG genre.
>>
>OP is still shitposting
God damn imagine being so autistic that you literally have to argument with strangers for over 24 hours
>>
>>5556616
Action adventure is a more meaningless genre than even RPG. Every game is an action adventure.
>>
>>5556634
This is the dumbest "no, that game isn't THAT genre" discussion I've been in since I got in a debate with a person who held the stance that Pokemon wasn't a JRPG.
>>
>>5552552
its' just a subgenre of adventure games with more narrative interactivity
>>
>>5556638
If you're pedantic about naming, no genre makes sense. Fighting game and Beat em Up could be switched and they'd both make as much sense. The important part isn't the name that's chosen, it's the gameplay elements that lead to a specific kind of game. Zelda fits absolutely perfectly into the genre called action adventure, it barely fits at all into the one called RPG. Unless you purposefully want to cause confusion there's never a reason to call it an RPG.
>>
>>5556616
>The only reason to ever label it as an RPG is complete confusion over what the term means and assuming theme and genre are the same, or deliberate mislabling because they perceive one genre as being more popular than the other.
Don't forget the third reason: to make a shitposting thread on /vr/.
>>
>>5556650
It's only not an RPG when you try and make up all these bizarre arbitrary rules to deny it the title. For some reason Zelda being RPG triggers you, but every other action RPG under the sun is ok.
>>
>>5556551
Diablo 2 is a straight-up hack&slash ARPG. Its world isn't too realistic but the combat is very true to RPG tradition with emphasis on tactics and resources.
Fable (2004) is a 3D ARPG distinguishable by its realistic-world roleplay setting and action combat still biased toward stats and decision-making over technical skill.

Demon's Souls is the real test from the mid-late 2000s period. It really should not be considered an RPG but people do because they the term was broadened to the point of losing all its meaning and practical utility.
>>
>>5556650
>If you're pedantic about naming, no genre makes sense.
Specifically, pedantic with dictionary definitions to the point of blatant disingenuousness.
Genre terms have real definitions even if they either aren't recorded in the dictionary or the only accessible, formal articulations are by a bunch of faggot redditors on wikipedia.
>>
You can't intend a false belief into fact, OP.
>>
>>5554714
>>5554640
botw is the first zelda rpg
>>
There is nothing more watered down and casual than Nintendo.

Every nintendo fan i've ever met was a raging casual or insufferable cunt.
>>
just read these and all your questions are answered

https://web.archive.org/web/20190120091518/http://insomnia.ac/commentary/on_role-playing_games/

https://web.archive.org/web/20180705104447/http://insomnia.ac/commentary/the_rpg_conundrum/
>>
>>5556634
It's not me.
>when you try to call someone stupid and you end up making yourself look even dumber
I wanted this to be a faggot-free thread, please leave.
>>
File: tomb-of-horrors6.png (373 KB, 430x683)
373 KB
373 KB PNG
>>5556702
>https://web.archive.org/web/20190120091518/http://insomnia.ac/commentary/on_role-playing_games/
long-winded storyfag
>>
>>5556790
there is no roleplaying without a story.
>>
>>5556790
Exactly he's clearly an RPfag and most of the article is question-begging and semantics-fagging on RPGs being about story first. From the D&D side clearly ignoring stuff like Tomb of Horrors (which is, in addition to the stats-oriented gameplay, far more about adventure and supernatural horror than """story""") and on the computer game side ignoring the appeal of the deep tactical combat in WRPGs like Baldur's Gate.
>>
sorry, this >>5556987 is a reply meant for >>5556818
>>
>>5556673
The point of genres is to categorize similar games together, that being accurate is far more important than the specific words being used. Most genre category names are pretty bad if you examine them hard enough.
>>
>>5556987
Tomb of Horrors is kind of a meme-y dungeon crawl, but there's still a basic story involved that the DM can flesh out however he wants, and with which the players can interact however they want, within the bounds of the rules. It's roleplaying as usual, though more simplistic than some kind of political drama or whatever.

As far as tactical combat goes, in an RPG, it's valuable only inasmuch as it serves roleplaying, and it certainly does so the deeper it is and the more choices you have.
>>
>>5557501
The point of a genre isn't to create an ad hoc categorization of things based on their formal qualities. The point is to identify an artistic tradition. People who use them in the former way risk anachronism and identification of things that have little in common.
>>
>>5550623
I love the every game is an rpg meme.
>>
>>5552576
How do you seriously not know how health works in Metroid?
>>
>>5557960
Like calling Zelda an RPG when it clearly isn't.
>>
>>5557939
Focus on storytelling in tabletop games came later, the early design and focus was as a war game. There are many oldschool players who think the dungeon crawling and combat of D&D are the game and that people roleplay and focus on story are missing the point.
>>
>>5557960
>The point of a genre isn't to create an ad hoc categorization of things based on their formal qualities.
That's how it starts, though. Artists and creators on the cutting edge use principles and discipline but also creative intuition. They aim for expression, emotional reactions, challenge, and "fun." They may or may not set out to make a game in a particular category. Many of the best games defy an initial categorization (such as Legend of Zelda).

Classification starts with intuitive pattern-recognition, because humans are very efficient at doing this and they will be much more accurate (at first) than formal definitions. If you take a few hundred people and have them intuitively categorize a bunch of games after playing them, they'll be more accurate than the initial formal definitions that nerds come up with.

This is because games are made up of complex systems that interact with each other to produce the final experience Subtle changes in the systems and how they interact can produce a substantially different experience that is worth putting in a different category. Nerds often fixate on one system and fail to see the big picture. Sometimes they don't even see the system and only see isolated elements (you can see plenty of examples in this thread).
>The point is to identify an artistic tradition.
That is the ultimate goal, which happens through careful, humble analysis over time to improve the definition and fit the vast complexity of reality into a useful classification system. It's not supposed to be rigid criteria, arrogantly prescribed.
>>
>>5558256
>Many of the best games defy an initial categorization (such as Legend of Zelda).

No it doesn't, it's perfectly an action-adventure game. It's an adventure game with action added, it's a perfect description.
>>
OP’s dad here. Just wanted to apologize about him being a failure. He was playing through Zelda on an emulator the other day while screaming phrases like “cringe” and “yikes” while getting frustrated. I let him use my old Nintendo Power to help him through it. He called me “bluepilled” and retreated into his room. He hasn’t come out in a couple of days, and so I busted in his room to find that he’s been shitposting here nonstop.

Sorry again.
>>
>>5558256
>If you take a few hundred people and have them intuitively categorize a bunch of games after playing them, they'll be more accurate than the initial formal definitions that nerds come up with.

Absolutely not. That's how confusion like this thread happens where people start honestly thinking that RPG means "Swords, magic, no guns, roleplaying as an elf, sidequests, unnecessary amount of bad dialogue" or that After Burner is a Flight Simulator because it has a plane in it. Then the result us that no genre category really means anything and we have a bunch of people mistaking Zelda for an RPG when it actually has almost nothing in common with the genre that name refers to or fights about how Streets of Rage is a fighting game because obviously you fight people. Utter pointlessness.
>>
>>5558256
>genres should be categorized by feels, not objective gameplay elements

Thanks. You are exactly the kind of indie developer dipshit that makes some generic jrpg knock-off with one random element and then tries to market it as a "roguelike" because the term is popular now and "roguelike" should just mean whatever they want it to mean.
>>
You should probably read this article:
https://web.archive.org/web/20180118011001/http://insomnia.ac/commentary/the_rpg_conundrum/
>>
>>5558475
Or he's just not an autistic fuck overly obsessed with the most literal rendering of terms and instead relying on what is historical cultural precedent to settle an issue for games that aren't exactly black and white and have a lot of gray areas. But keep boiling over you autistic fuck.
>>
>>5558343
>it's perfectly an action-adventure game
It's perfectly an action RPG though
>>
>>5558359
> Then the result us that no genre category really means anything
That is not what I am saying.
You start with intuition that you can trust.
You take some games that everyone agrees on and ignore the fringe of postmodern gaslighters and shitposting trolls that question everything.
Then you identify shared traits and distinctive features for each category. Ideally you identify as many traits as possible, described in as much detail as possible and include how players experience them and interact with the various systems.
Then you take a more disputed game and see how people intuitively classify it and why.
You compare their reasoning with the established definitions, and either update the definitions or come up with a new category.

Rinse and repeat until you have comprehensive, solid, resilient definitions that can accommodate the messy realities of innovative game design and withstand disingenuous attacks and questioning.

Yes, at this point, the definition might seem prescriptive, but it still shouldn't be too rigid. You should be able to identify both major defining features of a genre as well as lots of little features that all add up to being important. You need to be able to tell the difference between an Action-RPG and an Action Game with RPG elements. In my experience, people who trust the formal definitions too much usually have bad definitions and are easily confounded by games that are hard to classify and frequently mis-classify edge cases.

It ultimately leads to exactly the kind of "no genre category means anything" as the definitions of the past wind up inadequate for new games. In 1990 you could claim that narrative dramatic cutscenes were an important, even distinguishing trait for JRPGs. 10-15 years later, games in many other genres include elaborate cutscenes. The definition for JRPG needs to be updated and refined. Maybe you need to distinguish "classic JRPG" from "modern JRPG" as new subgenres.
>>
>>5558497
jesus fuck stop spamming this retard's pontification with no commentary.
>>
>>5558475
>tries to market it as a
Marketing is marketing, it has a specific goal of selling games and has minimal obligation to historical accuracy or the future evolution of language. Marketing people do not give a shit if they ruin words if it results in more sales. Use of genre terms in marketing materials should always be taken with a grain of salt.
>>
>>5557939
>Tomb of Horrors is kind of a meme-y dungeon crawl
Sure, but it's just an example. D&D was heavily focused on exploration and dungeon crawling. Yeah you were "roleplaying," but it was pretty consistently a roleplay of an adventurer going out into dangerous places and killing shit for loot and experience. Even famously story-oriented campaigns like Dragonlance focused heavily on dungeon-diving and combat; because that's what the actual GAME was.

Yes, it wasn't all dice and numbers. But not being dice&numbers doesn't necessarily mean it was "story." You have lots of interactions between players, NPCs, and environments not driven explicitly by dice and predefined rules, but are still clearly related to combat and adventure. Maybe you knock over statue (passing a strength check) to block a passageway full of enemies. Maybe DM decides that the obstacle blocks the door such that one Orc per round can pass through, instead of all five being able to enter the main room at once. Maybe DM doesn't bother rolling dice for every attack when you encounter a room of mindless low-level zombies as a high-level character. The point of the counter might be more to signal that there are undead in the vicinity, so be prepared to encounter others that may not be so easy to dispatch. Or maybe you know something about your opponents and arrange to have one of their party betray them when you show up for battle.

This is what people meant when they say that D&D is about more than just hack&slash and rolling dice. They don't necessarily mean it's about the story, especially not shit like polyamorous romance and players doing obnoxious retarded things """in character""" because it's supposed to be all about "roleplaying" right? Of course it can be about those things if you want it to be, but you can't just dismiss the purpose of the systems because you prefer RPfagging to gameplay.
>>
action rpg is zelda, chrysalis game genre, right? it literally has a name
>>
>>5558846
Chrystalis is Action-RPG.
Zelda is Action-Adventure.

>Combat
Zelda's combat system is carefully designed around technical skills of the player.
Chrystalis's combat system relies heavily on stats, strengths/weaknesses, and character growth.

In Chrysalis, you mostly just go up to enemies and whack them with your weapon until they die. Most enemies move the same way, at the same speed. There are some exceptions, but it's not like Zelda, where every screen is carefully populated with enemies that have distinct movement patterns and attack-tells that you're expected to observe and adapt to. In Chrystalis the player's character can move 8 directions, and moving diagonally is sqrt(2) times faster than moving in a cardinal direction. This would be a glaring flaw, except it doesn't really matter that much because the game isn't focused on testing your technical skills. It's more about the roleplay and imaging yourself in the various caves and dungeons battling enemies and getting stronger with experience.

>Setting
Zelda makes no real attempt to make Hyrule feel like a roleplay setting. There's nothing in the world that intended to have a purpose beyond its specific gameplay role, and nothing has to make any sense at all(old men chilling in dungeons?). There are no towns and NPC interaction is barely more sophisticated than games like Gun.Smoke and Super Mario 3.

Chrystalis meanwhile, has towns, JRPG-style NPCs, and overworld aesthetics designed to evoke a real(ish) wilderness.

>Story/Plot
Zelda has no real plot, just a premise with a two-part objective (1. collect triforce 2. save the princess)
Chrystalis has a simple story told through NPC interaction as you play.
>>
>>5558523
>You start with intuition that you can trust.
>You take some games that everyone agree

No that's the core problem. There is no consensus at all when you look at it like that and we end up with idiotic statements like "roleplaying game means you play a role" and huge fights like this over something that shouldbe perfectly simple.

Things like " In 1990 you could claim that narrative dramatic cutscenes were an important, even distinguishing trait for JRPGs. " is just a huge misdirection and not actually important for the genre.
>>
>>5559269
>There is no consensus at all
Yes there is. You just have to start with very obvious games and remember that consensus doesn't mean unanimity. You compare/contrast (for example) Ninja Gaiden and Mega Man with Final Fantasy and Pool of Radiance. You can safely ignore anyone claiming that Ninja Gaiden is an RPG and anyone claiming Pool of Radiance is an action game.

>Things like " In 1990 you could claim that narrative dramatic cutscenes were an important, even distinguishing trait for JRPGs. " is just a huge misdirection and not actually important for the genre.
Yes but how do you know this and how do you confidently articulate what the genre actually is?
>>
>>5559447
Okay sure, so we can start with the obvious and all agree that Legend of Zelda is clearly an Action-Adventure game as opposed to and RPG, right?
>>
File: 044.jpg (892 KB, 1440x1979)
892 KB
892 KB JPG
>>
File: 235.jpg (967 KB, 1440x1955)
967 KB
967 KB JPG
>>
>>5550646
As much in common with a platformer.
>>
File: 238.jpg (876 KB, 1440x1955)
876 KB
876 KB JPG
>>5559641
You mean Action-RPG
>>
>>5559753
Just not according to the company that actually made the game. Only according to you, a faggot.
>>
>>5559757
No. I don't mean Action-RPG at all. That's an RPG with action elements added. Zelda has no traditional RPG elements, it's very clearly and obviously and Adventure game with action elements added, an Action-Adventure. On every level it's clearly the most accurate descriptor.

The only baffling thing about this whole situation is why people are trying to shoehorn it into a different genre that it clearly doesn't fit in as well. All I can guess is some insecurity that "Action-Adventure" sounds less cool or hip than "Action-RPG" but that makes no real sense to me. The aversion to it's proper categorization is simply confounding. And before you leap on it, I am no lover of RPGs, I don't think it's a "better" genre in any way. I just want classification that makes sense.
>>
>>5559940
Broken Sword is an Adventure game, Zelda plays nothing like games in that genre.
>>
>>5559951
Wizardry is an RPG. Zelda plays nothing like games in that genre.
>>
>>5559958
Nothing plays like Wizardry. That game actively hates the player.
>>
>>5559963
Other RPGs have similar base mechanics, none of which are present in Zelda. Not having personally played Broken Sword, I did my due diligence and at least looked up a breakdown of the gameplay. Take that structure and put it in an action environment and you totally have Zelda.

Take Wizardy, Ultima or even FF or Dragon Quest and you really don't. At least not as close.

If you're not going to agree, can you at least articulate what it is about Action-Adventure that doesn't fit? Any reason why it's not the most accurate genre descriptor?
>>
>>5559989
Forgot pic meh
>>
>>5559951
There is literally a game on Atari called "Adventure" and Zelda has more in common with that game than any RPG.
>>
>>5559995
Broken Sword is a point and click adventure. Zelda is an action-adventure. They are different subgenres of the genre called adventure.
>>
>>5559995
None of that structure matches Zelda at all.
>>
>>5560034
Yeah that's the whole point. One is adventure, the other is action adventure. Point and click menus vs run around and attack stuff. What's confusing?

>>5560042
Are you joking? How is the gameplay of Wizardry, Final Fantasy, Dragon Quest or Ultima more similar?
>>
>>5559641
>so we can start with the obvious and all agree that Legend of Zelda is clearly an Action-Adventure game as opposed to and RPG, right?
no, we can't.
It's a fucking disputed game. I mean, I agree that it's an action-adventure (I wrote this post: >>5558979), but it's not one that's obvious to everyone. So you have to make a fucking case.

Even if you grant that OP is a faggot and the post is shitty bait, the fact is that people at the time weren't 100% sure how it should be classified. The "action-adventure" genre wasn't well-established at the time. There was "adventure" for the Atari but it's not like everyone played that, and there were no other games quite like Zelda when it came out.

Today, an obvious complication is the evolution of the "Action-RPG" genre, which can be difficult to distinguish from Zelda. And my whole point, to you, is that if you think it's obvious and doesn't need to be explained, then the formal definitions in your head probably aren't as good as you think.
>>
>>
>>5559706
>>5559713
file these under marketing for N64 owners, who don't really know anything about RPGs. Everyone who cared about RPGs in 1998 was playing on PC or Playstation.
>>5559757
this guy probably just doesn't use the term Action-RPG appropriately. He's a fag journalist and wants to sound cool and authoritative for his audience of retards.
>>
>>5560161
>Yeah that's the whole point. One is adventure, the other is action adventure. Point and click menus vs run around and attack stuff. What's confusing?
The fact that there's a whole bunch of other stuff present in Broken Sword (eg dialog-trees) that make it nothing like Zelda.

In fact most "Adventure" games don't feel much like Zelda and don't share much in common. I would say the biggest thing is "game world as a puzzle" approach to setting, but even then adventure games can have pretty detailed realistic settings.

Zelda is definitely not an RPG, but the term "Action-Adventure" isn't really all that close to pure adventure games.
>>
>>
>>5560182
>no, we can't.
>It's a fucking disputed game

Exactly! That's why I worded it thus. The proposal described here >>5558523 is impossible, because if you go off feelings there will never be a consensus. The only good objective way to do it is to look at the actual game mechanics.
>>
File: NEXT_48_page_00114.jpg (1.14 MB, 1775x2400)
1.14 MB
1.14 MB JPG
>>
>>5560230
Okay what else other than dialogue trees? Because I would say "game world as a puzzle" fits Zelda to a t.
>>
>>5559940
>The aversion to it's proper categorization is simply confounding.
Here are some reasons:
1. RPG is a more well-known genre than action-adventure. Hence, marketing types love to try and tag the RPG label, as that anon posting the Nintendo advertisements confirms.
2. Sometimes people making lists and use inclusive definitions so they can flesh out the list and include popular games. For example, a list of RPGs on the N64 is going to be pretty fucking short so why not throw in Ocarina of Time while you're at it? Dark Souls is on the RPGCodex all-time great RPG list and I don't pitch a fit about that despite the fact that I don't consider it a real RPG. (prediction: 5 seconds until someone posts that XP system means RPG, end of story)
3. As Dark Souls shows, in modern games the distinction between ARPG and Action or Action-Adventure is even more subtle than it was in 1990. Many games have open worlds, NPC interaction, stories, and character customization. Many of the traits people traditionally associated with RPGs have been adopted by many other genres, while RPGs themselves have increasingly abandoned turn-based tactical combat systems in favor of faster-paced action systems.
>>
>>5560248
>game world as a puzzle
Aonuma get out and stay out
>>
>>5560239
Jesus Christ.
I listed games that aren't disputed. That's where you fucking start. You start with consensus for the undisputed games then work toward disputed games. You tried to cheat and just get everyone to agree on Zelda right away, when that is a game that's more difficult to categorize.
> The only good objective way to do it is to look at the actual game mechanics.
You fail to understand this is not a mutually exclusive proposition. I am in no way saying you should ignore the actual mechanics. The problem is that you also cannot fixate on the mechanics and ignore subjective experience. This is because you can't always be sure how mechanics will influence the experience of playing the game.

For example, if you changed Zelda so that link gained heart containers by killing enemies for XP, that would not actually change the game much. You'd be able to make the game easier by grinding, that's really all that would change. You wouldn't suddenly shift to Chrystalis-style or Ys-style stats-based combat. Intuitively, this is easy to feel. The game still woudn't feel like an RPG. Objectively, you have a lot more work to do explaining why a game with an XP growth system isn't an RPG. In my experience none of the "only objectivity matters" crowd is not actually very good at this part and get tired out very quickly by complex analysis.
>>
>>5560293
>For example, if you changed Zelda so that link gained heart containers by killing enemies for XP, that would not actually change the game much.

True, but also just that one change wouldn't be enough to push it into the realm of being an RPG either. But even there, changing so enemies give you XP that powers you up for killing them does have massive ramifications on gameplay.

>You wouldn't suddenly shift to Chrystalis-style or Ys-style stats-based combat. Intuitively, this is easy to feel.

Agreed, because it's switching to Crytalis-style or Ys-Style that you would need to start to make it an RPG. I'm glad you can see that intuitively.

First off, you have to get over the fact that most genre names aren't perfect. Fighting Game versus Beat 'em Up, most "puzzle" games aren't really puzzles, why does Shoot 'em Up only refer to Gradius not Contra or Ikari Warriors, everything about "metroidvania", etc etc etc. None of it matters, the titles are really just arbitrary. The important thing about genres is to categorize games with similar gameplay together.

The genre of video game RPGs came out of tabletop roleplaying games, mostly D&D but other influences as well and they're based around stat based combat, experience systems and gear/loot. There is some story of course, but especially early on when Zelda was made it's not the focus the way it is in Adventure games. Even Japanese ones, look at Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest and the story isn't complex or interesting, it's like the story of most games, just there to give a setting for the game mechanics. Much as people have come to hate battles in RPGs, that's what they were made for and it's really the combat systems that are at the heart of what distinguishes it as a genre.

The same with puzzle solving in the game world to progress, it's occasionally found in RPGs, but frequently not and certainly isn't a core aspect of the genre the way it is with Adventure games.

Cont.
>>
>>5560293
>>5560979
So we have with Zelda the perfect description of an Adventure game. You're on a quest, you talk to people for info and collect items that you use to solve puzzles in the environment to progress. The cool thing Nintendo did was take that structure and make it a fun action game as well. Where you get to swing a sword and fight enemies. But unlike an RPG the enemies are just obstacles in your path, they're not tied into the progression system. Similarly there's no other stats besides just your number of hearts and the items you collect are there for the puzzles and story rather than the way gear is in an RPG.

There's literally almost nothing about Zelda that overlaps with features that distinguish a game as an RPG. No character progression through combat, stats or different kinds of equipment. Really the only way you can possibly include Zelda in the RPG genre is if you broaden the deffinition of it to something as vague as "game where you go on a quest of some kind" and at that point It's a completely worthless term.

What you can do is fit Zelda perfectly into the Adventure game category with and added dose of action. I genuinely do not understand the confusion at all.
>>
>>5561009
It doesn't work that way.
>>
>>5561014
New poster here (same one that you just replied to, however). I can understand your reasoning as to why it fits into its unique category of "Action-Adventure" (and I'm in 90% agreement with you on that point), but the fact is that (Japanese) Nintendo expressly developed the series to be classed as RPGs, whether we like that or not.
>>
>>5561025
What Nintendo says sort of doesn't matter. They have a terrible handle on genres and tend to lump everything into just a small handful. Right now their site also lists Terraria as an RPG and Street Fighter as just an action game. They can put the label RPG on the box but it doesn't change the structure of the game.
>>
>>5561046
While a game's cover art is legitmately a part of its marketing, you're conflating Nintendo's international marketing efforts with their domestic control on how they want to market their products.
>>
>>5561046
>>5561050
*how they want their own products to be marketed
>>
>>5561050
Again though it really doesn't matter how they decide to market it. Nintendo is very kid friendly so they keep things simple which is why so many different kinds of games get shoved into the RPG section or Fighting Games just listed as Action. So in the sense of how they list things it's more of an RPG than it is a Racing Game or a Puzzler. But when Zelda is looked at in the full world of games and the genres they fall under it's very clearly an Action-Adventure and in no meaningful way an RPG.
>>
>>5561095
Can we just agree that in some sense it's an Action-Adventure (a term created for this series, right?) and in another sense an RPG?
>>
>>5561102
If you can articulate a way other than Nintendo's marketing the ways it counts more as an RPG than an Adventure game.
>>
>>5561137
It's an adventure game in the sense that you are on an adventure, I guess.
>>
>>5561215
Yeah an adventure where you collect items and get clues from people that help you solve environmental puzzles to get to new areas and progress the story.
>>
>>5561331
>Environmental puzzles
It's called exploring
>>
>>5561003
>>5561003
>First off, you have to get over the fact that most genre names aren't perfect.
No shit. You aren't contradicting anything I've said. My point is about people being too fixated on definitions and autistically categorizing based on definitions exclusively without considering how the games are perceived and understood by players.
>The genre of video game RPGs came out of tabletop roleplaying games
Yeah yeah. Again, not contradicting anything I've said.
>So we have with Zelda the perfect description of an Adventure game.
Zelda is primarily an action game with a some adventure game elements, the most significant of which (the overworld) is easily confused with an RPG overworld in terms of structure and purpose (combat, connecting dungeons, and buying supplies).

I'll demonstrate an analysis that starts with observation of subjective experience then drills into mechanical details.

(1/3)
>>
>>5561528
In 1987, "Adventure game" meant games like King's Quest.

I can assure you that nobody who played Zelda in 1987 thought "King's Quest with a dose of action." Playing an adventure game involved a lot of careful observation and reasoning about the clues given to you by the game. You spend a lot of time thinking and trying to figure out how to interact with the world. You try saying different things to characters, you try using things and looking for things in different ways. It's very thoughtful and puzzle-focused, solving the puzzles is the main focus of the gameplay. The puzzle content is deep and varied. As you explore the world, most of what you find is unique and each interaction is unique. This is not true of Legend of Zelda, which introduces almost all the mechanics in the first couple of levels then constructs a variety of challenges from there. (It is true of Ocarina though).

Zelda does not feel like King's Quest. It feels more like an action game with an interesting unified game world. When playing Zelda, your main goal is to stay alive and kill hostile enemies. Winning in combat gives you rewards and you have time in between battles to explore and look for secrets. Where Adventure games do have death and failure states, they aren't like Zelda which is a perpetual struggle. In Zelda, you don't spend a lot of time reasoning about a variety of different puzzles. Hidden secrets are usually items, power-ups, and vendors and not part of an elaborate puzzle. The few exceptions are very simple and straightforward, not deep and complex. In Zelda you take the letter from the old man to the old woman then she'll sell you potions. Even this quest seems motivated by the desire to have potion vendors conveniently located all over world, but not available from the beginning.

(2/3)
>>
>>5561531
With a few mostly minor exceptions, puzzle content in Zelda is dominated by dungeon mazes. Every dungeon is a maze, but the main effect of this design is not that the player spends a lot of time reasoning about the maze and little clues here and there (as in an adventure game), the main effect is to have the player pay attention to where he's come from and where he needs to go as he fights through rooms filled with hostile enemies. The maze structure is to give the environment meaning, it's not an end in itself. NPC interaction is exclusively one-way hints are about very simple things like a boss weakness or where to find a secret if you haven't found it already. They're never essential clues and you're never required to say anything or do anything (outside unlocking the potion vendor, which has a very obvious action-game motivation which is that they wanted to have potion vendors accessible everywhere but didn't want the player to use them until later in the game).

Zelda also shares structure with action games. In Zelda you have 9 levels, clearly marked in an intended progression. While there are a few items like The Ladder which are required to progress in some spots, for the most part each level is a self-contained challenge, just like an action game. When you die in a dungeon, you start over at the beginning of the level, just like an action game. The design of the overworld connecting the dungeon levels together was something almost entirely unique to Zelda at the time. While you move from screen to screen like King's Quest and RPGs like Ultima had an overworld with combat connecting points of interest, Zelda's overworld is not really like either of those. Zelda's overworld is an action level of its own, with its own secrets and power-ups, which also connects the dungeon levels and gives the whole world a coherent feel.

(3/3)
>>
Hydlide is mindlessly simple with no real story.
It's still more of an Action-RPG than every Zelda game except Zelda II, since that's the only one that can be classified as Action-RPG.
>>
>>5561534
>action game
to clarify what I mean by this, examples of action games from around that time include:
- Rastan (sword-oriented arcade action game)
- Gauntlet (top-down 2D action)
- Castlevania (see pic-related)
- Mega Man (can choose the order to complete levels)

When I refer to Zelda being structured in levels of increasing challenge, like an action game, these are the types of games I'm comparing to.
(4/3)
>>
>>5561137
>If you can articulate a way other than Nintendo's marketing the ways it counts more as an RPG than an Adventure game.
first, it's neither. It's base genre is action.

What makes it different from action games of the time:
- Open world, free to go anywhere you want. (similar to both RPG and Adventure, but neither one exactly)
- Permanent rather than temporary character growth. Most action games had fixed health bars and maybe one sub-weapon or temporary power-up at a time. There are some exceptions to this, like Mega Man, but not many from the mid 80s. (More RPG than Adventure for sure).

This is why it's very common to consider the "Action-Adventure" genre as being its own thing with minimal relation to the actual Adventure genre. This is in contrast to "Action-RPG" which usually is very much a case of an RPG with the turn-based combat swapped out for action combat.
>>
>>5561009
>mass reply
>didn't read any of the posts, doesn't respond to any of them.
>asserts that Nintendo's word is final
kys
>>
>>5556175
>video game...
>..in which you literally play a role (has an identifiable protagonist/antagonist)...
>...cannot be described as a role-playing game...
>...because you think it's post-modernism?

If anon is reaching, then you are reaching farther.
>>
>>5562425
Disingenuously fucking with semantics to confuse and misdirect, often into meaninglessness, is a postmodern trope. I'm sure the anon doing it wasn't sitting there thinking "I'm going to be a good postmodernist and question the blatantly obvious just to derail the discussion into pointless idiocy," but that's what it is. Anon either spent too much time in bad liberal arts classes at college or has spent too much time with people who have, and it shows.

RPG is a term of art that, in the context of videogames has NEVER meant "video game in which you play a role" Ever. Claiming it's a valid use of the term is not a "stretch" it's simply wrong.
>>
>>5561009
>considered
>>
>>5561528
>My point is about people being too fixated on definitions and autistically categorizing based on definitions exclusively without considering how the games are perceived and understood by players.

I'm not entirely against players determining how games are categorized. After all, even though Nintendo themselves tried to market Zelda as an RPG I am with most of the rest of the world who declared it clearly wasn't one of those, but a new kind of game.

In general though yes, I think looking at objective criteria like structure and game design is by far the best method of determining what genre a certain game firs best under. Band while you do make some decent points about how different Zelda is from traditional Adventure games, it also remains fact that outside of themes it also has almost nothing in common with the gameplay of RPGs either.

Action-Adventure fit better back then and it still fits better. Because although they may look similar at a glance, the inclusion of RPG mechanics that go into an ARPG drastically change the structure, gameplay and flow making Zelda not really fit the category. It's too good and special a game to just be lumped in with them for no really good reason when it's own genre fits so perfectly.
>>
>>5562425
Idiocy like this infects every genre discussion that happens and it's impossible to tell if it's genuine or baiting to cause confusion.
>>
>>5550623
Friendly reminder that genres are labels intended for the market and uninformed consumer.
>>
>>5563995
It's bait. I know it's bait because I'm the author of that post, and of this one:

>>5555908

I just wanted to see you faggots sperg out. Mission accomplished (well, to a degree that satisfies me, anyways) :D
>>
>>5566854
Well good job pretending to be retarded so it confuses children I guess.
>>
>>5566883
>Well good job pretending to be retarded so it confuses children I guess.

Funny, but it's children who post on these threads. For instance, There was a thread whose author was arguing that Eurofag games from the 90's were better than the Burger output. The Burger response was this:

"MUH 60hz! MUH 60hz!"

Throughout. The. Entire. Fucking. Thread.

I think it was about 200+ post long, and only one person made any kind of legitimate counter argument. Sure, the OP was trolling (probably), but the response was infantile on a level I'd yet to witness from any board here. I think the majority of posters here are actually younger zoomers, or just retarded.
>>
>>5566930
I meant the children who aren't as familiar with what the term RPG means that you purposefully confused because KEK LOL so funny to troll! I mean sure, we're on 4chan but it's still pretty lame. If you got a chuckle, thumbs up I guess.
>>
File: brainsuck.jpg (38 KB, 680x395)
38 KB
38 KB JPG
>>5566930
so do you see your role as ensuring conversations remain as dumb as possible?
>>
>>5567032
Yup. When in Rome...
>>
>>5567514
Thanks for being the problem with this board. Here's your (You)
>>
RPG is a specific and distinct genre of games based off of D&D and other pen and paper games. Zelda isn't an RPG, and no one has every called it one other than idiots posting stupid things on the internet.
>>
>>5566930
..you're massive cringe. Also, ironically, you seem to be the most triggered of all.
>>
>>5567631
>>5567591
"YOU ARE THE PROBLEM. YOU ARE TRIGGERED. YOU ARE CRINGE. BECAUSE YOU POINT OUT THE PROBLEMS. BECAUSE YOU POINT OUT THE TRIGGERED. BECAUSE YOU POINT OUT THE CRINGE."

-you.

Yup. Sure does make sense. Kill yourselves, faggots. :D
>>
>>5567683
50hz did something to your brain. Sorry about your inferior gaming experiences but it's not excuse to behave like an absolute mongoloid. Consider doing something else besides continuing to sperg out.
>>
File: Spoiler Image (52 KB, 768x432)
52 KB
52 KB JPG
>>5567683
Dude, you're the one who's triggered. You just admitted that some thread didn't go how you wanted so now you're going around acting purposefully retarded to derail any other conversations that might be going on. You're so triggered over some Euro game thread that you're lashing out like an agry toddler. I'm just saying I think it's lame.

But at least I can make the safe assumption that the people here who try say Harvest Moon or Zelda or whatever is an RPG because "you play a role!" is really just some dipshit pretending to be even more retarded than usual on purpose.
>>
File: Fallout.jpg (113 KB, 600x600)
113 KB
113 KB JPG
>>5550646
>no swords
>no magic
>has guns
>no elves
>great dialogue
>says role playing game on the box
Uuuuhhhhhhmmmm uhh uh oh..... Uhhhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
>>
>>5567759
>>5567801
>50hz did something to your brain.
No, but it did something to yours, you little queer(s). I wasn't the one spazzing out in a thread, refusing to refute a claim, and vomiting "MUH 60hz! MUH 60hz!" every two posts like it was relevant to the conversation. That was you retards. I was the one laughing at those burger scumfucks, just like I'm laughing at you right now.

Kill yourselves, Burgers. Do it right now. Make the world a happier place.
>>
>>5567829
Even worse, the sequels are first person shooters but people still call them RPGs.
>>
>>5568136
Wow this went from tantrum to full meltdown. Anything else you need to get off your chest sweetie?
>>
>>5568136
This was delicious.
>>
>>5561575
That's part of the problem with the game. Since it's an RPG you have to deal with the problem with grinding since improving stats from fighting matters unlike Zelda where you just find hearts.
>>
>>5569475
It is never delicious when someone has a breakdown and bitches like an Asperger jew.
>>
>>5566930
No one cares about the initial discussion. You are too retarded to get that. 60hz is a far better one, because people actually try and defend 50hz plebs.

You can't call everyone a child just because you can only relate to them. We are not you or your kind.
>>
File: birdie_sprites01.jpg (66 KB, 624x594)
66 KB
66 KB JPG
>>5569559
Maybe we have different taste? It's always delicious to me. It's also nice to get hard confirmation that the whole "Zelda is an RPG because you're playing the role of a fantasy elf" line really is just dipshit Europeans trolling because they're still triggered over PAL. Even you must admit that's pretty funny.
>>
File: sega_7_1.jpg (27 KB, 320x240)
27 KB
27 KB JPG
Altered Beast is my favorite roleplaying game. I like that the XP you collect isn't just because you hit monsters and it actually levels you up not simply change some lame stats you'll never look at. Hundred times more an ""'RPG""" than Dragon Quest faggy whatever.
>>
>>5561575
Because having an in depth story isn't an important aspect.
>>
>>5568136
>implying 60hz isn't objectively better
>>
This whole fucking thread and still none of you faggots can even say what's not RPG about it. It literally has everything you want for role-playing a fantasy quest.
>>
>>5572853
yes there is try actually reading the thread
>>
So it's settled. Zelda is an RPG, but only a subcategory of RPGs called ARPG (stands for action-RPG). Thanks to everyone who contributed to the thread, even the "adventure" trolls/retards.
>>
>>5573389
I'd take Zelda as the face of ARPGs than Diablo-clone clickfests anyday, so its a deal
>>
File: large.jpg (38 KB, 322x290)
38 KB
38 KB JPG
>>5573389
Lol Zelda is absolutely not an ARPG. But solid bait.
>>
>>5573508
Retard or troll detected. Please state your opinion with supporting evidence or leave.
>>
>>5550623
Theoretically, every videogame with a story is technically a role playing game since you are playing the role as an avatar or character in an established world. But I think the term has been way overbloated, The term rpg used to apply to games that mimic the role playing games like D&D and included things like stat leveling and character creation. But now people are trying to call games like Zelda simply because it takes place in a fantasy setting.
>>
>>5573508
Is this a Zelda mod?
Looks like an RPG to me.
>>
>>5573549
With that logic every game is an action game if it has some action in it. Or every game is a visual novel because it has a story. What a fucking dumbass.
>DURR WELL THEORETICALLY
Just kill yourself.
>>
>>5573549
>Theoretically, every videogame with a story is technically a role playing game since you are playing the role as an avatar or character in an established world.

The genre RPG is far more specific than just a game where you play a role, just tge way "Fighting Game" is much more specific than simply any game with fighting.. It just happens to be the name attached because of it's legacy being from tabletop roleplaying games.

>>5573556
Lol pretending to be stupid for (You)'s
>>
>>5573540
Zelda has literally no major gameplay features that would mark it as an RPG. Every reason people give for saying it should be an RPG is ancillary similar themes like it's a fantasy setting where you go on a quest.
>>
>>5575063
Except gaining XP, everything else is RPG. And the point of XP is gaining stats or new abilities (which items in Zelda double as).
>>
>>5561585
> 4/3
>>
File: postscript.jpg (104 KB, 843x243)
104 KB
104 KB JPG
>>5575882
equivalent meaning
>>
File: actively-dumb.jpg (37 KB, 505x567)
37 KB
37 KB JPG
>>5573389
>So it's settled.
>>
>>5573615
>Lol pretending to be stupid for (You)'s
that's it at this point. There's a good chance it's just this dumbass (>>5568136) off his meds again.
>>
>>5560265
>3. As Dark Souls shows, in modern games the distinction between ARPG and Action or Action-Adventure is even more subtle than it was in 1990. Many games have open worlds, NPC interaction, stories, and character customization. Many of the traits people traditionally associated with RPGs have been adopted by many other genres, while RPGs themselves have increasingly abandoned turn-based tactical combat systems in favor of faster-paced action systems.
This is a great point but it also needs to be said that early RPGs also displayed a wide range of gameplay styles. The central problem with video game genres is most of them were firmly established in the mid-90's, a time where genres (especially RPGs) were uncharacteristically distinct. Like, if you asked some PSX jRPG fan to define the distinct traits (gameplay or otherwise) of an RPG in 1998, how many RPGs would actually meet that definition? Most people back then just thought RPGs were turn-based games with numbers and stories.

"Retards call Zelda an RPG because it has a fantasy setting" and "hurrr if a game that has role-playing is an RPG than Mario is an RPG" are arguments that date back to that era, they're literally unchanged for twenty years which wouldn't be a problem if every single decade was the 90's. Now every game is an adventure game, every game is an RPG, every game is an action game; just like every post-Zelda NES action game was an action-adventure game.

In a perfect world we'd abandon terms like "RPG", "action", and "adventure" as too broad to be definable and create new terms to replace them, as in music; instead autists talk about video games with a vocabulary as limited and useless as the vocabulary of a baby-boomer talking about modern music ("when I was young there were only three genres of music!").
>>
>>5575818
By that logic, Metroid is an RPG
>>
>>5576398
The deffinition isn't too broad at all, it's just that many games now incorporate RPG elements into them. Whether that's a good thing or not is another can of worms, but it hardly mwabs that the term is too broadly defined or should be tossed out. Also it's been confirmed that the bulk of people even here making the "it's a role-playing game because you play the role of a fantasy elf" were just trolling because watching people bite that bait seriously is so funny.

There will always be a handful of genuine idiots who can't wrap their heads around it, but that's true for everything not just video game genres and they can be simply ignored ir laughed at. It's always plainly obvious to almost everyone that Zelda is a different kind of game from an RPG and deserves it's own category. That's why it happened.
>>
>>5576398
>In a perfect world we'd abandon terms like "RPG", "action", and "adventure" as too broad to be definable
The problem is not that they are too broad. The problem is that people don't know the definitions or how to identify and articulate distinctions between them.

For example, RPG settings and Adventure settings are usually different in important ways.

RPG settings are usually very focused on defining a coherent alternate reality complete with towns, cities, politics, and so on. Whether it's a D&D campaign setting, a JRPG world in peril from a supervillian, or the Old Republic of a Galaxy Far, Far, Away, there should be a sense that the world could exist apart from the game, and that the game itself has a model for that entire world (whether you can actually access the whole thing or not). RPG settings have well-defined rules for describing how characters and objects interact with each other in an open-ended manner. There should be a sense that you could go into an RPG world and have lots of different adventures.

Meanwhile, Adventure settings are more focused on immersing the player into some specific scenario and story and for providing compelling puzzle content. Adventure settings will have lots of little detail, and lots of SPECIFIC rules for interaction with objects and NPCs, as opposed to the open-ended rules characteristic of RPG worlds. Adventure settings will be full of specific things you need to find, do, and say to progress the story. It will be full of details meant to enhance the story or your sense of immersion. It won't have the sense of an open-ended world that you could just go out and have lots of other adventures in. Or at least, this isn't a priority the way it is with an RPG world.

These distinctions can be subtle because both genres are establishing a setting for exploration and adventure, but the motives and function wind up different and you can tell if you know what to look for. The problem is most people don't.
>>
Let's post mental gymnastics: The Thread
>>
>>5577169
In metroid you don't often have long conversations with NPCs like in RPGs, like Zelda.
>>
>>5575818
>>5577169
Zelda games have: Main Quest, Sidequests, Story, Lore, Dungeons, real time combat, shopping, armor/weapon upgrades, hearts (+HP), bosses, minigames, puzzles (a la Alundra, Wild Arms), overworld exploring.
Not having XP/Levels doesn't mean anything:
-New stats? yes, hearts (+HP/Defence), more Magic Bar (+"PM" for magics) {I'm thinking Ocarina of Time}, best sword (+STR), etc.
-New abilites? yes, artifacts (as I called them in my head) serve as exploration tools/can be used as weapons: Roc's Feather = jump; Pegasus Boots = run; Ocarina = fast travel.
It's an RPG, and if not, it is on my mind. whatever, enjoy the game
>>
>>5577259
While true for the most part it's a minor aspect that tends to vary.

>>5578668
Long conversations aren't even a defining feature of something being an RPG, they're just a common ancillary one. It could be said they're a defining feature of Adventure Games though.
>>
>>5578826
>Long conversations aren't even a defining feature of something being an RPG
No other genre typically has long conversations besides visual novels. The defining adventure game, Tomb Raider for example, has none. I know you're just trolling but still.
>>
>>5578706
>Zelda games
Which ones? They're not all the same.
>Zelda games have
Your error here is simply listing traits rather than looking at how everything fits together. Diamond and graphite are both made of carbon.

>stats
>abilities
In a real RPG, stats are supposed to define your character in a realistic world. Having a "strength" stat is a measure of a character trait. It's an open-ended trait, that might come in handy for any number of unforseen scenarios (which may have nothing to do with solving any particular puzzle or dealing damage to an enemy). Every character in the world is defined by these stats and there are a pile of rules for how these stats interact with each other to simulate a reality.

Meanwhile, stats in Zelda are strictly gameplay stats not intended to represent anything other than gameplay rules and maybe a sense of power progression. Link's "stats" aren't a roleplay character definition. They're just elements that are needed by one of the other gameplay systems (combat, etc.).

(cont.)
>>
>>5579010
(cont)
>I'm thinking Ocarina of Time
Well, there's certainly a stronger argument for Ocarina being an RPG than LoZ or Alttp. But still, a key difference between Ocarina and most RPGs is the setting. Compare Ocarina's setting with two real RPGs released around the same time: Baldur's Gate and Final Fantasy 7.

>Ocarina
Hyrule is a fairy tale land, like a Disney movie (Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, Beauty and the Beast, etc.). Hyrule only exists for this story and game, and there's no attempt to portray it as a realistic world.
>Baldur's Gate
A moderately small, realistically depicted region of the large and very fleshed-out Forgotten Realms campaign setting. It's fully populated with NPCs that represent all sorts of people that would actually exist in this fleshed-out alternate reality. It's NOT a fairy tale land.
>Final Fantasy 7
A complete world with continents, major cities, small villages, and again populated with lots of people that would live in this alternate reality. Also not a fairy tale world.

You can do a similar comparison with the way stats work in these games, with Baldur's Gate clearly being closer to a true RPG stat system than Final Fantasy, but both games having the same types of stats to "define" the characters.

Again, combine this with the stats difference and you should start to see the difference between Zelda games (classified in their own "Action-Adventure" genre) and true RPGs.
>>
File: kings-quest-6-4.jpg (124 KB, 640x400)
124 KB
124 KB JPG
>>5578952
>The defining adventure game, Tomb Raider
>accuses me of being the one trolling

Am I supposed to actually take you seriously at this point?
>>
>>5578952
>The defining adventure game, Tomb Raider for example, has none
Tomb Raider is Action-Adventure (the genre first established by the original Legend of Zelda). It's not an "Adventure game"
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adventure_game
And yes, Adventure games share a lot in common with Visual Novels.
>>
>>5579043
>Tomb Raider is an action adventure
>Zelda has nothing in common with it but is also an action adventure
You're amazingly dumb.
>>
>>5579308
Are you illiterate?
>>
>>5579339
Please explain how Zelda is an action-adventure and not an RPG (as Miyamoto and Horii have said it is)
Protip: you can't
>>
>>5579380
Try reading the thread twinkle toes. Or have another meltdown over PAL.
>>
>>5579395
"Zelda is an RPG" literally the makers of the games
"Zelda is not an RPG" a couple of PAL kids throwing a tantrum
Calm yourself, it's just the internet.
>>
>>5579421
>can't follow a thread
>misreads posts
>wants everything explained over and over

I'm sorry dude but it's been talked to death and explained ad nauseum why it's an Action-Adventure game as opposed to any sort of RPG. Kif you're not the already admitted troll then you're incalculably stupid. Either way explaining it again is a waste, read the thread again and use your brain and stop fetishizing RPGs.
>>
>>5579463
You seem upset, it'd probably be best if you just took a break from the internet for a while.
>>
>>5550623
If secret if manna us an RPG, then so is Zelda

(Personally I'd say it's an adventure game, but you could make the argument that it's an action-rpg)
>>
>>5579475
>still trolling
>Secret of Mana
- JRPG-style setting (full world, not an adventure scenario or set of action levels)
- RPG-style stats. (What Zelda game has "HIT %" as a stat? A stat like that is very atypical of an action game, but common in an RPG)

Secret of Mana is an Action-RPG.
>>
File: som-stats.jpg (242 KB, 956x814)
242 KB
242 KB JPG
>>5579832
forgot pic with Secret of Mana stats screen.
>>
>>5579473
Lol I'm not upset about anything. Just calling you out because you're trying the exact same bait as earlier in the thread.

>>5579475
Nope.
>>
>>5552567
Zelda and Metroid are action RPG games.
>>
>>5579998
Honk honk
>>
>>5580000
Prove me wrong, clownman.
>>
>>5580029
I see little reason to lol
>>
>>5579010
>>5579023
· Player1 here, let's see.
> Not all the Zelda games are the same.
Agree. Zelda 2 and Breath of the Wild (in b4 not retro) are RPG right away. I've played Ocarina of Time, Majora's Mask, Twilight Princess, both Oracles, Link's Awakening, A Link Between Worlds. I know they are considered ActionAdventure, but I think they could be RPG too, even Metroidvanias (you have to unlock areas, bactrack areas to new upgrades, etc.).
> Listing Zelda traits.
I think Genres are stupid. It's more useful trait tagging like Steam does. Genre is a marketing tool. How are the same (RPG) Pokémon, Mass Effect, WoW, etc? I was trying to say that considering Zelda an RPG is plausible. And it's my take.
> Stats
Is your character stronger because that character is per se physically really strong or because you have an Axe +47 STR? Can you defeat those monster because your character have Dexterity high enough or because you (as a player) have strategy and use skills and items and maybe block/parry/evade? Character progression is not stoneset, sometimes your character can do thing because items let him/her do it. Not because stats allow him/her.
> Realism on RPG, aka (maybe) JRPG vs WRPG
I think every RPG has some element of fantasy/non-realism (it's a game). I could agree Zelda is a non-deep RPG (it's not Planescape: Torment), but that's not to say it's not an RPG. Besides, there are different types of focus on RPGs: Storytelling/Narrative/Dialogues (like Planescape Torment), Combat/Looting (Diablo, Borderlands), Strategic planning/"puzzle" situations solving (any tactics game).

I thank you for making me think all these things deep and throughly. That's why I like /vr/ discussions :D
>>
>>5580272
>I think Genres are stupid.
Genres are a more sophisticated tool than trait tagging, though both have their uses. The problems with trait tagging is that context can change the meaning, there's no guarantee the most relevant traits will be listed, and subtle but important differences between the traits may not be expressed.
>How are the same (RPG) Pokémon, Mass Effect, WoW, etc?
RPG is a very successful genre that spawned multiple subgenres. Some of those subgenres wind up looking very much like games from other genres, just like a dolphin shares traits with fish and a bat shares traits with birds, but both are still mammals.
A Dungeon Crawl, for example, often doesn't have a "full world" type of setting, and instead has a maze setting which winds up much more like an Adventure game or an Action game in terms of its design. But most Dungeon Crawls have very obvious RPG influences, to the point of directly ripping off tabletop mechanics such as use of D&D rules for Eye of the Beholder.
>Is your character stronger because that character is per se physically really strong or because you have an Axe +47 STR?
The less this matters, the less of an RPG it is. Consider Minsc in Baldur's Gate. He has very high strength, and other solid physical stats, but very low intelligence and wisdom, and lowish charisma. In addition to the various gameplay implications about having those low stats (don't make Minsc party leader for NPC interaction), the portrayal of the character's dialog and voice acting is a character who is insane and not very smart.
Of course, it's not perfect. If you somehow raise Minsc's int and wis, his dialog doesn't change. But this just points the entire mentality of the RPG stat system which is to "define a unique character." The game involves making decisions for that unique character in the world.
>>
>>5580272
>Can you defeat those monster because your character have Dexterity high enough or because you (as a player) have strategy and use skills
This is where understanding the history of RPGs from the wargame/chainmail background is important.
The idea is that you have a character with a bunch of traits. This character is your "unit" in a tactical sense, and other players have their characters that they make decisions for. The game involves making risk-based tactical decisions based on the stats of the units. Originally this was done in a turn-based manner, but you can use a real-time action system instead if you want. Generally speaking, the more gameplay involves making decisions based on unit stats, the more like an RPG it is. While the more stats merely modify the experience of skill-based gameplay, the more like an Action game it is. A stat like "Hit %" is a big flag that the game is oriented around decision-making and roleplay more than hand-eye coordination and reflexes, even if the system is real-time action. Hit % in an action game undermines the skill system and would have to be used very sparingly. Can you imagine Mario having a random chance to miss a goomba when he jumps on one? Can you imagine having to collect boots and choose different pair based on damage rate and hit%? Those are RPG-style decisions, not action game decisions.
>I think every RPG has some element of fantasy/non-realism (it's a game)
I'm specifically talking about the setting, not realism in general. If you imagine a version of Ocarina of Time with perfectly realistic physics, but still being set in the same fairy tale realm of Hyrule, I'd still call the setting more of an Adventure setting than an RPG setting. When you look at who and what populates the game world, does that world seem like a true alternate reality or does it seem more like a contrived environment specifically designed around the game?
>>
>>5580272
>Genre is a marketing tool.
It's true. If you remove the meme term of "survival horror" that Capcom gave Resident Evil, you're still left with an action-adventure title. Mortal Kombat has more of a "horror" element to it than most "survival horror" games, but it's not classified as a horror-fighter.
If you remove the generic classification of "RPG" from action-RPG, you'll be left with "experience/stat-progression-based action-adventure" vs. "action-adventure".
Would it be 10x more accurate with less confusion? Sure, but does anyone want to start an effort of making a site that reclassifies all Over 9000 games in existence? Nope.
>>
>>5580000
Why doesn't the dog honk back?
>>
>>5579832
>y...y...you're trolling when you don't buy my narrative that only my definition of RPG is the objective truth
you seem to be in lots of pain friend
>>
>>5580756
Genre is not just a marketing tool. It's primarily a classification system for use by people to communicate with each other, like any classification system. Given that the main purpose of marketing is communication, it should be fucking obvious that marketers will use genre terms. But marketers don't prioritize honesty or accuracy they prioritize whatever they think will sell more games, so you can't necessarily trust classification if it's done by marketers.
>Mortal Kombat has more of a "horror" element to it than most "survival horror" games, but it's not classified as a horror-fighter.
It's more gorefest than horror and spawned its own mini-genre of fighting games during the 90s.
>"experience/stat-progression-based action-adventure" vs. "action-adventure".
>Would it be 10x more accurate with less confusion?
No, actually.
Do you know what animal I'm describing if I say: the-largest-species-of-hoofed-ruminant-mammal-with-broad-palmate-temporary-antlers-on-the-males.
Excess verbosity is not necessarily more accurate. Do you want to copy/paste the entire wikipedia entries for Deer and Moose or just say the animal is a fucking Moose?
The fact that there are retards who don't understand the terms doesn't invalidate the terms.
>>
>>5580986
you're welcome to try to convince me that my definition is wrong. But I doubt you will be able to. In fact if you read a dozen or so wikipedia pages about videogame genres you might even begin to be able to participate in the discussion.
>>
File: arpg-list-rated.png (1.88 MB, 1100x7553)
1.88 MB
1.88 MB PNG
>>5580986
also fwiw I don't sperg out about casually inclusive use of the term. For example you won't see me arguing about the inclusion of Legend of Zelda on pic-related arpg list. Sometimes a broader use of the term makes sense, sometimes it doesn't. But if you voluntarily enter a discussion about accurate classification and semantics, don't complain about pedantry.
>>
>>5580368
>>5580402
>>5580756
I think your explanations are somehow convincing, but I still think Zeldas (at least the ones I've played) are RPG. I concede RPG-lite or low level RPG... or if you want Action-Adventure with RPG elements (but that is an RPG on my book).
In any case all that feeds my brain, I like learning about games :D
>>
>>5580402
>Can you imagine Mario having a random chance to miss a goomba when he jumps on one? Can you imagine having to collect boots and choose different pair based on damage rate and hit%? Those are RPG-style decisions, not action game decisions.
Paper Mario confirmed not an RPG.
>>
>>5553903
That's an extremely superficial way to look at.
Both Metroid and Zelda are based upon building up your character with weapon, health and ability upgrades so you become stronger and able to reach places in the map or destroy enemies you couldn't previously. That feeling of mowing down initial enemies whereas once they were a threat is a key staple of both series.
>>
This is like metalheads discussing if a band is black, gothic, death, extreme, symphonic, nu, power, christian or vampiric metal.
It's utterly pointless and you're all retards.
>>
>>5582153
Then you don't actually understand what RPG refers to. Zelda is absolutely not one and saying you think it is, is the same as saying you don't understand what the term RPG means.
>>
>blahblah wiki is a shit source

Yeah, what ever. But it's a reasonable description
>>
File: WFRP-character-sheet.jpg (425 KB, 1060x1599)
425 KB
425 KB JPG
The term rpg has lost its original meaning, so it is ok.
>>
>>5582382
>That's an extremely superficial way to look at.
No, your way is far too reductive. Yes, you've identified some substantial similarities between Zelda and Metroid. But you can't get off saying "Metroid and Zelda are the same except with different view angles." Apologies for pedantry but you're in a pedantic thread.
The differences I pointed out are very relevant to the gameplay. The mechanics of a platform-shooter are very different from a top-down sword+magic game. The nature of the environments are different. Metroid environments are far more likely to be hazardous and require specific platforming skill challenges. This is not just a "viewing angle change." Metroid enemies have different spawn patterns and the player approaches them differently. The map design for Metroid winds up being much different. The side-scrolling nature leads to corridor-heavy design of interconnected linear levels, while the Zelda style accommodates an open, 2-dimensional map.

These are not trivial differences. Yes, I'd say Zelda is more like Metroid than it is like most RPGs. But it's still distinct from Metroid in many important ways.
>>
>>5582392
Who cares if this grey swimmy thing is a dolphin or a shark, right? It's all the same to you. That is your level of consciousness. And you call others retards for being interesting in the details of how terms are used and how games are classified.

You are the biggest retard in the thread so far.
>>
>>5583173
What's this in relation to?
Wikipedia's articles about videogame genres are decent. There are things I'd nitpick here and there but it's a good starting point.
>>
>>5583789
Retard
>>
>>5583813
gay post
>>
File: costanza.png (457 KB, 600x450)
457 KB
457 KB PNG
>>5550623
>trusting the opinion of anyone who calls Fire Emblem Awakening "great"
I seriously hope you guys don't do this.
>>
>>5583789
>These are not trivial differences. Yes, I'd say Zelda is more like Metroid than it is like most RPGs.

Not him, but the guy who originally made that comparison here and that was really my point. Not that they're identical, and being side scrolling does change a lot. But Zelda is more like Metroid than it is an RPG.
>>
>>5582923
What I understand is an RPG is a living action game played between real people and a master. Video Games can not do that, so we play games with more or less RPG elements trying to emulate the real deal.
>>
>>5587757
Vaguely, but different types of games try for that and approach it in different manners and they get separated into different genres depending on the main type of gameplay used.

The big two are Adventure games and RPGs. Where as Adventures both text and graphical focus more on story, characters, puzzles and the world, trying to recreate more of the storytelling style of tabletop games, the ones that got labeled as RPGs focus more on the simulating the combat of them, stats and experience systems. Also it's important not to get caught up on the names since the as "fighting game" and "beat em up" could be swapped and make as much sense, the same could be said for "RPG" and "adventure game". Like most genre lables they're pretty ambiguous.

But that's why even though Legend of Zelda was marketed as an RPG, most of the world recognized that it was really more of an Adventure Game with an action base and it basically spawned the Action Adventure genre. Which is really pretty incredible.
>>
>>5588157
No, adventure games are like Tomb Raider. Zelda is an RPG where much of the game revolves around story and dialogue, not to mention how you "level up" over time with hearts.
>>
>>5588448
Lol
>>
>>5588448
Text-adventures are still not RPGs.
If you add shops, NPC interaction and more story to a platformer than the original Zelda, like Willow for the arcade, it's still just a platformer.
Here's a shmup with far more story progression and NPC interaction than NES Zelda.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myaP0UpPkPE
Still not an RPG, just like Custom Robo GX and Battle B-Daman for GBA.
>>
>>5588859
Thanks for proving my point, because in that game there's no emphasis on leveling up (whether through personal stats like hearts, or inventory items). This is one of the biggest parts of Zelda and RPGs, the advancement of health or skills, and gear.
>>
>>5588859
Stop feeding him
>>
>>5550623
Does not matter what developer intends to do, or what he writes on the box.
What actually in the game does.

>>5561621
>>5578706
>>5579380
Not every form of progression is RPG, otherwise Metroid that has exactly same style of progression would be an RPG as well, which it is not. Same for trite examples like modern Cod and so on. Pretty much any game novadays has progression, but that does not make them RPGs.

>The key defining trait of any RPG is a meaningful control over your character progression/development. That's what "playing a role" part of RolePlaying means. It is a player that defines the role, not the other way around.

Zeldas, like all adventures, lack the way to alter the way protagonist develops.

In adventures the character growth is linear, and based on powerups rather than gradual level progression and skill/stat points. The obly way player can alter progression is chose whether to pick the powerup or not, in which case there are absolutely no reason to NOT pick the powerup.

A 100% run of an actual RPG that ends up with different characters/stats is possible.

A 100% run of an adventure game with progression will end up with exact same character, because they will have to pick up all the same items and have no choice in development.

Zelda style progression is an adventure game progression. Not an RPG game progression.
>>
>>5588862
Shit you're stupid.
>>
>>5588962
>>5588862
>A 100% run of an actual RPG that ends up with different characters/stats is possible.
Mega Man X6
>>
>>5589324
>reading comprehension
>>
>>5589324
>you can jump in Quake
Means it's a platformer! Like Mario!
>>
>>5589324
>>5589353
>>5589359
Super Mario is an Adventure game because you're going on an adventure in the Mushroom Kingdom
DOOM is a shmup because you shoot everything up
Puyo Puyo is a fighting game because the characters are fighting against each other
After Burner is a flight simulator because you're in a plane
Final Fantasy is a beat 'em up because you beat up everything you come up against
Harvest Moon is a puzzle game because figuring out optimal crop placement is a puzzle
Zelda is a roleplaying game because you play the role of a fantasy elf
Sonic is a roleplaying game because you roll around all over the place
>>
>>5589432
>Puyo Puyo is a fighting game because the characters are fighting against each other
Twinkle Star Sprites is best fighting game.
If you add health pickups, level up stats, shops, NPCs and equipment to a stage-based platformer, it's immediately a shmup.
Super E.D.F. for SNES is a shmup with an experience-point based leveling up system which instantly makes it an MMO.
>>
>>5589324
Is interacting with NPCs a core part of Megaman, or are you a blithering retard?
>>
>>5589910
No but it's also not a defining characteristic of RPGs either.



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.