RPG vs Action-Adventure

[Mage26]

I've been wondering how people determine the difference between Action-Adventure titles and RPGs. For example, many people classify Zelda games as RPGs while I've always considered them action-adventure. At some point in these discussions, Kingdom Hearts comes up as a game with similar gameplay to Zelda but is clearly an RPG. I feel the difference is that Kingdom Hearts has experience points and leveling while Zelda has item gathering. Item gathering is an Adventure mechanic, as far as I'm concerned. It irks me when people call a game RPG when it's not, because adventure games get no credit anymore.

Anyway, I was wondering how other people make this distinction and other games that people get confused by.

 

[hickwarrior]

Well, RPGs are actually known as roleplaying games as you should know. In role playing games you play a role as the character on screen, so maybe that is why LoZ is seen as RPG. allthough i do agree it's more action-adventure, it is still you that saves the world, so to say.

Action-adventures, i'd see them more as hack-and-slashy maim-a-thons, to steal something fro ma certain somebody, because there should be action in the adventure, right?

but as you have stated, it does seem blurry, really. and jeffers sums it up a bit, but there might still be questions to answer. This really is a tough question.

 

[Lightbulb]

It. Doesn't. Matter.

There are only good and bad games. What genre it falls into makes no difference.

RPG and FPS are about as useful as 'Rock' is in music...

Deus Ex
FPS? Its first person but not really a shooter.
RPG? But you can't make your own character so some people argue its not an RPG
Adventure game then?

---

A genre is not the mechanic of conveying the game. For example a Short Story isn't a genre in the same way as Thriller is a genre is it?

---

The actual genres are similar to those from books/films:

Mystery, thriller, Action, Romance etc...

---

Games can be broken down into 3 categories

Games no story or setting - ie pong, peggle
Freeform games with a setting/context - ie Space Invaders, The SIMS, Civ, Counter-Strike
Games with a story - Half-Life 2, Halo, FF Games

----

The rest is just a matter of how you interact with the world and how you see the world, ie:

Direct control over an individual - most FPS games, driving games

Direct control over a number of individuals - some Squad based FPS games, sports games (ie football)

Direct control over a number of units - ie RTS games, Baldurs Gate

'God' games - Settlers, The SIMS, 'Theme' games

How you see the action:

First Person
Third person fixed to object
Third person floating
Abstract (a hard one but games like Civilisation aren't really third person they are diagrammatic. A visual representation of data/information rather than what it actually 'looks like'. Another good example is a football management game.)

Also:

2D
Isometric
3D
----

 

[Rykka]

This is a topic thats been bothering me for quite a while. Sadly, the term "Roleplaying game" is very outdated in terms of use in modern gaming. To me it is the acting out and portrayal of a character in the traditional sense, a term born from table top games, muds, and even acting. Today, it gets slapped onto any game with broad and unfair use. If you take it as it's basest sense, yes, a roleplaying game could be -any- game, unless you are playing a game that consists of yourself sitting playing a game, you are assumably in the role of someone other than yourself. Be it a driver in a car game, a fisherman in a fishing game, a pilot in a space shooter, anything can be considered roleplaying in that sense. That doesn't make it right.

It's a pointless argument I suppose, there is no written law either way, and it lay entirely in the realm of personal opinion. I think that you will find that older gamers (Not necessarily in physical age, but in years playing games) would never call Zelda and many other similar games an RPG, while many newer gamers would. Personally, I don't even consider Final Fantasy to be an RPG... you have no more choice in character story direction in those games than the boomerang slinging Link, how is it really roleplaying?

Again, moot really. It all depends on what "Role Playing Game" means to you.

 

[Lightbulb]

So, using the above:

So whats Zelda? Its:

Got a linear story which involves freeform exploring with progress blocked by artificial means. It is third person, isometric, with direct control over an individual. Its genre is Fantasy. You collect items which means your character gets better.

---

What is STALKER?

Got a linear story which involves freeform exploring with progress blocked rarely by artificial means. It is first person, 3d, with direct control over an individual. Its genre is Action/Science fiction/Horror/Mystery. You get better equipment which means your character gets better.

---

What is Oblivion

Got a linear story which involves freeform exploring. It is first person/third person, 3d, with direct control over an individual. Its genre is Fantasy. You character has 'stats' and equipment which mean your character gets better.

----------

Whats Baldurs Gate?

Got a linear story which involves freeform exploring. It is Third person, 3d, with direct control over a group. Its genre is Fantasy. You characters have 'stats' and get better equipment which mean your character gets better.

So whats the difference between the games?

The control method, the genre OF THE STORY. But basically they are the same hence why they fall under the title RPG.

 

[Lightbulb]

In summary:

Current 'genres' for games are rubbish and don't reflect what a game actually IS.

 

[hickwarrior]

Then how can you categorize games then? It will all be a fussy mess, by then.

 

[Rykka]

Actually I'd disagree with the Oblivion point, it is free form enough to not remotely need to bother with the main quest to level up and find accomplishment in it.I played it for months without doing the main quest at all, with several characters. You can do quests for people, or kill them. You can be virtuous or villainous without completely being stuck in a role when you choose one, and completely go against the grain however you please. I think it is one of the few electronic games I would really consider close to a true roleplaying game. In short, my personal view of roleplaying is to have the freedom and none-linearity to make your own paths and choices about how you want to go about things in your own way. No game is completely open, no game ever could be given the inescapable constraints and parameters programmers must abide by. But Oblivion comes respectably close.

It was actiony yes, but the action elements were a means to an end, not the sole purpose of the game itself. It really is blurry though sometimes, I agree. But, I can abide by games like Oblivion having blurred titles due to it's feet being in two genres or more at once, what I can't stand however, are game that call themselves descriptors that they hardly touch on at all. To the example given above, I still would not ever call Zelda a roleplaying game. Not until it allows my to craft a character of my own design, and truly explore the world as I see fit, using the methods I see fit.

Edit: Re-read your post Lightbulb, I misunderstood the meaning of it the first time I read it. The point I was trying to make with the above is why I think oblivion is an RPG and Zelda isn't. Discount my "Actually I'd disagree with the Oblivion point" sentence, as we are in fact in agreement on that. Sorry. ^_~

 

[Da_Vane]

It's important to understand that even the term RPG has different meanings within the video games industry, which can (and quite often do) differ from the term RPG in the non-video games industry.

The Legend of Zelda is not, and never will be, a RPG in the traditional definition of the word. Definitive proof can be found here at the Legend of Zelda RPG Forums [http://s12.invisionfree.com/Zelda_RPG/], where we've experienced significant difficulties in trying to convert these games to a viable roleplaying game. It can be done, as we've done it, but this often means making changes that stop if from being a Legend of Zelda game. This is not unique to the Legend of Zelda however - quite a few computer/console RPGs suffer similar issues.

There are many reasons why the Legend of Zelda games are not RPGs in this traditional sense. Their linear story is one such aspect - the story may be good, but whatever choices are given are fake - there is only one real solution given in the games. There is limited character and world development in the games themselves, be it collecting heart contrainers and completing subquests, but this is often so severly hampered that it is hard to class it as roleplaying in the true sense. Finally, the games have a definite end, after which you restart the game or buy a new one, starting over afresh. All of these, and the others not listed here, combine to make the Legend of Zelda series action/adventure rather than RPG games.

 

[wilsonl]

Lightbulb, you can't shoe-horn the meaning of 'genre' from previous mediums to video games; 'genre' has been used to describe not the type of story but the kind of interaction the player has with the game, traditionally. So I am contesting that 'genre' *is* the mechanic of conveying the game. (For now.. since the medium has plenty of room for maturity.)

What makes a story is its content, and how it is told. The one important fact that separates video games from previous mediums is the ability to interact with that story (with exceptions). Thus, the method of interaction is the deciding characteristic of catagorizing games.

Identifying the main mechanics of a game is the easiest way of catagorizing. Thus, defining sets of mechanics to a word, one can classify a game in a few words. (Which, incidentally, is what marketing loves.) This method is not rubbish, it's the more accurate and practical use for 'genre' .

Using words like romance, mystery, thriller, just doesn't cut it for this medium.

Ahem.

So I fall into the more 'traditional' camp. Item gathering vs exp + levels.
I'm pretty sure 'action' these days is almost (just almost) synonymous with violence. And adventure has always been story focused, item collection and puzzle solving. That's essentially Zelda. RPGs on the other hand usually contains violence, but the main mechanic is levelling up, the perceived increase of 'power'

 

[Fire Daemon]

All games that have you play as a role are roleplaying games. So therefore any game with a storyline is roleplaying game.

Genres are fickle and they never completely descripe a game.

eg. GoW was considered a horror by some people even though the scariest thing was strange little Grunt mutant monkeys that are killed with one hit.

 

[dukethepcdr]

In my mind, a game is a role playing game (RPG) if it has the following elements: you get to customize your character and create a persona or role that can be unique from ones created by others who play the game; you get to choose how you interact with other characters (with dialog choices, emoticons, attack vs talk etc.); the decisions you make have some bearing on the story and ultimately the end of the game (the story can be linear, but needs to at least have branches and/or multiple endings); there needs to be some kind of inventory system that lets you decide what to carry and what to drop at least if not even having some kind of crafting or customizing options.

Any other game that is not set in a first person perspective and has you shooting most of the time; not based totally on solving puzzles; not some kind of training game (like Spanish for Everyone or something); not totally about racing vehicles of some kind etc. is an action/adventure game. The action/adventure genre is kind of a catch all category for a lot of games that sort of defy being put into the other categories. I think that's where a lot of the confusion comes from. Sort of like asking "what is 'Alternative Rock' and what isn't?"

 

[More Fun To Compute]

Cynical answer: there is no difference these days apart from that RPGs are allowed to have horrible pacing and more bad quality writing than you can bear to sit through.

My personal definition of an RPG is a strategy game that lets you build a character through the course of an adventure. All it takes for a game to become an RPG for me is some real interesting choices in developing a character in ways that affect how they interact with the world. That doesn't mean that I like every game that does this or dislike every game that doesn't. I like turn based combat even if it isn't a "genre defining" feature.

 

[JediMB]

To me, an RPG is a game that has the equivalent of a character sheet. You know, that piece of paper with your character's stats and equipment and such listed on it.

Beyond that, I'm open to almost endless variations on the concept, since video games are a very different platform for storytelling than the classic pen and paper games.