Zelda Is Not An RPG
- Thread starter Velocity Eleven
- Start date
Recommended Videos
because they are not repeatible tasks, just a series of individual tasks that have a 1-time use to them... in order for it to be grindable it must be limited by the total outcome and not the number of individual instancesmartin said:
No offense, ladies and gents, but this thread is starting to read like a debate between music snobs over whether Nine Inch Nails is Industrial Rock, Industrial Metal, Electro-Industrial, or whatever other nit-picky little category people come up with. These sorts of categories are terms of convenience and nothing more, a descriptive tool useful for talking to people who have not yet experienced what you're telling them about. Zelda is what it is, and calling it an RPG or Action-Adventure or whatever else will not change what it is, and since I imagine most of the people here have played Zelda you can talk about it without having to use the poor-but-ready term of convenience.
As far as grind being necessary for anything, I think it's really funny that things have gotten to such a state. Don't you think arguing that game isn't grind-y enough to warrant admittance to a certain category is a little silly? I don't think grind is required for any kind of game, and if a game is forced to resort to grind it is either badly designed or it is trying to get more money out of you. MMORPGs have lots of grind because the longer you play them the more money their owners make off of you. It is the exact same idea as slot machines--you keep doing the same thing for hours on end, and once in a while you get a nice shiny reward, which stimulates your synapses in such a way as to make you want to keep doing the same thing even more. Seriously. It's called variable ratio schedule reinforcement, and it is a very simple psychological principle. Just because you feel a strong urge compelling you to keep grinding doesn't mean that it's fun--you're feeling the exact same thing that Marge Simpson felt when she got sucked into her gambling addiction and neglected poor little Lisa's costume. Therefore, I would put say that the only game categories that have minimum grind requirements are Crappy Boring Games (CBGs), or Masterfully Malevolent Only Reason to Play is Grind games (MMORPGs).
As far as grind being necessary for anything, I think it's really funny that things have gotten to such a state. Don't you think arguing that game isn't grind-y enough to warrant admittance to a certain category is a little silly? I don't think grind is required for any kind of game, and if a game is forced to resort to grind it is either badly designed or it is trying to get more money out of you. MMORPGs have lots of grind because the longer you play them the more money their owners make off of you. It is the exact same idea as slot machines--you keep doing the same thing for hours on end, and once in a while you get a nice shiny reward, which stimulates your synapses in such a way as to make you want to keep doing the same thing even more. Seriously. It's called variable ratio schedule reinforcement, and it is a very simple psychological principle. Just because you feel a strong urge compelling you to keep grinding doesn't mean that it's fun--you're feeling the exact same thing that Marge Simpson felt when she got sucked into her gambling addiction and neglected poor little Lisa's costume. Therefore, I would put say that the only game categories that have minimum grind requirements are Crappy Boring Games (CBGs), or Masterfully Malevolent Only Reason to Play is Grind games (MMORPGs).
Some of the Zelda games are (in my opinion) definitely within the RPG genre. Maybe not all of them, but some of them for sure.
Zelda 1 - you gain hearts, items, and progress your character while saving Princess Zelda - this is an action rpg. You may not agree, but it's actually one of the first ARPG's out there in my book. THIS IS MY OPINION.
Zelda 2 - rpg all the way. It was one of the first to use an overworld map as well as a map for encounters, and you leveled up and gained new abilities, skills, and health, etc. Another ARPG.
Zelda 3 - this one I only played here and there, but it was considered at launch an rpg, and I would consider it an ARPG based off of the principles of the game and game mechanics.
Beyond Zelda 3 I never played any of them, I started getting into computers and Zelda has not been on the PC outside of an emulator.
So I concede that you may be correct in the N64/GC/Wii Zeldas not being RPG's, the first 3 have definite factors of ARPG and RPG games within them, at the very least subclassing them as partial RPGs. The A stands for action, so that would be the other subclass of them.
This is my take on them, you can say I am not a fan of the series but when I was younger we'd stay up all night playing Zelda and Zelda 2. I loved those games with a passion. Final Fantasy 1 was different in many ways, but shared some characteristics of the Zelda games, which strengthens my OPINION that the original Zelda games were indeed at least partial RPG's.
Merry Christmas!
Zelda 1 - you gain hearts, items, and progress your character while saving Princess Zelda - this is an action rpg. You may not agree, but it's actually one of the first ARPG's out there in my book. THIS IS MY OPINION.
Zelda 2 - rpg all the way. It was one of the first to use an overworld map as well as a map for encounters, and you leveled up and gained new abilities, skills, and health, etc. Another ARPG.
Zelda 3 - this one I only played here and there, but it was considered at launch an rpg, and I would consider it an ARPG based off of the principles of the game and game mechanics.
Beyond Zelda 3 I never played any of them, I started getting into computers and Zelda has not been on the PC outside of an emulator.
So I concede that you may be correct in the N64/GC/Wii Zeldas not being RPG's, the first 3 have definite factors of ARPG and RPG games within them, at the very least subclassing them as partial RPGs. The A stands for action, so that would be the other subclass of them.
This is my take on them, you can say I am not a fan of the series but when I was younger we'd stay up all night playing Zelda and Zelda 2. I loved those games with a passion. Final Fantasy 1 was different in many ways, but shared some characteristics of the Zelda games, which strengthens my OPINION that the original Zelda games were indeed at least partial RPG's.
Merry Christmas!
Can't say that someone mislabeling something like a genre would 'piss me off' call it an Action-Adventure. Has more in common with Resident Evil then it does with Final Fantasy or Elder Scrolls.
What game doesn't have RPG elements nowadays?
What game doesn't have RPG elements nowadays?
the question of the effects and usefulness or lack thereof is a completely different subject. This is not about what makes a game "better"Helmutye said:
Well, save The Simpsons reference and the Acronyms, this was essentially what I was going to say next so I don't need to. I agree.Helmutye said:
Whilst I disagree with your definition of rpg I don't think it is one since he doesn't have your furfilling a different role if you so choose. Yes you can get upgrades but they're very limited and generally only increase abilities you already have (such as your magic meter) or just add to your carrying capacity of items.
I'm personally unsure as to what you would pigeon hole the Zelda series into, but I honestly take no issue with that. No, what I take issue with is that almost half this entire thread seems to be filled by rollplayers.
So, what, a roleplaying game specifically has to have stats 'n' shit now? You can't have a statless, level-less rpg where you, oh, I dunno, actually act out a role?!
So, what, a roleplaying game specifically has to have stats 'n' shit now? You can't have a statless, level-less rpg where you, oh, I dunno, actually act out a role?!
To those of you calling Zelda an Action RPG: Why do you lump Zelda in with the same category as Secret of Mana/Evermore, Super Ninja Boy (if you've ever played that), Symphony of the Night (and all 2D Castlevanias afterwords), and the Elderscrolls series? Those are all ARPGs. Each game gives you player stats that are improvable or allow you to level up after enough time actively playing, provided you are not speed-running/doing a personal low-level challenge run of the game. Zelda allows you to go around the world and never get stronger. It would be impossible to play all those other mentioned games without leveling up your character at least a little bit, or finding optional equipment upgrades. In Zelda, any upgrade you possibly can get can never be unequipped, with the exception of the tunics, which are just another way to access otherwise inaccessible areas. Anything you do in Zelda is done with the pure intention to progress to the next area of the game. You can not do a low-level challenge run on Zelda, because you can't beat the game without picking up every item the game throws at you. The best you can try for is never picking up the heart containers after a boss fight, and that is still mandatory in the earlier Zeldas.
No you can't because even the tabletop RPGs were you actually do act out a role is still governed by stats, leveling systems, equipped items, and even sometimes random adventuring for the sake of killing monsters that make you stronger. Action RPGs can have many of these elements too, but Zelda has none. As lostclause said, anything you can do in Zelda is just improving what you can already do. That in itself doesn't disqualify Zelda as a RPG, but it places it on another table for consideration that the rest of my points stack it completely into the action/adventure category.Nevyrmoore said:
If we're talking a diehard hardcore definition of roleplaying game, where the players actually sit around a table and actively play a role then the vast majority of computer RPGs are not RPGs so much as they are wrong-minded games of accumulation.
Under this definition, Legend of Zelda is perhaps even more an RPG on the grounds that Link (or whatever you named it) has a pretty well-defined adventure and the players generally sympathize with the character more.
Under this definition, Legend of Zelda is perhaps even more an RPG on the grounds that Link (or whatever you named it) has a pretty well-defined adventure and the players generally sympathize with the character more.
Actually, it all depends on if you freeform roleplay or not. However, to do this requires a lot of rules to prevent godmoding, and also requires a large degree of self-policing. Unfortunately, a large number of people don't seem to be able to pull this off.Signa said:
Since when was it?ray=out said:
Bioshock is described as follow: 'BioShock is a first-person shooter with role-playing game customization and stealth elements.' on Wikpedia and pretty much every other site out there.
I also wonder why people aren't calling the Metroid games rpgs, when Zelda and Metroid are conceptually very similar. Everything you do in Zelda has a similar action in Metroid.
Freeform rpg are all well in good on a table top, but I don't know that those can exist with the current generation of video game, so the point is kind of moot. I suppose games like Mass Effect, Dragon Age, Fallout, etc are trying to go in that direction, but they still have a long way to go to be as flexible as a real Gamemaster can beNevyrmoore said:
.When it comes to video game, RPGs does refer to rollplayers and not roleplayers.
What strikes me as strange here is the focus on leveling and statbuilding when determening wether or not a game is an RPG. Just because you could gain exp in Zelda 2 doesn't even make it close of actually being an RPG in my eyes. Just because it has certain elements that RPGs usually have doesn't make it an RPG. Wouldn't saying that kind of be like calling my bike a car just because I put a steering wheel on it? No a true RPG to me is a game where you can create your own character and actually make the choices for his or her behaviour throughout the game.
Yeah, you are put in the role of Master Chief, Link, Samus etc, but you can't affect their behaviour or how they think and act, so it's not an RPG. It's just steering their way through their adventure, their adventure, not your own. That is the difference between an RPG and games with RPG elements, for me at least.
Yeah, you are put in the role of Master Chief, Link, Samus etc, but you can't affect their behaviour or how they think and act, so it's not an RPG. It's just steering their way through their adventure, their adventure, not your own. That is the difference between an RPG and games with RPG elements, for me at least.
Well, you won't get that rebuttal from me. I pretty much agree. RPG's and adventure games overlap a little bit, though (unlike you) I think the split is pretty clean cut.zala-taichou said: