What Constitutes an RPG

[Octopod]

For me it is games that try to emulate the feel of a table top RPG. Of course that kind of goes out the window with more modern RPGs that have shooter elements. Or are actually shooters with some RPG elements. Once upon a time I would have said turn based or real time with pause was required but I do not feel that way anymore I guess.

[Limewater]

Why do so many of y'all feel the need for such tightly-compartmented classifications with such firm boundaries?

Games aren't made to fit into a classification. Classifications are made to describe games. Game classification is very clearly a fuzzy scenario.

[Gamerforlife]

Why do so many of y'all feel the need for such tightly-compartmented classifications with such firm boundaries?

Games aren't made to fit into a classification. Classifications are made to describe games. Game classification is very clearly a fuzzy scenario.

Because things need to be organized and classified for convenience sake. When people are discussing rpgs, we need to know what games fit the criteria. If someone asks for rpg recommendations for example, I would know not to recommend Zelda because it is NOT an rpg. If someone wants examples of an rpg, we need to know what games apply. When people are making searchable databases like on gamefaqs, we need to know what category every game fits into. When someone writes an article on wikipedia, we need accuracy. People go there for facts, which isn't to say everything on wiki is 100% percent true, but ideally it would be

I could go on and on, my point is, things DO need to be put in, as you put it, tightly-compartmented classifications with firm boundaries. Genres are just one way of keeping information organized. Without organization, we have chaos.

People can keep arguing this point, but like I said before, and I know a lot of you will disagree and that's your opinion and you're entitled to it, but calling Zelda an rpg just makes you look stupid. My first thought upon hearning someone say this would be, wow, you must be a casual gamer or someone who is really new to video games. It's like when I hear someone call one on one fighting games beat'em ups or brawlers. My first thought is, you don't know what you're talking about do you

[Ziggy]

People can keep arguing this point, but like I said before, and I know a lot of you will disagree and that's your opinion and you're entitled to it, but calling Zelda an rpg just makes you look stupid. My first thought upon hearning someone say this would be, wow, you must be a casual gamer or someone who is really new to video games. It's like when I hear someone call one on one fighting games beat'em ups or brawlers. My first thought is, you don't know what you're talking about do you

That kinda reminds me of when I was talking with a coworker about video games and Super Mario 64 came up and he said, "I hate RPG game." I just bit my tongue and decided not to even bother going down that road.

[dsheinem]

calling Zelda an rpg just makes you look stupid. My first thought upon hearning someone say this would be, wow, you must be a casual gamer or someone who is really new to video games.

My first thought when I see this kind of statement would be "wow, there goes a self-righteous ideologue."

As this thread has demonstrated, both your first thought and mine would be completely incorrect.

I don't know why you can't accept that some people make a reasonable argument as to why Zelda can be considered an action RPG (and thus an RPG). Most taxonomies/genre categories/definitions are constantly in flux and up for grabs - but if you aren't willing to concede this liminality and instead insist on having the only "correct" opinion, you'll find that you often end up shut out of those very conversations wherein those categories get (always temporarily) constructed.

In other words, I understand your reasoning and can accept that your definition of "RPG" is well articulated and functional. But I can't accept that your definition is the only one that makes sense, as others have made equally compelling arguments to support their claims.

[MrPopo]

Why do so many of y'all feel the need for such tightly-compartmented classifications with such firm boundaries?

Human nature. We classify and categorize in order to make sense of our environment.

[Limewater]

Because things need to be organized and classified for convenience sake.

I didn't ask "why do we need a classification system." I asked why it needs to be so compartmented with rigid, inarguable boundaries. We aren't talking about sorting stacks of shirts by color. I get the felling that if you were, and you got to a shirt with a red and white pattern on it, your head would explode. I'm sure the same thing happens when you think about the race of President Obama (ZOMG!?!!? You're stupid if you think he's a black man!!!!11111).

which isn't to say everything on wiki is 100% percent true

"wiki????"

*facepalm*

[BurningDoom]

Since I was just introduced to this thread via the 2011: The Year of the Action-RPG thread, and since Zelda was brought up there I'm throwing in my two-cents about Zelda games and RPGs.

Zelda games are not RPGs in the traditional D&D sense or JRPG sense, but I feel it is an action-RPG for the following reasons:

-The game is set in a fantasy setting.
-Your character grows stronger as the game goes on (More powerful attacks, more health, stronger defense)
-It has an open-world feel to it, rather than going level-by-level or area-by-area
-You gain more powerful weapons and armor as you progress.
-Not counting the original, you even gain magic spells.

[pepharytheworm]

The thread brought back from the dead. I will say a lot of the things I wrote I am a little embarressed by, but for the most part still feel the same way about Zelda. It will always be an RPG to me

You know, I never really commented on the actual topic "What Constitutes an RPG" I have to say the comment about "Growth" and "Luck" seems to be the most consistent. But there has got to be more than that.

[ZeroAX]

-The game is set in a fantasy setting.
-Your character grows stronger as the game goes on (More powerful attacks, more health, stronger defense)
-It has an open-world feel to it, rather than going level-by-level or area-by-area
-You gain more powerful weapons and armor as you progress.
-Not counting the original, you even gain magic spells.

-where as Super Mario is based on a non-fantasy setting?
-ok yeah, but not a big point imo. In Super Metroid you get more health and more powerful attacks as well.
-sandbox game, before sandbox was a term. And that's why people loved them from the start
-see Super Metroid again
-ok, sure but isn't this seeing it a bit narrow? Like with the fantasy setting (and yeah I was joking above, I got by fantasy, you meant fantasy archetype world (in this case, the Tolkien style world)), just because most RPG games feature them...I don't know I wouldn't call one an rpg because of that. Mirror's Edge features guns. But it's a first person platformer, waaaaaaaay more than it's a shooter.


I don't know. The way I see it. If I have someone play a bunch of RPG games. Then have the same person, play a few Tomb Raider and Assasin Creed games, and then have him play a 3D Zelda game, and I ask him, with which games does Zelda have more in common, he'd probably say Tomb Raider and Assasin's Creed.

Zelda might have a few RPG elements, but that doesn't make it an RPG. Just as Assasin's Creed having so many RPG elements didn't make it an RPG.

Yet because Nintendo once called Zelda an RPG, everyone still insists on calling it as such, but no one calls AC an RPG.