What Constitutes an RPG

[pepharytheworm]

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.

Now have someone Play NES/SNES era Zelda and then RPGs of that time(Final Fantasy US 1-3, Secret of Mana, Chrono Trigger, Phantasy Star, Dragon Warrior 1-4, YS 1-2, various Ultimas, Crystalis)

Then Action-Adventure games of that time like the original Prince of Persia, Super Star Wars Series, Super Metroid and Demon’s Crest. Do you think they will still side with the action-adventure games?

[ZeroAX]

Now have someone Play NES/SNES era Zelda and then RPGs of that time(Final Fantasy US 1-3, Secret of Mana, Chrono Trigger, Phantasy Star, Dragon Warrior 1-4, YS 1-2, various Ultimas, Crystalis)

Then Action-Adventure games of that time like the original Prince of Persia, Super Star Wars Series, Super Metroid and Demon’s Crest. Do you think they will still side with the action-adventure games?

..............yes you are right. Of course most people will buy NES consoles from ebay to try out Zelda. And of course people will play the 2 games in the series that were top down, instead of the 4 (soon to be 5) 3D games. And of course people will think the games are alike because of the camera. Like how Super Mario RPG and Age of Empires are in the same genre, cause of the 2/3 camera.

[MrEco]

Now I'm gonna jump into the fray. Yay.

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

For the same reason language (Or any form of communication) was invented. So when you are trying to get a point across there is a clearly defined set of rules that guarantees the people communicating with you are understanding your meaning (Unless they themselves are not knowledgeable in the set of rules. Sort of the problem were having now).

For me the one thing that defines an RPG, the one thing that ALL RPG's have in common and that no other genre ever has, is the stats leveling system. No, not an "upgrade system" like in Dead Space or Resident Evil 4 and 5. Not the ranking system in so many multiplayer shooters that simply unlocks guns and things. And definitely not the "I found this piece of heart now my health bar got one slot bigger" thing that Zelda and Metroid do. An actual level system. You kill an enemy you get +10 experience points. You do a small task for a local townsperson you get +25 experience points. You complete a major quest that involved slaying a powerful boss and rescuing someone you get +100 EXP! Once you get enough EXP you get a level up screen. Your stats (Not just health, but damage, defence, and others) all increase. You become more powerful not because luck allowed you to stumble across a hidden room with upgrades in it, but because you did the actual work.
Even the most simple of RPGs follow this concept. Zelda does not. Zelda is not an RPG.

Also, two more things. While I don't consider them genre defining rules like the stats leveling system, I do consider them guidelines that must be met for a game to be considered a "pure RPG."

Firstly. Exploration. By no means does it have to be a completely open-world game, but for me to consider something a "pure RPG" it must have a significant amount of optional areas, events, and items that add reasons to do something other than the main quest line.

Secondly. Either A) a completely customizable protagonist that can be molded and shaped even further as the game continues (Most western RPG's follow this guideline). Or B) a premade protagonist complete with a name, backstory, and personality who is accompanied by a large and varied cast of characters whose personalities interact with the protagonists and aid in developing the story through their character arcs (Most JRPG's follow this guideline).

For now, that's all I can think of off the top of my head to rant about. More later perhaps (Most likely).

[pakopako]

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

For the same reason language (Or any form of communication) was invented.

Because we're bored and want to create conflict?

Personally, I stick with the old Pen-and-Paper rules. You need a visible set of stats that will be adjusted (or at the least initially customizable), an inventory to (micro-)manage, a wide area to adventure about/explore, and a narrator or at the very least dialog spoken by NPCs. I took this to heart after reading Betrayal at Krondor's instruction manual and how the creators wanted to create something more involving than ye old:

• Fight monsters, kick door, get treasure
• Climb tower
• Find harder monsters, tougher doors, bigger treasure
• Cycle (which sounds a lot like Gauntlet than Zork)

Of course, with such a loose description, a lot of games become RPGs, or at the least have RPG elements to them. Yes, the original Legend of Zelda is technically an RPG by my personal viewpoint. (Hoist by my own petard!) I still consider it to be primarily an action-adventure (real-time combat, open exploration) -- but it also has NPCs, fetch-quests, inventory management, item and stat upgrades (swords, boomerangs, hearts, armors, etc.) which add a hint of RPG to the mix.

In the end, if we "tagged" a game with all the genres and tropes that were associated with it, that description would be a mess (especially modern-era games which mix-and-match a LOT) -- it would be cumbersome and clunky, but it would be accurate.

I think I'll stick with vague word-of-mouth and obfuscating reviews thank you.

[Gamerforlife]

I don't know, I look at it like a math equation. You put certain things together and they equal rpg. For me, a party of characters, turn based combat, stats, levels and really in depth story are part of that equation. Zelda doesn't have those things, which makes it a game that DOES have SOME of the essential ingrediants of an rpg(like towns, equipment, currency, etc.) but doesn't have all of them. Thus, it's not an rpg. It's just an adventure game(or action/adventure I guess)that incorporate a few of the elements that make up an rpg

But if people want to call it an rpg, then so be it. To each his own

[pepharytheworm]

You put certain things together and they equal rpg. For me, a party of characters, turn based combat, stats, levels and really in depth story are part of that equation.

If you go by that then there are a lot of games that won't be RPGs anymore. Theres quite a few where there is no party, is not turn based, not an in depth story and has no levels.

[irixith]

I can't believe I'm seeing the "Is Zelda a RPG" argument going on here of all places! All but Zelda II (NES) are action/adventure games. Zelda II was about as close to genre defining as an action/rpg gets, and coincidentally seems to be the most reviled of the series.

Zelda II is the only game in the series with RPG stat tracking and experience points, but it strays from being a pure RPG by all the action sequences. A similar game from the time period (Crystalis) is also an action/rpg -- the gameplay style of Zelda 1 mixed with a true stat progression system.

I don't even get why this would be an argument! All you have to do is put Zelda up against accepted action/rpgs, rpg lites, and full out rpgs to see why it doesn't belong.

[Xeogred]

Yeah, I compare it to something like Secret of Mana or even Terranigma, which have more obvious RPG elements. Zelda incorporates a lot of genre ideas, but I have never really labeled them as RPG's.

[pakopako]

Yeah, I compare it to something like Secret of Mana or even Terranigma, which have more obvious RPG elements. Zelda incorporates a lot of genre ideas, but I have never really labeled them as RPG's.

Just to fan the fire (ire?) -- I still think SoM and Terranigma are still primarily action games, but with a stronger RPG element than the Zelda games.

Yes, as strong or as balanced as those elements are, I just threw myself in with the crowd that says Action-RPGs don't exist.
Does that make me insane, or VERY sane?

[Betamax001]

I'm in the Zelda is not an RPG camp. It's an action adventure game. To me RPGs need some kind of leveling up system and lotsa numbers and stats. Something Zelda lacks. If Zelda is an action RPG then God of War must be too.