Zelda isnt an rpg? (Its a dungeon crawler isnt it?)

[nightrnr]

I'm probably echoing a few opinions...
...but here's mine (random as they are):

Zelda instigated the Action-RPG genre (As far as I'm concerned and in my world anyways). That's how I was introduced to it, that's how I've always known it as (as well as those around me), that's how I'll continue to identify it and its contemporaries.

However, if you just classify something as a plain "RPG", I automatically think turn-based. But even that has several sub-genres (Traditional, Tactical, Rogue, Dungeon-Crawler, etc.)

The thing that makes Zelda and other ARPGs different is how it's played. You have full, active control over your character where you do not or are limited in other RPG's.

Also, I didn't vote. There was no option for calling Zelda an ARPG.
It's kind of like how I automatically think classic 2D style when I hear "Shooter", but need the "3D" or "1st Person" - Shooter to designate the 3D games.

Finally, I can respect Zelda games being categorized with RPGs because they come with the territory. You are still fantasy questing. You still make progress and growth with your character.
And a person interested in RPGs will almost always (in my observation) like ARPGs as well.

However, I still like them to be properly labeled. It's annoying to want some good ARPG to play and have to sift through several turn-based (or limited) games to find one.

[Jmustang1968]

Zelda was an influence to action rpgs,but not one itself. They basically took an rpg and combined it with zelda style combat system to fom the early ARPGs.

[isiolia]

Zelda is not an RPG as it doesn't have role playing - though that probably applies to plenty of other games as well. There are plenty "RPGs" that are probably more aptly described as strategy games with cutscenes

As I've mentioned in other threads, I think the mechanics of Zelda games do work well as a gateway to RPGs, earning them a spot in some RPG discussions...but the games themselves just wouldn't qualify to me.

I thought in Fallout the enemies would level lock once you reached the area, or was that only introduced in Skyrim?

I believe Skyrim copied the system seen in Fallout New Vegas wherein enemy level range is determined by when you first enter the area. You should always be challenged by new areas, but revisiting old ones results in capped out enemy level.

Any nonlinear game will probably employ some manner of level scaling, but it tends to be in support of player choice (and thus, role play).

[dunpeal2064]

"Role-Playing" has nothing to do with RPGS, as confusing as it is. You could consider ANY game to have role-playing, and most older jrpgs actually have little to no roleplaying.

I still do not see how anyone could consider Zelda an action-rpg though.

Look at Kingdom Hearts, Tales of Vesperia, Star Ocean, or Final Fantasy XII. These are action rpgs. They are still party-based games, where you have to worry about what your party is doing, but instead of setting this up in battle, you set it up outside of battle.

If someone told me they just finished an SRPG, like Shining Force, I could very easily recommend them another game from the genre, knowing it would be similar to what they just played fundamentally. I could tell them to try out Disgaea, or Final Fantasy Tactics.

If someone told me they just played Rogue Galaxy, and asked for suggestions, I would not tell them to try out Zelda... because it is not even CLOSE to the same kind of game. Anyone that has played a real Action-RPG should clearly see this.

Like Breetai mentioned, if Zelda is an action "rpg" based on it being in a fantasy setting (Wut? King of Dragons is in a fantasy setting, its no rpg), and based on your character development, then Metroid(vania) and Devil may Cry are now action rpgs.

If Devil may Cry and Tales of Vesperia are in the same genre, then that genre labelling is moot, as the label no longer expresses the fundamentals of the game.

Its an action game, like Ys, Wonder Boy, etc.

[Jmustang1968]

Its an action game, like Ys, Wonder Boy, etc.

I was with you all the way until here. Ys is an action rpg...

[isiolia]

"Role-Playing" has nothing to do with RPGS, as confusing as it is. You could consider ANY game to have role-playing, and most older jrpgs actually have little to no roleplaying.

While I don't entirely disagree with you, I do think there are lines to draw.

Role playing, in essence, is just playing pretend. It's a concept in and of itself, but one with no inherent rules or boundaries. In that respect, sure, most any character based game could be seen as the player pretending to be that character. However, not all games actually give the player the ability to determine much about the character(s) they're playing, much less make those choices a core element of the game.

My opinion is that RPGs are hybrid games by necessity. The game mechanics give structure within which to play pretend. You're not just daydreaming about being a vampire, or a wizard, or a knight, or whatever, you have a set of rules within which to act out that character. There are plenty of potential systems - maybe you have a dinner party, maybe you beat on one another with foam-covered sticks, maybe you roll dice - but the point is the same. Still, those activities can also exist apart from giving context to role play.

I recognize that I'm speaking more from an idealistic stance, whereas you likely are referring to what people commonly term "RPGs" whether or not the title is truly appropriate. People understand the intended meaning, and the term serves its purpose. I don't disagree with that, nor am I campaigning to see some alternate label placed on games that don't meet with my definition of what the genre encompasses.

That said, if there's a question, then I'm not inclined to label something an RPG just because it has quests and menus, any more than I'm willing to -not- label something as an RPG because you have to actually aim when shooting.

[Erik_Twice]

That said, if there's a question, then I'm not inclined to label something an RPG just because it has quests and menus, any more than I'm willing to -not- label something as an RPG because you have to actually aim when shooting.

I actually think having a RPG removes the need to aim

[isiolia]

That said, if there's a question, then I'm not inclined to label something an RPG just because it has quests and menus, any more than I'm willing to -not- label something as an RPG because you have to actually aim when shooting.

I actually think having a RPG removes the need to aim

Pff, explosions or no, there's still a lot less target than not-target.

[Jmustang1968]

The name rpg is misleading. It just borrowed the name from pen & paper rpgs and applied to video games. People are taking the defnition of the term too literally and out of context for what the genre represents in video games.

[dunpeal2064]

I don't think Quests and Menu's make an RPG, anymore than I think that character development and fantasy setting do.

I think the combat system makes the game, since that is what sets the games apart. If we went by settings or menu-depth, then any game could be in any genre.

Kingdom Hearts, Rogue Galaxy, Star Ocean, Tales of... all have very similar battle systems, and are all prime examples of Action RPGS.

Zelda does not have a battle system anymore than Gauntlet does. Your primary action is to mash A to kill EVERYTHING.

There is no strategy involved in the combat, other than learning boss patterns.... something you NEVER see in RPGS, but you do see in (dun dun dun) action games like Castlevania, Shinobi, etc.

Again, by all definitions here, IF you consider Zelda an action-rpg, then Metroid is as well. As is Devil may Cry, God of War, etc.

Go play some action games, then go play some Action-RPGs, and see what has more in common with Zelda.

... and yes, the name RPG is misleading, if you use its definition to try to define the game. Just like any other genre name. What is "rock" music, or an "action" game. Almost all games have action, whether or not that is the genre.