Zelda: Action RPG or Action Adventure?

[josh_manga]

Seems like most people agree that it is actually an action adventure game, but still i see this being thrown out there as an RPG. Sure, you have the Adventure of Link, which has experience, spells, HP, MP, etc... but the majority of Zelda games do not, and as a franchise Zelda has not followed that path.

I'm sure everyone is aware of what makes an Action game, and Adventure game seems to be defined as one where you have a "room", a "door", and a "key". I put those in quotation marks because they are metaphors for multiple things. the "Room" could be an actual room, or it might be a large field, or it might be another dimension. A "Door" could be an actual door, a cannon that sends you flying, a person who lets you pass, etc... And finally they "Key" is often a literal key, but sometimes is an arrow shot through a magic gem, a clever use of the hookshot, or multiple gears being turned simultaneously by the boomerang. Sometimes you just have to kill monsters to get the door to open.

This combined with the lack of Experience and Levels and traditional turn based combat (hence it is an Action game), people tend to throw Zelda out as an RPG.

Without going into the mundane and silly arguments about how Mario is a role playing game or monopoly is a role playing game, it is actually fairly easy to see that when you play a Zelda game, you do play the character, if not the role, of Link. The player's control over link is little different than that in X-Men Legends, World of Warcraft, Gauntlet Legends, or even a custom made character in Dungeons & Dragons Online. The difference is in the customization of the character of Link, a difference which is slowly being eroded.

When it comes to things like spells and skills, games such as D&D and WoW allow players to pick and choose, and certain spells become available at certain levels, but you can be sure that players will always pick what they feel are the most optimal choices, and some players will even follow a "build" guide for their character's class. The way i see it is Zelda simply removes all the non-optimal skills and spells leaving only those which are the obvious choices. Even those are optional, because it is possible to complete Zelda games without all the magic items and weapon skills. So what arsenal Link has is up to the player.

So, what about appearance? Wow and D&D have tons of equipment for characters. Well, most Zelda games do have lots of tools, but Link's clothing seldom changes. In the first Zelda, Link's color changed depending on his magic rings, and in the one for SNES, Link got better armor that were different colors. These were hardly cosmetic changes though, and while being optional, weren't interchangeable. By Ocarina of Time, Link could change his tunic depending on the situation, or if the Player just wanted a different colored Link. In the Twilight Princess, Link gets different sets of armor with different functions and appearances aside from color, and the player gets a different look at each of them depending on which one Link wears upon beating the game.

As far as making the character your own, players are still limited to just naming Link something other than Link, but some people can choose different playing styles as well. Some games can be cheated or bugs exploited that allow you to play without certain key items, such as the sword, but eventually you will need to play the game "right" to win.

Now, Levels and Experience. There are several RPG's, Gurps, Shadowrun, and World of Darkness, that do not use Levels, instead they use skills that can be improved over time, most likely through the use of experience though. So while Zelda might get by as being an RPG without levels, there is still no experience to improve skills with. However, in Zelda 2, Minish Cap, Ocarina of Time, Wind Waker, Twilight Princess, Link to the Past, and others i'm sure, Link must go to someone who will teach him a skill or spell to use. So, while there is no numerical system for Experience points, there is an overt system of learning, which is far less abstract than a numerical system anyway. Even RPG's that use levels and experience have Trainers.

So to sum up, i view Zelda as an Action Role Playing Adventure Game. Or a Provisional Action RPG.

Thoughts?

[Nate]

We've been over this on the Gamecast before, and the way an RPG is defined is a game in which the character's statistics, rather than the player's skill, determines the outcome of situations.

In other words, in D&D, your stats determine how good you are at fighting, resisting poison, casting spells, succeeding at diplomacy...player skill does not determine if your sword hits, it's the roll of the dice and your stat modifiers.

In the same way, in Final Fantasy for example your success is determined by your stats. You have x amount of defense, x amount of evade. It doesn't matter how skilled you are at playing games, your skill will not cause Cecil to dodge an attack in Final Fantasy IV. There is zero way to influence the combat outside of choosing a menu option. You cannot move Cecil to dodge an enemy attack, and you cannot influence if your attack will hit or not.

In a game like Doom, your skill determines your success. You move Doomguy, if he doesn't evade an attack, it's because YOU suck, not because of stats. If you shoot an enemy and you miss, it isn't because of stats, it's because YOU are a poor shot. If you are a good enough Doom player, you can play the entire game and never get hit by an enemy attack. The outcome of combat is determined by YOUR skill, not the computer.

So where does this leave Zelda? In Zelda, your success in combat is not determined by stats. You are the one dodging and attacking. There aren't even stats in Zelda...a life bar does not constitute a stat, otherwise Doom would be considered an RPG since it has a health meter. Likewise, having better armor/swords does not count as stats either, as Doom has better weapons and stuff. These aren't stats. In Zelda, if you get hit, it's because you suck at dodging, not because of a random number cruncher. If your attack hits, it's because you timed it well, not because of a random number cruncher.

Therefore, since your skill, and not statistics, determine the outcome of things in the Zelda games, Zelda cannot by definition be an RPG. It is merely action-adventure. The same even holds true of Zelda II, it is not an RPG either, though it has statistics, because if you are good enough you can still use your own skills to succeed in combat.

[Hiryu]

I would give it more Action Adventure.

The people who say it's an RPG, well, I kinda see what they're talking about. You play as a hero saving a princess, but wouldn't that include just about every other game too? Like in SMB, you're playing as mario to save peach from bowser. How about Gradius? Well, you're playing as a spaceship shooting through asteroids and other things, dodging enemy fire...

[josh_manga]

To Nate: Well posted, thanks.

Have you played Secret of Mana though? It's probably the first true action RPG i've ever played, but it can be beaten by skill as well. I think that's something latent within anything labeled Action.

I know you haven't said this, so i'll try not to put words in your mouth, but the line of discrimination you've drawn seems to be skill versus stats, which isn't true because many, if not all, RPG's rely on strategy to win, which is a player skill. No RPG i've ever seen can be beaten without input from the player. That's part of what makes it a game and not a simulation. For a simulation, you put together the stats, start the machine, and let it run itself to the natural outcome. But then i'm thinking of scientific simulations, training simulations are hands on. I guess what i'm getting at is that RPG's, being games, rely on player skill anyway, regardless of character stats. In theory a poorly "rolled" character could still win if played by a skilled player. It might just take longer.

But as i mentioned in my OP, with the experience being an abstract numerical system for governing the learning curve of the character as opposed to going to a trainer to learn a new skill, stats are equally that, abstract numerical systems for governing the strengths and weaknesses of the character. Zelda does not have full stats in a numerical sense, but they can be measured, and in the manual for Ocarina of Time you can see the Mp cost for using certain spells and magic weapons, so the magic bar there can be converted into numbers. The hearts can also be converted by careful study of the damage inflicted. Weak enemies can hit link for 1/4 a heart. Assuming that 1/4 is actually 1 point of Damage we can see that Link at 3 hearts has 12 hit points. But then there's armor and we have to question whether this mitigates fractional damage or whole damage. If it is fractional damage then 1 heart = 4 points. If it is whole damage then 1 heart = 12 points (blue armor = 1/2 damage, red armor = 1/4 damage). Also, if link has 12 HP per Heart then simple monsters do 3 damage to Link, instead of 1. 3/12 = 1/4

Then there's the weapons. Link's starting sword in LttP can be said to do 1 damage. Rats and Bats have 1 HP then. Snakes and Green Soldiers have 2 HP. The Master Sword does 2 Damage then, because Green Soldiers die in 1 hit against that. Blue Soldiers have 3 HP, and Red soldiers have 4 HP. The Tempered Sword would do 3 Damage i think and the Golden Sword does 4 Dmg. None of this is stated anywhere in the games, but it can be observed, and therefore measured. So Link simply has unwritten stats with graphic indicators. However there is still attack and evasion, those are left up to the player, but often times this constitutes of strategic placement upon observing a pattern, and strategy has always been the player's domain, regardless of whether we are playing AAG's or RPG's. So for me, player skill versus stats is a grey area in determining a game's status as an RPG. If we were to define an RPG as a game that involves the use of random number generators to determine success or failure, then Zelda would most certainly not be an RPG, but even there we meet grey area. Some games use dice, computer programs use a programmed script, other games use playing cards, LARP's use padded weapons and win or fail relies on player skill, other indie games may use other unconventional methods. I've seen one (i kid you not) that used cookies as bonus points to rolls. literal cookies! If you are rolling for success at a vital point in the game, you can eat a cookie and gain +1 to your roll. Don't believe me? It's called Doom and Cookies.

I suppose we could call Zelda a Virtual Action Role Play game, since like LARP's they have simple stats and rely on player skill to win. VARP!

[josh_manga]

To Hiryu: I've seen that point made before, and i do see where the term RPG could be misappropriated in that way. But it makes me wonder then if people's definition of RPG is simply too narrow to begin with. Could RPG really be that broad without breaking down what it is? Or what it means to people? Possibly, but it seems risky. Granted, any time you take on the role of someone other than yourself you are Playing a Role.

However i would argue that some games, where no character face or name is given, you are not actually playing a role so much as inserting your own self into the game. Space shooters are a good example of this, since no pilot is shown, it could very well be the player in the cockpit.

I also tend to think of RPG's in terms of health and damage when it comes to combat. Mario has "combat" but not really in those terms. He gets souped up on mushrooms for protection and has to hit bosses on the head generally 3 times to defeat them, so i guess you could argue that the bosses have 3 HP, and mario's stomps do 1 damage, but mario himself doesn't have any semblance of a health gauge or HP system till Mario 64. From then on, yes, i might contend that they are, as i labeled Zelda above, VARP's. Of course SMRPG Legend of the Seven Stars is a real RPG for all the traditional reasons.

[Midori]

I've always been bothered when people call Zelda an RPG, because the word makes people think of Final Fantasy-type games and not Zelda-type games, whereas saying 'adventure game' makes people think of Zelda-like games. For an RPG, it doesn't really have any mathematical stats beyond life, magic (sometimes), and equipment, all of which are also standard in Action Adventures. So basically when it comes down to it, you'd be arguing over whether it's a non-typical borderline RPG, or a completely normal adventure. So if it's either-or, it's clearly an adventure. If you allow multiple genre classifications, it's definitely an adventure, and then possibly an RPG on top of that.

I don't believe in genres anyway. They're too exclusive.

[josh_manga]

I don't believe in genres anyway. They're too exclusive.

I like this!

That is the problem with genres anyway, and i recall reading an article somewhere that talked about how RPG is getting tacked onto everything these days, so i guess Zelda would be one of those cross platform games. I still like the term VARP though.

[ABlipinTime]

Um... We have genres because we as humans like to classify games. It makes things easier to find. For some people, LoZ games maybe RPGs, to others an adventure game, so category would you put it in? Well, if you're a website managers, put it in both categories. Whether people agree with your classification or not, both types of people will still be able to find the game, and both know generally what type of game you're talking about. Clearly, no one wants to find LoZ games listed between NFS and Madden 09.

[Midori]

I realize the usefulness of genres as a classification system, but they are only that. When people begin to insist that a game is either one genre or the other and not both, it causes problems. Also when people make blanket statements like 'I don't like fighting games' or 'I only play RPGs', they're generally missing out on some games they would actually like, because of their genre classifications. Furthermore, there are always games that don't quite fit into genres, or are right on the lines between genres, and those games are often some of the best games, since they don't 'fit the mold'; but in a genre classification system those games tend to get lost between the cracks and fewer people play them. And I think that this leads to 'cookie-cutter' game development, where the developers are motivated to design their game according to some genre they want to fit into, rather than trying to make a new and interesting experience.

Anyway, sorry to hijack the thread with my ranting. This is one of my hot buttons.

[josh_manga]

"Clearly, no one wants to find LoZ games listed between NFS and Madden 09."

That's what we need! Zelda Ball! Zelda Horse Racing! Zelda Party! Zelda Makeover!

Thank goodness this hasn't happened, the closest thing to it i've seen was Tetra's Trackers or something, and that minigame with Tingle.

I agree, that is why we have genre's, but as you said, they are debatable, have grey areas, and are subject to opinion, so they are flawed and not entirely useful. RPG as a genre means different things to different people. Tack Action or Strategy onto it, add in Real Time, it becomes a jumble. Cross genre is nice, but eventually someone's going to come along and say "This isn't..." what they think of in terms of X genre.

So, as i said, Zelda, to me, is a provisional RPG. It is a role playing game providing certain parameters are met and others are extended to include non-traditional terms. It is on an electronic device displayed through visual animated graphics, it is definitely action oriented, and it involves some aspects of role playing, so i term it a Virtual Action Role Play game.

[josh_manga]

Anyway, sorry to hijack the thread with my ranting. This is one of my hot buttons.

It has gotten off topic some, but i don't blame you, it's all interesting and stimulating discussion that has remained so far polite.

[Nate]

Have you played Secret of Mana though? It's probably the first true action RPG i've ever played, but it can be beaten by skill as well. I think that's something latent within anything labeled Action.

Somehow, I don't think it can be beaten by skill. I've played the game, though never beaten it, but you do have an attack stat for your weapons for example. I have a feeling that at some point, it would be impossible to beat the later bosses by sheer skill alone simply because your stats would not be good enough to survive their attacks...if I recall, many bosses cast spells that affect the entire party, and if you are not a high enough level, you cannot survive the spells...this is in direct contrast to a game like Zelda, where ANY attack can be avoided with proper skill (well okay, outside of the ones necessary to further the plot, but that hardly counts).

So again, even in an action RPG like Secret of Mana or Star Ocean, where the player CAN influence the action, statistics will still determine success or failure in combat...there is still a gap between player skill and RNGs. If the final boss's attack spell does 200 damage to you and always hits, your skill cannot prevent you from dying if you have less than 200 HP. There is no way for you to use your skill to dodge the attack, and thus, statistics are the primary method of determining victory.

And as I stated before, in Zelda, there are no attacks you can't avoid, thus statistics never determine outcome of combat. Thus, Zelda cannot be an RPG.

many, if not all, RPG's rely on strategy to win, which is a player skill.

Strategy is important, but if you use a Gameshark and cheat to make yourself level 100 with 99 points in every stat, you can beat the game with zero strategy. This actually further proves that success or failure is determined by stats. Obviously there is some skill involved (otherwise low level runs of games couldn't exist), but if you can power level your guys to insane statistics and steamroll absolutely anything in the game with no strategy, then it's clear stats determine the outcome.

Likewise, you say "many if not all RPGs rely on strategy to win." If that was true, I should be able to beat Zeromus in Final Fantasy IV with all party members at level 1. If strategy TRULY is more important than statistics, then beating Zeromus at level 1 would be possible. However, it is absolutely impossible to beat him at that state. Your statistics are not good enough. While you still have to form a strategy to beat him when you're at level 60 or so (usually the level I'm at when I fight him), statistics are still the determining factor in whether I will win or lose. My strategy will help, but strategy does not determine the outcome. The statistics do, because again, if it was strategy, it should be possible to do it at level 1 (which it is not).

As to the rest of your post, I already stated that health bars and equipment do not count as stats. You're arguing poorly, and making bad conclusions. By your logic, I can break down life bars in Street Fighter as HP, and special meters as MP, and Ryu's Hadouken does this much HP damage to a character and therefore that's its Attack Power and state Street Fighter is therefore an RPG. That would also be a ludicrous argument. Because Street Fighter is in no way an RPG. Thus, it stands to reason that Zelda cannot be broken down in the same way. Simply because characters do damage and have health bars or even magic bars does not make a game an RPG. Street Fighter is not an RPG, and Donkey Kong Country is not an RPG, and no amount of breaking down "This attack can be said to do x damage" makes it one.

Thus, Zelda is still not an RPG, by virtue of the fact player skill, not statistics, determines the success or failure of combat.

It is on an electronic device displayed through visual animated graphics, it is definitely action oriented, and it involves some aspects of role playing

By that logic Super Mario Bros. and Street Fighter are RPGs.

[josh_manga]

Here i see you have a habit of taking statements i make and taking them to extremes.

Do i say Secret of Mana can be beaten by skill alone? Do i say that many, if not all RPG's rely on strategy alone?

No i do not.

The first time i played SoM to the final boss i had leveled the characters up significantly into their 70's or 80's and was beaten. Unfortunately the cartridge got giggled, the game glitched, and i lost my progress, and the heart to start all over again. When i next played the game through to the end we managed to beat the boss about 10-20 levels lower than my first attempt. So it is beatable by skill, but not skill alone.

You are right about FF though, by level grinding you could steamroll through anything.
But i can't believe you seriously brought cheats into the discussion.

"Because Street Fighter is in no way an RPG. " And here you make extreme statements of your own. Street Fighter has both characters and a story. Measuring attacks and meters into numerical systems is hardly ludicrous since that's probably how they are scripted anyway. But you're right, they wouldn't be RPG's, they would be VARP's, and if you notice, i'm no longer arguing that Zelda is an RPG anymore, not in the pure traditional sense. For that matter, neither is Final Fantasy.

You're ignoring my full comments, the comments of others, and my comments to them in return.

You are correct about the equipment and health bars though, no amount of breaking them down into damage and hit points makes the game an RPG, but those are not the only things one looks for when determining if a game is an RPG anyway. You may have already stated that equipment and health bars don't count as stats, but that's just where we disagree, i've made my argument, you've disagreed with it. That doesn't make it a poor one, just a differing one.

I guess what makes a game have RPG elements is what a person does with it, not how it's made. I can role play with Zelda, and there are people who roll play with D&D. D&D, i suppose, is the quintessential RPG, it's certainly one of the first to define the genre, and yet there are people today who can play it without ever actually playing a role, they just play to win like they would any other game. So, are they playing an RPG? Sure, but is what they are doing role playing?

I can play Zelda, is it an RPG? Maybe not, but i can role play with it.

Back to your comment about Mario and Street Fighter being RPG's. If stats are abstract measures of a character's physical being, and meters are abstract measures of a character's physical being, then aren't they the same? Some just have more stats than others, which is true of different RPG's anyway. D&D has 6 abilities, numerous (20+) skills, too many racial and class feats to number offhand, plus non essential stats for height, weight, and alignment. Rifts has 8 abilities, damage type, horror factors, attacks per melee, etc... Is one more of an RPG than another because it has more or different stats? Is one more of an RPG than another because the rules and dice are different?

Again, i'm not arguing that mario, street fighter, or zelda are RPG's, i've not once said that. i'm merely stating that they could be contenders for the title because they do have elements in common.

[Nate]

Do i say Secret of Mana can be beaten by skill alone? Do i say that many, if not all RPG's rely on strategy alone?

No i do not.

Right, but my point is that just because strategy exists does not mean a game relies on player's skill. The RNG still crunches numbers to determine success and failure in combat, even if you have a strategy.

Let's say, for example, that the strategy for a boss involves casting Silence on him, then Blind. That is definitely a strategy, and let's say the boss is literally impossible to beat unless you use that strategy.

Now, let's say that Silence and Blind only have a 20% chance of successfully being cast on this boss.

Even though you need a strategy to beat him, the RNG still determines if you will succeed. If you're unlucky, and the RNG is not in your favor, it will be impossible to defeat that boss, even if you use a strategy. Because the RNG has to say "This spell successfully hit, and so did this one." If the RNG repeatedly comes up with your spells failing, you lose the battle, even with your strategy.

In Zelda, there is no RNG to determine if your attacks hit an enemy or not. The RNG does not affect whether you hit an enemy, or an enemy hits you. It is solely, solely determined by your personal skill dodging an attack or striking the enemy (and the collision detection, but that isn't supposed to be random, and it isn't in any of the Zelda games at least).

My point was strategy plays zero role in determining whether a game is an RPG or not. There's a Flash-based game mocking Final Fantasy 13 where all you do is run along a linear path to little circles that have text dumps of the plot. It is an RPG, because running alone the line gives you experience points, and there are "random battles" (which you don't see) that can kill you if you don't have high enough stats. The game literally has no strategy though. The game is "Keep pressing the right arrow key, and if need be, press the left one sometimes." It's still an RPG because your success or failure in reaching the end is determined by your stats, even though there is no strategy involved. In fact I'll link it.

http://www.sophiehoulden.com/games/thelinearrpg/

It's an RPG with no strategy, but still an RPG. Likewise, you can have a game that isn't an RPG that requires immense amounts of strategy. Good example of that would be the Metal Gear Solid games. Those are very strategic games, but aren't an RPG at all. The Thief games are another good example of games that require tons of strategy and are not RPGs.

And so to restate my point: In an RPG, success and failure are determined by stats. Even if you need to use strategy, the outcome is still, STILL determined by stats. Zelda, Street Fighter, Mario...success and failure are determined by your skill as a player alone and stats do not factor into it.

So it is beatable by skill, but not skill alone.

Zelda is beatable by skill alone. SoM is not. You yourself just stated why Zelda is not an RPG and SoM is. You could play a Zelda game and never take a single point of damage if you are good enough. It is impossible to play SoM and never take a single point of damage, no matter how good you are.

And that is what determines if a game is an RPG or not.

But i can't believe you seriously brought cheats into the discussion.

Level grinding isn't cheating. Are you just saying that because I mentioned Gameshark? Then pretend I didn't say that and just said if you play the game for 100 hours and gain enough EXP to get everyone to level 99, and also get five Pink Tails to get five Adamant Armors (because let's pretend you're super lucky on item drops).

My point was it's impossible to beat Zeromus at level 1, because your stats aren't good enough, since your skill is not the determiner of whether or not you succeed, but rather your stats are.

"Because Street Fighter is in no way an RPG. " And here you make extreme statements of your own.

That's not an extreme statement. That's concrete fact. o.O Street Fighter is a fighting game, not an RPG. It in no way resembles an RPG in any form.

Street Fighter has both characters and a story.

That's not what makes a game an RPG...I don't even...this statement makes zero sense. The Sailor Moon fanfiction I wrote in high school had characters and a story, are my Sailor Moon fanfictions now RPGs? Story and characters have no bearing on whether a game is an RPG or not. Doom has a story and characters, and it's not an RPG. Heck, Pac-Man has a story and characters and it's not an RPG either. If you're saying anything with a story and characters is an RPG, that literally makes 99% of all video games that exist RPGs.

Measuring attacks and meters into numerical systems is hardly ludicrous since that's probably how they are scripted anyway.

That is how they're scripted, but my point was that saying "Ryu's Fireball does damage equal to 9% of a character's life bar" does not equate to "Ryu's Fireball has an Attack Power of 9 and therefore it's a stat and if it has stats it's an RPG!" which was what you seemed to be trying to state with "You could say that Link's sword has an Attack Power of 1!" and all that.

You may have already stated that equipment and health bars don't count as stats, but that's just where we disagree, i've made my argument, you've disagreed with it. That doesn't make it a poor one, just a differing one.

If I go to the zoo and go to the elephant pen and say "Man look at these awesome tigers!" and then when someone goes "Those are elephants," I can say "Well, these creatures are mammals, and give birth to live young, and walk on all fours. Are you saying tigers don't do these things? Since tigers do those things, and these animals in front of me do those things, clearly they are tigers."

Then when the person goes "That's a ridiculous argument with poor facts supporting it," I could respond "I've made my argument and you disagree with it, but that doesn't make my argument wrong."

But my argument IS wrong, and I'd still be wrong because they're not tigers, they're elephants, no matter how much "evidence" I present.

Equipment and health bars do not make a game an RPG. This is absolute solid fact, presented by the fact that there are countless video games with equipment and health bars, some of this mentioned in this very thread, that have equipment and health bars are are not RPGs.

You are free to ignore facts, of course, but if you aren't swayed by facts, this thread and debate is all rather pointless.

I can role play with Zelda

You can role play with literally any game. There's Let's Plays on Youtube where people pretend they are Mario, or they are Doomguy, or they are the guy driving the race car in Pole Position, or they are Pac-Man. This does not make Super Mario Bros., Doom, Pole Position, or Pac-Man RPGs simply because a person is role-playing them. Otherwise, again, 99% of all games would be RPGs, and then it would be a meaningless classification. It wouldn't be useful. It'd basically just be a synonym for "video game."

D&D, i suppose, is the quintessential RPG, it's certainly one of the first to define the genre, and yet there are people today who can play it without ever actually playing a role, they just play to win like they would any other game. So, are they playing an RPG? Sure, but is what they are doing role playing?

Playing D&D without playing a role is practically impossible, as combat is only a small portion of the experience unless you're in a dungeon. You can't "win" D&D either, so I don't know what you mean by "they play it to win." Maybe you mean they play it to get more experience points and gold, but that isn't "playing to win" because they literally can't win. You can't "beat" D&D.

I can play Zelda, is it an RPG? Maybe not, but i can role play with it.

And again, you can role-play with Pac-Man. This statement means nothing.

Is one more of an RPG than another because it has more or different stats? Is one more of an RPG than another because the rules and dice are different?

No, I don't see your point in this. They're RPGs because success and failure in actions are determined by randomness (dice rolls) and statistics and not the player's skill. You can't be "skilled" at D&D enough to never take a hit in combat. Even if you have an insane AC, this is balanced by a natural 20 being an automatic critical hit. You can't be "skilled" enough to avoid a natural 20.

Again, i'm not arguing that mario, street fighter, or zelda are RPG's, i've not once said that. i'm merely stating that they could be contenders for the title because they do have elements in common.

No, they are not contenders for the title in any way, shape, or form.

Finally, I'd like to state that you seem to be confusing role-playing for role-playing games. The qualifier "games" is important because you can role-play without playing a game. This is what LARPing is. This is what I'm doing if I sit in my room and pretend to be a cat and walk on all fours and meow. I'm role-playing. I'm not playing a role-playing game though. This is an important distinction, because you seem to be saying "If you're role-playing, it can be an RPG." No, it can't, because role-playing is distinct and separate from RPGs, as evidenced by the fact that you can role-play Pac-Man if you want, but Pac-Man is not an RPG.

[ABlipinTime]

Ocarina of Time:

http://www.gamespot.com/wii/adventure/legendofzeldaootn64/index.html?tag=result%3Btitle%3B9
Fantasy Action Adventure

http://wii.ign.com/objects/865/865246.html
Action Adventure

http://www.gametrailers.com/game/the-legend-of-zelda-ocarina/4448
Action, Role-playing


-----------
... We have our differences in categorization. It depends upon your definitions of "adventure" and "role-playing game" (as opposed to "role-playing" in a non-game manner). You two apparently have different definitions, thus it is a moot point to argue. Can we call this a draw?

[josh_manga]

Nate, could you post a link to that website/forum where they discussed RPG's definition? I'd like to read it for myself, since you hold their opinion in such high esteem.

I'll concede that i've not been arguing clearly or thinking my arguments through to their logical conclusion, but upon further analysis i still stand by most of what i've said.

"We have our differences in categorization"

ABlipintime, thanks, this is a point i should have made since post one. But i still have a few points to make yet before i'm done. However, the reason i started this thread was to see what people's thoughts were (see my original post) not to debate endlessly or convince anyone of anything. To that end i've tried to avoid taking things overly seriously in the disagreements on this thread. Some levity and friendly exchange of differences i hope we can all partake of, however long this thread endures.

[ABlipinTime]

"We have our differences in categorization"

ABlipintime, thanks, this is a point i should have made since post one. But i still have a few points to make yet before i'm done. However, the reason i started this thread was to see what people's thoughts were (see my original post) not to debate endlessly or convince anyone of anything. To that end i've tried to avoid taking things overly seriously in the disagreements on this thread. Some levity and friendly exchange of differences i hope we can all partake of, however long this thread endures.

Okay, but be cautious. There's a blurry line between "friendly discusssion" and "argument". But I'm not going to argue about that.

[Yamamaya]

Not all RPGS rely purely on stats. Certain RPGS cause the world to level with you, like in Elder Scrolls IV Oblivion. This means that when you level up, the enemies in the world level up as well. Of course, having good stats is a good thing in Oblivion since you if you don't develope the right skills or learn the right spells, you can still get your butt handed to you.

[Mr. SmartyPants]

Good point. Would the recent Fallout games (3 and New Vegas) and Oblivion constitutes as hybrids? I think so. There seems to be a very strong dependency of both skill and stat building and modifying in them.

[Peanut]

Good point. Would the recent Fallout games (3 and New Vegas) and Oblivion constitutes as hybrids? I think so. There seems to be a very strong dependency of both skill and stat building and modifying in them.

I agree with this...mostly because I've seen you try and snipe in those games and miss a target when you clearly should hit them.

[josh_manga]

Well, Nate never responded to my post, i assume he's given up the discussion, so i will proceed on my own and try to clarify some points that i consider important.

RPG. What does it stand for? Role Playing Game. That's it. When someone asks me what an RPG is, i say Role Playing Game. Of course RPG also stands for Rocket Propelled Grenade, but that's a different context entirely.

So, just what IS a Role Playing Game? Many seem to think it is a game which uses random number generators (RNGs) and statistics (stats) to determine success or failure. I consider this true up to the point that RNGs and stats are a commonly used element in RPGs, which is why you see hybrid games that say "contains RPG elements", they are usually talking about RNGs and stats, or possibly even Levels. Like the difference between Warcraft 2 and Warcraft 3. Warcraft 2 is a Real Time Strategy game. The units use stats and there are Heroes, but from what i can tell there are no RNGs and no levels, though units can be upgraded.

Warcraft 3 went more in this direction though, making integral use of RNGs, Stats, and Heroes that Level up. So Warcraft 3 is a RTS with RPG elements. In addition to this, Warcraft 3 has a more solidly integrated story, though it does not really insist on role playing, some "RPGs" have been made using the World Edit program. But is Warcraft 3 a RPG simply because it uses RNGs, Stats, Heroes, Levels, and tells a story?

I think to determine what an RPG is, one must go back and look at the original. That is not to say that RPGs can't change and become something different, but if it is that different, is it still an RPG?

One of the first (if not the first) RPGs made was Dungeons and Dragons. A game which was in fact derived from another game, Chainmail. Chainmail, like today's Warhammer, was a miniatures based historical battle reenactment and simulation game. Over time, as fantasy fiction novels became popular, the creators of Chainmail changed the game to fit the fantasy genre of historical fiction, adding non human races, mythical creatures, and magic spells, treating them as different troop and artillery types. In fact, much of the original D&D combat system was based on Chainmail's combat system, and underwent several revisions and reprints until it reached its final form. I know nothing of the actual rules of Chainmail, but one may assume that it was not an RPG. Warhammer Fantasy Battles and Warhammer 40K are also not RPGs, they are strategy war games, following in the tradition of Chainmail all the way back to the Prussian Officer training of the 1870s. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wargaming#History

In short, i define a game that places emphasis on RNGs and Stats not RPGs, but simulation games. They use the RNGs to simulate random elements, and Statistics to determine the relative strengths and weaknesses of individuals or groups.

Games have a lot in common. It seems to me that it is an exception for a game to not have some kind of protagonist, rudimentary plot, requires some form of plan to win, and in some cases places the player in the protagonist's shoes. Because these are common elements in most games (that i've seen), and because RPGs are a type of game, thereby bearing many of these similarities, it would be an error to say that one game has absolutely nothing in common with another.

So, assuming that no game prior to D&D (excluding the possible creation of another RPG system around the same time) were RPGs, and realizing that plenty of games prior to D&D have used dice and stats as primary elements, we cannot base a game's definition as an RPG solely on their inclusion.

As i don't have access to the original D&D booklets, or the writings and thoughts of its creators, i must go to the current owner of that franchise for a definition of what Role Playing Game means in terms of D&D.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/whatisdnd
"The D&D game (as a roleplaying game) is a fantasy game of your imagination. It's part acting, part storytelling, part social interaction, part war game, and part dice rolling. You and your friends create characters that develop and grow with each adventure they complete. One player is the Dungeon Master (DM). The DM controls the monsters and enemies, narrates the action, referees the game, and sets up the adventure. Together, the Dungeon Master and the players make the game come alive."

But wait, there's more.
"Each player chooses the character that he or she plays. Each character has unique strengths, weakness, and abilities. For example, some characters have the power to cast spells, some have combat expertise, and others have special skills. You can even create your own character from scratch."

So, if this is what makes an RPG, how much of this can be stripped away until a game is no longer an RPG? Can we replace the DM with a computer or randomized system? Can we take away the social interaction? Replace the dice rolling with cards or computerized RNGs? Can we take away RNGs altogether? Can we limit players' choices of characters to those that are pre-made? Can we take away the acting? Can we take away the part where characters grow with each adventure?

Somewhere above, Nate posted a link to the Line RPG. All that game has is Level, Experience, and Health for stats. We see no RNG, only that the character randomly takes damage and heals or is resurrected at the safe points along the line. Is this really all it takes to make an RPG? Oh, but there is also a plot; as the character moves from left to right, text scrolls along in the background, telling a story. Does that make it an RPG? Most games have some kind of plot.

Furthermore, about the point of Line RPG not requiring any strategy. I've invested almost 30 minutes of my time trying to get through Line RPG without using any strategy, no plan whatsoever, just following the path from the left to the right. Around level 7 i reached an impasse, a point at which i could go no further without "level grinding". But utilizing such a plan defeats the ability to go through a game relying on stats alone to win. I had to think about what i was doing. Player skill.

I'm no more comfortable considering this an RPG than i am with considering Street Fighter an RPG. But they both have things in common with Role Playing Games.

So how much can be paired down till a game is no longer an RPG? We can turn to other sources, one which quotes the Oxford English Dictionary.

http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/whatis/
"a game in which players take on the roles of imaginary characters, usually in a setting created by a referee, and thereby vicariously experience the imagined adventures of these characters."

This is even more sparse than the one from Wizards of the Coast, and possibly forms the absolute backbone of what an RPG is.

This site also has a list of different forms of RPGs, including Computer/Console RPGs, and Live Action Role Playing (yes, LARPs are a form of RPG, and is in fact a game.)

I may not have said it yet, so i'll say it now; i'm perfectly content with calling Computer/Console Role Playing Games "CRPGs". They are a type of game different from the RPG proper, utilize many similar conventions depending on whether they are single player versus multi player, online versus offline, etc... Because they bear such a strong resemblance, i'm ok with it, even more so if they enable actual role playing within the game or with other players of the game (MMORPGs). I'm ok with considering Live Action Role Playing Games LARPs, since they also utilize many similar conventions as the RPG proper, while being different. Many LARPS do not use RNGs, relying on either cards, rock-paper-scissors, or live combat to determine the outcome of battle (live combat being player skill, of course, not RNG and stat reliant). It's a different type, but still a type.

I believe that RPG, as a genre label, is an umbrella term which helps define many different types, even those which do not directly resemble each other. A shitzu is not a chihuahua, but they are both dogs. A bulldog is not a mastiff, is not a St. bernard, is not a great dane, but they are all dogs. A manx is not a golden retriever, and a manx is also not a dog, but both are mammals.

CRPGs are not MMORPGs, are not Action RPGs, are not LARPs, but they are all RPGs. Final Fantasy is not Street Fighter, and Street Fighter is not an RPG, but both are games. Because cats and dogs are mammals, they will have things in common, and because Final Fantasy and Street Fighter are both games, they will have things in common too.
Donkeys are not Horses, but sometimes they get together and have little Mules. That's what happens with Zelda i think. Its not an RPG, but its not an action game either, nor is it purely an adventure/puzzle solver game. It's a little of each.

[josh_manga]

And in conclusion, there seems to be the misconception that the purpose of this thread was for one thought group to convince another of their superiority and absolute correctness. I guess we're free to do that, but that's not why i'm here. The point of this thread isn't to discuss things with only those who willingly lay down their opinion at the slightest confrontation, but to discuss things from many points of view, disagreeing with the understanding that everyone is free to have their own opinion and freedom to speak it, and also with the understanding that many things are subjectively our opinions and should not be forced on others. We are talking about mere entertainment after all, and genre at that. I can think of few things more subjective to personal taste. Words have no meaning beyond what we agree to attribute to them, and that is why genres are so malleable (obviously, how many type of RPG has been mentioned?). This is why we have the term "genre bending".

I have thoughts, theories, questions. I like to bounce off other people's thoughts, hear their theories, try and answer their questions. If you disagree with me, i won't hate your guts for it, but i will take offense to ad hominem attacks and rude comments, and since i take offense to them i assume other people do as well and try not to use them myself. When i do, please call me on it, i need to know when i've crossed that line.

[josh_manga]

@ Ablipintime, thanks for posting those links to the different Ocarina of Time pages, to me, it helps illustrate that genres are inadequate to begin with.

@ Yamamaya, alas, i have not played any of the Elder Scrolls games. I have a copy of Redguard, but haven't played it because it did not run on my old computer and now i've lost the installation disc. I understand that having stat increases give the player a sense of accomplishment and progression, but kind of feel that it defeats the purpose if the world around you gets increases as well. I guess it's so you can say "wow, i never could have beat that back at level 1", but if the world difficulty tracks perfectly with character growth then the play difficulty really stays the same, loopholes and extreme challenges aside.

ps: Is your name intentionally a Japanese palindrome? it's awesome if it is!

@ Mr.Smartypants, this is why i'm ok with the idea of RPG being an umbrella term. People can make any game they want, tack on RPG elements, and so long as they acknowledge that it's not a pure RPG, they can call it what they want. Hybrid, Genre Bending, Action RPG, Live Action RPG, MMORPG, Console RPG. They are all different from RPG, and yet they are similar in crucial ways.

@ Peanut, I've seen this as well, though i can't remember which game it was that i played. It was at a friend's house, and we were playing some post apocalyptic game that started with the character's birth, facial construction, naming, childhood, skipping forward to shooting giant roaches with a pea-shooter as an adult, and randomly missing.

Thanks everyone for posting, keeping this thread alive. I'd have hated for it to end on the note it almost did

[Mr. SmartyPants]

@ Peanut, I've seen this as well, though i can't remember which game it was that i played. It was at a friend's house, and we were playing some post apocalyptic game that started with the character's birth, facial construction, naming, childhood, skipping forward to shooting giant roaches with a pea-shooter as an adult, and randomly missing.

Sounds like Fallout 3 to me...