How would you classify Zelda?

[T-hug]

I would class it as an action adventure with RPG elements.
Sure you don't gain levels, but you do gain hearts to increase health, and better tunics (in some) for better defense. You also obtain items and weapons that allow you to progress further; these features together basically equal leveling.

 

[ackers]

I just see Zelda as an action/adventure RPG. More action/adventure than FF, less RPG than FF.

 

[Jiyik]

Why it is more action/adventure than FF?

 

[Priss]

I would class it as an action adventure with RPG elements.
Sure you don't gain levels, but you do gain hearts to increase health, and better tunics (in some) for better defense. You also obtain items and weapons that allow you to progress further; these features together basically equal leveling.
Which much cannot be done without the quest of interacting with villagers/elements to activate certain triggers to either
1-progress through the game
2-gain certain weapons/upgrades
Hence the terminology of an Adventure RPG... One must EXPLORE the world they are in.
If anything I am willing to say that the original Zelda is an ARPG. Intensive dungeon crawler.

@Joey
You are taking this obviously to seriously and e-drama is not my forte. I have used simple examples in the past to state my opinion
but you seem to stare at the .gif faces to much or focus on other silly comments and let steam rise to your head.
QUOTEOriginally posted by Joey
all the accessories given in the dungeons are needed to progress in the game

I didn't know you HAD to have the red Boomerang (Z-3) / Big Goron Sword (Z-4) / Red-Blue Rings (Z-1) / MANY of the spells (Z-2) to complete any of the titles.

You should pull out the map editor from SC BroodWar/WC3 and play with it's functions (Triggers/AI scripts etc..) to comprehend what *INTERACTION* means within a game
and gives it the title of an RPG when using UMS.

All Platformers are RPG's.... Wait the Purple dragon named Spyro surely can't be an RPG

It says Platformer.. Not RPG...

FFVIII along with many other popular games that are no doubt RPG's, is an example to the most of it's basics... YOU DON"T NEED TO LVL OR CHANGE STATS FOR IT TO BE AN RPG
but yet you still have these options available to you:
-Attributes describe a natural, in-born characteristics shared by all characters, such as physical strength or wisdom
-Skills describe learned capabilities, such as spoken languages, horse riding or computer hacking.
-Powers describe extraordinary abilities which make a character special, such as flight or telepathy.
(these criteria MUST be met in order to be called an RPG)

Everyone seems to know what Adventure is and agree that Zelda is just that. But IMO lacks the Action to classify it under Action. (except for the original title)

~ Adventure RPG

 

[Private|Par]

I just found this thread because I remembered my (quite frankly) rash and angry post, probably due to something I ingested, someone I saw, or something that happened. Reading back over what I said, it is rather open-minded. I think what needs to happen is that we (as gamers) need to define an RPG.

The problem with RPG as a genre is that there is no real definition of one; when someone says RPG, I immediately think Golden Sun. However, someone else could think of Final Fantasy, or even World of Warcraft. The vagueness of the genre does not help when attempting to classify games.

This being said, I agree with a post I read by an indie developer a while ago. I can't find the exact article, but he was saying something along the lines of that he feels games today try to fit into their genre, adapting the common conventions of staples of that genre. He thought that is was a shame that games didn't develop as a game, but rather as a representation of the genre. I'm sorry if that was a bit confusing... I can't find the article at the present.

I completely agree. I have no evidence to back this up, save what I witness, but I think that humans feel the need to classify things. This is not unreasonable; it makes things easier to find in a supermarket, for instance. But I think that sometimes it takes away from the experience of a game.

If you sit down and play Bioshock without knowing anything about game genres or definitions, you would walk away saying, "Wow, that was a fantastic game." (excluding the last quarter of the game, but that's another topic of discussion.) If you have prior knowledge, however, before you even go into Bioshock you're going to be anticipating what will happen. "Ah, so this a FPS with RPG elements, that means I should..."

This is one reason why I try never to read much about a game I'm going to be picking up. Normally I just listen to opinions, and of people personally stating their experience with the game.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, does it really matter what genre tLoZ is? I think that most Zelda games are fun, entertaining and worth playing.

And in the end, that's what really matters.

 

[Toni Plutonij]

I still wouldn't call it RPG....I think that genres are determined by their history (in games) too, not only a gameplay..
Today, we have genres that mix much! Almost every newer game takes a bit of few genres, just to be something new and special, but having level system in FPS doesn't make it and RPG..It makes it FPS with RPG elements..
Also, I think that Final Fantasy, Dragon Quest and such games set a standard of what is RPG supposed to look like..
So I would qualify Zelda as an action/adventure game with RPG elements, but I'd never say for it that it's an RPG game!

 

[Shabadage]

To me, a CRPG (Computer, not console; just to separate from pen and paper based RPG's) could possibly be classified where the battle system marks a decided change in gameplay. This could be exemplified by the 8-bit and 16-bit RPGs, even proceeding into the 32-bit. Fallout on the PC is a good example of this, combat mode represents a change in gameplay, when the game switches from a "realtime" (It's not really, it's just really fast turns) to a decided tactical combat.

This would not cover, however, cases where the battle system is blended into gameplay. FFXII and Fallout 3 are good examples, as well as the Elder Scrolls series. So by my very definition it's a bit flawed.

I'd also say something about your choices affecting the story/setting and stat growing; but I can't be arsed to think it out over the next 5 minutes.

 

[Midna]

It's an adventure game with some RPG elements. A damn good one, too.

 

[Jiyik]

Coming from other gaming tradition, I didn't experienced or played the long series of Zelda. I didn't see many of previous games in the series clearly classified by every shop in the adventure section and not the RPG.

So when I played the first time the wii version of Twilight Princess I didn't think a moment that it was an adventure game. It was a clear RPG with it's share of linearity and non linearity, with plenty story and NPC interaction, with many secondary quests, and even with inventory management and character improvement management even if those last points was quite simplified. I saw this simplification more in order to not bother some type of players or some younger players with technical details quite complicated.

It's quite clear that for the series it's different but Zelda is less a series than a trademark, and that's strange (from marketing point of view) that it didn't get declined in many different game genres. I gave a look in various console game sites and eshops and I saw that most was tagging Twilight Princess as action/adventure. One point is that game genre/tags firstly evolve and secondly aren't fully the same in computer game tradition and console game tradition. An interesting quote in one of the article quoted by Louisiana is that Strategy RPG is a genre that is used for console only. There's few game similar in computer games but they get more tags like wargame, turn based strategy game and even RTS for those non turn based.

For the Zelda series I don't know. For the game Zelda Twilight Princess, for traditional computer game players, the tag action/adventure would lead to misleading and RPG would be fine but also action/adventure/RPG would be ok. I understand for this game the tag action/adventure with RPG elements is quite good particularly in the following of the series tradition and in the context of console games.

The problem is that it's a tag a bit long and myself if I had too choose I couldn't deny it the RPG tag. That's even more true because I agree that class elements are lighter RPG features in this game, but I find classes elements quite light anyway in some other console RPG. In many computer RPG classes offer much more choices and are often much more complicated.

 

[Louisiana]

The problem with RPG as a genre is that there is no real definition of one; when someone says RPG, I immediately think Golden Sun. However, someone else could think of Final Fantasy, or even World of Warcraft. The vagueness of the genre does not help when attempting to classify games.

It's not vague at all. Golden Sun and Final Fantasy and World of Warcraft all have very obvious similarities. A genre is defined by the similarities of the games in it.

QUOTE(Private|Parts)I guess what I'm trying to say is, does it really matter what genre tLoZ is? I think that most Zelda games are fun, entertaining and worth playing.

And in the end, that's what really matters.

It matters to me. I'd rather compare it to games in the same genre than games which are completely different. I want to compare so I can criticize.

 

[damole]

I'd classify it as "lame."

 

[Immortal Game]

I'd say it's an Action/Adventure game with RPG elements, since there are some RPG things, but not enough to make it a full RPG.