Is it an RPG? Why or why not?

Is it an RPG? Why or why not?

no

If we're taking the term RPG at face value, it is an RPG.
If we're talking about the current understanding of RPG, with stats and level progression, then it is not an RPG.

If dark souls is an rpg then so is zelda

I've always considered it as one, but not for any real good reason.
There is no stat abstraction, leveling or character progression, and the literal "role" you play is bare-bones at best.

Action adventure game

Even going by the pleb definiton of "RPG" being you have levels and gear and stats and shit then no, let alone actually have any roleplaying in them

Breath of the Wild kind of counts as one since there is something of stat and armor progression but it's very light on those elements. It's the only one that counts though. The rest are just action-adventure games in a setting that's shared by a lot of classic-era RPGs

rpg = role playing game

in almost all the zelda games you play as a character that doesn't talk and you can pick his name. So you are literally self inserting and playing a role. So yes.

Its a Metroidvania.

No.

Because it's an adventure game.

Zelda 2 sort of was

BotW inches very close. You have stat distribution, but only in the sense of health and stamina. There's gear that's capable of being upgraded. Weapons become better as your progress.

In a way, it kind of feels like what you do at an endgame MMO, where the majority of your progression lies in collecting new armor and items.

all games are roleplaying games

So why did fallout 4 get shit on for not being able to choose your role in a role playing game but it's ok when zelda does it?

Dark Souls has actual leveling up and stats and classes though, there's a diference

This is such a meaningless, retarded angle of looking at things. That'd mean most games are RPGs.

>let alone actually have any roleplaying in them

The best Zelda games have more in depth character interaction, exploration, questing and environment manipulation than the vast majority of 'real' RPGs. Take that how you will.

>So why did fallout 4 get shit on for not being able to choose your role in a role playing game
fallout 4 made the protagonist voiced. Zelda has not done that yet if you dont count the cd-i games. I am not actually sure if I get your point.

>That'd mean most games are RPGs.
by definition they are. I mean the term rpg means almost nothing anymore. Every game these days follows the "rpg leveling" formula.

Zelda still doesn't. I don't see Link collecting EXP from his kills.

>open world
>npcs
>shops
>side quests
>equipment based progression
Maybe in 1986 the above could qualify you for the RPG genre but not anymore.

It carries the item based RPG growth but otherwise the series is action adventure

the exp he collects are the spirit orbs and the reward for the exp is more stamina and hp.

Those are objects he finds in the world from exploring and completing specific tasks. In that sense, is Metroid an RPG?

>In that sense, is Metroid an RPG?
idk man. I don't know what the fuck an rpg is anymore. Is Nier an rpg?

Not even Dark Souls is an RPG. Fight me.

I'm talking about
>Yes
>Yes
>Sarcastic yes
>No (Yes)
Having no choice over the ROLE that you PLAY isn't really a role playing game, it's an adventure game with leveling

But none of those are roleplaying

>Having no choice over the ROLE that you PLAY isn't really a role playing game, it's an adventure game with leveling

Wouldn't that make most classic JRPGs, not RPGs?

>Having no choice over the ROLE that you PLAY isn't really a role playing game
going by this logic then none of the final fantasy games are rpgs, your choices dont matter in final fantasy they all end the same.

Action-adventure with some vaguely implemented elements borrowed from the RPG genre. There. We're done.

nobody knows what makes an rpg an rpg anymore

>Is it an RPG?
Yes.

>Why or why not?
The creator himself refers to it as a roleplaying game. inb4 autistic mental gymnastics

I think that character progression being linear with no room for customization and that you can't affect the story one way or the other makes Zelda not an RPG

>gear based progression
>hp upgrade
> mana points upgrades
>unlocking spells

It's an rpg

Its a type of RPG.

Rolling stats and numbers is not what makes an RPG. Rolling for stats is rarely even done in DnD these days and in real old DnD it was much more about events then numbers on a page. That as an example as kinda the father of the RPG as we know it.

You have a sword, a shield, a map, and an inventory on a journey to stab baddies to save the land/girl. Thats about as basic of RPG ideas as you can get. Part of why I like it, its exactly all you need for fun.

I could make a turn-based strategy game and call it a platformer. Doesn't mean I'm not talking out of my ass.

...

>character progression being linear
It absolutely is not.

>you can't affect the story one way or another
>implying an RPG needs branching story paths to be an RPG

Most RPGs don't focus on inane block puzzles, like 90% of of the Zelda games released between 1992 and 2017 did.

>I could make a turn-based strategy game

retards can't make anything you liar

it's a textbook action-adventure game.

>Vagrant Story

Not an argument.

Is there a single piece of fiction in ANY FORM that doesn't have elements of action and adventure

This is the dumbest non-label Nintendo Power ever came up with

Green tunic becomes blue tunic becomes red tunic, how is that not linear?

Be patient with this poster

>Zelda 1/OoT
>can skip getting the rings/tunics entirely
>can get them in different sequences

It is but you're retarded

>your choices dont matter in final fantasy they all end the same.
Story wise, no there aren't really any options. But the gameplay does have RPG aspects. By the end of the game different players can have completely different team compositions and character builds. At least up until XII.
Most Zelda games don't have ANYTHING to merit the "RPG" title.

action just means your reflexes are being tested. Adventure means there's an overworld you navigate. So it does mean something. Also Zelda certainly has elements of Rpg, and you'd have to be blind to not see that.

It's an action-adventure/puzzle game series for the most part
Zelda 2 is pretty RPG though
BotW is also tiptoeing on RPG too

It would, which is a huge reason so many people think they're shit.

honestly most of the Zelda games do have rpg influence, just because weapons don't have a level and stat screen dosent mean it's not an rpg.

the japanese box for Zelda OoT calls the game a 1-Player 3D Action RPG. So I would say yes, it is.

So I can skip upgrades and that makes its an RPG? Goddamn you are a dumb nigger, its not an RPG.

>it dosent have a leveling system so it's not an rpg!

That's definitely one of the cornerstones of an RPG, yeah.

>By the end of the game different players can have completely different team compositions and character builds

But that just means that game happens to "lock you in" to a given build in a way that take a lot of time to change, as opposed to Zelda where you can just swap out equipment/transform at will to achieve whatever you want.

Essentially, Zelda is a "super RPG" that lets you do most of what a typical RPG would let you do, while also leaving you the freedom to go back (through time travel or whatever) and then make completely different choices without having to restart the whole game.

Only tabletop games, sandbox MMORPGs and Rogue-likes/Souls-likes provide the "true RPG" experience of actually forcing you to face the consequences of everything you do, instead of letting you reload your save file, and hence actually give you a combination of freedom and reason to play cautiously that defines the experience.

Then what does make a Zelda an RPG?

So is character creation but not every RPG has that either. Should we go tell things like The Witcher or every JRPG they aren't RPGs.

'action-adventure' is just some catchall term people use to label a game when they don't fucking know.

This is the dumb shit that happens when people try to go back in time and apply modern labels to games that started before those labels were widely used.

Half of pen and paper RPGs is math, the other half is an adventure story for treasure/exploration/glory/etc. When your game is measured in kilobytes you have to pick the parts to keep.

The stats are the thing most intrinsically associated with RPGs though.

Mario goes on adventures, but his stuff was only considered an RPG after adding in leveling.

My opinion is the complete opposite, Dark Souls is one of the few games that genuinely does deserve to be called an RPG and can meaningfully distinguish itself from all the dreck that basically amounts to "you grind to level up, take turns hitting each other and can blindly choose X or Y at certain points".

In Dark Souls every NPC has unique dialog and consequences for killing them. Making the choose to do is something that is always on the table, even if it's caused by you accidentally hitting the mad making them agro. The point is not that there are dimply decisions and consequences, but that the world is basically alive with them and encourages you to always be on your guard because you don't get to go back and undo something that you have done.

The paradoxical effect of this though is to create an environment when the player naturally accepts that he is going to not do everything perfectly and that stuffups and their consequences are to be expected. So instead of going in with a minmax attitude where you might reload your save 20 times to avoid using that item that you wanted to save for WHEN YOU REALLY NEED IT, you actually end up doing the opposite, and taking advantage of the semi-limited things you have in order to make the most of everything when you see wisdom in doing so, as things are going to change anyway. Maybe you will kill that NPC you think you have reason to after all, fully prepared to accept to specific gain and loss you'll incur in doing so.

I thought only normies on Facebook groups called Zelda an RPG. There's people like that on here too baka desu senpai

To everyone who said yes, these games are made in Japan as well; does that mean you would also call it a JRPG?

No its a WRPG since it's action based.

Are you so blind you can't see the actual differences between an action RPG and an Action Adventure game?

You can change the characters name, apparently.

I meant to quote

No, because the term RPG doesn't make any sense in vidya.

I hate everything about this thread.

>The stats are the thing most intrinsically associated with RPGs though.
But they aren't.
And you are going backward on labels again with Mario we had a more defined set of games by the time Square crossed over into making a Mario game.

Going back to pen and paper as that is where this shit starts, the original editions and pre-editions of DnD were not as full of rules yet like we know today or focused on being a boardgame, but were focused on story telling more so. Which is somewhat still the focus but its a more defined game now.

Character creation on who you get to be was way more important than the stats you rolled, because that is who you get to be. That is the role you take. Though depending on game it could be a bit of both with stat requirements on class, but hey rerolls.

Zelda doesn't have that either true, but neither does The Witcher and we wouldn't say the Witcher isn't an RPG that would be dumb.

Zelda has a level up mechanic in hearts and later mana and an inventory of loot, which is often an RPGs objective. It has a main quest and side quests and a fantasy world of fantasy people. Not rolling dice or picking charisma as a dump stat doesn't preclude it from being an RPG.

Zelda has puzzles but we wouldn't call it a puzzle game either.

Its not some clear cut situation. An outside example would Avatar the last Airbender. Some would say oh its not anime because its not made in Japan its from the west. But reality is the thing was animated in Korea and so are most Japanese shows these days. So is it? Maybe, depends on who you ask. But you damn sure know if someone says western anime what shows they are talking about.

See you want to make language dictate the idea, but ideas dictate language. We had RPGs before we really thought about putting them in a category. And we damn sure have plenty of cross overs of concepts genre so its not some concrete thing were a blank word describes everything.

The answer is that it can be both.

Fuck each and every single one of you.
Yes, Zelda is an RPG.

Zelda roles to play: Link
Dark Souls: mage, wanderer, warrior, knight, thief, pyromancer, etc

It's pretty easy. There's no other role to play the game with other than Link, so I don't consider it RPG. Meanwhile, I can be whatever I want in games like Elder Scrolls, Souls, Mass Effect, Final Fantasy

Truth is nobody really has a nail down on what RPG means, but here's my two cents.

In a role playing game, your character must be able to play a role (NOT a character) that differs from others. For example, in, say, Skyrim, you can be a character you create from scratch named, I don't know, Hordoak, and he is a Battle Mage. His ROLE is battle mage, and that is how the player plays the game.

In an RPG with established characters, say, Vaan in FFXII, you can choose for him to be a Black Mage or an Archer or a Monk or whatever. You're playing that established CHARACTER, but it's still an RPG because you take on and choose a role.

tl;dr: character =/= role. I mean, everywhere else it does, but it seems to be a bit different in video games.

Zelda is an action-adventure series. It has some progression elements but (generally) weak customization, no EXP/leveling, no or very shallow stats, etc.

V