I agree with Gaiiden, the Zelda series are more action adventure than RPG, although I have heard of it as refered to as action-RPG.
quote:
Who knows what to expect from the gamecube one it looks disipointing
No disrespect to you JHL, but it annoys the hell out of me when I read comments like this.
If you know actual gameplay facts and are refering to those, then that''s your opinion, but if it''s because the game is cel-shaded, then that''s a different story. It just annoys me when people can''t look beyond the gfx (which I think are superb btw), it''s always annoying when people refer to Mario64 as a kids game for example!!
I for one am looking forward to the new Zelda, I was slightly disappointed with the N64 versions of Zelda (Z3 was my fave), so I think a change will do the series good.
quote:
Original post by JHL Who knows what to expect from the gamecube one it looks disipointing.
How can you shoot down a game you haven''t even played yet? Come on man, it''s Shigeru Miyamoto for cripes sakes. He wouldn''t kill his own game. It''ll be awesome - just you wait.
For me it''s not the cel shading that I don''t like, it''s the style. It looks more like a Disney cartoon than the traditional anime artwork that is usually associated with Zelda. I personally would have prefered more of a manga look but I''m biased becasue I''m a big fan of that style.
But I think you are right, it probably will be awesome.
quote:
Original post by clrscr What do you consider Zelda
Mainly action adventure also.
- RPGs develop a character through skills. - Adventures develop a character through story. - Action keeps the character moving but does nothing to develop a character. - Puzzles do not need to involve a character but rather an obstacle to progression. - Strategy involves undevelopable characters with a large area of conflict
These are some vague thoughts on how development is related to each game type. Exceptions always exist (for example, Starcraft is mostly Strategy but Marines can be upgraded to fire better).
Saying that an RPG is any game where you play a role is absurd, despite the name. Would that make Starcraft a Wargame? What about Contra? Is Contra a "wargame." What about simulation, is Mario a simulation? (Where you simulate an Italian plumber)
Genre names mean more than the literal meanings of the words in their title. A "wargame" is not a game with war, or about way. A "strategy" game is not a game that requires strategy. And a "role-playing game" is not a game where you play a role.
These terms are invented to describe existing games. We don''t invent the terms first and then try to figure out which games go into which categories. Zelda is NOT an RPG because it isn''t all that similar to most of what we *do* call an RPG. It *is* an action/adventure game because it *is* similar to what we call action/adventure games.
People who have problems with this are no doubt the same people who can''t figure out why "inflammable" means flammable...names don''t always make perfect sense.
UGH! a game cannot be a RPG unless it has EXP for the player to gain? what a short sighted, narrow minded, and foolish view!
Sure Zelda is unconvential in that it doesn''t follow the typical cliched RPG way of doing things...but thats all the more reason you self appointed RPG genre guardians should welcome it!
You all seem so concerned about player character development...but Lord forbid the RPG genre develops beyond what you envision
Think about it...Before Half-Life was released most FPS games had only rudimentary stories...If everyone followed your shallow genre guidelines...then HL could in no way shape or form be a FPS..simply because, at the time, it wasn''t "what we have come to expect in the genre".
And no matter how you break it down...RPG is truly such a broad genre classification that every game...EVERY GAME!...can be considered a RPG...even Tetris...even Pong...even Diablo...even Zelda
Don''t think so?...then come up with a new genre term to define what you believe RPGs truly are and/or should be
MSW, what´s your problem? You seem a bit agitated over this.
Role Playing Game
As this thread has pretty well shown you can´t simply define any genre by their literal meaning. So, from previous experience:
A game where you (the player) can play a certain role. As games developed RPGs started to differentiate themselves from adventure games. As it stands now RPGs have certain common criteria which differentiate them from other genres, especially adventures:
1) Role vs. Character
RPG is not about playing (simulating) a character, but about actively choosing which role to play. This usually involves stats, but does not have to. I think what it boils down to is to have different situations which different characters (in different roles) can solve in different ways. Some roles have options which are not available to others. In adventure games the focus is purely on the problem, the agent (the character) or rather the characters role does not matter. If you think back to Quest for Glory (which I consider to be a borderline case) you´d have to say that it was more of an RPG in that respect.
2) Evolvement vs. Linearity
In RPGs the change of the chosen character is an essential part of the game. It is also important that the player can influence the characters evolvement. In an adventure game the character does not change, or does so in a completely linear fashion, as the focus is not on the character, but on the story. The characters change in an adventure game also does not influence the player, as the general mode of playing is not changed.
3) Story
Both adventures and RPGs rely heavily on story. The difference between the two is usually the type of the story that is told. The typical adventure is a problem story, while the typical RPG is a character story. The problem story focuses on the situation at hand, at some status quo which is brought out of balance and then through the efforts of the hero returned to the original state or brought to a new state. The character story can be about the same content as the problem story, but the focus is not on "what happened, and why did it happen?" but more so on "how did character X react when it happened". Of course (as with all archetypes) no RPG or adventure fits a hundred percent in either category, but generally speaking the two can be divided pretty clearly.
Tetris and Pong are also not RPGs because the player does not play a role, but a function. He cannot choose or influence his agent in the game world (this is only partially true, as the paddle in pong is subject to change), and to call the entity which moves the bricks a role would be a bit far fetched. Furthermore there is no story which is told, at least not in the usual sense.
Half Life is not an RPG because it lacks character development and the choice of the role. It is also only a very rudimentary adventure, because the ability to interact with the environent and the story is extremely limited ("shoot" or "action"). I´d still classify it as a FPS, even if it had a story.
Diablo is the next step, you have character development, you have story. You have limited player influence on the role whihc is assumed (whether this is enough to warrant the title RPG is a matter of personal preference). The interaction with the gameworld and story is still very limited ("click"), the emphasis on "character" is definitely there. The story which is told is also rather thin (at least the part of the story relating directly to the players actions), but the term RPG would probably be deserved. If you can´t quite bring yourself to do it, call it Action-RPG.
Zelda and any Mario games are not RPGs by this definition, while they do have story and interaction they do not have character development or any player influence on the role which is assumed.
This is my view on things, a lot of it has been said here already anyways. Flame away.
