"Traditional board game RPGs like D&D relied strictly on the "leveling" up system because there was no real "combat". It was all about who had the best stats. On the other hand, video game RPGs, while still (typically) rely on leveling up, also have the element of simulated combat. Your timing and decisions, even in turn-based games like Final Fantasy can effect the outcome of the battle. Any real RPG fan will play games like Final Fantasy with real-time turned on, as opposed to the other option where the computer will wait until the end of time for you to play your "turn"."
Wow. You have never played D&D. As it is far more open-ended than any computer ever will, everything you do can be weighed and considered and used strategically without good stats. Hmm. I'm a wizard with a low int, str, dex, con… I know. I'll instead turn part of that stalactite into mud and impale what I am fighting. Wow. My stats meant a lot. Oh. And pen-and-paper game is not a board game. Know what you are talking about.
"Anyway, games like Elder Scrolls most definitely fit your description of an RPG, with elments like interactive dialogue, options on how to open doors/chests/etc. (like picking versus using a key), and leveling up, BUT it also has elements more akin to Zelda games like real-time combat where you press buttons to fight and have a wide assortment of weapons, magic, etc. So, is Elder Scrolls an RPG or not?"
Elder Scrolls falls squarely into the blurred genre of Action RPG. Zelda has been contested since its conception on the genre.
"The problem is you're trying to apply a "traditional" definition of an RPG, as opposed to the more mainstream definition. In today's society, an RPG is pretty much defined as any game where you play the ROLE of ONE central character throughout the game. You have to complete an epic quest, which involves more than just one thing like shooting (like in Halo). "
No. Just. No. If an RPG is playing the role of one character throughout the game completing an epic quest, Halo qualifies. You play as Master Chief John (Can't remember his last name). You undergo an epic quest to stop the destruction of everything from the Flood. You end up completely obliterating structures which were created to destroy the Flood's food source. Single guy saving the world. That's an epic quest. Halo is still an FPS.
"You actually have to explore, solve puzzles, and defeat monsters to unlock the next chapter in the game. Also, the most standard definition is a game that takes a long time to beat. Games like Zelda can take 20, 40, even 60 hours to beat where as FPS and platformers can be beat in less than 5."
Maybe if you suck. I can drop a Halo game in about 5-6 hours. Also, you don't have to do most of that to complete the game. In the first Zelda game, you can get all the way to Ganon without grabbing the sword at the beginning. You just can't beat him. I'll be bringing this up in a minute as well.
"Zelda games may not have a "points" based leveling system, but do you really think that Link from the beginning of OoT could defeat Ganondorf at the end of the game? No. You "level" up by learning new skills, abilities, and obtaining newer and more powerful weapons. Zelda games may not fit your "traditional" view of what an RPG is, but that doesn't mean it isn't one. It's just different."
Okay, now is where I almost agree with you. Generally, something different means it falls under a different genre, and here it does. Zelda has elements of puzzle games, action, adventure, and, yes, RPGs. The puzzle, action, and adventure are obvious. What is being contested is the RPG aspect.
The general definition I can find is basically a game which places a strong emphasis on storyline-driven arcs and character development, with the payoff almost always based on storytelling instead of experiencing a more dynamic world via nonlinear gameplay. Just because it fits, even though it is not always the case, I will add in a game mechanics system as well.
Now, the problem here is does the Zelda series fall into that description?
Yes and no.
Okay, we'll start at the beginning. Zelda most definately has a strong emphasis on a storyline-driven arc - but then most games do. As much character development as there is, most of it is not with Link, but with the NPCs. This is odd in an RPG, but not unheard of. I presonally play the Zelda games for the storyline more than anything, so I would say that the biggets reward I gain is that. And they are most definately nonlinear (as already pointed out about the sword in the first Zelda). Other points of this are shown in every Zelda game, in which you can go through different dungeons at different times and get things in a different order - all leading to one final point, to be sure. Also to note, I will pull out The Legend of Zelda: The Ocarina of Time. In this game, you can wield the Megaton hammer through the game once you get it, and only rarely need to use your sword. You can do the same with Biggoron's Sword, as opposed to the Master Sword.
Game mechanics. This seems to be the big issue. You are correct in that Zelda does not have traditional game mechanics. What it does have is an increase of items, including upgrading your equipment to be more powerful. You also have different equipment for different situations (Such as resisting heat using the Goron Tunic in Ocarina). It requires ingenuity and sets you up for a moderately nonlinear game. However, I am avoiding statistics.
You begin with three hearts, and no magic. As time progresses, you are rewarded for doing heroic deeds or for sheer ingenuity by gaining more hearts (hit points, perhaps?) and magic (akin to mana or MP in most other CRPGs). By the end of the game, you are doing more damage, fighting stronger enemies, have more health (Which drops must faster), and a magic pool to speak of.
This is why I would classify Zelda as an Action/Adventure RPG.
On a side note, I am an avid player of multiple PnP games, such as D&D, WoD, BESM, GURPS, etc. And, I am all of 21 years old.
Also, to the other anon: Playing games that came out in 1987 means nothing when compared to a game that has been around since the mid 70's. Get another decade and then say something.
Anonymous (193.60.68.x) 06 Apr 2007 15:13
