-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Classification of Zelda Games
- Thread starter nightez
- Start date
AndoCalrissian
Member
I don't ever recall calling Zelda anything but an Action RPG back in the day. Now it would readily fall into the Adventure category.
gamergirly
Member
Try classifying Zelda OOT. If you go to the N64 games list, it's listed as action/adventure. But if you go to the N64 game list rpg category, a picture of OOT is at the front but not listed. Messed up huh? :lol
I remember that Zelda 2 (for NES) was classified under "Adventure" at Meijar. So that's how I have always categorized the series (especially since that game was the most similar to an rpg of the series, what with the leveling up and all). Come to think of it, did Nintendo used to categorize the games themselves back then? I seem to remember it being part of something called "The Adventure Series" or something.
According to the franchise's creator...
...Zelda's an RPG. Really though, it doesn't matter what people want to call Zelda, just so long as they classify like-minded games the same. If Zelda's not an RPG, then neither are Crystalis, Monster World, LandStalker, Oasis, Kingdom Hearts, Alundra, Mana, Ys, Fable, etc. Period.
...Zelda's an RPG. Really though, it doesn't matter what people want to call Zelda, just so long as they classify like-minded games the same. If Zelda's not an RPG, then neither are Crystalis, Monster World, LandStalker, Oasis, Kingdom Hearts, Alundra, Mana, Ys, Fable, etc. Period.
:lol None of those games are like Zelda.
Games that are like Zelda include Goemon, Rocky & Pocky (don't remember it's japanese name), StarTropics, and a few other obscure titles.
The only reason Shigeru Miyamoto called the latest Zelda game an RPG is because the Zelda series has been gradually focusing on more cinematic elements with each new incarnation, so unless you are willing to tell me that "cinematics" = "RPGs", then you have no choice but to disregard Miyamoto's statement. Nintendo has always listed the Zelda games as their rightful genre "action/adventure".
Seriously, why do you want to undercut the adventure genre so much? There's nothing wrong with a game being an adventure game.
The reason why Zelda is often mixed up with RPG categories is because a lot of media organizations or publications tend to group RPGs and adventure games together, even though they are completely different genres and are easily distinguishable. However, they are the only two genres that focus on having a story, so that could be why Zelda is often mistaken to be an RPG (since many people tend to forget the existence of the adventure genre).
You're not serious? Alundra and LandStalker aren't "like Zelda"?! But Goemon (a beat 'em up/platformer) and Pocky & Rocky (an overhead shooter) are??! You've lost it Pell.
Fact is, all these games having strong similarities in various aspects of mechanics and design. Zelda's essentially credited with starting the "Action RPG" genre in Japan, similar to Dragon Quest staring the RPG genre or Fire Emblem starting the Simulation RPG genre. The only notable difference between Zelda and some of these other titles is static versus dynamic stat leveling. So unless you're arguing dynamic stats alone define an RPG (making games such as Kid Icarus into RPGs), then I don't see how Zelda can be classified any differently than Terranigma, Alundra or Kingdom Hearts. Hell, Alundra uses a combination of static and dynamic elements for stat increases, what should we call that then? :/
Also, Nintendo's always flopped on calling Zelda an RPG, since the Famicom days. Like I said, you can call it an RPG or an adventure game, it really doesn't matter.... so long as you classify all similar games the same. Zelda, Alundra and Mana are all clearly likeminded in design and share a genre, whatever it's called.
Fact is, all these games having strong similarities in various aspects of mechanics and design. Zelda's essentially credited with starting the "Action RPG" genre in Japan, similar to Dragon Quest staring the RPG genre or Fire Emblem starting the Simulation RPG genre. The only notable difference between Zelda and some of these other titles is static versus dynamic stat leveling. So unless you're arguing dynamic stats alone define an RPG (making games such as Kid Icarus into RPGs), then I don't see how Zelda can be classified any differently than Terranigma, Alundra or Kingdom Hearts. Hell, Alundra uses a combination of static and dynamic elements for stat increases, what should we call that then? :/
Also, Nintendo's always flopped on calling Zelda an RPG, since the Famicom days. Like I said, you can call it an RPG or an adventure game, it really doesn't matter.... so long as you classify all similar games the same. Zelda, Alundra and Mana are all clearly likeminded in design and share a genre, whatever it's called.
I should have removed Alundra from the list, but fine.
Show me one written piece (preferably in japanese) that proves that Zelda started the "action/RPG" genre, because Zelda 1 was not considered an action/RPG (Zelda 2 on the other hand...). With Fire Emblem, at least the word "simulation/RPG" was printed on the box, but that was not the case with Zelda 1.
I'm not arguing that dynamic stats = RPG. Dynamic stats appear in simulation games, fighting games, RPGs, and plenty of other genres. However, there are no console/electronic RPGs that don't have dynamic stats. The reason Zelda is an adventure game as opposed to an RPG is because adventure games aren't required to have dynamic stats as shown in games like King's Quest or Resident Evil.
And you are correct in saying that all of those games you mentioned + Zelda have something in common. It's the action in action/adventure or action/RPG. They are action games in the sense that you control a character who attacks enemies at the press of a button. But it makes no sense to group Zelda in with action/RPGs when Zelda belongs with StarTropics (an action/adventure) and other similar titles.
I'm sure that games like Secret of Mana, Terranigma, etc. were heavily inspired by the overhead view/action elements of Zelda, but when these games are only stealing the action element from Zelda, how can Zelda truly be grouped in with the added RPG elements that these games have that Zelda doesn't?
An RPG is not exclusively certain elements, but does require certain elements. Core elements such as being able to dynamically strengthen your character or party, being able to barter for goods/equipment, being able to talk to NPCs to learn about where to go next, a story, etc. Zelda has some of the elements, but missing even one discludes it from being an RPG (in this case, dynamic stats). Any of these elements could appear in an adventure game or any genre, but it's the combined combination of all these elements that make RPGs what they are. And simply put, dynamic stats is so important to an RPG, that not having it just simply makes a game not an RPG. How can you role-play when you can't even make your character stronger without finding predetermined items?
Nintendo has definately tried to make Zelda appear more "RPG-like" by adding more intensive cinematics, NPC interaction, "mini-quests", mini-games, and more. But all these serve to make the Zelda games much bigger and better adventures without crossing over into the realm of the RPG. If anything, calling Zelda an RPG these days is more of a marketing tool since companies figured out that RPGs are popular.
I don't think anyone would claim that Dragon Quest started the RPG genre. There were lots of RPGs before Dragon Quest, it simply made the genre popular in Japan.
Show me one written piece (preferably in japanese) that proves that Zelda started the "action/RPG" genre, because Zelda 1 was not considered an action/RPG (Zelda 2 on the other hand...). With Fire Emblem, at least the word "simulation/RPG" was printed on the box, but that was not the case with Zelda 1.
I'm not arguing that dynamic stats = RPG. Dynamic stats appear in simulation games, fighting games, RPGs, and plenty of other genres. However, there are no console/electronic RPGs that don't have dynamic stats. The reason Zelda is an adventure game as opposed to an RPG is because adventure games aren't required to have dynamic stats as shown in games like King's Quest or Resident Evil.
And you are correct in saying that all of those games you mentioned + Zelda have something in common. It's the action in action/adventure or action/RPG. They are action games in the sense that you control a character who attacks enemies at the press of a button. But it makes no sense to group Zelda in with action/RPGs when Zelda belongs with StarTropics (an action/adventure) and other similar titles.
I'm sure that games like Secret of Mana, Terranigma, etc. were heavily inspired by the overhead view/action elements of Zelda, but when these games are only stealing the action element from Zelda, how can Zelda truly be grouped in with the added RPG elements that these games have that Zelda doesn't?
An RPG is not exclusively certain elements, but does require certain elements. Core elements such as being able to dynamically strengthen your character or party, being able to barter for goods/equipment, being able to talk to NPCs to learn about where to go next, a story, etc. Zelda has some of the elements, but missing even one discludes it from being an RPG (in this case, dynamic stats). Any of these elements could appear in an adventure game or any genre, but it's the combined combination of all these elements that make RPGs what they are. And simply put, dynamic stats is so important to an RPG, that not having it just simply makes a game not an RPG. How can you role-play when you can't even make your character stronger without finding predetermined items?
Nintendo has definately tried to make Zelda appear more "RPG-like" by adding more intensive cinematics, NPC interaction, "mini-quests", mini-games, and more. But all these serve to make the Zelda games much bigger and better adventures without crossing over into the realm of the RPG. If anything, calling Zelda an RPG these days is more of a marketing tool since companies figured out that RPGs are popular.
I don't think anyone would claim that Dragon Quest started the RPG genre. There were lots of RPGs before Dragon Quest, it simply made the genre popular in Japan.
Musashi Wins!
FLAWLESS VICTOLY!
The End said:
that's okay. their sense of adventure will be somewhat weak in comparison to zelda (metroid excepted?).
So... Alundra isn't an ARPG either in your opinion? How about Thor, Govellius, LandStalker or Ragnacenty?Pellham said:
Zelda popularized the genre, various creators have credited it with doing so in Japan (at least the overhead, explorative, puzzle focused variety). Can't read Japanese though, just going off what snippets I remember from various sources over the years (I think johntv said something to this effect on old-GAF too). Zelda is to ARPGs as DQ is to RPGs or Fire Emblem to SLGs.Pellham said:
But if dynamic stats aren't relevant to any other genre classification... why are they to RPGs? Why not base genre classification on overall game focus and design rather than using a simple qualifier that would split the ARPG genre down the middle?Pellham said:
It's "action" to an extent... but Zelda shares far more in common than just real time mechanics with games like Alundra, Crystalis or Seiken Densetsu. Obviously some come closer than others (Ys and Mana would be rather distant cousins) but come on... no way are Pocky & Rocky or Goemon (minus Goemon 3 SNES and Goemon 64, which are both classified as ARPGs themselves) any closer to Zelda than those titles. You could make a case for other adventure games like Metroid or Star Tropics, but then Zelda is still closer in focus to the ARPGs.Pellham said:
In the end, genres are mainly about grouping like games together. And I'm sorry, Zelda's just fundamentally closer to Alundra than Tomb Raider. And really, it should be classified as such.
Well, I guess Black Onyx would be the first for Japan really... I can't think of any ARPG/adventure games that predated Zelda 1 in Japan though. Adventure in the west sure, but did it see JP release?Pellham said:
Just because Alundra is a "Zelda-like" game with RPG elements doesn't mean that Zelda is in the same genre as Alundra.
Lufia II has STRONG Zelda elements in its dungeons but it lacks the action element of Zelda & similar games. Like I said, the only common thread between Action/Adventures like Zelda and Action/RPGs like Alundra is the Action element.
I'm not sure what you mean by "game focus" to determine a genre. Especially since RPGs and Adventure games have the same focus (to present a story through a game), the difference is that RPGs focus on building characters dynamically through the story while adventure games are largely static experiences. If you mean by "game focus", you simply want to group like-minded games, well even so, Zelda is lacking a critical element that all of the other games you mentioned have.
Well, i'm not limiting genres to consoles. Yuji Horii has spoken about how Dragon Quest was inspired by early PC RPGs like Ultima III and Wizardry. Not surprisingly, Wizardry still has a niche fandom in Japan.
But it's further than that... Alundra is a Zelda clone. For fuck's sake, it even has "heart containers"... have you actually played these games?Pellham said:
Er, actually the only "common thread" missing between Zelda and Lufia is real time combat and dynamic progression. You're looking at this backwards, "action" isn't the only thing relating Zelda directly to other "ARPGs"... in fact Lufia arguably has just as much in common with Zelda as it does Final Fantasy.Pellham said:
Not ARPGs though... by and large they place clear focus on "static" dungeon exploration and puzzle solving. A tradition derived directly from Zelda... the only notable games that really deviate from that being Seiken Densetsu, Kingdom Hearts and the Quintet trilogy to an extent (which I'd agree are more story/character/event focused overall). But Govellius, Alundra, Thor, Centy, Ys, Neutopia, etc... they're all clearly following Zelda's core game design.Pellham said:
One element though, in face of overriding design similarity. A single qualifier like this would never fly if applied to any other genre... again, I'm not saying Zelda's an "RPG" per say, I'm saying it's just the same sort of game as Alundra, Crystalis or Ys. Whatever you want to call them (Action/RPG, Action/Adventure, Adventure/RPG, etc) is fine, but these games all clearly belong in the same genre. No way around that.Pellham said:
I get what you're arguing, and I can see why Zelda shouldn't be called an ARPG. But then to rip other likeminded games out of the same genre simply because of a single qualifier... then why not do it to all other genres? Gran Turismo is really a "Racing RPG". Kid Icarus is really a "Platform RPG". SFA3 is really a "Fighting RPG". Castlevania is really an "Action RPG (oops! too late!)" See why this sort of thinking is totally backwards? It really muddies the whole reason for genre classification in the first place.
Black Onyx was a PC game iirc, though it was ported around. I think it predates Ultima and Wizardry too, but I'm not 100% sure.Pellham said:
Anyway, what ARPG or adventure games predate Zelda in Japan?
Okay, i'll throw out everything I said to agree with you that Zelda is clearly a predecessor for some or all of the games you listed.
However, being a predecessor doesn't necessarily make it part of the genre, i'll get back to it later, i want to address some other things first.
I do think that these games can fall under a greater umbrella, but I believe that umbrella to be the Action in Action/Adventure or Action/RPG or Action/Whatever. While they aren't pure action games, the simple core element of moving a character on an overhead map and swinging a weapon at enemies (along with other elements like dungeon exploring and collecting money) is largely an action element.
I don't think that this is "ripping" other likeminded games, rather there is a clear difference between something like StarTropics and something like Ys. And it's not just in a matter of semantics, they are of different (yet similar) genres. I don't agree with your examples of trying to consider Gran Turismo a "racing RPG" just because of the dynamic stat element - in a game like that, that element stems from simulation games, not from RPGs. I already said that dynamic stats aren't an exclusive RPG element, just that they are one of the core elements that make RPGs what they are.
Now, while Zelda is the predecessor of modern action/RPGs, that alone is not enough to make it an ARPG. ARPGs that came after Zelda are different from Zelda because they introduced RPG elements into the game/genre. Has this happened with another genre? Sure it has! Koei's war simulation titles have been around since the middle 80's, but then Shozo Kaga came up with the idea of combining Koei's war sim games with an RPG story and characters and created Fire Emblem - the first SRPG. I'm sure something along those lines happened when people came up with ARPGs after Zelda came out.
Now lastly, I'm inclined to say that I can't really contest anything you've said about Zelda's classification. I will however say, that I can't stand seeing Zelda being considered an RPG simply because it's not really an RPG. It's only an RPG if you consider story-based games to be RPGs, and when you do that, you completely throw the adventure genre out the window.
I guess I'm one of the few that see the difference between adventure games and RPGs, and because of that difference, it makes sense to me to classify Zelda differently from say, Zeliard. Yet I do agree that they all fall under the same umbrella (action).
The way I see it, ARPGs and SRPGs and anything/RPGs are not true RPGs. They are of their first genre modifier (action/simulation/whatever) and happen to have RPG elements. So if Zelda is to be considered an ARPG, then it should be addressed that it's an action game that happens to have some RPG elements and nothing more.
But that "happens to have RPG elements" really does make a difference as to how the game looks and feels. That's why Gran Turismo is not a racing/RPG. Nobody would argue that you're leveling your cars up and taking them through a grand adventure.
However, being a predecessor doesn't necessarily make it part of the genre, i'll get back to it later, i want to address some other things first.
I do think that these games can fall under a greater umbrella, but I believe that umbrella to be the Action in Action/Adventure or Action/RPG or Action/Whatever. While they aren't pure action games, the simple core element of moving a character on an overhead map and swinging a weapon at enemies (along with other elements like dungeon exploring and collecting money) is largely an action element.
I don't think that this is "ripping" other likeminded games, rather there is a clear difference between something like StarTropics and something like Ys. And it's not just in a matter of semantics, they are of different (yet similar) genres. I don't agree with your examples of trying to consider Gran Turismo a "racing RPG" just because of the dynamic stat element - in a game like that, that element stems from simulation games, not from RPGs. I already said that dynamic stats aren't an exclusive RPG element, just that they are one of the core elements that make RPGs what they are.
Now, while Zelda is the predecessor of modern action/RPGs, that alone is not enough to make it an ARPG. ARPGs that came after Zelda are different from Zelda because they introduced RPG elements into the game/genre. Has this happened with another genre? Sure it has! Koei's war simulation titles have been around since the middle 80's, but then Shozo Kaga came up with the idea of combining Koei's war sim games with an RPG story and characters and created Fire Emblem - the first SRPG. I'm sure something along those lines happened when people came up with ARPGs after Zelda came out.
Now lastly, I'm inclined to say that I can't really contest anything you've said about Zelda's classification. I will however say, that I can't stand seeing Zelda being considered an RPG simply because it's not really an RPG. It's only an RPG if you consider story-based games to be RPGs, and when you do that, you completely throw the adventure genre out the window.
I guess I'm one of the few that see the difference between adventure games and RPGs, and because of that difference, it makes sense to me to classify Zelda differently from say, Zeliard. Yet I do agree that they all fall under the same umbrella (action).
The way I see it, ARPGs and SRPGs and anything/RPGs are not true RPGs. They are of their first genre modifier (action/simulation/whatever) and happen to have RPG elements. So if Zelda is to be considered an ARPG, then it should be addressed that it's an action game that happens to have some RPG elements and nothing more.
But that "happens to have RPG elements" really does make a difference as to how the game looks and feels. That's why Gran Turismo is not a racing/RPG.
Nobody would argue that you're leveling your cars up and taking them through a grand adventure.Sure, I agree with the mechanics portion. But ARPGs or whatever also follow Zelda's footsteps in terms of world design, item management, puzzle solving, explorative focus. Like you say Zelda also has many other aspects common to RPGs (abundant NPCs, monetary system, etc)... there's more here than just the real-time element to combat.Pellham said:
Sure... but which game is Zelda more like overall? Ys or Star Tropics? Alundra or Metal Gear? Kingdom Hearts or Tomb Raider? That's the problem at hand. :/Pellham said:
Well, the comparisons weren't serious, they were illustrating a point. If Alundra's considered an Action/RPG, seperated by genre from the game it essentially cloned, then why not apply that logic to other genres? It seems what you're abdicating here is that when you add stats to any adventure game, it becomes an RPG, but with any other genre it isn't. I'm saying that alone isn't enough, and no single qualifier shoiuld ever be enough to seperate games with shared core deisgn into different genres. I don't the support neo-classification of post SoTN-Castlevanias as ARPGs either (simply because they have stats bolted on) when they're clearly more closely related to Metroid or Blaster Master and other adventure games in it's core design.Pellham said:I don't agree with your examples of trying to consider Gran Turismo a "racing RPG" just because of the dynamic stat element - in a game like that, that element stems from simulation games, not from RPGs. I already said that dynamic stats aren't an exclusive RPG element, just that they are one of the core elements that make RPGs what they are.
The only "RPG elements" introduced to ARPGs following Zelda are stats. And Zelda even moved in that direction initially with it's sequel. Your argument still boils down to RPG=stats, Zelda isn't an RPG because it lacks stats. And really, I don't disagree... I think dynamic progression is one of the core elements to RPGs. My problem is when that core elements suddenly makes Alundra and Zelda into different sorts of games.Pellham said:
Fire Emblem and other SLGs are a tough case too, I'd much rather sink them into the strategy genre than have them lumped RPGs. But then there's confusion here too, as Nintendo themselves have even referred to Advance Wars as a "strategy RPG" before. Genre mixing is fine I think, so long as it doesn't seperate like games entirely.
I agree with all this 100%. Action/Adventure RPGs or Strategy/Simulation SRPGs aren't "real" RPGs at all in my mind. They really are simply Action/Adventure games or Strategy/Simulation games at their core that happen to have RPG elements.Pellham said:
Well... I actually think some would. You're leveing up Kid Icarus and taking hime through a grand adventure. You're leveling up Alucard and taking him through a grand adventure. You're leveing up Chun Li and taking her through a grand adventure. GT's an easier example to get around, but at it's core it's still about dynamically progressing something you control and making it's way through a (sparse) narrative.Pellham said:But that "happens to have RPG elements" really does make a difference as to how the game looks and feels. That's why Gran Turismo is not a racing/RPG.
Fine, you've convinced me. I will consider Zelda to be either an Action/Adventure or Action/RPG. As long as nobody says its an RPG, i'll be happy.
On an unrelated note, I can't stand people who think that RPGs w/ realtime battle systems = ARPGs. There are plenty of pure RPGs that have realtime battle systems (namely most PC RPGs today and the Tales and Star Ocean series). Those games should be considered standard RPGs, not ARPGs.
On an unrelated note, I can't stand people who think that RPGs w/ realtime battle systems = ARPGs. There are plenty of pure RPGs that have realtime battle systems (namely most PC RPGs today and the Tales and Star Ocean series). Those games should be considered standard RPGs, not ARPGs.
radios shipping overview
Member
Hoho, the "is Zelda an RPG?" topic is always an easy spark for controversy. 
As far as I can see, Zelda is its own genre. The first game created its genre, despite taking influence from previous action-RPGs, puzzle, and adventure games, and the genre has remained consistent since.
As far as I can see, Zelda is its own genre. The first game created its genre, despite taking influence from previous action-RPGs, puzzle, and adventure games, and the genre has remained consistent since.
aperfectt00l
Member
I would just classify Zelda in its own catagory, kinda like i do with Tool, when ever i put a genre for Tool i put it as Tool because they have so many different influences and they blend music like no other band, kinda like how Zelda games have many different gaming genres mixed into one.