|
|
|
|
|
by kelnos
5290 days ago
|
|
The article addresses this part clearly: the "RP" in "RPG" doesn't really define the category, since most (all?) character-based games are "role-playing": in a racing game, you're role-playing a race car driver, in a military FPS you're role-playing a soldier, etc. But I wouldn't call those RPGs by any stretch of the imagination. RPG has pretty much come to mean a very specific thing: quest-type game with turn-based combat. I would never think of Zelda as an RPG. (As an aside, remember Super Mario RPG? They mashed standard Mario with the kind of RPG format I describe above... funny that they explicitly acknowledge the format in the title of the game.) |
|
I would personally define RPG as a game that features most the following:
- a story that isn't just background for the gameplay (like in many FPS, where the story is just an excuse for you to shoot stuff). This will most likely includes character development and other sorts of progression in the game world. (Zelda? Check.)
- some sort of combat system, whether turn-based, action-oriented or with strategic elements doesn't matter (Zelda? Check.)
- generally non-linear gameplay including sidequests. There's usually a red thread along which the main game progresses, but you can "pause" at almost any time and just do what the fuck you want - go explore, do sidequests, grind levels or equipment etc. (Zelda? Check.)
- character progression, through acquiring new items, abilities, levels, skills etc. (Zelda? Check.)
I kept this intentionally fuzzy because there are many fringe cases, such as Monster Hunter, which basically lacks the story (it's really just an excuse to tell you "go hunt monsters"), but is otherwise considered an RPG too.
Zelda definitely IS an RPG. I think it's partially due to being so special that many people don't like to classify it as such - they might feel like it takes away from the magic a bit.