GPFontaine wrote:

Dragon Warrior or Zelda Depends if you count Zelda.

Ditto. I almost certainly played Zelda first, but I consider Dragon Warrior to be my first real RPG. I loved Zelda, but it was action-based and to my young mind it didn't really seem all that different from Mario or Castlevania. But the first time I played Dragon Warrior, I was blown away. It was nothing like anything I had ever played before. Whereas the other games required reflexes and timing, Dragon Warrior did not. Dragon Warrior was a game that you could win solely through discipline and attrition. And I liked that.

GPFontaine wrote:

Syd Lexia wrote: Dragon Warrior was a game that you could win solely through discipline and attrition. Syd, could you better explain what you mean by attrition in the context of your statement? Also, I am not sure that Dragon Warrior was a true RPG. Perhaps Final Fantasy was the first real one I played for the NES. It depends on how a person defines an RPG. Wikipedia wrote: Participants determine the actions of their characters based on their characterization, and the actions succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines. Within the rules, players have the freedom to improvise; their choices shape the direction and outcome of the game. I felt like I had a lot more choice in FF than I did in DW. DW was terribly linear with almost no characterization.

By attrition, I mean that you could keep leveling up and improve your character's stats until you could power through every section of the game. With action-based games like Super Mario, you're either good enough to beat them or you're not. You can practice and pratice, but if you don't have some innate dexterity, you're fucked.

There is no clear cut definition of RPGs, and Wikipedia's user-generated definition of the genre is bullshit. That definition describes Fallout and Fable, but it does not describe RPGs. RPGs, in their purest form, evolved from pen and paper RPGs like Dungeons & Dragons. In its most basic forum, Dungeons & Dragons is essentially this: the player creates a character with some degree of customizablity, and then sets out on a quest that has been pre-determined by the Dungeonmaster. The time it takes the player to complete the quest, the monsters he encounters in the dungeons, and the treasure these monsters drop are all random, but most of the rest of the quest, such as how various NPCs will react to you, has been pre-planned.

The only difference between Dragon Warrior I and early editions of Dungeons & Dragons is that there is no character customization. You are given a predesigned character who will learn a very particular set of skills as his level increases; nearly all modern RPGs, particularly the Final Fantasy series, have embraced this device.

Final Fantasy I and Dragon Warrior I are both VERY linear. You can explore the game world at your own pace and in your own way, but both games must be beaten in a very particular order. You MUST play through the Final Fantasy dungeons in a preset order, just as you must rescue Princess Gwaelin before you can fight the Dragon Lord.

As for characterization, neither game has any whatsoever. In Final Fantasy I, you're the LIGHT WARRIORS, a group of heroes destined to save the world from darkness. In Dragon Warrior I, you're the last descendant of the great hero Erdrick, and it is your destiny to save the world from darkness.