SydLexia.com - The Forums :: View topic

Posted: Jun 07 2010 10:44 pm

See, personally, I would say that Zelda, specifically the first one, which I believe the one in question is, is an action game with several RPG elements, specifically acquisition of necessary wealth/treasure that can be used to better survive situations, progression of storyline (albeit without dialogue options or even much real text period), and defeating enemies. My own personal definition of an RPG is a game where the storyline constantly unfolds and characters have to achieve tasks, not necessarily combat oriented, in order to progress the storyline further. In RPGs, though, the character(s) generally have a personality, and in LoZ, Link doesn't have one. Other than achieving his objective, there's nothing else he wants.

Especially using tabletop RPGs as a basis for the term, which is necessary considering they predate the video-game based genre, the character interacts with others in a meaningful fashion besides just buying things. With that in mind, I would say that a game like Final Fantasy 1 is also an action game with heavier RPG elements. As it progressed, it became a full-fledged series of RPGs.

Posted: Jun 07 2010 11:27 pm

FF1 is most certainly not an action game, as the combat is turn-based. Turn-based combat is like the exact opposite of anything that could be considered "action".

Posted: Jun 07 2010 11:36 pm

Syd Lexia wrote:

FF1 is most certainly not an action game, as the combat is turn-based. Turn-based combat is like the exact opposite of anything that could be considered "action".

You just need to pay more attention to the detailed spell and attack animations. >_>

Posted: Jun 07 2010 11:44 pm

Syd Lexia wrote:

Leveling exists in most RPG games as an invisible wall of sorts. You cannot explore areas that you're not supposed to, because you don't have the stats or equipment necessary to beat the enemies in those area. This adds a degree of linearity to open map RPGs that would otherwise not exist. If you could beat every enemy right away, you could play the game out of order. Later RPGs, such as Final Fantasy IV, would additionally force linearity by limiting the sections of the map that were available to you at various points in the game.

RPGs that use real-time combat do not require a level system, because the combat is actively taking place. In a turn-based RPG, when a powerful enemy unleashes a powerful attack, your goal is have to stats high enough to absorb the attack and not die. In an active RPG, when a powerful enemy unleashes a powerful attack, your goal is to actually DODGE it. Thus, leveling and stat-farming are not a necessary mechanic. Crystalis, one of my favorite NES games, requires leveling, and it's kind of stupid. Sometimes you'll get to a boss, and you won't be able to beat him simply your level isn't high enough. It's a useless mechanic, especially since the game is pretty linear.

Well my point was directed at your comment on Zelda having leveling through heart containers. You don't need the heart containers to beat the game. Also in Active RPG's like you were talking about you still need to level because A. You will never be able to damage the enemies, at the later stages, plus in beating "bosses" even at Level 1 you will inevitabley increase levels. Not to mention in games like Secret of Mana there is no escaping spells which WILL kill you.

I think an RPG for the sake of the genre should be classified as a game where at the end of the game your character could completely destroy the character you started with. Once again like in Zelda, Link at the end of the game could be defeated by link at the beginning of the game. However Maxim from Lufia II wouldn't even get a single HP depleted by the Maxim at the beginning.

My typical look at the genre is any game where you have base stats that increase as you gain "experience". However there must be atleast 5 stats. HP, Strength, Defense, Speed/Evasion and MP or whatever the equivalent is. If these are not present a RPG this is not.

Zelda II doesn't qualify to me because you don't need to increase your stats.

Edit: This is strictly MY definition of an RPG. Not to be confused with "What I think everyone should call an RPG."

Posted: Jun 07 2010 11:57 pm

Heart Containers are effectively a way of leveling because, while it is possible to beat Zelda games without ever increasing your heart count, the average player will never do so and is completely incapable of doing so.

Yes, this differs from a traditional RPG where it is a physical impossiblity to beat high level enemies without leveling.

But again, the goal of D&D was to create a realistic, immersive fantasy world. Due to the limits of the medium, real-time combat was not possible. So instead, the game used turn-based combat randomized by dice, as that was the only reasonable way to implement combat. With video games, real-time combat based on the player's manual dexterity became a possibility. And it is the more logical extension of roleplaying.

Think of it this way.

If Final Fantasy is Dungeons & Dragons, then Legend of Zelda is a Renaissance Faire.