Forums > MobyGames > Legend of Zelda series - what genre is it
Alaka (106069) on 6/4/2008 11:10 PM · Permalink · Report
I remember reading in Gamepro back in the days that they had a tough time deciding if they should place zelda games in their roleplayer's realm section of their magazine. Some people claim those games are rpg's while others claim their action/adventure games. So I decided to see how Moby has them listed as.
I listed the main games in the series and left out the CDI ones and that crossbow training game.
The Legend of Zelda - RPG
Zelda II: The Adventure of Link - Action, RPG
The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past - RPG
The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening/DX - Action
The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time - RPG
The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask - RPG
The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Ages - Action
The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Seasons - Action
The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time / Master Quest - Action, Adventure
The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker - Action, Adventure
The Legend of Zelda (Collector's Edition) which contains The Legend of Zelda
Adventure of Link, Ocarina of Time, and Majora's Mask - Action, Adventure
The Legend of Zelda: The Minish Cap - Action
The Legend of Zelda: Four Swords Adventures - Action, Adventure
The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess - Action, RPG
The Legend of Zelda: Phantom Hourglass - Action
Except for Zelda II, aren't most of these games basically the same thing gameplay wise? Also, look at both Ocarina of Time's. On one listing its an rpg and on another its an Action, Adventure. I guess Gamepro will never get there answer. :)
beetle120 (2415) on 6/5/2008 7:23 AM · edited · Permalink · Report
I love the Zelda series but I have to agree that it is not an RPG as there is no real character development. Granted that Link gets new weapons and such however to be classified as a RPG the character itself has to improve in skills like, for example, get stronger or better defence as the game progresses. Link does however increase hit-points by collecting hearts but this is not done though the normal RPG way of XP or skill points.
Mobygamesisreanimated (11069) on 6/5/2008 7:49 AM · Permalink · Report
It obviously fits our descriptions of action and adventure, and I see it referred to as action-adventure more frequently than as RPG. Whether it can be considered to be an RPG is debatable, though I personally think it shouldn't be. The one thing that most RPGs seem to have in common is character development based on gaining experience in one way or the other, represented by more or less complex statistics (vs. improving your character by collecting items as seen in the Zelda series).
Naturally, the conventional definitions of adventure and RPG leave a bit to be desired, but that's a different topic. If we're going to classify it based on these definitions, I think it's pretty clear that it's an action-adventure, but not an RPG.
St. Martyne (3648) on 6/5/2008 9:48 AM · edited · Permalink · Report
[Q --start AARZAK wrote--]If we're going to classify it based on these definitions, I think it's pretty clear that it's an action-adventure, but not an RPG. [/Q --end AARZAK wrote--]
I believe, some people (like Sciere) won't be satisfied with action/adventure label either. At least not as long as the game is considered to be part action and part adventure (i.e. not a separate genre but a combination of two). I see logic in that.
Sciere (930479) on 6/5/2008 10:36 AM · edited · Permalink · Report
It is definitely not an adventure game, and if RPG specialists can argue it does not belong in that category either, we should go for Action + Puzzle-solving. I'm not much of a Zelda fan, only having played Twilight Princess, but that one is as much of an RPG as God of War is.
I love how IGN (if I recall correctly) labeled Desparate Housewives last year's best adventure game. Seriously.
Mobygamesisreanimated (11069) on 6/5/2008 11:50 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Sciere wrote--]It is definitely not an adventure game, and if RPG specialists can argue it does not belong in that category either, we should go for Action + Puzzle-solving. [/Q --end Sciere wrote--] Well, what is an adventure then? Looking at the other thread, you haven't actually answered that question there either. If you look at the way websites, magazines and gamers categorize games, it's obvious that it isn't based on a very clear definition of any genre. However, if we don't want to turn this discussion into a huge circle-jerk, we should decide whether we want to come up with our own genre definitions or make do with the existing ones (limited as they may be).
I understand why you're having trouble seeing Zelda as an adventure game, but you can't simply ignore the fact that a certain type of game has emerged that's usually referred to as action-adventure, usually third-person action-adventure. Zelda is in many ways more of an adventure than most of these games. Simply describing it as action + puzzle-solving also neglects the exploration element (which I think is an important element of adventure games).
Indra was here (20756) on 6/5/2008 6:15 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
I'll quote something in that thread from Sciere which is essentially similar to my own ideas.
[Q --start Sciere wrote--] The problem with the current system is that the Adventure genre is turned into a second-tier label instead of a main genre, used for way too many games. If I'm looking up adventure games, or call myself and adventure fan, this site suggests I play Tomb Raider, Baldur's Gate, Diablo II, Pokémon Silver and Donkey Kong Country.
Those games have nothing to do with adventures, they contain exploration elements, or puzzle-solving, but do not incorporate what can be the general consensus on adventure gameplay.
I do not disagree that many games contain adventure elements, but this is where puzzle-solving should come in. As an adventure fan, I am currently unable to look up the games or group the games I love, because over the years any game that needs a little pause to think about your actions is called an adventure. It is a buzz word, used by PR to promote games so as to appeal to a large audience: "Action-Adventure!". MobyGames should stay far away from that and get the facts, and history, right. [/Q --end Sciere wrote--]
Problem clearly, at least in this our MG system is that all genre's for a game are viewed equal. There are no "primary" genre's nor "secondary" genre's. Most games have a primary genre...other genre's are just additional features: GTA - not primary a strategy game nor an adventure game...
St. Martyne (3648) on 6/5/2008 7:10 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q2 --start Sciere wrote--] The problem with the current system is that the Adventure genre is turned into a second-tier label instead of a main genre, used for way too many games. If I'm looking up adventure games, or call myself and adventure fan, this site suggests I play Tomb Raider, Baldur's Gate, Diablo II, Pokémon Silver and Donkey Kong Country.
Those games have nothing to do with adventures, they contain exploration elements, or puzzle-solving, but do not incorporate what can be the general consensus on adventure gameplay.
I do not disagree that many games contain adventure elements, but this is where puzzle-solving should come in. As an adventure fan, I am currently unable to look up the games or group the games I love, because over the years any game that needs a little pause to think about your actions is called an adventure. It is a buzz word, used by PR to promote games so as to appeal to a large audience: "Action-Adventure!". MobyGames should stay far away from that and get the facts, and history, right. [/Q2 --end Sciere wrote--]
Very well said. I had similar thoughts, especially concerning the latest assimilation of "adventure" by other genres, making it impossible to find the games with a gameplay I have a clear idea of.
What about latest "Zack & Wiki" and a bunch of other Wii games. Would they qualify as real adventures? I haven't played them, but many reviews hailed them as a return of "Adventure" genre to the mainstream public.
Mobygamesisreanimated (11069) on 6/6/2008 9:10 AM · edited · Permalink · Report
The problem with the current system is that the Adventure genre is turned into a second-tier label instead of a main genre, used for way too many games. If I'm looking up adventure games, or call myself and adventure fan, this site suggests I play Tomb Raider, Baldur's Gate, Diablo II, Pokémon Silver and Donkey Kong Country.
Those games have nothing to do with adventures, they contain exploration elements, or puzzle-solving, but do not incorporate what can be the general consensus on adventure gameplay.
I do not disagree that many games contain adventure elements, but this is where puzzle-solving should come in. As an adventure fan, I am currently unable to look up the games or group the games I love, because over the years any game that needs a little pause to think about your actions is called an adventure. It is a buzz word, used by PR to promote games so as to appeal to a large audience: "Action-Adventure!". MobyGames should stay far away from that and get the facts, and history, right.
Problem clearly, at least in this our MG system is that all genre's for a game are viewed equal. There are no "primary" genre's nor "secondary" genre's. Most games have a primary genre...other genre's are just additional features: GTA - not primary a strategy game nor an adventure game...
<hr />This is more of a gamebrowser issue. It certainly needs to become more flexible. (tags maybe?). Although I do agree that Donkey Kong Country, Pokémon, Baldur's Gate and Diablo shouldn't be labeled as Adventure. I think the article that Scierce linked earlier does a very good job of sepparating Adventures from RPGs. Tomb Raider, I think it can be seen as Action-Adventure, Adventure, because exploration is an important element in earlier Tomb Raider games.
As for the definition of Adventure getting too broad, I think that's inevitable and not much of a problem really. Just look at other major genres: Strategy, Simulation, Action etc., they are very broad as well, especially the Action genre. Gradius, Tekken, Crazy Taxi are all action games, but the differences between these games are just as big (if not bigger) as between Tomb Raider and Monkey Island. However, since we can narrow things down with a second genre, themes etc. this isn't much of a problem. The game browser just needs a lot of improvement.
[edit: goddman quote system]
Sciere (930479) on 6/6/2008 12:25 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
To me, Tomb Raider is much closer to regular first-person shooters as an action and reflex-based game, than it is to real adventure games. Instead, as you mentioned, we could indicate the "adventure" elements with the subgenres puzzle-solving and exploration. Most adventure fans hate anything based on time, action, reflexes or even dying in their games, though that doesn't limit such titles from belonging to the genre, just think of certain sequences in Dreamfall or Broken Sword 3.
Indra was here (20756) on 6/6/2008 7:24 PM · Permalink · Report
Unless of course, we come up with the genre "Action-Adventure" as one genre, instead of Action+Adventure. Categorizing is hell. Where are librarians when you need them? :)
Mobygamesisreanimated (11069) on 6/5/2008 5:31 PM · Permalink · Report
I can't read the thread in the first link, so I'll only comment on the article and Wikipedia's definition.
“deterministic, intellectual problem solving in the context of a story”
-
That's the sort of definition I thought you would have in mind, and I think it's a little too narrow. The article says including newer games that are usually seen as adventure (probably mostly 3rd-person action-adventures, which I have also mentioned) would give a too broad definition, but why would it be too broad? Games like Tomb Raider are never seen as pure adventures, but action-adventures, so you already have a distinction right there and you definition of a "pure" adventure remains untouched.
-
This definition perfectly matches all Zelda games except the very first Legend of Zelda.
Wikipedia's definition also notes exploration as one of the key features and there's plenty of that in Zelda and many other games that are usually described as action-adventures.
Indra was here (20756) on 6/5/2008 6:00 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
[Q --start AARZAK wrote--] However, if we don't want to turn this discussion into a huge circle-jerk, we should decide whether we want to come up with our own genre definitions or make do with the existing ones (limited as they may be). [/Q --end AARZAK wrote--]
Problem with genre's in the gaming industry, people (gamers) in general have a bad habit of assuming what the genre's really are. My definition of RPGs and Adventures would most definitely be different from your understanding of them...simply because we played different games, thus different foundations to identify what the term really represents.
Even more difficult is the historical development of hybrids, sub-genres and everything else. At least we could first identify which games first defined the genre, and later games that were hybrids or additions to the game. Hell, non-PC RPGs had nothing to do with character development...technically it was just role-playing...or what some other people call an "adventure". Confusing really.
But like most things that goes around here...I'll doubt there will be a working group discussing this matter..ie. huge circle-jerk.
Unicorn Lynx (181780) on 6/5/2008 5:21 PM · Permalink · Report
I'm not much of a Zelda fan, only having played Twilight Princess, but that one is as much of an RPG as God of War is.
Don't know about Twilight Princess; I only played Link to the Past and Ocarina and they seem to have more RPG elements than God of War (although the latter most definitely has them, too): more exploration, more interaction with NPCs, the division of game world into "friendly" areas and dungeons, more clear quest-based progression, etc.
It's certainly a tough question, and I don't think anyone can give a satisfactory answer to that. It all depends on one's personal evaluation of a genre.
For me personally, Zelda games are neither adventures nor RPGs. But if we go with your definition of Action + Puzzle-Solving, we won't be able to distinguish Zelda not only from God of War, but also from ICO or Prince of Persia, which have no RPG elements at all and therefore even less in common with Zelda.
That's why I think there is no choice but to mark those games as adventure + action + RPG. Vague, I know, but any other definition fails to reflect the specifics of those games.
Unicorn Lynx (181780) on 6/5/2008 5:27 PM · Permalink · Report
I remember that. Cool idea, but... you know how it is. Cool things are planned, but not always become reality.
If you're going to give green light to those new sub-genres, wouldn't it require an enormous work of manually adding them to so many games? Or is there a possibility to "convert" large amounts of games into the new template?
Игги Друге (46653) on 6/6/2008 12:18 AM · Permalink · Report
I think Zelda has enough text boxes to be classified as an adventure. The free roaming of the game world points in that direction as well.
Indra was here (20756) on 6/5/2008 5:53 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
[Q --start beetle120 wrote--]I love the Zelda series but I have to agree that it is not an RPG as there is no real character development. Granted that Link gets new weapons and such however to be classified as a RPG the character itself has to improve in skills like, for example, get stronger or better defence as the game progresses. Link does however increase hit-points by collecting hearts but this is not done though the normal RPG way of XP or skill points. [/Q --end beetle120 wrote--]
Which is more than I can say for Rogue. But I would say that Zelda is more an Adventure-RPG than an RPG-Adventure. Er...or Action-Adventure-RPG...er...nevermind.
Alaka (106069) on 6/6/2008 2:55 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Terok Nor wrote--]This was discussed before. I still say it's not an RPG. [/Q --end Terok Nor wrote--]
Thanks for the link to the previous thread. I more or less posted this thread from more of a standpoint as since most of the Zelda games feature the same gameplay why are their genres labeled differently here on MG, especially the Ocarina of Time discrepancy. I just thought it weird that they all weren't labeled under the same genres.