Adventure Genre

I have noticed that there are a lot of people mistaking the "Adventure" genre for the "RPG" genre.

The main victim is The Legend of Zelda series. I had always thought that they were classified as adventure games (in fact, the first Legend of Zelda pretty much invented the adventure genre) and the only game in the series that I found to have some RPG elements was Zelda II: The Adventure of Link; yet I find all of these people who are even calling the newest Zelda games RPGs. I even found someone who said that Super Metroid is a side-scrolling shooter with RPG elements... Metroid is also a series of games I had always thought were adventure games.

I guess you could say that each game has RPG elements because your character learns new abilities as you play the game, but that's really about it. They never level up, they don't have any numerical statistics for their different abilities, there isn't a huge abundance of different armor, weapons, or accessories to choose from, etc.

Am I the one who doesn't have a very good understanding of the two genres, or are there other people who feel the way I do?

I correct people when they say that Zelda is an RPG. Zelda is an adventure game and always has been. It is missing a lot of the elements that are basic in RPGs. Unfortunately, I think people see adventure games being RPGs these days. I can't really say that it is people who don't play RPGs only getting it confused, because I've seen people that play a lot of RPGs call Zelda an RPG. It is a certainly a different genre.

You aren't the only one thinking that way.

I tend to lump Zelda games with RPGs as they have that fantasy feel and character progression of sorts.

In a strict sense there aren't that many games that are proper RPGs, most 'RPGs' are really just games of another genre with role playing elements which can often work out quite well. Some western RPGs absolutely drown a player in game mechanics to the point where it can detract from the game's story. :(

Zelda is the only adventure game I've known that people commonly call an RPG. Technically they aren't really wrong. Genre is a marketing term and broadly, all games are RPGs. However, RPGs as a genre have come to mean something specific in terms of character, gameplay and story.

I think the confusion has a lot to do with timing. Ocarina of Time in particular was a big game that came out in the middle of the PSOne RPG boom when a lot of younger gamers were only just getting into them, namely Final Fantasy of course. I've never met someone who's played Zelda and didn't like it; that's some wide-ranging appeal right there. So basically, a lot of newfound RPG fans also played Zelda and loved it so they basically claim it's an RPG because, well, it's one of those rare games that has fans from pretty much every corner of the gaming world. Younger gamers don't care about things like genre, they care about playing a fun game. So Zelda becomes an RPG by association since they played RPGs like Final Fantasy and enjoyed them, then played Zelda and enjoyed that too. That's my theory, anyways.

On top of that, we have a brand new generation of gamers just starting out. RPGs are more mainstream now and adventure games are ever more popular, so the confusion's probably never going to go away. I personally don't mind. RPGs are starting to incorporate more and more adventure-type elements anyways; the two genres have a lot of cross-appeal, I think.

~DragonHeart~

I remember perusing around some sites not that long ago, and a lot of them listed Zelda games as being an Action-RPG type of game. I don't think it is that either. I've always classified them as being a fully action/adventure games, though I think that Zelda II did cross into Action-RPG territory. I never played that particular one though.

Some games do have that sort of gray area where they can borderline on different genres, so I suppose it's easy to get them to be labeled an RPG (or whatever else), even if they're not really classified as such.

Genre isn't just a marketing term. It's a means of categorization as much for the player as for the seller. We lump things into categories so that we can easier assess whether we'll like a specific game or not. Marketing campaigns prey off that, certainly, but it's not just them propagating it.

At any rate, Zelda indeed is no RPG. But if we really want to get technical, it isn't just an adventure game either. There are two branches of adventure games. The first is action adventure which contains games like Zelda, God of War and Devil May Cry. The second is sometimes called point and click adventures, though more often just called adventure games - this is comprised of games like Monkey Island, Sam and Max, King's Quest and Day of the Tentacle (pretty much anything from old Lucas Arts). The latter genre is nearly dead with the exception of Telltale Games' continued success with Sam and Max and Monkey Island, but either way, it exists.

Unless we change the definition, fantasy and progression isn't enough to make something an RPG. It has to be based on a stat system derived or inspired from tabletop RPG games, either with levels indirectly raising one's stats or direct stat progression like in newer Final Fantasy games.

I'm with ya Walrusman. I, along with Jin to an extent, told people in the "Favourite RPG (any system)" thread that Zelda are not RPGs and are action-adventure games. There was one person who had said in the same thread that the Metal Gear Solid series was one of the favourite RPGs; I told them as well that the MGS series is definitely not a RPG. But do people heed my word? No, because the next person who posted also put the Metal Gear Solid series as some of their favourite "RPGs". All I could do is a sigh x facepalm combo.

I think I asked in that thread what those people though a RPG was but I don't think anybody answered if I asked. I ask that question now: to those who consider the Zelda and Metal Gear Solid series as RPGs what makes a game a RPG?

You shouldn't ask that question. You'll get a response along the lines of "A game in which you play the role of someone," which will then lead into the ridiculous "isn't every game an RPG?" debate and then the thread's lost.

Instead of trying to figure out what "role playing game" means, people try to define it by figuring out what "role," "playing," and "game," mean and then see what definition they get when they combine all three together. This is a faulty way to deal with semantics of course, as it completely ignores that the words combined together are not the sum of their parts and that the term itself has a history which cannot be determined just by looking at its parts, but trying telling them that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jin

You shouldn't ask that question. You'll get a response along the lines of "A game in which you play the role of someone," which will then lead into the ridiculous "isn't every game an RPG?" debate and then the thread's lost.

Instead of trying to figure out what "role playing game" means, people try to define it by figuring out what "role," "playing," and "game," mean and then see what definition they get when they combine all three together. This is a faulty way to deal with semantics of course, as it completely ignores that the words combined together are not the sum of their parts and that the term itself has a history which cannot be determined just by looking at its parts, but trying telling them that.

---

Well, I did say in the other thread that it appeared to me that people think just taking the "role" of Snake, Link, Mario, Kratos, Sam Fisher, etc. is what qualifies as a RPG. I then said that, that "idea" of a RPG is not what constitutes as a RPG and that they need to learn what actually is a RPG.

Maybe it's just one of those things different from person to person?
I mean I know *plenty* of people who wouldn't consider JRPGs as RPGs because they don't always allow for complete control of character progression and are at times very linear.

Looking at it that way there aren't many newer RPGs at all. You have Oblivion, Dragon Age...
Yeah, not that many.

Of course it differs from person to person, but as I keep saying, these terms have histories. The "you play a role" argument runs completely counter to the history of the term "RPG" when being applied to gaming. Now the JRPG vs WRPG argument that you brought up has some legs. It's looking at the history of the term and searching for both continuity and breaks. It's a reasonable interpretation. "Serious Sam is an RPG because I play the role of Sam," however, is not.

And remember, folks, in the end, this a pointless debate that's being done for the sake of debating. But that's no reason not to enjoy it. ;)

I think I've heard the Legend of Zelda series called an RPG so much that it's been ingrained in my head, and I feel the need to defend the idea, apparently (since no one else seems to be. Devil's Advocate?) Maybe people see the series as having some RPG elements because of the items collected, and certain "stats"-like health and magic-increasing. Even your strength and defense get stronger because of "equipment upgrades." That might've been the same argument used for Super Metroid. But yeah; that is a flimsy argument. These "stat increases" aren't obtained the same way they would be in "traditional" RPG games; random battles! Anyhoo...

Wuv, Yer Mom

History, eh?
Well perhaps I'm not remembering that well, but I do recall the earlier dungeon crawlers not always having stat progression which you mentioned as something LoZ didn't have. You'd just equip weapons and armour and hack away and you do pretty much the same thing in LoZ. I also recall the media referring to older LoZ titles as Action-RPGs which are indeed a form of RPG. This is just what I remember historically though, maybe definitions have evolved for some people since then.

And of interest I was talking to a mate of mine just now about it (biggest pen and paper freak you'd ever meet) and he laughed at the idea of a videogame 'RPG' mentioning another thing a game can't often capture. Creation of the game world/plot etc. I asked him if there were any games at all that fit his picture of an RPG and he said there was only one. Neverwinter Nights, and only playing with usermade content. So yeah, I would say it pretty much definetely depends on how flexible you are with the term.

Debating is almost as much fun as masturbating!
Almost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Silver

Debating is almost as much fun as masturbating!
Almost.

---

You should try both at the same time. It's a rush.

Unfortunately, I really can't comment on games you think you remember, so I've nothing more to add to that.

As for your friend's comment, once again I see that as a legitimate debate. Even though his argument disagrees with my stance, it takes "role playing game" in its totality and works through its meaning rather than looking at the words as separate and fashioning their meanings together into a meaning divorced from what was intended by the word at the conception of its application to gaming. It's like taking the phrase "hit the road", dissecting it into the three words that make it up and then concluding that it means for someone to literally hit a road. You have to take "role playing game" as a whole and look to what it meant when it was first created and what it changed to when it was applied to gaming. If we want to change it again to apply to Zelda, fine, we can do that with enough support, but not because "you play the role of Link". That's what I'm arguing against.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jin

You should try both at the same time. It's a rush.

Unfortunately, I really can't comment on games you think you remember, so I've nothing more to add to that.

---

You raise a good point. Ok, examples are the two oldest console games I own (both for Intellivision, both made in the early 80s I believe), Advanced Dungeons & Dragons: Cloudy Mountain and Advanced Dungeons & Dragons: Treasure of Tarmin.

Both fantastic games (wish my Intellivision still worked ;( )I wouldn't consider them RPGs (was the term even used as a gaming genre back then?), but the argument that would is actually pretty logical. Video game RPGs were called such because they were based on or inspired by the statistical systems of tabletop RPGs. Though the two games in question are not based on these stat systems, they are based on D&D as a franchise, so the argument could be made for them, though I personally find it a weak argument. They key point is the continuity between tabletop RPGs and the video games that were directly inspired by them. I don't know how Miyamoto's brain works, but I don't see any connection between Zelda and tabletop RPGs other than the fact that swords and magic are involved, but that kind of stuff existed before even tabletop RPGs, so it's kind of a shallow argument.

The argument against JRPGs is pretty valid as the gap between them and tabletop RPGs is pretty obvious, but I don't think there's any question that the stat system in Dragon Quest was directly inspired by tabletop RPGs so I do think they should count.

Yeah, my Intellivision crapped out about a decade ago myself. Been meaning to get a replacement but never got around to it.

Both titles were known as RPGs until past when I got them (mid 90s) though at some point afterwards I started noticing most game catalogues/databases/encyclopedias refer to them as Action RPGs. I played the LoZ games some time afterwards and was amazed by some of the similarities I saw. Others who hadn't played the games thought LoZ was a new big thing in ways I'd seen done before. :lol:

I'm not entirely sure when LoZ got the Adventure genre attached (though even that's been a while I believe) but a decade and a half ago Adventure games referred to those games you mentioned earlier (like Monkey Island, anothe fave old franchise of mine). Hell, back when I was a wee little kid there were fewer genres and not many if any subgenres like there seems to be today. I'd even notice game reviews not stating genres and instead using a description of the gameplay to describe the type of game it was.

I thought of something else that could contribute--there's a large segment of people who think rpg = fantasy as well. Zelda has a lot of overlapping fantasy elements common to rpgs so people see/play the game and that misconception leads them to believe it's an rpg based solely on those elements.

I thought of this because I was recently talking to an older coworker of mine about games. She and her boyfriend are into rpgs, mainly WoW. I mentioned how Final Fantasy XIII was coming out soon and it had a cross-console release so she might enjoy it. This is completely impossible to my brain, but she didn't know Final Fantasy was an RPG series. Why? Because all the trailers and such had all futuristic/science fiction elements to it. She thought it was some sort of shooter. Had they shown more of the fantasy side of the game it probably would have been more recognizable. It's entirely possible that many gamers who aren't hardcore or have only played the biggest name titles for the new or the last console generation may very well share this admittedly unthinkable [to me] misconception.

RPGs are more mainstream but gamers who play the genre as a whole are still very much a minority, it seems. It's very possible that the genre is incomprehensible to people who don't play them, just as video games in general are incomprehensible to nongamers. They just don't 'get' it in the same way those of us who grew up playing RPGs do.

~DragonHeart~

How can you even put these 2 terms next to each other? Let's analyze both terms with a little backup from Wikipedia:

RPG means "Role Playing Game", and this term has nothing to do with the fact if you level up and gain stats and skills or not. RPG covers a really wide range of games, basically every game where you assume the role of one or more characters.

Adventure games is a specific genre that's more about exploration and puzzle solving rather than just combat.

In other words, RPG isn't just a specific genre and covers a lot more. Typical examples of adventure games were the LucasArts games from the '90s. And Zelda is an adventure game too. But... Zelda is also an RPG.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DragonHeart

there's a large segment of people who think rpg = fantasy as well.

---

Again, that's comparing apples to pears. RPGs can be fantasy, science fiction, mystery, horror, ... Adventure games can be all of these literary genres as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashelia

How can you even put these 2 terms next to each other? Let's analyze both terms with a little backup from Wikipedia:

RPG means "Role Playing Game", and this term has nothing to do with the fact if you level up and gain stats and skills or not. RPG covers a really wide range of games, basically every game where you assume the role of one or more characters.

Adventure games is a specific genre that's more about exploration and puzzle solving rather than just combat.

In other words, RPG isn't just a specific genre and covers a lot more. Typical examples of adventure games were the LucasArts games from the '90s. And Zelda is an adventure game too. But... Zelda is also an RPG.

---

Yeah, use the term "Role Playing Game" when it is referring to table-top/pen-and-paper. There is a lot more to a "Role Playing Game" then just taking the role of the character. There is how damage, heals, status effects percentages is figured out which is what WRPGs tend to be more close to D&D than JRPGs, though JRPGs aren't that different. There is also the stat growth that the player is able to direct for their character which can be done as well in WRPGs and a few JRPGs as with the latter it is predetermined or somewhat random.


But let me end this little conversation with your pal, wikipedia. When a person goes to the Legend of Zelda (series) page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Legend_of_Zelda you will see that the series is defined as action-adventure. Now it does go on to say it has some elements of role-playing but they are not enough to call the series an Action-Adventrue RPG. And probably the only reason why they say it has RPG elements is because of one game: Zelda II The Adventure of Link, which is the only Zelda game that wikipedia has as an Action Role-Playing game. All the other Zelda games are listed as Action-Adventure. The End.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zargabaath

But let me end this little conversation with your pal, wikipedia. When a person goes to the Legend of Zelda (series) page The Legend of Zelda - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia you will see that the series is defined as action-adventure. Now it does go on to say it has some elements of role-playing but they are not enough to call the series an Action-Adventrue RPG. And probably the only reason why they say it has RPG elements is because of one game: Zelda II The Adventure of Link, which is the only Zelda game that wikipedia has as an Action Role-Playing game. All the other Zelda games are listed as Action-Adventure. The End.

---

Wikipedia for gaming knowledge? *shudders*.
But that said, I clicked your link anyway and the first part of the article linked has this to say:

Quote:

---

The Legend of Zelda​ (ゼルダの伝説 Zeruda no Densetsu?) is a high fantasy action-adventure video game series created by Japanese game designers Shigeru Miyamoto and Takashi Tezuka and developed and published by Nintendo with some portable installments such as The Legend of Zelda: The Minish Cap developed by Flagship/Capcom. The gameplay consists of a mixture of action, adventure, puzzle solving, and role-playing.

---

And the article for Action-Adventure states that it 'is perhaps the broadest and most diverse genre in gaming, and can include many games which might better be categorized under narrow genres.'

Ever play Golvellius? If you don't want to track down an MMX/Sega plus the game they started selling a remake of it on the iTunes store last year. Plays a lot like Zelda and once again is an Action RPG.

And I mean even if the character progression isn't as simple as killing x enemies to allocate y amount of points to stats, you can still get equipment that makes your character stronger and there's often an ability to increase health/magic through various means as well as increasing the amount of an item or even upgrading an item to make your character more powerful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Silver

Wikipedia for gaming knowledge? *shudders*.
But that said, I clicked your link anyway and the first part of the article linked has this to say:

---

Well, to be honest Wikipedia has fairly accurate information regarding video games and their articles are strung with citations or sometimes "Citation Needed"; wikipedia isn't all that bad. Now, on to the matter at hand: Ashelia used Wiki as her source so I decided to counter with Wiki myself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zargabaath

But let me end this little conversation with your pal, wikipedia. When a person goes to the Legend of Zelda (series) page The Legend of Zelda - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia you will see that the series is defined as action-adventure. Now it does go on to say it has some elements of role-playing but they are not enough to call the series an Action-Adventrue RPG. And probably the only reason why they say it has RPG elements is because of one game: Zelda II The Adventure of Link, which is the only Zelda game that wikipedia has as an Action Role-Playing game. All the other Zelda games are listed as Action-Adventure. The End.

---

You will see, if you read, that I did mention that the article did say that it had elements from many genres one of them being role-playing. The amount of role-playing though is very minimal. If your read/comprehended what I wrote right afterwards that the only game listed as being part RPG is Zelda II which is called an Action-Role Playing. All the other Zelda games have Action-Adventure as their "genre(s)". Therefore it would only be appropriate to call Zelda II an RPG but not any of the other games or the series as a whole.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Silver

And I mean even if the character progression isn't as simple as killing x enemies to allocate y amount of points to stats, you can still get equipment that makes your character stronger and there's often an ability to increase health/magic through various means as well as increasing the amount of an item or even upgrading an item to make your character more powerful.

---

Yeah, so Shadow of the Colosus has a good claim to being called an RPG too? Because, ya know, you stab lizards, eat their tales, gain some "endurance"; then, ya shoot fruit down with ya arrows and gain some health. Oh, don't forget that each time you defeat a boss your endurance & health paramters increase. Yeaaaaaah, no. Sorry. It has some elements of a RPG, but Shadow of the Colossus and Zelda (except for one game) aren't RPGs - they're action-adventure.


P.S. Wikipedia also has Action-Adventure for the "genre(s)" for Shadow of the Colossus. Gamespot has Shadow of the Colossus and most of the Zelda series as "Fantasy Action-Adventure".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zargabaath

Yeah, so Shadow of the Colosus has a good claim to being called an RPG too? Because, ya know, you stab lizards, eat their tales, gain some "endurance"; then, ya shoot fruit down with ya arrows and gain some health. Oh, don't forget that each time you defeat a boss your endurance & health paramters increase. Yeaaaaaah, no. Sorry. It has some elements of a RPG, but Shadow of the Colossus and Zelda (except for one game) aren't RPGs - they're action-adventure.


P.S. Wikipedia also has Action-Adventure for the "genre(s)" for Shadow of the Colossus. Gamespot has Shadow of the Colossus and most of the Zelda series as "Fantasy Action-Adventure".

---

Shadow of the Colossus...
Only ever beat that once and it was ages ago. Correct me if I'm wrong on any points, but if I remember correctly, there were no dungeons, no sidequests (unless you count lizard tails/fruit finding) and nothing other than going around killing 16 gigantic-ass creatures utilising things around you which if anything screams puzzle game to me.

Zelda games on the other hand had those things and I've mentioned other games similar which carry the Action RPG genre, some of which also seem to on wikipedia (though it and gamestop aren't exactly high on my list of go-to sources). And just to give you something else to perhaps ponder over, what about simplistic roguelikes? Some do have visible stat progression, some DON'T yet the subgenre is a definete RPG subgenre. I don't think anyone has thus far introduced a feature lacking in the Zelda series that isn't lacking in RPGs of some kind and that's likely why I find it so easy to lump them in with RPGs.

@ Zargabaath Nice counter indeed :D You do have a point.
I think many games are hard to place in a specific genre, and in some cases there might always be doubts. Then again I never really bothered to look into it. I judge a game by seeing footage or playing a trial, never even thinking or caring what genre it might possibly be.