i know it stands for role playing game, but what kind of game is it exactly? is is 3rd person action adventure or do you like have to make a text based decision and let the game in essence play for you while you watch? i don't quite understand games like kotr and fable.

thanks for the info...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_role-playing_game

wow! lot of reading, thanks pixy.

so fable and kotr are from "top-down" perspective and i really don't have like "joystick" control of walking, fighting, etc..?

I haven't played either, but they aren't top-down, they're third-person 3D.
I think Fable has real-time combat and KOTR is menu based.

Fable is real time action-oriented, but KOTR is still real-time isn't it?

I consider a game to be an RPG or to have RPG elements when you have characters that evolve through the game. Metroid could be considered an RPG.

KOTOR is turn based in battles, but it can seem like real time. The computations on hits, saves and force powers are done behind the scenes, and you can pause to issue commands to each character if you wish.

I think having a character evolve is far too simple of definition. Games such as Metroid do not allow the player to dictate HOW the character evolves, an essential element of RPGs for my definition. Metroid lacks other elements I consider to b RPG essentials, but the character creation/control is a the big one.

Metroid is a platform game
RPG in essence is a game where you take control of a character and go through a story, through the game your character grows as you go through the story mostly by level. Games like metroid offer very little for exploration. Most RPGs let you roam around. Most RPGs take alot of time to complete. Averaging around 40+ hrs.

Zelda is an Action RPG
Seiken Densetsu is also an Action RPG
FF Tactics is a Turn Based RPG
More traditional RPGs would include FF series, Dragon Quest and such

Metroid is far from a platform game. The idea of exploration for RPGs you mentioned is very much alive in Metroid. The game requires plenty of exploration and roaming, with side areas and secrets. Platformers are much more straight forward and do not always allow retracing of steps. I would call Metroid an adventure game above anything else. It contains action, but does not heavily focus on it. It requires a lot of exploration and figuring out to how to advance as one of the main components.

Same with Zelda. I think it is far too often lumped as an RPG because of the fantasy elements. But strip that away and you have the same formula as Metroid. Exploration as a top priority, gaining new items to advance, no character customization, etc. Again, very much an adventure game, as both games are all about the experience of the world, exploration, etc., or simply put, the adventure of it.

What does RPG stand for? Role-playing game. While people argue that any game has you in a role, I think a true role-playing game allows you to be the character, choosing their destiny, their strengths/weaknesses, their abilities, and their path through the world. Neither Metroid nor Zelda allow this, although I love both series, and are not RPGs.

I would never use time or story as a standard for RPGs either. Most games have a story that you follow, and games of all types have very good stories. Also, some RPGs, especially in the action-RPG sub-genre, can be much shorter than traditional swords and spells PC RPGs, and some non-RPGs can be long.

There was a fairly long thread about this a few months ago, that made for some fun reading:

http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=430017

Close. I think we came to the conclusion last time that Zelda games are action-adventures (with Zelda II being an action-RPG, however light the RPG elements are). Metroid is an action-adventure game, as well. The focus isn't on jumping onto moving platforms, it's exploration.

The thread areacode212 mentions was a very good discussion about this. It was about "Is Zelda an RPG?" Should answer your questions. I will repost what I said in that thread:


From the last thread:


Great post!! 100% correct IMO!

RPGs depend on a few things. One of them is that the character grows more powerful, in multiple ways - this is an experience based system. You progressively need more and more XP to strengthen your character - it is not a flat scale.

Action RPGs seem to be the trend these days. I quite often mention that platformers have taken whole-sale RPG elements and added them...Jack and Daxter, with its Precursor stuff, etc, Little missions from towsnpeople, etc, and storyline/conversation with people is definitely RPG influenced. But it is definitely not an RPG.

The battle and experience system make a big difference.

IMO an RPG comes from its D&D roots. You take the place of a character, like in a book, in a realistic setting of some sort. An emphasis on adventuring, strategy, experience-based leveling, and problem solving...and virtually no emphasis on physical reflexes/skill. Emphasis on quick thinking is OK but not reflexes.

Any TRUE RPG IMO should have a turn-based battle system of some sort with little emphasis on physical reaction time/skill. Or at least close to it - ATB system in FF6-9 games is basically turn-based, especially on WAIT mode. Characters take actions in battle based on tactical or strategic reasons, and there is very little in the way of reflexes involved - dice (in this case virtual), statistics, and other numbers are what resolves the battle. Your number of actions or attacks stays the same, no matter what your personal physical reflexes.

A Strategy RPG has an emphasis even more so on turn-based, strategic gameplay over exploring and story elements. (It's a Strategy RPG, not an RPG Strategy). The 'strategy' part overshadows the RPG elements.

An Action RPG has an emphasis even more so on action elements over the other RPG elements. More important is your physical reflexes than your strategic decisions - and you aren't given extra time to think about it.


Games like Star Ocean: 'Til the End of time, and Secret of Mana, are like half action RPGs - they are like borderline RPGs - like 50% action 50% RPG. Secret of Mana battles honestly depend a lot on your level, armor, and tactics - and you pause the game to cast spells, use items, etc. Ditto with Star Ocean - items, choice of skills, etc make a big difference. A game like Zelda II is also an action RPG, but more like 75% action, 25% RPG.

*Fincher Fan puts on a robe and wizard hat.

I still consider Zelda to be Action RPG since you can talk to various NPCs in the game

So Jak & Daxter is an RPG too?

No I wouldnt consider Jak and Daxter an RPG, more Action Adventure than RPG, Link's roots are RPG-ish more than Jak

I would consider Zelda to be an action adventure game, as some have said before. Similar to a pure Adventure game (Siberia or Beyond Good and Evil) with more emphasis on fighting.

Based on these definitions, Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas would qualify.

Based on many definitions of what an RPG could be few other games can be put there

Thing that you need to remember is that even though cames 'could' fall into the RPG category theres still something about the game that will bump it off

I've never played it, so I wouldn't know. But if it has a story and leveling up (i.e., after you fight a certain number of enemies, you get a boost in health or damage or something), why wouldn't it be an action-RPG?

I can see San Andreas sort of qualifying as an Action-RPG (since the implementation of stengthening your character, etc).

The mini-quests, etc are certainly RPG-derivative.

As an old dice & graph paper gamer, I'd have to agree that GTA:SA is certainly an RPG. Given a couple of days I could write up a PH for it. After a couple of weeks of playtesting I could produce a publishable game fully recognizable as a paper version of the videogame, and would be pure RPG.

BwG's definition is almost perfect IMHO, the key being the experience aspect.