|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Feb 11, 2009 9:13 pm
Gimme a break, Elliot.
Either way, Zelda has always been classified as Action-RPG rather than the typical "Action-Adventure" which, I think Zelda DOES fall into, but Action-Adventure is like a broader genre which Action-RPGs fall into.
I mean, speaking of technicalities, every single game with a storyline and a protagonist, might as well be called an Adventure game. Which makes Final Fantasy (the good ones) a Turn-Based Adventure. Heck, even Puzzle Quest would be considered Puzzle Adventure, then. Resident Evil falls into Action Adventure. But when breaking it down, Resident Evil (again, the good ones) is classified as Survival Horror. And Zelda is classified as an Action RPG.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 12, 2009 9:05 am
Biohazard EXTREME Gimme a break, Elliot. Either way, Zelda has always been classified as Action-RPG rather than the typical "Action-Adventure" which, I think Zelda DOES fall into, but Action-Adventure is like a broader genre which Action-RPGs fall into. Ok, if you believe Action-RPG is a selection within the broad genre that is Action-Adventure, then I can live with that (I mean, you're saying both of us are technically right.) But, I still disagree with your fact that is has always been classified as Action-RPG. Since I am as big of a fan of Zelda as your are of old school RE, I have done extensive research on everything entailing it, and have, until now (Or maybe minor forgetful instances in the past, since they were so far and few in between), always seen it referred to as an Action-Adventure series. Maybe they meant to say A-RPG and were just using A-A to represent it's broader category, or when saying A-A, meant it as such as A-RPG, but since they (They being everything from reviews to strategy guides to designer's notes...Yes, I'm a nerd...For the series) always claim A-A, it has always led me to believe it as so, and I will take your advice and never give up the fight, dammit...Backfire! Pshaw. Good technicality Elliot twisted . But yeah, I can live with it being labeled as both. 3nodding @Thee Stranger: Well, since sequels never tarnish the reputation of the original, I say, why not make 'em? What harm could come from it? Let people who want mindless fodder such as The Shape killing people for pointless reasons get what they want. Plus, sequels help establish a series and shine it's light upon people who may not be familiar with it, so hopefully, they can get into it, and watch the masterpiece that started it all. Same goes for remakes, but with those, you can do something different, creative. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, no? And even from imitation we can sometimes strike gold and get gems such as King Kong or Titanic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 12, 2009 9:47 am
Well, I guess the world hasn't yet decided on that, but I swear when I was really into it (and I mean, when playing it for a first time, looking for kick a** screenshots, etc.), I always stumbled on it being referred to as an RPG on every website. Maybe I just went on mostly RPG related websites, and they were just all convinced that Zelda is an RPG, I dunno.
But you don't have to have 1000 different types of weapons an armor to be classified an action RPG. You don't have to gain experience and level up. Well, maybe by today's cookie cutter RPG standards you do. But Action RPGs generally suck these days anyway, aside from a select few like Fallout 3.
But if RPGs all had to follow one and the same formula, then I could insist that since you can't rename the main character in games like Kingdom Hearts, it's not really an RPG. Do I? No. It's still an RPG, they just took one of the cooler RPG elements away from it. (I say cooler because frankly, I don't want to play as some guy named "Squall", but that's okay, because I change his name. Simple.)
Even RPGs that I love, like Jeanne D'Arc, where the main character, obviously, can't have a different name because it's Joan of Ark, and it's her name on the title. It's still an RPG.
So what if you take one element away from Diablo, being the ridiculous amounts of armor and weapons. You replace that element with an intricate fighting and more detailed dungeon crawling system. Is it not an RPG anymore? You're still usurping a role of a hero, going around, talking to people....
See, that's the key, I think. The fact that Zelda has those two factors, the fact that you can name your character, and the fact that large portion of the game consists of talking to people which you can't kill (no matter hos much you want to) makes it an RPG with large action elements embedded into it.
Like, if you play a game like Soul Reaver, it's somewhat similar to Zelda when it comes to the way the puzzles are, and the dungeon exploration of it. But you can't rename the character, and you don't walk around taking quests from people (or talking to people who simply have something they wanna tell you, even if you don't wanna hear it.) That's why it's NOT an RPG.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 12, 2009 10:00 am
Whoa whoa whoa, I wasn't trying to start another debate here. You've basically just repeated what you've argued in the past, so I'm not going to get into details again. I'm just stating what I believe Zelda to be classified as, and that is all. And that whole praising Elliot for his technicality thing is something not to be looked into, for it was just a joke, hinted by the devily face hee hee. But, since you believe Action-RPG is a category within the genre that is Action-Adventure, there's no need to continue this, is there? It's a win-win for both of us. 3nodding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 12, 2009 10:10 am
Well, I was just praising him, because he proved my point, that on a technicality, there would only be like, 2 genres in the entire gaming industry. Adventure and non. Because technically, every game with a plotline is an adventure, right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 12, 2009 10:21 am
I think I know where your heading with this, but that's OK, because that would mean Zelda would be an Adventure game/series, which, at the moment, is all I care to prove. I don't care if by that set limitations RPGs or even Resident Evil would become Adventure too, for as long Zelda is in that category, all is well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 12, 2009 10:22 am
Then Resident Evil is an Action Adventure. And Call of Duty is an Action Adventure. Etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 12, 2009 10:23 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 12, 2009 10:25 am
Which... Doesn't even make sense, because even by today's standards, Aciton Adventure games are different from First Person Shooters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 12, 2009 10:27 am
Then all is too confuzzling! Niih! Must run, and flee! Before I get too consumed!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 12, 2009 10:30 am
See? That's what over-technicalities cause.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 12, 2009 10:48 am
So, to make it simple, just leave it at Zelda being an A-RPG title within' the genre of A-A? Why cant we just leave it at that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 12, 2009 10:51 am
We left it at that a long time ago. ninja
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 12, 2009 10:54 am
Then what the hell what were we just arguing about? *Looks back* Bah, fuggedabout it. I have soundtracks to download. Up up and away!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 12, 2009 11:00 am
I was just saying that Elliot's sarcastic comment about technicalities only proved my point further.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
