Halo and Zelda:OOT (1 Viewer)

[Bone577]

No realy, Halo 1, in my opinion, it sucked. Dead serious. Maybe it is the same issue i had with Metal Gear Solid 2 (ie something I know is a good game but I couldn't get into) but in MGS2, at least I could tell why it was a good game, in Halo, it escapes me.

The productional value was great, the graphics were also great, sound I thought was uninspiring as far as explosions + guns went, but not too shabby in the music department.

Gameplay? Nothing special, nothing special at all. The weapons were for the most part very underwhelming, they didn't have the visceral feel that made Counter-Strike good (i would actually pin CS's success on the visceral feel of the guns and nothing else). There was no kick-back, no solidness to the guns. It wasn't completely bad, just nothing I would get excited about.

The enemies, well, they were fundementally the same all throughout, which wasn't necesarily a bad thing either, and is quite excusable considering the enemies were put to good use (sometimes).

The story? It was quite good, can't complain, the twist was genuinely unexpected. But it was very Half-Life esque (a game which I DID enjoy).

The biggest problem was, the absolute repetition involved in the game. It almost seems the developers decided they wanted the game to last a certain amount of time, so copy-pasted over and over again. This reached it's sickening peak in The Archives/Library. The same section, repeated 5 times to make a hall, repeated 5 times to make a level, 5 levels. Make the player go through each level twice. Utter BS, could they not have made it a tad bit more interesting? A little more effort would have gone a long way.

What is even worse is that somehow, Halo has managed to climb up to the position of one of the greatest games ever on Gamerankings.com. It has beaten the likes of MGS, ProEvoSoccer, Final Fantasy, GranTurismo, Battlefield:1942, Smash Brothers, and above all ICO. I feel like i am the only person on earth who realises how monotonous this game is.

While I am at it I will have a little bitch about Zelda:Ocarina of Time. Straight up, I thought it sucked. I feel insulted for it to be labeled an RPG, sure you play a role, but it lacks any magic system or character developement (fire arrow is not a magic system and child link vs adult link is not character developement).

I found it un-involving and i forced myself to finish it, and it was painful. All i could think is "gee this is overrated". Yet the game is ranked number 1 EVER on gamerankings.com. I just cannot understand what is going on.



The fact they are often considered the best games ever (MGS2, Zelda:OOT, Halo) doesn't help, I feel like I must be stoned to dislike these games (considering the ratings).
What do you guys think? Did Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft pay off the review sites to give good reviews? Do you agree? Disagree? Do i just have horrible taste in games?

 

[AsyLum]

Firstly, an RPG is loosely defined as a Role-Playing Game. It would be ludicrous at best, to state that there are many true multiplayer RPG's, many games feature other characters that join your party but in essence you only play one main character as the lead.

Zelda:OoT was i think an innovative game, having played through it for the first 2 months before the guide had come out, and solving most of the puzzles was great, plus the freedom to just explore the world in 3d, gave it a somewhat non linear feel which is so monotonous within rpg's nowdays.

To each his own, but no im sure there are others out there who think that GT would be the worst and most overrated game ever, it all comes down to taste.

 

[Bone577]

Firstly, an RPG is loosely defined as a Role-Playing Game. It would be ludicrous at best, to state that there are many true multiplayer RPG's, many games feature other characters that join your party but in essence you only play one main character as the lead.

If Zelda is an RPG, Doom is an RPG.

Defining it as a game in which you play a role is useless. As an RPG purist, there must be either character developement or a magic system.

If you ask me Zelda fits into more of an adventure game with plot focus.

Zelda:OoT was i think an innovative game, having played through it for the first 2 months before the guide had come out, and solving most of the puzzles was great, plus the freedom to just explore the world in 3d, gave it a somewhat non linear feel which is so monotonous within rpg's nowdays.

Innovative? Final Fantasy has been free-roaming for MANY generations already. I don't see how puzzles are innovative either.

To each his own, but no im sure there are others out there who think that GT would be the worst and most overrated game ever, it all comes down to taste.

Read my first and last paragraph, and thankyou for the lecture on how this is about personal opinion.

 

[r0wlzii]

Considering the year Zelda was made and what limits we put on it at the time I think you are very wrong. I played I when I was in year 6 so about 1999 and finished it. Found it quite hard and fuckin awsome. I played it again quite recently along with Majoras Mask (Underated) which most people put down after the first half hour, but really get into it, its a fucking great game. Anyways Like I was saying I got into it recently and it still has that "feel" about it.

Ill agree with Halo being shit, I never played it XBOX,only on computer and that was a terrible experience. Is there any difference? I dislike how you compared it to CS they are compleely different games. For one CS is an unadvanced tactical shooter which tries to play as a Co-op. The guns are all of todays standars but the recoil isnt. Halo is set in some other place or some other time or some shit, the guns arent meant to compete nor are the enemies.

I very much think you made yourself look like a complete fucktard comparing Doom and Zelda. Doom is and Ancient 2D click and shoot. Zelda is a newage 3D Adventure game with RPG elements thus the genre granted. I think these people would know more than you, they are informed by th game companies themselves. And it actually came out as an Adventure Game/RPG as there are a lot of role playing elements so you coulnt simply call it an adventure game.

MGS I have never played so I cannot argue that. And another thing is that your sole argument lies on ONE site out of how many. If the general public enjoy these games and you struggle maybe you shouls reassess your interests and die.

 

[Bone577]

Considering the year Zelda was made and what limits we put on it at the time I think you are very wrong. I played I when I was in year 6 so about 1999 and finished it. Found it quite hard and fuckin awsome. I played it again quite recently along with Majoras Mask (Underated) which most people put down after the first half hour, but really get into it, its a fucking great game. Anyways Like I was saying I got into it recently and it still has that "feel" about it.

I played it a long time ago.

Ill agree with Halo being shit, I never played it XBOX,only on computer and that was a terrible experience. Is there any difference? I dislike how you compared it to CS they are compleely different games. For one CS is an unadvanced tactical shooter which tries to play as a Co-op. The guns are all of todays standars but the recoil isnt. Halo is set in some other place or some other time or some shit, the guns arent meant to compete nor are the enemies.

I see no problem in comparing the gun feel of Halo vs CS. Genre is irrelevant. The guns in Halo had no impact, CS did. I think that is perhaps the reason CS is as popular as it is (even though it has been superceded completely by the likes of CO).

Now there is no sense of impact, no visceral pleasure, the guns are hollow and lifeless.

I very much think you made yourself look like a complete fucktard comparing Doom and Zelda. Doom is and Ancient 2D click and shoot.

Someone is a bit defencive over Zelda.

Zelda is as much an RPG as Doom, ie neither one of them is an RPG.

Zelda is a newage 3D Adventure game with RPG elements thus the genre granted. I think these people would know more than you, they are informed by th game companies themselves. And it actually came out as an Adventure Game/RPG as there are a lot of role playing elements so you coulnt simply call it an adventure game.

A newage 3D adventure game? Talk about making yourself look like a fucktard aye.

The game companies do not decide the genre. EA said NFSU is a street racing sim, give me a fucking break, its a arcade racer.

Now, Zelda is an adventure game with a plot focus. I would like to know exactly what your definition of RPG is, because without and character developement or magic system it simply doesn't cut it for me. Simply playing a role does not an RPG make.

MGS I have never played so I cannot argue that. And another thing is that your sole argument lies on ONE site out of how many. If the general public enjoy these games and you struggle maybe you shouls reassess your interests and die.

Do you even realise the point of my post? It is to express my frustration that games that everyone seems to love, seem to be fruitless to me. That is the point. You missed the point despite me already pointing it out to the previous poster.


Now, i'm not asking for people to come on and tell me how it is my opinion, i already know it is my opinion. In fact i already said these may well be good games "Maybe it is the same issue i had with Metal Gear Solid 2 (ie something I know is a good game but I couldn't get into)"
I don't see why you are getting defensive, probably because you are a Zelda fanboy who is incredibly upset if anyone even suggests that OOT wasn't good.

I am asking for peoples opinions on the games, "What do you guys think? Did Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft pay off the review sites to give good reviews? Do you agree? Disagree? Do i just have horrible taste in games?"

 

[Lexicographer]

I disagreee with your assessment of Zelda. Then again, I scoff at people who call themselves "[genre]-purists" because all it shows is a very narrow "in-my-day" attitude to the genre you supposedly love. If you really loved the genre as you claim to then you'd be willing to embrace change and/or a different look at it, rather than saying "I define RPGs to be just the way they were when I first played them, and thus anything that doesn't fit that isn't an RPG".

I very much enjoy the Zelda games because they are designed with a wider range of gamers in mind. Unlike Final Fantasy, which attracts a specific kind of gamer (often turning off far too many other kinds), the Zelda series aims to play a shorter, sometimes simpler but equally enjoyable game. Zelda games are easily learned and understood by younger gamers with a shorter attention span. They are amusing to an optimal age range (including my very young siblings, and myself at that age) and the animation is constantly changing. It is always a pleasant surprise to play a new Zelda game. Miyamoto has done a fine job in widening the range of RPGs beyond the brutally obsessive 23 year olds who started playing when they were 12 and go three days without saving just to see that 100%-complete ending.

Oh yes, Zelda also has a magic system, in fact it always has. Addmitedly simple, but I can't imagine a Zelda game working any other way. Wasn't one of your requirements the featuring of a magic system?

 

[Bone577]

I disagreee with your assessment of Zelda. Then again, I scoff at people who call themselves "[genre]-purists" because all it shows is a very narrow "in-my-day" attitude to the genre you supposedly love. If you really loved the genre as you claim to then you'd be willing to embrace change and/or a different look at it, rather than saying "I define RPGs to be just the way they were when I first played them, and thus anything that doesn't fit that isn't an RPG".

Being a purist only shows your own preference. Once you expand and innovate you are creating a sub-genre. FF is through and through an RPG. Diablo is an adventure/RPG, Everquest is a MMORPG. It goes even further, you could say something like Championship Manager is a sport/RPG. Then you have games that spawned off the RPG genre but are now whole new creations, look at ICO, it is only with a great stretch of imagination that you could say it is an RPG, it is what i would call, post-impresionist-art/puzzle game? Although a RPG purist, I would not shun any of these games, in fact FF, ICO and D2 rank as some of my favourites. But they just aren't plain RPG's anymore.

I very much enjoy the Zelda games because they are designed with a wider range of gamers in mind. Unlike Final Fantasy, which attracts a specific kind of gamer (often turning off far too many other kinds), the Zelda series aims to play a shorter, sometimes simpler but equally enjoyable game. Zelda games are easily learned and understood by younger gamers with a shorter attention span. They are amusing to an optimal age range (including my very young siblings, and myself at that age) and the animation is constantly changing. It is always a pleasant surprise to play a new Zelda game. Miyamoto has done a fine job in widening the range of RPGs beyond the brutally obsessive 23 year olds who started playing when they were 12 and go three days without saving just to see that 100%-complete ending.

I wouldn't say FF is THAT inaccessable. I got into FF being a complete RPG newbie, in fact i despised RPG's at that point. I played FF7 never having heard of FF before. But that aside. I am not saying Zelda has no qualities (im sure it has some even if they aren't apparent to me) i am just perplexed by how it can be regarded as the greatest game ever, would you say it deserves the title?

Oh yes, Zelda also has a magic system, in fact it always has. Addmitedly simple, but I can't imagine a Zelda game working any other way. Wasn't one of your requirements the featuring of a magic system?

The question is, how simplistic can it get before it doesn't qualify? For example, Prince Of Persia : SOT had a magic system, but it was too simplistic to be an RPG. It had a strong emphasis on action, much like Zelda does. As such, I still wouldn't consider Zelda to be an RPG based on that criteria.

So what exactly is it that makes this game an RPG(this is not a rhetorical question)? It seems to me it is simply the fact that it concentrates on themes that are very RPG-esque. This doesn't seem enough though.

This is not to cheapen the game, consider it on it's own merits, I am simply saying, this is not what I would call an RPG.

 

[Bone577]

Refocusing on Halo, after conducting a survey of as many friends as I could, I recieved results contrary to the reviews given at game sites. While most enjoyed it, they usually found it too repetetive, and often forced themselves to finish it. The scores were predominantly in the 60-90 range, with a couple giving it less than 40 and one giving it 200.

Now, as I said before, it isn't necessarily a bad game, just like OOT. They were both produced well, I didn't enjoy either a great deal, but it doesn't mean they can't be loved by others. What bothers me is that they are both among the top 10 games ever according to gamerankings.

 

[AsyLum]

No realy, Halo 1, in my opinion, it sucked. Dead serious. Maybe it is the same issue i had with Metal Gear Solid 2 (ie something I know is a good game but I couldn't get into) but in MGS2, at least I could tell why it was a good game, in Halo, it escapes me.

The productional value was great, the graphics were also great, sound I thought was uninspiring as far as explosions + guns went, but not too shabby in the music department.

Gameplay? Nothing special, nothing special at all. The weapons were for the most part very underwhelming, they didn't have the visceral feel that made Counter-Strike good (i would actually pin CS's success on the visceral feel of the guns and nothing else). There was no kick-back, no solidness to the guns. It wasn't completely bad, just nothing I would get excited about.

The enemies, well, they were fundementally the same all throughout, which wasn't necesarily a bad thing either, and is quite excusable considering the enemies were put to good use (sometimes).

The story? It was quite good, can't complain, the twist was genuinely unexpected. But it was very Half-Life esque (a game which I DID enjoy).

The biggest problem was, the absolute repetition involved in the game. It almost seems the developers decided they wanted the game to last a certain amount of time, so copy-pasted over and over again. This reached it's sickening peak in The Archives/Library. The same section, repeated 5 times to make a hall, repeated 5 times to make a level, 5 levels. Make the player go through each level twice. Utter BS, could they not have made it a tad bit more interesting? A little more effort would have gone a long way.

What is even worse is that somehow, Halo has managed to climb up to the position of one of the greatest games ever on Gamerankings.com. It has beaten the likes of MGS, ProEvoSoccer, Final Fantasy, GranTurismo, Battlefield:1942, Smash Brothers, and above all ICO. I feel like I am the only person on earth who realises how monotonous this game is.

While I am at it I will have a little bitch about Zelda:Ocarina of Time. Straight up, I thought it sucked. I feel insulted for it to be labeled an RPG, sure you play a role, but it lacks any magic system or character developement (fire arrow is not a magic system and child link vs adult link is not character developement).

I found it un-involving and I forced myself to finish it, and it was painful. All I could think is "gee this is overrated". Yet the game is ranked number 1 EVER on gamerankings.com. I just cannot understand what is going on.



The fact they are often considered the best games ever (MGS2, Zelda:OOT, Halo) doesn't help, I feel like I must be stoned to dislike these games (considering the ratings).
What do you guys think? Did Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft pay off the review sites to give good reviews? Do you agree? Disagree? Do I just have horrible taste in games?

Just wanted to re-iterate that notion of personal choice.

Zelda:OoT brought forward a style which it had held since its earliest incarnations as being a single player as you say adventure. Final Fantasy Tactics resembled the Zelda Link to the Past in terms of system, and was in its context quite a classic. What OoT did was introduce this concept to a full 3d world interactive as it could be back then.

Now on your definition as to what an RPG is, firstly, A magic system, IS NOT a requirement for an RPG, i know of plenty of SNES games which had no magic system, but were pure attacks/skills. To restrict it on that notion is ludicruous.

The character development could include anything, you cant really tell me that as an avid player of RPG's that you could actually term many 'developments' as such, they find out something, search for something, become stronger. Sorry, but thats what happens within Zelda. The game even facilitated both physical AND metaphysical growth, what more do you want?

Next, as you have said, the term RPG can refer technically to a lot of games if you tried hard enough, im sure you could term Super Mario Kart a blatant attempt to promote an illegal form of karting within the streets (as seen in toads turnpike) and that as such should fall in the same category as a street racing sim. I think my point is, you sound quite pathetic thinking that this technicality and semantically driven hatred of the game based upon the points so raised, if you dont like the game fine. The problem lies in that you tried to justify your dislike of the game using such ... questionable material.

 

[jumb]

I have to say that I DO agree with your critique of halo. However, I disagree that It wasnt any fun. Although the archives was achingly boring, the joy of sticky grenades never died. It was also fun just blowing shit up. Also, I would only ever play this game on easy. It WAS challening and fun enough without being frustrating.

This game was basically mindless fun. It is a relaxing and stressless game that had a fun feel. This is obviously NOT your type of game, as you seem to be obsessed with hardcore RPGing. Unfortunatley, there weren't any swords with +1 to coolness. I'm sure you'll get over it.

The other problem with Halo, is, as you said, that the public were TOLD that Halo was a good game. High rating reviews and such were forced down our throats, in an attempt to brainwash us. This always works for 13 year old console kiddies.

Finally, with what you said about doom being a RPG, you're right. Doom is an RPG. (I agree with Asy's explination)

 

[Bone577]

Just wanted to re-iterate that notion of personal choice.

Zelda:OoT brought forward a style which it had held since its earliest incarnations as being a single player as you say adventure. Final Fantasy Tactics resembled the Zelda Link to the Past in terms of system, and was in its context quite a classic. What OoT did was introduce this concept to a full 3d world interactive as it could be back then.

Now on your definition as to what an RPG is, firstly, A magic system, IS NOT a requirement for an RPG, i know of plenty of SNES games which had no magic system, but were pure attacks/skills. To restrict it on that notion is ludicruous.

The character development could include anything, you cant really tell me that as an avid player of RPG's that you could actually term many 'developments' as such, they find out something, search for something, become stronger. Sorry, but thats what happens within Zelda. The game even facilitated both physical AND metaphysical growth, what more do you want?

Next, as you have said, the term RPG can refer technically to a lot of games if you tried hard enough, im sure you could term Super Mario Kart a blatant attempt to promote an illegal form of karting within the streets (as seen in toads turnpike) and that as such should fall in the same category as a street racing sim. I think my point is, you sound quite pathetic thinking that this technicality and semantically driven hatred of the game based upon the points so raised, if you dont like the game fine. The problem lies in that you tried to justify your dislike of the game using such ... questionable material.

Someone is real defensive over Zelda.

And again you bother to point out that this is all IMO? No shit, your real quick aren't you. Note what I wrote in my first reply to you; "Read my first and last paragraph, and thankyou for the lecture on how this is about personal opinion."
I tried to be nice, but you still didn't seem to understand.

What i find especially disturbing, is that, you went through my post, and turned all the times i said "i" bold, to illustrate the fact that i was talking in my opinion. This is despite all the lengths i went to, to make sure people don't come in and say something stupid like "in your opinion!".

And oh please tell me what makes an RPG. Because i would love to know, how you in all your wisdom would define an RPG.

Furthermore, you are accusing me, of using the fact that Zelda isn't an RPG as justification for my dislike of it. That is rediculous. How is that even a justification? I enjoyed Metal Gear Solid... it wasn't an RPG, is that some sort of contradiction to you?

What does bother me is that it is referred to as an RPG. It isn't as far as I am concerned.

What is an RPG, the definition can not be set in stone, there will always be grey areas. But one thing is certain, as far as Zelda is concerned, the predominance of real time fighting action, the lack of depth and the very little change Link goes through make it quite obviously NOT an RPG (if you think that is bad or good is another thing).

I think my point is, you sound quite pathetic thinking that this technicality and semantically driven hatred of the game based upon the points so raised, if you dont like the game fine.

The point is, it isn't an RPG. Why are YOU soo defensive of the genre it fits into? Now THAT is pathetic.

I have to say that I DO agree with your critique of halo. However, I disagree that It wasnt any fun. Although the archives was achingly boring, the joy of sticky grenades never died. It was also fun just blowing shit up. Also, I would only ever play this game on easy. It WAS challening and fun enough without being frustrating.

Now, maybe i was a bit harsh. It was fun at times. But a game this short should never be a pain to finish. Playing multi-player with friends was quite good. Not Pro Evolution Soccer good, but still good.

 

[AsyLum]

Defensive, no i couldnt careless, but when someone comes on here and says "I KNOW WHAT IS A, AND SO THEREFORE I THIKN THIS ISNT" it really bugs me. Sorry, i highlighted YOUR opinion to just try and bring back something, you ask us for OUR opinion, and then proceed to tell us why YOU are right, and WE are wrong.

So please tell me "The fact they are often considered the best games ever (MGS2, Zelda:OOT, Halo) doesn't help, I feel like I must be stoned to dislike these games (considering the ratings).
What do you guys think? Did Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft pay off the review sites to give good reviews? Do you agree? Disagree? Do i just have horrible taste in games?" was there any real need for that? Since, as you have said, we ARE wrong, and you MUST be right.

This is my final post on this topic, for all i care you are an idiot. The only thing you're going to get from something like this is opinions, and when you cannot see our point and just continue to try and emphasise your point is correct, there really isnt much of a discussion.

I have tried to engage your arguments, that of what 'defines' an RPG, i have offered the possibility (gasp) of perhaps this thing called an opinion differentiating amongst a collective, i have even suggested and put forth the concession of agreement upon the adventure part, and yet you have dismissed all these, because obviously YOU are right.

"The point is, it isn't an RPG. Why are YOU soo defensive of the genre it fits into? Now THAT is pathetic." Wow, you have posted you're defence on why you dont think it fits into it, attacking us after we tried to make a discussion possible. So please, stop spouting your contradictions.


"Furthermore, you are accusing me, of using the fact that Zelda isn't an RPG as justification for my dislike of it. That is rediculous. How is that even a justification? I enjoyed Metal Gear Solid... it wasn't an RPG, is that some sort of contradiction to you?"

Was MGS ever discussed as being an RPG and did you bring that point up? No, so please leave this alone, you're drawing upon nothing.

"What is an RPG, the definition can not be set in stone, there will always be grey areas. But one thing is certain, as far as Zelda is concerned, the predominance of real time fighting action, the lack of depth and the very little change Link goes through make it quite obviously NOT an RPG (if you think that is bad or good is another thing)."

As a final point, i will suggest Tales of XX games which have a PREDOMINANCE in real time fighting. The 'lack of depth' .... please if i hadnt known better Final Fantasy 8 and 9 had less 'depth' within their respective stories. And this change, like i said, what do you want? Are you looking for the cliche 'I have to be a hero' 'I have to save someone' 'I must face the dangers and enemies that lie ahead' ?

They are all present within this game, so please stop complaining about a game that is really a past now.

 

[breaking]

heh.... arguing over a computer game.... how cute

 

[Bone577]

Defensive, no i couldnt careless, but when someone comes on here and says "I KNOW WHAT IS A, AND SO THEREFORE I THIKN THIS ISNT" it really bugs me. Sorry, i highlighted YOUR opinion to just try and bring back something, you ask us for OUR opinion, and then proceed to tell us why YOU are right, and WE are wrong.

I asked for opinions on Halo and Zelda. If you want to say either is good, convince me. If you want to say Zelda is an RPG, i WILL refute it, as far as i am concerned it isn't, and it was not stated as opinion. I was real careful with wording, when things where of my opinion I made sure people could see that.
Argue the definition of RPG, why bother trying to refute my statement if you aren't willing to back it up? Then you go claim it is an opinionated matter?

So please tell me "The fact they are often considered the best games ever (MGS2, Zelda:OOT, Halo) doesn't help, I feel like I must be stoned to dislike these games (considering the ratings).
What do you guys think? Did Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft pay off the review sites to give good reviews? Do you agree? Disagree? Do i just have horrible taste in games?" was there any real need for that? Since, as you have said, we ARE wrong, and you MUST be right.

Convince me. Don't tell me how much of an RPG Zelda is.

Besides, if you not you only actually said 2 things regarding the quality of Zelda;

"Zelda:OoT brought forward a style which it had held since its earliest incarnations as being a single player as you say adventure. Final Fantasy Tactics resembled the Zelda Link to the Past in terms of system, and was in its context quite a classic. What OoT did was introduce this concept to a full 3d world interactive as it could be back then."

AND

"Zelda:OoT was i think an innovative game, having played through it for the first 2 months before the guide had come out, and solving most of the puzzles was great, plus the freedom to just explore the world in 3d, gave it a somewhat non linear feel which is so monotonous within rpg's nowdays."

Neither of which i argued against. I asked you how puzzles and free-roaming made it innovative. Nothing more nothing less.

Then you chastise me for claiming my opinion is right? I never even argued with you about your opinion of Zelda. What I DID do was argue about the definition of RPG, which makes up the VAST majority of text here.

Hence, saying that I am unaccepting of your opinion is utter BS, the reality is I do not accept your definition of RPG.

This is my final post on this topic, for all i care you are an idiot. The only thing you're going to get from something like this is opinions, and when you cannot see our point and just continue to try and emphasise your point is correct, there really isnt much of a discussion.

I saw your opinion, you like Zelda. What was never a matter of opinion was the definition of RPG, in the original post i stated that Zelda isn't an RPG. I never said IMO. You challenged this, hence got yourself into an argument.

On the other hand i have done nothing other than accept your opinion on Zelda itself. I challenge you to find me a single instance where I argued such a subjective matter.

I have tried to engage your arguments, that of what 'defines' an RPG, i have offered the possibility (gasp) of perhaps this thing called an opinion differentiating amongst a collective, i have even suggested and put forth the concession of agreement upon the adventure part, and yet you have dismissed all these, because obviously YOU are right.

" I feel insulted for it to be labeled an RPG"

I never asked for you what you think an RPG is. I asked for your opinion of Zelda.
I never argued with you on your opinion of Zelda, or that your opinion of it is wrong.
Where you get this impression i do not know.

"The point is, it isn't an RPG. Why are YOU soo defensive of the genre it fits into? Now THAT is pathetic." Wow, you have posted you're defence on why you dont think it fits into it, attacking us after we tried to make a discussion possible. So please, stop spouting your contradictions.

Ah, suddenly i was the instigator. In your second post you referred to me as "pathetic" this was unprovoked mind you. I resent that. I find it humerous that you would be soo defensive over a game, that you would attack me unprovoked.

"Furthermore, you are accusing me, of using the fact that Zelda isn't an RPG as justification for my dislike of it. That is rediculous. How is that even a justification? I enjoyed Metal Gear Solid... it wasn't an RPG, is that some sort of contradiction to you?"

Was MGS ever discussed as being an RPG and did you bring that point up? No, so please leave this alone, you're drawing upon nothing.

Comparison is a poweful logic tool.

Point was, you said, that Zelda not being an RPG was somehow me attacking Zelda. I was pointing out that genre is irrelevant, i was merely stating that Zelda is not an RPG, not that this cheapens the game (i was soo careful to get across the fact that Zelda not being an RPG does not cheapen it, yet you still reply with the above, perplexing).

As such, I decided to illustrate this fact by showing how I like games that aren't RPGs, by pointing out that i enjoyed MGS.

"What is an RPG, the definition can not be set in stone, there will always be grey areas. But one thing is certain, as far as Zelda is concerned, the predominance of real time fighting action, the lack of depth and the very little change Link goes through make it quite obviously NOT an RPG (if you think that is bad or good is another thing)."

As a final point, i will suggest Tales of XX games which have a PREDOMINANCE in real time fighting. The 'lack of depth' .... please if i hadnt known better Final Fantasy 8 and 9 had less 'depth' within their respective stories. And this change, like i said, what do you want? Are you looking for the cliche 'I have to be a hero' 'I have to save someone' 'I must face the dangers and enemies that lie ahead' ?

So, back to the definition of RPG, as I said, it is a grey area. I am not familiar with the "Tales of XX" games, so I am not sure what you are talking about.

But, again, the best tool for this is comparison. As such, what makes the Soul Reaver series an adventure game but Zelda an RPG? As far as game mechanics goes there isn't too much difference. Same with Ape Escape which as far as combat goes is VERY similar. If you consider Soul Reaver an RPG, then of course in such a case Zelda will be an RPG. But, if you think Soul Reaver as an advneture game, there would seem to be an innate contradiction in genre (unless there is a different criteria which i am not considering).

They are all present within this game, so please stop complaining about a game that is really a past now.

My issue is your definition of RPG. Not your zealous, defensive love of this game.

 

[jumb]

heh.... arguing over a computer game.... how cute

Only on the internet.

 

[Lexicographer]

I haven't read the posts since your reply to mine, so bear with me if this has already been mentioned, but after thinking about it a little I realised the magic system in Zelda isn't any more simple than other games.

Usually the magic system operates on two basic rules:

a) characters have a certain amount of "magic points", which may grow with their experience, and which are used to perform magical powers or use magical items

b) all magical powers or items use up a certain number of magic points, and if the character does not have enough magic points they can not use any magical powers or items

Now, when these two rules are applied to Zelda games, we see the only real differences are that Link has fewer magical items than the protagonist would in other games, and instead of a numerical representation his magic points are shown as a meter, a green bar. Despite these I would argue that magic systems need be no more complicated to be effective, as Nintendo have never seen the need to change the way things work in Zelda games (nor have any other RPG developers). Sometimes an item or spell will augment or diminish the amount of magic required to perform a task, and other changes, but those really aren't as important as the two rules above.

If I've missed something please point it out.

 

[Bone577]

I haven't read the posts since your reply to mine, so bear with me if this has already been mentioned, but after thinking about it a little I realised the magic system in Zelda isn't any more simple than other games.

Usually the magic system operates on two basic rules:

a) characters have a certain amount of "magic points", which may grow with their experience, and which are used to perform magical powers or use magical items

b) all magical powers or items use up a certain number of magic points, and if the character does not have enough magic points they can not use any magical powers or items

Now, when these two rules are applied to Zelda games, we see the only real differences are that Link has fewer magical items than the protagonist would in other games, and instead of a numerical representation his magic points are shown as a meter, a green bar. Despite these I would argue that magic systems need be no more complicated to be effective, as Nintendo have never seen the need to change the way things work in Zelda games (nor have any other RPG developers). Sometimes an item or spell will augment or diminish the amount of magic required to perform a task, and other changes, but those really aren't as important as the two rules above.

If I've missed something please point it out.

Talking strictly about magic systems. Although Zelda games may have a more complex magic system than some known RPG's, it also has a simpler magic system than some adventure/action games. That is the paradox. So the only thing I can conclude that we can't base this all on magic.

Defining a genre is not easy, especially in games where genres are soo interelated and bastadised. But your points are indeed valid.

 

[neo o]

The best games are pen and paper RPGs.

mmm, FF and D&D.

I win

Zelda is undoubtedly an RPG game btw. Despite my pet hate of it not being 1st person, the game has similarities with morrowind/bg/nwn. The first Zelda game was EXTREMELY similar to FF 1-3. Top down view, similar fantasy setting, similar monsters etc. The only difference was the levelling system.

Zelda OOT has a levelling system.

Faeries > Spells/Abilities > Stronger Character
Pieces of Hear > More Health > Stronger Character

If that isn't levelling, I don't know what is. Seems to me they just developed an innovative system that removed the monotony of levelling that seems to happen in some games (ie : Island of Heaven and Hell runs in FF8, Omega Dungeon crawls in FF10 etc).

 

[Lexicographer]

Well, two reason I still play Zelda and not Pokémon are:

a) Rather than numerical properties (magic points, life points, experience points) I see meters, and that seems a more natural approach. People don't fell "I've got 1300 experience points, or "I only have 20 HP left!" it's more "I've been around a while" or "I'm nearly dead".

b) I'm not 13 anymore

I agree with Bone in that it's definitely not about a single aspect that makes an RPG (or any game of particular genre) but the overall feel. When I play Zelda it feels like an RPG, albeit simpler than many others (but that's one reason I love it). Conversely, when I play Metroid Prime it doesn't really feel like a First Person Shooter. In fact, some people I know rightly compared Metroid Prime to Ocarina of Time, but there's no way we'd call MP an RPG.

 

[neo o]

There's nothing wrong with pokemon .