NES RPGs

[MagusSmurf | 577]

Wherever you end up putting Zelda 1, the StarTropics games should probably come with it, for pretty much all the same reasons.

For my personal spreadsheet, I just classify anything with combat that's turn-based or otherwise abstract or at least has encounters distinct from the exploration gameplay (Tales of/Star Ocean) an RPG. Zelda/Ys/Secret of Mana? Nope, just top-down Action-Adventure games, because the presence/absence of numbers/stats flying around is completely irrelevant to what the gameplay is actually like. Giving Double Dragon 2 experience points and levels shouldn't change its genre, it'd just make it more like Double Dragon 1 NES.

And RPGs as a video game genre just have nothing innately to do with "role-playing" at all, with the name being 100% a holdover from the influence D&D and other tabletop role-playing games had on the earliest video "RPGs" but with the actual "role-playing" part barely or usually just outright not being carried over in any meaningful way. And it's not really even possible to duplicate the player-GM dynamic of D&D and similar games in a video game unless the alleged game is basically just a glorified vehicle through which the human player and GM talk/type at each other.

 

Edited December 16, 2021 by MagusSmurf

[glazball | 172]

6 hours ago, PII said:

In my day The Legend Of Zelda was referred to as an Action-RPG.  There is a large open world to explore.  For me this factor along with the particular sort of excitement that comes with exploring such a world is what defines an RPG more than anything else.  Link also has to seek out and explore dungeons, find hidden items, upgrade his weapons etc. all consistent with an RPG...

I've always considered LoZ an RPG, but after reading many arguments over the years, my opinion has softened somewhat.  However I still feel like it is an RPG.  I think this quote nails exactly why, so thanks!  In my mind, it is the open-world exploration and freedom of movement that constitutes "RPG", even though Link never himself levels up.

I would also downvote Defender of the Crown.  That belongs under the strategy umbrella.

[Tulpa | 3,536]

6 hours ago, PII said:

In my day The Legend Of Zelda was referred to as an Action-RPG.  There is a large open world to explore.  For me this factor along with the particular sort of excitement that comes with exploring such a world is what defines an RPG more than anything else.  Link also has to seek out and explore dungeons, find hidden items, upgrade his weapons etc. all consistent with an RPG...

But you're still playing as Link. You're not creating a new character or party like Final Fantasy, Dragon Warrior, or The Bard's Tale. That part, creating the role in Role-Playing Game, is the defining characteristic, IMO.

[MagusSmurf | 577]

39 minutes ago, Tulpa said:

But you're still playing as Link. You're not creating a new character or party like Final Fantasy, Dragon Warrior, or The Bard's Tale. That part, creating the role in Role-Playing Game, is the defining characteristic, IMO.

There is no meaningful roleplaying in Dragon Warrior or Final Fantasy. You are not those characters any more or less than you're Link, Mario, or Mega Man. And the former doesn't even really have "character creation." You just assign a name to the guy and off you go.

[Dr. Morbis | 2,091]

11 minutes ago, MagusSmurf said:

There is no meaningful roleplaying in Dragon Warrior or Final Fantasy. You are not those characters any more or less than you're Link, Mario, or Mega Man. And the former doesn't even really have "character creation." You just assign a name to the guy and off you go.

Well you're "playing a role" in pretty much every NES game that has an on-screen avatar, so I don't think that argument is really relevant in terms of classifying something as an RPG...

[Tulpa | 3,536]

Just now, Dr. Morbis said:

Well you're "playing a role" in pretty much every NES game that has an on-screen avatar, so I don't think that argument is really relevant in terms of classifying something as an RPG...

Then it's settled. Every game is an RPG, and every game is a shooter.

When Crabmaster creates his puzzle game thread, every game is a puzzle game as well.

[MrWunderful | 2,927]

5 minutes ago, Tulpa said:

Then it's settled. Every game is an RPG, and every game is a shooter.

When Crabmaster creates his puzzle game thread, every game is a puzzle game as well.

Technically zelda is a puzzle game, because you have to move statues. 
 

mega man is a puzzle game because of the grid based password system. 
 

Anything can be classified as anything if you try hard enough.  

[Tulpa | 3,536]

BTTF is a puzzle game because it's a real puzzle on how to solve the lightning bolt stage.

[PII | 1,897]

Provided it doesn't make things more confusing it might help to utilize a fairly rigid classification system, for example:

True RPG or Pure RPG: Anything turn based in which a "role" is created/played (with strategy games being a possible subset here.) [the most defining characteristic here though is that "Speed and Timing" are not factors for successful game play.  Instead there is the accumulation and manipulation of "Text"]

Action RPG / Active RPG / Hybrid RPG: Anything that constitutes 'having a substantial degree of RPG elements' while forgoing "role" creation along with the heavy reliance on text and the turn based dynamic in favor of visible active bodily manipulation of one or more characters.

Games w/RPG Elements: These games rightfully belong in another genre first but contain significant RPG elements to warrant possible inclusion or discussion in RPG circles.

So, "Pure", "Hybrid", and ... "Influenced?"

The trickiness may come when games that look similar on the surface belong in different categories.  For example, games like Stanley or Faxanadu I would put in the "Hybrid" category while Metroid would rightfully go in the third category.  They are all Metroid/Vania type games, generally, but that is like taking a bunch of different styles of electronic dance music for example, and declaring it all to be techno. 

While Metroid technically has a semi-open world, when I play it I feel none of the excitement that comes with exploring an open world, finding towns, talking to people.  Instead I feel confined and that is because the actual play is rather restrictive.

How about Chrono Trigger?  I know, I know it's not a NES game, but just for an example:  It would seem to be a Pure RPG, but it also has the option of an Active Battle System that re-incorporates a small but significant factor of speed and timing in battle decisions.  So which category does it belong in?  A case could be made for either Pure or Hybrid.  If I were doing write-ups on RPGs I'd put it in the Pure category and then mention the small but significant "Active" degree that it possesses.

 

 

Edited December 16, 2021 by PII

[WhyNotZoidberg | 586]

32 minutes ago, Tulpa said:

Then it's settled. Every game is an RPG, and every game is a shooter.

When Crabmaster creates his puzzle game thread, every game is a puzzle game as well.

No. Every game is a rythm game. You press the buttons in sync with the action happening on screen.

[Dr. Morbis | 2,091]

24 minutes ago, PII said:

Provided it doesn't make things more confusing it might help to utilize a fairly rigid classification system, for example:

True RPG or Pure RPG: Anything turn based in which a "role" is created/played (with strategy games being a possible subset here.) [the most defining characteristic here though is that "Speed and Timing" are not factors for successful game play.  Instead there is the accumulation and manipulation of "Text"]

Action RPG / Active RPG / Hybrid RPG: Anything that constitutes 'having a substantial degree of RPG elements' while forgoing "role" creation along with the heavy reliance on text and the turn based dynamic in favor of visible active bodily manipulation of one or more characters.

Games w/RPG Elements: These games rightfully belong in another genre first but contain significant RPG elements to warrant possible inclusion or discussion in RPG circles.

So, "Pure", "Hybrid", and ... "Influenced?"

The trickiness may come when games that look similar on the surface belong in different categories.  For example, games like Stanley or Faxanadu I would put in the "Hybrid" category while Metroid would rightfully go in the third category.  They are all Metroid/Vania type games, generally, but that is like taking a bunch of different styles of electronic dance music for example, and declaring it all to be techno. 

While Metroid technically has a semi-open world, when I play it I feel none of the excitement that comes with exploring an open world, finding towns, talking to people.  Instead I feel confined and that is because the actual play is rather restrictive.

How about Chrono Trigger?  I know, I know it's not a NES game, but just for an example:  It would seem to be a Pure RPG, but it also has the option of an Active Battle System that re-incorporates a small but significant factor of speed and timing in battle decisions.  So which category does it belong in?  A case could be made for either Pure or Hybrid.  If I were doing write-ups on RPGs I'd put it in the Pure category and then mention the small but significant "Active" degree that it possesses.

 

 

I think what a lot of people are missing is that an RPG originally meant a game where the outcome of any given situation (usually battles) was decided by statistics + RNG.  In Final Fantasy, for example, each battle outcome is determined by taking the various statistics of the combatants (weapons, equipment, strength, etc) and matching them against their foes with a "random" algorithim to determine the outcome.  That's the part of playing the role: you're not actually drawing a sword and battling yourself, you're letting the game decide the outcome based on a set of rules and the available stats.  In Zelda 1, Secret of Mana, and all other supposed "action-RPG's" you are actually drawing your weapon to fight the enemy!  You're not "playing a role" of that character - you are that character in the game world.  That is the big difference, and if you use that as a guide, it's pretty easy to see that many of the games classified as RPG's in this thread and elsewhere simply are NOT.  Once you broaden your umbrella beyond this distinction, it's a swift downhill slide and it gets difficult to not just simply include everything under the sun.  You even get people going so far as to classify Zelda 1 as an RPG!!! Now that's crazy...

[PII | 1,897]

Just in case anyone would like to find out what happens when rigidity procreates with efficiency:

Something we, (or another person/group of people) might do is:

1.) Brainstorm every possible factor, both great and small that contributes toward making a video game an "RPG."

2.) Set up a rating system with which to weigh the importance of each factor, say a scale of 1 to 10.

3.) Determine which factors are sufficiently present for all given games

      (Allow for the possibility of upgrading / downgrading an established point-factor with regard to it's uniqueness good or bad within a given game.)

4.) Tally up the resulting points.

5.) Pronounce each game RPG enough or not to be included in a list/discussion of RPG's and/or make designations of relevance/importance like those described in my previous post.

For example, say 40 factors are determined and each has a possible importance rating from 1 to 10 and the highest possible accumulation is 200.

Then for further example a game that rates, say 120 or higher is determined to be RPG enough and anything less is borderline or not RPG enough.

[Crabmaster2000 | 502]

I officially love this thread

[Abelardo | 154]

Good topic, growing up loving JRPGs and thinking of them as the true defining console RPG experience, my opinion has shifted over the years.

The origins of console RPGs are obviously traced back to pen and paper RPGs, some elements you'd expect from pen and paper RPGs are:

• Character creation (choice of name, race/class).
• Character growth (level up, improve character traits).
• Freedom to interact with the world that surrounds you (to some degree).
• The element of randomness (the throw of the dice).

Western RPGs actually incorporate a lot of these if not all, it's Japanese RPGs the ones that are missing some of these elements but in return we get (generally) a more pleasant experience, omitting character creation they gave us nice storylines with predefined characters and maybe the freedom is limited so the story advances nicely.

On the debate, Zelda is most definitely not an RPG, sure you're given freedom in a big world but it's missing other key characteristics, it's an adventure game for sure, but no RPG.

[fox | 1,673]

"open world" falls more into the adventure camp.  A number of rpgs esp jrpgs are very linear by design.

character progression in an rpg needs to be more in depth than just collecting items, that isn't much different than power-ups or keys in any other games.

[NostalgicMachine | 247]

7 hours ago, fox said:

"open world" falls more into the adventure camp.  A number of rpgs esp jrpgs are very linear by design.

character progression in an rpg needs to be more in depth than just collecting items, that isn't much different than power-ups or keys in any other games.

Solid points! If we allow power ups and item collecting to become RPG elements, then that would mean games like Mega Man are also RPGs, which we know is not the case lol.

I also agree with many JRPGs being linear AF.

Compare this to something like the original LoZ on the NES, where you could find later dungeons by complete accident, go out of order, collect items and upgrades completely out of order, etc.

[glazball | 172]

Of course many early games, including tabletop D&D, used stats and RNG to determine outcomes, imo that was more of a limitation of the times than an intended feature.  The overarching idea behind an RPG is that the player is allowed to explore the world at their leisure and it doesn't matter if outcomes/battles are decided in a turn-based fashion (FF, Phantasy Star, Paper Mario, etc) or in real time (LoZ, WoW, etc).  The exploration is what qualifies LoZ as an RPG, though I'll admit it's not the epitome of JRPGs as we now know them.

 

20 hours ago, Dr. Morbis said:

I think what a lot of people are missing is that an RPG originally meant a game where the outcome of any given situation (usually battles) was decided by statistics + RNG.  In Final Fantasy, for example, each battle outcome is determined by taking the various statistics of the combatants (weapons, equipment, strength, etc) and matching them against their foes with a "random" algorithim to determine the outcome.  That's the part of playing the role: you're not actually drawing a sword and battling yourself, you're letting the game decide the outcome based on a set of rules and the available stats.  In Zelda 1, Secret of Mana, and all other supposed "action-RPG's" you are actually drawing your weapon to fight the enemy!  You're not "playing a role" of that character - you are that character in the game world.  That is the big difference, and if you use that as a guide, it's pretty easy to see that many of the games classified as RPG's in this thread and elsewhere simply are NOT.  Once you broaden your umbrella beyond this distinction, it's a swift downhill slide and it gets difficult to not just simply include everything under the sun.  You even get people going so far as to classify Zelda 1 as an RPG!!! Now that's crazy...

 

[fox | 1,673]

D&D still uses dice and stats to determine outcomes, it’s baked into the system.  Same with rpg video games, there is usually some stats and numbers working behind the scenes, even if no dice are shown.

Most DM’s have a set quest or campaign in mind, not an entire world. Exploration for sure can be a factor, but not always.  You can have an entire campaign around a single location with lots of political intrigue and role playing, or combat heavy battles.

If the main focus of a video game is exploration, that screams adventure game.

[the_wizard_666 | 1,325]

The biggest thing that needs to be done is to define what an RPG is, and what fits better as an adventure instead.  The fundamental difference is progression of the character.  In Zelda, Link is fundamentally exactly the same at the end as he is at the beginning - his progression is based on what he finds along the way.  That would fit as an adventure rather than an RPG.  RPGs are defined by the character itself getting stronger through the game through an experience system.  That alone doesn't justify the distinction however...a game like Simon's Quest has an experience system, but I wouldn't call that an RPG, as a) the passwords don't actually save your levels, and b) you don't actually have to level up to progress at any point.  RPGs not only have experience based progression, but such progression is required to become strong enough to complete the overarching quest.  Thus using the prior examples, Zelda would be an Action-Adventure title, Simon's Quest would fit as an Action-Adventure as well, though with some RPG elements to it.  Games like Final Fantasy or Dragon Warrior are different, as the character's growth is required to progress through - you can have the best gear in the game, but if you aren't sufficiently levelled, you won't be able to survive regardless.  That's what I feel constitutes the distinguishing line between Adventure and RPG.  Based on that, I'd scratch off two of the three AD&D games right off the top, as Heroes of the Lance is an action-adventure, and Hillsfar is fully in the adventure genre.  I don't exactly have time to go through the entire list at the moment, but it shouldn't be tough to adjust it based on the requirements.

[Tanooki | 4,952]

That's my take above and really for years, just very well spelled out and detailed as wizard there put it.  When we get into this nebulous bs of what if this then that, it's bad enough even a few posts up someone could make a half baked argument that picking up items and expanding your health makes it an RPG and as such Super Mario Bros 2 would be as you can double your life bar, grab items, enemies, and tools(pow blocks) as weapons or as props to move further.  And that IS ridiculous.

Perhaps Super Metroid then SOTN really muddied it, because now you're into full on RPG stats and being low despite gear killing you can happen easily, yet it's also not turn based, likely why that stupid genre title mishmosh of the two stuck around.

[the_wizard_666 | 1,325]

15 minutes ago, Tanooki said:

Perhaps Super Metroid then SOTN really muddied it, because now you're into full on RPG stats and being low despite gear killing you can happen easily, yet it's also not turn based, likely why that stupid genre title mishmosh of the two stuck around.

Super Metroid and SotN are both action-adventure games.  SotN definitely leaned heavy into the RPG elements, enough so that I would argue that it created it's own genre...oh wait, it DID create a genre.  Action adventure games with heavy RPG elements fall into the "Metroidvania" genre.

[PII | 1,897]

Ghoul School - Another Metroid/Vania.

[Bighab | 58]

I think some/all of the Koei games fall under the broad category of an RPG. More like a turn based strategy game with RPG elements. I know in Genghis Khan your character has several attributes that you can raise or lower based on your in game decisions. You can have kids that in time you can marry off(Daughter) or promote to a Prince or end up taking over your empire if you die.

[the_wizard_666 | 1,325]

4 hours ago, Bighab said:

I think some/all of the Koei games fall under the broad category of an RPG. More like a turn based strategy game with RPG elements. I know in Genghis Khan your character has several attributes that you can raise or lower based on your in game decisions. You can have kids that in time you can marry off(Daughter) or promote to a Prince or end up taking over your empire if you die.

Um...there are no RPG elements in Genghis Khan, nor any other Koei game.  The only non-strategy game is Uncharted Waters, and even that falls more into the adventure category than anything else.