Is it a “pure” adventure game? Because the description says that it is a RPG …
It has similarities with Zelda, but it’s more about exploration and horror than fighting.
So it just says RPG because everyone knows Zelda is an RPG (right @milanfahrnholz?)
Yeah, everybody knows how much you can customise your character in the Zelda games. You can play as male or female Link, can change his appearence, skin colour, race and you can decide if you want to go through the games fighting, sneaking or using a wide array of spells. Also other characters join your adventure too in every game.
Oh wait, none of that is true!
From the detailed description I’d classify it as action-adventure. It doesn’t look like you’ll run around fighting stuff, but seems to require stealth and going undetected (or else …).
While the art direction is pretty pleasing, and I am quite curious to discover why that guy is crawling around naked on the town square, the expected gameplay makes me weary.
Haven’t played any Zelda, but from hearsay I’d also classify it as action-adventure. But what do I know?
It’s more of an RPG than anything else. Did you forget our conversion back then, takling about levelling up by item upgrades etc… I THOUGHT YOU’D HAVE LEARNED IT BY NOW!
Here I’ve found it, of course it was completely off-topic, as always
Disclaimer: I was talking about the classic ones, I have no idea about more current games, like, at all.
Is Zelda the game in which you can kill all the bushes?
It’s a very peaceful game, you can’t even kill chickens.
Maybe not chickens, but the bushes are definitely being slaughtered at this timestamp (23:45):
The one in which you ignored all my arguments like you did now?
And where you cut down the mightiest tree with a hering!
A red “hering”? >_>
Not even sure if you´re aware how meta this is, right now.
That’s probably because they are invalid since not every RPG needs to have all those features to count as RPG (like not every P’n’C needs to have specific features like walking characters, inventory etc. to count as one)
But in every one of those games you point and click. You don´t do any role playing in Zelda. It´s an action adventure!
Like when I’ve played a complete playthrough of TWP just holding a controller?
You don’t even need this kind of role-playing to have an RPG. Changing the hair colour and style doesn’t make one, a lot of RPGs don’t allow customising the starting character but tell a story a specific character. You play the role of that specific character.
Why is Monkey Island not a role playing game then? You play as Guybrush!
The main difference is IMHO that in RPGs you develop the character. This kind of progression is often done with levelling up which enhances or add character skills. But this can be also done with items like it is done in (classic) Zelda games.
I think it´s funny that people still argue that while everyone seems to agree that Star Tropics for instance is not an RPG even though it is much closer to a classic Zelda Gameplay than any RPG.
I agree that Zelda II (which I consider a classic, even though it´s not very popular) has more RPG elements than other games. I still don´t consider it an RPG, though.
Grand Theft Auto San Andreas has RPG elements. I don´t think it is an RPG, though.
I never meant Zelda just being an RPG and nothing else. But from all those genres it is, it’s a little bit more of an RPG than one of the others.
I really wonder if you would still argue that if it wasn´t in a fantasy setting, but would take place in space and you´d shoot aliens while the rest of the gameplay stays the same.
Why should this change anything? For me classic Zelda is mostly a mixture between adventure and RPG. Being it in space without gameplay changes won’t make it more adventure nor more RPG.