What makes a good RPG?

If all these notable elements from Zelda were already present in RPGs then where do you get the idea that Zelda was this paradigm shifter just because it sold well? I get that companies pay attention to games that sell big, but at the same time we aren't sitting in meetings with the devs while they're making these games, so we'll never really know what went through their heads unless if there's some interview that outright confirms it. All we can really do is look at how games play and draw our own assumptions. In this case, I can't think of one thing Zelda could've influenced on WRPGs that wasn't already a staple of the genre.

As for the items, I'm not saying that there's no meaning in them, but that they don't offer meaningful input on your character in the way that an RPG does. Items & equipment in Zelda involve getting through puzzles, items and equipment in RPGs effect how your character performs fundamentally. Both are fine for their respective genres, but they aren't the same thing.

I know I've done nothing but harp on Zelda's simplicity ITT, but that was only to show what I think to be the difference between Zelda games and RPGs. I don't want to come off as saying Zelda games are shallow (even though I like to talk shit about the 3d entries), just that they lack certain features that make an RPG.

This is just my view, but I think what causes a lot debates like this is because it's easy to see overlap between adventure games and RPGs. Think about it, what is you do in the vast majority of RPGs out there? Go on an adventure of course, it's often part of the pen&paper games RPGs are based off of. Both genres will often take you to towns to talk to NPCs, adventure games will sometimes take you to dungeons. To top it off, you collect all sorts of equipment in games like Zelda, so it's easy to see the similarities.

I do agree with winnersdontusedrugs that the Ultima series was much more influential to western RPGs than Zelda. Ultima and roguelikes in general. The Elder Scrolls series especially shows this influence very clearly when you look at its first entries and at how it evolved.

As influential as Zelda is, it has very few fundamental elements found in "proper" western RPGs: a level up system (you can upgrade a few items, but there are no experience points and leveling up of abilities), loot, open world entirely based on fulfilling quests for various NPCs, item management, a lot of dialogue and dialogue trees, various ways to especialize your character (including races, classes and specific abilities). Zelda lacks all of those.

Also, don't forget western RPGs were mainly, almost exclusively a PC thing until the early 2000s. Zelda is very influential as a console game, but western RPGs evolved from a different set of influences that came from PC games, which evolved almost independently from console games - so much that, in the 90s, what you would play on a pc would probably be entirely different from what you could find on consoles, it was a very different platform with its own genres. You can also see how other RPG subgenres, like MMORPGS, have nothing to do with Zelda, having evolved mostly from Ultima Online and Everquest.

It does! I also bet that Falcom's Dragon Slayer (1984) was another major and usually forgotten influence to Zelda. So Dragon Slayer would probably be Driver (PS1) in that comparison...

About Zelda's influence (the first entry), we must also remember that the first major western RPGs were made in Europe, especially in England, were the NES was not as common as pcs. Also, the first Ultima is from 1981, five full years before Zelda's western release - by the time Zelda was released, european PC players were already used to open world RPGs; put this together with the NES not being that famous over there and you can see how Zelda's influence might ultimately not have been that huge.

I also don't see much of Ocarina of Time's influence on western RPGs, at least before they went to consoles in the mid-2000s. By the time of its release, Ultima Underworld (1992), the Elder Scrolls series (1994), System Shock (1994) and a few others had already defined most of the things that you still find in the genre, even in modern wRPGs like Skyrim or in series like Deus Ex. And, of course, there were also all the top-down view wRPGs like Diablo, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights and others in the 90s - these are the main influence for modern games like Dragon's Age or Pillars of Eternity.

I do agree with The Witcher taking something from Zelda, though. It's an interesting case: the first game is NOTHING like Zelda at all, and is certainly modeled after what you would expect from a western PC RPG; even the combat is a mouse-based fare like Diablo or most MMORPGs. But then, as The Witcher 2 was developed with consoles in mind, it introduced a few elements that are, indeed, very Zelda-like, especially in the combat system. I haven't played TW3 yet, but it seems it embraced this influence even more, as you pointed out.

I bet those Rockstar people were playing their Dreamcasts all the time! Hey, they ported GTA 2 to the DC and there are even rumors that GTA 3 was supposed to be a DC game until Sega killed the console, so maybe there is some Rockstar/Sega history to be discovered.

I was waiting on more input, but as no more are seemingly forthcoming, I will put down what I think makes up an RPG:


This is essentially correct, but lacks proper elaboration.


As per description, 'Role playing game', so you will need to play A role - not just THE role in a game.

That's the key.

In a Role Playing Game, you will need to have Roles to play as - as in more than 1.

Otherwise the 'role' you play as will be irrelevant in terms of having a role within the context of gameplay and progression - as only that one role exists to begin with.

The player will need to assume and develop* at least one specified and defined role within the game, among several other such available role options, with each one a viable method in it's own right towards progressing and completing the game.
*'Develop' as in building the role into becoming more effective & potent versions of itself.

i.e. You will need to either:

• Choose one role out of several possible choices to stick with & build on from the beginning of the game, or
  
• Have a playable party of selectable predetermined characters where each individual fulfills a role of their own...
• Or both (as in PC-WRPGs e.g. Divinity, Baldur's Gate)

A game that does not offer this choice of role selection is not a role playing game.
If you cannot play other roles in the game - then it is not a role playing game.

This is the most satisfactory description of an RPG that I have encountered - True to the genre name as well as its pen and paper roots of old.


But even then it is questionable.

As by that definition, not all modern supposed RPGs would qualify.

Some prominent examples:
Early versions of Final Fantasy XV where you were stuck with the main hero and couldn't control other party members meant that it wasn't a true RPG. This has been remedied with subsequent updates however.
Also, while the classic Deus Ex was definitely one, the modern Deus Ex games are not - as their fixed class makes them more akin to stealth action adventure games.
And I really don't know much about the Witcher games, as I have only shallowly dabbled in the first one for PC... But they are looking more and more like open world action adventures from where I stand... Although by the 3rd game you can supposedly also play as the daughter or something so there's that...
And sorry Strato, by this reckoning Zelda is not an RPG either...