gamrReview: "Why Tokyo Jungle is more of an RPG than The Legend of Zelda or Monster Hunter."
Yet another example of how an article about breast physics will easily attain 800 degrees on N4G, while good articles go almost entirely ignored. I enjoyed reading this.
glad you enjoyed it, thank you for the read.
I didn't really like the article, but it brings a more prominent thought into view. (Also thumbs down for lion mauling link in top pic as that shows bias.) I think the naming of generas in gaming went in the wrong direction whenever someone decided to consider all "stat based games" to be "Role-Playing-Games" . RPG in its naturally understood meaning would be a game in which you play the role of a character in a certain situation (which in all reality is way to wide of a context to consider as a genera). For some stupid reason of convention we still have people that say only games with "base stats" that can be "improved over time" are RPGs. Well, then allow me to make a counter point to his Zelda example of Non-RPG: Does Link not start with limits on mobility, strength, health, etc? Are these limits not further improved upon by the acquisition of items throughout the game? I believe that this definition that is portrayed by the articles writer (and many others) is absurd. And his examples further show this, in how a game where you control animals (Tokyo Jungle) is more of an RPG than another Game where you Play the Role of a character (The Legend of Zelda). In conclusion I believe "old school RPGs" should be redefined maybe as SBG (Stat-Based-Games) or otherwise because RPG's literal meaning is too all encompassing to be a genera.
aw really? I thought the picture was cute and funny. Not like Zelda not being an RPG makes it worse or anything, it's just its genre. Base stats means numbers, Link starts with lower health and damage but those are the results of base stats and not the base stats themselves. God of War has the same set up and actually uses an experience like system to increase his skills, but it's no more an RPG than Zelda is. I can't agree with your definition of RPG because I've never not played a role in a game. You're always playing some kind of role explicitly or not so you can't use that to define a genre that isn't supposed to include every single game ever. I think the example shows that you can't just look at the skin of a game and call it an RPG. That's why I love the example, if all you did was glance at Zelda you'd see a lot of what you're used to seeing in RPGs but none in Tokyo Jungle, but when you look at the mechanics, which is how genres are/should be defined then you'll see that Tokyo Jungle fits all the criteria while Zelda doesn't really fit any.
"I can't agree with your definition of RPG because **I've never not played a role in a game**." *faceplam* I'm not saying that every game should be considered part of this genera. I'm saying the term is literally defined to widely. This is exactly why it "is way to wide of a context to consider as a genera" or even a descriptor and hence why RPG (as you use it) needs to be re-termed. If you really think mechanics of the game should define the genera then why the hell would you continue to use a a term that does not specifically indicate any mechanics except a preconceived notion based on traditional naming. Why are you so against changing the term RPG to SBG or something of the like when RPG is clearly to widely defined to describe the few games that you are obviously categorizing while SBG (a game in which you alter and control the advancements of stats of characters) would be a more clearly defined genera name. Why do you have a problem calling Zelda and GOW RPGs when they are Role-Playing-Games? These games don't fit the definition of SBG because you have no control over the advancement of the stats. Over half of all games have base stats that increase over time, the rest are skill based. Just because you don't get to see numbers for DEF, SPD, ect. doesn't mean that they are not in the programming for the game. Just look at what you said "those are the results of base stats." confirming that you realize that they are in the game. Again, if the advancements of stats are what defines this genera, why the hell do you call it a Role-Playing-Game?
I grew up playing table-top RPGs, in addition to playing video game RPGs, the latter of which all borrowed from table-top systems (like Dungeons & Dragons) for the inspiration of their creation. I have to agree with Torillian's assessment that stats are a fundamental characteristic of a RPG. Sure, link gains abilities and strengths as he progresses through the game, but as Torillian pointed out, so does Kratos, and God of War isn't an RPG, but both have RPG elements. I think the identifier RPG can be a bit misleading, considering in every game from Final Fantasy to Mario, you are assuming and playing out the role of a character, and they are all games. RPGs also have other identifying characteristics, though, like exploration, quests, items, inventory, and so on. Zelda has many of these, but lacks experience and stats in their truest form. Link gains life through acquiring "hearts" during his journey, but the rest of his ability boosts come from the acquisition of items, instead of an evolution of his base skill or attributes.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.