What makes a game an 'Action RPG' and why does TLOZ (specifically OoT) not fit the description?

What makes a game an 'Action RPG' and why does TLOZ (specifically OoT) not fit the description?

Attached: OOt.jpg (1600x900, 252.45K)

I'm going to pre-empt this shitty thread by pointing out that everyone thinks "zelda is an rpg" faggots are subhuman retards and we do not respect your ignorance

Basically just having an EXP system.

You earn XP and gain levels, your dude has stats (like str, dex, int).

Because Zelda has no stat progression or leveling. It just has item grind/collection.

It doesn't contain any rpg tropes except shit like medieval setting

Action RPGs generally have stats, or they'd just be action games

Its pretty fucking obvious why.

But that just seems like an arbitrary stat check. And even your least linear RPGs follow a convention where you're walled off from a section of the game. I get that leveling is a means of individual freedom (which I carries over from table top), but role playing shouldn't only apply to dice rolls and statuses should it?

Attached: 1588178170646.gif (245x210, 1.84M)

OoT, and 3D Zelda in general, are simply action adventure games.

here, I agreed with the statement that Zelda wasn't an RPG series. Not sure I worded it correctly.

Any single convention in a genre is arbitrary by itself

Also "roleplaying" just comes from the genres history, it no longer defines it

An Action RPG is basically an RPG without the focus on quests and role playing. You're just a goon in it for the loot.

OOT isn't an ARPG because it isn't even an RPG. It doesn't have stats (STR,DEX,INT,etc) or any real way to progress your character besides finding heart containers. Zelda games are adventure games. You're sorta on rails, there's no option for role playing or building your character.

If you break it down into such simple terms, everything becomes an RPG and the designation becomes pointless.

Oh, yeah u rite.
My reasons being that, you don't play as "Link" you are Link. The same way you're Red or Cloud of Chrono. I didn't want to start a contrarian summation shitpost shit. Just wanted to know if the XP system and stats were the only thing keeping a game like OoT from being an action RPG.

Attached: 1575087639657.jpg (640x480, 22.09K)

It's much simpler than you think.
Does the game focus on autistic numbers, stat allocation, levels, percentages and bars? It's an ARPG, otherwise Action Adventure.

Yes

What if we would bring up, say, Kingdom Hearts? No real stat allocations, grinding is nigh near useless as the games usually pretty linear, leveling is practically streamlined and as for HP bars I wouldn't say is an RPG only thing. With all that said, What classifies it as 'RPG' yeah I would agree that all those point do go into making it an RPG. But as for the action I'd say people like DaS or Kingdom Hearts because of the freedom in combat/builds rather than going all DEX or all STR. Hell you can't even self -insert in Kingdom Hearts as a generic nameless hero.

Yeah, basically not having stats and a way to build your character is the only thing preventing Zelda from being an RPG.

Does BotW count as an RPG then? You have to choose whether to put your points into health or stamina.

Aside from Zelda II, the RPG elements in Zelda are effectively negligible. I would say it's an action adventure series as the dungeon/puzzle solving elements have much more to do with adventure style gameplay than anything else relating to RPGs. A series that I feel is similar to Zelda but makes an important distinction is Ys, as it replaces the focus on puzzle solving with streamlined experience and equipment grinds that are legitimate hallmarks of RPG game design.

I wouldn't say so. I feel like there's more to being an RPG than just having stats. You need to be able to role play to an extent. You need to have the ability to have builds and choices in the story/quests. Just having two options doesn't allow for the complexity to role play. Is specing all into health some sort of decision to build a character or is it just a prefrence?

I'd say the label just exists to let players know they can be potentially dicked over for attacking overpowered enemies. Like how in old Assassin's Creed games you can one-shot anybody with a proper stealth hit, but in the modern ones it's just another scaled damage hit if the enemy has a big red number floating over their head.

It's too Americanized

Attached: 1385597326027.jpg (960x720, 88.96K)

>item grind
in zelda?
have you ever played it?

>hasn't done a 100% in OoT
Get out, tourist.

>Goron sword
>skullulas
>mp dependent shit
>arrows/capacity increasing shit
>any optional SoL upgrades
seems grindy to me.

If Zelda is an RPG, then first person shooters where you get better weapons are also RPGs

Goron sword is a side quest.
And the arrow/rupee upgrades are optional and locked behind minigames.
Only the skulltulas are grindy and are 100% optional.

Some of the Heart pieces can be grindy.

>optional parts of the game that grants you better equipment
It's gay summation I know, but for mena s of comparison you can beat Kingdom Hearts with the default keyblade.

Shit

Stats on your MC, group or equipement/weapons.
Also, most of the time, enemies have levels too.
Not everything is necessary but, if there is absolutely no management in that regard, it's not an action rpg.
Zelda games are built around puzzles/dungeons and using the good item at the right time, it's actually more like a metroid than a A-RPG.

Attached: 1582236467127.jpg (470x246, 34.47K)

Seems like an argument for stat checks = rpg rather than approach ability and literal interpretation of what the genre means in terms of 'role play' being what an rpg is.