What is the name of this genre?

[Togath]

After watching a few videos of Legend of Zelda games I've been wondering, what genre are they?, I've played a few games similar in style, but it seems like an uncommon style of game(then again, I haven't been keeping track of game releases the last few years, so maybe it's become more common), but it is a style of game I enjoy.
I mostly would like to figure out what to search for if I end up looking into games of that genre, but wasn't 100% sure what it's called.

[boj0]

I believe that LoZ and it's like are action-adventure games

[Arbitrarity]

I think they're qualified as Action-Adventure (with RPG elements, like EVERYTHING today).
"Adventure" describes the puzzle-solving dungeon crawling elements
"Action" for the real-time combat
"RPG" for progression, stuff like additional techniques
The item progression is mostly an adventure element, but it has elements of each of those three genres.

[Brother Oni]

I know Zelda games have occasionally been classified as A-RPGs, although they're not as 'RPG'-y as other games that traditionally fall into that category.

'Action adventure' is probably the best descriptor as both above posters have suggested.

[Togath]

Ok.
Thank you for helping me with this, I hadn't been sure what a good term for them was.

[Tengu_temp]

Action adventure or action RPG. Considering that LoZ is the former but Kingdom Hearts is the latter, I reached the conclusion that the only difference between these genres is that in an action RPG you can get experience and level up.

[Shpadoinkle]

They're puzzle games with monsters.

[Zevox]

Action-Adventure, the archetypal example of the genre.

I really don't see why anyone would call them RPGs, unless they're under the impression that being medieval-style fantasy makes a game an RPG.

Zevox

[KillianHawkeye]

Legend of Zelda was the game that created the Action-Adventure genre, and the sequels still hold pretty well to that.

[The Dark Fiddler]

Legend of Zelda was the game that created the Action-Adventure genre, and the sequels still hold pretty well to that.

Was it, now?

[danzibr]

Was it, now?

Whoa, did anyone read the prizes for competitions regarding the sequel to Adventure? Wild.

[Zeful]

I think they're qualified as Action-Adventure (with RPG elements, like EVERYTHING today).
"Adventure" describes the puzzle-solving dungeon crawling elements
"Action" for the real-time combat
"RPG" for progression, stuff like additional techniques
The item progression is mostly an adventure element, but it has elements of each of those three genres.

No. Those are flat out terrible definitions. If "RPG" equals "progression" all games with a narrative structure are RPGs which makes the definition kind of worthless.

Game "genres" are pretty terrible in terms of actual substance because most of them describe mechanics rather than content, this would be like describing movie genres by cinematography styles or books by trope. While it's good to have a grasp on what the mechanics are, they do not inform as much as people like to believe.

Adventure is the only one that actually thematically fits Zelda games, as much of the game is focused around the journey.
Action doesn't fit, because the pacing isn't fast paced, even the combat in the games is very methodical, with enemies often waiting before attacking. Mega Man games are action games.
Role Playing doesn't fit, because there are almost no choices that alter the narrative in any meaningful way.

[Zevox]

Action doesn't fit, because the pacing isn't fast paced, even the combat in the games is very methodical, with enemies often waiting before attacking. Mega Man games are action games.

Mega Man games are Platformers, not Action games, save in the broadest sense of the term under which Platformers are a sub-genre of Action games. (At least assuming we mean original series, X, or Zero - other Mega Man series fall into other genres.)

Zelda games do feature a focus on real-time combat in addition to puzzles and exploration, however, so they are accurately called Action-Adventure games. They don't need to have the fast pacing of a God of War game to be such.

Role Playing doesn't fit, because there are almost no choices that alter the narrative in any meaningful way.

Neither do a lot of video game RPGs, like the entire Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest series, for example. That definition fits best with the type of games that video games took the name from, tabletop RPGs, not with video game RPGs themselves.

Zevox

[Zeful]

Mega Man games are Platformers, not Action games, save in the broadest sense of the term under which Platformers are a sub-genre of Action games. (At least assuming we mean original series, X, or Zero - other Mega Man series fall into other genres.)

So it's an action game, but not an action game? Right, self-contradiction is one of the best metrics to show that a definition is bad.

And Platformer is a "sub-genre" of action games? No, it would be a "sub-genre" of adventure games, as much of the gameplay is focused highly around the journey across the land, showing off the interesting locals.

Zelda games do feature a focus on real-time combat in addition to puzzles and exploration, however, so they are accurately called Action-Adventure games. They don't need to have the fast pacing of a God of War game to be such.

No they don't. Combat is slow and methodical, giving the player lots of time to react to the monster and learn. That's very much not a "focus on real-time combat", because it's mechanics don't support that. Dark Souls has a "focus on real-time combat" as is far more emblematic of what an action game is. And yeah they do need to have fast pacing to qualify them for action. The action genre, as the name describes, is about action. Pacing in the structure of the narrative is what qualifies them. If you were to try to port the Zelda Mythos into a movie, the last genre it would gain is action. Fantasy, adventure, and maybe even thriller apply to the series, but not action.

Moreover you're definition is starting to conflict again, if Zelda is focused on combat enough to gain the action genre, then Mega Man, which is even more focused on combat, should be enough to get solid billing as an action title, not as "platformer, sub-genre to action," which I've contested above.

Neither do a lot of video game RPGs, like the entire Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest series, for example. That definition fits best with the type of games that video games took the name from, tabletop RPGs, not with video game RPGs themselves.

And if that's good enough for video game "RPGs", then Mega Man should also inherit the Shonen genre from Astro Boy, every piece of fiction that uses Tolkien's Elves should inherit the Epic genre.

I have yet to play a single video game RPG that couldn't be entirely reclassified as "adventure" at no cost to the game.

[Zevox]

So it's an action game, but not an action game? Right, self-contradiction is one of the best metrics to show that a definition is bad.

And Platformer is a "sub-genre" of action games? No, it would be a "sub-genre" of adventure games, as much of the gameplay is focused highly around the journey across the land, showing off the interesting locals.

You have a very weird view of platformers, if you think that they're focused on "showing off the interesting locales," rather than in presenting the player with gameplay and challenges at least partially focused around maneuvering from platform to platform successfully.

And yes, "Action" is an odd case in genre names, as it seems to get applied in two different ways. On the one hand, to specific games focused purely around combat, as in the case of Devil May Cry or the like. On the other, as a larger category which other genres, almost any of them with gameplay that occurs entirely in real-time, fall into. That one I see mostly used as a means of categorizing games on websites: places like GameFAQs will consider everything from shooters to fighting games to, yes, platformers, to fall under that broader genre category. The latter makes things confusing, to be sure, but I brought it up because I thought that may be the way you were applying the term in describing Mega Man, since I've never seen an obvious platformer like Mega Man described as an action game in any other context.

Action-Adventure seems to get applied to Action games with sufficiently large worlds and areas, or Adventure games with significant real-time combat components, such that neither genre alone quite fits. Zelda could be described as either of those, so it's the easiest, go-to example the genre.

No they don't. Combat is slow and methodical, giving the player lots of time to react to the monster and learn. That's very much not a "focus on real-time combat", because it's mechanics don't support that.

There most certainly is. Combat is a major portion of the games, thus a focus, and it occurs in real-time, as opposed to in turns or the like. Thus, there is a focus on real-time combat to the games. Again, the speed of that combat is irrelevant.

The action genre, as the name describes, is about action.

And that's why Zelda is Action-Adventure - it's only partially about action. The combat is a substantial part of it, but not the whole of it, as it is in series like God of War or Devil May Cry.

Pacing in the structure of the narrative is what qualifies them.

Narrative? That's just about the last thing that I'd say defines an Action game. Or just about any genre outside RPGs, really.

If you were to try to port the Zelda Mythos into a movie, the last genre it would gain is action. Fantasy, adventure, and maybe even thriller apply to the series, but not action.

We disagree on that point entirely. I think it most certainly would be part action movie, were it made into one. Swordfighting, the use of a variety of weapons, and fights with various monsters, plus of course Ganondorf, are among Link's defining features, so of course that would all get highlighted in a movie.

I have yet to play a single video game RPG that couldn't be entirely reclassified as "adventure" at no cost to the game.

You're free to quarrel with several decades of developers' and gamers' labels in that matter, if you wish. I see no reason to myself. I certainly see a clear enough divide between actual Adventure games, like Zelda, and every video game RPG I've played.

Zevox

[Zeful]

You have a very weird view of platformers, if you think that they're focused on "showing off the interesting locales," rather than in presenting the player with gameplay and challenges at least partially focused around maneuvering from platform to platform successfully.

Then why are ice levels differently mechanically than the lava or water levels? Why is there a separation at all? If it was about challenge in platforming, then shouldn't later levels inevitably have more mechanical and executional complexity in terms of the movement system rather than themed worlds?

And yes, "Action" is an odd case in genre names, as it seems to get applied in two different ways. On the one hand, to specific games focused purely around combat, as in the case of Devil May Cry or the like. On the other, as a larger category which other genres, almost any of them with gameplay that occurs entirely in real-time, fall into.

In which case, a compelling argument could be made that any movie concerning the action of it's actors could be considered an action movie.

That one I see mostly used as a means of categorizing games on websites: places like GameFAQs will consider everything from shooters to fighting games to, yes, platformers, to fall under that broader genre category. The latter makes things confusing, to be sure, but I brought it up because I thought that may be the way you were applying the term in describing Mega Man, since I've never seen an obvious platformer like Mega Man described as an action game in any other context. Action-Adventure seems to get applied to Action games with sufficiently large worlds and areas, or Adventure games with significant real-time combat components, such that neither genre alone quite fits. Zelda could be described as either of those, so it's the easiest, go-to example the genre.

I'm applying the action label in the exact same fashion that a movie would, because the game genre definition is useless as you've so clearly demonstrated. This is why I've brought up pacing at all. For a movie to be an action movie, it has to be paced so that the action is the forefront method of interaction between the movie and the audience. The Highlander, for instance is not an action movie despite containing action, while Die Hard is an action movie, the pacing in both is very different. In the Highlander, much of the interaction between the movie and the audience is Connor MacLeod's story and journey, while Die Hard's is Bruce Mega Man is an action game because the main interaction is just as much the fight between the various robot masters as it is navigating the levels to get to them.

The Legend of Zelda games, combat is not the main interaction between the game and it's audience. Instead exploring the world, solving puzzles and even some platforming bits make up most of what you're doing and what you'll remember.

There most certainly is. Combat is a major portion of the games, thus a focus, and it occurs in real-time, as opposed to in turns or the like. Thus, there is a focus on real-time combat to the games. Again, the speed of that combat is irrelevant.

Just because the game includes combat does not make it a focus. Going back up to my movie analogs, The Highlander contains fighting and action scenes, that doesn't make it an action movie. Outside of boss fights, what about the combat system makes for particularly engaging action? Are there any moments where something cool happens in combat that you'll remember when you boot up the game again?

And that's why Zelda is Action-Adventure - it's only partially about action. The combat is a substantial part of it, but not the whole of it, as it is in series like God of War or Devil May Cry.

How can something be classified as "action" anything, if it's only "partially about action". Isn't that definition self-defeating?

Narrative? That's just about the last thing that I'd say defines an Action game. Or just about any genre outside RPGs, really.

Narrative is more than just story, a movie's narrative includes scene structure and background elements as much as dialog. A game's narrative includes the mechanics and progression the game takes through itself as much as cutscenes or dialog. Or would you say there's no narrative in Super Metroid outside of the summary at the beginning?

We disagree on that point entirely. I think it most certainly would be part action movie, were it made into one. Swordfighting, the use of a variety of weapons, and fights with various monsters, plus of course Ganondorf, are among Link's defining features, so of course that would all get highlighted in a movie.

Yes, but would this hypothetical movie share more in common in terms of pacing with The Terminator or the various Indiana Jones movies (Last Crusade, Raiders of the Lost Ark specifically)? The Highlander or The Lord of the Rings maybe? A Legend of Zelda movie would of course have action, but wouldn't most of the movie, like the games, be about the journey to gather the tools to defeat Ganon, and the fight with Ganon specifically rather than any of the fighting before then?

You're free to quarrel with several decades of developers' and gamers' labels in that matter, if you wish. I see no reason to myself. I certainly see a clear enough divide between actual Adventure games, like Zelda, and every video game RPG I've played.

And I see a clear enough divide between every video game RPG I've played and actual RPGs.

[Zevox]

I've cut out some parts of my intended response here, because I think that last post has shown that we may be in a position where this entire discussion will be pointless to pursue much further, as you'll see in my second quote response below.

In which case, a compelling argument could be made that any movie concerning the action of it's actors could be considered an action movie.

Only if we were discussing movies, which we are not (aside from the hypothetical Zelda movie tangent, which I'm dropping for the sake of conversation coherency and length).

I'm applying the action label in the exact same fashion that a movie would, because the game genre definition is useless as you've so clearly demonstrated.

We should stop right there, because if that's where you're coming from then I do not agree with your premises, neither that game genre definition is useless nor that movie genre definitions can or should be applied to games. The two are different forms of media, with different genres and definitions for those genres. That a few genre names may overlap does not make them interchangeable.

If that's how you see things, then I'm afraid we'll be wasting our time if we pursue this much further, as the very way we each talk about these things is incompatible with each other.

And I see a clear enough divide between every video game RPG I've played and actual RPGs.

In which case, again, we're not even discussing the same thing, since my entire point here was about video games. If your definition of "actual RPGs" is solely "tabletop RPGs," that may be fine for you, but don't expect others to use the term solely in that way when video games have long since co-opted it to mean something else when applied to them.

Zevox

[Zeful]

I've cut out some parts of my intended response here, because I think that last post has shown that we may be in a position where this entire discussion will be pointless to pursue much further, as you'll see in my second quote response below.

Such is entirely possible.

Only if we were discussing movies, which we are not (aside from the hypothetical Zelda movie tangent, which I'm dropping for the sake of conversation coherency and length).

Movies are much closer to games than books are, both being visual mediums. Moreover movie genres are very stable and well defined, while games aren't. It's a valid point of comparison when your entire point is that game genres aren't well defined.

We should stop right there, because if that's where you're coming from then I do not agree with your premises, neither that game genre definition is useless nor that movie genre definitions can or should be applied to games. The two are different forms of media, with different genres and definitions for those genres. That a few genre names may overlap does not make them interchangeable.

No, but that doesn't mean they aren't analogous though. An action movie and an action game are very similar once you break them down to their base components. A clear focus on the action, not just combat and conflict- but also other exertions that have the same focus and intent behind their resolution- with dialog and general narrative both providing reasons for the action to progress towards the climax.

If that's how you see things, then I'm afraid we'll be wasting our time if we pursue this much further, as the very way we each talk about these things is incompatible with each other.

I wouldn't say that, many of your arguments have compelled me to look closer at my own arguments and check to see if I really believe them. How we talk about this subject is compatible, but the difference in opinions that's at the route of this isn't. I don't think we could ever come to a compromise that both of us could accept other than to agree to disagree.

In which case, again, we're not even discussing the same thing, since my entire point here was about video games. If your definition of "actual RPGs" is solely "tabletop RPGs," that may be fine for you, but don't expect others to use the term solely in that way when video games have long since co-opted it to mean something else when applied to them.

It's not actually, but it might as well be for all the ability for video game RPGs to meet. My definition of Role Playing Game, emphasizes the "Role Playing" part over "game", building and defining a characters actions, thoughts, and responses is only now being rudimentary added to some so called "RPGs" and even then it's only in a strictly defined and limited fashion. I would hesitate to call any video game an "RPG" because my definition of that restrictive definition. Games like Mass Effect and Bioshock have RPG elements, things to define how your character acts/reacts to the situation, but those elements are not strong enough, nor the main method the game interacts with the player to constitute "full" RPG status.

[Zevox]

Movies are much closer to games than books are, both being visual mediums.

On the one hand, that's true. On the other, it's irrelevant. Movie genres are defined by the type of story being told. Video game genres are defined by their gameplay first and foremost, by their stories a distant second at best, often not by their stories at all - there are entire genres of video games that often don't bother to tell a story, after all. And, for that matter, an entire genre of video games defined by the fact that it focuses on its story so much that it has little of what most would call gameplay (visual novels, such as the Ace Attorney series). The two may both be visual mediums, but they're much more different from each other than, to use your own examples, movies are from books, at least in regards to how they're categorized into genres.

How we talk about this subject is compatible, but the difference in opinions that's at the route of this isn't. I don't think we could ever come to a compromise that both of us could accept other than to agree to disagree.

That may very well be indeed.

It's not actually, but it might as well be for all the ability for video game RPGs to meet. My definition of Role Playing Game, emphasizes the "Role Playing" part over "game", building and defining a characters actions, thoughts, and responses is only now being rudimentary added to some so called "RPGs" and even then it's only in a strictly defined and limited fashion. I would hesitate to call any video game an "RPG" because my definition of that restrictive definition. Games like Mass Effect and Bioshock have RPG elements, things to define how your character acts/reacts to the situation, but those elements are not strong enough, nor the main method the game interacts with the player to constitute "full" RPG status.

Well, insofar as your assessment of the ability of video games to live up to the standards of tabletop RPGs for things like that goes, we are in agreement. That is much my reason for believing that video games are better off not trying to emulate tabletop RPGs in that respect, and should instead use entirely pre-written main characters, such as most JRPGs do. Our difference there is simply that I'm more than willing to accept the video game definition of "RPG" as legitimate in its own right, as a separate thing from the tabletop version which simply borrowed the name.

Zevox

[brendabub]

Legend of Zelda is too popular game and i have it many times. I think this game is based on Action and Adventure Genre but some time i also think it's have also some genre about Zombie games.

[Ogremindes]

If you're looking for similar games to Zelda 'metroidvania' would probably be your best search-term.

[Craft (Cheese)]

Simple answer: They're Zelda-likes. Zelda, Okami, and Darksiders 1 (but not Darksiders 2) are members of the Zelda-like genre.

On the whole ARPG/Action Adventure thing: My personal philosophy is a game's genre should be judged by the types of experiences it creates, not by the presence or absence of a particular mechanic.

Kingdom Hearts is an Action-JRPG, because it's basically a Final Fantasy game in every respect except that you control Sora in battles instead of control being taken away from you and given to menus (and, actually, the combat in Kingdom Hearts is still pretty menu-based).