Zelda Still Rules the Action RPG

View This Post...

Even Skyward Sword's biggest detractors won't deny that Zelda's dungeons are unsurpassed.

I deny it. They were visually and conceptually appealing. Some were pretty fun but others were a snooze-fest. Espcially, considering there wasn't a moment where I felt threatened or uncertain on how to progress. I just plowed through these dungeons like it was a speedrun.

As far as being king of Action RPGs. I laugh at that. I think Dark Souls did a far better job at being an Action RPG than a Zelda game (albeit I consider Zelda a different subclass than Dark Souls).

^ I think what Parrish meant was putting Zelda's dungeons as a whole against the rest of the industry, and in that regard I'd agree with him; there are no other sequences of gameplay as detailed, in-depth and exciting as Zelda dungeons.

But I'm with you on being leery about referring to it as an "Action RPG". Yes, Zelda does have some roleplaying elements, but when I think of an RPG, I think of a game whose gameplay is heavily influenced by stats, numbers, customization, strategic combat etc. Stuff you don't see in Zelda like you do an WRPG or JRPG.

I still consider Zelda to be a pure Action/Adventure game, and to be the very best of that specific subgenre. But for Action RPGs, I say that Demon's Souls/Dark Souls and the Monster Hunter franchise are king at the moment.

AoL is the only main Zelda title that is an action RPG. All other main titles are action-adventure. AoL has stat-building (as in experience points and levelling up of specific stats, which sometimes require grinding), while the others do not have them.

SS is the only Zelda of recent time to even have as many Action RPG elements as it does, and even then, it's not exactly overbearing compared to the action-adventure/adventure elements in it. As Mr. Jeff up there stated, an Action RPG is something more akin to games like the 'Souls series or Monster Hunter (incidentally, my two favorite RPG series, but I digress), or more recently, Kingdoms of Amalur; games where progression is based more on stat-building for direct influence in a more battle-heavy environment.

Any franchise as long-enduring as Zelda is going to have its controversies amongst the fanbase over several different topics (hell, there are a few overbearingly prominent ones on these boards), but all of that is pretty discardable in the long run when I actually sit down and play the damn game.

As far as strictly arguing the dungeons are concerned, yeah, the collective dungeon-crawling element in the series is still a standard of exploration and puzzle solving amongst the genre; Dungeons in most actual RPG's can barely be called dungeons compared to how Zelda approaches the concept. And even the complaint of Skyward Sword's dungeons being simple really tapered off for me by the third or fourth dungeon, and the boss fights were still the collective best in the series imo.

During the early 2000s, there was a fanboy war between the Zelda series and the Dark Cloud series. Both Dark Cloud games have been compared with Zelda games more so than any other game series.

Both Dark Cloud games are properly classified as Eastern action RPGs with action-adventure elements and quite a number of minigames, while most main Zelda titles are action-adventures with some having RPG elements. In the Dark Cloud games, weapons are levelled up and are upgraded (and weapons have a durability check), and are acquired from both the beginning and from monster drops. Dungeons are practically randomized in the Dark Cloud games. In the Zelda games, weapons are acquired at key points in the game, mainly serving to complete difficult puzzles found within dungeons and in some cases, the overworld.

To be fair, both game series have memorable playable characters and a very compelling and coherent storyline.

I am a fan of both series.

It's all opinions, man. Who even gives a ♥♥♥♥ about what's the most popular game of a genre? Just play it to play, I say.