Originally Posted by
Aussie2B
I'm not really interested in turning this into Digital Press's millionth RPG genre definition argument, but a separate battle screen or turn-based combat isn't how I personally define an RPG. Trying to come up with specific requirements will never work because there will ALWAYS be exceptions that otherwise blatantly belong in the genre. Rather, it's a simple matter of I know it when I see it. It's that aim to come up with specific requirements where things get stupid. Yes, Zelda games aren't RPGs and most people don't identify them as such, but, then, why are games like Secret of Mana, Illusion of Gaia, Alundra, Crystalis, etc. etc. so often referred to as RPGs? It's just silly. Those are all CLEARLY the same type of game. All of those are blatantly inspired by Zelda's design, yet because they happen to have stats for HP or MP or have equipment or whatever else insignificant detail, suddenly they belong to an entirely different genre? That kind of logic is just absurd. People are allowed to define genres however they see fit, but I at least expect consistency in their methods.