https://worldsunraveled.weebly.com/subgenres-key-aa--arpg.html

Hey everyone. Looking for feedback on the above page (a breakdown of the various subgenres I could find and come up with for now) so that I can make the site useful for more people and to see what the general consensus on them are on here. Feel free to list the best example(s) of each one if you want.

Main AA genre definition criteria that games should fulfill all or most of:
-Exploration of an interconnected world w/ some degree of persistency and sense of being a real place rather than arcade-style challenges. This includes games where the world is made up of separate areas connected by a hub map or hub area, games with a separate overworld, games with an overworld & dungeons split, more or less fully interconnected, and seamless worlds
-Some degree of non-linearity
-Player character growth via permanent upgrades, through experience point leveling, use-based leveling and/or finding or buying them. This has to do with gameplay-related stats and skills rather than changes to the character's personality
-(Persistent) Ability/tool gating, not just key gating (including other items that function like keys). These should be persistent, meaning they're not single-use or temporarily kept until you reach the next area or take a hit. See for example the bombs or the stepladder in Zelda 1. ARPGs may have level/stat gating only
-Puzzles and/or tactical combat elements, including resource management and stuff like elemental affinities
-Some story focus, be it dialogue-driven or environment-driven, interactive or non-interactive
-Real-time and preferably non tile-based movement in and outside of combat

These criteria mean that games such as The Last Ninja, D/Generation and Tomb Raider (1-2) are not included in the main lists. Instead they are listed in the Outliers section of each one. While a bit controversial, I don't consider these to be proper Action Adventure games; they're level-based games without any backtracking to either a previous level or a hub area, without branching paths between levels, and without permanent character upgrades or gained tools/abilities in the case of the last two (Last Ninja has none (?) but does have one permanent tool in the claw, so it's a bit closer though the claw is underused).
​If you have a look at the history of the genres at wikipedia, you can see that the first games considered as AA and ARPG tend to fulfill most of my criteria, and when games like Hydlide, Xanadu, Paradroid, Batman (1986), Legend of Zelda, Starflight, Metal Gear 1-2, Pirates!, Ys 1-2, Midwinter, Quest for Glory, Solstice and Hunter gave them more of a mainstream appeal and redefined them, that's when we got a more solid definition of what they're about so it would seem like a good reference point for the future. Unlike with, say, Platform Adventure/Metroidvania games though, this definition became more washed out around the mid '90s, with some writers referencing AA as in the movie genre and not caring as much about overarching structure, gating and character growth mechanics.

For ARPGs, I'm simply making experience point (or use-based) leveling a must besides the rest of the AA criteria. While I personally don't agree that RPG is the best term for these games, it is what people tend to use.

following this topic, because it's very interesting to read about, but have nothing to say.

First of all, I disagree with the ARPG classification and am of the opinion that only games where combat is based off character stats and random dice rolls should be called RPGs of any sort. (In particular, games with collision checks shouldn't be placed in any RPG category.) XP-based leveling is not, to me, a reasonable way to classify genres. I can point to games like Civilization 4 (has XP-based leveling, but is clearly not an RPG) or most SaGa games (clearly an RPG, but doesn't have XP-based leveling) as examples where that criterion falls apart.

Zelda 2, in particular, really does not feel like an RPG. In particular, the game has both bottomless pits and multiple lives, and the action sequences are all side-scrolling. Hence, I would say that Zelda 2 really fits into the same category as a game like Castlevania 2 (no overworld map, *does* have XP-based leveling but toned down) or Gargoyle's Quest (overworld map with random encounters, does *not* have XP-based leveling).

Also, not all the Wonder Boy games fit the same classification; 1, 2, and both 3's would be classified differently, and I don't think 1 and Monster Lair would fit in this discussion at all. SaGa 1, an RPG, does not have either XP-based leveling or use-based leveling.

SaGa 2 only has use-based leveling if your party contains a human or esper, and it's quite reasonable to play through the game with a 2 robot/2 monster party.

(Also, I haven't seen the term ARPG being used to refer to the Igavanias.) Ultima 7 and Baldur's Gate fit all those criteria, except that Baldur's Gate has only key and event based gating.

Defining things is *hard*!

1. Right, well we've had this discussion before but most people obviously disagree with you here. I did put the Mana games in their own category from Ys and Hydlide partially based on dice rolls though.

ARPGs are already basically AA games with some RPG elements such as exp point leveling, they are not meant to (fully) represent RPGs really and I don't use them that way here (well, I've listed a few RPGs with real-time gameplay for now but it might change).

Zelda 2 is a bit of a strange blend of different things, which is also why I put it in its own category though it is kinda small compared to some others. But it obviously has an overworld. Not sure what you mean by toned down xp leveling, you have manual stat allocation and can save level ups for later which is pretty advanced for the time.

2. True and you could say not all Zeldas do either, which I think I did. I guess I can clarify that a bit more for MW.

3. I don't think SaGa is even part of the discussion since it's not real-time and is also party-based. I can clarify the latter in the criteria.

"(Also, I haven't seen the term ARPG being used to refer to the Igavanias.)"

It's used on gamefaqs for example, I see it here and there.

4. Hehe right. So what do you suggest adding to exclude those? Non-party based? Could also mention something about interactive dialogue and influencing the story and character relations, since that's the actual RPG part.

Also, a few more things:
* Whether a game has XP-based leveling is not as important as other traits, so if you're going to use ARPG as a classification, I would put it as a subgenre of AA rather than putting it on the same tier. (For example, I would say that Castlevania: Symphony of the Night has more in common with Super Metroid than with Dragon Quest 6.)
* My impression of the stealth genre (which I avoid, having hated such sequences in games like Zelda: Ocarina of Time) is that those games are not really AA games, and would fit more under pure Action.
* Some turn-based JRPGs are open world. There's the original Dragon Quest, for example, and many other games in the series open up at some point during the game (especially 2-4 and 6). There's also the Romancing SaGa games, which combine open-world with something like level scaling, leading to a situation not too unlike Oblivion. (Maybe TES-like would be a suitable category here.)
* Survival Horror also doesn't feel like it belongs under AA to me. (On the other hand, one of the ancestors of this genre, Sweet Home on the Famicom, is an adventure/RPG hybrid, with adventure game like puzzles and RPG style combat; no action here at alll.)
* There's other games that have hub map areas where you just select a location to travel to, and they don't really feel like a different genre to me. Examples include Super Mario World, Final Fantasy Mystic Quest, and Castlevania: Order of Ecclesia (which is best placed in the same category as Dust: An Elysian Tail, which also does this).
* The first example of meta-progression in a roguelike that I am aware of is Shiren the Wanderer, released in Japan in 1995. (Note that this game is turn-based, not action of any sort.) That statement was in reference to Castlevania 2; there's XP based leveling, but you only level up at most 6 times during the entire game, all it does is boost your defense (odd levels) or health (even levels), and there's no decisions to make regarding leveling in that game. (Also, the game has a mechanic where if your level is too high for the area, you don't get *any* XP at all; there's also the fact that time played affects the ending, which is more of a characteristic of Metroid-likes.) I mention SaGa because of the following facts that complicate the AA/ARPG split:
* The game is quite clearly an RPGs.
* The game lacks the criterion you use to distinguish ARPGs from AAs.

Another strange example to look at is Castlevania: Curse of Darkness, which has the following characteristics:
* Game plays like a 3D action game.
* Game does have XP-based leveling.
* You have an Innocent Devil. This essentially gives you a party of 2, your main character and your innocent devil, and you can have your innocent devil use skills on command (like having a fairy heal you). Yet, it feels like this game would fit this discussion.

I would put Gargoyle's Quest in the same category, GQ is more linear and lacks XP-based leveling (you have levels, but they only increase via story progression), but it does have an overworld, and it does have side-scrolling battles and dungeons.

1-2b. So I haven't played a lot of these since I also don't really care for stealth, but Metal Gear does fit into AA and is the one people tend to think about when you mention stealth besides maybe Hitman and Splinter Cell?

To clarify the site assumes that a game already fits into most of the AA criteria, and then the subgenre is applied. If it doesn't, I either don't include it or list it as an outlier only. Some of these also weren't much of a thing until the '00s and later, which I haven't covered yet. I'll probably cut off around where I cut off the metroidvania site, which is currently at 2009 (Arkham Asylum and Shadow Complex, where the latter can be seen as the start of a more consistent renaissance period for MVs). I think this responds to your second point as well.

3b. Ok well you have to tell me why it doesn't fit then.

4b. This topic always sparks debate with the MV fans for example, which is why I started paying more attention to it in the first place. Yeah I don't think it matters that much as long as you can move between areas and there is a reason to do so. This is also tied to ability/tool gating - you see an obstacle somewhere and you come back to it later with a gained ability/tool which is also permanent. So SMW would not count here though it does have some AA elements for sure. I carried this structural aspect over to this site for those who do care if the world is fully interconnected or uses a hub structure.

5b. Thanks, that's the game I was also thinking of but I haven't played a lot of rogue-likes so I wasn't sure.

I have nothing to say about your page except:
I hate genre classifications. It's the most pointless thing one can do, since there will never be any real consensus.
Back in the day, I called games that play like Diablo II Hack and Slash games. Others seemed to use that term as well. Then later that term disappeared and everyone called those games ARPGs. But then I encountered people who call games like Terranigma and Illusion of Gaia ARPGs. And to top it off, Hack and Slash games are now considered games like God of War or Devil May Cry.
Categorization is utterly pointless and a waste of time.

BTW, did you now that the original Diablo is a Rogue-lite game? It has procedural generated maps and perma death. The key features of Rogue-lites everywhere.

Yeah and I do categorize it as such on my MV focused site, though it isn't a perfect fit since it doesn't have a. exp point leveling, b. non-linear overarching structure iirc or c. avoidable battle encounters you can see on the overworld.

SaGa is an interesting hybrid but I do think I exclude it already since I mention real-time gameplay and combat. I could also mention separate battle encounters but then Zelda 2 and Tales of complicates things again.

I added a few things to a couple of the AA criteria, and will add some things to these subgenre categories too based on this feedback.

SaGa I don't count either; I just mention it as an example of how the "RPG" definition you use has issues (same with the Civilization 4 mention). Worth noting that Illusion of Gaia:
* Is linear, and you can't backtrack to earlier areas. (Late game gives you some backtracking, but only to late game loactions.)
* Does not have XP-based or use-based leveling; rather, you only gain a stat the first time you clear a room.

Yes I did, and I also mention this on the page lol. It would help if you read it before commenting, not to be rude.

Hack and Slash make sense as a prefix to ARPG here, and is how I would use it for Diablo and the like. I didn't know before making this, but it was apparently used for pen & paper RPGs quite far back, used to describe violence/combat-focused campaigns.

I prefer to use (weapon-based) beat 'em up or brawler for Devil May Cry and the like, although they do implement some RPG and AA elements.
But I don't see the problem with calling for example IoG an ARPG, there are obvious and fundamental things in common there even if the games focus on different things in some aspects.
Edit: This particular game doesn't have exp points, but you gain stats from killing enemies (IIRC they drop an item you collect), so it's very close and not like in Zelda where you gain tools in found chests or only gain HP and MP from defeated bosses or from certain NPCs which might have some quest to complete, and where strength or AP is entirely tied to gear and its upgrades. Gear which is also not randomly spawned besides ammo for what you already have.

People obviously find them useful but they can certainly cause some frustration and bickering as well.

Thing is, in IoG, you can't level up by fighting the same enemies over and over, so it feels more like finding upgrades rather than winning them from enemies.

Also, worth noting that the upgrades are always in the same places. (One exception; Apparently, if you kill a boss, the game is nice and gives you all the upgrades that you missed.)

So, it really does feel like Zelda in this regard.

Except you literally win them from enemies. Otherwise it is more like Zelda. But this is why the point about character stat growth mentions various methods, as it feels like splitting hairs to me personally. Unless the game completely excludes combat or something.

It's been a few years since I played it, maybe I'll end up classifying it as a hybrid or AA instead.

In Zelda you earn heart containers from defeating bosses, and this has been consistently true for all the Zelda games I've played except Zelda 2. Kill a boss, get a heart container.

Having the whole AA/ARPG distinction feels like splitting hairs to me. I would probably just classify all these games, even those with XP-based leveling, as AA.

Also, another strange data point: Maze of Galious and La-Mulana both have experience, but the only effect of a "level up" is that you get fully healed.

Edit: Speaking of splitting hairs, I could say that in IoG, you get stat gains from clearing rooms, not from defeating enemies. (It just so happens that to clear a room, you have to kill all the enemies in that room.)

It kinda does, but most don't see it like that so there's not much I can do about it. :P I'm already getting some flack elsewhere for not including Tomb Raider (1-2) in the AA definition and some other things.

If you have to kill the enemies to gain them then that is what you gain stats from in IoG. It is functionally the same except they strictly keep you from grinding further. Various exp point leveling-based games get similar results just via higher exp requirements for higher levels so that you're discouraged from staying in one spot and grinding, though I can't say off the top of my head which ones right now.

Yeah the Galious system is a bit of an oddball one.

Brain Lord also does the exp as an item drop thing, except generally as a random drop and in a few places a guaranteed one so that you can grind if you want plus each level costs the same. So there you have no balancing at all as soon as the player finds those spots.