i can't find the article, so you'll have to settle for this:
''YOU ARE ALL IDIOTS. Stop saying Zelda is a role playing game. This is not true in the slightest. I don't see why no one understands this. It's like all these gushing Nintendo fans have such an overwhelming need to convince themselves that Zelda games are sophisticated so they have to say that they're RPGs so they can feel like the Sony kids with their Final Fantasys or something. GTA is more of a roleplaying game in EVERY WAY than Zelda. Seriously, think about it. And have you ever heard someone try to tell you GTA is an RPG? Of course not. And if they did, it was in the context of "you know, when you actually think about it . . . ".
There are only two ways in which Zelda could even REMOTELY almost sorta kinda not really but still yes looked at as an RPG:
You increase your hearts over the course of the game
You play the role of Link. Just like you play the role of any other video game character in any other video game.
Though there are some definite gray areas (which Zelda does NOT fall within), I think we can agree that an RPG video game generally includes at least one, if not all of these attributes:
*Numerical stats which represent the non-concrete attributes of a character in a concrete way within the game world, whether or not the character
*is fully made aware of them (i.e. 15 strength, 10 agility, 7 stamina, 150 HP, etc.)
*A system of progression by which your characters stats are increased as you play, either through hard levels and the acruing of experience points or something similar, or gradual increases in the stats as specific actions are performed.
*Some kind of character specialization (i.e. character classes) which allow a character to excel at some aspects of gameplay, even at the expense of others, be it through the equipping of specialized weapons, a specific class or role choice made by the player, or sometimes naturally as certain character stats will increase and others will not based on the actions the player performs throughout the game.
*A battle system that involves "dice rolls", meaning that damage, as well as other things such as accuracy are determined through some kind of system involving chance, and then possibly modified by character and enemy stats
*Some kind of story interaction where the player is able to take part in the game and affect the story through interacting with characters, or at the very least, interact with NPCs through dialogue trees. Obviously this is probably the least common of all the attributes, but still a possibility.
Now, please understand me. It's not that a game needs all of these qualities to be an RPG, it's that Zelda has NONE of these qualities. Just face it, kids. Zelda is an action adventure game with puzzles.
Yes, you get better equipment as you play. But it's completely linear. you can ONLY use one sword all the way until a certain story point and then you can ONLY use the new sword, which is ALWAYS better. Just like in Prince of Persia: The Sand of Time.
Yes, you have a bunch of different items you can equip. So? What's the difference between link putting away his short sword and pulling out his bow, and Master Chief putting away his energy sword and pulling out his rocket launcher? NONE!
Yeah, you get more health n stuff. That happens in billions of games! That happened in Resident Evil 4, for God's sake! Which, now that I mention it, featured a much more detailed and in-depth inventory system than Zelda. AND it featured player-controlled level progression with it's weapons! Jesus, even Resident Evil 4 is more of an RPG than Zelda.
Look, don't misunderstand me. I love Zelda as much as any, and more than most. They are some of my all-time favorite games. But they're not RPGs. Plain and simple.
"But look! Din's Fire is like a magic spe-" SHUT THE F*** UP!!!