Talk:Paper Mario: The Origami King

Short description

@Masem: In referring to your edit summary reverting my changes to the use of {{Short description}} in this article, may I ask what exactly is "too much detail"? I feel that if we're given three lines worth of space to summarise an article's topic, we should be able to use it, especially to describe things such as the creator of a work. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 12:15, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:SHORTDES these are to be as brief as possible as they are meant to distinguish the work from any other possible close hits on the mobile client and other uses. It is not like a short abstract, but a very short phrase of what the topic is, with ~40 characters as the goal. There's no need to ID authorship at all. --Masem (t) 13:13, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Genre

This website: https://www.nintendo.com/games/detail/paper-mario-the-origami-king-switch/ as well as the official Nintendo eShop profile state that the game is an action-adventure.-- Maxeto0910 (talk) 19:23, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Went ahead with the change but still preserved the RPG genre. It should be discussed if we should keep both genres or only keep action-adventure RedBlocks (talk) 22:02, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

It should just be action adventure. With the gameplay shown today and with Nintendo themselves not labeling it an RPG and the director previously stating they want to move away from RPG it's pretty clear it's an action adventure game with a tiny amount of RPG influence. It's a puzzle game more than an RPG now. Keeping RPG as the genre is misleading. Blsupr (talk) 08:27, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd also say that we should just call it an action adventure for now as official sources claim. Since the game is not out, the press can't have played it yet and say exactly which genre it is. Most sources which claim that the game is a RPG may have just watched the trailer or copied the genre from other magazines. If the game is out and we see that it has also many RPG elements, we could discuss if we also call it a RPG, but for now, the only thing we know for sure is that it is an action adventure.-- Maxeto0910 (talk) 10:01, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Can we stop the edit war, please, and achieve a consensus here. I've just made a big revert as the edit warring has broken some of the references; let's be more careful. — Czello 10:57, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

You are aware that Nintendo has been miswording the game's genre for years, correct? If you go onto the page that lists all of the Mario role-playing games, The Origami King is still being called an RPG there as well! I also noticed that an article was included in the reference section that said that while the game may not have EXP or level ups, it still has a number of RPG elements to it- and this article was written by someone who played an early-access review copy of the game! I think it should be called an RPG since the previous games were all RPGs as well! Thoughts? Gamerguy94 (talk) 11:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I've reverted to action adventure, but this time I've added two citations that specifically address the genre, along with quotes. Please discuss here rather than edit warring if you still disagree. — Czello 12:12, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Also, your claim that Nintendo have been miswording the genre is original research. We only operate on reliable sources here, not editor interpretation or opinion. — Czello 12:13, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the matter, but I had to remove the Metro source as it’s listed at WP:RSP as not reliable. Red Phoenix ^talk 12:33, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

"Edit Warring"? I don't even know what that is! I'm brand new here, so I'm still learning things! In fact, I hope I'm responding to you the right way . Czello With that being said, why is the fact that the page for all of the Mario role-playing games is stating that this new game is an RPG? What about the fact that there's also an article in the references section that says while EXP and level ups are not in the game, RPG elements are still there? That was from a reliable source too- as it's a reviewer who got early access to the game! What about those things? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamerguy94 (talk • contribs) 12:29, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@Red Phoenix: Fair enough, I wasn't aware Metro wasn't considered reliable. Thanks for the update.
@Gamerguy94: While my edit warring comment was generic and not aimed at anyone specific (given the absurd warring that's happened over the past few days), I do find it strangely coincidental that your account was created only 13 minutes after I gave a warning for edit warring to the IP address, and continued his editing style. But hey, for the sake of settling this, let's say you're different people. In answer to your questions, which source in the references say that it's an RPG? (Not saying you're wrong, just can't be bothered to click through all of them). We could include both genres if it's adequately sourced; it doesn't need to be a mutually exclusive thing. — Czello 13:17, 11 July 2020

@Czello: This is the article that was included in the reference section that says that while the game has no EXP or level ups, it still has RPG elements! This was written by a person who got an early-access review copy of the game and so they were able to write this article as a way of telling others that most other articles are either blatantly ignoring this information or are unaware of it, and so they wanted to help clarify that there are indeed RPG elements in the game- despite being no EXP or level ups! Gamerguy94 (talk) 23:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC) https://www.nintendoenthusiast.com/paper-mario-the-origami-king-rpg-elements-leveling-up/

@Gamerguy94: I've now added RPG with this citation, so both genres are included. Hopefully this is a good compromise for everyone. — Czello 07:01, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@Czello: Sounds good to me! Thanks!

RPG elements do not equal an RPG game. The game has puzzle elements heavily added, are we gonna slap on puzzle as a genre too? Blsupr (talk) 10:50, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

It's not an RPG. There is no EXP system, all of the stat numbers other than HP are hidden to the player and said stats increase after reaching certain story flags instead of with an overall level. All of these elements are in-line with an action-adventure/puzzle game. The RPG descriptor is misleading at best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:183:847F:CC90:45CC:CE5A:3B4B:B68E (talk) 17:31, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Firstly please do not remove the genre without achieving a consensus first: there was even a notice there asking you not to do it, which you deleted. Secondly, we operate on including reliable sources to support claims, not opinion. — Czello 17:35, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

If Nintendo described it an action-adventure game, then it would be better if we follow them, because that's the official description. Therefore, RPG should not be treated as a main genre. In my opinion, the best description for this game is "an action-adventure game with elements from role-playing games", but we should avoid directly calling it a RPG. OceanHok (talk) 03:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

As per WP:IS, Nintendo's own view doesn't get to dictate the entirety of the genre here. Third-party, reliable sources do call it an RPG, however. The primary genre in the article is already listed as aciton-adventure, with RPG coming afterwards, which seems the most balanced way to present this. — Czello 06:43, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Most of those reliable sources also say that it's light on RPG elements so I think it's disingenuous to declare it an RPG in the first sentence without caveats. It demands more nuance than that. Axem Titanium (talk) 08:51, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Some do, though I added one yesterday that explicitly calls it an RPG. What I think would be good, though, is if we expand the reception section to highlight some of the criticisms that the game is lacking in traditional RPG elements. — Czello 09:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

While it is true that Nintendo's own descriptions doesn't dictate its product's description, outright calling it a RPG is not really ideal, especially since Nintendo doesn't recognize it this way, and as Axem has said already, sources agreed that it was light on RPG elements. The best it can be is an action-adventure game with rpg elements, similar to Destiny (a FPS with RPG element, but not predominantly a RPG). The two genres should not be listed in parallel with each other. Furthermore, I don't think action-adventure RPG really makes much sense because that would make it an action role-playing game, but this game is clearly not an ARPG. OceanHok (talk) 16:40, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Nintendo Enthusiast is not a reliable source (see WP:VG/S). The Independent on the other hand is questionable at most give the fact that they are a tabloid and their main focus is not video games. Alt (talk) 18:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

You make a good point. The RPG signifier is being cited to unRS. I think we can agree on "action adventure game with RPG elements" for now and refine from there. Do we have consensus for that? Axem Titanium (talk) 05:12, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Why did we change the genre again when we already agreed on calling it an action-adventure RPG? It's not an action-adventure game whatsoever, and it should not be listed as such, as its incredibly misleading! If you look at the list of Mario RPG games, you'll see this game listed as an RPG, and not only that, it has turn-based combat- which is a trait that ONLY RPGs have, as well as plenty of RPG elements remaining in the game! Just because EXP doesn't make a physical appearance, you DO technically level up in the game by getting stronger weapons and accessories and the like. It's just as much an RPG as the other Paper Mario games are! Why change it to a misleading, incorrect genre when we already had a discussion here to settle for calling it a action-adventure RPG! If we're going to keep it changed like this, then it really should be listed as a Role-playing game with action-adventure elements- NOT the other way around! Those no point in misleading people with the genre like this! Come on now! Many reviewers have even called it an RPG, so that's what this game should be called! Gamerguy94 (talk) 08:47, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Many reviewers have also called it an action-adventure game and not an RPG. Also, Nintendo officially classifies this game as an action-adventure title, not an RPG. The current description is correct; it's an action-adventure game with some RPG elements like turn based battles.RedBlocks (talk) 10:26, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

@RedBlocks: No it's not! If a game has turn-based battles, it cannot be an action-adventure game! Action-adventure games do NOT have turn-based combat! One of the defining traits of an RPG is turn-based combat, and that is a trait reserved ONLY for RPGs! Also, even more reviewers have called it an RPG, and the list of Mario RPG games even lists it as such! Nintendo themselves have been miswording the genre for years now- they did the same with The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild, which they call an RPG on the eShop, despite the fact that that game is NOT an RPG! You can't say that Nintendo claims its not an RPG when they've been miswording the series for years! Turn-based games are solely RPGs, there's no way around that! Yes, some RPGs can be action or real-time combat based as well, but only RPGs can be turn-based! Claiming that it's not an RPG when it absolutely is is incredibly misleading, when many reviewers and other people involved in the industry claiming that the game is indeed an RPG! It's not an action-adventure game whatsoever! The list of Mario RPG games here on Wikipedia also says that it's an RPG, so you can't claim it's not an RPG if multiple sources have said otherwise! Just because Nintendo has intentionally misworded the series for years does NOT make it an action-adventure game! Reviews have been written that have clearly stated that the game is an RPG, and that multiple RPG elements still remain within the game! Not only that, we already reached a consensus on this page to call the game an action-adventure RPG! The current description is NOT correct whatsoever! I assume you don't play a lot of RPGs, so I'll cut you some slack, but still- misleading people like this is NOT a good thing at all! Just saying! Gamerguy94 (talk) 03:48, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

For starters, turn based mechanics are not exclusive to RPGs. Board games are by far the best example demonstrating this; you wouldn’t call Monopoly or Uno RPGs, would you? Second of all, please look at the sources that are being used in this article. The resonating consensus from them is that the game does indeed have RPG elements, but it highly deviates from a traditional one while highly focusing on the action and the adventure aspects. There were two sources before that did call the game an RPG, but they were removed because they were unreliable (WP:VG/S). Alt (talk) 09:28, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@AlternateRT: Board games are different, and cannot be compared to video games at all! The game in question here does NOT deviate from a traditional RPG, because it IS a traditional RPG! ALL RPGs have elements of adventure games to them, are you going to call Final Fantasy an adventure game as well then? How about Dragon Quest? Kingdom Hearts? UnderTale? EarthBound? Pokemon? Mario & Luigi? That makes no sense whatsoever! ALL RPGs also have action elements- if it's a turn-based game, the action of course comes from the turn-based combat! The vast majority of reviewers are paid off to hate on things and mislead people into believing that games are action-adventure games when they're not? Also, which sources were supposedly "unreliable"? That's nothing but total BS, as nothing that was included was even remotely "unreliable"! It was just reviews that were included, and reviews are fair game, no matter where they come from! If someone has played the game, they've formed their own opinion of the game, and as a result can and should be treated as reliably as any other review! Just because YOU don't believe what those reviews said does NOT make the game something that it isn't! It's an RPG- plain and simple! Just because it lacks a small number of RPG elements does NOT mean that it isn't an RPG! Is it not an RPG solely because it doesn't have EXP and level ups? That doesn't matter! I can think of a number of RPGs that have no leveling system whatsoever, and they're still considered RPGs- The Origami King is no different! I can also assure you that there are more than 2 sources that claim that the game is an RPG! The fact that Nintendo themselves have been intentionally miswording the newer Paper Mario games is proof that even Nintendo's own so-called "word" cannot be taken seriously! I mean, they even misworded The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild as an RPG on the eShop, when it is not! Also, if the list of all Mario RPG games lists the game as an RPG, then what's the point in changing it, ESPECIALLY when we already reached a consensus on this very page to call the game an action-adventure RPG and be done with it! If anything, the game is an RPG with action-adventure/puzzle game elements, NOT the other way around! We're supposed to be giving out the right information here- NOT feeding people misinformation by calling the game an action-adventure game when it is not, ESPECIALLY not when the list of Mario RPGs calls it otherwise! If you're going to change the genre to something that it isn't, at LEAST change the rest of the series to the same genre as well! You can't say that a game isn't an RPG when it's in a long-running series of RPGs! It's no less an RPG than the first two games in the series are! If you're going to mislead people into believing the game is something it's not, then changing the entire series to fit the same description is a FAR better idea! By your reasoning, RPGs like Final Fantasy, Dragon Quest, and all the others I mentioned above (plus more) are ALL action-adventure games, when they are not! That is utterly preposterous! I can tell you don't play a lot of RPGs, so I'll cut you some slack on this, but that still doesn't make the current genre listing correct- ESPECIALLY when Nintendo themselves is miswording the series and has been for years! That doesn't make Nintendo correct either, as by their definition, Xenoblade Chronicicles is an action-adventure game, as is Pokemon and every other RPG out there! They're already miswording Breath of the Wild as something it's not- I'm certain they just got the listings mixed up, because Zelda is NOT an RPG series whatsoever! Zelda is an action-adventure game series with RPG elements- NOT Paper Mario! Paper Mario has always been an RPG series ever since the first installment on the N64! Just because certain things have been changed for the better does NOT mean it's no longer an RPG! Come on now! Common sense is key here! Gamerguy94 (talk) 10:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

What we write here is dicated by our reliable sources instead of common sense. Your argument falls under WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and games that have turn-based combat (Invisible, Inc./Gears Tactics come to mind) are not necessarily RPGs. I have reverted your edits on Sticker Stars and Color Splash, which are recognised as games that have significantly deviated from the series' RPG roots. OceanHok (talk) 11:56, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@OceanHok: Really? Even though those so-called "reliable sources" are nothing but closed-minded idiots who don't have a clue as to how to write a legitimate review? Okay then. Also, "common sense" IS actually extremely crucial here, as it's thanks to my common sense that I know that those so-called "reliable sources" are nothing but fake phonies who do nothing but spew lies and misinformation in an attempt to fool people into believing said lies! It's more than just "common sense", it's being open-minded! The vast majority of those so-called "reliable sources" you claim are true are actually nothing but closed-minded idiots who don't even form their own opinions on things, and believe me, you do NOT want to be like those people at all! I'm not saying you are doing that, but it's still a concern that I figured I'd mention! Lastly, you changed/reverted edits on the other games just because you refuse to believe that the games are still RPGs, and refuse to accept that Nintendo is intentionally miswording the series? That makes NO sense whatsoever! The list of Mario RPGs here on Wikipedia calls the games RPGs, so you doing that is EXTREMELY misleading! You can't change anything when another page on Wikipedia (which was made via the same things that this page, as well as ANY Wikipedia page, are!) has CLEARLY proven otherwise! It states that ALL of the Paper Mario games are RPGs- including Sticker Star, Color Splash, and The Origami King! Why bother misleading readers with constant crap like that when other pages/articles have stated otherwise? Just because you don't like being proven wrong? Okay then. That makes no sense, but it's fine! Still, since the list of Mario RPGs lists The Origami King as an RPG along with Sticker Star and Color Splash, and since Nintendo is miswording the genre of the games and has been for years, that alone is proof that the games are indeed RPGs! Unless you want to change that entire list to label ALL of the Paper Mario games as action-adventure games with RPG elements (which would be a lie), then there's no point in changing anything! Not only that, we already reached a consensus on this page to call the game an action-adventure RPG, so changing it after we've already settled on calling it that isn't really the best idea, as no one else has agreed to that! You can't make edits like that without reaching a general consensus, and the consensus has already been agreed upon to call it an action-adventure RPG, which is still incorrect, but is better than fully lying/misleading fellow readers like that! Those so-called "reliable sources" don't mean a thing when they're nothing but fake phonies! My open-mindedness has helped me realize that! You should try to view things in a similar way as well! Gamerguy94 (talk) 13:14, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think a consensus was ever established in this discussion. Anyway, Sticker Star explicitly dropped its RPG root, a trend that continues with Color Splash. Reviews for all of these games agreed that they barely have any RPG elements, and that they are not RPGs in the same vein as the earlier games. They are at best, action-adventure game with RPG elements (just like Far Cry being a FPS with RPG elements, but not a RPG on its own). I have been repeating myself again and again already. Everything here needs to be supported by reliable sources, not your own judgement. Your personal opinion is definitely not more credible than Nintendo and these gaming journalists. OceanHok (talk) 05:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

@OceanHok: You weren't even part of this discussion until the last couple of days! The consensus on this page was established LONG before you ever got here! Also, it's not my "personal opinion" when it's 100% FACT! Nintendo has misworded the games for years- that's a fact! The games are still RPGs- that's also a fact! Here's another fact- plenty of articles/reviews have confirmed that this game is an RPG, so just because YOU do not believe that it is one, that does NOT mean it is not an RPG! Here are a couple of links to articles/reviews of the game that call it an RPG- read them and then come back to try and convince me that this game is still not an RPG- it won't happen! Therev are plenty more where these come from! https://www.theverge.com/21324614/paper-mario-the-origami-king-review-nintendo-switch. https://www.nintendoenthusiast.com/paper-mario-the-origami-king-rpg-elements-leveling-up/. https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2020/07/paper-mario-the-origami-king-folds-the-usual-rpg-tropes-into-knots/ Also, you should know that I'm solely a facts person- as in I only ever go by the complete and total facts! As such, if what I said here is true (and it is), then that can only mean one thing- that they are the facts! I would not even bother sharing these things here if that was not the case- I assure you! That is why it's not my "personal opinion"- it's the absolute, without a doubt, 100% complete and utter facts! Nintendo themselves cannot even be taken seriously here, because they have been miswording the series for years! Neither can those gaming journalists, as they are 100% paid off to hate on things and spew nothing but lies and nonsense in an attempt to fool the vast majority of people in the world into believing their lies, and unfortunately, it's worked for the most part! However, it hasn't worked on me, and it never will! That's why I actually AM more credible than the typical lying so-called "journalists"! Gamerguy94 (talk) 13:22, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Gamerguy, you're clearly new here so please calm down and read some of the policies and guidelines that govern Wikipedia. It will help avoid/ameliorate conflict in the future and save you the effort of typing out a huge essay that doesn't refute the policy-based arguments that others are making. "Verifiable", "reliable", and "unreliable" have very precise meanings on Wikipedia that are related to their dictionary definitions but more specific. When we say a source is unreliable, we mean that the website (or book or other source) has been deemed not automatically trustworthy by consensus and must meet a higher bar to include in an article. The assertion that Origami King is an RPG fails verifiability because reliable sources do not call it an RPG. Wikipedia does not publish original research; it only includes statements that have been published and verified elsewhere in reliable sources. Your arguments for calling this game an RPG seem to be based on your own observations, your "common sense", and your comparisons to other games, which is the definition of original research. Please take some time to read these policies and guidelines, as well as the resources posted in the Welcome notice on your talk page, as they will help you understand how this community works and how to better contribute to the encyclopedia. Axem Titanium (talk) 09:46, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

@Axem Titanium: Here are 3 reviews of the game that call it an RPG! There are plenty more where this came from, I assure you! Either way, I rest my case! Also, you can't call any of these reviews "unreliable", because for one- they're not, and two- since they are reviews, they are written by people who actually played the game, and as such have been able to confirm the very same things that I did when I played the game! A review is different from a standard article that may be written with no knowledge on the game! A review means that the person who wrote the review played the game, and so they can be taken seriously in a review whether or not the site that they write for is considered reliable or not! With that being said, give these reviews a read and then try and come back and convince me of the same crap about the game not being an RPG by your standards, but it won't work! I am strictly a facts-based person, meaning that I only ever go by information if it's 100% facts! That means that what I say CANNOT be considered "original research", because "original research" is NOT based on facts, whereas what I share is! Just figured you should know that! You ARE correct on one thing though, and that is the case that I am new here! However, that doesn't mean that what I have to say in unviable, as like I already stated- I only share facts! I don't spew lies and nonsense like the vast majority of so-called "gaming journalists" do- oh no! I only share the facts! There's a difference there- a HUGE one! https://www.theverge.com/21324614/paper-mario-the-origami-king-review-nintendo-switch. https://www.nintendoenthusiast.com/paper-mario-the-origami-king-rpg-elements-leveling-up/. https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2020/07/paper-mario-the-origami-king-folds-the-usual-rpg-tropes-into-knots/. Gamerguy94 (talk) 13:22, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

@Gamerguy94: - You really need to calm down and be more concise. Also, please see WP:BRD and WP:3RR (edit warring), which focuses on editing behaviors. I also wanted to mention that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. If there is contradiction between articles, we should check the accuracy of both sides rather than treating any one side as a fact. Wikipedia's content is user-generated and therefore, should not be considered as reliable. I am going to offer a compromise: We list both "action-adventure" and "role-playing" in the infobox (which allows multiple genres to be listed), but keep "action-adventure video game with RPG elements" in the lead paragraph. To be honest, I don't really understand why you insist on calling it an action-adventure RPG when "action-adventure game with RPG elements" pretty much suggests the same thing but we keep it more in line with Nintendo's own product descriptions. Accusing Nintendo, who made the games, of not understanding what they are making is frankly, ridiculous. OceanHok (talk) 15:13, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think you read the linked policies thoroughly. Having firsthand knowledge of a game to write a review does not automatically confer reliability. Asserting that you have facts on your side does not immunize your argument from original research. Being new does not mean we should discount your perspective, certainly, but it does mean that you should familiarize yourself with policies and guidelines so you are better equipped to argue your position. Casting aspersions toward an entire profession does not strengthen your argument. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:18, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Reviewers seem to call it an RPG. The developers aren't the only people who decide what a game is, and frankly using eShop listings to decide genres is absurd. Toa Nidhiki05 15:46, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

@Toa Nidhiki05: - I would like to stress that the status quo for Sticker Star and Color Splash is action-adventure rather than RPG, and I hope you would undid your own edits. Sources (provided above[1][2]) explicitly stated that these two games are not RPGs and confirmed that they are light on RPG elements. For The Origami King, it is a little bit difficult to handle because it is a mashup of genres, RPG being one of them. When in conflict, I don't see any problem with using Nintendo's own product description [3][4][5].

The majority of reviewers make note that the RPG elements are light when there at all. Out of the reviews linked in the article:

• Destructoid: "Most of the RPG pretenses were dropped, morphing the series into a more action-adventure package [...] It might have a lot of the series' long-gone RPG elements stripped out, but it has plenty of personality."
• EGM: "The Origami King is in no discernible way an RPG like the Paper Mario games of yore."
• Game Informer: "Over the years, the Paper Mario series has moved away from traditional stat-based RPG leveling and tried various new mechanics with mixed success, but its lighthearted antics rarely disappoint."
• Gamespot: "Outside battles, The Origami King keeps its RPG aspects light. [...] This fusion of adventure-game exploration and light RPG combat plants it squarely in the shallow end of both pools."
• Gamesradar: "Speaking of combat, those hoping for a return to the Super Mario RPG offerings of Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door will, unfortunately, be disappointed."
• IGN: "The Origami King has several vestigial RPG elements like this."
• Jeuxvideo: "The end of an RPG, the start of an adventure [...] However, note that the RPG aspect of the title seems to be leaving the series more and more, and this episode marks another step in the direction of adventure gaming. [...] If it is more of an adventure game than an RPG, it is nonetheless effective in stealing a few smiles from us, and it is already that."
• Nintendo Life: "Players will just need to reign in their expectations a little and enjoy it for what it is – a funny romp through a series of brilliantly designed set-pieces – rather than the new RPG experience they may have in mind when thinking of The Thousand-Year Door."
• USgamer: "Paper Mario: The Origami King is an action-adventure game, not an RPG, which is sure to disappoint Paper Mario fans waiting for The Thousand Year Door's second coming."
• Venture Beat: "But like more recent releases, Nintendo doesn’t fully commit to the RPG elements."
• VG247: "The latest Paper Mario outing is likely to come under fire for not returning to the RPG mechanics that made the series beloved in the first place – but The Origami King is its best outing in some time, nevertheless."
• Ars Technica: "But it messes with the series' usual RPG trappings so much that it's still finding its footing even as the final credits roll. [...] Even for a series that's always been content to ignore many RPG gameplay tropes, Origami King is not a traditional RPG."

As you can see, the vast majority of reviews, including ones linked in the article as well as those mentioned by Gamerguy above, make some kind of note about how the RPG elements of the game are very slight or not a typical RPG. Most of them do not say so to disparage the game; many of them are positive reviews. But the fact remains that virtually all reviews claim it is not an RPG or its RPG elements are very few. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:18, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

To the last person who responded here who didn't sign their name- you are aware that Nintendo has been miswording the series for years, right? It's not just Paper Mario either! They actually did the same with The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild- a game that they called an RPG on the Nintendo Switch's eShop, when BoTW is NOT an RPG whatsoever! @Toa Nidhiki05 is correct! We should just be calling it an RPG since many reviewers have called the new games that! Misleading readers like this is NOT a good idea! Nintendo's own product description means nothing when they've been miswording the series for almost a decade! Not only that, the Wikipedia page that lists all the Mario RPGs calls Paper Mario: Sticker Star, Color Splash, and The Origami King as RPGs, so they should be called as such here as well! If one page already calls those games and RPG, then it would make sense that this page does as well, correct? I also included 3 reviews that all stated that the game is an RPG, so that's what it is! Gamerguy94 (talk) 16:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Many reviewers do not in fact call it an RPG, as you can see by my post above. Some even explicitly call it NOT an RPG. Please self-revert as you are in danger of WP:3RR. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:33, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

@Gamerguy94: - If one page already calls those games and RPG, then it would make sense that this page does as well, correct? - That's definitely incorrect. I have mentioned why you are incorrect already. If I went ahead and changed the list of Mario RPG article (or remove these games from the list), I don't think you would agree to that, right? Therefore, when treating inconsistencies we should check and verify rather than following one side blindly. (I strongly recommend you to read these guidelines before further editing: Edit warring, discussion behaviors, user-generated content, original research, reliable sources. If you intend to further contribute here but refuse to follow these principles, your edits will be challenged extremely frequently.) OceanHok (talk) 17:31, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

For the Mario RPG games article, the best approach is to split it into two (Paper Mario and Mario & luigi). That should solve the problem we have right now. Paper Mario has proven itself to be a flexible franchise that the original author probably didn't anticipate. OceanHok (talk) 17:40, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

@Axem Titanium: According to those reviews, the ONLY major RPG element that the game is lacking is a traditional EXP and level-up system, even though the game DOES technically have one- it's just a non-traditional one! By doing battles and getting more confetti (which battles is the best way of getting confetti in the game, as you get the most from doing so) and coins, you gain access to more powerful weapons/attacks, as well as better accessories (which are pretty much the return of badges), thus making Mario stronger and effectively "leveling him up"! The vast majority of reviewers are paid off to not even mention that! However, the 3 I sent you are legitimate reviews that understand that, and as a result they can be taken seriously- UNLIKE the other reviewers- just like I can! That's not "original research" either- that's knowledge that only comes from playing the game, which is why it's 100% reliable! Also, trying to intimidate me by telling me that I'm in danger of WP:3RR just because you're upset that I'm right and you're wrong is NOT the way to do things- I assure you! I am 100% fact based, which means that I acnnot BE wrong, as I only go by the honest facts! I do research into these things on my own- legitimate research mind you- NOT original research! Why you continue to refuse to accept that 99.9% of reviewers are entirely paid off to lie about these things is beyond me! Also, you are correct in assuming that I would not agree to you changing the article listing the Mario RPG games whatsoever! However, I WOULD agree to it if you went back and changed ALL of the Paper Mario games to list them as action-adventure games with RPG elements, as since we're already misleading people into believing lies that the newer games are not RPGs as a result of this totally asinine preposterousness, then we may as well continue to do that by changing the whole damn series listing to the same thing! Of course, YOU likely wouldn't agree to THAT, now would you? Lastly, Nintendo as a whole gets its- it's just a few people who don't get it! Bill Trinen does not work directly with the Paper Mario series, which means that him calling the series an "action-adventure" series is entirely irrelevant! Kensuke Tanabe- despite being the lead producer on the series, also does not get it, as he misunderstood what Shigeru Miyamoto said years ago and continues to do so today! Tanabe is an incompetent idiot who should've been fired from working on the series (or at the very least moved to greener pastures) years ago! Tanabe is easily one of the most asinine producers in all of gaming, and his statements cannot be taken seriously either! Everyone else who has said that the Paper Mario series is no longer an ROG series (including Risa Tabata) only started working on the series in recent years- with either Sticker Star or Color Splash, and thus have no idea as to the earlier games even BEING RPGs! You can't take ANY of them seriously regarding this! I sure as hell don't! Gamerguy94 (talk) 23:00, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

This argument is getting ridiculous. A series can go into any direction. Splinter Cell went from full stealth to action-adventure, Assassin's Creed turned from action-adventure to ARPG. Just because they are part of the same series doesn't mean they are of the same genre. OceanHok (talk) 02:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I think this should pretty clear: Iwata Asks: PM Sticker Star: "Abandoning the RPG Structure". Tanabe: That's right. At first, we were making a lot of individual allies as in a regular RPG, but when we decided to focus on stickers, in order to make a clear change with previous games in the series, it was like we started all over again by throwing out the system—including those characters—that we had made up to that point. Iwata: You purposefully threw out the basic RPG structure. Tanabe: Yes. We decided to make it so that players would face stronger opponents by throwing out the whole concept of experience points and levels in favor of gradually gathering stronger stickers. I had actually been thinking for a long time that I wanted to get rid of the RPG experience points. In the Freshly-Picked Tingle's Rosy Rupeeland28 game, which Kudo-san and I worked on together, the player-character didn't develop at all. We adopted a system whereby they solved everything with money. Now, I've not played SS or OK here, but I read the gameplay sections of both games, the wall of text above and a few other things, and I see no reason why this same philosophy isn't applied here; there's no EXP, you are simply gaining currency to buy better gear for battle. It has elements of an RPG but it is not an RPG. --Masem (t) 05:12, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@Masem: You're believing Kensuke Tanabe- a person whom I've already said cannot be taken seriously whatsoever! If you had done the proper research- like I have- you would know that Tanabe misunderstood what Shigeru Miyamoto said and that all of the changes in Sticker Star and Color Splash was solely because Tanabe didn't realize what Miyamoto ACTUALLY meant until after Color Splash came out! Miyamoto had only suggested some changes- nothing major- because Sticker Star was a handheld game as opposed to a console game. In fact, those changes were supposed to only be for Sticker Star, but even Miyamoto himself called the demo he played of Sticker Star after it was changed to be sticker-focused "boring". Even Miyamoto didn't like it! Tanabe- being an idiot- didn't realize any of those things until after Color Splash came out, but Color Splash could've and likely would've gone back to being the same style as the first two games had Tanabe realized it! However, Tanabe never realized that. He DID- however- realize it in time to add in a lot of elements from the older games into The Origami King! Also, your statement that there is no EXP in the game is 100% incorrect- much like how Color Splash had paint hammer scraps that served as EXP, The Origami King uses confetti as EXP! By collecting more confetti you save more Toads within the game world, which in turn opens up more shops in Toad Town. Those shops allow you to purchase stronger equipment, which serves as leveling up within the game! So, just because it isn't a TRADITIONAL EXP system does NOT mean that there is no EXP system! Also, RPGs do not need EXP in order to be an RPG! In fact, there are a number of RPGs that have no EXP system whatsoever, but still have ways of growing stronger by gaining better equipment and the like, which is EXACTLY what The Origami King does! Those other games are still called RPGs despite that, and so is Paper Mario! That right there is the honest facts! It's not "original research" either- it's real, legitimate research that I've done over the years! I'm a person that ONLY goes by facts, which means that I would not even be here saying these things if they were not 100% fact! When you do as much research as I do, you learn to be able to tell the difference between the facts, and lies, and these are the facts! Just because I'm right does NOT give you or anyone else the ability to call what I know "fake", or "unreliable", when I CLEARLY know more about this than anyone else here does! Tanabe is an idiot who should've been kicked off of producing the Paper Mario series years ago! He thinks EVERY RPG is an action-adventure game! That is NOT something to take seriously- EVER! THAT is why I make sure I check my facts at least 50 000 times before I share it with others! You should be thanking me for doing such great research! Gamerguy94 (talk) 06:24, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

You are dismissing Tanabe, the producer on both Sticker Star and this game? That's seriously a problem.

And I really really think you're putting too much weight on "EXP is present, it must be an RPG!". Where I understand the fundamental change (and again, I'm going by what I'm reading, the last PM game I played was 1000yr Door) was that up to SPM was that you has experience points that lead to leveling that include increasing your character attributes, which is more a fundamental part of an RPG, not the EXP itself, as you got to decide to focus on attack or defense or special (as I recall). Whereas with SS and forward, there's no attributes but based on the items you collect that affect your attack strength, and you can can only get more powerful items with more coins. That's a mechanic come to nearly any genre, not limited to RPG. It's the lack of character attributes that is why this isn't an RPG. (But again, this is from reading about gameplay, not having experienced it). --Masem (t) 06:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I think this discussion has gotten derailed by one editor who does not seem to be here to build an encyclopedia, who instead wants to browbeat the other editors into giving up. By my count, Maxeto0910, OceanHok, AlternateRT, RedBlocks, Blsupr, Masem, and myself all are in support of calling the game an action-adventure and many support the current compromise wording "action-adventure game with role-playing game elements". The only opposed are Gamerguy94 and Toa Nidhiki05. Toa made the unsupported assertion that "Reviewers seem to call it an RPG", to which I responded with quotes from the reviews on this article that indicate the opposite. Gamerguy seems to be repeating himself more and more with every new essay he posts and also calling the developers who made the game idiots who can't be trusted. I think the consensus is clear. Axem Titanium (talk) 08:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

At this point Gamerguy94 has only been repeating the same points over an over in very long essays with no extra bearing to them. In essence they boil down to:

• Nintendo mislabels their games all the time, ergo they are liars whom cannot be trusted.
  • They even point to Zelda BotW as being mislabeled as an RPG. This point however is moot considering that's only the case in the US eShop. Outside the US, RPG is not used to describe this game.
• Turn-based mechanics are an RPG-exclusive mechanic, and any game that has them is automatically an RPG
  • I refuted this by pointing that tabletop and card games have turn-based mechanic, which doesn't make them RPGs. OnceanHork even provided samples of other video games with turn-based mechanics that aren't RPGs ((Invisible, Inc. and Gears Tactics). This was only ignored by them.
• Mainstream reviewers are all paid off by publishers and thus are also liars whom cannot be trusted.
  • No reason provided as to why. They are just passing this opinion as fact.

It also doesn't seem like Gamerguy94 has been reading any of the linked policies many of us have been providing. Alt (talk) 10:55, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@Axem Titanium: Ha! Really? I'M the one who doesn't seem to be here to build an encyclopedia? Good one! Sorry buddy, but I am MR. ENCYCLOPEDIA! My BRAIN IS an encyclopedia, and has been ever since I was a child! Compared to you, I'm a bloody genius! I realize that this is your feeble attempt to try and bring me down with your pathetic, sorry excuse of a petty insult, but I hate to break it to you, but it isn't going to work on me! It's 100% CLEAR that I am easily the smartest person here! Why? Because UNLIKE the vast majority of folks here, I actually know what I'm talking about! To you, I'm pretty much your new "boss"- so to speak! I'm the genius who's using an extremely unbiased, realistic way of making sure that Wikipedia has the most reliable sources out there! Just because YOU are not too keen on that idea does NOT mean it's a bad idea! In fact- it's anything but! When Wikipedia becomes a reliable source, you'll be thanking me for my superb contributions as well as for my brilliance! That said, I'm still willing to help work out a resolution here- I just ask that you take me seriously from now on! Hell, as long as you treat me respectfully, I won't even ask you to call me "boss"! I may be a genius, but that doesn't mean I'm heartless or egotistical in regards to me not wanting to work with others! Hell no! If that was the case, I wouldn't even be here to begin with! I'm more than willing to work alongside a bunch of passive-aggressive people if it means making Wikipedia a better place! You can change, they can change! It's all good! If you apo0logze for your attempts to bring me down with the usage of such pathetic "insults" (if they can even be called that), and admit that you were wrong and that I am right, I'll forgive you for all this! Sound like a plan? Gamerguy94 (talk) 23:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@Axem Titanium: Tabletop and card games cannot be compared with video games, and so your so-called "statement" that even though they are turn-based doesn't make them RPGs is not only asinine, but totally fake as well! In other words, it's 100% moot! Also, turn-based tactical games like the ones listed above, but also including games like Advance Wars and Code Name STEAM are offshoots of the RPG genre, and so they fall under the same category as RPGs as a result of that fact! However, you CLEARLY never realized that I also said that not every RPG is turn-based, just like how not every RPG has EXP! Monster Hunter is the perfect example of that- it's an RPG (technically action-RPG, as it's not turn-based) that has it where instead of getting stronger by gaining experience and leveling up, you instead get stronger by purchasing and/or crafting stronger weapons and equipment- which in turn boosts the player's stats and makes them stronger- giving them more health, attack power, defense, etc! Paper Mario: The Origami King is EXACTLY like that! Monster Hunter is still considered an RPG despite that fact, so why isn't Paper Mario: The Origami King (ESPECIALLY when the ONLY major RPG element that the game sort of lacks is a traditional EXP/leveling up system! That's what makes it like Monster Hunter to begin with!) being considered the same? Hell, ALL of the new Paper Mario games are the game way- it's just Origami King does it the best! Gamerguy94 (talk) 07:20, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Hey, can you stop wasting the time of other editors? Nobody is listening to you because you keep regurgitating your thinly-built "arguments" (I can't even call them arguments, since none of them are in line with any kind of policy and come off as a "the sky is blue" situation) with no change in them. You refuse to co-operate and aren't wishing to have a civil conversation, insisting that everybody here is an idiot and lobbying weak insults at them. Find something productive to do with your time. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 20:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@Masem: I'm "dismissing" Tanabe because he's an idiot! He doesn't know a damn thing about RPGs in general, and neither do you! If the last Paper Mario game you played was The Thousand-Year Door, that makes sense! Tanabe has been a producer on the series since Super Paper Mario- NOT TTYD! In other words- he's the guy responsible for a lot of the crap going on with the Paper Mario fanbase! I gave you factual proof that Tanabe is NOT to be trusted whatsoever, yet you continue to refuse to accept it out of the fact that your ego prevents you from accepting that you and the vast majority of other people are 100% wrong on everything regarding Paper Mario! The Paper Mario fanbase hates Tanabe and they know damn well that he is an incapable producer who should've moved on years ago. They also blame Shigeru Miyamoto when it's actually not Miyamoto's fault at all! Miyamoto may have made suggestions, but the team at Intelligent Systems did not have to take them entirely into consideration! The same happened with Mario & Luigi: Dream Team- Miyamoto had suggestions with that game as well, and AlphaDream (bless them. R.I.P) didn't take everything that Miyamoto said into consideration, and the game was still fine! Tanabe took what Miyamoto's "suggestions" as something that 100% HAD to happen- which was not the case whatsoever! Not only that, Tanabe misunderstood those suggestions as well! A Paper Mario expert like myself knows these things! If you have not played a game in the series since TTYD, then that makes you instantly unqualified for any further reverts or information changes on this game or series as a whole! Also, once again, you continue with the whole "RPGs MUST have EXP" crap, when I've already told you that that is NOT true! Yes, most RPGs do have EXP, but I can think of multiple RPGs off the top of my head right now that have no EXP system and are still considered RPGs! Final Fantasy X, Mario + Rabbids: Kingdom Battle (another game on the list of Mario RPG games- where the Paper Mario series is as well)- which is more of a tactical RPG, but it's still an RPG nonetheless, Dark Souls, Chrono Cross, Final Fantasy: Mystic Quest, and Monster Hunter, which is the best example to use here out of all of them! There are others out there as well, but those are the ones I can think of right now! Monster Hunter is 100% an RPG (albeit more of an action RPG, as it is not a turn-based game), but it has no EXP system whatsoever! Instead of leveling up, the player gets stronger by purchasing, crafting, or finding stronger weapons and equipment that in turn gives them higher stats! It's still an RPG, but with no EXP system! Paper Mario: The Origami King is damn near identical to Monster Hunter in that regard- with the only exception being that it's a turn-based RPG instead of an action RPG! An action RPG does NOT mean "action-adventure game with RPG elements" either! It means that it's a game that takes elements from both genres of games and combines them into one, which is fair to say that the 3 most recent Paper Mario games are! Hell, the same can even be said about Super Paper Mario! Either way, Tanabe is NOT even worth taking seriously whatsoever! He's an idiot, and should be treated as such! No one who was involved with the first 2 games was involved with the newer games! The director of the first two games- Ryota Kawade- was the chief director on Super Paper Mario as well, and he's the guy who gets it! He's also the guy who could come back in and fix everything! However, you can't say that the reviewers are correct when the vast majority of them are paid off to constantly hate great things! There's no point in taking their word for it at all! Not only that, Nintendo themselves have been intentionally miswording the series because that's what Tanabe prefers to call the series, but he is NOT correct! By Tanabe's definition, even Paper Mario 64 and TTYD are action-adventure games, even though anyone with a brain and common sense knows that that's nothing but a big, fat lie! Tanabe should've been fired years ago- the entire Paper Mario fanbase agrees with me on that! Just because YOU don't doesn't mean it's not true! Besides, you don't even know enough about RPGs to know a damn thing about why I am 100%, without a doubt, correct in knowing that the ENTIRE Paper Mario series is still an RPG! I have given you more than enough information to prove you incorrect many times by now! It's time you just accepted that and moved on! Gamerguy94 (talk) 11:02, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@Axem Titanium: Oh the irony! You accuse ME of "bludgeoning" everyone else, when in reality it is YOU who are trying to "bludgeon" the two people who actually understand this whole damn thing, into believing whatever lies and crap you're spewing! Well, unfortunately for you, my open-mindedness prevents me from being swayed by idiotic people who do just that, and it's also what helps me to know that you are all incorrect! You are also 100% oblivious to the fact that there was already a consensus on this very page in which we agreed to call the game an "action-adventure RPG" and call it a day, which I agreed to solely for the sake of ending the asinine stupidity coming from everybody else! Just because you and everyone else besides Toa and myself are closed-minded to the point that you believe every little thing that the so-called "reviewers" (who are nothing more but fellow closed-minded fools who are paid off to spew their stupidity with the masses! Figures!) say when the open-minded people know better then to believe those damn idiots! Wikipedia may not be a reliable source, but we can make it a reliable source! In order to do that, you need to stop believing the lies that the "reviewers" are spewing and realize that they are nothing more than idiotic fools who couldn't write a legitimate review even if their life depended on it, as well as start believing the open-minded people like myself who know better! If you knew what I know, you'd damn well know that what I say is true! However, being closed-minded has prevented you from having the common sense to realize that, and as a result you resort to being nothing but a keyboard warrior who is trying to convince everybody of the lies that you believe being true! My thoughts never sway- they hold true and always will! That's how I became successful in life, as well as why I will be a VERY successful editor here, because I'm all for making Wikipedia into a fully, 100% reliable source! In order for that to happen though, what I say needs to be taken not only seriously, but also as fact, because that's just what it is- fact! I don't share things like this if it's not fact! Whatever your feeble attempts to convince me otherwise are, they aren't going to work! They haven't worked now, and they never will work! Just because I've done more research on this subject than anyone else here has does NOT give you the reason to talk down to me or try and convince other editors that I'm wrong, when I am not! Open-minded people can NEVER be wrong! Being open-minded is the key to being successful in life, as well as an editor on Wikipedia! So, let's do our best to make Wikipedia more reliable! That's what I'm doing, and I don't appreciate closed-minded fools trying to undo that! Wikipedia SHOULD be more reliable! I know I'm not the only one who thinks that! It's time you started thinking that too, my friend! Gamerguy94 (talk) 11:02, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@Masem: In regards to Super Paper Mario- that is the ONLY Paper Mario game that isn't really an RPG! It does have some elements of RPGs, yes, but it has FAR less than Sticker Star, Color Splash, and The Origami King do combined! You actually do NOT get to choose between more HP and attack power per level up in Super Paper Mario, as it alternates between the two- going from HP to attack power- of the course of the entire game! That's not getting to choose! You can still choose to use weaker stickers/cards/attacks in the newer games- you'll just have a more difficult time if you do decide to do so! It's far from traditional, but it is still an RPG! The Origami King especially can be compared with Monster Hunter- as I stated earlier! Monster Hunter is an RPG without an EXP/leveling system in which you get stronger solely by acquiring stronger weapons and armor that give the player more stats and whatnot! The Origami King does just that as well! Monster Hunter is still considered an RPG despite lacking an EXP/leveling system, so why isn't The Origami King being considered one even though it does the EXACT same thing? Oh, that's right- because the "reviewers" say so! Look buddy- I didn't make it this far in life because I believe that reviewers are 100% correct- oh no. I made it this far in life because I know better than to believe a single damn word that those so-called "reviewers" say! Those "reviewers" you think are true couldn't write a proper review if their life depended on it! I know that much- YOU do not! It's time to wake up and smell the roses- by which I mean stop believing the lies that the paid-off reviewers are saying! Really. That's not a good way of doing things- just putting that out there! Gamerguy94 (talk) 11:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@Axem Titanium: Here you are spewing crap out of your ass again! You just said that outside of the US, Breath of the Wild is not being called an RPG on the eShop. Well, guess what? Outside of the US and Japan, Paper Mario The Origami King is being called an RPG, which means that the entire point of mine that you've labeled as "moot" is actually NOT "moot"! Instead, it proves that what I'm saying is true, as that is the factual evidence that Nintendo is miswording the series- thus confirming my claims and proving them as correct while making yours very, VERY wrong! Talk about ironic! Those so-called "reviewers" you trust so damn much are also totally oblivious to that fact- hence why they are closed-minded as all hell! Thanks for proving my point as correct without realizing it buddy- I appreciate it! Gamerguy94 (talk) 11:21, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

You are putting up walls of text, disparaging the people that actually worked on the game and claiming they have no idea what they are talking about, the same for game journalists and what they are talking about, and against experienced editors. We go by the sources, and its pretty clear that "RPG" is not a primary genre for Origami King. It has elements of an RPG but by design and by end result, it is not an RPG, from both the developer side and journalist side. We can't go by "your" word. We need sources. --Masem (t) 13:08, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@Masem: I've given out plenty of reliable sources! It's just that most of the idiots here have refused to believe/accept it or were removed due to certain people's closed-minded egotistical behaviours pf always thinking they're right when they're not!! That's not my fault! I gave sources, so I'm not giving out anymore! They should still be here! Gamerguy94 (talk) 14:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Knock it off already. Be WP:CIVIL in discussions, nobody is going to listen/take you seriously with your belligerent name-calling. Wikipedia articles are structured based on what information is verifiable through third-party sources; saying "dude trust me it's true" doesn't mean anything. Your sources were removed for not following the criteria for what makes a reliable source, which editors have told you multiple times already. Stop writing massive walls of text, stop calling other editors "idiots", and stop adding unreliable sources to the page. If you aren't willing to follow site policy, then you likely shouldn't worry about editing Wikipedia pages. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 15:09, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@Namcokid47: No, my resources were perfect! They were solely removed because of the salty-ass idiots who refuse to accept the truth, and nothing else! They followed the criteria 100%! Oh well, stupid is as stupid does! My resources are perfect- flawless! Also, "belligerent name-calling"? Really? Ha! Nice one, kid! Sorry, but I'm not a name-caller! As someone who's both older and wiser than you, I think it's safe to say who REALLY knows their stuff here (and it's NOT you)! I'm an expert in this department! It's clear that I know more than anyone else here combined does! Gamerguy94 (talk) 14:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd advise that you read WP:NOTGETTINGIT, WP:RS, and WP:CIVIL (which considering your disruptive behavior here, I assume you haven't). You clearly aren't here to have a civil discussion on a (to be blunt) rather pointless issue, instead choosing to lob ineffective insults at other editors. Stop being disruptive. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 15:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Allow me to throw my two cents into the ring here. There is a compelling debate going on here about whether or not one of the primary genres for The Origami King is an RPG. In my opinion why I do believe the game has RPG elements and the series as a whole should still be remembered as an RPG, RPG is more of a secondary genre compared to it being an Action-Adventure which it has always been called. Here are my reasons.

1 - Non Turn-Based Battles) While yes, one of the most compelling evidence for this game to be primarily an RPG is due to the turn-base battles, Kensuke Tanabe had developed the battles with the idea of a Rubik's Cube, meaning he willing made the battles more puzzle like than RPG. Not to mention this is the second game in the series besides Super Paper Mario to have overworld battles, whick is the form of the Papier-mâché giants. In fact this a quote from IGN, "Each battle is essentially a puzzle that you have to solve before executing your attacks."

2 - Lacking in Experience Points) Despite many pleas from original trilogy fans to make battles more important and meaningful, Tanabe has refused to add experience points, even taking out the surrogate points from Color Splash. One of RPG's biggest points is to have reason for battles, with the game's focus on overworld exploration and no real reason to engage in normal battles, it feels the series is trying to stay away from role-playing.[6] [7]

3 - Nintendo's Unwillingness) During an Iwata Asks Interview covering Sticker Star, it explained how the development team for the series want to stray away from RPG elements and wants the series to become something new. This is a section of the article, "Tanabe: That's right. At first, we were making a lot of individual allies as in a regular RPG, but when we decided to focus on stickers, in order to make a clear change with previous games in the series, it was like we started all over again by throwing out the system—including those characters—that we had made up to that point. Iwata: You purposefully threw out the basic RPG structure. Tanabe: Yes. We decided to make it so that players would face stronger opponents by throwing out the whole concept of experience points and levels in favor of gradually gathering stronger stickers. I had actually been thinking for a long time that I wanted to get rid of the RPG experience points. In the Freshly-Picked Tingle's Rosy Rupeeland28 game, which Kudo-san and I worked on together, the player-character didn't develop at all. We adopted a system whereby they solved everything with money. This time, we decided to do everything with stickers. We decided on a system whereby in battle, instead of attack commands, you fight by using the stickers you have gathered in the field or bought in town". This further backed up by more recent interviews explaining the restrictions where the don't want create brand new characters like the one's in the original trilogy. This is why Nintendo didn't add the RPG status on their website, because they for some reason don't want the series to be an rpg anymore.

• 4 - Optional Argument) This just some useful points which aren't official. On the 28th July, a user on GameFaqs made a poll asking this exact question. Roughly 100 people voted and the result was 70/30 not in favour of calling Origami King an RPG. It appears there are a lot of people that don't like where the series is heading, with some even making petitions for the removal of Tanabe from Nintendo, which is unfair. And for the part where reliable sources have called the game an RPG, they aren't the word of gospel, and judging by Nintendo's stance on the Paper Mario series, they will likely continue to stray away from RPG elements. Captain Galaxy (talk) 15:12, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I should also add I much prefer the newer games. Captain Galaxy (talk) 15:13, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I have once again reverted Gamerguy's edits at Sticker Stars and Color Splash. Your edits are contested and therefore, the status quo should stay until this discussion is finished, and any attempt to change the status quo for these two pages should be considered as vandalism. OceanHok (talk) 15:43, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@Captain Galaxy: While all of those are good points, unfortunately, none of them are even remotely true! To answer them in order, here's my responses to each point from 1st to 4th:

1 Tanabe is an idiot, and nothing he says can be taken seriously whatsoever. Pretty much every single Paper Mario fan knows that he misunderstood Shigeru Miyamoto's suggestions and that Miyamoto didn't actually force any changes within the game, as his suggestions were more like "I wonder if it would be possible to make a Paper Mario game with only Mario series characters, and if so, how would that work", which Tanabe took as "get rid of ALL original characters and replace them with nothing but Toads, Toads, and more Toads- all of the nearly identical variety", which was NOT what Miyamoto said at all! It's Tanabe's fault, and those mistakes should've cost him his producer's job on ALL the recent Paper Mario games from Sticker Star and onwards!

2 The games are NOT lacking in Experience Points- except for Sticker Star- but even then the coins you get in battle were technically EXP! Color Splash had the paint hammer scraps that served as EXP and The Origami King has confetti- the confetti serves the same function as the hammer scraps, but in an even better way! You get the most confetti by battling, which means that it's a viable reward for winning battles- ESPECIALLY later on in the game when overworld confetti becomes even more scarce than it already was!

3 It's not "NINTENDO'S unwillingness"- it's Tanabe's unwillingness! The man hates RPGs, and as I already stated in response #1, Tanabe is an idiot who cannot be taken seriously whatsoever. Why he is still a major producer at Nintendo is beyond me, as everything he touches turns to crap! Those petitions to get him removed are NOT unfair- they are 100% justified, and rightfully so! He SHOULD be removed after all of the constant crap he's done with Nintendo games like Paper Mario and Metroid Prime: Federation Force (which wasn't even a bad game- I'm more so talking about the extremely negative reception the game had upon its announcement! THOSE are among the MANY reasons as to why Kensuke Tanabe should NEVER be a producer on not just any Nintendo games ever again, but on games as a whole ever again! If he is not fired ASAP, there WILL be hellfire and rioting- I assure you!

4 That poll is nothing but BS! Why? Because the people who hate the newer games are the vocal minority, meaning that there's literally NO CHANCE WHATSOEVER that 70/30 voted that the game is NOT an RPG, because the vast majority of those so-called "voters" would've voted multiple times, thus making the numbers seem higher than they actually are! The TRUE fans are the vast majority that loves ALL the games- which includes myself! My open-mindedness allows me to see those lying fake "fans" from miles away! You can't consider a poll like that to be actually legitimate, because it's not! Plain and simple! Polls like that mean nothing in the overall scheme of things, and I don't give a rat's ass about those whiny, entitled bratty children whatsoever! Neither should you! Gamerguy94 (talk) 21:29, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Dude, this isn't a soap box. The man made the game whether you like him or not, meaning he knows what his game is or isn't. Number 4 was optional. Please calm down. Captain Galaxy (talk) 21:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@OceanHok: Yeah- reverting my edits just because I'm right and you don't like that! Figures! It seems like you DON'T want Wikipedia to become a legitimately reliable source, because reverting the edits of the person who actually knows these things is just making you look even worse than you already are! How would you feel if I went onto every page you've ever edited and undid all of YOUR hard work? Huh? Of course, I'd never do such a thing, as I'm not a dick, but the question/point still remains! I'm sure you'd feel pretty pissed off, wouldn't you? Yep- I figured as much! For that reason, you shouldn't be reverting the edits of the expert in this department! Use your brain from now on, man! Come on now! Don't let your closed-mindedness/ego get in the way of accepting the truth! That wouldn't be good at all! Gamerguy94 (talk) 21:29, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Leak

Seeing some of the edits being deleted as 'we don't discuss leaks' - is there any reason for this? Surely the fact the game was leaked is notable enough to include? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.12.33.240 (talk) 16:28, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

In the long term most leaks of a day or so really don't matter and we don't really include. The type of leak that we'd include would be something like in the case of The Last of Us 2 where the story leak months ahead of the game's release got some players upset and which led in part to its review bombing, so it had to be mentioned. This leak here did nothing to the game's reception so its not worth the mention. --Masem (t) 17:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Or something like Color Splash in which Nintendo screwed up and accidentally allowed anyone that preloaded the game to play the game 2 weeks early until the mistake was noticed and the option to preload was removed.--69.157.254.92 (talk) 04:37, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

An actual, constructive discussion on genre

I think it's become apparent there is some controversy as to the genre of this game. Some sources have called it an RPG (The Verge, Ars Technica, GameStop, The Independent, Slant, New York Daily News), some are mixed (CNET, RPGamer, Nintendo World Report) while others haven't (Washington Post, Nintendo Life). Seems to me the logical solution is to not lead off with a genre and to instead explain the genre in the second paragraph, alongside the gameplay. Toa Nidhiki05 13:46, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

There definitely should be no issue calling it "an action-adventure game with some RPG elements" as that matches nearly all of the sources (particularly the developers' stance), without introducing OR. --Masem (t) 13:56, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

That's synthesizing sources. We have a ton of sources that straight-up call it an RPG, no holds barred, no qualifications. In fact, it seems to be more than the number that say it isn't. A definitive RPG site, RPGamer, didn't say it's not an RPG, for example - that's pretty big. And basically the only objection I've seen is no traditional EXP system. Toa Nidhiki05 13:59, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I think we should hold bars here that just because a source is reliable, doesn't mean that what they say is always true. It's true that Nintendo will try to add certain RPG elements to please older fans, but their stance for a while now, is to stray away from the series' role-playing roots, whether or not that stance is good. Tanabe since Sticker Star has been trying to avoid experience points and to just keep providing new experiences to new fans. It is safe to say if we get another game in the series, say 2024, Nintendo will try to further stray from being an RPG Captain Galaxy (talk) 15:20, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

We don't judge the genre of a game based off what future games might be in 2024, we judge them off of what they are - and a lot of, if not most sources, indicate it as an RPG. Toa Nidhiki05 15:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@Toa Nidhiki05: While I wasn't using my prediction as a standing point, if it was Nintendo's and Tenabe's word vs internet news websites, there shouldn't be a debate. With Tenabe's want for something new, Nintendo's policies for the series including no unique characters & no mention of role-playing on their websites and also the series only having 2 out of 6 games with a somewhat traditional RPG crtieria, it should be safe to say The Origami King isn't primarily an RPG. Captain Galaxy (talk) 15:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Except it's not safe to say, because most sources label it as one. eShop listings and website ads aren't really relevant. Toa Nidhiki05 15:50, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

But we do need to take Tanabe's statement with a lot of importance here. They developed the game, they know what they were trying to make. That it kept some RPG element to lead some sources to call it an RPG is fine. Not that of the sources you have there, only RPGSite is a game-oriented site that is providing a review. (The gamespot article is an update, its review even speaks to "keeping its RPG elements light"). Again, not saying the other sources are to be rejected, but this is where looking at the sources that actually cover video games 24/7 should be a first priority. --Masem (t) 15:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Their opinion only goes so much. The RPG label appears to be present in a majority of sources; the eShop listing is no more relevant here than for Breath of the Wild, which is listed as an RPG there. The only actual "RPG elements" that seem to be absent are a form of leveling and experience points, both of which have rough analogues in the form of HP up hearts and confetti bag expansion for the former and coins for the latter. Toa Nidhiki05 15:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

When RS are not in agreement with each other, I am more inclined to take the stance of the developer, who made the game and therefore, should have the highest credibility among them all. Sources seem to acknowledge the presence of RPG mechanics but agrees that it was not the game's main focus, then "xxx game with role-playing game elements" seems to align with that agreement fairly well. OceanHok (talk) 16:08, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Thats your interpretation of combining multiple sources into one view that isn't shared by them, which is textbook WP:SNYTH. Most sources call it an RPG, without qualifiers. The idea it isn't one because of an eShop listing is silly. Toa Nidhiki05 16:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

No, that's standard editing practices; using WP:WEIGHT to judge which sources are the more appropriate ones to use. In this case, while we do have a fair number of sources, as I've noted, most that seem to use RPG solely are from sources that do not cover video games as their sole focus, while the VG-centric ones avoid using RPG as the label. Per WEIGHT, we'd want to lean more on those. SYNTH would come into play to say (if there was an absence of any mention of RPG in any source) that the action of collecting coins to buy better equipment it became an RPG. --Masem (t) 16:53, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

You don't have any evidence of that. In fact, I seem to be the only one who has actually examined the sources. "Action-adventure with RPG and puzzle mechanics" is not what any outlet is describing this game as, let alone a substantial minority or a majority. We go off of what reliable sources say, not what Wikipedia editors say. Toa Nidhiki05 17:43, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

And calling it a RPG is even worse because it is a claim that is being actively rejected by some of the RS, which meant that using this as a description is WP:UNDUE. The description was not combining what multiple sources have said, but instead, it summarized what individual sources have said, which is different. If any of the RS states that it has RPG gameplay mechanics, then phrases like "with role-playing game elements" or "with role-playing game mechanics" are true and properly sourced, because this is a fact instead of an opinion from RS. OceanHok (talk) 16:58, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

By some, not all, and not most. By that logic, "action-adventure" is being actively rejected by the majority of outlets that don't refer to the game as that. Toa Nidhiki05 17:43, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Why is a news outlet passing word considered the same as the words of the company and developers of the people that made the game? Shouldn't we be trusting the words of the developers more? Also in regards to Breath of the Wild, I honestly believe that was just poor editing. The only mention of it being an RPG is on the Switch version of the American Website. On the actual eShop, the UK website and on the Wii U version of the American Website, there is no mention. Captain Galaxy (talk) 17:03, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

• I've seen debates like this where the sources disagree. As a few statements of principle:
  • We should trust third party sources over first party marketing. (Wikipedia:Verifiability)
  • Significant coverage about the contentious issue shows that a reliable source is doing higher quality fact-checking.
  • Passing mentions show less attention to fact-checking, and might just be thoughtlessly repeating first party marketing.
• Wikipedia is built on reliable third party sources as much as possible. We absolutely do use primary sources (and primary content repeated in secondary sources), but with a lot of caution. We're not a promotional service that's supposed to just repeat whatever a company wants us to repeat. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:12, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

This is the second time that Toa has made the assertion that "a majority of sources call the game an RPG", which is simply not true. I did a far more thorough source analysis here and showed that a majority actually call it NOT an RPG or a game with very few RPG elements. Please stop suggesting otherwise and using it as the basis of your argument. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

The sources however, shouldn't be used to determine what genre a game is. This isn't a Super Smash Bros. situation where Sakurai states his series isn't a fighting game series but everyone else does, because not only does Nintendo market it as such, but Sakurai has acknowledged that it can be seen as such. With Origami King, not only has the developer refused to acknowledge the rpg elements of the game, but even Nintendo refuses to market it as such. As such, if sources are in fact wishy washy of what to call the game as they divert from the company, why are we using them? Captain Galaxy (talk) 18:37, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Your analysis is, with all due respect, absurdly lacking. Pretty much all of your sources don't say it's not an RPG - they say it has moved away from some elements.

• EGM says it is "no discernible way an RPG like the Paper Mario games of yore". Notice the qualifier: like the old games. It's not an RPG in the sense the old games are. It also never once uses the term "action adventure"
• Game Informer simply says the game lacks the traditional RPG stable of stat-based leveling, not that it isn't an RPG. It also never once says the game is an action-adventure game.
• GameSpot says "Outside battles, The Origami King keeps its RPG aspects light". This is a bizarre statement given battles are the hallmark of an RPG. The review says it's a fusion of action-adventure and RPG. Regardless, another GameSpot link I mentioned noted it's an RPG, and on the game's main page, the genre is listed solely as RPG.
• Jeuxvideo says it's "more of an action-adventure than an RPG", but doesn't say it isn't both.
• Nintendo Life solely associated "RPG" with "has experience points", which is a ridiculous standard. It also never once uses the term "action-adventure".
• Venture Beat never once uses the term "action adventure"

As I listed in my analysis however - which, unlike yours, included sources from all perspectives - many reviewers outright say it's an RPG, with no qualifiers. In fact, far more than call it an "action-adventure" game. So what are we going by - the majority of sources that call it an RPG, or a minority of a minority that call it an action-adventure? Toa Nidhiki05 18:58, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Also to add on Axem's point, here are some more sources.

• NME
• Washington Post
• Video Games Chronicle

Captain Galaxy (talk) 18:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

• How about this: we chose the genre that most outlets use, then add a footnote explaining the other genres that have been used to describe the game. Would that make people happy? JOEBRO64 19:00, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

  That would seem to be the logical approach. I say we use every reference in Metacritic (91 reviews at the moment), label each review when possible, and then sum them up. Toa Nidhiki05 19:11, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

  "Action-adventure game with elements from role-playing games" IS the compromise agreed to in the discussion above. I'm not particularly interested in weakening that language even further. Right now, one user seems to be suing for their version against the consensus version supported by eight others. The consensus is very clear so I don't know why Toa claiming otherwise. I don't know how this turned into a hostage negotiation. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:34, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

  This whole debacle is definitely going to be on WP:LAME by the time it's over. JOEBRO64 20:20, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

  Oh yeah, definitely. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:21, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

  We should just add it now to save us from humiliation. Captain Galaxy (talk) 20:40, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

  I should also add we have extended this debate over four sections and now this talk page has 3.75 times the bytes of the article we're discussing. Captain Galaxy (talk) 20:50, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Poll for genre

Ok, this is actually driving me around the bend so I want to reach a proper consensus that shouldn't be changed. Below this comment, you can put either Option 1 or Option 2 for the addition of the mention of Role-Playing. If you choose Option 1, then the page will remain as of revision "19:49, 30 July 2020‎" and will say it "is a 2020 action-adventure and role-playing video game". If you choose Option 2, then page will change to the edit made by User:Axem Titanium on "19:26, 30 July 2020‎" mentioning it "is a 2020 action-adventure game with role-playing game elements". By the end of the 7-day period, whatever the consensus is, that will remain the permanent change for this article. Captain Galaxy (talk) 20:12, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Captain Galaxy Do you mind changing it to Option 1 and Option 2? It's not clear what support and oppose mean in this context. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

• For clarity:
  • Option 1: "Paper Mario: The Origami King is a 2020 action-adventure and role-playing video game"
  • Option 2: "Paper Mario: The Origami King is a 2020 action-adventure game with role-playing game elements"

• It's not even action-adventure. Fights are tactical/light-puzzlish and there is no overworld combat or "action". I'd say straight adventure game with role-playing game elements, which also seems to be a well-supported position found in the references listed below. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 21:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

• Action adventure role-playing game - As shown below with the sources, few label it as solely an action-adventure game (only around half of that which call it an RPG), and far more say it is at least a hybrid or partial RPG than not one at all. Out of the 91 Metacritic sources, 51 label it an RPG or a hybrid RPG while only 14 label it as action-adventure. Virtually no critics labeled it as a puzzle game. The sources are clear here. Action adventure role-playing game solves this issue by labeling it as two most common genres it is labeled as. While RPG should be first, in theory, as more label it as such, it goes second due to alphabetical order. In the lead's second paragraph, the exact nature of the game should be clarified: a large overworld with platforming elements combined with RPG elements like turn-based battles, but lacking the typical EXP progression RPGs typically have. Toa Nidhiki05 22:17, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 or the more simple suggestion from Salvidrim. The prior discussion agreed that putting the two genres at the same level is misleading and misrepresents the sources. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:43, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 by my read of the sources. There's lots that repeat the idea that this is an RPG, but most of the sources that do a more thorough fact-checking show a lot more nuance. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Source review

Will be reviewing all the sources on Metacritic to see where they fall under the following categories:

Unreliable marked with "*", unconfirmed sources marked with "?"

Action-adventure - 14 ((3 Reliable|5 Unreliable|6 Questionable))

• Pure Nintendo ?
• God is a Geek - "Not quite an RPG by most people's definitions", "Action-adventure with turn-based combat" *
• Malditos Nerds - "Primarily an adventure... little RPG touches" ?
• RPGSite - "still very much in the adventure game mold, more so than the RPG one"
• NoisyPixel - Lists genre as "action, adventure, puzzle" ?
• USGamer
• Nintendo Enthusiast *
• Carole Quintaine ?
• Destructoid
• LADBible ?
• MyNintendoNews - "Adventure-come-puzzle title" *
• Stevivor ?
• Impulse Gamer - Action-adventure with basic RPG elements *
• GamingTrend - "I don't consider it to be an RPG" *

RPG - 25 ((12 Reliable|7 Unreliable|7 Questionable))

• The Games Machine
• GameSkinny *
• Slant Magazine ?
• 3DJuegos ?
• Atomix - Also calls it a puzzle game ?
• CG Magazine *
• GameBlog.fr ?
• ScreenRant - "Very much an RPG experience] *
• 4Players.de
• IGN Italy - "A game with a JRPG soul"
• Nintenderos - Labeled as an RPG, also says "is basically an RPG, has no experience or levels" *
• IGN Spain
• Areajugones - A "simplified RPG", "ain't your typical RPG"; no other genres mentioned. ?
• GamePro - Calls the game an action RPG.
• Eurogamer Italy - "The new chapter is an RPG like its old brothers, but it pays greater attention to the adventure component, giving a lot of importance to exploration and rewarding players in this sense."
• TheGamer - "Turn-based RPG" *
• New York Daily News
• PressStart ?
• DailyStar *
• Aus Gamers - "RPG-lite" *
• Financial Post *
• DigitalTrends - "a cross between an RPG and a 3D platformer."
• Video Games Chronicle - "Lite RPG"
• PCMag
• The Verge

Partial RPG/Hybrid RPG - 26 ((15 Reliable|7 Unreliable|4 Questionable))

• ComicBook.com - No other genres mentioned
• Cogneccted - No other genres mentioned *
• Cheat Code Central - No other genres mentioned *
• HobbyConsolas - Contradicts itself, saying it both is and isn't an RPG.
• GamesRadar+ - Mentions elements are retained but does not compare to TTYD.
• WorthPlaying - Game is labeled as action/adventure, but reviewer calls it both an RPG and an adventure game. *
• Gamer.nl - "Light RPG elements", "not a true RPG"; no other genres listed.
• SpazioGames - Site labels as "adventure, role-playing game", reviewer says it has "lost much of its role playing role" *
• VentureBeat - "Like others in this series, The Origami King is a role-playing adventure that has a flat, paper version of Mario exploring a whimsical world. But like more recent releases, Nintendo doesn’t fully commit to the RPG elements." No other genres mentioned.
• EveryEye - Calls it an "Adventure RPG"
• LevelUp - Lists genre as "action, role-playing"; reviewer says the series "stopped being an RPG a long time ago and that they are simply adventure games". ?
• Attack of the Fanboy - Genre listed as "Action Adventure RPG" *
• RPGamer - Lists as RPG, says it abandoned some JRPG mechanics
• The Telegraph - "an unusual hybrid of puzzling, action-role-playing and Zelda-esque dungeoneering"
• GameSpot Adventure/RPG fusion. Site itself labels game as RPG.
• SMH RPG elements "flimsy" ?
• Nintendo World Report - Labels game as "adventure", says it pretends to be an RPG and the mechanics are unnecessary.
• Gamer.no - "Little else other than the battle system that screams RPG here" ?
• KeenGamer - "Confused RPG-like structure without RPG-like rewards and progression." *
• ShackNews - Labels game an RPG and not an RPG.
• DualShockers - Labels game an Action RPG but notes lack of RPG progression. *
• IGN - Lists game as an RPG but says its RPG elements are "vestigial". No other genres are listed.
• GameGrin ?
• ArsTechnica - "Not a traditional RPG" but does group it with RPGs.
• EuroGamer - An "odd jumble" of RPG and adventure.
• Vice - "a terrific adventure game trapped inside a crummy JRPG"

Not an RPG - 14 ((7 Reliable|4 Unreliable|3 Questionable)

• Vandal - No other genres mentioned
• VideoChums - Mentions no alternative genre, but says the game is as far from an RPG as you can get. *
• Meristation - "Not a JRPG"; lists "platformer" and "action" as genres. *
• VGames - "Abandons for the third game in a row the role-playing principles" ?
• BaziCenter ?
• GameCrate
• TrustedReviews - Lacks RPG progression system. ?
• VG 24/7 Compares game to a "typical RPG"
• Nintendo Life Not an RPG because it lacks EXP
• Metro UK *
• WCCF Tech
• The Sixth Axis - RPG elements are "Paper thin" *
• EGM - "in no discernible way an RPG like the Paper Mario games of yore." No other genres mentioned
• Kotaku - Lists genre as "not an RPG" but says it is "superficially, structured like an action-tinged role-playing game"

Puzzle - 2 ((0 Reliable|0 Unreliable|2 Questionable))

• GamerSky ?
• NewGameNetwork - "Puzzle platformer" ?

No listed genre - 9 ((4 Reliable|3 Unreliable|2 Questionable))

• DarkStation *
• Nintendo Insider *
• Vooks
• Power Unlimited
• GameSpew ?
• Hardcore Gamer
• Gamers Heroes ?
• Game Informer
• Critical Hit *

Toa Nidhiki05 20:15, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

• You don't need to check for Action-Adventure as we all agree that's what the game is. Captain Galaxy (talk) 20:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

• Lol, no. And it's barely coming up in these reviews. Toa Nidhiki05 21:01, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

• Note that not all the sources used by MC are reliable for our purposes, so this is also not an appropriate exercise. --Masem (t) 21:20, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

  You're more than welcome to pick out the ones that aren't reliable sources, but to say looking at what the sources say is a bad thing doesn't really comport to policy here. We go off what reliable sources say, not the opinions of Wikipedia editors. Toa Nidhiki05 21:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

  So what are we supposed to conclude at the end of this exercise? It seems like just 27.8% of reviews call it an RPG, whereas 33.3% call it something other than an RPG and 28.9% call it some variant of light RPG/has RPG elements but not an RPG. If we take these numbers as correct, then there really isn't a majority of sources that call it an RPG. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:52, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

  But all of those numbers dwarf action-adventure, which only a paltry 14 sources called. What that tells me is critics have no idea what genre the game is, which is why we should use both predominant genres. I did the research for Super Paper Mario - same problem. Many called it an RPG or an Action RPG, others a platformer. Ultimately the label is less helpful than explaining the actual gameplay. Toa Nidhiki05 00:10, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  Toa Nidhiki05, Axem Titanium, and Masem, how about we just call it a cross-genre video game in the lead and then describe which genres it is in the gameplay section? I think that may best convey it and resolve the problem, at least for now. JOEBRO64 00:17, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  I'm absolutely up for this solution, or not even listing a genre at all. My main objection here is to minimizing the RPG elements in favor of action-adventure (ie. "action adventure game with RPG elements"), which the sources don't seem to back up. Toa Nidhiki05 00:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  Just write "Paper Mario: The Origami King is a 2020 cross-genre video game developed and published by Nintendo for the Nintendo Switch", and explain its gameplay in the lead. There, you're done. I have no idea why we needed an entire discussion on this minor problem, let alone four massive sections. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 00:26, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I am fine with this wording too, but I want to ask if this is also the consensus for Sticker Stars and Color Splash? Gamerguy's tendentious editing persisted in those pages as well. OceanHok (talk) 04:42, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I'll be fine with the wording until the poll I set up is done. While I do like the compromise, I let both the Video Game and Nintendo Wikiprojects know about the poll. If the poll ends in favour of Option 1 or Option 2 then it will be changed. However, if it ends in a draw, then cross genre will stay. Please if you haven't already vote in the poll as it ends on 20:12, 6 August 2020 (UTC). Captain Galaxy (talk) 12:59, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

You prematurely started an RFC with only two options, with an option that isn’t based on actual sources and in fact contradicts them. Given Option 2 quite literally contradicts the majority of sources, it’s not acceptable for an encyclopedia and I will not accept its inclusion. Come on. This compromise here works, just let it go and let’s move on from this dispute. Toa Nidhiki05 13:22, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

"Cross-genre"

I know I'm late to the party, and I'm already regretting commenting, but why are we going for the ambiguous term "cross-genre" when there are just two genres in question, action-adventure game and role-playing video game? The lead, especially the very first paragraph, is supposed to be a summation of the article. What's wrong with making a piped link like [[role-playing video game|role-playing]] [[action-adventure game]], or [[action-adventure game|action-adventure]] [[role-playing video game]]? It isn't exactly a survival horror first-person shooter with role-playing game elements (BioShock) or a third-person action-adventure game with psychological horror elements (Eternal Darkness: Sanity's Requiem). soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 13:36, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Also the problem is that "cross-genre" does not really apply in video game space.

A side explanation, but you can see this more on video game genre. The film and other industries have used narrative elements for genres of their works (like "sci-fi" or "romance", but the VG field focused on gameplay simply as that was more defining trait of a game.

So if you look at cross-genre it is geared towards the narrative genre concept - not video game. Video games do not have cross-genres, its not a term. We have games that fit into multiple genres, or we have new genres created out of that (like action-adventure), but the cross-genre is a novel idea here and even worse an original research claim. So this is not really a proper solution at all. --Masem (t) 14:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@Soetermans: I don't even how it started, I joined into this yesterday. I think the reason we have a problem, is with how Nintendo treats the series a s a whole. Paper Mario 64 and TTYD are both as we can all agree role-playing video games, however Super Paper Mario deviated and became a 2.5d sidecrolling platformer with and RPG story. Since this point, the developers of the series have gone on record to say they are trying to change the series and try to stray away from the RPG elements in the future, which can be seen in Sticker Star and Color Splash that removed a heavy story, experience points (and no; coins, paint or confetti are not experience points as they are found in the overworld), or really unique characters. Now with this new game, it has continued in this area as turn-based battles are more like puzzles, there are overworld battles, and still no experience points, which even removed a feature from Color Splash that sort of acted like experience points, Hammer Scraps. This has all stemmed into many people claiming that the new games shouldn't be called an RPGs anymore, which by all accounts are even the words of Nintendo as they haven't marketed this game nor the previous 3 games as RPGs, by just marketing them as Action-Adventure. But they do called the first game an RPG. Now with this logic it's likely that we shouldn't be calling these games as RPGs as the developers or publishers don't market it as such, so some people here think we should say that this is just an action-adventure, or an action-adventure with RPG elements. However, other people here insist that it should continue to be called an RPG because many sources and reviews keep saying different things about what the game is, as you can see above. This is the dilemma we are in, one of the dumbest arguments on this website. Captain Galaxy (talk) 14:25, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

And I could say the exact opposite, that a broad majority of sources say the game is an RPG or a hybrid RPG, while only a small number call it an action-adventure game. Clearly, the vast majority of sources think the RPG factor here is large. And FTR, many sources called Super an RPG or action RPG. Listing the game as a genre that the vast majority of sources do not label the game as while limiting the actual genre (That a majority claim it as) as “elements” isn’t backed up by sources at all. And we go by sources here, not the opinions of Wikipedia editors as to what makes a game an RPG or not. I’ve offered multiple alternatives: list no genre at all, list both action-adventure and RPG equally (absurdly generous given how few actually used the action-adventure label), or use cross-genre. Any of those are backed up by sources at least far more so that “action-adventure with RPG elements”. Toa Nidhiki05 14:40, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I think cross-genre is the way to go. It's a multi-genre game (RPG, action-adventure, turn-based, and puzzle, all at once) so a single genre is not going to make anyone happy. Listing both RPG and action-adventure is WP:SEAOFBLUE and not entirely correct (this has action-adventure elements but it's not a full action-adventure game). Also there's precedence for this with the Sakura Wars articles, as games in that series are labelled cross-genre because there is no one true genre to describe them as. JOEBRO64 19:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm good with that. Toa Nidhiki05 20:37, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

In the source analysis YOU DID, the plurality of sources called it a "light RPG" or "has minor RPG elements" (and the majority called it Not an RPG or has minor RPG elements). The RPG factor is NOT large, by your own analysis. Combined with the development team's own approach to the game and Nintendo's marketing of the game, there is a heavy weight against RPG. Noting that it has RPG elements is generous. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:20, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Again. A grand total of only three reliable sources outright said it's action adventure. There are far, far more sources that say it's an RPG than that. Not sure how you think it's a good argument when your preferred genre wasn't even mentioned in like 95% of reviews. Toa Nidhiki05 20:36, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm fine with what we have at the moment, but I should add one of those was called RPGSite. I don't know why sites refuse to call it an action-adventure, that seems very bizarre as it is literally on the website, make of that what you will. (*Insert poor journalism arguement here) But one thing I did find interesting was that the sites that called it Action-Adventure are those that have been marked down for being unreliable because they are fan sites, such as "God is a Geek", "Nintendo Enthusiast" and "MyNintendoNews". I don't know if that means anything, but I felt it's worth pointing out. CaptainGalaxy 21:13, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I mean if you want to move the goalposts that way, then fine. Just 29% of reliable sources call it an RPG whereas 63% call it not-an-RPG or has minor RPG elements. It's clear from both primary and secondary sources that elevating RPG to the level of "main" genre is inappropriate. It's a secondary/sub-genre at best. Axem Titanium (talk) 02:08, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

So if it's a subgenre, then action-adventure must be not even worth noting since it has a fraction of that. Not sure how your logic proves your point here. Toa Nidhiki05 02:31, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

This isn't really a gotcha. I've never advocated for action-adventure in particular, except as an alternative supported by the dev team, Nintendo marketing, and consensus from the above discussion. I've mainly been advocating against listing RPG as the sole or primary genre. Axem Titanium (talk) 02:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

@Toa Nidhiki05: I managed to find something in favour of Origami King being a hybrid. Techopedia, a reliable source listed the criteria for a RPG, and while the game doesn't match all the points, it stated below that "Modern and hybrid RPGs do not necessarily have all of the elements, but usually feature one or two in combination with elements from another genre." CaptainGalaxy 11:16, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

That’s you applying a standard to the game, not a reliable source doing so. And, as seen by our sources above, plenty of sources disagree. Toa Nidhiki05 12:31, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, my original stance on this debate was to not have RPG as a primary genre, so this is me admitting that I change my stance. Secondly, according to your research above, more sources consider the game to be a hybrid than a standard RPG (12/25 (48%) sources calling the game an RPG that are reliable, 15/26 (58%) sources call the game a hybrid that are reliable). Finally, Techopedia has been used multiple times on Wikipedia to define topics involving tech. CaptainGalaxy 14:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Again, keep in mind that piece is talking about only “traditional” RPGs. It specifically notes that both modern and hybrid RPGs lack some of those five traditional traits. I’d be absolutely fine with language calling it a “hybrid action-adventure RPG”, for reference. Toa Nidhiki05 15:10, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Citation for the First Paragraph

"The game was released on July 17, 2020, and received positive reviews from critics, with many praising the graphics, soundtrack, new mechanics, story, and writing. However, others criticized the combat as unrewarding and, at times, frustrating." The part about it being frustrating seems like quite a bold claim without citation. Is it worth inserting the source where this description was derived from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Squid45 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 2 August 2020 (UTC)