DIABLO III ?... HA! More like "DIABLO FAIL"

Gauntlet was basically an action/adventure game. It was just repetitive button mashing. Its sort of like trying to say God of War is an ARPG. It doesn't make any sense

Diablo on the other hand gives you choices and you create your character through the skills/stat points/equipment you use. It has the foundations of an RPG.

Just to clarify I felt like the first two Diablo games were focused on action with light RPG mechanics. I don't think of any Diablo game as an RPG nor do I think of Path of Exile as an RPG. I just apprecite the light character building/stats/choices/dice rolls that are in the games that are prevalent in RPG's.

Asphael - I never said I am a good D2 player.
For me the charm of D2 was always rolling new chars and not bothering with endgame.
Your correct about different build with different stats but for me it was boring once the build started settling in.
Once you got most of what you need it became repetetive.
So I rolled a new char and started all over again.
Almost always using only stuff that char found.

In my defence, I was a great D1 player. Even got a 3@30 with a BNM.

But that does not change my stance about D not being an RPG.
ARPG is a term which was made up for this genre and there is no justification for the RPG part. All that's left is Action.
And that's quite alright mind you.
Just seems unfair to me to judge D3 as an RPG where it really isn't.

iamstryker - I am not saying that GoW is an RPG, I am saying that D3 is an action adventure.
If two people will play GoW you will see two different Kratoses.
When I looked at somebody else's save he upgraded completely differently from me.
So yeah, you have a choice there.

More examples from these games are abundant.

and Gauntlet wan't button mashing. Not when played with a group of strong players.
It was about cooperation and efficiency.
if you button mashed you starved to death.

I was never really talking about D3. It was dumbed down to the point where I would also argue its not really an ARPG. The RPG mechanics are so light and unimportant in that game.

D3 requires little to no thought. Same with Gauntlet.

"

iamstryker wrote:

D3 requires little to no thought.

Not any less than D2.

"

BelKirill wrote:

But that does not change my stance about D not being an RPG.
ARPG is a term which was made up for this genre and there is no justification for the RPG part. All that's left is Action.
And that's quite alright mind you.
Just seems unfair to me to judge D3 as an RPG where it really isn't.

No argument here, I totally agree. The reason I get kind of bitchy pretty fast when I read the min. str/dex rest vit thing is probably because I used to argue a lot about the stat point removal in D3.
I mean the way stats in D2 worked wasn't great but you know... there was a little hope that instead of removing any way of customizing your character they might try to fix these non-optimal systems... but whatever. ;)

"

Sickness wrote:

"

iamstryker wrote:

D3 requires little to no thought.

Not any less than D2.

I didn't play a ton of D2 and its been awhile since I have played it. I would argue that the equipment took more thought than D3's grab all the main stat, crit, atk speed you can get on any piece of equipment you can find strategy. You also have to plan what points to spend where instead of having every character end up with exactly the same set of skills in D3. I'm not a huge fan of D2 but it certainly required more effort as an RPG than D3 does.

iamstryker - I'm sorry but there isn't ANY ARPG which can be called an RPG*.
I'm not even going to go in the whole tabletop RPG comparison because it's not fair to compare them, but let's compare against PCRPGs as we know them.

RPGs aren't about combat. Period.
RPGs are about choice - with combat added in.
For me RPGs distinguish themselves from action adventure by having meaningful decisions which let me play a role in the world.

For example, in Fallout you can be nice to people, or be a jerk.
Actually, you can even finish the whole game with only one or two fights and talking you way through all other encounters.
You can be a goody-goody hero and slay rats to get a certain piece of equipment - or just outright steal it.
You can talk a confession out of a bad guy and record it, or just plant the bug in his office.
Hell, you can just put a few bullets in his head and be done with it.

Or take the moral dillemas of Dragon Age.
I mean, do you side with the Mages who are persecuted and opressed?
Or do you side with the Chantry because mages in the world of Dragon Age are walking time bombs for whom losing complete control of themselves even for a few moments will bring forth a demon invasion?
Or do you decide that side X will be a better help in the final battle and take a pragmatist route and choose them without even considering the morality of it?

So please, don't call the Diablo series RPGs.
The only choice there is how to make you character a better killing machine.

Like I said before - It's completely okay to love the series.
Speaking for myself and my wife we like it a lot. But both of us, who have a long history with gaming and RPGs in particular, will never call it an RPG.

* Actually, from what I've heard about Devine Divinity it's more of an RPG than all the rest.
Can anyone who played it confirm this?

I'm not even going to begin to debate what constitutes a full RPG. I'm just a little interested in what a game needs to constitue the RPG label that is within ARPG. Without any kind of role playing game mechanics the game is simply an action/adventure game. Zelda lacks RPG mechanics which is why people who know RPG's well never refer to it as an ARPG.

I never called Diablo an RPG. I am calling it an ARPG because that is technically the genre it falls under which I find to be appropriate.

Historically speaking rpgs are predominantly traced to early wargaming variants, in particular a game (that anyone who cares would need to check for themselves) called Chainmail. People can advance their own definitions according to preference but in so far as provenance can be ascertained rpgs are defined by a character's progression of statistics. Choice, setting and all else are desirable qualities but technically may not be quintessentially defining. Consequently there are a lot of games that share proximity with the genre and can best be described as hybrid rpgs.

as an example of distinguishing between preference and formal definition, if asked I would say Morrowind is the best rpgs I've personally enjoyed. That would not be because of its attribute or character skill system but rather its unparalleled (not so much a subjective claim this one, if there are better examples I would be interested to know of them) creation of lore in all its long-standing yet contested iterative plurality with the of onus discovery left to the player to even study and comprehend for themselves.

just realised this is a Diablo thread, I really am wasting time

"

iamstryker wrote:

"

Sickness wrote:

"

iamstryker wrote:

D3 requires little to no thought.

Not any less than D2.

I didn't play a ton of D2 and its been awhile since I have played it. I would argue that the equipment took more thought than D3's grab all the main stat, crit, atk speed you can get on any piece of equipment you can find strategy. You also have to plan what points to spend where instead of having every character end up with exactly the same set of skills in D3. I'm not a huge fan of D2 but it certainly required more effort as an RPG than D3 does.

It was equally obvious what gear that was best for you in D2.
The skillsystem in D2 requires less thought. You decide what skill you want to use and then you take all the synergies, and that's it. Extremely simple.
In D3 you always have a ton of choices to make to get the most out of your build.