What! When do you even have a choice in Diablo?

Oh, you mean the choice to kill or not, to loot or not, to quest or not.

Perhaps I should have made indentation. I certainly didn't mean choice in Diablo, but choice in general. Edited to avoid confusion.

A game which has character progression by which the stats of your character/s are improved as the game progresses. A game which has stat-progression as a secondary component could be said to have "RPG elements", while a game where stat-progression is the primary component is an RPG proper.

Also I think a "pure" RPG is about "character skill" over "player skill", ie the interaction of your character/s with the world (via combat etc) is defined by your character's stats, not by your skills as a gamer. For example a FPS where combat is about being quick on the keyboard and mouse (strafing, jumping, switching weapons, shooting), is a player skill game, while in a character skill game your running/jumping speed would be defined by a stat like Agility, while your and accuracy (with guns, bows etc) would defined by stats like Perception or Dexterity.

Necessary ingredients for an RPG in my book:
* having some kind of character evolution system
* having to making choices that affect parts of the storyline and/or your interactions with NPCs

For me, an RPG must contain the following things:
- Character customization
- Xperience gaining and levelling, preferrable at least 100 character levels
- A lotta quests
- An inventory
- A whole lotta loot
- Oh, and of course many usefull skils

What is RPG for me....creating a character with a set of skills and a background, enter a world, find my own destiny.

Now if someone would ask what i hope to find in an CRPG my answer is:
creating a character, choose some skills (and hope that they are usefull),
explore the world, explore...and explore some more,
if possible find some party members with an interesting background,
interesting quests with different paths to solve them,
decisions with real impact-

In a nutshell if someone would make a mix between Fallout, Dragon Quest, KOTOR and Dragon Age....Instant buy.

The problem with this is that if you think "choices and consequences" are essential to make a game an RPG, then you basically must think every "RPG" made before Fallout is not an RPG.

Are the Bard's Tale games, the Gold Box games, the Wizardry games, not RPG's? Because none of them allow you to actually meaningfully change the story by your own actions. Yet they are RPGs. That goes for most dungeon crawler CRPGs of the 80's/early 90s.

This "choices and consequences" part is definitely a new "thing". Just like "story is the cornerstone of CRPGs, and gameplay is secondary". According to some people, Mass Effect is CRPG, because it has some C&C and story, but Dragon Quest is not. So if you will add cutscenes with some dialogue options to Doom, it has high chances to be labeled as CRPG *facepalm*

I don't want to pan this thread, but doughnut try to crimp this half-baked idea: if I were going to be a starter in a roll-playing game, then at the very yeast I'd knead to earn tons of dough, as proof that I can rise to become the Kaiser.

I concur. To me many still list things they prefer to be in a CRPG game, not what are the minimum characteristics why they'd call a game as a CRPG, or which parts of the gameplay they consider to be of the CRPG genre (considering that nowadays most AAA games seem to borrow from many genres).


This lead me to think about System Shock vs. System Shock 2. I've earlier said something like I consider the first game to be an action-adventure, while SS2 is an action-RPG (because it has sort of a skill system where you develop the character, and you can select from different "classes" which define at which skills you are good at).

Lately I felt though that I shouldn't really call the first game an "adventure" either, as to me adventure, in PC gaming terns, means there are some kind of gameworld puzzles which are impeding you from advancing in the game. Think of all the Sierra Quest or LucasArts adventure games, or even older text-based adventure games, what was it that you needed to do in them in order to advance? That's what was originally considered as "adventure games", and not e.g. CRPGs, or strategy games, or whatever.

So my new definition in which genres the System Shock games belong to:

System Shock: an action game. A very detailed and story-heavy action game with lots of exploration, but still, an action game. Ok you could say it had some puzzles (like how to open certain doors or turn on lights), but those were merely a spice, not a very integral part of the gameplay.

System Shock 2: an action game with some CRPG characteristics (yes, that skill system thingie). In short, an action-CRPG.

For me the "choices and consequences" is the essence of role-playing. Just leave the part about the "story", since that part can also be emergent.
Defining is, that the choices you make are based on a role you decide to assume. It can be anything really: your choice of playing a fighter, thief or mage influences if you will break that chest, pick the lock or use a spell. Your choice of developing your fighter character to "damage first", balanced, or "protection first" will have a big influence on your style dealing with enemy encounters. Of course, influencing the story with your decisions is great - but a lot that happens in a game is "just the moment". And this "changing the history" stuff actually also starts very small: like turning down a "shady" quest because you play "good".

Of course this definition of mine leaves a lot of grey area. I wouldn't call Doom an RPG because the only choice you have is to either "rush through" or "explore". I also wouldn't call a 4X game like Civ an RPG, although it can be played as one. I can choose to assume the role of a peaceful ruler or a warmonger. A technocrat or a hoarder of wealth. Actually I play most 4X games like that - if they allow this freedom.

Your thinking on "choices and consequences" is simply more about party building. People usually mean smth entirely different when they mention C&C. Example, Might and Magic VII - you can choose faction and you can choose Light/Dark Paths. Personally, I wish MM 7 had no "C&C" because it made it quite a short game. That's one of main problems with C&C - they usually go hand in hand with short/small games, and serve little purpose (factions in MM 7 had mostly cosmetic application).

No, it's about role-playing. Sometimes making the "sub-optimal" choice for the sake of having a character.
I haven't played MM7... IMO if you offer light/dark paths (good/evil I guess) there should be a good choice of quests that "the other side" simply wouldn't take because it contradicts their character(s).

But I would consider a game with no stats that still gives you the chance to tackle problems in different distinct ways (ie. stealthy vs. guns blazing) that suit your idea of the character more of an RPG than a "hardcore CRPG" that forces you to "powergame" and optimize your character(s) in ways that are only rooted in the ruleset and have nothing to do with the character as a character.

Well, when you select Light, you get new "home" in Heavens, when you choose Dark - in Hell. You can' get Hell quests if you chose Light, everything will be hostile to you in Pit, and vice versa.
Errr..., that's the clear way to have bad balance. First CRPGs are quite famous for their "powergaming" aspects. Stats = bread and butter in CRPGs. If game will have to be finishable with "sub-optimal" choices, it will have to be very easy or, in some cases, extremely frustrating and unrewarding.

My favorite example: Dark Flans in FF X. You can't stand Auron and have noone on his Sphere Grid? Go home. Oh, enemy from Monster Arena who is totally immune to Physical and Magical Damage? You either learn how to deal with it or go home. Oh, enemy from Monster Arena who keeps healing for 100,000s of HPs per turn? No stealth will help you, you either meet damage requirements or you don't. Sub-optimal isn't a choice.