Telika: And it's a question I ask myself about many genres (RTS, turn-based strategy, etc). What's the difference between them. So, curious about how other people distinguish and sort all these various diablo-likes.

OneFiercePuppy: No Grim Dawn? Honestly?

Telika: Not until I get crucible and ashes of malmouth. I mention it as one of the three main ones I have yet to play.

Telika: Let's sort this out.

Diablo 2 :
Pro - Classic, sweet perspective and lighting, hilarious nomenclature
Con - Maybe aged, and also hilarious nomenclature
Note - Randomized maps

Torchlight 1/2 :
Pro - Cheerful, basic and efficient
Con - Minimalist, uninvolving, casual-ish
Note - Refreshingly cartoony, random maps

Titan Quest :
Pro - Setting and atmosphere, solid gameplay, great landscapes
Con - Dilutes mythologies by merging them all
Note - Predesigned maps

Din's curse, Depth of peril
Pro - Weird AI multiplayer rivals, dynamic world
Con - Maybe too frantic parallel objectives, basic graphics
Note - Randomized maps

Dungeon Siege 1/2
Pro - Pretty, immersive
Con - Linear, mechanical play
Note - Predesigned maps

Sacred 1/2
Pro - Open, freeroaming, RPG-ish world
Con - Diminutive returns spell levelling
Note - Predesigned maps

Nox
Pro - Humorous, variety, solid gameplay and map designs
Con - Odd premise, maybe a bit aged
Note - Predesigned maps

Dawn of Magic
Pro - [don't remember, too long ago]
Con - Character looks like a flying lobster after a while
Note - Predesigned maps (?), character transformation

Evil Island
Pro - [don't remember, too long ago]
Con - Unconvincing graphics or feel
Note - [not played long, good reputation]

Divine Divinity
Pro - Awesome
Con - Prohibitively boring introductory chapter
Note - Maybe too much of a proper RPG to belong to this list

Path of Exile
Pro - Supposedly terrific [but not played]
Con - Am terrified of "free" games (less for hidden costs than for ownership).
Note - Randomized maps

I'll probably hop onto Vram, Helsing or Grim, one of these days, but trying to choose one of them, I've been thinking about what differenciates all these ARPGs (at least in my eyes). And it's a question I ask myself about many genres (RTS, turn-based strategy, etc). What's the difference between them.

So, curious about how other people distinguish and sort all these various diablo-likes.

Socratatus: I don`t consider `action` rpgs to be rpgs at all.

DaCostaBR: I wish I liked this type of ARPGs. I do like to listen to podcasts while playing games, and grinding on ARPGs are always the first recommendations for it. Unfortunately, I don't think I ever found one I liked.

I think it's a case of half-measures with me. I do like straight-up action games, and I like turn-based strategy games, but stuff in between just doesn't click with me. That's what ARPGs strike me as: something inbetween. The constant isometric clicking and waiting for cooldowns feel too removed from the action but, at the same time, it's not removed enough in order for it to be completely abstract and more strategic like with flat-out turn-based games.

Every once in a while I try another one, thinking "This is it. This is where it will finally click with me.", but it always ends with me quickly getting bored.

Here's my, admittedly limited, experience with the genre:

Van Helsing 1: I felt immediately turned off by it.

Torchlight 2: Tried playing it multiple times. I'm usually pumped for it at the start, get bored before the end of the first dungeon.

Victor Vran: It's supposed to be more action-y, which I think I would like more, but it was a case of finishing one level, thinking "That was fine, I guess. I'll play a bit more tomorrow." and then never play it again.

Diablo 3: It had a more impressive presentation which did improve the combat, but not enough that I would buy the game after the trial. I am somewhat interested in buying it in a future deep discount and give it more of a chance.

Diablo 2: Played it with friends once. Probably the most fun I had with one of these games, but we could never organize another game/did other stuff with our free time. I suspect my enjoyment had more to do with my friends than the game itself though.

Now, the games I actually finished:

Marvel Ultimate Alliance and Justice League Heroes: I played both of them on console. I think using a gamepad does work to make me feel somewhat more directly connected to the action. It also feels way more reminiscent to beat 'em ups in that context. I wouldn't call either game particularly good, but I did go so far as to finish them.

Dragon Age series: I know, it's meant to be a more tactical RPG, but I played the first two games on console and the third one on PC, all on normal difficulty settings, in that context they felt very much like regular ARPGs. I think the over-the-shoulder camera does a lot to sell the action and make me more engaged in it.

nightcraw1er.488: Dragon age 1 was a proper RPG. It had stats building, party control, etc. Great game, but not an aRPG. DA2 was dreadful, it's not an anything other than dreadful. DA:I was better, too much of a single player mmo though, no direction or point, no story, endlessly repeating the same one or two quests.

Telika: So, curious about how other people distinguish and sort all these various diablo-likes.

DaCostaBR: DA1 was an ARPG on console where I played it. Very similar in gameplay to what 2 and 3 went on to be.

LootHunter: Question - why only top-down (Diablo-like) actionRPG are in the list?