My issue with calling Diablo an ARPG is that games like The Witcher or Gothic are also often called ARPG as opposed to games like Baldur's Gate that have more tactical combat.

And whatever you may think of Diablo or The Witcher, you can't deny that they're very different games.

Also Diablo does not "focus way more on combat than roleplaying", it doesn't HAVE roleplaying elements.

To go back on-topic, usually recent games go out of their way to make sure you can't completely screw up your character. Therefore, the difference in terms of effectiveness between a truly min-maxed character and one that's simply average is either not all that big, or you have respec options further on in the game.

As such, I doubt min-maxing possibilities really affect the enjoyment of most players out there. Personally I enjoy being able to build the most effective possible character sometimes. Other times I just want to play the game "normally".

Diablo does have rolplaying elemnts...as in you pick a class and PLAY a ROLE as you gain equipment and skills and defeat the ultimate evil and save the day.

Not really key roleplaying elements. :-/

Not to you, maybe.

I would argue anyone calling The Witcher a ARPG are mislabeling The Witcher.

I guess the reason I think ARPG is a valid subgenre is there's many a AD&D group that mainly focuses on combat in their campaigns (uhg, especially 3.5 fanatics) and no one would say they weren't playing a pnp rpg, they'd just say it focused mainly or even solely on combat with a thin story holding it all together. This is all a ARPG is, the digitized version of that. I'm certainly not going to sit there and claim that ARPGs are like other types of RPGs, really, it's just a subgenre that focuses really heavily on certain elements of RPGs.

Picking a Class is Key in Some RPG's, but it can not be one of the ONLY two basis to call a game an RPG.

Hmm... and since when is a character class the same as a role exactly? The fact that your character is, say, a sorceress says very little about her personality (although the extensive background story of Diablo does give a description of classes that includes basic personality traits, but who reads games manual anymore?).

Diablo's classes is a gameplay choice to me, not a roleplaying one. It's like saying picking one plane over another in Flight Simulator is a roleplay choice.

Labels are a subjective thing. People who call games like The Witcher an action-RPG are simply referring to the combat being action-based. It doesn't really mean that it has less roleplaying elements than Fallout or any other more "classic" RPG.

I've never really met people who played pnp for the combat, so I'll take your word for it.
The combat is imo the most boring part of most tabletop RPGs (what's fun about rolling dice dozens of times in a row, I wonder).

Still I assume that even players who focus on combat have created an extensive background for their characters and want some choice about what to do, where to go and what to kill instead of being railroaded into slaughtering loads and loads of minions until you're finally presented with a challenge when you get to a boss.

But maybe I'm wrong and Diablo is actually an accurate representation of their sessions, in which case I'll say good for them if they enjoy that, but I don't consider that roleplaying either, pnp rules or not.

Which is funny because I'd argue Fallout and The Witcher are practically identical in gameplay save that there is a lot of initial character customization in Fallout (and some alternate ways to do things in the first Fallout due to this). As far as the combat and roleplaying they are basically the same.

Now, I completely agree that labels are subjective, that's fair. Historically the term ARPG was basically invented for Diablo, it seemed like an RPG more than anything else to people, and yet solely focused on combat and leveling elements (i.e. gear and stats) that contributed to that. In addition it had a linear storyline, you couldn't change the ending due to player choice. So, we said, "Hey it's not a true RPG, but it's too unlike a platformer or anything else to be even close to it so we'll call it a ARPG". In one sense ARPG simply means "a game that plays like Diablo", since that was the first game to ever get said label.

Now labels evolve, just like language, so yes, they can mean what the community feels they mean. I'm just saying that ARPG basically had a meaning, and it meant Diablo. No one has to argue that ARPG doesn't contain all the elements of RPG, that's implicit in the label ARGP.

Correct. ARPG's focus on the Combat Aspects of RPG's. :) Not the True Core RolePlaying Aspects

Regarding the definition of RPG, I find that people seem to be divided into two extreme camps: those who believe that it's having a choice in how the story unfolds and portraying a character makes an RPG, and those who believe it's stat building and inventory that makes an RPG.

The former don't seem to care what system is used as it's just a vehicle for them to play a character: stats and dice with turn-based combat was used for tabletop because it was the best way to simulate it (ironically in a computer-based way), and if another system is used that fits better then they will use it and still consider it a RPG. Dialogue options and plot choices is what defines the genre to them. To those people Mass Effect 2 could be classified as a RPG while Diablo would not. They'll often choose stats for how they give options to dialogue and like being able to customise 'unimportant' things like character appearance and change their hairstyle in play.

The latter don't care about character choice or dialogue, it's the ability to stat up a character (usually one that allows them to find optimal builds and the like) and find epic loot. They find dialogue choices and plot choices as a means to max their builds at best and completely superfluous and unnecessary at worst. To them Diablo would be the epitome of RPG and Mass Effect 2 a poor RPG at best.

Of course not everyone fits into either of these groups, most probably fluctuate between the two or even embrace both of them, but they show how different they can be. To be blunt they should be split into different genres that just happen to be used together often, like Stat-Based and Choice-Based.

Are you saying not everyone is happy with mint chip ice cream?!! BLASPHEMY!

Mmmm Mint Chip.

Fallout is turn-based while TW is real-time. However shallow a difference that may be, it's all some people (mostly fans of TB combat) need to think their gameplay is completely different.

I agree that the term ARPG was first used for Diablo and its clones (or for console games like Secret of Mana, but the Japanese and Western definitions of RPG have always been very different).

However, when for me it became too broad a label when games like Divine Divinity, that has Diablo-like gameplay with (some) actual choice mixed in were called ARPG. And its definition blurred as it was widened again and again to accommodate more games that, to me, were very different.

I don't like broad labels because when I talk about one I like to be able to define it precisely (I dislike using words I can't give a precise definition of). So I spilt the ARPG label into several parts, Diablo being recategorized as a hack&slash since to me it wasn't really an RPG anyway.
I recognize, though, that my classification is completely arbitrary and no better than anyone else's. I just like it because it makes it easier (for me anyway) to associate only games that are broadly the same.

I actually mentioned more than that:

Picking/Playing a class(or role in your mind of how that class plays out storywise/etc that's uniques to you even)
Inventory system with stat/ability altering items you can swap in/put or consume as you play to alter how you play.
A skills system/tree that affects how you play in some ways, as well as stats/elvelling that also does similar.
A fantasy setting of some sort(even post apocalyptic counts imo).