It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussion (archive)Diablo III Opening Cinematic(72 posts)(72 posts)
(72 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
This is my favourite topic
Posted December 11, 2011
avatar
Navagon: The clue is in the name: roleplaying game. You're not playing a role. You're hacking shit up. It's more like Golden Axe than D&D.
Given that attitude, wouldn't 90% of all games since the 80s that got labelled as RPGs not be actual RPGs?
Posted December 11, 2011
avatar
klaymen: Indeed. That's why I laugh hysterically when someone claims that Diablo is the best RPG ever. Or that it is a RPG.
avatar
Navagon: That's just silly. :D There are a lot of games that tread the action RPG / RPG line. But Diablo isn't even close. It's more akin to an arcade game than an RPG.

Edit: Not saying this is a bad thing. I like action RPGs and action games as a whole.
Actually, Diablo and Diablo II are RPGs. I find it amusing that some people have so strong convictions otherwise.
*straight face*

First, let me tell you where I'm coming from and why my definition is better than yours. :-)

There seems to be no real consensus for a definition of an CRPG. There are several different definitions that I've heard but they are all problematic in some way or another. Some people, especially some who reside in that place which shall not be named, emphasize stats. If there is stats (or lots of stats) it is an CRPG, if not it isn't. Stupid. Many games which use stats (or lots of them) are not CRPGs like strategy games and simulations. Games like Skyrim (and I'm sure there are many others) which have only a few stats or none at all are still CRPG's.

Another is that you need to be playing a role. This is also problematic. I would say that in the majority of computer games you are playing a role and in the majority of those you aren't you are instead playing several roles. If you exclude those games where you just shoot stuff and follow a linear story and instead require that you make choices in game for your character you end up including a lot of non-RPG games. Many action and adventure games that nobody considers CRPGs would end up as CRPGs by this definition. On the other hand the classic Final Fantasy games for the SNES (or at least Final Fantasy IV) gave you next to no choices in the story.

If you require real role-playing so that the player makes non-gameplay choices in game that is more believable for the character, (for example making altruistic choices that you know will benefit your character less when playing a good character or making selfish choices that you know will benefit you character less when playing a bad character.) you are not defining the game by the game itself but by how it is played. This is unreasonable. Many times (most of the time?) people don't really role-play CRPGs and, some people role-play other games like strategy games. I'm sure there are even some people role-playing Super Mario World and Doom.

There are more complex definitions too that require several different elements of a game but they are quite artificial and of course even more exclusive.

To this messy den of deceptive definitions I bring to you the shining fact that all the types of games commonly regarded as CRPGs can not be defined by a single element, yet CRPG\RPG is the category they are commonly filed under. Why is this? Tradition and evolution of course.

I use the tradition an electronic game is made in to define it. I think this makes more sense and it also makes genres less restrictive which is a good thing.

CRPGs (the big C can stand for both Computer and Console) descend from Pen and Paper RPGs. If an electronic game is inspired by and uses elements of Pen and Paper RPGs or CRPGs it is by my definition a CRPG, unless it uses more elements from a different established genre like Action or Adventure. If a certain game uses 60/40 Action Game / CRPG elements it should be classified as an Action Game or better, an Action/RPG hybrid. An Action RPG on the other hand should at least have a majority of RPG elements compared to the Action elements.

This definition is by no means perfect. For one you can't really quantify how many elements from each tradition a said game contains, so it becomes an intuitive verdict. This will lead to some different conclusions, especially for those games that are genre-benders, but that can't be helped.

Some people that are against the current trends in most CRPGs today may think that this definition is far too inclusive. The whole point of it is to be inclusive, since it makes more sense in this way. There have for a long time been many different types of CRPGs and making up new genres to put some of them into does not seem like the best option.

If Diablo is not a CRPG, what is it? An Action game? I would say no. And Hack and slash is not a genre , just a way of describing gameplay. And what about, I'm sure they do exist, Rougelikes that are as basic in stats as Diablo. They are not action games, that's for sure.

In the end it is the games themselves and what they are made of that is important, not the genre we put them into to describe them. But I think that by defining games by which tradition they belong to, rather then a few specific elements is a less restrictive way of thinking about them. And that should be a good thing.
Post edited December 11, 2011 by Sargon
Posted December 11, 2011
avatar
Navagon: The clue is in the name: roleplaying game. You're not playing a role. You're hacking shit up. It's more like Golden Axe than D&D.
avatar
klaymen: Wait, technically it is a RPG. You roleplay a mass murderer :)
Selecting your hero class just changes the way you grind the shit out of everything....err...play your role.
:P

trollface.jpg
lol, generally you get to pick your own role.

OTOH, The Sims would be precisely as you've described Diablo. You can choose any role for yourself, but in practice nobody picks any other role than a deranged serial killer.
avatar
Sargon: SNIP
If Diablo is not a CRPG, what is it? An Action game? I would say no. Hack and slash is not a genre , just a way of describing gameplay. And what about, I'm sure they do exist Rougelikes that are as basic in stats as Diablo. They are surely not action games.
Either a Hack 'n' Slash or a Dungeon Crawler.

As for RPG, that's really easy to identify. There needs to be meaningful customization of the character, more than just equipment typically, meaningful character development and for decisions you make to actually effect the game world.

Diablo at best allows for some character development in terms of skills and equipment. Stats are extremely flat and in practice nobody really bothers with anything other than the standard skill path as they tend to get murdered otherwise.

Honestly, I'm not really sure what's so complicated about that. It's a standard definition and one that's not going to leave out any important games, nor include ones that should be RPG games either.
Post edited December 11, 2011 by hedwards
Posted December 11, 2011
avatar
klaymen: Wait, technically it is a RPG. You roleplay a mass murderer :)
Selecting your hero class just changes the way you grind the shit out of everything....err...play your role.
:P

trollface.jpg
avatar
hedwards: lol, generally you get to pick your own role.

OTOH, The Sims would be precisely as you've described Diablo. You can choose any role for yourself, but in practice nobody picks any other role than a deranged serial killer.
There is some cro$$over potential there. Is that what The Sims Medieval was?
Posted December 11, 2011
avatar
hedwards: lol, generally you get to pick your own role.
Actually, there is little difference in your role, whether you play Barbarian, Sorceress or Druid. You still kill hordes of enemies and grind for new items. You only do it with hacking and slashing (barb), spamming spells (sorc) or anything else.

Compare it to, say, Fallout. There is a difference in playing a low CHA and INT moron who is good only for smashing and shooting and speech and thieving based character. That is the role difference.
Posted December 11, 2011
It's a roleplaying game. Compare it to Nox and you'll see.
Posted December 11, 2011
avatar
Sargon: SNIP
If Diablo is not a CRPG, what is it? An Action game? I would say no. Hack and slash is not a genre , just a way of describing gameplay. And what about, I'm sure they do exist Rougelikes that are as basic in stats as Diablo. They are surely not action games.
avatar
hedwards: Either a Hack 'n' Slash or a Dungeon Crawler.
Dungeon Crawler just describe the environment and in CRPGs have a lot of gameplay connotations, though I wouldn't call it a sub-genre either. Dungeon Crawler is not a main genre of computer games.

Hack 'n' Slash is a way of describing the gameplay, often in CRPGs and Action Games, but not a genre.

avatar
hedwards: As for RPG, that's really easy to identify. There needs to be meaningful customization of the character, more than just equipment typically, meaningful character development and for decisions you make to actually effect the game world.
Well what about Final Fantasy IV and similar games then. There are five statistics:
Strength, agility, vitality, wisdom and willpower compared to Diablo's four:
Strength, vitality, dexterity and magic. I don't think you can develop the classes very differently through the game though I could be wrong since it is a long time since I played it. A Black Wizard played by different people will usually end up the same way in the end of the game just like a Sorcerer in Diablo will end up much the same too. Infact I think there is a greater variance in how the character end up in both Diablo I and Diablo II compared to Final Fantasy IV.

There is strong character development in the game story (compared to next to none with Diablo's nameless wanderer) but it is all linear. You don't have any choice how it develops. I don't think this makes it any more RPG. All you do that effect the gameworld is likewise scripted. You just have to show up at the right place at the right time and the story progresses. The exception is that I think that there were one or two side missions that you choose to do or not.

avatar
hedwards: Diablo at best allows for some character development in terms of skills and equipment. Stats are extremely flat and in practice nobody really bothers with anything other than the standard skill path as they tend to get murdered otherwise.
Well, in Diablo (1) there aren't even any skills, but it is still a CRPG. Also, some people play it in single player. Probably not the best way to play it, but still.

avatar
hedwards: Honestly, I'm not really sure what's so complicated about that. It's a standard definition and one that's not going to leave out any important games, nor include ones that should be RPG games either.
It is no standard definition since I often see Diablo and similar games classified as RPGs in the gaming press. If this definition was so sound as you say we would not see people arguing about it so often. I almost never see people discussing whether a game is an Action game or a Strategy game.

If I understand your definition correctly then many games usually considered CRPGs would need to find new genres.
Posted December 11, 2011
That's sort of why Japanese and Western RPGs have come to be considered different genres. They both use the blanket term "RPG" but are at heart very different types of games.

That said I definitely feel Diablo is an RPG, it's an action RPG with an emphasis on the action and dungeon crawling and has sort of become a genre in its own right given the amount of Diablo clones out there. Personally I'm not a fan of the "clicky clicky collect loot" game style but that doesn't make it not a roleplaying game.
Posted December 11, 2011
avatar
Sargon: ...
You get off to a good start by going back to the pen and paper games. But to be honest with you I think you're missing the point. Stats and dice rolls are merely due to the limitations of the pen and paper game. There was no other way of making the game work without making it too unfair and unbalanced. Leaving the decision to a die roll was better than leaving it up to a possibly biased DM.

You've got to look past these limitations. RPGs shouldn't be defined by these limitations but rather by what they are trying to do. The ad-libbed stories they're trying to tell. The characters that change, adapt and grow, or fall by the wayside during this story. The impact they have on the world as it changes, both as a result of their actions and the actions of others around them.

What CRPG adheres to this? None, to my knowledge. Not completely. I think that's where you're misunderstanding me. You know what I don't consider to be an RPG. But you didn't first ask what I did consider to be one before writing your lengthy reply.

A lot of D&D CRPGs don't really fit my definition of RPG. I think that the failing there is that WotC are now more concerned with their ruleset than they are with the free-form stories that can be played out within them.

The JRPGs you mentioned aren't RPGs by any margin. The only reason I don't dispute their genre is that JRPG has pretty much taken on its own meaning. If you see a JRPG you know what it is and what to expect.

I don't see how you can really be said to be playing a role unless you have choice and those choices have impact beyond simply how you go around hacking shit up. I think that it's perfectly possible to have a roleplaying game devoid of stats and killing so long as there is character development, choices and consequences. Comparitively, Diablo is no more an RPG than a SHUMP that lets you chose your space ship and lets you buy weapon upgrades at the end of each level.

Strategy games often have the same problem. There aren't that many that actually require strategy - just tactics. It's just the way that a lot of genres are. They've taken on their own meaning based more on the limited experiences found in the first games of that genre, rather than something more based on what the words in that genre description actually mean.

So, personally, I'd rather see roleplaying and strategy used as things to aim for rather than genres to pigeon hole games into. The problem with the latter is that we just wind up with a lot of games that do the same damn thing and contain the same failings. That way we might see more games that break the mould.
Posted December 11, 2011
untill this is <$20.00 i wont be bothering with it. Ever since blizzard got bought there expansions and games have been nothing but honeypots. . .

i hate honey, i like long brewed mead thats made with love and care, years of experience and no care if you make profit since the mead will sell it self to all who taste its sweet nectar..

Diablo 3 = a machine to literally print money for them....

thanks I'll pass...
Post edited December 11, 2011 by Starkrun
Posted December 11, 2011
Eh I don't care about the definition - most classifications are somewhat loose in their application to things like games because they apply a blanket statement about a varied array of items that don't all "fit" perfectly.

Heck in RTS games the term "RPG" has come to mean mostly that units gain experience with time/kills and that they can have selected upgrades (or fixed stat upgrades upon levelling up). Most of its just marketing to make you think its more than it is.



Anyway the only thing I hope now for Diablo 3 is that they see the light and take out the "you must be online to play" for the singleplayer part of the game. Otherwise I won't touch it. It's about the only limit I keep to with games; that I won't buy any singleplayer title that demands me to be online for the duration of play (onetime registrations and such are fine). Starcraft 2 works well - I just lose out on awards if my connection fritzes out halfway through or I'm not able to connect - so I can't see why diablo 3 singleplayer can't function without being connected to blizzard the whole time.
avatar
Starkrun: Diablo 3 = a machine to literally print money for them....

thanks I'll pass...
Commercially speaking this is the main concept behind the whole games industry once you leave people working on games in their spare time (ie the very opening stages of indy)
Post edited December 11, 2011 by overread
Posted December 11, 2011
avatar
Starkrun: Diablo 3 = a machine to literally print money for them....
How, exactly?
Posted December 11, 2011
avatar
Starkrun: Diablo 3 = a machine to literally print money for them....
avatar
kavazovangel: How, exactly?
The game itself (I bet it will be 60€/60$) + possible expansions + auction house
Posted December 11, 2011
avatar
Sargon: It is no standard definition since I often see Diablo and similar games classified as RPGs in the gaming press. If this definition was so sound as you say we would not see people arguing about it so often. I almost never see people discussing whether a game is an Action game or a Strategy game.

If I understand your definition correctly then many games usually considered CRPGs would need to find new genres.
Only the ones that were mischaracterized. Calling Diablo or Diablo II RPGs requires a certain degree of ignorance of the history of computer games. True Rogue was somewhat influenced by tabletop RPGs of the '70s, but in terms of game play it has very little in common with any RPG games of the day. Diablo and then Diablo II ultimately evolved from that line of gaming into something that has very little if anything in common with an RPG.

Compare that with Neverwinter or Fallout which are much more heavily influenced and make use of RPG elements in nontrivial ways and it should be obvious that one of these things is not like the other.

As for Final Fantasy, it's a JRPG according to everybody I've ever met. It's legitimately a subgenre of RPG as that's where it ultimately evolved from. The genre itself traces itself back in a more or less direct fashion to Japanese table talk RPGs of the the '70s. They have different mechanics than the ones that evolved from the DnD set directly, but they've more right to be called a RPG than Diablo.

Ultimately, if Diablo was ever conceived of to be an RPG it was dumbed down to the point where there's no RPG left in it, you get a few skill points that get diviied up primiarliy based upon class and you can play any of the classes the way that you play the others.
avatar
Navagon: SNIP
By and large I agree with you there. I personally give JRPGs a bit of a pass because they're descended from tabletop games that were evolved themselves from the tabletop DnD games.

A lot of this is a bit like placing species into the appropriate genus, you really can't do it properly if you don't know the history of the species and how it came to being.

If you know that, then it becomes really obvious very quickly that Diablo has is a direct line descendent of Rogue ultimately rather than of any of the great cRPGs of the 80s or early 90s.
Post edited December 11, 2011 by hedwards
Posted December 11, 2011
avatar
klaymen: The game itself (I bet it will be 60€/60$) + possible expansions + auction house
Damn the GOG servers for forcing me to post this... short story...

You'd be able to get it for 30-35 EUR through Amazon or similar stores. Besides, the price is a good thing for the industry, because the indie bundles and Steam-like heavy discounts have done nothing but fuck up the prices for games (people nowadays pay only a few EUR for bundles, let alone for a game).

We're now hating expansions? :|

The AH will be purely optional, you'd never have to use it. :) Besides, some people will make real money through it.
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)Diablo III Opening Cinematic(72 posts)(72 posts)
(72 posts)