those pictures aren't screenshots of a game that was almost completed, they're sketches/concept art, unless the style of the game was to look like it was all hand drawn.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Youth and skill will always be eventually overcome by old age and treachery.
People who thinks Diablo is an RPG doesn't know what the **** they're talking about. The Diablo series ss an action adventure game with an izometric view. Even the developpers themselve said so. Besides the attributes that you can give to your character and choose what skills/spells you use, Diablo has nothing to compare to an rpg.
The developer definitely twisted and bended a lot of things toward a more economical direction (expanding the market by suiciding basic attributes possibilities to attract the ones who came in for simple thrill and a lesser meaningful idea of a Diablo), but this understanding for goodness sake, is going toward where everybody wants to be in. A great packet of story gameplay that's being treated like the classic material we're most comfortable with.
I think people are using RPG in different terms, its becoming an issue of semantics. An RPG is any game in which you ROLEPLAY as a character. People have taken this to mean the medieval-archetype of D&D style games... Diablo is definitely an RPG, it just lacks those mechanics that you might associate with "traditional" RPGs.
I think people are using RPG in different terms, its becoming an issue of semantics. An RPG is any game in which you ROLEPLAY as a character. People have taken this to mean the medieval-archetype of D&D style games... Diablo is definitely an RPG, it just lacks those mechanics that you might associate with "traditional" RPGs.
If it lacks the mechanics of tradition RPGs, then it's NOT an RPG. Tell me how do you role play in Diablo ? 'Cause I never saw an option to decide what I want to say when I interact with NPCs, I never had more then 1 choice to make for dialogue, I never had to choose between more then 1 route to accomplish my objectives, I never had to choose what objective I want to do or which ones I don't want to do, I never had to choose an alignement, i'm gonna stop here I think you get the point. So tell me, how in the hell is Diablo an RPG, please tell me, just ONE thing will suffice to convince me otherwise.
Something being an RPG has nothing to do with making a choice for the story. There's plenty of RPGs that gives you no such choices. The term RPG is so broad that you could apply it everywhere. You play a game as a character, you're already role-playing.
So lets get out of this hole and get to the facts: RPG as a game definition is used for games that have specific mechanics. Final Fantasy is a RPG yet you don't make story choices, you just go along. There's various defined genre of RPG-gameplay (like FF). Other features are considered RPG by nature (leveling, inventory).
This is so more for distinction than anything else. A game that has such progression and control toward your character's development is often reffered to as RPG.
In D2, you completely control his inventory and leveling. Furthermore, the gameplay is about stats more than skills. A game where you click and what makes the real difference is your stats is again, almost always considered an RPG.
No, its not -just- a RPG. Diablo 2 is an Action RPG.
I think people are using RPG in different terms, its becoming an issue of semantics. An RPG is any game in which you ROLEPLAY as a character. People have taken this to mean the medieval-archetype of D&D style games... Diablo is definitely an RPG, it just lacks those mechanics that you might associate with "traditional" RPGs.
If it lacks the mechanics of tradition RPGs, then it's NOT an RPG. Tell me how do you role play in Diablo ? 'Cause I never saw an option to decide what I want to say when I interact with NPCs, I never had more then 1 choice to make for dialogue, I never had to choose between more then 1 route to accomplish my objectives, I never had to choose what objective I want to do or which ones I don't want to do, I never had to choose an alignement, i'm gonna stop here I think you get the point. So tell me, how in the hell is Diablo an RPG, please tell me, just ONE thing will suffice to convince me otherwise.
If that's your definition of RPG, I bet StarCraft 2 is the pinnacle of RPGs for you.
Insofar as Diablo II, there is very little to no RPG element involved. You play a "character" of no importance, with no real goals or aims or desires. They have no depth. They are not truly characters beyond their vague association with some Wikipedia entries which tell us about their race in very ambiguous terms. For all intents and purposes, we may as well all be playing the same "character" and just choose different skill options.
You do not affect or interact with other "characters" (NPC's), who scarcely have their own arcs which develop over time, beyond standing there and reading/listening to their monologues which may as well exist in a vacuum. Your choices have no impact on the story arc. In fact, you make no story choices. At all.
Good RPG's have all of these or some variation thereof. JRPG's generally have static storylines which focus on issues in the former paragraph, while WRPG's typically focus on the latter paragraph. There is very little to no role-playing involved in Diablo II, therefore it is not really an RPG of any caliber.
ARPG is a modern misnomer which has very little relevancy to its progenitor.
Does this make Diablo II a bad game? Hardly.
----
Diablo I is less so because some of the quests are more natural. I think I recall several having several possible outcomes.
I'm less of an enthusiast about the subject as to try struggling a debate on current Diablo status, but I'll definitely say no one wants to see a fully functioning RPG world coming to D3.
All in all, whether Diablo is an RPG depends on how one defines the genre. If someone defines an "RPG" as something that has character stats and items, the game fits the definition really easily.
I think what most people defines a RPG nowdays is a game were you build strategies in a theorical/numerical level, not in a skill based one. The role playing things lost it's meaning. It's important in certain games but not in others.
Imo diablo is more RPG then action because factors like skill sets, traits, level, items are far more important then the player skill. It's a point and click and you control only one character. It's the most simple form of action.
According toy our logics, every games are RPGs. -sigh- Stay in denial, what do I care.
All you stated was that a RPG must have 'traditional RPG elements', these 'traditional elements' are from what you have stated, decision making: alternate routes to move the story forward or whatnot. This definition is very simplistic and could easily fit with the 'non-linear' route StarCraft 2 took, does this make StarCraft 2 a RPG? Hell no.
Again, your very simplistic definition of RPGs leave out so many other games that everyone know they are RPGs. Games in question? Let's take the Final Fantasy series. I'm pretty sure the Final Fantasy franchise in its games takes a very linear route with barely any 'decision-making' and according to your very simplistic definition, this makes Final Fantasy not a RPG, which in fact it is.
So no, I (or anyone else in this thread) am not in denial, in fact the problem I see is that your personal definition of a RPG has been confined to BioWare RPGs which pride themselves on choice and unresolved endings. So sir, like I've said in my original response post, play non-BioWare RPGs please.
Well the actual term "Role Playing" implies that you have much more character choice than what is available in the Diablo games, especially D2. But the fact of the matter is that RPG has become a term to describe games where you create a character that has skill choices and the like. If you go by the strict definition of role playing, then sure you have quite an argument that D2 isn't an RPG, but going by the more widely used and recoginized definition of RPG then I would definitely say it fits.
I don't think programming any elements of free choice/customization of your character entails traditional RPG mechanics. Traditional RPG mechanics, to me, are simply the fact that you play a character who progresses, who has some sort of physical or magical power in order to defeat monsters/enemies through violence, coupled with a mechanic for advancing your character, whether that distinction be made by "level" or "rank" or what have you.
Your character certainly talks to NPC's, and just because there's no dialogue branch doesn't mean there's no interaction. Again, I think people are trying to narrowly define the genre to their tastes. And it seems like the trend is, if people don't like the lack of interaction and freedom, they tend not to call the game an RPG, and vice-versa. I don't really care what it's called, its a FUN formula. Problem with WoW is that it wasn't fun after a while. My friend who came from D2 always said of WoW: "It's never any fun spending 20 seconds killing a single creature"... and even if you played an AoE class, it wasn't the same as taking a D2 character and just jumping into waves and waves of enemies.
If you played Diablo I, any of the classes you chose had a direct impact in D2 - the warrior became the wanderer, etc.... and theres hints we may see some of the canon characters from D2 have some sort of aftermath in D3. And so I'd still say if someone saw me playing D3 with spells and axes flying everywhere and me controlling a single, advanceable character, they'd say "What RPG is that?"
Thing is, by that description even Might & Magic would be considered RPG. Only difference is that in Diablo your stuff and that it's viewed from a different perspective (only Diablo is concidered Action RPG while Might & Magic Fantasy FPS).
Diablo is a whole different kind of games than most. It has some RPG elements but it's mostly a fast paced action game. Storytelling in Diablo III will make it even more interesting than it was. It will also feel more interactive than the previous games.
Some people still cling to a purist's definition of RPG. That's their prerogative. Diablo is not a 100% RPG when using the most strict definition of the word. But that's a moot point. Everyone here knows that Diablo is a hybrid genre. My contention is that Diablo is fundamentally based on Role Playing Game design, but has tailored the battle and storyline mechanics to incorporate action/adventure games.
I find that in life, definitions are there to guide us, not define us. There are very few things that are perfectly encapsulated by their definitions.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions."
-Thomas Jefferson
I say again: Final Fantasy. Quintessential RPGs. No character choice. No dialogue options. Scripted storylines.
Yes, but most of the games in that series also have immense character depth, development, and variety, none of which we see in Diablo, so I still disagree with you here.
I find that in life, definitions are there to guide us, not define us. There are very few things that are perfectly encapsulated by their definitions.
Methinks my chocolate muffin is now a grapefruit. Done.
If saying any game that has stats and buttons and upgrading and skill allotment is an RPG, there's scarcely a game out there that isn't one, therefore making the term pointless, the genre meaningless, and redefining the original intention of the term to something wholly useless.
I agree that most games today are composites, but to say that Diablo is a shining example of an RPG, or that it's even a good one, is, in my opinion, very misinformed and purely based on fanboy sentiments. I'm very fond of the franchise, but I'm not going to allow those feelings (nostalgia, mostly) to affect my better judgment.
It's a definitive ARPG, but it's a terrible RPG. It's just hack'n'slash with encyclopedic lore entries thrown in. No character depth or development and no choice.
I find that in life, definitions are there to guide us, not define us. There are very few things that are perfectly encapsulated by their definitions.
Methinks my chocolate muffin is now a grapefruit. Done.
Is that a joke? Are you trolling? Obviously this would be a very misguided idea. I'm not saying things have no definition, but that definitions are never absolute. For instance, a chocolate muffin is almost identical to a cupcake, which is just a small cake. So is a chocolate muffin actually cake? Well, the answer is, kind of. All depends on a loosely defined pastry. Do you get the point now?
If saying any game that has stats and buttons and upgrading and skill allotment is an RPG, there's scarcely a game out there that isn't one, therefore making the term pointless, the genre meaningless, and redefining the original intention of the term to something wholly useless.
This I completely agree with. The interesting point here is, in the context of modern gaming, what has the RPG actually become?
It's a definitive ARPG, but it's a terrible RPG. It's just hack'n'slash with encyclopedic lore entries thrown in. No character depth or development and no choice.
That's an opinion. This is a semantic argument, one that is open to interpretation. You choose a particular definition of RPG (one I happen to agree with), but you're not the merriam-webster of computer game definitions, and neither am I.
I'm saying this whole discussion is largely irrelevant. Let's judge this game for what it is, whatever you want to call its genre.
As a side-note, you're forming your opinion of the quality of D3 as an RPG based largely on what you know about D2. Talk to me about it when you actually play through D3, you might be pleasantly surprised if you keep an open mind.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions."
-Thomas Jefferson
I find that in life, definitions are there to guide us, not define us. There are very few things that are perfectly encapsulated by their definitions.
Methinks my chocolate muffin is now a grapefruit. Done.
Is that a joke? Are you trolling? Obviously this would be a very misguided idea. I'm not saying things have no definition, but that definitions are never absolute. For instance, a chocolate muffin is almost identical to a cupcake, which is just a small cake. So is a chocolate muffin actually cake? Well, the answer is, kind of. All depends on a loosely defined pastry. Do you get the point now?
You're so post-modern it's amusing. That was last generation, though.
Yeah, I was just joking. I was going to say that, but I figured you'd get it, anyway. I happened to be eating my regular chocolate muffin at the time.
However, I do try to troll frequently. I'm told I do it quite well at times.
If saying any game that has stats and buttons and upgrading and skill allotment is an RPG, there's scarcely a game out there that isn't one, therefore making the term pointless, the genre meaningless, and redefining the original intention of the term to something wholly useless.
This I completely agree with. The interesting point here is, in the context of modern gaming, what has the RPG actually become?
It's because of this ambiguity that I believe it needs redefining based on its roots, or else it needs to be removed entirely and a new term needs to replace it, one that adequately describes the content and focus of the game(s) in question. That's why I prefer to use western RPG (WRPG) and JRPG when referring to games most describe as RPG's.
The east and west both have powerful and polar definitions of what RPG's are, so I think it's logical to refer to RPG's as being in one camp or the other, or somewhere in between. Then any game that lacks requirements of either is either an ARPG or not an RPG, at all. Of course, this would be largely based on opinion, like you noted very succinctly, but it is a step closer to more useful definitions of terms.
One of these days, when we have college courses on game history, someone should attempt to write definitions and theories for these things that are actually useful.
It's a definitive ARPG, but it's a terrible RPG. It's just hack'n'slash with encyclopedic lore entries thrown in. No character depth or development and no choice.
That's an opinion. This is a semantic argument, one that is open to interpretation. You choose a particular definition of RPG (one I happen to agree with), but you're not the merriam-webster of computer game definitions, and neither am I.
I'm not saying my opinion is definitive, but I do believe it's logical, and therefore I believe in it. Else I wouldn't bother trying to persuade anyone to the contrary.
As a side-note, you're forming your opinion of the quality of D3 as an RPG based largely on what you know about D2. Talk to me about it when you actually play through D3, you might be pleasantly surprised if you keep an open mind.
If I was ambiguous, I am very sorry about that. My *intention* was to focus on Diablo II and I. I never bothered reiterating that after my initial post on page...two? Three?
Diablo III is much closer to what I would deem an RPG. When I played the demo, the NPC's involved with the quests that they gave us were actually involved and had interesting histories that were actually explored and developed. I still think there's some want for more, but it was an improvement, in my opinion (which I shouldn't have to say- obviously anything that I post without citing a source is my opinion), from Diablo II.
Diablo III is much closer to what I would deem an RPG. When I played the demo, the NPC's involved with the quests that they gave us were actually involved and had interesting histories that were actually explored and developed.
God save us from the bethesda model, where developers compensate for weak gameplay on rails by larding it up with blah-blah-blah narrative.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The developer definitely twisted and bended a lot of things toward a more economical direction (expanding the market by suiciding basic attributes possibilities to attract the ones who came in for simple thrill and a lesser meaningful idea of a Diablo), but this understanding for goodness sake, is going toward where everybody wants to be in. A great packet of story gameplay that's being treated like the classic material we're most comfortable with.
If it lacks the mechanics of tradition RPGs, then it's NOT an RPG. Tell me how do you role play in Diablo ? 'Cause I never saw an option to decide what I want to say when I interact with NPCs, I never had more then 1 choice to make for dialogue, I never had to choose between more then 1 route to accomplish my objectives, I never had to choose what objective I want to do or which ones I don't want to do, I never had to choose an alignement, i'm gonna stop here I think you get the point. So tell me, how in the hell is Diablo an RPG, please tell me, just ONE thing will suffice to convince me otherwise.
So lets get out of this hole and get to the facts: RPG as a game definition is used for games that have specific mechanics. Final Fantasy is a RPG yet you don't make story choices, you just go along. There's various defined genre of RPG-gameplay (like FF). Other features are considered RPG by nature (leveling, inventory).
This is so more for distinction than anything else. A game that has such progression and control toward your character's development is often reffered to as RPG.
In D2, you completely control his inventory and leveling. Furthermore, the gameplay is about stats more than skills. A game where you click and what makes the real difference is your stats is again, almost always considered an RPG.
No, its not -just- a RPG. Diablo 2 is an Action RPG.
If that's your definition of RPG, I bet StarCraft 2 is the pinnacle of RPGs for you.
Play a RPG not-BioWare please.
You do not affect or interact with other "characters" (NPC's), who scarcely have their own arcs which develop over time, beyond standing there and reading/listening to their monologues which may as well exist in a vacuum. Your choices have no impact on the story arc. In fact, you make no story choices. At all.
Good RPG's have all of these or some variation thereof. JRPG's generally have static storylines which focus on issues in the former paragraph, while WRPG's typically focus on the latter paragraph. There is very little to no role-playing involved in Diablo II, therefore it is not really an RPG of any caliber.
ARPG is a modern misnomer which has very little relevancy to its progenitor.
Does this make Diablo II a bad game? Hardly.
----
Diablo I is less so because some of the quests are more natural. I think I recall several having several possible outcomes.
And I'm glad Blizzard understand that quite well.
I think what most people defines a RPG nowdays is a game were you build strategies in a theorical/numerical level, not in a skill based one. The role playing things lost it's meaning. It's important in certain games but not in others.
Imo diablo is more RPG then action because factors like skill sets, traits, level, items are far more important then the player skill. It's a point and click and you control only one character. It's the most simple form of action.
All you stated was that a RPG must have 'traditional RPG elements', these 'traditional elements' are from what you have stated, decision making: alternate routes to move the story forward or whatnot. This definition is very simplistic and could easily fit with the 'non-linear' route StarCraft 2 took, does this make StarCraft 2 a RPG? Hell no.
Again, your very simplistic definition of RPGs leave out so many other games that everyone know they are RPGs. Games in question? Let's take the Final Fantasy series. I'm pretty sure the Final Fantasy franchise in its games takes a very linear route with barely any 'decision-making' and according to your very simplistic definition, this makes Final Fantasy not a RPG, which in fact it is.
So no, I (or anyone else in this thread) am not in denial, in fact the problem I see is that your personal definition of a RPG has been confined to BioWare RPGs which pride themselves on choice and unresolved endings. So sir, like I've said in my original response post, play non-BioWare RPGs please.
Find any Diablo news? Contact me or anyone else on the news team.
DiabloFans: Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Live Chat
Your character certainly talks to NPC's, and just because there's no dialogue branch doesn't mean there's no interaction. Again, I think people are trying to narrowly define the genre to their tastes. And it seems like the trend is, if people don't like the lack of interaction and freedom, they tend not to call the game an RPG, and vice-versa. I don't really care what it's called, its a FUN formula. Problem with WoW is that it wasn't fun after a while. My friend who came from D2 always said of WoW: "It's never any fun spending 20 seconds killing a single creature"... and even if you played an AoE class, it wasn't the same as taking a D2 character and just jumping into waves and waves of enemies.
If you played Diablo I, any of the classes you chose had a direct impact in D2 - the warrior became the wanderer, etc.... and theres hints we may see some of the canon characters from D2 have some sort of aftermath in D3. And so I'd still say if someone saw me playing D3 with spells and axes flying everywhere and me controlling a single, advanceable character, they'd say "What RPG is that?"
Diablo is a whole different kind of games than most. It has some RPG elements but it's mostly a fast paced action game. Storytelling in Diablo III will make it even more interesting than it was. It will also feel more interactive than the previous games.
I find that in life, definitions are there to guide us, not define us. There are very few things that are perfectly encapsulated by their definitions.
-Thomas Jefferson
Yes, but most of the games in that series also have immense character depth, development, and variety, none of which we see in Diablo, so I still disagree with you here.
Methinks my chocolate muffin is now a grapefruit. Done.
If saying any game that has stats and buttons and upgrading and skill allotment is an RPG, there's scarcely a game out there that isn't one, therefore making the term pointless, the genre meaningless, and redefining the original intention of the term to something wholly useless.
I agree that most games today are composites, but to say that Diablo is a shining example of an RPG, or that it's even a good one, is, in my opinion, very misinformed and purely based on fanboy sentiments. I'm very fond of the franchise, but I'm not going to allow those feelings (nostalgia, mostly) to affect my better judgment.
It's a definitive ARPG, but it's a terrible RPG. It's just hack'n'slash with encyclopedic lore entries thrown in. No character depth or development and no choice.
Is that a joke? Are you trolling? Obviously this would be a very misguided idea. I'm not saying things have no definition, but that definitions are never absolute. For instance, a chocolate muffin is almost identical to a cupcake, which is just a small cake. So is a chocolate muffin actually cake? Well, the answer is, kind of. All depends on a loosely defined pastry. Do you get the point now?
This I completely agree with. The interesting point here is, in the context of modern gaming, what has the RPG actually become?
That's an opinion. This is a semantic argument, one that is open to interpretation. You choose a particular definition of RPG (one I happen to agree with), but you're not the merriam-webster of computer game definitions, and neither am I.
I'm saying this whole discussion is largely irrelevant. Let's judge this game for what it is, whatever you want to call its genre.
As a side-note, you're forming your opinion of the quality of D3 as an RPG based largely on what you know about D2. Talk to me about it when you actually play through D3, you might be pleasantly surprised if you keep an open mind.
-Thomas Jefferson
Woah, nice find Ent! I'm sure glad that they didn't go with that look though, I enjoy the new graphics way more. Thanks for posting this.
You're so post-modern it's amusing. That was last generation, though.
Yeah, I was just joking. I was going to say that, but I figured you'd get it, anyway. I happened to be eating my regular chocolate muffin at the time.
However, I do try to troll frequently. I'm told I do it quite well at times.
It's because of this ambiguity that I believe it needs redefining based on its roots, or else it needs to be removed entirely and a new term needs to replace it, one that adequately describes the content and focus of the game(s) in question. That's why I prefer to use western RPG (WRPG) and JRPG when referring to games most describe as RPG's.
The east and west both have powerful and polar definitions of what RPG's are, so I think it's logical to refer to RPG's as being in one camp or the other, or somewhere in between. Then any game that lacks requirements of either is either an ARPG or not an RPG, at all. Of course, this would be largely based on opinion, like you noted very succinctly, but it is a step closer to more useful definitions of terms.
One of these days, when we have college courses on game history, someone should attempt to write definitions and theories for these things that are actually useful.
I'm not saying my opinion is definitive, but I do believe it's logical, and therefore I believe in it. Else I wouldn't bother trying to persuade anyone to the contrary.
If I was ambiguous, I am very sorry about that. My *intention* was to focus on Diablo II and I. I never bothered reiterating that after my initial post on page...two? Three?
Diablo III is much closer to what I would deem an RPG. When I played the demo, the NPC's involved with the quests that they gave us were actually involved and had interesting histories that were actually explored and developed. I still think there's some want for more, but it was an improvement, in my opinion (which I shouldn't have to say- obviously anything that I post without citing a source is my opinion), from Diablo II.
God save us from the bethesda model, where developers compensate for weak gameplay on rails by larding it up with blah-blah-blah narrative.