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.
Totally agree. This deserves to be read and re-read. As you pointed out earlier, I'm kind of intellectually opposed to strict definitions. I believe that forms exist before we define them, even for seemingly human constructs. The laws of physics attempt to describe the mechanisms of the universe, and our laws have no bearing on the actual mechanisms themselves. The same is true for a muffin. Or a gaming genre.
I personally think the RPG genre has been revealed, through its current incarnations, to be more expansive than their initial pen and paper practices. So our definitions should be properly expanded in response. Einstein's relativity expanded on Newton's initial attempt to explain motion and mechanics. Same applies here imo. Newton's laws of motion are still used to great affect. But over time, they were revealed to be limited, and were thus amended.
Yeah, the analogy is imperfect, a bit of a stretch.. but my point is in there somewhere.
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.
I gotcha now. Aaaaannd I'm back on topic. For the record, I agreed with most everything you said, but was feeling particularly devil's advocattish. I concur about I and II, and yeah, I'm looking forward to DIII pushing more into an RPG role. That said I'm pretty protective of the niche genre that Diablo pulls off so well.. the schizoid fast-twitch action is SO fun. I don't want stuff like Dragon Age, with tedious conversations constantly dragging down the pace..
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions."
-Thomas Jefferson
As far as conversations go, they seem to have a pretty good system in place where theres still long voice overs for people who care to listen, but you can be killing stuff the whole time. Or you can choose not to listen at all.
Bahaha, this cracked me up. It's true, I would literally be the poster-child of post-modernism if we believed that posters exist.
Totally agree. This deserves to be read and re-read. As you pointed out earlier, I'm kind of intellectually opposed to strict definitions. I believe that forms exist before we define them, even for seemingly human constructs. The laws of physics attempt to describe the mechanisms of the universe, and our laws have no bearing on the actual mechanisms themselves. The same is true for a muffin. Or a gaming genre.
I personally think the RPG genre has been revealed, through its current incarnations, to be more expansive than their initial pen and paper practices. So our definitions should be properly expanded in response. Einstein's relativity expanded on Newton's initial attempt to explain motion and mechanics. Same applies here imo. Newton's laws of motion are still used to great affect. But over time, they were revealed to be limited, and were thus amended.
Yeah, the analogy is imperfect, a bit of a stretch.. but my point is in there somewhere.
Very well said.
I gotcha now. Aaaaannd I'm back on topic. For the record, I agreed with most everything you said, but was feeling particularly devil's advocattish. I concur about I and II, and yeah, I'm looking forward to DIII pushing more into an RPG role. That said I'm pretty protective of the niche genre that Diablo pulls off so well.. the schizoid fast-twitch action is SO fun. I don't want stuff like Dragon Age, with tedious conversations constantly dragging down the pace..
-Thomas Jefferson
Find any Diablo news? Contact me or anyone else on the news team.
DiabloFans: Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Live Chat