Diablo 3 Expansion - Reaper of Souls

[DArtagnan]

It has a lot of significant RPG elements, which should be reason enough. I think it's more appropriate than several other games getting coverage - but then again, I'm probably more tolerant of non-pure RPGs than many others around here.

 

[Stingray]

What elements? Just gear accumulation.

I don't disagree though about it being more appropriate than a few other things being posted about.

 

[DArtagnan]

What elements? Just gear accumulation.

I don't disagree though about it being more appropriate than a few other things being posted about.

Character creation and progression, story, NPC interaction with multiple and optional dialogues, quests, crafting, character-driven combat, loot, and so on.

Basically, it's just an action version of a more traditional RPG minus the C&C.

You can belittle it as much as you want, but those are the facts.

 

[Stingray]

Character creation and progression, story, NPC interaction with multiple and optional dialogues, quests, crafting, character-driven combat, loot, and so on.

There is no character creation, you just pick one of 5 classes to play and then your gender. You can't even configure the appearance. This is no different than many shooters nowadays.

There is also no character development, you don't make a single permanent choice on your character, ever. You are whatever gear you happen to be wearing at the moment and that's it.

I think the NPC interaction and "quests" thing is a weak argument, the whole thing is nearly 100% linear and the quests are more just like a "to do" list, pretty much the same thing as what some shooters and other action games give you nowadays. You don't make a single choice during the entire game that matters or really affects anything. There's no role that you play (meaning you, the player, not your character).

Crafting and loot is what remains, but I don't think those define an RPG.

Basically, it's just an action version of a more traditional RPG minus the C&C.

It's really far from a traditional RPG. Not even recognizeable imo. The main reason is that there is zero character development. There haven't been any other action RPGs that I recall with zero character development. (Although some newer ones do offer "re-specs" which you could argue is the same thing, in principle)

You can belittle it as much as you want, but those are the facts.

I'm not belittling it, I bought it when it came out and put about 300 hours into it in the first 1-2 months, beat Inferno Diablo before the first nerf went in, etc etc. I got my "money" out of it, and it was a decent game for what it was, but it bears no resemblance to an RPG in my book.

 

[DArtagnan]

There is no character creation, you just pick one of 5 classes to play and then your gender. You can't even configure the appearance. This is no different than many shooters nowadays.

You pick a character, gender and a name, which is not uncommon for the RPG genre. That's called character creation.

You can customize your "flag" - which is part of your identity. Though I concede it's a bit gimmicky - it's still there.

There is also no character development, you don't make a single permanent choice on your character, ever. You are whatever gear you happen to be wearing at the moment and that's it.

There is plenty of character development, whether permanent or not. Lots of RPGs have full respecs or the option to change your character from scratch. Diablo 3 just takes that flexibility to the maximum. There's more skill customization in Diablo 3 than the vast majority of "pure" RPGs.

I don't know why you think permanency is a requirement - but you're not going to find that in any kind of official definition.

We can agree that it's not the ideal way to handle it, but there's no way you can claim there's no development and look like a rational human being.

In fact, I think character development is the best part of Diablo 3. I just wish you couldn't change skills at will - because that would mean more replayability.

I think the NPC interaction and "quests" thing is a weak argument, the whole thing is nearly 100% linear and the quests are more just like a "to do" list, pretty much the same thing as what some shooters and other action games give you nowadays. You don't make a single choice during the entire game that matters or really affects anything. There's no role that you play (meaning you, the player, not your character).

There are many NPCs and there are many quests. Linearity has nothing to do with them being there or not.

Those are significant RPG elements, whether you like it or not.

I already said there's no C&C - so there's no reason to repeat it.

My argument isn't weak - it's 100% irrefutable.

If you have certain "standards" for what a quest needs to be or what an NPC needs to be - those are your subjective notions that have nothing to do with the objective.

Crafting and loot is what remains, but I don't think those define an RPG.

They're not what remains - and I'm not talking about defining an RPG. I'm talking about RPG elements.

People can make up their own minds about whether it's an RPG or not - but it has enough elements to qualify for a lot of gamers.

It's really far from a traditional RPG. Not even recognizeable imo. The main reason is that there is zero character development. There haven't been any other action RPGs that I recall with zero character development. (Although some newer ones do offer "re-specs" which you could argue is the same thing, in principle)

You're confusing development with permanent choices. Lots and lots of RPGs and MMOs allow full respecs or respecs with a limited cost. I don't know why you're telling yourself that choices need to be permanent to be part of character development, but it's not rational.

I'm not belittling it, I bought it when it came out and put about 300 hours into it in the first 1-2 months, beat Inferno Diablo before the first nerf went in, etc etc. I got my "money" out of it, and it was a decent game for what it was, but it bears no resemblance to an RPG in my book.

I have no problem with you using your own private definition of RPG to dismiss Diablo 3 as one.

That doesn't change the fact that it has several significant RPG elements, though - and that makes it very relevant for a site like RPGWatch.

 

[Stingray]

That doesn't change the fact that it has several significant RPG elements, though - and that makes it very relevant for a site like RPGWatch.

Looks like we have far different definitions of what constitute "significant RPG elements", so we'll never agree on this one. It's just the old "what is an RPG" argument rehashed.

 

[ChienAboyeur]

I think the NPC interaction and "quests" thing is a weak argument, the whole thing is nearly 100% linear and the quests are more just like a "to do" list, pretty much the same thing as what some shooters and other action games give you nowadays. You don't make a single choice during the entire game that matters or really affects anything. There's no role that you play (meaning you, the player, not your character).

You've got that part wrong. These shooters and other actions are games waiting for being called RPGs. They are RPGs without being called that yet.

As to the role, RPGs are about everything but role playing. When a game has roleplaying in it, it cant be a RPG.

 

[DArtagnan]

Looks like we have far different definitions of what constitute "significant RPG elements", so we'll never agree on this one. It's just the old "what is an RPG" argument rehashed.

I get the feeling you're right that we'll never agree on this one

However, I think there's a difference between RPG elements and what makes an RPG. I don't have a personal definition for the latter - but there's no way I can dismiss Diablo 3 as not having significant RPG elements.

Do I consider it a traditional or pure RPG? Nope. But I have no problem calling it an RPG - even if I don't fret over whether it is or not.

 

[Stingray]

Well, the latest Call of Duty (or whatever other big-name modern shooter you want to talk about) has quite a few RPG elements too, then. Sounds like Chien is even arguing they should now be called RPGs…

To me, the core of an RPG (hearkening back to the P&P definition, I suppose) is that there's some sort of story that you participate in and influence to some degree (or at least they make you feel like you're influencing it, if nothing else). You don't really participate or influence the story or events in D3 any more than you would in your average AAA cinematic corridor shooter. Think about, let's say, D3 vs Fallout: New Vegas. New Vegas = action RPG, while D3 = just action, the way I see it.

 

[DArtagnan]

To me, the core of an RPG (hearkening back to the P&P definition, I suppose) is that there's some sort of story that you participate in and influence to some degree (or at least they make you feel like you're influencing it, if nothing else). You don't really participate or influence the story or events in D3 any more than you would in your average AAA cinematic corridor shooter. Think about, let's say, D3 vs Fallout: New Vegas. New Vegas = action RPG, while D3 = just action, the way I see it.

As I said, I think it's fair that you have your own private definition of what makes an RPG.

I just don't think you can be rational and dismiss that D3 has several RPG elements - though I guess I can concede people differ on how significant those elements are.

 

[HiddenX]

@Couchpotato

I like your personal jabs, comments, hints, likes & dislikes at the end of newsbits; you get the following discussions going. Please don't change anything, just be yourself.

 

[Stingray]

As I said, I think it's fair that you have your own private definition of what makes an RPG.

That's all there is. Everyone's own private definitions. It's not a word that's in the dictionary or anything, so there is no official definition. You could go by the gaming media's definition, but even some of them agree with me: http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/diablo-iii/1225243p1.html

The other option is just to rely on the company selling the game to tell you what it is. ie: Blizzard says D3 is an RPG, so it must be.

Anyway, I agree with HiddenX.

 

[DArtagnan]

That's all there is. Everyone's own private definitions. It's not a word that's in the dictionary or anything, so there is no official definition. You could go by the gaming media's definition, but even some of them agree with me: http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/diablo-iii/1225243p1.html

The other option is just to rely on the company selling the game to tell you what it is. ie: Blizzard says D3 is an RPG, so it must be.

I don't know why you keep insisting I'm talking about Diablo 3 as an RPG. I'm talking about RPG ELEMENTS.

I don't get involved in RPG definitions - because they're subjective. I don't consider RPG elements subjective - certainly not to the same degree. Which is why I think it's irrational to dismiss the quests, development and NPCs in Diablo 3 as "not RPG elements".

Frankly, that's bias in its purest form.

Whether the RPG elements are "enough" to make it into an RPG is what I don't get involved in.

 

[Stingray]

When you said this: "Basically, it's just an action version of a more traditional RPG minus the C&C"
I assumed you were calling D3 an RPG. My mistake then.

 

[DArtagnan]

When you said this: "Basically, it's just an action version of a more traditional RPG minus the C&C"
I assumed you were calling D3 an RPG. My mistake then.

I wasn't - as I consider C&C a major part of a pure/traditional RPG.

I think it's fair to say that I'm undecided about D3 as an RPG. I honestly don't care - and I don't understand why people are so biased against it as one.

 

[ChienAboyeur]

Well, the latest Call of Duty (or whatever other big-name modern shooter you want to talk about) has quite a few RPG elements too, then. Sounds like Chien is even arguing they should now be called RPGs…

Actually, players who keep defining RPGs by means that can be used in them (like the so called RPG elements) should be arguing why those shooters and the other games should not be called RPGs.

I must argue on nothing. I just stick to their definition: if the game has the elements they use to define a RPG, then it is an RPG.

If Diablo 3 is a RPG because it includes X and another game also includes X then that another game is also an RPG.

Nothing to argue over that. It is the automatic consequence of the application of the definition.
Now, when you dismiss that the game including X is an RPG, you should argue over why it should not be called an RPG.

If your shooters include the same stuff that makes games to be RPGs, they are RPGs.

Obviously

 

[DArtagnan]

I suppose Chien thinks it's somehow a problem if a shooter was also an RPG?

Getting all emotional about something as trivial as a genre definition can't be healthy.

 

[Galaad]

I don't really intend to get in a debate so I'll just say that I personally enjoy Couch's news posting

 

[Alrik Fassbauer]

Has everybody forgotten the Watch's try to make a new definition of what is an RPG ?

 

[blackcanopus]

I didn't undermine what Couch is doing, just pointed out that 'this' newsbit was unprofessional.