Diablo 3 - Not an Action RPG @ GameSpy

Originally Posted by kalniel
Doesn't matter what academic criteria you want to apply, market categorisations are the only ones that count.

Who does them ?

And what do the people think who do these "market categorizations" ?

They at least must have made up their minds at one point, or their treatment of games in general would be completely erratic, irregular, by chance, etc. …

Originally Posted by Alrik Fassbauer
What ? Me ?

Nope, I would quote you if I was replying to that. I mean the gamespy author.

Originally Posted by Alrik Fassbauer
Who does them ?

The market - that is, the consumers. It's what they understand when someone (publisher, store etc.) else categorises a game. If shops described Diablo 3 as a shooter then the consumer would be confused, but they don't - they describe it as an RPG and consumers understand.

[Edit: an example - we're discussing Diablo3 at RPGwatch..]

They at least must have made up their minds at one point, or their treatment of games in general would be completely erratic, irregular, by chance, etc. …

Absolutely, but stores and publishers have quite a lot of experience. Of course, lots of games can't be categorised, and sometimes a new category will become popular (like 'indie').

Originally Posted by Dhruin
GameSpy's Dan Stapleton argues Diablo III is a straight-up action game, not an action/RPG: Diablo 3 isn't an action-roleplaying game — it's simply an action game

I can almost agree with this if it's about all Diablos and clones. An action game with pretty much irrelevant traces of RPG.

The reason it's a problem to care too much about whether it's an RPG, is the psychological implication.

If you care, it's because you're emotionally connected to the genre. In this case, people are treasuring the RPG genre - because they've had great experiences with it. But your emotional connection is corrupting your ability to look at it rationally.

You may not really want to admit it, but the source is that you feel including a game you don't personally think is an RPG into the genre - somehow taints the genre. But the genre isn't your experiences - and it isn't your genre.

It's a category in which a lot of games belong that a lot of people wouldn't want there - but they're there.

If you can't argue your case logically - then just give it up. Logic is the only universal language that approaches the objective. The rest is opinion. You don't think this or that qualifies as roleplaying - and across the street someone disagrees. Some people think making development choices are sufficient - some don't. There's no universal answer.

What matters is HOW the game is - not WHAT it is.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
The reason it's a problem to care too much about whether it's an RPG, is the psychological implication.

If you care, it's because you're emotionally connected to the genre. In this case, people are treasuring the RPG genre - because they've had great experiences with it. But your emotional connection is corrupting your ability to look at it rationally.

You may not really want to admit it, but the source is that you feel including a game you don't personally think is an RPG into the genre - somehow taints the genre. But the genre isn't your experiences - and it isn't your genre.

Taint is a bit strong… I'd argue most forumites who care enough to comment are worried it will further dilute an already diluted genre. Even if certain individuals have a stronger affinity for traditional CRPGs over other genres, they can still look at (and consider or argue) a game's classification in a rational way.

It's a category in which a lot of games belong that a lot of people wouldn't want there - but they're there.

Says who? Who has the authority to determine what qualifies as a "RPG" if there is no one true definition of what constitutes a "RPG"? To me, without a clear concise definition of RPG, any discussion is an exercise in futility. You may reject someone else's reality and impose your own, but it is not any more valid when objectivity is lacking(in this case a universally accepted definition)…

One reason humans classify things is to facilitate efficient communication of thoughts and ideas. Any classification that lacks specificity is irrelevant/useless. Like referring to every mammal as simply a mammal, their are numerous distinctions that warrant further specific classifications.

If you can't argue your case logically - then just give it up. Logic is the only universal language that approaches the objective. The rest is opinion. You don't think this or that qualifies as roleplaying - and across the street someone disagrees. Some people think making development choices are sufficient - some don't. There's no universal answer.

What matters is HOW the game is - not WHAT it is.

So why bother making an argument if everyone is both right and wrong depending on from whose perspective you view the debate? Can you honestly separate "how the game is" from "what it is" while remaining true to your pursuit of objectivity?

Originally Posted by CountChocula
Forget about "academic criteria of a certain word," this is common sense. Is there such a thing as a racing game without racing, a zombie game with no zombies, or a basketball game without basketball? Certainly there are no role playing games without role playing.

I agree with you . Look at Dragons Dogma Capcom bills it as an action adventure game yet critics and fans call it an rpg. Just don't call it that are you get responses that typical go its an rpg not an action adventure game.

To get back on topic is anyone surprised at the game. It's the typical hack and slash your way for hours with minimal plot. The last games in the series were no different.

Originally Posted by CountChocula
A roleplaying game with no roleplaying doesn't make any sense, any more than a shooter without guns, or a fighting game without fighting, etc.

You keep using this line but it doesn't hold up. MOO3 has the world's shittiest AI but that doesn't mean it's no longer a strategy game - it's just not a good one. Adam Sandler and Rob Schneider aren't remotely funny - but that doesn't make their movies dramas or action/adventures - they're just not good comedies.

Alpha Protocol 2

Originally Posted by Dhruin
Adam Sandler and Rob Schneider aren't remotely funny - but that doesn't make their movies dramas or action/adventures - they're just not good comedies.

Those are fighting words. I have enjoyed all there movies. You plebeian.

Originally Posted by Dhruin
You keep using this line but it doesn't hold up. MOO3 has the world's shittiest AI but that doesn't mean it's no longer a strategy game - it's just not a good one. Adam Sandler and Rob Schneider aren't remotely funny - but that doesn't make their movies dramas or action/adventures - they're just not good comedies.

As I mentioned above, there are games with better RP opportunities, with hundreds of NPCs, branching quests, different factions you can join, etc., and there are games with much more limited RP opportunities. But if there is absolutely no roleplaying in a game at all, clearly it is not a role playing game. This is nothing more than common sense.

I played Master of Orion 1 quite a bit as a kid, never played 3, but regardless of whether the A.I. is smart or stupid, regardless of whether it's a good strategy game or a bad strategy game, either there is real time strategy gameplay or turn based strategy gameplay or it's not a strategy game. It might be a crappy game, but if there is that kind of gameplay it's still a strategy game.

If you are talking about Punch Drunk Love, or, say Spanglish, you could certainly argue that those are not comedies. As for some of his other movies that you might not have liked, they are comedies because they contain comedy content and a comedy storyline. They might be bad or stupid jokes, but they are still jokes.

There are good shooters and crappy shooters, but all of them allow you to shoot stuff. Same goes for racing games, fighting games, basketball games, etc. There are also hybrid sort of games of course, say a sandbox shooter with some role playing elements, etc., but I was responding to an earlier comment specifically about whether it's possible to have role playing games with no roleplaying, and the answer is absolutely not.

EDIT: Watching a film about a ragtag team of misfit basketball players and a coach with a drinking problem can certainly be a somewhat different experience from watching a racing movie, or an Adam Sandler comedy, but in video games these distinctions of genre carry a bit more weight because the gameplay in a strategy game, a racing game or a roleplaying game is such a different experience, regardless of whether it's a good game or a bad game.

Originally Posted by MasterKromm
Says who? Who has the authority to determine what qualifies as a "RPG" if there is no one true definition of what constitutes a "RPG"? To me, without a clear concise definition of RPG, any discussion is an exercise in futility. You may reject someone else's reality and impose your own, but it is not any more valid when objectivity is lacking(in this case a universally accepted definition)…

That's precisely my point, and you're missing that I'm not imposing my own definition (I don't have one, even) on others. I'm suggesting they stop pretending that their views are objective or universal. They're not - just as mine are not.

At the very least, they should argue their case logically - because that IS the only thing approaching the universal.

It doesn't do any good going in circles about roleplaying demanding a certain amount of depth in a certain way, when that amount is totally vague and equally subjective - and will shift according to personal preference when a game qualifies suddenly. It's ridiculous.

One reason humans classify things is to facilitate efficient communication of thoughts and ideas. Any classification that lacks specificity is irrelevant/useless. Like referring to every mammal as simply a mammal, their are numerous distinctions that warrant further specific classifications.

That's another part of my point. There can never be efficient communication if you stick to a subjective definition and expect people to accept it as universal.

That's why the genre called "RPG" by itself will never amount to efficient communication. It's almost totally useless, except as additional information about a game - and you have to dig deeper, adding more words and concepts.

Because if I call a game an RPG - then everyone in the room will react according to their own subjective concept of what an RPG is, and you will actually not have communicated what the game actually is - because it's not universally defined.

So why bother making an argument if everyone is both right and wrong depending on from whose perspective you view the debate? Can you honestly separate "how the game is" from "what it is" while remaining true to your pursuit of objectivity?

I'm "bothering" to make an argument, because people are trying to make their subjective notions objective - or universally applicable. That means they're kidding themselves - and I'm trying to make that case logically.

As for whether I can separate HOW a game is from WHAT it is, I think I can. But even if I can't, it's still not important WHAT it is. At least, it's much less important.

Well we can propose another definition (expanding my earlier point): those of us who are happy describing Diablo 3 in the RPG genre can continue discussion of it on RPGwatch. Those who aren't should restrict their comments to moaning in the forums suggestion board about the site covering the wrong things

Originally Posted by kalniel
Those who aren't should restrict their comments to moaning in the forums suggestion board about the site covering the wrong things

Personally, I don't mind at all about the site covering non-RPGs. There are plenty of hybrid action games with some influence from RPGs, and some of them are quite fun to play: the DayZ mod for Arma2, Dishonored, STALKER, Mount & Blade, RAGE, Deus Ex, Borderlands, the Thief series, etc.

I would imagine as we transition to a new generation of consoles with more memory and better hardware, we will probably see a lot more of these hybrid action/RPG games, and many of us eagerly await some of these titles. I don't even know if, for example, a game like Bioshock Infinite is an RPG or not. As long as there is at least some minimal opportunity for RP, some kind of influence from the genre, I'm interested in reading about it.

Originally Posted by CountChocula
As long as there is at least some minimal opportunity for RP, some kind of influence from the genre, I'm interested in reading about it.

I think that sums up my point quite nicely, thank you.

I'm currently playing the Medieval SIMs … The hero earns experience points, does quests, can change the look … The only thing missing to make it an "real" RPG is the complete lack of any rules set.

So, call me crazy if you want, but if what Blizzard produced is called an "RPG", then I dare to call the "SIMs Medieval" an RPG, too !

I think the article is bs. The only difference between Diablo 2 and Diablo 3 (besides the auction house) is they took away the pain of regretting decisions you made when you didn't know how to play the game. This is progress, most AAA rpgs are doing this now. In addition, who wants to put in 20-30 more hours because they want to play their mage in a different style? Blizzard knows Diablo 3 is not good enough to support this kind of replayability. Hallelujah to a developer's humility.

Originally Posted by Burress
I think the article is bs. The only difference between Diablo 2 and Diablo 3 (besides the auction house) is they took away the pain of regretting decisions you made when you didn't know how to play the game. This is progress, most AAA rpgs are doing this now.

Yes, this is a progress. Progress to extreme simplification. Diablo, as well as other AAA games you are referring to are targeted at the masses. Masses contain individuals not able to take responsibility for their decisions - they would moan even about something about as trivial as a game decision they regret and blame it on game or its creators instead of their simple minds.

So the developers prevent this by removing any and all decisions leading to possibility of increased difficulty, along with removing any intellectual challenge (all problems the game presents are alternatively solvable by beating it with the stick - clicks - repeatedly).

So please, please, stop calling this a progress. There are some of us, who like challenge. Those who are able and find joy in making decisions. Those who remember the time when you actually had to "beat" the game to finish it - not click it repeatedly.

D3 has to be one of the most simplified, dumbed down, hand-held games to date. Sure it can be fun like whack-a-mole but I would only consider it progress if progress is defined as making games that baby sit the players and turn you into couch zombies.

I enjoy it to relieve stress when I am to tired to think after a long day. But it doesn't hold my attention to long as it tends to turn my brain to mush fairly quickly.