What is important in an ARPG?

An arpg is an rpg with action combat. Its a huge wide open lable. Any rpg which uses turn based combat and a hex or square field is called a tactical rpg, even though games in either genre can differ wildly. Diablo & co. are often called hack & slay games, since they are dungeon crawlers. The first computerized rpgs (like wizardry and the very early Ultimas) were also Dungeon Crawlers, so those are rpgs, in that many pen & paper rpg adventures like Dungeon and Dragon's infamous Tomb of Horrors was nothing more than a dungeon crawler. I find it amusing that people (including Josh Sawyer) don't consider these dungeon crawlers rpgs, since they have no branching dialogue or story decisions, but there you have it, they were the first rpgs, both in terms on pen & paper, and on the computer. Of course there are also open world rpgs (both tactical or action) and linear story based (both of these also have a tradition in pen & paper games) but the word ARPG refers solely to combat, not how the adventure or the computer game is structured.
 
Joined
Jan 29, 2014
Messages
2,717
Location
Vienna, Austria
ELEX is interesting, I'd say that anybody planing to do an open world ARPG should also play it and analyze it in deep (others are more obvious I'll skip quote them).

For now I'm not totally convinced by the combats, but during a play phase heavy on learning it's hard to evaluate well. Otherwise it's surprising, it is much better than I would have guess. Beside combats and after less than 10H played, perhaps about 7H, it's the best wide open world CRPG I ever played. But it's just a first feeling. And it clearly give up on many details plenty players can't bear like ton of anonymous NPC and for them almost no variations of vocals and probably even for NPC 3D models too.

First feeling is beside combats it's Gothic 2 quite better and quite wider.

Agree with all of this pretty much, except that combat is fun and it does get a lot better, it just takes a long PB progression curve to get there. Longer than even Gothic 2's progression, and I love that. Combat is also deeper than first glance suggests.

But I also think the entire trilogy of Gothic games should be analyzed deeply by developers as well. Those games were ahead of their time by years and honestly still are in many ways.
 
An arpg is an rpg with action combat. Its a huge wide open lable. Any rpg which uses turn based combat and a hex or square field is called a tactical rpg, even though games in either genre can differ wildly. Diablo & co. are often called hack & slay games, since they are dungeon crawlers. The first computerized rpgs (like wizardry and the very early Ultimas) were also Dungeon Crawlers, so those are rpgs, in that many pen & paper rpg adventures like Dungeon and Dragon's infamous Tomb of Horrors was nothing more than a dungeon crawler. I find it amusing that people (including Josh Sawyer) don't consider these dungeon crawlers rpgs, since they have no branching dialogue or story decisions, but there you have it, they were the first rpgs, both in terms on pen & paper, and on the computer. Of course there are also open world rpgs (both tactical or action) and linear story based (both of these also have a tradition in pen & paper games) but the word ARPG refers solely to combat, not how the adventure or the computer game is structured.

Yes. And action games are usually single character because you can't control a whole team of characters in real time. Though some blobbers achieve this, because you don't control each character individually, and some games work it so you have a team of characters but you only control your character, the AI controls the others. These would be the only examples of water muddiers I can think of?
 
Joined
Nov 1, 2014
Messages
4,762
Let me first clarify that my answers refer to games developed by Bethesda, Piranha Bytes, CDP and similar. Not hack'n slash games.
1. Imagine you are playing an ARPG, what kind of thoughts or images do you associate with that in general?
Immersion is the first thing that springs to mind. I need to be captivated by the world. I can ignore a lot of flaws and issues if the world is well crafted and has the right atmosphere.

2. According to your own experience, what kind of problems or shortcomings do ARPGs typically have?
Good question. For me, it's probably the feeling of watered down content. Quantity over quality. Morrowind -> Oblivion and Gothic 2 -> Gothic 3 are good examples. I feel the sequels in this case developed in the wrong direction by increasing the scope too much, leading to too many generic quests, areas and people, which makes the experience less memorable.

3. When you think about buying an ARPG, which features, elements or other game attributes do you think about?
The setting and overall concept first and foremost. Like I previously mentioned: I can overlook a lot of things if the developers really succeed with the setting by creating a world that feels interesting and alive. Also, I vastly prefer 3rd person view for exploration, so I like to least have that as an option (for example Morrowind, which has a rubbish 3rd person view, but it still means I can switch to it when needed).

4. What do you expect from ARPGs in the future?
In recent years, we've seen quite a few interesting ARPGs, such as ME: A, the new Fallouts, The Witcher 3, Skyrim and ELEX. I expect more of the same really, which is a good thing. Hopefully, they'll even add more of a comprehensive story to it all, like The Witcher 3 did. It pretty much set a new bar in that regard.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
7,583
Location
Bergen
Is the story in Witcher 3 really that impressive though, or is it more of their heavy investment in cinematics, cutscenes and that sort of thing?

Personally, I wouldn't want games like Skyrim or even ELEX to go in that direction much. For Skyrim I really like the in-game "cutscenes" too. It makes it more immersive to me, while W3 feels like an interactive movie (from a distance, I haven't played it.) And the story and especially pacing were great for me in Skyrim.
 
Is the story in Witcher 3 really that impressive though, or is it more of their heavy investment in cinematics, cutscenes and that sort of thing?

Personally, I wouldn't want games like Skyrim or even ELEX to go in that direction much. For Skyrim I really like the in-game "cutscenes" too. It makes it more immersive to me, while W3 feels like an interactive movie (from a distance, I haven't played it.) And the story and especially pacing were great for me in Skyrim.

That's a good question. From my experience there are a lot of people that either genuinenly enjoyed or hated the plot. After all it's more of a personal story related to that character, while in many other games the characters are less defined and as a consequence the story less polarizing.
But I am also sure, that the sheer quality of story elements (animations, voice over, writing, cutscenes etc.) will impress many players regardless of whether they like the actual content. I had the same feeling with Horizon Zero Dawn - I didn't particularly like the game or the characters, but they produced some great quality and I just couldn't help but to be impressed of what they have created.


That being said... thank you, everybody who answered my questions. It's very interesting to read all your experiences.

While we are at it:
What do you guys think about the term modern ARPG? Does that make things more clear?
 
Joined
Feb 25, 2015
Messages
20
While we are at it:
What do you guys think about the term modern ARPG? Does that make things more clear?

I'd even turnm this around : How would you defione a "non-ARPG" RPG ?

And, to play the cynic again, why don't there exist many "non-ARPG RPGs" anymore ?

I mean, it feels to me nowadays as if the ARPG sub-genre has taken over and fully swallowed and consumed everything RPG … It feels to me as if the ARPG is considered the STANDARD RPG these days …

What would an RPG have to have if is was to be defined as an "non-action RPG" ?

I think that the term APRG is these days more than clear; everyone knows what that means.
But this "ARPG tag" has been applied to so many RPGs jusat simply to make them appear more action-like than they need to be, simply because marketing people firmly believe that ONLY action-RPGs would sell … Which is why there is such a drought of ANY OTHER kinds of RPGs - and this drought was the reason for Larian's D:OS success, I firmly believe … Simply because no-one wanted to do that because everyone stubbornly believed in "this is no action = this won't sell".
 
Joined
Nov 5, 2006
Messages
21,908
Location
Old Europe
Is the story in Witcher 3 really that impressive though, or is it more of their heavy investment in cinematics, cutscenes and that sort of thing?

Personally, I wouldn't want games like Skyrim or even ELEX to go in that direction much. For Skyrim I really like the in-game "cutscenes" too. It makes it more immersive to me, while W3 feels like an interactive movie (from a distance, I haven't played it.) And the story and especially pacing were great for me in Skyrim.

Well, I connected with the characters in a way I never have in such a big game. Triss, Yennefer, Ciri, Geralt, Vesemir and so on all felt much more alive than just about any characters I've come across. There were moments that were genuinely emotional. In fact, after I stopped playing the game I actually found myself missing a few of the characters, like Ciri, which is shocking considering it's just a fictional character in a game.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
7,583
Location
Bergen
What would an RPG have to have if is was to be defined as an "non-action RPG" ?

More like anything that has some sort of numerical character progression is an RPG, but only those were you directly control a single character in real time would be considered ARPG.
It's a good idea you have there, seeing how the best sellers these days are almost all ARPGs. However, I feel that then a lot of people would think about games like Divinity (as you said) and many Japanese games like Persona, Final Fantasy or even Xenoblade, which would go in the wrong direction.
I tried the ARPG question in other places too and even got answers referring to Pokemon as an RPG.
 
Joined
Feb 25, 2015
Messages
20
You're putting too much stock into "numerical character progression" and attributes to define a game as an RPG.

If so, where is the border/dustoinction to Adventure gamres ? Remember that "pure" Adventure games also don't exist anymore (apart frim Thimbleweed Park, maybe) : Everything is called an "Action-Adventure" these days. I think Tomb Raider defined this sub-genre.

Action-RPGs
Action-Adventures

Notice a pattern ? ;)
 
Joined
Nov 5, 2006
Messages
21,908
Location
Old Europe
Well, I connected with the characters in a way I never have in such a big game. Triss, Yennefer, Ciri, Geralt, Vesemir and so on all felt much more alive than just about any characters I've come across. There were moments that were genuinely emotional. In fact, after I stopped playing the game I actually found myself missing a few of the characters, like Ciri, which is shocking considering it's just a fictional character in a game.

That's cool. It must have a good story then or at least excellent use of cinematics overall. I just hope that these RPGs continue to do their own thing. I think they will, really. Bethesda is free to do their super huge sandbox, CDPR can do their story-based open worlds, PB can do handcrafted open-worlds with challenging and impacting progression, etc.. Because while a good story is a plus in these games, seeing so many cutscenes and overall cinematic stuff can actually detract from the other types of open-worlds for me. I wouldn't want to play Skyrim and constantly be running into forced cutscenes for quests, etc., or feel like I'm roleplaying a specific designed character (Geralt.)

And in the end these developers give us options and different experiences, which is always good. :)

You mention ME:A and Fallout 4… I still have to play those, AND DA:I. Hmm. What kind of open-worlds are those? Lots of RPGs, not enough time. :)
 
That's cool. It must have a good story then or at least excellent use of cinematics overall. I just hope that these RPGs continue to do their own thing. I think they will, really. Bethesda is free to do their super huge sandbox, CDPR can do their story-based open worlds, PB can do handcrafted open-worlds with challenging and impacting progression, etc.. Because while a good story is a plus in these games, seeing so many cutscenes and overall cinematic stuff can actually detract from the other types of open-worlds for me. I wouldn't want to play Skyrim and constantly be running into forced cutscenes for quests, etc., or feel like I'm roleplaying a specific designed character (Geralt.)

And in the end these developers give us options and different experiences, which is always good. :)
I agree. I probably shouldn't be saying this around here, but I genuinely think we live in something of a golden era for RPGs, rivaled only by the late 90s/early 00s era. Can't remember the last time my gaming schedule was this full. It's fantastic, but almost too much, as I don't have time to do my annual replays of this or that.

You mention ME:A and Fallout 4… I still have to play those, AND DA:I. Hmm. What kind of open-worlds are those? Lots of RPGs, not enough time. :)
Well, Fallout 4 is Bethesda in a nutshell. It's got all the usual quirks, but still offers a huge world to explore. Well worth playing.

ME: A and DA: I are a bit more difficult to describe. For me, they were both worth playing, but it's no secret that BioWare has yet to truly nail the open world approach. ME: A is the better game in that regard, but they're still not quite there yet. You would probably have to be a fan of the ME setting to enjoy it (though being a fan of ME1-3 is actually not required, as it's a very different type of game). DA: I is mostly worth it if you're into Dragon Age. I honestly can't recommend that otherwise.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
7,583
Location
Bergen
Cool, I'll have to check those out eventually. I enjoyed DA:O a lot, it was actually my first RTWP RPG at the time. I know that's not an open world but I have a slight interest in checking out a DA open world. ME too even, as the last one I played was the first one.

But yeah, we're in a great time for RPGs, I agree. Even indies and old school ones. Really loving it.
 
Diablo & co. are often called hack & slay games, since they are dungeon crawlers.

What would an RPG have to have if is was to be defined as an "non-action RPG" ?

I remember the phrase Hack'n'Slash was all the rage in the 90s, it was almost its own genre. And then no-one ever used it again. You might see people use the term here and there, but does Hack'n'Slash mean anything to anyone anymore? What games made nowadays would we once have referred to as Hack'n'Slash?
 
Joined
Nov 1, 2014
Messages
4,762
I remember the phrase Hack'n'Slash was all the rage in the 90s, it was almost its own genre. And then no-one ever used it again. You might see people use the term here and there, but does Hack'n'Slash mean anything to anyone anymore? What games made nowadays would we once have referred to as Hack'n'Slash?

Hack n' Slash makes me think of Diablo-clones, or games like Grim Dawn, Path of Exile, etc.. Games that generally are more about killing hordes of enemies and have similar styles as Diablo does. But that's just me and what I think of when I hear that term.
 
You're putting too much stock into "numerical character progression" and attributes to define a game as an RPG.

I disagree. Genre-wise, measurable character growth is what separates RPGs from other genres. And I think that's fair.
 
Joined
May 2, 2017
Messages
252
Hack n' Slash makes me think of Diablo-clones, or games like Grim Dawn, Path of Exile, etc.. Games that generally are more about killing hordes of enemies and have similar styles as Diablo does. But that's just me and what I think of when I hear that term.

It really is amazing how many genres Diablo gets associated with. aRPG, Hack'n'Slash, Dungeon Crawler, Roguelike, Grinding Games, Loot Games, but I think the most common descriptor is now the one you used, Diablo-clones. A bit like how Rogue is a Roguelike, Diablo is a Diablo-clone :lol: I'm pretty sure Hack'n'Slash used to mean more than just Diablo-clones, but maybe it didn't :shrug:
 
Last edited:
Joined
Nov 1, 2014
Messages
4,762
So basically anything where you play a single made up character in a made up world that experiences made up adventures, gets stronger during those adventures...
Thief misses the typical rpg features of character progression and abstract representation of character attributes, which I summarized under "getting stronger".
Eh? I didn't see anything about attributes. You can also make a character stronger by increasing the character's equipment. JRPGs like doing that. The gameplay effect is pretty much the same either way: more power and more options.

P.S. I think the reason a lot of folks like 4X games around here is because there's a similar build up. The 'character' is the empire and the 'skills' are what you research on a tech tree. As you play your empire gets stronger and gets a lot more options on how to go about battle/exploration/exploitation.
 
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
8,238
Location
Kansas City
It really is amazing how many genres Diablo gets associated with. aRPG, Hack'n'Slash, Dungeon Crawler, Roguelike, Grinding Games, Loot Games, but I think the most common descriptor is now the one you used, Diablo-clones. A bit like how Rogue is a Roguelike, Diablo is a Diablo-clone :lol: I'm pretty sure Hack'n'Slash used to mean more than just Diablo-clones, but maybe it didn't :shrug:

It did I think. Games that were simply action games with minimal or no RPG elements would be hack m' slash in my mind. Golden Axe comes to mind, but I think that one had some minor rpg elements actually. Which is probably part of why I loved it as a kid. :)
 
Back
Top Bottom