Diablo - RPG Or Shoddy Marketing?

[C Elegans]

Well, of course this was only my opinion of what RPGs are...

I know, and it seems that everybody has a specific opinion what and RPG is and how to define it. Some people defend their own opinions very strongly, but what I wanted to illustrate was that I cannot find any criteria that can be readily applied to all games that are usually viewed as RPG:S and at the same time don't include games such as Diablo, which people seem to think is very important NOT to define as an RPG.

And I cannot say anything about those older games you mentioned, since I have necer played those. And about IWD, well, If we exclude the D&D out from it, how much more there is left of RPG...?

If we exclude that IWD is set in an established, commerically successful fantasy world and follows D&D rules for combat (which I believe it does?), it's just a slower Diablo. NPC:S speak longer and more in IWD, but the story is no more interactive and you cannot influence it more, than in Diablo.

So let's turn it around, if we added D&D rules to the Diablo combat and let the characters walk around in a setting with familiar names from Forgotten Realms (just rename some areas, just like in the forgotten realms there are snowy mountain areas, desert, sea and forest, so that wouldn't change the game), would Diablo be a CRPG then?

[Aegis]

IWD is an example of a Diablo clone, with slightly more emphaiss on story, but still lacking in many elements that make it an RPG. It falls just short of that mark, in my mind.

[TonyMontana1638]

It's true that many of us here and others elsewhere don't want Diablo classified as an RPG, but I believe this is the wrong way to go about it. Is there anything wrong, then, with calling it a CRPG? In my mind, CRPG means an RPG game with more of a focus on action elements than just an RPG, but it is still an RPG. We've thrown around a ton elements that could be considered criteria that defines an RPG, but regardless of what we actually think makes an RPG what it is (and we all have different opinions) is there anyone who can say Diablo has as much of a focus on sotry as Morrowind or Baldur's Gate? They are, therefore, different kinds of games IMO; more of a focus on action in Diablo, more of a focus of story in Baldur's Gate. My proposal is this; regardless of what we all think defines an RPG, couldn't we draw the line between story and action in hopes of defining the difference between CRPG an RPG? The role-playing elements we've all discussed make a game an RPG, but if a game takes a step away from the Roleplaying elements and towards action, couldn't we call it a CRPG? It seems simple, and everyone will find instances where something in this explanation won't work, but doesn't that make sense? Games like Champions of Norrath also have RPG elements, but there is a clear focus on action over story; does that not make it an CRPG? I don't know, it makes sense in my mind.

[Luis Antonio]

[QUOTE=Aegis]IWD is an example of a Diablo clone, with slightly more emphaiss on story, but still lacking in many elements that make it an RPG. It falls just short of that mark, in my mind.[/QUOTE]

I see it far more like a BG wannabe, just more combat focused, but with the level up and character developing sistem far better than those at Diablo. So, I disagree with you on this point...

[Aegis]

[QUOTE=Luis Antonio]I see it far more like a BG wannabe, just more combat focused, but with the level up and character developing sistem far better than those at Diablo. So, I disagree with you on this point...[/QUOTE]
The only real similarities between IWD and BG are the engine, setting, and system used. Besides, Black Isle never intended IWD to be like BG, and they made such distinctions. They designed it, specifically, to be a dungeon crawl experiance.

@Tony: By making the statement that a 'CRPG' is simply an RPG that leans towards combat makes the label 'Action RPG' redundant. CRPG's are Computer Role Playing Games, simply meaning any role playing game played on a computer or console system. Action RPG's on the other hand, are RPG's leaning heavily on the side of combat.

[TonyMontana1638]

@Aegis: Ack! Sorry! Do you honestly wnat to know what I though CRPG meant (i feel like such an idiot) COMBAT RPG!

(*shakes head ashamedly*)

Essentially what I meant was Action RPG, I just used an incorrect term... I'm an idiot... Realizing this now, it seems my last post made very little sense, please consider this an edit... Gawd I'm dumb ...

[Robnark]

[QUOTE=Aegis]IWD is an example of a Diablo clone, with slightly more emphaiss on story, but still lacking in many elements that make it an RPG. It falls just short of that mark, in my mind.[/QUOTE]
I disagree. I much prefer D2 to IWD, but the whole point of IWD is to get through the 'plot' - or, more likely, to beat the computer in a series of increasingly challenging fights. if they increased dialogue and character interaction by a moderate degree then it would be easily comparable to many, many 'true' RPGs released over the years.

the reason I still occasionally play D2 is to increase character power and to get ever-shinier items in a setting that is - especially online - fairly unrestricted, only following the rule that enemies get harder the further you go. as such, I do not think it counts as an RPG, but 'kind-of-open-ended action adventure lampfest' isn't a genre yet, more's the pity.

the only dividing line between the two - as far as I see it - is that IWD gives you some more freedom and complexity when tweaking the characters, while D2 gives you more freedom to travel around the various areas of the game and fight enemies. and I would suggest that there are a fair few nonlinear RPGs that let you do that.

[C Elegans]

IWD is an example of a Diablo clone, with slightly more emphaiss on story, but still lacking in many elements that make it an RPG. It falls just short of that mark, in my mind.

If "story driven", "interactive" and "player influence on events" are criteria that define an RPG, then neither IWD or Diablo are RPG:s. However, IWD was also marketed as a CRPG.

Black Isle never intended IWD to be like BG, and they made such distinctions. They designed it, specifically, to be a dungeon crawl experiance.

Yes, but they still marketed IWD as an RPG. Diablo was never made to be like BG either. Still, a lot more RPG-people seem to care about Diablo being marketed as an RPG than IWD being marketed as one.

ROFL, it's just a simple mistake that anyone could do, you don't need to fell dumb! Partly it's my fault you made that mistake, because I have used RPG and CRPG interchangable in some posts.

In any case, I agree with you than Action RPG, Combat driven RPG (as opposed to story-drive RPG) could well be used to define games like Diablo II and IWD.

[TonyMontana1638]

@ C Elegans: Thank you for searching through the wreckage that was my argument and discerning my point there .

As for Icewind Dale, I also view it as a more action-oriented take on Baldur's Gate and fail to see why it's a "Diablo clone"; you may not be able to affect the story too much, but the approach to character creation bears absolutely no resemblance to Diablo. It is far more in depth in terms of actual CHARACTER CREATION, meaning the development of the characters themselves (their race, traits, etc.) whereas Diablo has next to no actual Character creation, only allowing you to adjust and develope the character's skills. The story is also more more in depth: there is, however, a clear emphasis on action and I'd therefore call it an Action RPG (and a CRPG ), but by no means a Diablo-clone.

[C Elegans]

[QUOTE=TonyMontana1638]As for Icewind Dale, I also view it as a more action-oriented take on Baldur's Gate and fail to see why it's a "Diablo clone"; you may not be able to affect the story too much, but the approach to character creation bears absolutely no resemblance to Diablo. It is far more in depth in terms of actual CHARACTER CREATION, meaning the development of the characters themselves (their race, traits, etc.) whereas Diablo has next to no actual Character creation, only allowing you to adjust and develope the character's skills. The story is also more more in depth: there is, however, a clear emphasis on action and I'd therefore call it an Action RPG (and a CRPG ), but by no means a Diablo-clone.[/QUOTE]

I certainly agree IWD is not a Diablo-clone since they two games are completely different in terms of combat system, character development and gameplaying characteristics. However, I don't at all find IWD character development deeper in any way, just different. IWD has more contextual story than D2, but your character does not develop in relationship to the story, you just choose portait, race and skills just as in all other games. In D2 you can't choose between a lot of portaits and a lot of classes, but instead, every class can be built in many different ways. So in D2, two Sorceresses may look the same, but one could be a melee party-player and one could be a mass-spell elementalist build for soloing. So, character creation, development and variation are based on different systems, but I think D2 has by far the most varied system, it's just that the purpose of this variation is combat style and not the feeling of being your character with custum made portrait and all.

In my opinion, BG and IWD share far more similarities than IWD and D2, although IWD and D2 have some variables in common.

[Robnark]

again the issue of defining an RPG raises its ugly head. if one is not of the opinion that stat-tweaking and having a certain character/group of characters to play as (or uncertain, should the plot require) makes some kind of RPG, you have to draw different lines between rpg and not-rpg, and there are so many variations on a theme that it is very hard to do.

while there is certainly continuity between, to use the current example, IWD and BG, is there enough? does the almost complete removal of characterisation in terms of the storyline make it non-rpg, or does it retain enough of a plot to differentiate it from these action rpgs?

my personal stab at a definition that follows is unfortunately a little vague, but it works for me.

I will be playing a character that interacts with other characters in a way that requires either your decisions and intervention or at least give you information that you act upon to advance the story. more importantly, the story is the objective of the game. whether it ends when you destroy some ancient evil-type-thing, or whether you have not too much choice at all in what you do and where you go, it must have some kind of narrative.

now demonstration of my theory.

IWD passes. characterisation is the bare minimum, but you have to interact with npcs to advance the story. more importantly, while you may enjoy building up your party and so forth, you are working through a plot - the battles happen a reason. D2 does not qualify because, while the characterisation is just as strong, the aim of the plot - defeating sucessively harder bosses - is undermined as a narrative when you go up through difficulty levels, and much of the playing time is aimed at improving your character and equipment for its own sake. in IWD you do not redo the same area for more loot. possibly because you aren't necessarily allowed to, but that still counts.

however, there is one thing that annoys me about the discussion. the distinctions I made are purely subjective, and other people would draw them in other places. much like music, it can annoys me a bit when people get genres confused, but why pick on diablo? either you automatically buy anything with RPG written somewhere on the box (I've tried it, and it's a bad idea - although D2 has been one of the better purchases I've made, no question) or you feel the publicher is somehow 'cheating'. and I don't think that calling something an rpg will help shift huge amounts of units fraudulently - especially when the only other classification that I've seen in many places is 'action rpg'.

the only other explanation is that you feel that it is helping misrepresent a genre that you are possibly a bit too attatched to. and I've played enough shoddy rpgs to realise that there's not a lot in a name.

[DaveO]

I've been debating whether to get involved in this discussion due to a number of factors. Since I have little to lose with the exception of being ignored, here are my minor opinions on why Diablo is a role playing game.

1. The game lets you play a character that is not possible in real life. Since you can cast spells and fight creatures you'd never encounter in real life, this falls into the area of fantasy and is one requirement for a roleplaying game.

2. To a certain extent, you can control and influence the game. You're not obligated to finish any quests besides the one at the end. I understand your argument about it not being a role playing game due to the heavy emphasis on action and that the end of the game is always the same. Unfortunately, not many games exist that let you choose an alternate ending. A recent example of a game that I finished recently that does offer alternatives is Knights of the Old Republic.

3. While certain characters can perform well in one area of focus(combat or magic), you're not forced to stick with that focus. You can create warriors that use magic and wizards that fight. If this element was not in there, then you'd have more of a case for Diablo being an action game.

4. You make the choice on what statistics your character will focus on. Granted, it's limited in Diablo but you still have choices on how you go thru the game. The only time you have to fight is either if you get mobbed at the stairs or at the end of the game. Just because the game heavily emphasizes fighting does not obligate you to play the game that way.

5. There are even certain rules you can impose on yourself when playing the game. An 'Ironman' game emphasizes playing with whatever equipment is available until it is destroyed. This is just one example of a play style for the game. If you checked a message board dedicated to the game, I'm sure you'd find at least a few others.

In summary my main point is that you can choose whatever role you want for a character in the game. I know that some of my definitions open up a 'can of worms' to declare many games as role playing rather than how they were advertised. All I can say to that is that the terms 'role playing', 'adventure', 'action', etc are too loose to be taken either at face value or too seriously.

[Xandax]

Nobody is questioning that there are CRPG elements in Diablo. The question/debate is whether or not thoese places where it touches the genre is enough to lable it as thus compared to say an action game.

And by that above reasoning even Fallout:Tactics is a Roleplaying game because it fulfills all of thoese items. And FO:T is not by any (I'd think) labled as an RPG.
And most FPS games fulfill a number of them as well, while not being near RPGs.

1) Most any game in existance does this, so that doens't make Diablo nearer to being a roleplaying game.

2) You don't influence or control the game by choosing not to do parts of it.

3) This is one of the elements where it does touches the genre lightly.

4) This is the same issue as item 3, and thus the element where it scratches the surface of the RPG genre. Character development based on statistics/attributes.

5) Such rules have nothing to do with roleplaying games. It is a common trait of many games.

So of your five points - well four because 3 and 4 are basically the same - only one touches the roleplaying genre, is that enough to call a game: Roleplaying Game? If it is, then most games are now roleplaying games.

[DaveO]

RPGs defined

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role-playing_game is the start of that site's definition of RPG. There are multiple links on the site pointing to other RPG terms and definitions. If that site defines Diablo as an RPG, that's good enough for me. There is a more detailed explanation of RPGs, genres, subtypes, etc.

[Xandax]

Well, such a fan written article lableling Diablo and CRPG isn't "good enough for me" especially when it doesn't address the discussion or otherwise touch the subject by analyzing the game.
Especially not in the light of what is written in this thread.

And again - nobody has claimed that Diablo doesn't contain a few (and only a few) CRPG elements. (However, so does most games, but they are still not labled CRPGs)

As I and others have claimed, there is in my mind based on logical deduction no doubt that it was a pure marketing trick from Blizzard that Diablo should be introduced into the RPG genre to try and capitalize on a growing market while attracting all the people who enjoyed the (fast-click) action as well. A trend of action for the sake of action, which now is mainstream overshadowing complexity and debth in the genre into what I call CRPG-Lites and pure ARPGs. Therein lies my beef with Diablo and Blizzard because I feel they are partly responsible for degenerating the genre with this move.
Had they labled it as an action game they would have entered a competitative world, and likely wouldn't have gotten the couple of game-awards to place on the box.

[Aegis]

[QUOTE=DaveO]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role-playing_game is the start of that site's definition of RPG. There are multiple links on the site pointing to other RPG terms and definitions. If that site defines Diablo as an RPG, that's good enough for me. There is a more detailed explanation of RPGs, genres, subtypes, etc.[/QUOTE]
I'm guessing you didn't actually read the article, then, as it lacked any mention of Diablo.

[DaveO]

Ok, I'll admit I made some mistakes. I know the RPG definition on the Wikipedia site does not mention Diablo, but the CRPG definition does. I only wanted to point out the Wikipedia link to prevent posting of copyrighted content and to also try to give a 'dictionary' definition. Webster's site defines an RPG as this: A game in which players assume the roles of characters and act out fantastical adventures, the outcomes of which are partially determined by chance, as by the roll of dice.

Does that fit Diablo? Yes, due to the random item generator. But I'll admit that there is only the random generator that barely makes the game an RPG. There are other games that rely much more on combat, resistance, etc to be determined by a random roll. Plus Diablo has no adverse conditions that happen to the player(poisoning, disease, etc).

Is Diablo responsible for the degeneration of the RPG genre? No, but it did provide a model for other companies to follow. If there is blame to be laid for the state of RPGs, it lies mostly with the consumer.

When Diablo came out, there were other games that laid the groundwork. Diablo simply put graphics to the Rogue game concept. Diablo did not single-handedly cause the degeneration of the RPG genre.

[qwertitus]

The Diablo games aren't the normal, standard RPG games, I'll most certainly concede that point. But don't disown a game just because it's not a by the book RPG. I think what some people forgot is that it is still a fun, albiet repetative, and easy game. If anything it's a half-RPG. But that's not a bad thing. It introduces some of the components of a true RPG but excludes some of the more confusing traits of RPG's. There are many people who might be turned off at first with a confusing classic RPG. If they tried Diablo or Diablo II, a much more simpler game, they could become intrigued by it and it could pull them in to the wide world of true RPG's. It's not a true RPG, but it and others like it, bring many more people into the RPG community.

[Aegis]

[QUOTE=qwertitus]The Diablo games aren't the normal, standard RPG games, I'll most certainly concede that point. But don't disown a game just because it's not a by the book RPG. I think what some people forgot is that it is still a fun, albiet repetative, and easy game. If anything it's a half-RPG. But that's not a bad thing. It introduces some of the components of a true RPG but excludes some of the more confusing traits of RPG's. There are many people who might be turned off at first with a confusing classic RPG. If they tried Diablo or Diablo II, a much more simpler game, they could become intrigued by it and it could pull them in to the wide world of true RPG's. It's not a true RPG, but it and others like it, bring many more people into the RPG community.[/QUOTE]
Once again, what I have said, as well as others, have been taken, and ignored, as the common theme here is that we are not devalueing Diablo's gameplay experiance. What is being discussed here are what makes an RPG, how they are marketted, and whether or not Diablo was the catalyst of the near decade long trend we are seeing.

Also, I have not been able to put up much more of late, on account of it being essay seeing at school. I should be able to put something together come wednesday though. We will see.

[Xandax]

[QUOTE=qwertitus]The Diablo games aren't the normal, standard RPG games, I'll most certainly concede that point. But don't disown a game just because it's not a by the book RPG. I think what some people forgot is that it is still a fun, albiet repetative, and easy game. If anything it's a half-RPG. But that's not a bad thing. It introduces some of the components of a true RPG but excludes some of the more confusing traits of RPG's. There are many people who might be turned off at first with a confusing classic RPG. If they tried Diablo or Diablo II, a much more simpler game, they could become intrigued by it and it could pull them in to the wide world of true RPG's. It's not a true RPG, but it and others like it, bring many more people into the RPG community.[/QUOTE]

As Aegis have said but which I feel needs to be stated again seeing as you didn't read the thread - most people do not claim that Diablo isn't a fun game (for some), but isn't a RPG even though it was marketed as RPG and thus - at least in my view - have been a huge reason for the degeneration of the CRPG genre into the CRPG-lites we see now, because people now seem to expect action and high levels, and high powered items as the significant part of CRPGs rather then gameplay, puzzles, actual character development, consequences of choice and non-static NPCs.

Again once more for the people who didn't read the former posts, It isn't Diablo we are dislikeing. Heh - even I had some hours fun in Diablo as well.
The problem is Diablo labled, marketed and percived by (its) players as a RPG.