Diablo 2 getting a bad rap

Quark · Post by **Quark** » Sun Aug 12, 2001 8:43 am

To me it's always been an issue of replayability.

BG series: You play the game completely. You start a new game, with a different class/race/npcs. Guess what: It's still the same! Sure it's the best RPG series I've ever played, but every game is the SAME! The 5-10% that accounts to NPCs and your class/race hardly makes this game worth repeating in my eyes.

Diablo series: Story sucks, RPG-lite. But different. ALWAYS different. Having a different class COMPLETELY changes the game, since you don't have 5 NPCs to fill in for your weaknesses. Even having the same class can drastically change the game, because you CHOOSE your skills from a big list. You CHOOSE how your character developes, instead of watching the computer tell you what it gave you.

I loved the BG games, yes. P:T was an even better story. After I finish an Infinity Engine game, the feeling is generally 'hey, this is better than Diablo.' The only personal exception is Icewind Dale: The Infinity Engine + D&D rules just sucks being story-light and combat-heavy.

However, once I'm finished the game, what do I do? I go back to Diablo (I,II,LoD). I always find something different to try.

I went through P:T once, BG twice, and BG2 thrice. Meanwhile I played Diablo on-and-off for 3 years, and D2 for another year so far. The only reason I'm not getting my share of LoD right now is because I already did in the beta. I know, however, that I will end up playing Diablo another time again.

humanflyz · Post by **humanflyz** » Thu Aug 16, 2001 2:34 pm

I think most RPG hardcore players don't like Diablo series because since Blizzard is calling it a "RPG", then they should add some RPG stuff to it. I don't know what role the player gets to play in the Diablo games. The classes are different, but everything else is the same. It is so linear.

To Quark: it is worth repeating to play as a different character, race, and with different NPCs. The choice of classes changes the gameplay dramatically. If you choose a fighter, then it's melee. If you choose a mage, it's going to be spell casting. Unlike Diablo, where every class can use any item, with the exception of Lord of Destruction, BG series let the player focus on one or couple of weapons of their choice such as axes and swords. I don't think it makes sense that a sorceress who spent most of her skill points on mana can still wear a full plate mail that is like about a thousands pounds wielding a super giant sword and still be able to cast such spells such as Meteor.

I am not saying that Diablo series are bad. They are just not RPG like. I think Blizzard is trying to appeal to a wider audience using something that it's not. I think that is why people among RPG communities bash it as a cheap rip-off. I agree with Aegis, StarCraft has the same story depth as any RPG. If they can put a good story in a RTS, then why can't they do it with what they call a "RPG" game. The only redeeming quality to the Diablo games is that it is really addictive.

Quark · Post by **Quark** » Fri Aug 17, 2001 4:52 am

I disagree on the class part. In Diablo 2 that is extremely true. You may get the same items, but every skill you would ever use is different than another characters (Except normal attack, which higher level characters never use). A Sorceress may eventually get that plate armor - but it will be alot later, and at the cost of energy(mana). Hmm, that sounds alot like 3rd edition.

In IE games, the player class only truly matters for the stronghold. Why? NPCs. No matter what class your PC is, there is someone who can fill in the void. You experience most classes at the same time, so how would restarting be any different? You've already used most of the classes!

Paladins, Rangers, Barbarians, and Fighters are all only slightly different, so playing one is almost like playing another.

Mage and Sorcerer may be different to create, but they act the same way in battle.

That's not even the big problem though. The story's the big problem. What is the saving grace the first time kills by the third time. Every quest seems like 'I have to go through this again?' You hardly read the dialogues anymore, just making sure you don't pick an evil (or, less often, good) choice. After this the game comes down to one thing: combat. And quite frankly, Diablo handles combat alot better than any IE game made.

humanflyz · Post by **humanflyz** » Fri Aug 17, 2001 10:43 am

To Quark: "Diablo handles combat alot better than any IE game made."

That is true. And that is why some RPG fans bash the game. Let's face it, Diablo games are action games, NOT RPG games. If you call a game RPG, then people who are hardcore RPG gamers will judge as a RPG game. If you judge Diablo on a RPG standard, then it sucks. It has nothing that a RPG has.

However, if you call Diablo an action game, then it is one hell of a game. It is extremely addictive and fun to play. What I think is that Blizzard is milking the RPG genre to get more money by deceiving RPG newbies that Diablo is a RPG.

Quark · Post by **Quark** » Sat Aug 18, 2001 3:38 pm

Ahh, but you conveniently ignored my point.

Most people on this board are completely onset about how deep their RPG has to be. I say bull. I want one person to say that he reads every word every time and is not completely bored out of his mind.

You can only read a story so many times - even if it is a great story. After the story, the IE engine has only combat and building characters left. Guess what - that 'RPG-lite' which you complain about is what you turn the game into.

Proof lies in the BG2 message board here. How many posts do you see that talk about the story? Not many at all, excluding the romance plots. How many that talk about combat and building characters? A much bigger amount.

Aegis · Post by **Aegis** » Sun Aug 19, 2001 12:47 am

@Quark: Even though you are right, not one of us reads every line of text in the game as we replay it. But, I can say I read every bit of story related text. In other words, none of the side quest crap text, just the story, so in essence, I do read every line every time. I know it's stretching what you said.

Anyway, D, and D2 or the same thing, as I stated earlier. The story too it is incredably cliche. There have been countless games where the main goal was to stop some demon/god/avatar/person from rising up, and destroying the world, and thats what Diablo is. And before you finger the BG series for the same thing, I will offer it's differences. First, you not trying to stop someone from taking over or destorying the world. In BG, your trying to stop Sarevok from resurrecting Bhaal. Bhall has no intentions of taking over Faerun, he justs wants his immortality and life back. BG2, Irenicus is trying pretty much only to get revenge on the Elves of Suldenesselar, for banning him and Bodhi. To do so, he needs the power of the Bhall Spawn, so there's another difference. ToB. Okay, so a bit of world domination, but it isn't supposed to be a full story, just the end to one. They have to wrap it up somehow, and thats how they did it.

Now, about you comments about ToB, of course it's not going to allow a lot of replayability! It's an expansion! Those type of things are only meant as a few added things to the game. The main story was in BG2, thus they didn't add much more to ToB.

As for the combat issue concerning BG2, and Diablo. Yes, people do like the combat, but you have to look at something, at least in the BG series when your fighting for your life, you actually know why the hell your fighting, instead of "Look! It's a goblin, kill it!". The BG series has substance, which what most gamers (especially RPer's) look for. Diablo doesn't offer any substance. It's see that, kill that. It is a cheap marketing ploy by Blizzard to suck in new gamers, and possibly gain gamers from the RPG genre, and sadly, it failed. A simple remedy to that would've been to add the same depth of story that Star Craft had! Now you gotta think here, an RTS had more of a story than a so-called "RPG" made by the same quality. What that is telling me is that because people buyed Diablo one, they would buy the same thing, with the only difference being new weapons, a few new classes, a few new abilities, and better graphics. Hmm... Kind've redundant don't you think?

Anyway, to sum up, I believe D2 deserves all the bad rap it's gotten on this board, and this is comeing from a hard-core gamer. I play pretty much anything put in front of me. I know good games, and I know crappy games. Frankly, D2 is crap. It's Diablo with a face lift. I'll stick with substance over face lift any day.

Quark · Post by **Quark** » Sun Aug 19, 2001 5:11 am

Originally posted by Aegis:
And before you finger the BG series for the same thing, I will offer it's differences. First, you not trying to stop someone from taking over or destorying the world. In BG, your trying to stop Sarevok from resurrecting Bhaal. Bhall has no intentions of taking over Faerun, he justs wants his immortality and life back. BG2, Irenicus is trying pretty much only to get revenge on the Elves of Suldenesselar, for banning him and Bodhi. To do so, he needs the power of the Bhall Spawn, so there's another difference. ToB. Okay, so a bit of world domination, but it isn't supposed to be a full story, just the end to one. They have to wrap it up somehow, and thats how they did it.

BG2 was also about Irenicus gaining immortality - not just about revenge. There are plenty of stories around that deal about stopping someone from gaining immortality.

Now, about you comments about ToB, of course it's not going to allow a lot of replayability! It's an expansion! Those type of things are only meant as a few added things to the game. The main story was in BG2, thus they didn't add much more to ToB.

No, that was a comment about the whole series. I've managed only 2 full BG games, and 3 full BG2. It's too damned annoying re-reading everything in the game, and too tedious to sift through it when I'm not actually reading it.

As for the combat issue concerning BG2, and Diablo. Yes, people do like the combat, but you have to look at something, at least in the BG series when your fighting for your life, you actually know why the hell your fighting, instead of "Look! It's a goblin, kill it!". The BG series has substance, which what most gamers (especially RPer's) look for. Diablo doesn't offer any substance. It's see that, kill that. It is a cheap marketing ploy by Blizzard to suck in new gamers, and possibly gain gamers from the RPG genre, and sadly, it failed.

Nit: no goblins in Diablo

About substance. 'Most gamers look for.' Bull****. Quake, Diablo, Alpha Centauri, Civilization, Master of Magic, Unreal, Duke Nukem, should I keep going on? Every turn-based strategy game ever made has a crappy story (with the possible exception of the HOMM series). All first-person shooters excluding Half-Life have crappy stories. Yet somehow these games succede. Your opinion of gamers here is sorely off. Yes, I like a story. Sometimes I just want to ignore it and fight.

'Cheap marketing ploy.' Hmm, since RPGs are one of the three types of games I play (turn-based and real-time strategy being the two others) I'd have to disagree with that. While RPG implies story, it does not always mean it. To the general gaming population (which excludes hardcore RPGers mainly), an RPG means one thing only - character development. Quite frankly, I enjoy building my character myself more than a following a specific set of rules. Now why the hardcore RPG crowd might cringe at the title of RPG for D2, the general population thinks nothing of it. Face it, the hardcore RPG crowd is not nearly as powerful as you think it is.

A simple remedy to that would've been to add the same depth of story that Star Craft had! Now you gotta think here, an RTS had more of a story than a so-called "RPG" made by the same quality. What that is telling me is that because people buyed Diablo one, they would buy the same thing, with the only difference being new weapons, a few new classes, a few new abilities, and better graphics. Hmm... Kind've redundant don't you think?

I won't deny that the story sucks. 'Kind've redundant'? I played Diablo for 3 years on and off. Blizzard stuck to the right formula: they made it the same but better. The characters can now not copy each other, and each build is unique in its own way. How about BG2, though? What did that add combat-wise. New spells (check for D2), new classes (check), new items (check), better graphics (check), and finally in ToB they added new skills (check).

So what does seperate BG2 from BG? Only the story, which, as I said, most people cannot go through everytime.

'A few new abilities'? Lemme see, 5 classes, 3 skill trees, 10 skills in each tree. That's 150 abilities, excluding the druid and assassin.

Anyway, to sum up, I believe D2 deserves all the bad rap it's gotten on this board, and this is comeing from a hard-core gamer. I play pretty much anything put in front of me. I know good games, and I know crappy games. Frankly, D2 is crap. It's Diablo with a face lift. I'll stick with substance over face lift any day.

D2 is the fastest selling game ever. Diablo outsold BG; D2 outsold BG2. You sure know your crap well.

[ 08-19-2001: Message edited by: Quark ]

Nightmare · Post by **Nightmare** » Sun Aug 19, 2001 9:27 am

Originally posted by Quark:
D2 is the fastest selling game ever. Diablo outsold BG; D2 outsold BG2. You sure know your crap well.

[ 08-19-2001: Message edited by: Quark ]

Diablo and D2 are action games, and action games always sell more than RPGs. Anyway, the point is, many people like the hack'n'slash of Diablo simply because they like it. Maybe is they tried BG they might start to buy games with story. Maybe not. RPGers stick to what they like, and action gamers stick to what they like. I've played Diablo and thought that IWD was much better. I personally prefer RPGs.

My overall point is that if you do like something, play it. If you don't, don't play it. If a game is getting a bad rap, there are reasons. As said before, BG2 is an apple and D2 is an orange. They are very different and a fair compairason can't be had. So stop b*tching and moaning about it.

Bhaal can kick Baal's arse any day!

Aegis · Post by **Aegis** » Sun Aug 19, 2001 9:44 am

Originally posted by Quark:
 BG2 was also about Irenicus gaining immortality - not just about revenge. There are plenty of stories around that deal about stopping someone from gaining immortality.

[ 08-19-2001: Message edited by: Quark ]

Okay, granted. But that was jus on side bonus to the whole revenge story line.

Originally posted by Quark:
 About substance. 'Most gamers look for.' Bull****. Quake, Diablo, Alpha Centauri, Civilization, Master of Magic, Unreal, Duke Nukem, should I keep going on? Every turn-based strategy game ever made has a crappy story (with the possible exception of the HOMM series). All first-person shooters excluding Half-Life have crappy stories. Yet somehow these games succede. Your opinion of gamers here is sorely off. Yes, I like a story. Sometimes I just want to ignore it and fight.

'Cheap marketing ploy.' Hmm, since RPGs are one of the three types of games I play (turn-based and real-time strategy being the two others) I'd have to disagree with that. While RPG implies story, it does not always mean it. To the general gaming population (which excludes hardcore RPGers mainly), an RPG means one thing only - character development. Quite frankly, I enjoy building my character myself more than a following a specific set of rules. Now why the hardcore RPG crowd might cringe at the title of RPG for D2, the general population thinks nothing of it. Face it, the hardcore RPG crowd is not nearly as powerful as you think it is.

[ 08-19-2001: Message edited by: Quark ]

Let's look at Half-Life for a second. It's an FPS, which generally means it has no story added to it, because for the most part, FPS have no story lines. I think Half-Life had one the best story-lines an FPS has ever had! The fact that one was even added was amazing. That is what made it such a successful game, it had graphics, gameplay, storyline, and action. Unrealt Tournament? Same thing! It had the story of a tournament, and it maintained, whilst holding onto action, graphics and a kick ass multiplay feature. Civilization, The very concept of the game is not to have a traditional story. That is why you are building a civilization. That's successful for it's concept.

For your comment about all FPS having bad stories, look at Alien Vs. Predator. It had three distinctly unique stories to it. Earn honour as a Predator, and manage to kill an Alien Queen. Escape with you life, while the company betrys your ass as a Marine. And the Alien, make it to a shuttle to earth so that we have a chance of spreading to the surface there. Now, the story isn't as in depth as Half-life's but it was there. It offered a story, gameplay, diversion, graphics. So, again we have a hit. Now, the MEch Warrior Series! Oh good god, how could you forget these. All four of them have a fricken story that was incredably good! But, because their is four of them, I'm not going to go into detail. But they all had graphis, story, diversity, and so forth. That covers the FPS trail I've left.

Do you even know what RPG means? ROLE-PLAYING-GAME! I don't know about you, but If I'm playing a role, I kind've want to know back ground, reasons, causes, and the such. To me, that says story. Diablo is anything but those things. All you know is you have a piece Demon rock stuck in you, and your travelling west. Hey, why not kill some more demons while we're at it! If anything, Diablo if an RPG Spoof! It maintains only one quality of an RPG, the character development, and even there, I've seen better! (Revenant, Vampire: The Masquerade Redemption). For your little RPG crowd comment, what do you think this forum is? Our of the 20 million gamers in North America, we have 3000 of them posting on one site, thats a big number for one site. But, you wanna know something, We are the RPG crowd! People here know RPG's inside and out! They also know what a good RPG is like, and Diablo is not one, regardless of what you, and Blizzard say.

Originally posted by Quark:
 I won't deny that the story sucks. 'Kind've redundant'? I played Diablo for 3 years on and off. Blizzard stuck to the right formula: they made it the same but better. The characters can now not copy each other, and each build is unique in its own way. How about BG2, though? What did that add combat-wise. New spells (check for D2), new classes (check), new items (check), better graphics (check), and finally in ToB they added new skills (check).

So what does seperate BG2 from BG? Only the story, which, as I said, most people cannot go through everytime.

'A few new abilities'? Lemme see, 5 classes, 3 skill trees, 10 skills in each tree. That's 150 abilities, excluding the druid and assassin.

[ 08-19-2001: Message edited by: Quark ]

BG2 offers new classes, new races, new spells (150 new ones), a few new abilities in SoA (The traps, the Slayer, and a few abilities native to special kits), Better graphics, better resolution, and it added more story! It has everything on your D2 check list, and more!

Originally posted by Quark:
 D2 is the fastest selling game ever. Diablo outsold BG; D2 outsold BG2. You sure know your crap well.

[ 08-19-2001: Message edited by: Quark ]

D2 is not the fastest selling game ever, Star Craft once, sorry about bursting that bubble. You wanna know why Diablo outsold BG? Maybe because it came out a year before BG! It had a year head start. And don't bother looking at the book for release date, thats only the date at which that copy was made. When it has double the time to sell copies, yeah I think there is a good chance of selling more than another game that came out the next year. As for D2 out selling BG2, well, what can you expect. Diablo and Blizzerd generated so much rep for it, as Blizzerd can affoprd that sort of advertising, people knew about D2 months before BG2, so again, it had an advantage.

As for that last comment, That is degrading attack on me, andI do not apprecieate it. Having a discussion about the differences of D2 and BG2 does not need to resort ot name calling, or belittling the other person. Learn a little respect if you intend to stay in this forum.

Nightmare · Post by **Nightmare** » Sun Aug 19, 2001 10:01 am

BTW, Irenicus wasn't just trying to become immortal. It was deeper then that. He was trying to become himself again. As an elf, he could live, what, 1200 years? As a human, on about 70 years, if your lucky. Becoming immortal was like regaining a part of himself.

Aegis · Post by **Aegis** » Sun Aug 19, 2001 11:09 am

@Gaxx: Thanks for adding that, I had forgotten that part.

humanflyz · Post by **humanflyz** » Sun Aug 19, 2001 1:35 pm

This is certainly a heated discussion. I see both Aegis and Quark expressed their opinions with facts. Different people like different games. I know as a fact that most action games will definitely outsell the RPG games. Let's face it, our most average Americans are simple. They don't like rules, they don't want to know the history, and they don't like complications. Actions games are their solution. I personally play just about everything out there. I like RPG, FPS, strategy, and adventure games. I think the *ONLY* reason that Diablo games are getting a bad rap among the hardcore RPG community is because the players are pissed off because Blizzard milked the RPG name. Tried to make more profit through an incorrect use of the name. I think if Blizzard started out by just calling Diablo an action game, none of this Diablo bashing would have occured in the RPG community. If you are an action gamer and have never played RPG before. You will find yourself pleasantly surprised. Beside the typical killing that is common to the action genre, you will find there is character development, which action games lack with the exception of System Shock. You will find that Diablo ACTUALLY has a background story that is not half bad but too cliched. The story behind most FPS are pretty thin because people do not expect them to have a story at all with all these multiplayer shooting games out there today. What is the point of adding a story when all the people who buy the game is going to shoot other *REAL* people down with a gun? Judging from an action point of view, Diablo has something extra. Then it's just boiled down to the addictive gameplay. THen it's just a quest to get more level and get better equipment. Simply said: Diablo is an action game with some, not alot, roleplaying element.

There are also going to be a lot of upcoming games with lite RP element to it. Even WarCraft III is going to have some RP element. Eventually I think RPG games will blend in with other genre. THen the hardcore community will eventually shrink and meld with the general gaming public. Take for example, Deus Ex. It has character development, an unique setting that is not too common for most RPG games, a complicated conspiracy, and just mindless shooting. ALready the lines are blurring. An era is at an end.And also due to the small size of the hardcore RPG community, developers will probably develop games with RPG element that appeals to new players.

Aegis · Post by **Aegis** » Sun Aug 19, 2001 2:05 pm

Well said...

I agree with a lot of points made there. YOu obviously did your homework on the subject. You a right when it comes to the lines being blurred, and it's only going to get fuzzier. But mostly, I think you are dead on when it comes to the RP'ers giving D2 a bad rap because Blizzard tried to sell it off as an RPG. I mean, it still is just Diablo with a face lift though.

ThorinOakensfield · Post by **ThorinOakensfield** » Sun Aug 19, 2001 9:19 pm

Maybe not people here but i remember half a year ago or so, i was at gamefaq forums and always the bg2 board member and teh d2members had massive flame wars. You can't imagine it. It just seemed to me then that all d2 players had this odd aggression.

Quark · Post by **Quark** » Mon Aug 20, 2001 5:24 am

ThorinOaksfield: Try [url="http://www.lurkerlounge.com"]www.lurkerlounge.com[/url]

We try to get rid of the riff-raff there (but I'm not reading it nearly as much as I used to).

Aegis, sorry, but it wasn't a personal attack against you. You called a game that I enjoy playing alot 'crap'. Shall I call BG2 crap? MechWarrior? How about you name your favorite game, I'll call it crap.

Get the point?

About 'fastest-selling', I was referring to Blizzard's own press release which came right after the game was released. It was the fastest game to reach 1 million and had the fastest pace for some time after that.

Quark · Post by **Quark** » Mon Aug 20, 2001 5:31 am

Another thing: a point missed perhaps? Yes, you know what an RPG is. I know what the labelling RPG means. Ask any random game player if he does. I doubt it.

To RPG players, an RPG means story and character development. To the mass public it only means character development. Blizzard made this game for the mass public, not for the RPG crowd.

How about MMORPGs? I don't see anyone whining about them. UO have an overall story? No. Everquest? No. The only MMORPG I've heard of with an overall story is Asheron's Call. Too bad that one's not nearly as popular.

fable · Post by **fable** » Mon Aug 20, 2001 8:24 am

Originally posted by Quark:
[QB]Another thing: a point missed perhaps? Yes, you know what an RPG is. I know what the labelling RPG means. Ask any random game player if he does. I doubt it.

To RPG players, an RPG means story and character development. To the mass public it only means character development. Blizzard made this game for the mass public, not for the RPG crowd.
QB]

The fact that a term is misunderstood because it's misused by marketers does not make the term any less accurate as a measuring tool. Blizzard's marketing campaign tried to sell Diablo 2 (which I agree, was a really fine game) as an RPG to grab the diehard RPG market along with the action gamers. (Not the "mass public." The mass public doesn't play computer games, unless you could Solitaire or Asteroids.) It didn't work. The action gamers call it an RPG, but all RPGers I know snort in disbelief at Blizzard's hype. Some like it, some don't, but they know better than to compare a stiffly linear, action-based dungeon crawl to a largely non-linear, character- and party-based RPG.

In fact, this was also a major complaint against Ultima IX. Once you got past the screams of horror at the engine.

People felt betrayed by Garriott because he'd created (in effect) the true CRPG with Ultima VI, VII and VIIb, then got enamored of action games and kept marketing everything he produced as an RPG.

I'm not suggesting action's eliminated from RPGs, or that story and character are absent from action games--hell, look at Thief and Thief II, a great realtime action game with strong RPG elements, or Deus Ex, a shooter/action/RPG! But we have to keep some distinctions, I think, and the hardcore RPG audience (which defines pretty well the BG2 crowd) have a favorite kind of game, as do the action players.

Aegis · Post by **Aegis** » Mon Aug 20, 2001 9:51 am

@Quark: About your MMORPG comment. The reason they are not buuilt with large eaborate story lines is a very good one. They are not really designed to be played on your own. They are meant to be played Online with hundreds of other people, thus the people create the story as they go. Hence the acrynim(?) M(Massive) M(Mulitplayer) O(Online) R(Role) P(Playing) G(Game).

By the way, you mentined about calling one of my favorite games crap, okay... Let's see... Why not call Star Craft crap! Or maybe the Command and Conquer line. Or lets hear about the crappiness of Mech Warrior. I did not make that statment to offend you, or set you off. I made that statment from truth. The amount of hype D2 built up was getting everyon (Even me) excited about it's release. The second it hit the shelves, I looked at it. Read a few mixed reveiws on it. A turned away in disgust. Why do I want something I already have my thoughts, and the thoughts of almost everyone in Canada. Before you ask how I know this, I'll explian. We have a few Canadian gaming newsletters that go out to store owners. I happen to have a good firend who owns such a store. He received the newsletter. Want to know what it said? In Canada, a country with a reasonable amount people, barely even half a million copies sold. Whats that saying? Well, one, just off topic, violence does sell in the states. But what I'm getting at is that people recognized Diablo in D2, and didn't buy it? Why? Becuase they already had.

One last thing for now, the reason D2 sold so fast in the states, the amount of marketing and advertising done on the project. It was getting advertising a full year in advance, so it had plenty of time to gain the hype.

Quark · Post by **Quark** » Mon Aug 20, 2001 10:37 am

MMORPGs:

Just because the story doesn't center aroundyou doesn't mean the story can't exist.

From what I hear Asheron's Call handles this pretty well. So why aren't you guys whining about the games that don't handle this well? According to what you say, the vast majority of MMORPGs are action games, not RPGs.

Aegis · Post by **Aegis** » Mon Aug 20, 2001 10:46 am

@Quark: Thats not what I said! What I said is that the story, for the most part, is up to the player to make. The programmers only give the modes, and the means to do this. The reason there are persistant worlds online for games like that is that players will band together and make the story. Make the history of the world. It's not a set story that gets done everytime you log on, it's a new one everytime, where the dialog is unique everytime. that is what an MMORPG is for. Don't twist my words.