Diablo 2 getting a bad rap

[humanflyz]

Concerning MMORPG, I have to agree with Quark. I think they are just action games with character development. Sure there are quests to undertake, but the goal of the quest is eventually to get more levels and better equipment. Here's a snippet of the conversation going on MMORPGs:

Player1: Dude, did you see the Tomb Raider movie?
Player2: Yeah, she's hot.
Player1: Ok, anyone wants to kill something together?
Player2: Sure, I'll go.
Player3: Yeah, let's go kill some orcs.

They are not roleplaying. They are so out of character. It seems to me that the sole purpose for people to play action RPGs is to get more levels and get better equipment.

It used to be better when I was playing MUDs. Everyone roleplayed. Now all I see on my favorite MUD is newbies bragging about the equipment they got and try to rip other even newer newbies off. I seriously think that if more serious players are given more opportunity to shape the world and make a story and implement it into the main game, MMORPG definitely will improve. That's why NWN promises to change the way people play RPG altogether. You get to shape your own world, instead of letting other people do it for you and not getting satisfied. Until then, MMORPG and action RPGs are nothing but a powergamer's oddyssey to get more levels and better equipment.

[Aegis]

I couldn't agree with you more. MMORPG's are full of powergamers. But that wasn't the point. The orignal point was how MMORPG's deal with story, as opposed to RPG's, and CRPG's. Granted, they are more action than RPing, but what do you expect when powergamers over run the world, forcing the hardcore RPer's out.

[humanflyz]

I just realized that this topic is the probably the longest on this forum.

[Quark]

My point is the fact that you guys completely criticize Diablo 2 for having almost no story.

Yet I see no criticism of UO, EQ, or any other MMORPG when Asheron's Call is the only one to incorporate a story. Yes, in MMORPGs players are able to create their own story[/b]. But why can't the developers also develope a continuing story?

It's two-faced.

[Aegis]

@Quark: Shall we examine something here...

Here are a few elements...

Persistant Worlds
Thousands of Gamers
Staff of Dozens
Pay to each of those staf members

Now, let's analyze them.

Persistant worlds, meaning never shuts off, constanly evolving.

Thousands of Gamers, meaning people will always be playing, meaning people will be finding bugs, meaning people will be breaking guidleines, thus be policed

Dozens of Staff members, meaning people to maintain this world, meaning people to police the worlds, meaning people to fix bugs and glitches

Payment for staff, meaning expense shelled out to cover the cost of people that govern, if you will, this world.

Now, explain to me where the funds, the man power, the time, and the need for an on-going story. there are none of those things available on an MMORGP persitant world platform. The whole reason it is MMORPG and persistant is for people to write their own story, play out their own adventure. Not for some suit to sit down, and have to write something that can apply to each indivual member of the Persistant world. Even if they were to do that, it would money... enourmous amounts of it. It would take time, it would man-power, and it would take huge amounts of memory! It can't be done. MMORPG was made to offer players an on-going story, the catch? They have to write it themselves. That doesn't seem to unfair.

By the way, you've reiterated the same point about five times now. Yes, we don't like D2 because of lack of story, but that was only one reason! Read back a bit, learn! Maybe you'll figure out why it's not the game Blizzard hyped it up to be!

[fable]

Originally posted by Quark:
<STRONG>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.</STRONG>

@Quark, you've been answered politely by several people, including Aegis and myself. If anybody is whining, it's a person who has a problem with a number of us maintaining our own opinions about Diablo 2's "RPGness" in opposition to Blizzard's marketing blitz. Consider choosing your language a bit more carefully if you really want to didscussion in the future, okay?

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.

There's no such thing as a "random player," because players, as I've already written, know what they like, and buy that: the "casual computer gamer" doesn't exist in quantity. People who have never played computer games don't just wander into Babbages to buy anything that looks interesting; computer games are still a niche market. And within it are sub-niches: RPGs, shooters, action games, arcades, etc, on different platforms.

Again, a word can be misused because of hype, but that doesn't change the meaning of the word. RPGs and action games have very distinct profiles, and while any game can combine aspects of both genres, nobody was fooled by Blizzard's hype--hell, you can see it for yourself in the unpopularity of Diablo II on this forum. That's not a comment about the quality or lack of same in D2, but it is a comment about the ability of players to distinguish game types, and to state very clear preferences.

[ 08-21-2001: Message edited by: fable ]

[fable]

Originally posted by Quark:
<STRONG>My point is the fact that you guys completely criticize Diablo 2 for having almost no story.

Yet I see no criticism of UO, EQ, or any other MMORPG when Asheron's Call is the only one to incorporate a story. Yes, in MMORPGs players are able to create their own story[/b]. But why can't the developers also develope a continuing story?
It's two-faced.</STRONG>

Our reactions? How? We're in agreement: MMORPGs don't incorporate much in the way of plot development or character, and neither does D2. Neither one was designed for that purpose. Criticizing either for lacking these qualities is a little silly, as a result.

But if Blizzard hadn't marketed D2 as an RPG, it wouldn't be getting critized for lacking classic RPG qualities. The problem isn't the game; the problem is the hype. If you offer something for sale in one category and try to draw in crowds who want something else by inappropriate advertising, you're going to catch flack bigtime for it--that stands to reason.

[Aegis]

Basically, We don't want false advertising when companies are trying to sell their games. Like every other person in this world, we want exactly what we we like. Blizzard tried to pull the wool over our eyes by Saying D2 was an RPG, in result, they built lot's of hype. Not only from the RP'ers, but from the action gamers, because they promised of more of the dungeon scrawl that was in the first that appealed to those people. But when they turned around, made a second dugeon scrawler, put in a few abilities and used the same character advancement as the first one, than label it as an RPG, thats where the false advertising comes in. What they ended up creating, and I've said this before, Diablo with the face lift. What really urked a lot of our nerves was how they laveled it something it was not. They cause hundreds of gamers, mostly the RPG crowd, to go and spend $60 (Canadian) on something they were just going to take off their computor a few days later. Blizzard used to be about quality games, now with D2 out, it proves that all they want is the all-mighty dollar now. That what swayed us to give D2 the cold shoulder here.

@Fable: Thakns, I was running out of ways to explain MMORPG's to him, and I think you did the job nicly of translating what I was saying...

[fable]

Originally posted by Aegis:
<STRONG>Thakns, I was running out of ways to explain MMORPG's to him, and I think you did the job nicly of translating what I was saying...</STRONG>

Heh. I was a dungeonmaster for four years for one of the big online gaming companies in a MMORPG, building areas, running events, etc. They advertised it as "an online RPG," but you won't believe the flack that bought us! We were constantly being told that our advertising was false, because the game was only an environment (as online games are). It lacked a cohesive, all-encompassing RPG structure--it was really designed to provide a backdrop for players to turn into whatever they wanted. You want to use it as a chatroom? You want to make it into a tourney-to-the-death for you and your pals? You want to roleplay? Go for it! We actually gave free experience to good RPing when we saw it, but we hardly ever looked. We were too busy creating new critters, opening new regions, designing new spells, etc.

Thought: an MMORPG would be like BG2 if BG2 consisted of nothing but areas, monsters, and all those background people who sold you goods and made conversation. No plot. No development. No real interaction.

[Aegis]

Well, also minus the online part, but yeah.

[humanflyz]

I think I can pretty much sum up MMORPG in one sentence:

MMORPG is a basically an enhanched chat room where you can kill stuff and pay for it.

[fable]

Originally posted by humanflyz:
<STRONG>I think I can pretty much sum up MMORPG in one sentence:

MMORPG is a basically an enhanched chat room where you can kill stuff and pay for it.</STRONG>

Well, yeah, but as a player, I could and did really RP up a storm, years before I joined staff. Get a group of good RPers together, and it was a delight what they could do. I still get a kick remembering some of the things we did--not killing stuff, but showing a whole range of character traits as we interacted with one another.

Good days--and nights. But it took too much time. Shame, that. We really need to be immortal, and have 28 hour days.

[Quark]

You guys are still two-sided. If one company succeded I hardly see why others cannot have the ability too. Also, you say people can bring the roleplaying to MMORPGs. Why can't they do the same to Diablo?

I understand why you want to maim D2 so much, but why not take that out on anything labelled RPG that hardly incorporates the roleplaying?

As far as I see it the only main differences b/w D2 and most MMORPGs are that:
1)Only 8 players in one D2 game - but friends can meet in chat
2)Montly fees - battle.net is free

Finally, this should be my last point: Why do you guys fret so much over a label? Aegis, I'm going to label Quake 4 an RPG. All of a sudden you're hyped because it's labeled an RPG? Bull! If you played Diablo, you knew what to expect out of Diablo 2. If I bought every game labeled as an 'RPG' I would have been one bitter person. But I don't buy a game because of it's label, and neither do most people. Hell, most stores don't even mention what a game is classified as. In fact, I don't remember the last time that I store I was in (not online) had any labels or sorting by classification.

Don't be upset because you don't like a game's label - be upset because you don't like the game. As Chris Taylor has mentioned numerous times, a definate label for any game does not exist anymore. The fact that the games out today almost always incorporate another genre's ideas leave a clear classification extremely difficult. If you can get so worked up over a label, why not just ignore them.

[Aegis]

@Quark: We're not trying to "maim D2 as you put it. It did a fine job on it's own. We are just stating why we don't like D2. How long is it going to take you to realize that this isn't just about the RPG advertising thing. My advice to this, is that you re-read through my posts, and Fables posts and find out why we don't like D2.

Next, the reason MMORPG's are labeled as so, is because they are a particular genre of of RPG. D2, is not even a genre of RPG. It is a genre of action. MMORPG's is interactive RPG's, where D2 is is Action with a wee bit of character development. We're not saying only certain companies can have success at it, they just need to know what their doing. Blizzard does not know RPG, thus should not make a game, and label it as such. It is what is called "coercing the public". By playing on peoples need to have labels on things, they are disguising the facts to them. They called D2 an RPG, thus reeling in naive, new gamers who want to try RPG's, and they sell them an action game. By doing so, those new people believe that D2 is an RPG, therefore, when they see something like BG2, they think it is not RPG, thus they won't bother to play it, claiming they like RPG's but all they know is D2. By doing what Blizzard did with D2 and it's genre labeling, it's ruining the RPG market. When people start buying more D2 for it's action, thinking it's an RPG, the real RPG's will sell less and less, thus being made less and less, until the actual RPG genre is dead and gone.

Originally posted by Quark:
<STRONG>Finally, this should be my last point: Why do you guys fret so much over a label? Aegis, I'm going to label Quake 4 an RPG. All of a sudden you're hyped because it's labeled an RPG? Bull! If you played Diablo, you knew what to expect out of Diablo 2. If I bought every game labeled as an 'RPG' I would have been one bitter person. But I don't buy a game because of it's label, and neither do most people. Hell, most stores don't even mention what a game is classified as. In fact, I don't remember the last time that I store I was in (not online) had any labels or sorting by classification.

Don't be upset because you don't like a game's label - be upset because you don't like the game. As Chris Taylor has mentioned numerous times, a definate label for any game does not exist anymore. The fact that the games out today almost always incorporate another genre's ideas leave a clear classification extremely difficult. If you can get so worked up over a label, why not just ignore them.</STRONG>

Now, to this one. I felt this one was needing to be qouted. I do not buy games for labels. I buy games for gameplay. Not once have bought anything because of how it is labeled. I have been playing games long enough that I really could care less. The only reason I mentioned Blizzards false labeling was because at the time, the difference between RPG, and other genres were being discussed. Although, unlike me, a lot of people do buy games for their label, if they didn't, labels would not even be used.

Also, I did play Diablo. But, when I read all the hype, ads, specs. of D2, Blizzard was claiming it would be more RPG than Action. They were hyping the intense ability charts, the charcter development, the quests all those things! When I finally saw the game in action, and saw all these "improvements" the first thing I thought was, Diablo. So what, some abilites for different classes. That's typical in any multi-class/species/race games. So is it really an improvment? Over the original, yes. Over-all, no. The Quests were all mediochre. Poorly done, and repetitive whe compared to every other game invoolving quests. And the Charcter development, well lookie, the same as before, with a minor tweak here and there. Now, this is the last time I'm re-iterating this statement, and maybe you'll get it this time. D2 is Diablo, but with a face lift!

Last thing. I am not pissed about the Label of D2. I could care less. I'm extremly dissapointed with the gameplay of D2. So don't accuse of me of sometihng I didn't do.

[fable]

Quark writes:
You guys are still two-sided. If one company succeded I hardly see why others cannot have the ability too.

I'm afraid I don't understand the content of this remark. Are you calling us hypocrites?

And what do you mean by "If one company succeeded I hardly see why others cannot have the ability too"? Who's talking about "one company?" RPGs have been developed successfully by at least a dozen companies over the years, and marketed as such. An even larger number have manufactured and marketed action games.

Also, you say people can bring the roleplaying to MMORPGs. Why can't they do the same to Diablo?

Because online Diablo is deliberately planned as pure action, just like the standalone game. It is not meant to be an RPG, while as I mentioned earlier, MMORPGs are essentially environment containers: not games per se, but game backgrounds for any number of possible game types.

I understand why you want to maim D2 so much...

Aegis may not like D2, but he's been completely evenhanded in his comments about the game: there's nothing he's posted which indicates a need to diss D2. I happen to like D2 quite a bit, and I've written as much, repeatedly. In fact, I did a review of the D1 extension pack, and praised it.

Which leaves us all up here blinking and chuckling at this comment of yours. You realize, of course, that everybody can read everything we've put up here in our exchange. So they can easily tell that you're either attempting a cheap debating tactic to make us look bad with your choice of words--or that you're incapable of telling genuine, civilized discussion from people yelling without thought at one another. Which is it?

... but why not take that out on anything labelled RPG that hardly incorporates the roleplaying?

Who says we don't criticize games that are marketed in this fashion? We do. Quite a few of us have slammed EA for the way they marketed U9 as an RPG. I slammed Zeus in print, because it was a pure strategy title being marketed and sold as an RPG.

Finally, this should be my last point: Why do you guys fret so much over a label? Aegis, I'm going to label Quake 4 an RPG. All of a sudden you're hyped because it's labeled an RPG? Bull!

Umm, we're not. We're just having a little discussion, talking lightly about our preferences on a whole lot of things in these boards. You, on the other hand, seem to be getting your knickers in a twist over our chuckling at companies who refuse to label their products by their true content.

If you played Diablo, you knew what to expect out of Diablo 2.

And if you hadn't, you wouldn't know about the game. "Your Honor, we're not resposible for the fact that people buy our cars and complain that they don't contain engines. If those so-called customers of ours had ever bought one of our cars before, they'd have known we *never* sold a car with an engine."

Uh-uh. Doesn't work.

If I bought every game labeled as an 'RPG' I would have been one bitter person. But I don't buy a game because of it's label, and neither do most people.

Actually, most people *do* buy games because they're labeled or give the impression of being in one or another genre. Or how do you know that you won't like The Mario Brothers? You judge by the box. So do we all, except for those of us who search out reviews.

[ 08-21-2001: Message edited by: fable ]

[Aegis]

@Fable: Damn your good at this sort of thing.

@Quark: All we're trying to say is D2 really could've been more than it was. There are people here who like, and those who don't. I happen to be one person who doesn't like it! Does that mean I'm prejudice to Action games? No, or course not. Does that mean I'm not entitled to give an opinion on the game? Of course I'm allowed to! But, after awhile, you were no longer trying to argue how you liked it, you were trying to convince myself, and others on GB to like. You just can't do that.

[Quark]

Forget this

From what PCGamer said, Arcanum has the action of Diablo with the story of BG. Once I finish Septerra Core I'm off to Arcanum.

Final note: I think that many of the problems around D2 come from the hype. It was hyped up to be the perfect game - so some people expected that. I expected it to be Diablo, so I got what I wanted. Half of the hype didn't even come from Blizzard - too many websites think that every Blizzard game has to be perfect no matter what. diabloii.net certainly didn't help either.

Other games have had just as much of blitzes in advertising - in fact, I see maybe one page a month as an ad for D2 in high time, then 1 for LoD now (in PCG). The hype is now almost completely consumer driven.

[ 08-21-2001: Message edited by: Quark ]

[fable]

Originally posted by Quark:
<STRONG>From what PCGamer said, Arcanum has the action of Diablo with the story of BG. Once I finish Septerra Core I'm off to Arcanum.
</STRONG>

I wouldn't go by PC Gamer's statement: it really has neither. The game engine is in fact the same one used in Fallout 1 & 2, which should give you some idea of the kind of RPG it is. Mind, I like it a lot.

[Xandax]

Originally posted by Quark:
<STRONG><sniå>

Final note: I think that many of the problems around D2 come from the hype. It was hyped up to be the perfect game - so some people expected that. <snip>
</STRONG>

I actually think you have a good point here.
The hype surrounding some games will cause a lot of people to buy it.
"Well if all them say it's great, it must be great"
I've myself fallen for the hype around Black & White, wich IMO is a boring game, with excessive micromangement and stoopid AI (well haven't tried it lately, so there migh be patchs out )


But the hype around games, sometimes pushes the game into place it doesn't belong.

Of course a big game as Diablo is goning to have an enormous group of fans, that want the world to know that they think Diablo was No.1 and that D2 is gonna be better.
And we all now that companies want to make money, this is best done by people buying the game, so of course they will try to tap into other "genre"-gamers.
And combine these 2 and we get all the other gamers that may not have previously experience with the game, might follow other peoples recomendations etc. wich will get the game, and there is some that are bound to be upset that they game might not be what they were promised.

Speaking for myself - I should have know better with B&W since I'm an experienced gamer, but I can fully understand people excpecting to play a gamegenre only to find another genre getting annoyed.

But IMO it is ultimatly the companies "error" to label a game wrong, but I can fully understand why they do it.
So it must be up the gamer to view a game and decide for himself. But this is not likely - and I'd like to see what the next hype will be around.

(hmm - am I making sence, or am I just rambeling )

[humanflyz]

I heard a lot of mixed reviews for Arcanum. It's pretty much like Fallout in terms of open-ended story line, very non-linear, and includes an editor to create your own content. The rest including story, combat, and gameplay did not get such a good review. And the graphics seem to be crude and outdated. Then again, graphics aren't everything.

Concerning hype: I agree that gamers and critics alike seem to think that every Blizzard game has to be perfect. Blizzard did make a lot of good games, but I think they are running out of ideas for new games. All they are doing now is sequels. WarCraft III, probably a Warcraft III expansion pack, and then probably StarCraft 2. I want to see some creativity from Blizzard. They are becoming Microsoft, no more innovations.