Diablo - RPG Or Shoddy Marketing?

[Aegis]

Whislt I don't have the time needed to effectively make this the opening post I would like to, I will stick the proverbial foot in the foor.

I will be using this thread to make my arguments against Diablo as an RPG in every sense of the word, with aspects spilling into the nature of Role Playing Games, both traditional, modern and computer. In addition, I will look at marketing and hype based labellings of said games.

To assist with this, I shall also pull from previous posts I have made within these boards, and if possible, on other similar forums.

The basis of this thesis (As that is what this can appropriatly be called) is not, as many may believe, to debunk Diablo as a game, the quality, or even gameplay/replayability factors. Instead, it is to examine previous incarnations of Roleplaying Games, and their dominant themes and features, working off the preconceived conclusion that Diablo and its subsequent successor, Diablo II, are fraudulently labelled as RPG's, and where labelled at a time when no such title as 'Action RPG' existed.
There should also be a firm understanding that I do not call Diablo a poorly made game, and that everyone should listen to my opinion. It happens that I do not like the game myself, but that is my own choosing and decision, and I leave all else to come to their own conclusions.

Having said that, upon my return this evening, I shall more than likely begin my dissertation on the above mentioned thesis. I encourage and ask for counter-participation and discussion, and expect all sorts of feedback. Though, if there is flaming involved, know now I will make one mention of the flame, then refuse to respond to any other comments from the same poster which involves personal attacks. We're here to discuss, not insult.

EDIT Particular comments have been edited due to personal respect to Xandax's concern. Further edits have been

[TonyMontana1638]

I agree with Aegis on all accounts; Diablo is an Action game with RPG elements and too many MMORPG mechanics to count. I say this because of the weak, almost nonexistant storyline and absolute emphasis on action (ie. clicking the mouse repeatedly). The majority (my guess is 80%) of the game revolves around killing things, with the story only popping up occasionally when the chapter changes or you find yourself suddenly fighting a large boss.
Truthfully the only legitimate RPG element of the game is the character creation system, which was revolutionary (I loved it), but it really just allowed you to choose how you kill stuff.

That, to me, is not an RPG.

RPG's are about immersing one's self into a fictional world with fictional characters, assuming a role one chooses him/herself. That's what RPG means (in case you weren't aware ); Role Playing Game. You take on a role that you wouldn't likely find yourself in in real life and play that role out until the game ends. The character you choose becomes an onscreen representation of you: your personality (dialog), ethics (chosen "path", for example Light side, lawful good... or just being nice to people) and preferred style of survival (stand in back and fling stuff at foes or lead the charge into enemy lines). I put it to you: when have you ever felt you WERE the Barbarian or Sorceress in Diablo II? It's impossible when you are given no ROLE to fill; you're just clicking and killing things, looking for cool new weapons and managing your inventory space (God how I hated that...). The character you choose in Diablo becomes no more than a little tool you send all over the place, killing stuff in order to level up in hopes of getting new skills so you can kill things more effectively. There is no sense of immersion, no feeling that you ARE the hero.

[Aegis]

This is the first of, I hope, many small treatise's on Diablo and the RPG genre in general. Also, I'll take a quick moment to explain how I'll be doing this. This will be a small series of essay like posts based on my examination of the game and genre, but will be a completely open forum as well. So, I will make strong attempts to respond to posts (providing it fits the above criteria of non-flammatory), but after I fufill the basic premise of the post, which will be clearly titled for each. The theme for this post is story.

For roleplaying games, there is no one story that clearly defines the genre. It can be fantasical, to mundane, but it is almost always epic in some manner. Many times, the story backing an RPG exists in the form of some grand scheme or plot, of which the fate of the whole country/world/galaxy/dimension lays in the balance, waiting to be utterly decimated by the mechanitions of a single, evil entity. Somewhat trite and cliche, but like I mentioned, it remains one. Sometimes it can be as simple as saving a single town. Of course, we can't forget the classic damsel in distress story line either. The point, however, does not lie in the what sparks the story, but rather what ties it together.

Essentially, it is the process in which the player moves through the story, and comes to that final, climatic battle that is what counts for this particular field. In the case of RPG's, the story is quite an integral aspect. Of course, there exist those who may lay claim that there is no 'unique' story left out there, and perhaps those people are right, but that fails to be the point. Good story telling can make up for a poor story just as easily as poor story telling can ruin a good story. It is in the delivery that a true spark of the RPG genre is created.

When examining a game such as Diablo, you are left with a very cliche, and in many ways, religious story. It is a retelling of many great tales, but simplied into the slaying of the Spanish Devil. It is the valiant hero setting out to kill the great evil of the land, in this case, Diablo and his big, bad brothers. Fair enough, it is not the first game to use this story, nor will it be the last. But, when you look at how the story is told, one must begin to question the methods. It is intermittent story amidst a seemlessly endless wave of mouse-clicking violence. The only time in which story rears it's head is during a lull in such mindless action, and the delivery is weak.

To bring mention of the initial release of Diablo, in which started this disturbing trend, the story made an appearance once every five floors of randomly generated dungeon, and came in the form of brief, five minute bursts. The other area story came from was the scattered, and uninspired dialogue of the townspeople, of which, for the most part, many would simple speed through to get the quest, or the reward. So, the question is asked, where does the insentive come from to complete the story? Well, there is none to be exact. The story of Diablo is one the gamer can easily predict from the onset of the game, because it offers nothing insightful or original to RPG stories in general, nor does it provide the same level of creativity, or art form of other such RPG's (for instance, early Quest for Glory games, or Planescape: Tormet).

Not only does the game provide little incentive for story progression, but it does so in a linear way. Linear gaming is one common complaint almost any RPG gamer will agree upon, and Diablo is ripe with it. It allows for little thinking outside the box, and little exploration outside of required areas of travel. It holds none of the freedom, or at least illusion of, that exists in the other successful RPG's, instead pushing the player along a conveyor like progression, which inevitable places them at the same point, at the same time, with the only matter of choice being how powerful your in game avatar has been built up to. Even the faint illusion of non-linear gameplay would have done wonders to Diablo, but it is a fact that remains sorely missed by Blizzard, and by those easily led to believe it is an RPG.

The lack of a strong story telling element in Diablo is over-shadowed to most gamers by the repetitive level grind, and desire to enhance their character. If this were not the case, there would not be such a need for the vast amounts of souless critters sent off as chump fodder to the nigh-invincible hero. It is poor delivery of a poor story.

Now, onto the Mail Bag:

Tony, you right to a certain degree, but I feel that I must make a few comments. Mostly, RPG's do not require a 'fantasy' setting as you put it. In fact, some of the more interesting RPG systems out there exist in the guise of a slightly modified version of reality, with one of my particular favourites being Shadowrun. Not only that, but the clear-cut choice of ethics is another sign of a poor RPG. A lot of the time, an RPG should not be so cut and dry, as it tends to remove a lot of the actual choice and role playing. The ambiguity of an RPG is one of the most appealing factors, and one that is often cleverly hidden from the player. The best computer example of this sort of ambiguity is Planescape: Torment, in which no indication of alignment is given in conversation, meaning the player must actually learn, and react to the in game laws and morales, and make decisions based upon that.

As for the comments based upon role, well, technically, in Diablo the player does take on the role of the hero, which fills your criteria rather snugly. There is far more to simply accepting the in game avatar of the game to make it a RPG, of which I will eventually touch on. Tonights installment was simply on story.

I'll end it there for now, as I realize this has become a longer post. I thank any who read this far in, and encourage people to question and think about what I've said. I'll defend myself as I always do, and will willingly concede provided someone gives a valid and good reason for me to do so.

[C Elegans]

Originally Posted by Aegis

Lastly, and this one is a personal note directed towards Kahlan. Consider this advice for a long and productive tenure on these forums. Before rebuking another member, and what has been said, take a couple aspects into consideration. First, how long he has been around, as well as his post count. This is an indication of said members grasp of the rules and regulations of said forum. In this case, I have been around since the very beginning. In some cases, I was amongst those who helped define the rules through practical use. Two, look at their history. You'll notice I was, at one time, a Moderator, and of this partiuclar forum no less. I was chosen as such for a reason, and was for a lengthy tenure for good reason.

Nobody should by any means consider another members post number or registration number when assessing that members statements. The validity of your opinions comes from your arguments and their correctness not from how many posts you have or how long time you've been a member. Whether you have been a moderator or not, whether you have many posts or not and whether you are an old member or not, does not change other's rights to disagree with you, or your obligation to present arguments for your opinions.

I really hope none of the newer members takes this unfounded elitism into account. Argument from authority, which is what you claim here, is not a valid argument, it is simply saying "I was here before you, so you have a lesser right to critise my opinion".

[Xandax]

Agreeded @ CE. Validity to statements comes from backing them up, not time spend on a forum or postcount, and unless on "official" statements, not even from an (ex-/Super-)moderator title.

Anyways...

I'm one of the people who'd never call Diablo a Roleplaying Game, and fiercely try to debuke people when they do use the term, because I find it degrading to the genre-lable.
And people might claim, it is just a lable, but as I see it Diablo being labled as a RPG has partly been responsible for bringing about the masses of CRPG-Lites (Many of them should be called Action RPGs ) as I prefere to call them. Thin on roleplaying-elements, high on action and now adays with an unhealthy focus on graphics and fluff (Fable springs to mind ).

The labeling of Diablo as a CRPG - as I see it - is partly responsible to bringing many people towards the RPG who enjoyed the fast paced action (click-fest) of the game. This meant that a significant larger portion of the RPG-players now where action oriented people instead of perhaps more Roleplaying orientated people, which in turn mean it was "easier" or even more justifiable for game developers to pump more action into the games while minimizing the RP elements of the RPGs.

As I see it Diablo is more easily compared to an FPS game then a RPG game when looking at the genres.
The story is as taken right out of Doom or Quake with about the same storyline elements - kill countless minions to get to boss-bad guy in differnet "levels" of the gameworld.
Now granted, many storylines can be simplified down to the same level, but with Diablo no such simplicifactions where neaseacry. It was just that simple, as it was in a number of FPS games. So here I am in agreement with Aegis. Other Action RPGs front similar weak stories, but as long as they lable themself as action instead of just RPGs, then people "know" what they go in to. However, when an Action game doens't lable as Action is helps only to devaluate the term of Roleplay.

But - as always - I also enjoy playing the devils advocate, because the question is if the RPG genre would have been as alive today as it is, if it weren't for the masses of people pulled in by the action RPGs such as Diablo, or if it would be a larger niche product such as the adventure genre. Did the amount of people drawn into the genre by games such as Diablo bring the purchasing power to make it possible for the more RP-orientated developers to find funding to more "real" RPGs?
I am not sure myself - I enjoy RPGs, but each time I play a new(er) RPG, I continuesly get dissapointed by bland and static worlds (i.e.: Morrowind), to much focus on graphics (i.e.:Fable), requiering the intelligence of a wet blanket (i.e.:SW:KOTOR1), to much focus on action (i.e.:NwN)..... And with the look at some upcomming so-called RPGs (Hellgate:London) I'm even less sure.
But would all these games even be here if not for the purchasing power of the action-addicted players?

Oh well, it is getting late, and I'm tired so enough rambeling from my old grumpy self now.

[C Elegans]

Originally Posted by Xandax

As I see it Diablo is more easily compared to an FPS game then a RPG game when looking at the genres.
The story is as taken right out of Doom or Quake with about the same storyline elements - kill countless minions to get to boss-bad guy in differnet "levels" of the gameworld.
Now granted, many storylines can be simplified down to the same level, but with Diablo no such simplicifactions where neaseacry. It was just that simple, as it was in a number of FPS games. So here I am in agreement with Aegis.

Me too, my disagreement with Aegis is not about how to define Diablo but how to define what constitues an argument.

I think Diablo 2 is a very well-made game and I still play it after 7 years. I have however never labelled it as an RPG. I think "Action-RPG" is a suitable label for Diablo and its' many clones, but to me it wouldn't matter if it was labelled another way since it is clearly an action game, although the setting contains some elements you usually see in RPG:s.

I am not an expert on games, and I am not entirely sure how games genres are defined, but as I understand it, an RPG should be story-driven or at least should the story be a main part of the gameplay. That is not the case with Diablo, on the contrary - after having played this game for 7 years, I don't even remember the stupid story of the game because it matters zero. Like Fable posted in the other thread and you bring up here, I am sure Blizzard marketed Diablo as an RPG in order to attract a larger crowd.

Something to discuss in relation to the definition of Diablo, is what are the core features of RPG:s? That it is story driven? That it is interactive? That it is set in a fantasy world? That magic exist? That you take on the role of a character and develop this character? etc, etc.

Depending on what we think is the core features of an RPG, various games that are marketed as RPG:s, will fall outside of our defintion.

Originally Posted by TonyMontana1638

The majority (my guess is 80%) of the game revolves around killing things

Agreed, and the other 20% are not story, they are finding the right items and planning and building your character to become more efficient in killing things.

I put it to you: when have you ever felt you WERE the Barbarian or Sorceress in Diablo II? It's impossible when you are given no ROLE to fill; you're just clicking and killing things, looking for cool new weapons and managing your inventory space (God how I hated that...). The character you choose in Diablo becomes no more than a little tool you send all over the place, killing stuff in order to level up in hopes of getting new skills so you can kill things more effectively. There is no sense of immersion, no feeling that you ARE the hero.

Now, I have never played any game, RPG or other, that has given me a feeling of BEING the pixel figure I walk around with on the screen, but I think I get your point. The role-playing element is that your pixel figure displays some kind of personality, that allow people to identify with it.

However, if you look at older CRPG:s like SSI:s Goldbox series, your character had no more personality than a Diablo character. You couldn't make any choices, you had no interaction with NPC:s apart from listening to their stories and saying "yes" to the missions they gave you and you couldn't affect the story whatever you did. The only difference from Diablo was playing speed, and that some of your missions was not monster killings only but also some more puzzle-style quests. However, few people would classify the Goldbox series as something else than CRPG:s since they were set in an established RPG-fantasy world (Forgotten realms) and built upon the D&D system for character building. However, that raises the question if a CRPG must use existing RPG-worlds or RPG rules in order to be an CRPG?
So again, we encounter the question of core features.

[Dottie]

I think it's very hard to define the core features of CRPGs, because what many people consider to be the core feature of PnP RPGs doesn't exist in any CRPG, or exist only to the same extent that story exists in Diablo.

That makes it difficult imo to adopt a purist stance to defining CRPGs. Personally I thought that running around in Throne of Baal and fetching spell books for strangers felt almost as silly as solving the "quests" in Diablo.

[TonyMontana1638]

Originally Posted by Aegis

Now, onto the Mail Bag:

Tony, you right to a certain degree, but I feel that I must make a few comments. Mostly, RPG's do not require a 'fantasy' setting as you put it. In fact, some of the more interesting RPG systems out there exist in the guise of a slightly modified version of reality, with one of my particular favourites being Shadowrun.

With all due respect Aegis I never in my first post said RPGs had to tke place in a fantasy setting; my exact words were "fictional world with fictional characters" which I do believe is true. I have never played an RPG game that sticks perfectly close to reality as even your Shadowrun game (which I also played and enjoyed) is, as you put it, is set in a "slightly modified version of reality" which, though it contains elements of setting and story that are mosern and realistic, is still fictional. I believe you're right that not all RPGs have fantasy settings, but I didn't make that claim.

Originally Posted by Aegis

T

As for the comments based upon role, well, technically, in Diablo the player does take on the role of the hero, which fills your criteria rather snugly. There is far more to simply accepting the in game avatar of the game to make it a RPG, of which I will eventually touch on. Tonights installment was simply on story.

This is true as you put it and the error lies in my explanation, and I must flesh that particular criteria out more. You have a role to play in most all video games; in Civilization for example your role is to direct the makings and actions of a civilization throughout the ages. Civilization is obviously not
an RPG, however; it is a strategy game. What then is the "role" the name RPG refers to and how is it different from the roles of other games?

The answer, in my humble opinion, lies in the game's story and the ability of the player to mold the character (whether that be in dialog, chosen courses of action, skills, etc. is determined by the game itself) how they want, as much as the game allows.
Aegis's example of Planescape Torment is a tough one, but I still believe fits my profile; you choose how the character is to be played (skills), his dialog and choice in course of action. A is right that not all rpgs have a clear-cut choice of ethics; the ones that do have such systems, however, are not inferior games IMO (see BGII and KOTOR). The ethics in said games are just easier to recognize because they correspond with those we are used to as people (giving a beggar money is a kind thing to do whereas killing him is not). Planescape's ambiguity is, you're right, one of its more interesting traits (and selling points) but is not necessarily 'better' than other, different games (maybe more interesting at times though).

I suppose I also agree with Xandax that I have never felt I was a pixelated, on-screen character , but I believe the argument still stands. You are thrust into the role of a character who is part of a large, fictional setting (though the world may be real, something must be fictional whether it's simply the character's involvement) with a story you progress through that is slowly revealed by your actions. The story is IMO the most important part of an rpg, as it delivers that level of immersion that no other genre of games can. Diablo doesn't have that level of immersion because the story only crops up at odd intervals (as has been mentioned earlier) in order to keep the game progressing; it is not prevalent enough to warrant as much rpg consideration as, say, KOTOR or Fallout. There is far more action than story, making it IMO an (I'll say it again) action game with some rpg elements.

I know all of these comments will too be nitpicked apart (in fact I'd be disappointed if they weren't ) but what I've mentioned in these two posts is what makes a game an RPG to me.

[Luis Antonio]

Originally Posted by Aegis

Many times, the story backing an RPG exists in the form of some grand scheme or plot, of which the fate of the whole country/world/galaxy/dimension lays in the balance, waiting to be utterly decimated by the mechanitions of a single, evil entity.

Yeah, even though that fits far more in the D&D settings aye? I think Diablo (1) tried to use the same D&D "set of story" with a far more simple, far more action focused game. I have heard that the game builders had trouble dealing with both the quest and the random dungeons together (which is the reason the game was rather cool at the time it had been released, increasing replayability factor) so the producers cut half of the quests. Even that way there'd be not many quests, since the village was a small place, with a few people that'd sell rather unimportant stuff for a rather inexpressive ammount of GP. (economy in Diablo was very bad, and it is very bad in many RPG's)

I played the second game only a few times, at a friend's house. I dont really liked it - even though my friend was completely addicted. I think it is really an action with a rather good rithym (would pace be used here correctly?) and nice visuals (for the time of the release) and if you like to throw mouses away you'd like the game as much as Diablo 1. It was my perspective on it, at least. (I had to buy a new mouse after playing diablo, it made me pissed cause it wasnt due to the trackball, but to the buttons being jammed).

Diablo has level progression. Diablo has proficiency points. When you finish the game you discover that the classes are extremely restrictive regarding distribution of the proficiency points. That diappoints me and makes me think of it as one of those platform games such as sonic where you'd collect the jewels to become super sonic, or super tails. Its action, but not RPG.

Xandax raised the point of the RPG market being focusing far less in game quality than looking into a single aspect of the game (graphics, for one) and I agree with him completely, and I have expressed that on many other posts of mine. I often keep thinking that the last revolutionary RPG game is still Baldur's Gate, and that after that the market got kinda lost trying to revolutionarize something but havent tried to just copy it making a competitive game in storyline and fun of gamemplay. And immersion. Instead, they try to proof their game has more quests, more space to explore, better graphics...

This is something I can relate to the Nintendo strategy: They will not divulge the capacity of their next console. Why would they if they may be using lower configurations? I bet Nintendo will raise the games again, instead of rising console performance to use in games that look nice but are played once or twice.

[Aegis]

With all due respect Aegis I never in my first post said RPGs had to tke place in a fantasy setting; my exact words were "fictional world with fictional characters" which I do believe is true. I have never played an RPG game that sticks perfectly close to reality as even your Shadowrun game (which I also played and enjoyed) is, as you put it, is set in a "slightly modified version of reality" which, though it contains elements of setting and story that are mosern and realistic, is still fictional. I believe you're right that not all RPGs have fantasy settings, but I didn't make that claim.

My apologies, Tony. I paraphrased you, and in doing so, made a small error. For the most part, the comments stand, and I will agree with you on the idea of a fictional world, which is true for the most part. Though, some interesting alternatives, primarily in the PnP area, is D20 Modern. An interesting take as it allows for a complete reality based game.

A key concept that many have touched on this thread is the idea of core concepts of an RPG. The frank truth of the matter has also been addressed in that they are difficult to define. That is actually one of the subtexts I hope to address in these 'treatise's' of mine. Though an examination of such matters that have been held true by both RPG communities and design teams, what have been the focus, and what has been neglected.

Dottie touches on another important factor, which is the RPG 'Purist'. These people comprise the PnP turned CRPG crowd of gamers, and have a far more comprehensive and involving system as their roots. Whilst there is nothing wrong with this ideal, it creates for an interesting bit of tension amonst CRPG players, and how to market to these gamers. In some cases you get what Xandax has refered to 'RPG-lite' and in others you gets games and mods which adhere too closely to the PnP variety to make the CRPG version enjoyable.

One last thing before I vanish for a bit. I'd like to reiterate that I do not question the selling factor and enjoyment factor many people have garnered from Diablo and it's successor. I own a copy of the original myself, and when I played it, I found it to be a good bit of mindless entertainment. My goal here is not so much to try and make others think the game is bad, and should not be purchased, rather that the game is inappropriatly labelled and sold as something it is not. Whilst a person may not consider it an 'RPG', that is not the truth of marketing and how it is sold to the masses, of which it sullies the genre name. This is something I will go into greater detail in the future (hopefully near), but time contraints keep from doing it tonight.

Perhaps by tomorrow I will have my next treatise up. Also, I'd just like to say I'm glad to see the calibre of feedback and discussion that is coming from this.

[Hill-Shatar]

A note: It should be taken into account, as C Elegans and Xandax have stated, that post count, titles and the like should be disregarded while responding or posting in threads, unless the title has given them certain knowledge otherwise unattainable. The only thing that backs up a post in these cases are facts, or a good argument, as you can see posted above, by members such as Aegis, Xandax, Tony and C Elegans.

Back to the thread, many a time people have been spoiled by excellent RPGs, such as Baldur's Gate, and always expect more and more from the next generation of games coming out. Whereas some of us have grown up playing games with bad grpahics but a great plot, many other's may have started there posting career with assorted other games that were not as well made.

Some of us have personal tastes (YAY! Quests with points!) that seem to rarely pop up in RPGs, yet Diablo, in this case, seemed to miss quite a lot of what other games can manage to pick up, that make many of us nitpickers happy.

Not to say I did not enjoy the little bits of the game I did play. I always nitpick games. It's a specialty of mine, or more of a hinderance , I guess, but there were many factors in Diablo that made it a good game. A good RPG... well, no, but a good game none the less.

[Aegis]

My second treatise on the matter, I will touch on character development. This is a very ambiguous matter in RPG's, of which there is this general and pre-conceived notion that the only required part of character development is being able to choose and modify your 'stats' or 'abilities'. While this is an integral part of character development and building, it is not the sole aspect.

In games like Diablo, in which combat is the prime focus of both story and gameplay, it is only understandable that much of the programming effort finds its way into the combat system. The issue here, however, lies in an over-abundance of focus, with the other aspects of character development finding itself pushed to the sides, or ignored completely. This fact alone hurts the idea of playing a role in these games, as it assumes that all there is to the role is minor decision making on the combatative path.

The truth of the matter is that character development is far more encompassing than the above mentioned factor. Part of assuming the role of the hero in these stories is the chance to make decisions and choices that could possibly affect the world around the in-game player. There do exist systems which attempt to mimic this sort of 'living' world through the addition of alignment systems, with the most well known being the Dungeons and Dragon's alignment table. The practical implimentation, however, is greatly flawed in many games, with too much of a black and white approach. One such example of this approach is the recent Knights of the Old Republic games, in which the is little consideration on circumstances, rather a rather simplistic and basic notion of what is good, and what is bad.

When the player is given these sort of options, letting them truly think about their decisions and options presented before them, the true aspect of Role playing is introduced. When one answers the way they think they should answer, or feel they should answer, they are taking on that role. Not only that, but they have taken that extra step of immersion into the game, a sign of good design.

While I do not think that the character building aspects of these games are unimportant, because they are quite fun to take part in, I do recognize that they are not all that makes the character in the game. When Role playing, the idea is to take on all aspects of that character, not just the physical.

While this particular piece was shorter than the last, I feel that I have touched on what I think was important for character development. In addition, I hope this continues to spark some more discussion, maybe even enough for me to come back and take another look at this one to make changes.

[TonyMontana1638]

Originally Posted by Aegis

The practical implimentation, however, is greatly flawed in many games, with too much of a black and white approach. One such example of this approach is the recent Knights of the Old Republic games, in which the is little consideration on circumstances, rather a rather simplistic and basic notion of what is good, and what is bad.

When the player is given these sort of options, letting them truly think about their decisions and options presented before them, the true aspect of Role playing is introduced. When one answers the way they think they should answer, or feel they should answer, they are taking on that role. Not only that, but they have taken that extra step of immersion into the game, a sign of good design.

Maybe we just have slightly different views on RPGs Aeg, but am I the only one who sees something fundamentally wrong with answering the "way they think they SHOULD answer, or feel they SHOULD answer"? To me, one of the best part about RPGs is the freedom to make your own decisions and not make choices based on how you think you "should" answer or how the game "wants" you to answer. The freedom to interact with the game in ways you want is one of the best parts and I personally think makes it feel more immersive! YOU'RE choosing the character's destiny (in a sense, though many games have similar endings regardless of how you choose), not having it chosen FOR YOU.

[Xandax]

Originally Posted by TonyMontana1638

Maybe we just have slightly different views on RPGs Aeg, but am I the only one who sees something fundamentally wrong with answering the "way they think they SHOULD answer, or feel they SHOULD answer"? To me, one of the best part about RPGs is the freedom to make your own decisions and not make choices based on how you think you "should" answer or how the game "wants" you to answer. The freedom to interact with the game in ways you want is one of the best parts and I personally think makes it feel more immersive! YOU'RE choosing the character's destiny (in a sense, though many games have similar endings regardless of how you choose), not having it chosen FOR YOU.

Well, firstly - I doubt there'll be made a CRPG which can handle the the freedom of you choosing the characters destiny. You'll most always be placed into a situation where you have to select choices based on what the game wants you to choose.
Secondly, as I read what Aegis said with the quoted paragraph, is that when he uses "Should" he uses it in reference to the character you play and that characters wishes and "shoulds", contrary to the players own wishes and "shoulds".
For instance being placed in front of a dilemma where your character (if real) would likely choose A, but chosing B would give the biggest reward. A bad basic example could be the Paladin in D&D would choose to save a child for the mother who can't give any reward, rather then give it up to the evil uncle for a huge weapon of smiting +15 (bad and basic example I know, but it is still an example )
If the player then feels he should also choose A, he has reached the immersion that Aeigs mentions, which doesn't come easy and in my view - is also an integral part of roleplaying games and especially roleplaying.

[Kipi]

In a way, I agree with you Xandax. It is true that currently there is now way to achieve such a mechanism that can truly handle total freedom in RPG games.
BUT, what I in a way hate in games like Diablo, is that player has no way to affect the story. The "dialogues" are just that NPC says something, almost 90% of these comments are either introduction of quest or ending of quest. If we take ie Fallout- or BG series, there player can affect the story. That's what I call freedom in RPGs. Players are able to choose at least somewhat what they do, how they do, and these actions even can affect what players are able to do. Based on this, for me Diablo and such games are more like tunnel-running, as mentioned here already, like FPS. After creating character player has no way to affect the story itself, everything happens in predesigned order, only some dialogues may be different depending on class of character, ie if player is Assassin there is a bit different comments than if the player choose Paladin.

Now, as the name of genre is already stating, the true meaning of RPGs is to roleplay. How much you can actually "roleplay" in Diablo and Diablo 2 and such? If we don't include selecting class and skills/spells, you can't. And IMO it's not even close to roleplay that you are able to select skill/spells that you are only using to kill hordes of monsters. Those skills/spells can be compared to weapons in FPS. And do weapons make FPS games RPG? Definately no. So, if we but it very short, the "roleplay" aspect of Diablo and such is totally comparable to weapons in FPS and such, so what is the difference? Why Diablo is more RPG than FPS games? I know lots of FPS games that have better, deeper story than Diablo, so I can not see that as an explanation. There is even character development in some FPS games (DeusEx, very good example) and those games aren't considered as RPG but FPS with aspects of RPG. So, what makes Diablo more RPG?