If game relies more on player skill than character stats it should not be called RPG.
And action games do rely on player skill, at the very least on his reaction time.
>Baldur's Gate 1 relies on the player having the skill to implement their various skills, consumables and spells rather than pure the pure numbers of their stat sheet because they very well might just die on turn 1 against a significant story enemy if they just [select all] + M1 >so its not an rpg
i know you probably just came up with that horseshit take off the top of your head but it still doesnt track unfortunately son
Selecting wand of fireball and aiming it just far enough not to toast your own people isn't particularly high bar for player skill, especially when game autopauses to aim at leasure.
Why call it role playing then. If it's not about role playing. Why not call it like "Math playing games." I'd be more comfortable with that title than RPG.
I would say this only matters in games with a dodge/parry button, because in that stats genuinely don't matter as long as there's no undodgeable/unparryable attacks, even with the lowest stats you can whittle down a boss.
Actually I was thinking more like DMC, games where having stats would only determine how fast the bosses go down but ultimately it's up to player skill.
DMC is so far from RPG I'm not sure what you're getting at.
And again: player skill is a must in every challenging game, RPGs included.
Trying to argue that stats must be "more important" is idiotic and leads to conclusions such as Dragon Quest 1 and Final Fantasy 8 not being RPGs, anything Bethesda not being an RPG, Rogue-likes of all kindd not being RPGs...
>DMC is so far from RPG I'm not sure what you're getting at.
But you CAN make an RPG with DMC combat, FF literally just did it. And guess what, your stats don't really matter in that as long as you have really good reflexes.
Path of Exile is social
It has the global chat where everyone is talking
I got banned for years for spamming Toucan when it was popular
Good times
I'm going back this season after a long hiatus
They are all linear stories
I remember grim dawn trying somewhat, specially with malmouth, but the main story remains unchanged and even the side stuff is mostly just to who do you buy armor/weapons/accesories from.
Skyrim is still poor btw, but at least you get some interesting sidequest here and there that actually changes
This is the old argument of "What is an RPG". I divide it into two camps.
Story, dialog, choices, so forth.
And gameplay. Combat. Gear.
Many RPGs do both. Hack and Slash aRPGs do combat. They do it quite well. It's not just left clicking on the enemy. It gets rather complex.
I get what you're saying and I wholeheartedly agree. If you want a good story and choices that matter and so forth then these games aren't for you.
If you want to get into well designed skill trees and builds that explode screens in the endgame, yes. That's what these games do. I don't personally enjoy listening to 60 hours of dialog and choosing from one of 4 predefined responses. Many people do, and that's all good.
>Not RPGs
This but unironically.
They're action games. Having stats & levels, and maybe fantasy setting is the only thing they have in common with other RPGs.
By that logic the sims & shit like fifa / nu CoD are also RPGs because they also have character stats & level ups.
I don't hate them but personally what I want out of playing an RPG game is a slow-burn story where characters feel like they'd grown through the choices made by the player. A diablo player character just gains fighting power and otherwise has no real character to grow.
There are RPGs where protagonist doesn't really grow, but the world & the characters around them change and develop. Sadly this isn't really the case in diablo-esque games either, outside of an occasional token betrayal.
I've started Diablo 1 two days ago for the first time and literally my only strategy playing as the warrior is standing in a doorframe and mashing left click at enemies as they line up in front of me, and occasionally tossing a damage spell or firing a bow at ranged enemies. Is this just the entire game? Is Diablo 2 better?
Diablo 1 was breaking new ground. It wasn't exactly polished. D2 is much better. ARPGs get more complex as time goes on. At the end the game is still 90% exploding trash mobs and 10% dying to unfair bosses. ARPGs are about builds. You design a build, gear it up, and then test it to its breaking point.
It's not for everyone. I love it.
Just farming for rare gear is relaxing.
I'd recommend moving on to D2 or Grim Dawn or Van Helsing or even Torchlight 2, Chronicon, Titan Quest, something.
D1 is old. And it feels old.
Monster AI gets better and levels get more open as you go down. The enviornment and monster AI make it more challenging as time goes on. They try to flank you, invisible enemies sneak up on you, the succubi run away faster than you can walk to lure you into packs.
It's actually something that D1 did that no other ARPGs since do well. From D2 on it is mostly trash mobs blobing on the screen. D1 actually makes you think through positioning and how you approach enemy groups. Plus, having friendly fire always on, even for your own spells means you can't just spam AOE across the whole screen. You'll roast yourself in your own fire walls.
D1 is old and plodding but it still does atmosphere and difficulty best in the genre. Difficulty in modern ARPGs is just knowing how to grind loot slots the best way and make builds, whereas the best gear in the game will still see your warrior die in 4-5 hits from death knights on hell difficulty, meaning you're toast if you just run around like in D2-D4.
C(ope)RPG players cannot play them without pausing every 5 seconds
Turn BASED chads don't have any interest in them
Modern lootclickers are just gacha shit with dailies and microtransactions
I do like stuff like Nioh and POE2 looks good but it'll probably end up being the same shit as POE1
looks to be a lot slower paced and has movement skills like in Sacred but I know it'll devolve into particle spam and exploding everything in the screen with a single click
Out of all of the ARPGs I've played, I've got to admit, I like Diablo 3 the best. Skill based combat, snappy and fun rotations and movement, relatively easy going character building and the Reaper of Souls campaign is fun.
Really couldn't get into D2, I didn't like how any of the classes played. PoE is just a slot machine and Grim Dawn and Titan Quest play like shit.
diablo 3 question here
i play in a group with 2 friends we play;
a wizard who has done a level 70GR
a demon Hunter who hasn't done a 70
and me a crusader who also hasn't done a 70
now primal drops are supposed to start after you've done 70, the other night while playing in a group my friend the demon Hunter got 3, one from crafting, one from dropping as loot and the last he got grom upgrading a rare to a legendary
my question is, how is this possible? he hasn't done a 70GR, can primals drop for anyone if at least one person in the group has done a 70GR?
I like them but not those like diablo, more those like gothic. I hate the looter nature of diablo and dislike that type of isometric gameplay in general .
I don't
If game relies more on player skill than character stats it should not be called RPG.
And action games do rely on player skill, at the very least on his reaction time.
Isometric ARPGs like Diablo or Grim Dawn are more reliant on stats than skill really, in contrast to soulslikes.
>Baldur's Gate 1 relies on the player having the skill to implement their various skills, consumables and spells rather than pure the pure numbers of their stat sheet because they very well might just die on turn 1 against a significant story enemy if they just [select all] + M1
>so its not an rpg
i know you probably just came up with that horseshit take off the top of your head but it still doesnt track unfortunately son
Selecting wand of fireball and aiming it just far enough not to toast your own people isn't particularly high bar for player skill, especially when game autopauses to aim at leasure.
Why call it role playing then. If it's not about role playing. Why not call it like "Math playing games." I'd be more comfortable with that title than RPG.
>Wizardry is not an RPG because no amount of party stats can offset poor player skill
Monumentally moronic take.
I would say this only matters in games with a dodge/parry button, because in that stats genuinely don't matter as long as there's no undodgeable/unparryable attacks, even with the lowest stats you can whittle down a boss.
>implying no health regen on the boss
>implying no time limits
>implying no stat checks besides boss fights
Just say "Soulslike"
Actually I was thinking more like DMC, games where having stats would only determine how fast the bosses go down but ultimately it's up to player skill.
DMC is so far from RPG I'm not sure what you're getting at.
And again: player skill is a must in every challenging game, RPGs included.
Trying to argue that stats must be "more important" is idiotic and leads to conclusions such as Dragon Quest 1 and Final Fantasy 8 not being RPGs, anything Bethesda not being an RPG, Rogue-likes of all kindd not being RPGs...
>DMC is so far from RPG I'm not sure what you're getting at.
But you CAN make an RPG with DMC combat, FF literally just did it. And guess what, your stats don't really matter in that as long as you have really good reflexes.
They're only interesting as social games and they haven't been social for 20 years. It's just a digital slot machine now, on par with gacha.
>They're only interesting as social games and they haven't been social for 20 years
Diablo 1 and 2 were some good times on battle.net
Path of Exile is social
It has the global chat where everyone is talking
I got banned for years for spamming Toucan when it was popular
Good times
I'm going back this season after a long hiatus
global chat has only had one good joke.
Path of Exile global chat must be the most trash chat ever, watching random numbers fly on the screen makes more sense
Not RPGs
Besides the whole leveling and questing and skill trees and builds, dialog and choices. They're not RPGs but...Skyrim is?
They are all linear stories
I remember grim dawn trying somewhat, specially with malmouth, but the main story remains unchanged and even the side stuff is mostly just to who do you buy armor/weapons/accesories from.
Skyrim is still poor btw, but at least you get some interesting sidequest here and there that actually changes
This is the old argument of "What is an RPG". I divide it into two camps.
Story, dialog, choices, so forth.
And gameplay. Combat. Gear.
Many RPGs do both. Hack and Slash aRPGs do combat. They do it quite well. It's not just left clicking on the enemy. It gets rather complex.
I get what you're saying and I wholeheartedly agree. If you want a good story and choices that matter and so forth then these games aren't for you.
If you want to get into well designed skill trees and builds that explode screens in the endgame, yes. That's what these games do. I don't personally enjoy listening to 60 hours of dialog and choosing from one of 4 predefined responses. Many people do, and that's all good.
>Not RPGs
This but unironically.
They're action games. Having stats & levels, and maybe fantasy setting is the only thing they have in common with other RPGs.
By that logic the sims & shit like fifa / nu CoD are also RPGs because they also have character stats & level ups.
I don't hate them but personally what I want out of playing an RPG game is a slow-burn story where characters feel like they'd grown through the choices made by the player. A diablo player character just gains fighting power and otherwise has no real character to grow.
There are RPGs where protagonist doesn't really grow, but the world & the characters around them change and develop. Sadly this isn't really the case in diablo-esque games either, outside of an occasional token betrayal.
I've started Diablo 1 two days ago for the first time and literally my only strategy playing as the warrior is standing in a doorframe and mashing left click at enemies as they line up in front of me, and occasionally tossing a damage spell or firing a bow at ranged enemies. Is this just the entire game? Is Diablo 2 better?
Diablo 1 was breaking new ground. It wasn't exactly polished. D2 is much better. ARPGs get more complex as time goes on. At the end the game is still 90% exploding trash mobs and 10% dying to unfair bosses. ARPGs are about builds. You design a build, gear it up, and then test it to its breaking point.
It's not for everyone. I love it.
Just farming for rare gear is relaxing.
I'd recommend moving on to D2 or Grim Dawn or Van Helsing or even Torchlight 2, Chronicon, Titan Quest, something.
D1 is old. And it feels old.
There are no doors in Hell.
Monster AI gets better and levels get more open as you go down. The enviornment and monster AI make it more challenging as time goes on. They try to flank you, invisible enemies sneak up on you, the succubi run away faster than you can walk to lure you into packs.
It's actually something that D1 did that no other ARPGs since do well. From D2 on it is mostly trash mobs blobing on the screen. D1 actually makes you think through positioning and how you approach enemy groups. Plus, having friendly fire always on, even for your own spells means you can't just spam AOE across the whole screen. You'll roast yourself in your own fire walls.
D1 is old and plodding but it still does atmosphere and difficulty best in the genre. Difficulty in modern ARPGs is just knowing how to grind loot slots the best way and make builds, whereas the best gear in the game will still see your warrior die in 4-5 hits from death knights on hell difficulty, meaning you're toast if you just run around like in D2-D4.
C(ope)RPG players cannot play them without pausing every 5 seconds
Turn BASED chads don't have any interest in them
Modern lootclickers are just gacha shit with dailies and microtransactions
I do like stuff like Nioh and POE2 looks good but it'll probably end up being the same shit as POE1
>POE2 looks good but it'll probably end up being the same shit as POE1
It's the same game, reskinned.
looks to be a lot slower paced and has movement skills like in Sacred but I know it'll devolve into particle spam and exploding everything in the screen with a single click
C(ope)RPG players. Kek.
Cheers fellow chad aRPG screen exploder.
Diablo isn’t an RPG, just like Monster Hunter or Borderlands aren’t either.
Out of all of the ARPGs I've played, I've got to admit, I like Diablo 3 the best. Skill based combat, snappy and fun rotations and movement, relatively easy going character building and the Reaper of Souls campaign is fun.
Really couldn't get into D2, I didn't like how any of the classes played. PoE is just a slot machine and Grim Dawn and Titan Quest play like shit.
>Out of all of the ARPGs I've played I like Diablo 3 the best
You need to have a nice day.
Casual zoomer detected.
I don't
I hate hack'n'slashes like Diablo
diablows is okay
great time waster. But you don't feel anything for your character
diablo 3 question here
i play in a group with 2 friends we play;
a wizard who has done a level 70GR
a demon Hunter who hasn't done a 70
and me a crusader who also hasn't done a 70
now primal drops are supposed to start after you've done 70, the other night while playing in a group my friend the demon Hunter got 3, one from crafting, one from dropping as loot and the last he got grom upgrading a rare to a legendary
my question is, how is this possible? he hasn't done a 70GR, can primals drop for anyone if at least one person in the group has done a 70GR?
they're bad for your wrist
if i'm going to get carpal tunnel syndrome, i'd rather make money clicking at least
I like them but not those like diablo, more those like gothic. I hate the looter nature of diablo and dislike that type of isometric gameplay in general .