It is not MMORPGs only as well. In example many single player/multiplayer games defined as "RPG" are not RPG for me. Example - Diablo. I don't consider it an RPG. It is hack&slash, not an RPG.
So what?
I like Diablo 3, and i will play it whether it is called a hack & slash, ARPG, RPG or even MMO. Label of a game has no effect on whether i like a game or not.
Chair and table don't have to be named chair and table, they can be both be called chair and it won't have any effect on how much I will enjoy sitting on them or eating from them.
Still it is better to call them by two separate names instead of one shared name.
Precisely.
This is logical and makes it simple to identify something. Lumping a number of things that are distinct from each other under the same name is senseless.
Lol ... games are identified by their titles .. Does anyone seriously would just buy a game without looking at its title and figure out the graphics/gameplay/story?
plus, MMOs and other types of online games are no longer distinct enough .... just like when you call a taxi, do you care enough to distinguish between a yellow cab or a black one?
It is not MMORPGs only as well. In example many single player/multiplayer games defined as "RPG" are not RPG for me. Example - Diablo. I don't consider it an RPG. It is hack&slash, not an RPG.
So what?
I like Diablo 3, and i will play it whether it is called a hack & slash, ARPG, RPG or even MMO. Label of a game has no effect on whether i like a game or not.
Chair and table don't have to be named chair and table, they can be both be called chair and it won't have any effect on how much I will enjoy sitting on them or eating from them.
Still it is better to call them by two separate names instead of one shared name.
Precisely.
This is logical and makes it simple to identify something. Lumping a number of things that are distinct from each other under the same name is senseless.
Lol ... games are identified by their titles .. Does anyone seriously would just buy a game without looking at its title and figure out the graphics/gameplay/story?
plus, MMOs and other types of online games are no longer distinct enough .... just like when you call a taxi, do you care enough to distinguish between a yellow cab or a black one?
So.... people are expected to just sort through every game in existence with no classification, just titles, to tell them it likely has certain features they might want such as being an RPG or that it is an online game?
BTW, a black cab and a yellow cab perform the same functions, theyre just different colors. Without having distinct classifications for games with widely varying features though it's more along the lines of calling everything a taxi just because it takes you somewhere instead of having the classifications like a limosuine, a taxi, or a horse and carriage. Sure they're all modes of transportation where someone will take where you want to go but theyre quite different. That's why we call them different names.
If you called a cab to take you to the airport, or setup a limo for a night out, you would probably care if they sent you a horse and carriage instead.
It is not MMORPGs only as well. In example many single player/multiplayer games defined as "RPG" are not RPG for me. Example - Diablo. I don't consider it an RPG. It is hack&slash, not an RPG.
So what?
I like Diablo 3, and i will play it whether it is called a hack & slash, ARPG, RPG or even MMO. Label of a game has no effect on whether i like a game or not.
Chair and table don't have to be named chair and table, they can be both be called chair and it won't have any effect on how much I will enjoy sitting on them or eating from them.
Still it is better to call them by two separate names instead of one shared name.
Precisely.
This is logical and makes it simple to identify something. Lumping a number of things that are distinct from each other under the same name is senseless.
Lol ... games are identified by their titles ..Does anyone seriously would just buy a game without looking at its title and figure out the graphics/gameplay/story?
plus, MMOs and other types of online games are no longer distinct enough .... just like when you call a taxi, do you care enough to distinguish between a yellow cab or a black one?
Right, and then they are broken down into genres. Just like Books, Movies, and Music. It's nothing new; Humans have been doing this for thousands of years. I highly doubt that you (random internet dude) are going to change this. I do agree though, it's unlikely that anyone would purchase a game without being aware of what the name is....I seem to keep having to repeat this to you: it kinda goes without saying, lol.
They are very distinct, it's stunning that this eludes you. As for the taxi bit, I would suggest putting a wee bit more thought into that one Mr. Seldon.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
It is not MMORPGs only as well. In example many single player/multiplayer games defined as "RPG" are not RPG for me. Example - Diablo. I don't consider it an RPG. It is hack&slash, not an RPG.
So what?
I like Diablo 3, and i will play it whether it is called a hack & slash, ARPG, RPG or even MMO. Label of a game has no effect on whether i like a game or not.
Chair and table don't have to be named chair and table, they can be both be called chair and it won't have any effect on how much I will enjoy sitting on them or eating from them.
Still it is better to call them by two separate names instead of one shared name.
Poor analogy. Diablo, for example, clearly contains RPG elements. Few modern games are 100% categorisable, as most contain elements from different genres. Given that, it seems a bit silly to fervently argue for absolute categorisation of modern games.
It is not MMORPGs only as well. In example many single player/multiplayer games defined as "RPG" are not RPG for me. Example - Diablo. I don't consider it an RPG. It is hack&slash, not an RPG.
So what?
I like Diablo 3, and i will play it whether it is called a hack & slash, ARPG, RPG or even MMO. Label of a game has no effect on whether i like a game or not.
Chair and table don't have to be named chair and table, they can be both be called chair and it won't have any effect on how much I will enjoy sitting on them or eating from them.
Still it is better to call them by two separate names instead of one shared name.
Poor analogy. Diablo, for example, clearly contains RPG elements. Few modern games are 100% categorisable, as most contain elements from different genres. Given that, it seems a bit silly to fervently argue for absolute categorisation of modern games.
This is absolutely true of all art. The more that is created, the more they will influence one another.
Look at how RPG systems have been embedded in most first-person shooters. Ultimately, it's about learning from your own and others' successes and failures.
Apple is a great example of a company that has studied its industry, picked out the biggest advancements and refined them to offer a 'quality experience'. You wouldn't class them as just a computer company any more so why do the same for games?
MMO need "persistent game world" where all player can join in "one game" and play with other (multiplayer).
That is not how it is commonly defined.
WoW has a large amount of gameplay not in a persistent game world (i.e. instances), so does TOR, World of Tanks and almost any game commonly known as a MMO.
If you want to define MMO like that, there are so few MMOs that the genre does not matter to most gamers.
This is exactly how MMOs are commonly defined. Wow has a massive persistent world. Yes they have instances but that doesn't mean they are not MMOs. If anything those games like wow and sector have a huge persistent world that dwarfs their instances content.
Now you would have people who deal in extremes but no one in their right mind would say that wow isn't an mmo. In wow I have taken part in events where there were hundreds and hundreds of players in one place - capital city raids, the gates of AQ events, blackrock spire sick pvp.
the requirement is to have a persistent world. It doesn't mean that the entire world has to be completely persistent. Only like 1-5 percent of the wows world is instanced.
Mission in life: Vanquish all MMORPG.com trolls - especially TESO, WOW and GW2 trolls.
Originally posted by Battlerock Mmorpg - obsolete video game genre from the late 1990's and 2000's. Also known as the genre that f2p killed.
MMORPGs are far from being "killed." This just happens to be the dark age of the MMORPG.
Just because you are unhappy with the current state of the genre - doesn't make it dark age of MMORPGs.
The MMORPGs today are better than any previous games by far (you just have to take those nostalgia glasses off first to see clearly)
Yes EQ1 and UO and DAoC and SWG were amazing in their time - but its time to move on and embrace the new.
Yes the latest is certainly the greatest. End sarcasm.
Ah, thank you Magikinight... I completely missed that one.
*turns attention toward DMKano*
It is not just because I am unhappy with the current state of the MMORPG genre. It is the dark age of the MMORPG.
The MMORPGs of today can not possibly be stated as being better, not when you consider Tabletop RPGs. You can attempt to call it "nostalgia," but the fact is that MMORPGs of today should have been recognized as moving in the direction which Tabletop RPGs began... And yet have failed to that end.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with EQ1, UO, DAoC or SWG... those are just examples that most people use, given those people do not know how to word exactly what their frustrations are with the current state of MMORPGs. Those past games were great for their time, and they showed an effort at least, to move in the direction intended by the Tabletop RPG... a direction that back in those days, we envisioned the MMORPG would move toward.
The issue today is, the majority of MMORPG developers have no concept of that stated vision. The only vision they clearly embrace is making money machines, while only as an afterthought, dressing those money making machines up with what resembles an MMORPG. The "old timers' nostalgia," is merely the intuitional ability to pierce the soullessness of those creations... to recognize, that those creations of today (dared to be labeled as "MMORPGs") are not what they claim to be.
Such can not be embraced. The companies seeking to create MMORPGs need to embrace the roots of Tabletop RPGs. It is they that need to embrace the playerbase with what that audience wants. The other option for these companies, is for them to brace themselves for a rude awakening. And although that does not look like it will be tomorrow (giving those companies time to adjust their intentions), it will come as equivalent to being an apocalyptic scenario within the MMORPG industry.
-- Remember those words.
This sort of "elitism" was very popular too when computer RPGs were being scrutinised. People looked down upon games like Diablo and NWN and called them "hack and slash" as they were not true RPGs like Baldur's Gate Icenwind Dale. However, the notion that computer RPGs were supposed to keep the spirit of tabletop RPGs is not necessarily something which is true. SOme people thought that computer RPGs should just be a better version of tabletop RPGs, others thought that computer RPGs were their own thing.
Also MMORPGs were inspired from computer RPGs not tabletop RPGs in my opinion. The idea that MMOs should have moved in the same direction as tabletop RPGs is not shared by everyone. I am not sure it's even shared by the majority of people. YOu see a lot of us never played tabletop RPGs. I grew up in a generation where computers were mainstream and everyone had one. So I never played any tabletop RPGs and to be honest I wouldn't care for that kind of gameplay.
I don't see what EQ had so much that WoW didn't. I mean I understand for a lot of people EQ was their first MMO. For these people they are very likely to be extremely biased. My first MMO was UO then EQ then WoW. Out of these three, WoW was the one. I kind of liked UO, didn't care for the horrendous gameplay of EQ and lovd WoW to bits.
Again I don't think a lot of people played tabletop RPGs and don't think a lot of people want MMORPGs to continue in the spirit of those games. I might be wrong though. To be honest for a lot of people, roleplaying Dungeons and Dragons is the epitome of geekness.
Mission in life: Vanquish all MMORPG.com trolls - especially TESO, WOW and GW2 trolls.
Poor analogy. Diablo, for example, clearly contains RPG elements. Few modern games are 100% categorisable, as most contain elements from different genres. Given that, it seems a bit silly to fervently argue for absolute categorisation of modern games.
RPS elements understood as things like : character statistics, items with stats, progressing your character and gear while progress game itself, and so on is nowadays present in very big % of games. Even in FPS shooters.
Stuff like that does not make game an RPG.
Proportions matter. If you have a strategy game that also give player a character he/she can develop - it is still a strategy game and not RPG.
If you order a coffee with an icecream in it, it is still a coffee and not an icecream.
It you will get an icecream with an coffee syroup on it, it will be an icecream and not a coffee.
Most things in the world have elements from "many categories". It was, is and will be like that. It does not prevent categorising things, it never did.
This sort of "elitism" was very popular too when computer RPGs were being scrutinised. People looked down upon games like Diablo and NWN and called them "hack and slash" as they were not true RPGs like Baldur's Gate Icenwind Dale.
Diablo is not worse than Baldur's Gate. I don't know why you try to portrait it that way or why you try to portrait that hack&slash genre is inferior to an rpg.
It is like saying that sport games are worse than simulators. It does not make sense.
They are just diffrent.
Same as Half-Life 2 and Portal 2 are diffrent type and genres of games. That don't make one of them better than the other.
Typically Action RPG = hack & slash, and Diablo is still most commonly identified as an (action) RPG. Google if you must. If you want to create personal definitions for terms that's your business, but it makes for a semantic argument and a pretty pointless one at that.
Typically Action RPG = hack & slash, and Diablo is still most commonly identified as an (action) RPG. Google if you must. If you want to create personal definitions for terms that's your business, but it makes for a semantic argument and a pretty pointless one at that.
It is identified now. and previously it was identified as 'hack&slash' instead, in future it may be indenfiied diffrently again.
This whole topic is about semantics since beggining and you took part in this semantic discussion as well.
Why did you start to discuss semantics if you did not want to discuss semantics?
the requirement is to have a persistent world. It doesn't mean that the entire world has to be completely persistent. Only like 1-5 percent of the wows world is instanced.
While 90% of the gameplay is instance. A large world means little when few is spending time in it.
Plus, World of Tank is classified as a MMO, and it has no persistent world.
So.... people are expected to just sort through every game in existence with no classification, just titles, to tell them it likely has certain features they might want such as being an RPG or that it is an online game?
Pretty much.
Saying WoW and D3 are all RPG with online elements are close enough for people to take a look. You don't need a strict definition of MMO to accomplish that.
MMORPGs are descended from Tabletop RPGs, whether or not the console and computer versions of Tabletop RPGs were the step in between. The Tabletop RPG held elements that still to this day can not be programmed exactly as envisioned, but the idea is to damn well attempt to do as good as can be toward that end. That is what the console and computer RPGs were, the attempt toward that end without the available technology.
The fact that you would not care for that type of gameplay, and the fact that I am certain there are so many gamers that also share your opinion, is disturbing.
It is a shame creativity and intellectual concepts should be lost and abandoned due to the naive. That is no reason for the MMORPG industry to allow such to slip away.
1) So what if MMORPGs (or more accurately, CRPG) are descended from tabletop RPGs? They have changed in nature. The RPing is ditched in favor of combat & progression. Just take Diablo as an example. It is going off a different direction, recognizing that the old direction is not the only (or even the most popular) way to go.
2) Why is it disturbing that others have a different preference on video game than you do? No one is obligated to like what you like.
3) Hmm .. the MMO industry is not there to promote "creativity and intellectual concepts". They are merely making entertainment. If most people just want some harmless mindless entertainment, what is the problem? They are making games, not engage in education.
You missed the point to what exactly is disturbing. It has nothing to do with just "opinions," but has everything to do with intellectual and creative interests being lost, and by extension the future being of humanity being lost as well. This is even though I generally think in terms of "civilization" over just "humanity."
See .. what is disturbing is that you think there is anything "disturbing" about mere entertainment.
"Future of being humanity"? really? In an entertainment product?
Games don't require creativity and intellectual interests because that is not what the audience want to waste some time having fun. And don't tell me you think having some "mindless fun" is the downfall of society.
I happen to have loved Diablo 1 & 2 (never played Diablo 3 yet), and that series is not of the MMORPG genre. I am actually disappointed by the fact that Blizzard did not take the Diablo series in the MMORPG direction (probably one of the subconscious reasons I have not played Diablo 3), this is especially after they completely opened up that avenue at the end of Diablo 2.
And i am delighted that Blizz does not waste D3 and make it into a MMORPG. We just have different preferences.
This sort of "elitism" was very popular too when computer RPGs were being scrutinised. People looked down upon games like Diablo and NWN and called them "hack and slash" as they were not true RPGs like Baldur's Gate Icenwind Dale.
Diablo is not worse than Baldur's Gate. I don't know why you try to portrait it that way or why you try to portrait that hack&slash genre is inferior to an rpg.
It is like saying that sport games are worse than simulators. It does not make sense.
They are just diffrent.
Same as Half-Life 2 and Portal 2 are diffrent type and genres of games. That don't make one of them better than the other.
Re-read the post you are quoting. I talked how this sort of elitism was popular around the time of Diablo and NWN and that a lot of RPG fans looked down upon those games as they were considered to be "mindless hack & slash" games. I did not share that view. To me they were all RPGs but different.
I loved BG2 for it's story but I only played through it a few times. Diablo and NWN I spent a lot of time playing. Those games to me had sick good replay value, something I didn't find with the more traditional RPGs.
So no I did not try to portray Diablo and NWN as inferior, which would be hilarious considering those are two of my most played games.
Originally posted by nariusseldon
Originally posted by Enbysra
I happen to have loved Diablo 1 & 2 (never played Diablo 3 yet), and that series is not of the MMORPG genre. I am actually disappointed by the fact that Blizzard did not take the Diablo series in the MMORPG direction (probably one of the subconscious reasons I have not played Diablo 3), this is especially after they completely opened up that avenue at the end of Diablo 2.
And i am delighted that Blizz does not waste D3 and make it into a MMORPG. We just have different preferences.
I think the reason why BLizzard decided to make Warcraft the MMO was because of genre overlap. At the time they had Diablo (RPG), Warcraft (RTS) and Starcraft (RTS). So I guess Warcraft was teh best candidate. However, I would still love to see Warcraft 4. I don't see why this is not happening. I mean they can be kept separate with different storylines. I am sure a lot of people would kill for Warcraft 4 given how epic WC3 was
Mission in life: Vanquish all MMORPG.com trolls - especially TESO, WOW and GW2 trolls.
Re-read the post you are quoting. I talked how this sort of elitism was popular around the time of Diablo and NWN and that a lot of RPG fans looked down upon those games as they were considered to be "mindless hack & slash" games. I did not share that view. To me they were all RPGs but different.
I loved BG2 for it's story but I only played through it a few times. Diablo and NWN I spent a lot of time playing. Those games to me had sick good replay value, something I didn't find with the more traditional RPGs.
So no I did not try to portray Diablo and NWN as inferior, which would be hilarious considering those are two of my most played games.
I've read it carefully first time. Hack&slash is not an negative description, so you may stop trying to paint it that way regardless of what you think was popular opinion of 'rpg players' 10 years ago.
Hack&slash is a normal genre name not worse and not better than shooter, rpg, fighting game, arcade game, strategy or anything else.
You say that Diablo and Baldur Gate are same genre of game, which I don't agree with. Diablo and other hack&slash games (Path of Exile, Torchlight, Titan Quest, Grim Dawn and others) are games that have diffrent gameplay concept, both use certain game elements than 'crpg' games rarely use and don't use certain elements that 'crpg' games use &use game elements in diffrent proportions than 'crpg' games. Generally they are simply a diffrent game genre.
That is why it is more fun to repeat & replay Diablo endlessly than it is to do same thing with BG. Because Diablo was specifically designed for repetition while BG was not.
It does not make Diablo better or worse, it simply makes it a diffrent genre of games.
Re-read the post you are quoting. I talked how this sort of elitism was popular around the time of Diablo and NWN and that a lot of RPG fans looked down upon those games as they were considered to be "mindless hack & slash" games. I did not share that view. To me they were all RPGs but different.
I loved BG2 for it's story but I only played through it a few times. Diablo and NWN I spent a lot of time playing. Those games to me had sick good replay value, something I didn't find with the more traditional RPGs.
So no I did not try to portray Diablo and NWN as inferior, which would be hilarious considering those are two of my most played games.
I've read it carefully first time. Hack&slash is not an negative description, so you may stop trying to paint it that way regardless of what you think was popular opinion of 'rpg players' 10 years ago. People used the word hack and slash to convey a negative meaning to the genre. And where the hell did you get the idea that I was trying to paint that picture. Jesus, you really need to stop implying things which I never meant.
Hack&slash is a normal genre name not worse and not better than shooter, rpg, fighting game, arcade game, strategy or anything else. DIablo is an RPG despite what you might think.
You say that Diablo and Baldur Gate are same genre of game, which I don't agree with. But they are. Diablo and Baldur's gate are both RPGs. Diablo and other hack&slash games (Path of Exile, Torchlight, Titan Quest, Grim Dawn and others) are games that have diffrent gameplay concept, both use certain game elements than 'crpg' games rarely use and don't use certain elements that 'crpg' games use &use game elements in diffrent proportions than 'crpg' games. Generally they are simply a diffrent game genre. THe fact that you used the "crpg" thing makes things a lot clearer. You are basically saying that Diablo and games like it are not RPGs. You are exactly one of those people I was referring to in my original post. You can fluff it up as much as you want but you are basically saying that Diablo is not an RPG which is exactly the general opinion shared at the time of those games that they were simply not RPGs.
That is why it is more fun to repeat & replay Diablo endlessly than it is to do same thing with BG. Because Diablo was specifically designed for repetition while BG was not.
It does not make Diablo better or worse, it simply makes it a diffrent genre of games.
Mission in life: Vanquish all MMORPG.com trolls - especially TESO, WOW and GW2 trolls.
Comments
Lol ... games are identified by their titles .. Does anyone seriously would just buy a game without looking at its title and figure out the graphics/gameplay/story?
plus, MMOs and other types of online games are no longer distinct enough .... just like when you call a taxi, do you care enough to distinguish between a yellow cab or a black one?
So.... people are expected to just sort through every game in existence with no classification, just titles, to tell them it likely has certain features they might want such as being an RPG or that it is an online game?
BTW, a black cab and a yellow cab perform the same functions, theyre just different colors. Without having distinct classifications for games with widely varying features though it's more along the lines of calling everything a taxi just because it takes you somewhere instead of having the classifications like a limosuine, a taxi, or a horse and carriage. Sure they're all modes of transportation where someone will take where you want to go but theyre quite different. That's why we call them different names.
If you called a cab to take you to the airport, or setup a limo for a night out, you would probably care if they sent you a horse and carriage instead.
Right, and then they are broken down into genres. Just like Books, Movies, and Music. It's nothing new; Humans have been doing this for thousands of years. I highly doubt that you (random internet dude) are going to change this. I do agree though, it's unlikely that anyone would purchase a game without being aware of what the name is....I seem to keep having to repeat this to you: it kinda goes without saying, lol.
They are very distinct, it's stunning that this eludes you. As for the taxi bit, I would suggest putting a wee bit more thought into that one Mr. Seldon.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
Yes the latest is certainly the greatest. End sarcasm.
Poor analogy. Diablo, for example, clearly contains RPG elements. Few modern games are 100% categorisable, as most contain elements from different genres. Given that, it seems a bit silly to fervently argue for absolute categorisation of modern games.
This is absolutely true of all art. The more that is created, the more they will influence one another.
Look at how RPG systems have been embedded in most first-person shooters. Ultimately, it's about learning from your own and others' successes and failures.
Apple is a great example of a company that has studied its industry, picked out the biggest advancements and refined them to offer a 'quality experience'. You wouldn't class them as just a computer company any more so why do the same for games?
Got milk?
This is exactly how MMOs are commonly defined. Wow has a massive persistent world. Yes they have instances but that doesn't mean they are not MMOs. If anything those games like wow and sector have a huge persistent world that dwarfs their instances content.
Now you would have people who deal in extremes but no one in their right mind would say that wow isn't an mmo. In wow I have taken part in events where there were hundreds and hundreds of players in one place - capital city raids, the gates of AQ events, blackrock spire sick pvp.
the requirement is to have a persistent world. It doesn't mean that the entire world has to be completely persistent. Only like 1-5 percent of the wows world is instanced.
Mission in life: Vanquish all MMORPG.com trolls - especially TESO, WOW and GW2 trolls.
This sort of "elitism" was very popular too when computer RPGs were being scrutinised. People looked down upon games like Diablo and NWN and called them "hack and slash" as they were not true RPGs like Baldur's Gate Icenwind Dale. However, the notion that computer RPGs were supposed to keep the spirit of tabletop RPGs is not necessarily something which is true. SOme people thought that computer RPGs should just be a better version of tabletop RPGs, others thought that computer RPGs were their own thing.
Also MMORPGs were inspired from computer RPGs not tabletop RPGs in my opinion. The idea that MMOs should have moved in the same direction as tabletop RPGs is not shared by everyone. I am not sure it's even shared by the majority of people. YOu see a lot of us never played tabletop RPGs. I grew up in a generation where computers were mainstream and everyone had one. So I never played any tabletop RPGs and to be honest I wouldn't care for that kind of gameplay.
I don't see what EQ had so much that WoW didn't. I mean I understand for a lot of people EQ was their first MMO. For these people they are very likely to be extremely biased. My first MMO was UO then EQ then WoW. Out of these three, WoW was the one. I kind of liked UO, didn't care for the horrendous gameplay of EQ and lovd WoW to bits.
Again I don't think a lot of people played tabletop RPGs and don't think a lot of people want MMORPGs to continue in the spirit of those games. I might be wrong though. To be honest for a lot of people, roleplaying Dungeons and Dragons is the epitome of geekness.
Mission in life: Vanquish all MMORPG.com trolls - especially TESO, WOW and GW2 trolls.
RPS elements understood as things like : character statistics, items with stats, progressing your character and gear while progress game itself, and so on is nowadays present in very big % of games. Even in FPS shooters.
Stuff like that does not make game an RPG.
Proportions matter. If you have a strategy game that also give player a character he/she can develop - it is still a strategy game and not RPG.
If you order a coffee with an icecream in it, it is still a coffee and not an icecream.
It you will get an icecream with an coffee syroup on it, it will be an icecream and not a coffee.
Most things in the world have elements from "many categories". It was, is and will be like that. It does not prevent categorising things, it never did.
Diablo is not worse than Baldur's Gate. I don't know why you try to portrait it that way or why you try to portrait that hack&slash genre is inferior to an rpg.
It is like saying that sport games are worse than simulators. It does not make sense.
They are just diffrent.
Same as Half-Life 2 and Portal 2 are diffrent type and genres of games. That don't make one of them better than the other.
Typically Action RPG = hack & slash, and Diablo is still most commonly identified as an (action) RPG. Google if you must. If you want to create personal definitions for terms that's your business, but it makes for a semantic argument and a pretty pointless one at that.
It is identified now. and previously it was identified as 'hack&slash' instead, in future it may be indenfiied diffrently again.
This whole topic is about semantics since beggining and you took part in this semantic discussion as well.
Why did you start to discuss semantics if you did not want to discuss semantics?
While 90% of the gameplay is instance. A large world means little when few is spending time in it.
Plus, World of Tank is classified as a MMO, and it has no persistent world.
Pretty much.
Saying WoW and D3 are all RPG with online elements are close enough for people to take a look. You don't need a strict definition of MMO to accomplish that.
1) So what if MMORPGs (or more accurately, CRPG) are descended from tabletop RPGs? They have changed in nature. The RPing is ditched in favor of combat & progression. Just take Diablo as an example. It is going off a different direction, recognizing that the old direction is not the only (or even the most popular) way to go.
2) Why is it disturbing that others have a different preference on video game than you do? No one is obligated to like what you like.
3) Hmm .. the MMO industry is not there to promote "creativity and intellectual concepts". They are merely making entertainment. If most people just want some harmless mindless entertainment, what is the problem? They are making games, not engage in education.
See .. what is disturbing is that you think there is anything "disturbing" about mere entertainment.
"Future of being humanity"? really? In an entertainment product?
Games don't require creativity and intellectual interests because that is not what the audience want to waste some time having fun. And don't tell me you think having some "mindless fun" is the downfall of society.
And i am delighted that Blizz does not waste D3 and make it into a MMORPG. We just have different preferences.
Re-read the post you are quoting. I talked how this sort of elitism was popular around the time of Diablo and NWN and that a lot of RPG fans looked down upon those games as they were considered to be "mindless hack & slash" games. I did not share that view. To me they were all RPGs but different.
I loved BG2 for it's story but I only played through it a few times. Diablo and NWN I spent a lot of time playing. Those games to me had sick good replay value, something I didn't find with the more traditional RPGs.
So no I did not try to portray Diablo and NWN as inferior, which would be hilarious considering those are two of my most played games.
I think the reason why BLizzard decided to make Warcraft the MMO was because of genre overlap. At the time they had Diablo (RPG), Warcraft (RTS) and Starcraft (RTS). So I guess Warcraft was teh best candidate. However, I would still love to see Warcraft 4. I don't see why this is not happening. I mean they can be kept separate with different storylines. I am sure a lot of people would kill for Warcraft 4 given how epic WC3 was
Mission in life: Vanquish all MMORPG.com trolls - especially TESO, WOW and GW2 trolls.
Hack&slash is a normal genre name not worse and not better than shooter, rpg, fighting game, arcade game, strategy or anything else.
You say that Diablo and Baldur Gate are same genre of game, which I don't agree with. Diablo and other hack&slash games (Path of Exile, Torchlight, Titan Quest, Grim Dawn and others) are games that have diffrent gameplay concept, both use certain game elements than 'crpg' games rarely use and don't use certain elements that 'crpg' games use &use game elements in diffrent proportions than 'crpg' games. Generally they are simply a diffrent game genre.
That is why it is more fun to repeat & replay Diablo endlessly than it is to do same thing with BG. Because Diablo was specifically designed for repetition while BG was not.
It does not make Diablo better or worse, it simply makes it a diffrent genre of games.
Mission in life: Vanquish all MMORPG.com trolls - especially TESO, WOW and GW2 trolls.