Since the Diablo series being an rgp or not is always a good start for a flamewar, I thought that I''d jump in with my can of kerosene...
No, really I just want to toss in a few thoughts I have on this subject.
Without trying to go too deep into the categorization of games (I tend to use the word category quite a lot here instead of genre, but to me it''s quite the same in this sense), I just want to say that it is pretty much messed up, that is, in my opinion.
In every game that is not completely probabilistic, you need some strategy. In every game the player plays some role (even in tetris; the game world in tetris might be abstract, but the player does act as the force that controls those two-dimensional blocks, ie. he plays the role of the force, so to speak; of course, this definition will set the whole forum on fire with all the flames
). Every game simulates some world, abstract or otherwise.
Still not all games are called strategy games. Not all games are called role-playing games. Not all games are called simulations. You get the picture.
However, the point isn''t really that categorizing games is futile. The problem is that everyone has his own categories. And besides, so what if someone calls Diablo an rpg? It isn''t a problem by itself. Games aren''t really made to fit in some rigid category, categories are made to group games! To make it easier to refer to groups of games. Besides I call Diablo a graphical roguelike, but then it reduces to the question whether roguelikes are a subgenre of rpgs or not. To my knowledge, original Diablo was really based on Moria, a roguelike game.
Also, if a lot of people disagree with a way of categorizing games, then that particular categorization is somewhat worthless. If half the people says that Diablo is an rpg and the other half disagrees, it''s not a problem with Diablo or the people. It''s a problem with the categorization.
And do keep in mind that such categories are fuzzy, in a way that some game can be a bit of an rpg; it''s not that a game either is or isn''t. This thread alone shows that there is no clear "definition" or rpgs (or any other genre for that matter).
And another thing: stories in games. While I do enjoy playing a game with a good story, the story in a way makes it less interactive. What I mean is, just as the story in traditional pnp roleplaying takes place in the imaginations of the players why can''t this happen in a computer game? I mean, traditional pnp is much closer to writing/telling a story than reading it. A computer game could do the same: it will provide a stimulant for the mind, but not really tell the story. If I wanted to read/see a good story, I could read a book, watch a movie etc. If I want to tell a story (without having to make up the environment, its history etc), I play a game like Diablo but ignore the hollow plot and just use my imagination.
It might sound silly, but personally I like games like Diablo or Sacred because the environment doesn''t force a story upon me but instead provide me with a complex, aesthetic world that stimulates my mind (of course, Sacred does have a deeper plot than Diablo but still you don''t
have to play it for the most part). Just because an npc doesn''t say something in the game doesn''t mean I can''t imagine that he did. All the game does is sets some rules and provides some basic structure to the world. The rest happens in my mind.
So, Diablo can be a rpg, depending how you play it. If you just hack-n-slash, it''s more of an action game, but if you use your imagination and tell a story while playing (to yourself! It doesn''t matter if no one else ever hears of it, it''s for the sake of fun!), then I''d call it role-playing.
