Why use the term aRPG?

[yerkyerk]

I created this thread because I've seen the term "aRPG" pop up several times lately, where it serves to describe games like Diablo (2).

Diablo can hardly be called an aRPG, although it's filled with action, there are no worthwhile RPG aspects, it's genre is a lot closer to hack'n slash.
Even if you see aRPG as a correct definition, than it's way too broad a term to be useful. An aRPG doesn't need to have a skill system, nor does it need loot. It basically just says it's a medieval action game. Besides, if you don't think an aRPG needs to have RPG elements in it to define it as an aRPG, there's really not much difference anymore between an aRPG and an action game. Arguably, an aRPG would have another setting, but that's about it.

Meanwhile, the term loot-em-up (a wordplay on shoot-em-up) is largely ignored, while that term describes exactly what people are looking for when they're looking for a Diabloclone. Not only does it actually describe a genre (unlike Diabloclone), it also includes games that generally aren't described by the term Diabloclone, such as games with another view perspective (HG:L, Borderlands) or another setting (Greed).

So, why is the term aRPG still used, while it clearly fails to describe what it's supposed to describe? Just because we erroneously, on this board, all see aRPG as another word for Diabloclone?

[Malpheas]

You're going to need a good lot of momentum to get a new term going for this genre.

We have discussed this before, yerk; so I ask you, is your last question rhetorical?

[Tenka]

Because that's the way it is now I guess.

Final fantasy came out in the late 80's as an "RPG" and is almost totally lacking in RPG elements, pretty much the only reason levels existed in that game was to string out the gameplay from 90minutes to 20 hours worth of grinding.

Character customisation + real time action = ARPG
Character customisation + adventure and interactivity = traditional rpg


The same "mis defined" complaint is brought up about the term "muscle car" on auto forums :)

[jiaco]

Funny...I see aRPG as another word for hack and slash but that can also extend to things like DeusEx and Borderlands (which is not necessarily the case for diablo-clone). And while loot-em-up would encapsulate Borderlands, it does not mention anything about the fact that there are skills and level-up decisions in the game.

I agree, the terminology is weak but to have a term that classifies both Borderlands and Titan Quest in one genre, not a lot of options...

1) Games I actually enjoy playing (not a very good genre description for anyone but me).:D
2) diabloclone - no, not really....BL has guns!
3) hack-and-slash - no again, BL and its damn guns!
4) aRPG - action (check) role-playing-game (check) ok by me!

Honestly, if those little white dots can be considered loot, then PacMan is a loot-em-up too.:p

[Ragnar]

I created this thread because I've seen the term "aRPG" pop up several times lately, where it serves to describe games like Diablo (2).

This is because of my thread :p.

Diablo can hardly be called an aRPG, although it's filled with action, there are no worthwhile RPG aspects, it's genre is a lot closer to hack'n slash.

D2 is a action rpg, because it is full of real time action, with simple quests, and you are able to develop a character, that is the main thing of the rpg games.

Even if you see aRPG as a correct definition, than it's way too broad a term to be useful. An aRPG doesn't need to have a skill system, nor does it need loot. It basically just says it's a medieval action game.

RPG must have this thing that you said to be called a rpg game, not all, but some of them. A rpg is not a medieval game, it is that game where you develop you caracter, and that is the most important thing for a rpg game.

Meanwhile, the term loot-em-up (a wordplay on shoot-em-up) is largely ignored, while that term describes exactly what people are looking for when they're looking for a Diabloclone. Not only does it actually describe a genre (unlike Diabloclone), it also includes games that generally aren't described by the term Diabloclone, such as games with another view perspective (HG:L, Borderlands) or another setting (Greed).

aRPG is the combination of two game types, a action game or so called hack and slash and a RPG game. Bordrland and greed are both a aRPG games.

So, why is the term aRPG still used, while it clearly fails to describe what it's supposed to describe? Just because we erroneously, on this board, all see aRPG as another word for Diabloclone?

Thats why i said in my thred arpg diablo style, arpg doesnt meen diablo clone.

[Tenka]

it is that game where you develop you caracter, and that is the most important thing for a rpg game. In a traditional RPG you assume the personality of the character and try to behave as they would, hence "role playing" instead of "power accumulation". Interacting in situations as an assumed personality is the defining part of role playing.
If you've got no opportunity to express any kind of moral choice it can hardly be called real roleplaying.

[Renevent]

"there are no worthwhile RPG aspects"

Who says? I think these types of games have tons of RPG aspects in them. Character development is a huge characteristic of RPG's and these games come through in spades in that department. Beyond that most of these games have an overarching story to take part in as well as side quests/missions and things of that nature.

I don't know how it happened but somewhere along the way some people seemed to decide that RPG's required heavy story based decisions and character interaction. That's not supported by gaming history though...I think it's an effect of the Baldur's Gate/Bioware generation.

[Ragnar]

In a traditional RPG you assume the personality of the character and try to behave as they would, hence "role playing" instead of "power accumulation". Interacting in situations as an assumed personality is the defining part of role playing.
If you've got no opportunity to express any kind of moral choice it can hardly be called real roleplaying.

Yes, this is also important for rpg, i forgot that.

[Bissrok]

Yeah, "action RPG" applies because Diablo 2 is a videogame with real-time combat where you make decisions about your character's progression. I generally only use the term to talk about Diablo clones, but it applies to a lot of games out there.

Another similar term is "rougelike", but I believe that applies to turn-based dungeon crawlers (and no one's played Rogue, so the term isn't too common). "Loot-em-up" sounds incredibly lame, to the point where I'd consider disassociating myself from the genre if it ever caught on.

[Skellt]

well to me the therm ARPG recently came up, i always considered Games like TQ and Diablo to be more like Hack and slash game, in the sense that, you have a given path with a few main and optional quests, you cant really venture much and find vistas that look stunning.

Yes they both have aspects of RPG such as skills and stats, but imo that is still not what i'd call an ARPG

What i would refer to a specific RPG would be something like Baldur's gate, Sacred

What i would refer to a Hack and Slash is pretty much grim dawn, TQ, Diablo

And what i would NOW refer to as an ARPG would be the upcoming title Kingdoms of alamur : Reckoning.

but hey thats just me :P

[yerkyerk]

You're going to need a good lot of momentum to get a new term going for this genre.

We have discussed this before, yerk; so I ask you, is your last question rhetorical?
Sorta, I just think it's important, always (not just in gaming definition terms) to use the correct definition of a word. It avoids confusion and helps to make things more clear. Especially in this information age, where correct definitions are very important to help people find what they want. By discussing definitions, I create more awareness of the issue at hand and in doing so I hope to remove a little vagueness.
If there is a good reason to use aRPG instead of a more fitting term, I'd really like to hear it. After all, there's no sense in removing ambiguity if it's actually useful. Besides, the previous thread was over a year ago and obviously didn't help, as the term aRPG keeps popping up in all the wrong ways.
Btw, it's an existing term, not one that I came up with, it's just not widely accepted (yet).

On the other hand, this is placed in the rant section because I get annoyed by the misuse of the word, so yes, in that case, it is rethorical.

Finally, in my defense, that other thread was about Diabloclone vs loot-em-up. I think the use of the word aRPG to describe a Diabloclone is even worse.


This is because of my thread :p.
Not solely, unfortunately. Anyway, that supports my previous point. People have been using the wrong terminology and while everyone on this board thinks aRPG is synonymous to Diabloclone, that train of thought is mostly limited to Diablo players. Causing confusion for anyone else looking for a proper term. Or, for that matter, to anyone on this board who is looking for an aRPG instead of a Diabloclone.

D2 is a action rpg, because it is full of real time action, with simple quests, and you are able to develop a character, that is the main thing of the rpg games.
Real time action with simple quests describe 90% of the games out there.
RPG must have this thing that you said to be called a rpg game, not all, but some of them. A rpg is not a medieval game, it is that game where you develop you caracter, and that is the most important thing for a rpg game.
You don't develop a character by putting points in his strength, intelligence and dexterity modifiers. That's like saying you're going to the gym to work on your personality. You buff your champion, that's all you do.


I don't know how it happened but somewhere along the way some people seemed to decide that RPG's required heavy story based decisions and character interaction. That's not supported by gaming history though...I think it's an effect of the Baldur's Gate/Bioware generation.
Rofl, you got it all backwards, it was exactly the other way around. In roleplaying, you assume a role. In a story driven RPG (say, Gothic), you assume the role of the protagonist as he journeys through his fictional world. In Diablo, you don't assume that role anymore than you assume the role of space marine in Doom. You're just there for the loot, the experience and the hacking and slashing. You don't develop your character, you level up your character.

While it's true that loot-em-up doesn't imply that there's a skill system, it doesn't imply that there's not one either. So it's still correct, even though it misses an aspect.

Finally, as said before, aRPG is a meaningless catch-all term.

[Renevent]

Rofl, you got it all backwards, it was exactly the other way around. In roleplaying, you assume a role. In a story driven RPG (say, Gothic), you assume the role of the protagonist as he journeys through his fictional world. In Diablo, you don't assume that role anymore than you assume the role of space marine in Doom. You're just there for the loot, the experience and the hacking and slashing. You don't develop your character, you level up your character.

While it's true that loot-em-up doesn't imply that there's a skill system, it doesn't imply that there's not one either. So it's still correct, even though it misses an aspect.

I don't have it all backward...since the beginning of PC RPG's it's never been a requirement that RPG's have to have heavy decision based stories and deep inter-character relationships.

Some of the first D&D RPG's ever barely had any "role playing" (as you defined it) and was more just rolling a party and going through an adventure.

Like I said, somewhere along the line (my opinion is after Baldur's Gate) *some* people seemed to decide that a requirement of a RPG game is all this dialog and story/moral choices.

[Tenka]

I don't know how it happened but somewhere along the way some people seemed to decide that RPG's required heavy story based decisions and character interaction.Yeah that time was the 70's.

Another similar term is "rougelike", but I believe that applies to turn-based dungeon crawlers (and no one's played Rogue, so the term isn't too common). "Loot-em-up" sounds incredibly lame, to the point where I'd consider disassociating myself from the genre if it ever caught on.
I play a lot of Roguelike, Angband and it's variants. They are pretty much exactly like Diablo except turn based (due to technology constraints).

[Renevent]

Yeah that time was the 70's.

Gaming history does not support that.

[ASYLUM101]

Gaming history does not support that.

I think he was not referring to VIDEO gaming, but the origin of RPGs itself, DND.

[Tenka]

I think he was not referring to VIDEO gaming, but the origin of RPGs itself, DND.yep.
Appropriately in a thread discussing improper definitions we've encountered a problem defining our terms :P

[Renevent]

Well we are talking about video games aren't we? At least that's the context I though the thread covered and that was what most of what I was saying was geared towards.

:p

[Skellt]

you guys ignored my post :'(

But yeah... imo ARPG are NOW starting to emerge, such as, kingdom of amalur

Prior that, i think we could classify all games within Hack and slash RPG / ORPG / DnDRPG

but thats just me :P

i guess it also comes down to everyone's perception of the therm "action" as well as the therm "Role Playing Game"

[TECHNOmancer]

I think he was not referring to VIDEO gaming, but the origin of RPGs itself, DND.

Here's what I think illustrates the genesis of the problem. We're assigning terms to something that springs from the limitations of translating a paper-and-imagination-based experience (DND and its cohorts) to a media-and-technology-based experience (computerized gaming).

As has already been said, this is a fascinating but largely philosophical discussion. Nonetheless, I agree with yerkyerk's basic premise that the increasing number of genres (and/or sub-genres) requires more specific definitions of the associated terminology. Since character development as defined by mere statistical improvement has become ubiquitous -- whether in a sports simulation game, an RPG, or a first-person shooter -- this 'RPG element' is common to all of them. At the same time, labeling genres more accurately may result in so many sub-categories that virtually any game could be uniquely its own category. It seems to me that you'd have to define enough common parameters that a game which fits enough of them falls into the overall genre. In the end, doesn't this return us to the starting point?

TECHNOmancer

[Renevent]

*mind blown*

Well said :D

[shawnmck]

Any game that allows you to develop a character over time, level up & distribute skills, as well as collect loot, is considered as being an RPG, or at the very least having RPG elements, IMHO.

But then, I think RPG has so many variations now that it is like a tree that branches off into different directions.
Any term that you come up with to try & define what a true RPG will be met with opposition from others.
I know people who think that RPG's from Japan (JRPG's) are the "true definition" of RPG, and they consider games like Diablo, Elder Scrolls, whatever, as Action games.
I disagree of course, but I just wanted to make the point that different people have different definitions of what a RPG is.
It's like saying Half Life is a true FPS, but Call of Duty isn't.

[Malpheas]

In hack and slay games you most often do not get to choose the role you play. That, in my opinion, is the redundancy.

I had a game master for a tabletop of Mage: The Ascension (White Wolf game), that was basically a different expansion to Werewolf: The apocalypse or Vampire: The Masquerade. He truly understood role play. He would give a set of circumstances and let the group work through his sandbox world on their own. Experience was given at the end of the session and he weighted role play higher on discretion than any other element. Best game I have ever played; no exaggeration.

[Ragnar]

Not solely, unfortunately. Anyway, that supports my previous point. People have been using the wrong terminology and while everyone on this board thinks aRPG is synonymous to Diabloclone, that train of thought is mostly limited to Diablo players. Causing confusion for anyone else looking for a proper term. Or, for that matter, to anyone on this board who is looking for an aRPG instead of a Diabloclone.

aRPG is really a wide term for games. Bordrlands, Greed, Sacred, Diablo, they all are aRPG. Thats why i caled the thread aRPG diablo style.

You don't develop a character by putting points in his strength, intelligence and dexterity modifiers. That's like saying you're going to the gym to work on your personality. You buff your champion, that's all you do.

Its more like going to gim, and decided to lift heavy weight so you get stronger, or runing, to get faster. Developing your character in games means that you have a chose to create your caracter the way you wont. He can be good at using swords, or using bows, or machine gun. It's your choice. The way you develop your character has direct impact on how you play the game. You are not buffing a champion, that champion is you in the game.

Rofl, you got it all backwards, it was exactly the other way around. In roleplaying, you assume a role. In a story driven RPG (say, Gothic), you assume the role of the protagonist as he journeys through his fictional world. In Diablo, you don't assume that role anymore than you assume the role of space marine in Doom. You're just there for the loot, the experience and the hacking and slashing. You don't develop your character, you level up your character.

In any game you assume the role of the protagonist. Ghotic, diablo, doom, they are all the same. The only difrence is that in ghotic your choices in the game world can affect that same world and change it, you have a lot of different ways to complete the game by interacting with npc, while in diablo and doom thats not posible.


Today most games have rpg elements, but the game is rpg, if its rpg elements have a lot of impact on the way you play the game. In sport simulation or shooter, you don't change the way you play drastically. But in a rpg you change a lot of gamplay by developing your character the way you want him to work. Also in a rpg interacting with your environment you can change the game world.

I think that aRPGare excellent for defining games that are mixed of action and rpg, where is rpg a good percent of the game, and has impact on how you play.

[TECHNOmancer]

aRPG is really a wide term for games.

Today most games have rpg elements, but the game is rpg, if its rpg elements have a lot of impact on the way you play the game. In sport simulation or shooter, you don't change the way you play drastically. But in a rpg you change a lot of gamplay by developing your character the way you want him to work. Also in a rpg interacting with your environment you can change the game world.

I think that aRPGare excellent for defining games that are mixed of action and rpg, where is rpg a good percent of the game, and has impact on how you play.

(emphasis mine)

You've substituted a relative term with parameters which are even more relative in that they are arbitrarily assigned and defined by the user. I don't see how this advances the discussion other than to prove that it's either poorly framed or so individually subjective as to be academic.

TECHNOmancer

[Ragnar]

(emphasis mine)

You've substituted a relative term with parameters which are even more relative in that they are arbitrarily assigned and defined by the user. I don't see how this advances the discussion other than to prove that it's either poorly framed or so individually subjective as to be academic.

TECHNOmancer

Everything here is individually subjective. But this post is poorly framed because of my lack of knowing english, and im sory because of that. Hey i even don't understand what you wrote :p
I wanted to say when a game becomes more of a rpg,when we can call the game rpg, or arpg, or whatever hybrid there is with rpg.
Every post in this forum is my thinking with no facts. And i have trouble expressing my thoughts on foreign language. I would be dead by now if my posts readed my english teacher.

[TECHNOmancer]

Everything here is individually subjective. But this post is poorly framed because of my lack of knowing english, and im sory because of that. Hey i even don't understand what you wrote :p
I wanted to say when a game becomes more of a rpg,when we can call the game rpg, or arpg, or whatever hybrid there is with rpg.
Every post in this forum is my thinking with no facts. And i have trouble expressing my thoughts on foreign language. I would be dead by now if my posts readed my english teacher.

Put more simply, either the terminology is so poorly defined that it is meaningless or is so broadly applicable that it is useless. If the issue is purely subjective, then a discussion of it is both meaningless and useless to anyone other than the individual. ;)

TECHNOmancer

P.S.: Your command of English is fine; there's no need to apologize.

[Malpheas]

Yeah, but we all talk to ourselves here, don't we?

[Ragnar]

Put more simply, either the terminology is so poorly defined that it is meaningless or is so broad applicable that it is useless. If the issue is purely subjective, then a discussion of it is both meaningless and useless to anyone other than the individual. ;)

TECHNOmancer

P.S.: Your command of English is fine; there's no need to apologize.

Now i see you point, and your right. Thanks for clearing that to me.
Anyway, today with all mixed different genders of game, its realy hard to say whats game belongs where.

[TECHNOmancer]

Yeah, but we all talk to ourselves here, don't we?

Well played.

As for the point of the thread, hopefully we'll be able to define ARPGs as either 'pre-Grim Dawn' or 'wanna-be-Grim Dawn'. Okay, now I sound too much like a fanboy.

TECHNOmancer

[Gumshoe]

I find one problem is the bias to either side of the term.

If a game is said to be 95% action, 5% RPG, is it not still an aRPG?
Vice-versa, 95%RPG with 5% action is still an aRPG, no?

Where do you draw the line, 60/40 split?

RTS is generally a term for top down or isometric (with exceptions) base building/war games, but really any game that is not turn based is RTS, even pacman. Should we rethink that term, as restricting it's use to one genre is wrong by definition?

I think using aRPG is now just a general term that allows people to perceive the rough elements of a game: if I hear 'aRPG' I think 'right, it will have stats, levelling up, possibly classes, weapons, real-time attacks, a focus on progression and a story (good or bad) to go along with it.'

I myself see the perception of RPG games as meaning at lot more skills/attributes etc to manage, more character customisation, often turn-based, more strategy required and all round larger, more diverse development lines for characters.

[Kluga]

I hold the same opinion with genres in every industry (music, game, film etc.); they're fairly pointless. I mean, I can see why they could be used as a marketing tool, but at the end of the day does it really matter which incredibly specific niche genre things fit into?

Whatever D2 was, it was a great game. And regardless of what GD will be classified as, it will be a great game.

[Malpheas]

For the sake of identifying something though, and at the risk of using labels, how will you refer to Grim Dawn though? For laughs I'd probably say "Oh, it's a TQ clone."

But, yeah, labels aren't going to stop me playing GD; gD it.

[Kluga]

For the sake of identifying something though, and at the risk of using labels, how will you refer to Grim Dawn though? For laughs I'd probably say "Oh, it's a TQ clone."


I may just do that, actually. Or say that it's TQ's spiritual successor. It can't get much more concise than that ;)

[Tenka]

Probably the most important difference between traditional RPG and "ARPG" is the appeal, in a traditional RPG people enjoy fantasising about being another character, but in an ARPG the appeal is in the feedback of reward and achievement you get from making your numbers bigger.

A traditional RPG is too dependent on humans and imagination but the early attempts to port the fantasy world into video games created a whole new way to enjoy it.

[DragonWolf]

For me an RPG is a game with a story that delves into your characters, it tells a story through the character(s) you are playing without having to go around killing lots of things for loot because you need a specific boost or bonus to a weapon as for me a traditional RPG has a set pool of weapons you find for each character.

The main point of the game is the story/character development, the gameplay is secondary but still important too.

An ARPG on the otherhand is a game where you run around killing monsters/bad guys and/or navigating/solving puzzles while collecting better gear for your character because high levels just aren't enough. It requires a litlte more forethought on what you've got with you. In this case the gameplay takes priority over the story and character with little information on the characters except for you to have a reason to get them from point A to point B.

RPG = Story and characters over gameplay and loot.
ARPG = Gameplay and loot over story and character.

At least thats how it's always seemed to me.

[NZSpy]

For me an RPG is a game with a story that delves into your characters, it tells a story through the character(s) you are playing without having to go around killing lots of things for loot because you need a specific boost or bonus to a weapon as for me a traditional RPG has a set pool of weapons you find for each character.

The main point of the game is the story/character development, the gameplay is secondary but still important too.

An ARPG on the otherhand is a game where you run around killing monsters/bad guys and/or navigating/solving puzzles while collecting better gear for your character because high levels just aren't enough. It requires a litlte more forethought on what you've got with you. In this case the gameplay takes priority over the story and character with little information on the characters except for you to have a reason to get them from point A to point B.

RPG = Story and characters over gameplay and loot.
ARPG = Gameplay and loot over story and character.

At least thats how it's always seemed to me.

That's exactly how I see it as well. However in the interests of the discussion I have some opinions to share:

If you break things down to their simplest terms there is no 'RPG' in any digital content. You play a character, there is no role-play, for example an Elf character of mine in D&D4E(pen&paper) has an affinity for anything purple because a lich once made his skin turn purple. You could never translate this to the digital world any easier than you could translate behavior, personality, mannerisms, or voice. That being said you simply take the core element that defines the game similar to how other games are defined, RTS, FPS, MMO, and I would suggest Top-Down (Fantasy/Sci Fi?)Action Game, which any grim dawn-esque games would fit into. To try to distinguish it any further would become a task in absurdity. For Example: Sonic the Hedgehog = Ring Collecting Animal rescuing Side-Scrolling Platform game. Games are not categorized by their reward/progression definitions, so the idea of trying to build loot/levels/skills into the definition means every other game should be categorized similarly(as the sonic example above).

Now in saying that, I don't think 'aRPG' is going anywhere as a popular term.

[Bissrok]

Action = Real time combat
RPG = You control a character who develops over the course of the game

I think we all agree that games like Diablo fall under the "ARPG" label. As for trying to differentiate it from the other ARPGs, I don't really think that's necessary. We don't refer to games like Zelda or Fallout 3 as "action RPGs", even though the title applies. It's used almost solely in reference to games like Diablo.

We don't need to be this specific anyway. Games that ripoff Diablo don't need to be their own subgenre. There's like twelve of them. Hell, how many thousands of games fall under the "FPS" label? There's no one out there spending four pages arguing whether or not to label Halo as a "shoot-em-up" or a "space marine futuristic first-person combat simulation" (even though that category would contain hundreds more games than ARPGs would).

Just know that when we say "ARPGs" in a Grim Dawn forum, we're referring to games like Diablo. There shouldn't be any confusion there.

[NZSpy]

Action = Real time combat
RPG = You control a character who develops over the course of the game


Just to point out an RTS falls under that as well. Come to think of it so does WonderBoy III: The Dragon's Trap(platform game on Sega Master System). As well as a plethora of other titles I can't be bothered to think about. :)

Edit: I probably just showed my age with that one ;-P

[Malpheas]

HAH, it's all good. You're among fogeys here afaik.

[Polgara]

Well played.

As for the point of the thread, hopefully we'll be able to define ARPGs as either 'pre-Grim Dawn' or 'wanna-be-Grim Dawn'. Okay, now I sound too much like a fanboy.

TECHNOmancer

Hopefully we won't be referring to Grim Dawn as "Rubberbanders 2: Post Your dxdiag Quest". I even leveled up my video card to 1GB to play Rubberbanders #1 and still had performance problems, I must not have developed the right skills for my character! The most impressive thing I found about TQ as a diablo clone was how they tried to emulate the same rubberbanding in single player TQ play that you would get in diablo mulitplayer as a result of lag, it was very realistic. I even had a moment when I was rubberbanded into a giant group of monsters and died where I thought, "bnet and it's god damn lag" then quickly realized I was playing TQ, but it was an authentic moment and brought back memories.

ARPG games are not coming of age or just coming out as someone posted, they've been around since the beginning of computer gaming the first PC game I ever played was basically Diablo with you as the @ symbol and the monsters as various letters.

The word roleplaying as it refers to games is totally subjective, it depends on how you feel playing the game. Some people may feel they're truly role playing the character in Diablo whereas for others they need a deeper experience to consider it role playing. The other terms bandied around for a replacement for ARPG are all just as subjective though so mine as well just stick with what already exists and make subcatagories within ARPGs to define the various games for those who's butts squeak when they walk. This is an endless discussion and it's not just RPGs the same discussion goes on within any classification system that requires subjective experience to define it. RTS, music genres, movie genres, etc..

[Veji]

I'm just happy that people do label games like this as one genre or another or even hybrids. It makes looking for similar games easier.

I love RPGs with a hack'n'slash element to them and I like playing clones and variations of them.

If we didn't have these genres or the people to review the games to label them, then it would be difficult to find games similar to the ones you liked.

ARPG is not a bad word and to call every ARPG a Diabloclone would be like calling Diablo a Nethack clone and calling Nethack a Rogue clone. lol

Theres an evolution to most of the games we play an the older chinks in that evolution, but what usually remembered are the newest reincarnations of those games.

[icedmetal57]

I agree with you. The label itself doesn't have to be completely accurate for each game, as long as it covers the basic elements of the game. Having these hybrid genres definitely helps as you mentioned. The purpose of these genre labels isn't to describe the game entirely, it just helps to categorize them and organize them. It's kind of hard to find similar games if there were no genre labels.

By the way, looking at your signature, Veji, seeing "Avid fan of ARPGs & Warhammer 40k" that got me thinking a bit. I think it would be pretty bad ass if there were a Warhammer 40k ARPG or a Warhammer ARPG.

[jiaco]

By the way, looking at your signature, Veji, seeing "Avid fan of ARPGs & Warhammer 40k"...

Impressive, you could see text in that Rainbow? Good eyes! :D

[Veji]

Impressive, you could see text in that Rainbow? Good eyes! :D

Its like Skittles: Taste the rainbow! lol

But yeah, Warhammer 40k aRPG would be awesome. I heard they were gonna make a WH40k MMO and Vigil (Darksiders) was developing it, but then it got flopped to some other company which is bad and it'll most like be another Warhammer Online Age of Reckoning disaster.

[Keyrock]

Diablo clones (a bit of an unflattering term) do have RPG elements so I think they qualify as RPGs; they have stats and you can choose how to raise them, they have skills and again you can choose how to raise them, they have a story (but then again so does almost any game) though they tend to be light in that area compared to other RPGs, and they of course have loot, which is what these games revolve around. The term aRPG is a bit broad though as it covers both top-down/isometric hack n slash RPGs like Diablo, Sacred, Titan Quest, Torchlight, etc. and first/third person RPGs like The Witcher 1/2, Mass Effect 1 & 2, Morrowind, and Oblivion.

Honestly if I want to use a term more specific than aRPG for Diablo clones I would still go with "Roguelike". I mean, I agree with Veji, these games are essentially the spiritual successors to roguelikes like Rogue, Nethack, Moria, Angband, etc... in the same way that Bayonetta and Devil May Cry are beat 'em ups since they're spiritual successors to games like Double Dragon, Golden Axe, and Streets of Rage. They're just evolved versions of that same genre.

[icedmetal57]

Exactly. Sure they technically cover a larger area with a name like action-rpg, but I still refer to "Diablo-Clones" as ARPGs while something like Morrowind and Oblivion as first-person RPG or just RPG and Mass Effect and The Witch as just regular RPG. As for Devil May Cry, Bayonetta, etc. I refer to those as Action Adventures... sort of, but yeah they are beat 'em ups.

[doublebuck]

I have nothing to add to the aRPG issue, I think it's been already covered comprehensively in this thread. Instead, I'm gonna go ahead and propose a new term for the genre we're talking about. Here it is (ignore the prefix for now):

(prefix)HLL - hack-loot-level up

And now the reasoning. I think the term should describe the most basic and essential activities of gameplay. Those would be combat, looting, and leveling up. I'm completely omitting any story elements here, because they are not at the core of the experience with these games.

The place for combat in the term doesn't need any justification. Why use the term 'hack' for combat then, why not 'fight', 'battle' or whatever you think would be better? Because I feel it's good to have a connection to some familiar, well established term, in this case hack'n'slash. Everybody knows hack'n'slash, well, here's the thing: no more slashing. Slashes belong to URLs. From now on, we're just hacking away :P

Looting refers to, well, loot, the thing that comes right after (successful) combat. It has been already said in several threads here that loot is one of the most, if not THE most important feature in these games for many.

Leveling up comprises reaching the exp limit for next level, investing points in attributes and skills, unlocking new stuff and playing around with new gear. Leveling up happens naturally after combat/looting, hence the last slot in the term. And don't give me that smartass 'in many games we start out with leveling up the char before any combat or looting takes place' -comment, I'm immune to it :P

What is the mysterious 'prefix' then? It's an optional addition, providing further description of the specific game in question. It could be related to some characteristic like theme, setting or perspective etc. For the specific genre in question here, I was trying to think of something that describes both TQ and GD. 'Mythical' popped up first, but it doesn't really fit that well with GD. After some serious pondering on my way to work, it finally came to me:

Titan Quest and Grim Dawn fall into the genre 'LHLL' - Legendary Hack-Loot-Level up :D

What do you guys think? I'm not too serious about this HLL thing, but I think it would be well justified, it describes the fundamentals of the genre, and it's honest.