FlintlockJazz: In which case that is too broad a category. Some people would definte Mass Effect as a shooter with light RPG elements, especially the sequel, and it having choices shouldn't make any difference since Diablo doesn't have any choice and yet it still classifies as an arpg too right? And being real-time isn't a requirement either, since you can have turn-based arpgs too.

To be clear I'm not arguing that they are not RPGs, just that the RPG definition needs dividing up to be clear what type of game a particular, well, game is. As I said, you know exactly what you're gonna get with an FPS, with terms like 'story-based' or 'squad-based' being added when required to refer to specific extra features. This is what the RPG genre needs, so that people know what kind of experience they are looking at.

GameRager: I handled it just fine...your skills must be lacking. :P

Landeril: Not my skills. SO is harder then FF12. Just a stupid system for that game o.O I got FF10's Board system better. It was much more thought out.

GameRager: 1.No, I can't predict what it should be like...but then that's what roleplaying is all about...defining your own role for your chosen character. And as for the rest, well we'll just have to agree to disagree because imo you're very wrong.

2. And i've proven it has some roleplaying elements & the basis to form your own aspects for others and yet you act like it's nor an RPG because you think it isn't.

3. You TALK like it's fact and not opinion sometimes, is what I mean.

mystral: 1. Imho roleplaying is just as much, if not more, about expressing your role than about creating it, and that's where Diablo goes wrong to me.

It doesn't give the player any means of expressing the role they may have created. At that point your roleplay is all a fantasy in your head, and it doesn't actually have anything to do with the game.

2. you haven't proven anything.

According to your definition of "roleplaying elements", yes Diablo does have some.

However, in case you haven't noticed, the whole problem is that our definitions of "roleplaying elements" are very different.
And according to my definition, Diablo doesn't have any.

3. and how am I supposed to talk to convey the idea that what I say is my opinion? Am I supposed to add a disclaimer every sentence or something?

Frankly I though it was a given, understood by any sensible person, than anything people say (whether themselves or anybody else) is their opinion. Sometimes it also happens to be a truth, like when I write "the Earth orbits the Sun", but even then it's still my opinion.

GameRager: Not stupid, just different....I found it ultra easy actually.

Delixe: I think KOTOR and JE are ARPG's. Just as much as The Witcher and Mass Effect. I think people don't like to include them as ARPG's simply because it makes ARPG's look good. Usually when you are talking to RPG fans they deride ARPG's as shallow and you can't really say that about KOTOR or JE. JE was extremely action heavy.

FlintlockJazz: To be clear I'm not arguing that they are not RPGs, just that the RPG definition needs dividing up to be clear what type of game a particular, well, game is. As I said, you know exactly what you're gonna get with an FPS, with terms like 'story-based' or 'squad-based' being added when required to refer to specific extra features. This is what the RPG genre needs, so that people know what kind of experience they are looking at.

LordCinnamon: And it's the combination of your two points where they stop making sense.. The first part of your explanation makes sense from a roleplaying perspective. Heroes tend to be above average (though personally I find heroes who just happen to make the right decisions at the right times a lot more interesting). The second part makes sense from the game perspective; the min-max effect is to be expected when merging roleplaying with a game system. But it does in no way make sense roleplaying-wise!

That's why I prefer systemless roleplaying, where everyone just thinks up a character that they like without being bound and pushed by the system.

There is a conflict between the game part and the roleplaying part, and the result is often going to make less sense for one part than the other. That's fine. In a way I find that RPG and roleplaying game are really two different words with different meanings by now, where RPG indicates games with more focus on the game aspect, and roleplaying game those with a more developed roleplaying aspect.

I tend to bring a bit of roleplaying even into RPGs (as in, I resist min-maxing), but in the end RPGs often have optimal decisions that make no sense roleplaying wise (which is fine). I just prefer those that allow some suboptimal decisions without *extremely* penalizing me. One of the reasons why I prefer single player RPGs, I suppose.

/unstructured rant

Landeril: not my kinda system lol.

Though FF2 has been pissing me off lately with its stat building system

jepsen1977: I personally hate min/maxing and dislike games that force me to do it. I play RPGs for the story, characters, immersion and the option to define my role. Traditionally CRPGs came from PnP DnD (Gygax) and most often you used a 20 sided dice to decide say the strength of your warrior and most DMs would only allow you 1 roll so if you got a str. of 11 then that would be something you had to work into your role as a warrior (maybe he was sick as a child and couldn't work out as much). In other words your char had to make sense from an immersion perspective and he should be able to fit in with the world and a good DM would make sure that the module/adventure was not too hard for a warrior with a str. of 11.
In CRPGs there is no such limitation and you could make a warrior with maxed out str. and then 1 in int, dex, wis and char. But how would you make a "story" about your char with those stats? You can't - and so when you min/max you play the system and NOT the story, characters, immersion etc. Some RPGs like Temple of Elemental Evil and Drakensang are so hard that you are forced to play this way (and even the Infinity Engine games can be brutally hard). In other words you can't survive unless you destroy your own immersion/enjoyment of the game and that's bad I think.
Now I'm not saying that you can't try to make you guy effective by having high str/con as a fighter and then lower int, dex etc. but there is a HUGE difference between this and then dump stats of 1.
For me a true RPG must give you the chance to make meaningful decisions for your char by creating immersion in a universe with its own internal logic ie. your char must be "believable" within said universe. That is why I hate min/maxing because the internal logic is dead and hence there can be no immersion.

GameRager: I also liked(offtopic but btw) the bestiary and hunter's guild system, and the whole storyline, even if used to death before. I dunno....it just seemed awesome to me. Plus some of the enemies are kinda cute to look at.

jepsen1977: In CRPGs there is no such limitation and you could make a warrior with maxed out str. and then 1 in int, dex, wis and char. But how would you make a "story" about your char with those stats? You can't - and so when you min/max you play the system and NOT the story, characters, immersion etc. Some RPGs like Temple of Elemental Evil and Drakensang are so hard that you are forced to play this way (and even the Infinity Engine games can be brutally hard). In other words you can't survive unless you destroy your own immersion/enjoyment of the game and that's bad I think.
Now I'm not saying that you can't try to make you guy effective by having high str/con as a fighter and then lower int, dex etc. but there is a HUGE difference between this and then dump stats of 1.
For me a true RPG must give you the chance to make meaningful decisions for your char by creating immersion in a universe with its own internal logic ie. your char must be "believable" within said universe. That is why I hate min/maxing because the internal logic is dead and hence there can be no immersion.

mystral: On the other hand, I fail to see how KotOR is one considering that it shares the same real-time with pause tactical combat as Baldur's Gate. The only differences is the camera angle, the fact that you have half as many party members, less variety of tactics and the combat is much easier. That's not enough to put the game in a different genre imo.