A trivial aside, and for which I apologise in advance - not least because it may have been merely a typo - but the correct phrase is "averse [to Google]", not adverse. "Averse to Google" == "disinclined to Google"; "Adverse to Google" == "has negative effects upon Google". I am assuming you meant the former.

https://grammarist.com/usage/adverse-averse/

https://www.dictionary.com/e/adverse-vs-averse/

It was an honest typo, but it did make me think that at some point with the heat of the idea of the "Metaverse" in some circles, that Google could roll out a competing "Adverse".

Note: typo corrected.

Oh god please don't give them any ideas. Delete this ASAP

This thread has already been ingested by OpenAI, so if not GOOG, then MSFT.

I am inevitable</thanos>

Ad platform for the meta verse

Now that really _is_ meta

Nitpick: ARPG games are much older than Diablo[1], though Diablo might be considered pioneering a special type of ARPG.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_role-playing_game#Histo...

I think it is pretty fair to say that Diablo 1 did effectively create the genre as far as the history of gaming is concerned. The commercial and mainstream impact of that game vs anything prior to that is on a different magnitude.

A similar comparison is saying that Apple didn't invent touchscreen phones - sure, but the iPhone had such an overwhelming impact that it shook up the entire industry. Relevant phone comparison image: https://www.cultofmac.com/145083/what-phones-looked-like-bef...

> I think it is pretty fair to say that Diablo 1 did effectively create the genre as far as the history of gaming is concerned.

Definitely not, there were many successful Japanese ARPGs long before that, like Dragon Slayer, Hydlide, The Legend of Zelda, Final Fantasy Adventure, Secret of Mana etc. Diablo may have created its own subgenre.

None of those games are like Diablo…

From the wiki page about ARPGs:

> Diablo's effect on the market was significant, inspiring many imitators. Its impact was such that the term "action RPG" has come to be more commonly used for Diablo-style games, with The Legend of Zelda itself slowly recategorized as an action-adventure.

Zelda-type games were popular before Diablo-type games became the standard for the genre. Ys is an action RPG but I don’t think Ys is the type of game the average person means when they say ARPG.

Zelda didn't have experience points and levelling (except Zelda II) but there were many other games that were clearly RPGs and that had real time combat. Secret of Mana would be a classical action RPG. I never heard the term being restricted to Diablo.

No-one would call Zelda an ARPG. You just need to live with the fact that the term has come to mean something else.

Zelda II even had experience points, and Wikipedia counts all the other games I named as ARPGs. There is no way in which Diablo was the first ARPG.

Edit: Maybe the influence of Diablo is more that it effectively ended the era of Western/PC turn-based RPGs. For Japanese RPGs, turn-based (non-action) RPGs did hang on for longer, e.g. in form of Final Fantasy.

Fact of the matter is that ARPG today generally means a Diablo-like game. It defined the genre that we know today as ARPGs. You can name other games ARPGs if you want, but it has nothing to do with Diablo or the genre that Diablo defined.

I'm not sure why this sort of thing is so difficult to understand.

Pretty much all modern Open World RPGs have real time combat and are therefore called action RPGs, e.g. by Wikipedia. But a game like Elden Ring doesn't seem to me particularly Diablo-like.

You're still missing the point. I've explained it to you. Not much else I can do.

> Fact of the matter is that ARPG today generally means a Diablo-like game

"Fact of the matter is that tree today generally means a birch-like plant"

One that comes to mind is Shadowlands (i at least remember it as not turn based..):

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadowlands_(video_game)

I mean I am not sure if I would even call diablo an RPG. What roleplaying is there to do?

There are extensive skill trees and itemization choices. The roleplaying is choosing which skills and items you wish to use in your quest to vanquish demons.

> Diablo 1 did effectively create the genre as far as the history of gaming is concerned

Ha, no. Legend (1992), Tower of Souls (1995), Dragonstone (1994),... And that was just on the Amiga/Atari/PC. I guess people more familar with consoles have many more examples.

> Diablo 1 did effectively create the genre as far as the history of gaming is concerned

> Ha no.

This is unceremoniously ungracious and an obvious misinterpretation. Being the first is not the same as genre creation^. The games prior to Diablo 1 shared features, but weren't considered a formula for generating revenue beyond the novel mechanics.

^Herzog Zwei had elements of the modern RTS, but it is not considered genre defining.

Isn't Gauntlet considered an ARPG?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauntlet_(1985_video_game)

I always chose the sexy role, myself ..

I went to one of his talks at an NZGDC ages ago and it was super great.

Not only did he cover that they wrote the whole damn thing in assembly, but also exactly as you say: everyone else there thought that making it real-time instead of turn-based was a great idea, but David wasn't convinced.

So he instead spent a weekend (I think it was less than one day even) changing it so that it ran a "turn" per "tick" of time to experiment and I remember him saying something along the lines of "after I finished making the change, that first time I clicked on a skeleton and my character just walked over and smashed his sword into the skeleton I was convinced".

I have no clue why, but the Diablo style dungeon-crawler ARPGs are literally the only subgenre of game that I have not found a single game from which I like.

I keep trying examples because it's such a strange (and popular) hole in my tastes.

Games I've tried:

- Diablo

- Diablo II

- Nox

- Dungeon Siege

- Divinity

- A few others I'm probably forgetting.

I historically have not been a major fan of ARPGs and share with you the list of games that haven’t moved the needle for me.

Path of Exile fundamentally changed my view on the genre and enabled me to retrospectively re-evaluate many of the ARPGs I had played to this point.

The granular level of control you have over your playstyle and strategy is incredible; it is insane how rewarding it is to be the first person to create a new approach to playing a character and have this build succeed in combat.

I highly recommend giving it a shot if you at all enjoy the cerebral, long term planning aspects of gaming.

> cerebral, long term planning

That is, until you reach the end game and you realize how much you have to grind because of their completely random crafting system.

PoE is the game that weaned me off "but the microtransactions are cosmetic". It's simply designed to keep you ingame for so long that you get bored and buy a few hideout skins and character skins.

If you mean the skill tree, most people just follow a guide.

<< If you mean the skill tree, most people just follow a guide.

At the beginning? Sure. Eventually though a boredom does set it and a player seeks their own fun be it lore, own builds or something else like gauntlet. I am saying this as a person, who spent too much time on it already.

I quit when I realized getting +2 to minions on my headgear meant farming 100k of <whatever that item was called> to roll the helmet endlessly.

It's just like lootboxes but you farm them ingame. Still boring.

You really didn't understand crafting then. It's an optimization problem that you have to solve.

Analogy: You don't try to brute force passwords as it takes far too long, you look for smarter options. Same in PoE - you NEVER roll your gear with chaos orbs, you look for vectors to increase your chances.

The whole game is one optimization simulator and it tingles that part of my brain.

Thank you. I was trying to find the words for why it seems so addictive and this captures it. I am now playing ruthless ( ssf hc btw ) and even though I keep getting smacked down, I keep trying to get back up. The mode forces you to work with what you have and optimize at all times.

I'm not talking about progression, which is pretty fun. I'm talking about what happens when you've done all content except those few last bosses...

Heh, I've been on all PoE crafting simulators and learned about the optimized paths.

The only difference is you don't use the relatively common chaos orbs but the much less common <whatever orbs>. Time spent grinding is the same.

Still a nope.

I'm actually a huge fan of ARPGs (e.g. Seiken Densetsu), just not the kind that are in the Diablo line. I definitely have unusual sensibilities for RPGs in general because I didn't like Planescape Tormet either (though I enjoyed the SSI Gold Box games when I was younger).

Sacred 1 really stood out for me as a cool open world ARPG with dungeons and lots of side quests. It gets too grindy later on though.

Have you tried Torchlight?

I dislike the entire Genre EXCEPT Torchlight 1&2

And I've never really been able to put my finger on why

Have you tried the more casual ones, like Torchlight 1/2?

Diablo 3 (after all the changes of its first year) also plays very smoothly and is much easier to get into D2.

There are other titles too but they're mostly similar to the ones you've already disliked. Maybe it's just not your genre? No biggie

Which part is it that you're not vibing with? For me personally, I think the story of e.g. Diablo 3 is gash, but it's when you're higher level, get a great gearset and can just whirlwind through levels and zone out where it comes into play.

But I get what you mean; I've tried PoE and didn't get very far at all, just lost interest. I've spent a bit more time with Grim Dawn, but that game seems to just drag on, I've tried two playthroughs and didn't get behond the second chapter/act I think. I don't know what it's missing, I'm sure it's a great game if people are into that kind of game.

Doesn't this just show the fundamental problem with the genre? In the time it takes to get a high level character with good gear in DIII you could have played another, shorter, game to completion. If you have to play through an entire game's worth of bad content to get to the good bits, why not just play a game that's good from the start?

The good bits are also very short lived. Basically once you get all items you need for a build it's fun for an hour, but from then you only get marginal improvements in grinding to get even better versions of the same items.

For me that's when i get bored and lose interest. The problem with D3 is that you can skip pretty much all the boring prep and just hit max. lvl in minutes and then play a couple hours to get the needed items.

Same here, after a bit of thought I think it is because I bounce hard off the control scheme. the controls are for a rts, which would be fine if I was controlling a bunch of units but I am not. I am controlling only one unit. I keep concentrating on how much the controls suck and how much fun it would be as a run and gun(or twin stick shooter if you prefer that terminology).

I suspect if you don't approach games from the 'I must be immersed' angle you'll enjoy it much better. Games are much more than that.

Not a player of it myself, but Path of Exile was pretty popular with my Diablo liking friends during the in between years of Diablo releases.

Diablo and PoE differ in tone and gameplay. One is darker and more story/world focused, which is what people tend to love about it, while the other is about management of extreme complexity. Path of Exile (and by extension the upcoming path of exile 2) is all about sinking thousands of hours into understanding game mechanics. The level of depth in that game is unmatched while the story is a complete clusterfuck. For example: you need third party programs to just help you understand how much damage you´re doing due to the number of variables that need to be accounted for https://pathofbuilding.community/images/pob_overview.png

Reason I say this is because if the parent comment is looking for something to try, it is important to keep in mind that PoE is really difficult for beginners to get into and play casually.

PoE isn't too hard to play in the beginning, as long as you learn the skill gem system (takes 5 min?)

But yeah it gets immensely complicated in the endgame. I've been playing for about a year now and am barely just starting to understand it.

That said, it's still a lot of fun. It took me a while to get over the frustration but once I did, it became one of my all time favorite ARPGs... and games, period.

It's totally free too. You only pay for cosmetics and optional extra bank (stash) space. A really fair monetization model that doesn't sacrifice the player experience, so on that front I totally support what they're hilding. (They are, however, owned by Tencent now sadly.)

I enjoyed the customization multiclassing in titan quest. It's also a different theme, using greek mythology.

Clicked the youtube link. An hour and 20 minutes later here I am. Thanks for sharing it that was awesome.

While not fully ARPG, it felt like one - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemstone_Warrior (1984) - one of my fav games from my childhood

The whole video is great. The turn based vs real time starts after 23 minutes.

Indeed, i remember that anecdote. I experienced the reverse first hand: multiplayer Angband has a clock/ticks and it completely transforms the game - but IMNHO ends up ruining the fun.

yet Stoneshard is exactly that https://store.steampowered.com/app/625960/Stoneshard/ 23000 positive reviews. Great game.