View Full Version : Diablo 3 as an MMO, a different viewpoint
So,
From reading what everyone has mostly been saying since this forum opened, and looking back at what folks have said when the subject of Diablo 3 has come up from time to time previously, I thought I'd throw in an "opposition" viewpoint on the matter. I really plan to address two prevailing comments:
1.) People who say "I don't want it to be an MMO / Pay to Play game"
2.) People who say "I want it to be the same, or have X feature the same"
To understand the MMO pay to play model, you just need to adjust your viewpoint of what the payment is for. An MMO constantly grows and changes (hopefully for the better). There's always new content, skills, quests, items, etc... being developed. Part of the montly fee to play goes towards paying the staff who continuously move the game forward. This constant state of development does have it's problems (the game is /never/ bug free for example), but it brings with it a lot of benefits. For one, you don't get locked into playing the same story repeatedly. With an MMO, there's always more storyline being revealed. You also have way more patches, more frequently, that address issues like balance, etc...
The other thing to realize is that you're paying for entertainment time. I play Diablo 2 and WoW. I play D2 about 10-12 hours a week on average, and WoW somewhat more like 20 hours a week. Some weeks it's more! For the most part, that time is very enjoyable. So ... the cost per hour of entertainment for me is something like $0.18 ...
Let that sink in. A trip to the movies with my wife would yeild lets say three hours of entertainment. Tickets are $12 each, so that's $24 if all we do is get tickets without having a meal out or any concessions. There's also likely a gallon of gas to figure in, so another $4. So $28 for six total hours of entertainment. That's $4 per hour. That means going to the movies is 22 times more expensive in terms of cost per time. That's staggering.
The bottom line for MMO's is that yes there's a fee. BUT ... You would have to play for less than four hours in an entire month for it to be more cost per time than a trip to the movies. Most people play for vastly more time than that. Even if you only play 20 hours a week, you're getting a very solid bang for your buck in terms of entertainment costs.
The monthly fee for an MMO is both reasonable and worthwhile. How many times have we all lamented and wished there were more patches for Diablo 2? If Diablo 3 works on a monthly fee model, that will not be a conern again. To me, it's worthwhile to pay to play.
So, that point addressed ... moving on to #2.
I for one would like to see and Diablo 3 that is a totally new game experience. Start with World of Warcraft as a base, and then break the mold in every area. Blizzard over the years has done a lot of firsts. I would love for Diablo 3 to be a totally new concept in gameplay.
I do NOT want anything from Diablo 2 gameplay wise honestly. I don't mind some references to D2 stuff ... be it with items carried over into D3 or some basic classes retained. Other than that, let's see something fresh and new. I don't want my "endgame" to be farming the same boss 500,000 times in order to collect every item in the game.
I VERY MUCH would like to see the game be playable single player if one chooses. I know that's completely outside of the realm of current MMO game design but Blizzard has never played by everyone else's rules before ... why should they now?
I guess the bottom line for me is this. If Diablo 3 is just Diablo 2 with new graphics, a new storyline and other than that it plays and feels the same... I'd just as soon stick with Diablo 2. When it comes to the Diablo series, I don't think Blizzard can give it the "Starcraft 2" treatment and have it really succeed.
This post is, of course, just my opinion. I'd love to see what other people think of it though...
I personally disagree, I would like to see D3 like D2, I like the idea of farming the boss 500,000 times to collect grail, I dont like playing online with other people, as I personally dont have all time in the world to play and will be left behind very quickly, and what I hate most is ladder resets, where you just have to start over.
Just my thought :)
well, imo, steven segal on big screen is irreplaceable.
phrozenX
18-04-2008, 17:32
$12 for a movie ticket!?
Yup, that's what it costs here as well.
If they do make D3 an mmo, there are a few things they need to do to make it work:
1. It must be fast passed with fairly easy leveling. Many people play d2 because there is little to no grind involved. It also seems that mmo's are getting more grindy every time one gets released. I for one, don't have enough time these days to sit down for 6 hours to gain one level.
2. Tons of items... tons. MMOs don't tend to drop a decent amount of loot to keep the item finder happy. Sure you get a decent amount of vendor fodder, but not that many uniques/sets/rares.
3. NOT based on wow(basing it on WoW was mentioned earlier in the post). Sure WoW is successful, but the graphics don't lend itself to d2. It needs a much darker atmosphere and overall better artwork especially on the characters. One of the main reasons I do not play WoW is due to the graphic style. They aren't bad per say, but too me they look like poorly drawn cartoons that are out of proportion.
When I said based off WoW, I meant as a starting place. I would expect the world to be much darker. BTW, I've put in something like 40 or 50 hours so far on level 93 for my Blizzard sorc and have not yet leveled ;p
As for items... that would be the hardest part really if they make it an MMO... balancing wealth.
@Bodis - Essentially what you're asking for is a graphics overhaul and a new set of storyline quests (or ACTS) for diablo 2. I'm not sure that would be the best bet for Blizzard.
There's an MMORPG out on the market right now that's free called Minions of Mirth. It's being developed by a couple people under the company name Prairie Games. If interested, you can google it. The graphics are not great by any stretch. What is appealing about it to me though is that you can play solo on your computer without anyone else.
Or you can connect to a server and play with people. It's completely up to you... and only the very toughest things in the game require more than solo play. You can level faster and have a social aspect if you play with other people, but it's not required to advance and enjoy the storyline at all.
If Blizzard can somehow make Diablo 3 a game where you can play solo or go online, that would be the best of both worlds IMHO. I'm just not sure that Diablo 2 with a new storyline and some whitewash (graphics) is what would be the best to me.
That said, I'm incredibly excited that D3 may be a reality soon, and no matter what it is, I'll most certainly be buying it.
phrozenX
18-04-2008, 20:42
When I said based off WoW, I meant as a starting place. I would expect the world to be much darker. BTW, I've put in something like 40 or 50 hours so far on level 93 for my Blizzard sorc and have not yet leveled ;p
At least it didn't take 15 months to reach level 93.
:P
The problem with making Diablo 3 an MMO like that is that it becomes a time sink. You can be godly in D2 and only play for maybe 10 hours a week. I played WoW and to stay on top of the game (which is what I like to do because I'm sort of a video game perfectionist) it would take 30 hours or more a week. You had to go to raids every other night, then you'd have to farm materials for raids. I just don't want to see D3 turn into a huge time sink, it needs to stay something that you can play for an hour then walk away from and not feel like you've missed anything. The fact that D2 isn't an MMO is probably the reason it's stuck around so long. That's my 2 cents.
And one more thing, I didn't like having to be in guilds like on WoW to be good. D3 needs to stay something you can play by yourself while online and still be just as good as everyone else.
WhiteAlien
18-04-2008, 21:50
As I already posted in another thread WoW is too cartoony, looks like Tiny Toons for kids and made with basic graphics for masses, so it works on almost any PC. It was their cash cow, but I hope they wont make same thing with Diablo. Main thing is to make dark scary ambience with high quality graphics.
I'm against MMORPG. There are many of them already, like Guild Wars, Final Fantasy to mention few. I just don't get the principle to stay in queue to kill ONE monster !! But it could be MORPG with limited number of players till 12 or 16 per game like in D2 with 8pl.
For DIII I would like to see more interactive environment. For example we could:
- burn trees with meteor or firewall
- could broke (not just open) chests/barrels with feet, hand or some weapons
- explosions could use complex particle physics so the debris always flow in random directions and on impact could do some damage on environment (brun grass, make holes etc)
- arrows could stack in bodies, ground or walls and depending of material make deep or shallow holes or just bouncing away
- killed monster bodies could decompose more slowly and in more complex way, lets say depending of environment (for ex. in desert they dry out, in rainy forest they slowly disappear in ground and decompose)
- when killing monsters you could chop off body parts - legs, hands and if he is still moving chop of head.
- you could see real damages done on armors, for ex. bumps from mace hits or holes from arrows and of course depending of material used do different protection of wearers body.
- could dig holes in ground or in wall (just for fun :laugh)
- more blood, blood stays on your helm, armor.
In theory that all will be possible in near future with new physics engine. nVidia promises control of 8million particles in future. Who interested can read article here (http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/36915/135/)
I don't have much to say on this issue, but I would hate to see them ruin D3 by making it P2P online. I like playing battle.net, but I refuse to pay real life money for a virtual game. If it comes down to it, I'll stick with Diablo 2.
mince pies
18-04-2008, 22:24
A part of me wants it to be an MMO because of the P2P and better servers, regular updates, etc. but another part wants it to stay traditional to the Diablo series so far. I'm afraid I'm on the fence with this one :S
Treguard
19-04-2008, 03:19
Hi, i'd just like to make a quick suggestion on what i'd like D3 to be like, i think they should keep the same style of play and graphic style. I'd like to see something with like starcraft 2 graphics or probably even better. It should be a MMORPG but not like wow, more like DARK AGES but with the Diablo style.
I think it's time to move it into the MMORPG genre for me as i have been playing wow for a long time now but will definately give it up and retire to play D3 as its where my RPG saga began!
Against the ideal of an MMO. Personal opinion. If you are an MMO fan, i'd skip this post.
Few reasons why-
Diablo has always been a great storyline RPG game to me. MMO's do have story, it's true, but from my experience being an ex. dark age of camelot (2-3 years) wow (1 year) everquest (6 months), i can say that MMO's seem to lack in the storyline department and focus on the gameplay...or the storyline impact is substantially less. Addicting as hell mmo's are, but with everything else that comes with an MMO(those who have quit playing them know what i'm talking about *coughs* destroy's your life in MANY ways)= not worth it to me. Seen a few good friends become A- 40 lbs heavier, B- lose girlfriends C-become completely antisocial and D- generally become hateful/angry and increase stress
Turn the Diablo universe into an MMO means adding endless gameplay hours just to be considered Mediocre. I agree with the previous comment about doing 1000 runs to get that prize. Nevertheless, a bigger world would be a nice touch
An MMO is usually never a single player game, and that's what Diablo is to me. Considering wow brought players from most MMO's genre's, so too came their bad habits and lack of mature conversation (lollerskates etc.)
Personal speculation would be that they shelved the D3 MMO version when blizzard north dispanded, perhaps due to the arrival of world of warcraft.
In the end, those who play MMO's now and are a fan of MMO's will of course want to see d3 become an MMO since the diablo universe is superb. I loved dark age of camelot (especially superior RvR Center Keep taking!, and 3 realms with realm specific classes that share general characterists but different skills I.e Infiltrator, Nightshade, Shadowblade), always considered it a mmo diablo type, but even over time i grew very tired of it. Seems to be the going trend of mmo's. I'm sure one day people will become bitter and hateful of wow just like evercrack, starwars galaxies, etc. I just don't want to see that happen to my favorite storyline.
Nevertheless, i'm playing whatever they put out. If in MMO version, will likely just make a goal for myself, like achieve the highest lvl then quit, as MMO's never have an ending. "this is the game that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friends, some gamers, started playing it not knowing what it was, and they'll continue playing it forever just because this is the agme that never ends...." type of deal. Whatever it is i have high hopes it will be spectacular.
-My 2 cents for the evening.
I think you are seeing things up side down when it comes down to playments. wow need monthly fees because it is an MMO. If they build diablo smart, they won't need monthly fees because they won't have to constantly update. If they make diablo III, they have to think about how they can build a game that doesn't need monthly fees.
One thing to consider is how the can keep server stress to a minimum. One thing that can help is go low on graphics and go low on player count per map. Each additional bird the flies around has to be monitored and send by the server. Ditch those and you will have less stress. You can probably think about other things.
btw, note that unbalancing things aren't that much of a problem either and don't need constant patching. Right now, hammerdins are to powerful, though lots of people play them and have fun. If 1.12 comes out, hammerdins will be nerved though other classes will become the new strong class and people will still love playing them. You can't ever balance everyting, and that isn't even needed. Just make sure that you have enough patches to keeps things going. Just refress the ladder every 0.75 years and have a new patch every 1.5 years. That way you have the time to get into the patch and explore the possibilities, though you don't get stuck in a pattern. You'll have to keep on being inventive.
Now I think diablo III should be like diablo I and II, just like fifa 2008 looks like fifa 2007. If they break with the diablo idea - and I believe a MMO might do that - then it won't be diablo III and they should come up with a new name. If it's diablo III, I think the have to keep the following aspects.
1. Play stile. The game-based play stile of diablo is good. If they change to MMO, you will lose this play stile and it will prevent people from doing what they want. If people want to play single player or solo, they should be capable of doing so. If you want to play in a party, this is possible aswell. You can argue that 8 players is a bit low, and if they manage to get enough good builds up and running, perhaps they can go higher. Though going MMO where you can play with 100 people if you want just isn't what I think about when I think about diablo.
2. possibility. Just look at diablo 2 and what you see is possibility. Has anyone already counted the number of build that are played at this moment. For amazons alone, you get 4 main builds and if you count in theme builds, you can easily come up to more then 10 for amazon only. Now go and look at what weapons you can use and you will see the possibilities diablo II offers. Bow alone you have 4 top end bow, count in some little cheap alternatives...
And don't forget crafting, runewords, magic items, rare items, set items, imbue...
boss running, alvl 85 running, forge rushing, key running, dclone hunting...
I'd hate to lose all those possibilities.
Markerst
19-04-2008, 12:11
I too played WoW and liked the game a lot in most aspects. I quit it for several reasons though:
I don't like the battle system: it is too static compared to Diablo 2. When you fire a spell it's just slugging it out with your opponent, No dodging, zigzagging or plain running. In Diablo you cast fireball and your opponent can evade the effects. The only exception are area spells in WoW but that just ain't enough for me.
It is indeed a huge time sink. To play the better loot area's you have to be in a group, and you must play some instance which costs you about 3 hours to complete. Hardly possibilities for taking a break in that time. In diablo 2 you can do a boss or a pitrun in a much shorter time.
The first person perspective in WoW is too common now in games. What is wrong with the view from above as in diablo 2? If Blizzard would put in a zoom option in D3 I'd be perfectly happy with that aspect of the game.
I'm not against MMO in general. Drixxx is perfectly right in stating that it's downright cheap for the fun you can get from the game. I also like the trade and profession system in WoW.
I'm afraid however that reason number 1 and 2 that made me quit are inherent to an MMO.
Another thing to consider is that Blizzard would be unwise to develop competition for their biggest cashcow by putting another MMO on the market. It could be more like a successor, but that would mean we have at least a year or three to wait.
WhiteAlien
19-04-2008, 12:14
1. Play stile. The game-based play stile of diablo is good. If they change to MMO, you will lose this play stile and it will prevent people from doing what they want. If people want to play single player or solo, they should be capable of doing so. If you want to play in a party, this is possible aswell. You can argue that 8 players is a bit low, and if they manage to get enough good builds up and running, perhaps they can go higher. Though going MMO where you can play with 100 people if you want just isn't what I think about when I think about diablo.
2. possibility. Just look at diablo 2 and what you see is possibility. Has anyone already counted the number of build that are played at this moment. For amazons alone, you get 4 main builds and if you count in theme builds, you can easily come up to more then 10 for amazon only. Now go and look at what weapons you can use and you will see the possibilities diablo II offers. Bow alone you have 4 top end bow, count in some little cheap alternatives...
And don't forget crafting, runewords, magic items, rare items, set items, imbue...
boss running, alvl 85 running, forge rushing, key running, dclone hunting...
I'd hate to lose all those possibilities.
If you want to stick witth these possibilities then you have to stick with D2 forever. I dont think in DIII will be Act1 with lvl85 pits where you could farm elite socketed items. DIII will be new story.
I agree with 1 point. DIII must be solo playable as DII is. That is all point in D2 - ONE hero to go fight through hell. Of course possibility to play in groups of 8 is nice too, but I just can not imagine doing some kind of raids of 40 players at once to clean area or kill one monster. Can you imagine 20 hammerdins, 10 blizz sorc and 10 cs amas lol. If there are 40 palas playing imagine how many auras you can have active. LOL. If they go MMO way they have to completely forget original Diablo playing principes, classes, skills, item types etc. and write new game with little D2 story. I don't think they will go that way.
If you want to stick witth these possibilities then you have to stick with D2 forever. I dont think in DIII will be Act1 with lvl85 pits where you could farm elite socketed items. DIII will be new story.
I wasn't referring to the fact that I want to keep on pit running in diablo III. They should come up with new an exiting things. I were merely pointing to some possibilities that you have in diablo II. And that they should try to keep up the number of possibilities with lots of new and fresh thing.
Take fable for instance. I've played the game 3 times on single player and I have enjoyed the game each time, though each time I ended with a build that is almost the same as the first one I made. Fable is a good game, though it lack replayability simply because I can't make enough good different builds.
why does mmo automatically mean pay to play?
and also frequent patching is no unique to mmos, the only reason they patch wow so much is because everyone i playing it
Aranock ... for most of us who are frequent SPF members (like myself) Diablo 2 is also the game that never ends. If I'm gonna be playing a game for 7+ years, I'd really love to have storyline at the end that I didn't do seven years earlier. To me, this is the biggest draw of an MMO.
I've never "Beaten" Diablo 2. In the sense that I've never collected the grail, I've never taken a character of each class to Pat/Mat, let alone Guardian. There's still tons of goals I have in D2.
Drixx,
What i was implying by never ending was regarding the specific titles storyline. In Diablo 2, there's the start of the storyline, and then a finish. Multiplayer was an option in D1 and D2, not primary emphasis.
This along with the constant expansions that come with MMO's, adding new areas and new information constantly basically means an endless battle, whereas in Diablo 2 we all know the storyline, it's just a matter of obtaining all the items you want with the various classes you want. Of course if you want to play every class- every way possible- and get every item, then d2 would definitly be never ending, however most people just like adding to their character and having the ability to log in, do Runs for 30 minutes or so, and maybe have a chance at scoring a Unique/Rare/Rune. I have no problem paying a fee for a game like was said before (of course it would be nice for it to be free now that company has struck it rich!), but i'd prefer they make a great storyline as their primary focus as they have with the other diablo's so far, rather then change it up to focusing on the multiplayer experience that is MMO.
WhiteAlien
19-04-2008, 22:37
What is the beauty of D2 is its arcade type of play with complex maths. All those frame brakepoints (fcr, fhr, fbr) and huge number of items available for each class to reach optimal possible build. I just could spend hours of thinking how to make best PvP build. Playing around with available items to get all at best maximum. And PvP also is fun. It is really pure arcade and test of your reflex and mouse control.
I can always get my adrenaline dose there :grin:
ProfessionalBerg
19-04-2008, 22:56
An MMO does not work with hack-n-slash gameplay. What seriously sucks in WoW is that you have to fight enemies 1-on-1, or maybe 1-on-[2-5] or whatever. In diablo, there are HORDES of enemies, this is the beauty. What's the point of having a Frozen Orb spell if you only can hit 1-2 enemies with it, and trying to hit more will get you killed because each enemy is so powerful?
In D2, enemies ae FODDER. True, alone, they do not pose much of a challenge (with certain exceptions), but in hordes, they can rip you goddamn apart. That's what's fun.
Can you imagine Cow Level in WoW?
Neither can I.
Oh, and MMO =/= P2P all the time. Think Guild Wars.
Guild wars is not an MMO. Arena.net calls it a CORPG ...
And World of Warcraft is not the only MMO. I would submit to you Asheron's Call as a game where players routinely battle 10, 15, even 20 mobs at a time.
WhiteAlien
20-04-2008, 18:53
Guild wars is not an MMO. Arena.net calls it a CORPG ...
And World of Warcraft is not the only MMO. I would submit to you Asheron's Call as a game where players routinely battle 10, 15, even 20 mobs at a time.
You can add to list Final Fantasy where you need to wait 24H for some monsters to appear and you need group of 30 to kill it. Its even worth than to battle Diablo clone!
My main issue with MMOs comes from what I`ve seen them do to my friends.
Last year I lived with 2 guys who were big into EQ and had a few friends at the local university who were WoW players and trying to get them to do anything at night was nigh impossible. There was actually a night when I asked my two roommates if they wanted to go to a Bonfire Rave hosted by a bisexual cheerleader at our school and they said they couldn`t because they had to raid...
A game should not subvert your life, and that`s the great thing about Diablo 2, you can hop on for 20 minutes and have accomplished something. You can get in a dozen MF runs, gain some experience, whatever. What can you do in 20 minutes on WoW...
WhiteAlien
20-04-2008, 21:04
What can you do in 20 minutes on WoW...
Popby and say to all your WoW friends that you can not come to raid, because you have to go to bisexual rave party :grin:
jesterlolz
20-04-2008, 22:08
I've always played D2, not WoW. I got a free trial once, and hated it. One of my friends, however, got the trial of WoW, loved it, and plays it instead of diablo now. We discuss the pros and cons of each thing, and have come to certain terms on, if d3 were to be MMO, it would have to maintain to still really cater to the diablo crowd.
#1: It would have to be relatively easy to get to higher levels. It doesn't take too much time to get to level 90.
#2: It would have to be relatively impossible to get to the highest level. There's level 70s running around everywhere in World of Warcraft. We would like seeing the highest level (be it 70, 99, or whatever they decide), to still be a rare occurance.
#3: It would have to keep the same sort of fast paced, in-depth PvP. My friend regretts most the loss of Diablo PvP in WoW. It needs to hard to maintain namelocks on your enemies, to get hits on your enemies, and to get enough hits to kill the enemies.
#4: It would have to still have the sort of mob fights. You need to kill mass amounts of enemies. There's really nothing to compare slaughtering hordes of cows, fallens, death maulers, or whatever your fighting.
#5: It would have to have a single player aspect. Single-Player is really what diablo is originally (in my opinion) for. To make it a Diablo 3 game, instead of World of Diablo, SP would have to be included.
#6: It would have to (as previously stated), be sorta easy to get wealthy on. Any amount of time on diablo is fine, you don't have to take blocks out of your life for it. However, to get really rich (I mean REALLY rich), I think it should take more time than on diablo, and some items should be harder to get (Anni and Torch are too easy now).
Now here's some things that deviate from Diablo that we would like.
#1: It should have no real "Create Game" type of thing. The idea of having an entire world, like WoW, is far more exhilarating, and it allows for far bigger maps (and no player limit).
#2: It should have harder bosses. You should still be able to kill the bosses alone, but it should be more of a trial.
#3: It should have WAY harder super-bosses. I'm talking something like uberdiablo, where they randomly walk the earth. I want a group of 20 to be unable to kill the ubers. Its gotta be a huge trial, where you can more easily be killed, and when they drop something, its gonna be something REALLY good, and REALLY rare.
If these ideas are included, I think that would be a great game that I'd definately be willing to pay monthly for.
I agree with most of what you said; good solid points. The listed numbers on the bottom i'm neutral on though; i'm considering whether or not it would be the most fun to have one giant world or the ability to create one (specifically the MMO aspect of one giant online world)
Not to mix forum posts <as is definitly bound to happen> but what is everyone's opinion on how they would deal with Hardcore?
Specifically if it's a....
1. Non-MMO type of game
2. MMO Version of game
the new D3 better be sweet
would you stop posting that please, I`ve seen it in three straight threads now...
@ jesterlolz: have of what you said comes down a dupe fix. If the fix dupers so that high runes are very rare - and those are very rare to drop - ubers will be a challenge, you won't run wsk in under 5 minutes and it will get very hard to get super rich.
P.S. no one want to need 20 people to kill one monster, not with the current bnet pubbers at least.
P.P.S. have are you going to get a single player aspect in a giant MMO world? Populate the world with ncp's? I'm for the create games approach.
aishilee
21-04-2008, 09:03
lets hope D3 is not anything like HellGate LonDon.
LifePincher
21-04-2008, 19:45
lets hope D3 is not anything like HellGate LonDon.
Amen to that!
and-------- NO MMO, No MMO, no MMO, no MMO :thumbsup:
bloodriser
21-04-2008, 20:52
quoting myself from another thread
in all honesty, i think it's ridiculously naive to think that diablo 3 will NOT be an mmo. i think that if anything, the job postings on blizzard's website (http://www.blizzard.com/us/jobopp/) point to diablo 3 being an mmo more than anything else. i highly doubt that blizzard is working on 3 separate massive projects at the same time (sc2, d3, next-gen mmo); it only makes sense that diablo 3 is an mmo with this taken into consideration.
To be perfectly honest, there are really no other games that this mmo could be based off of. the only other possibility for this mmo that i could imagine would be WoW 2, and i doubt that is likely due to all of the diablo 3 rumors that have been around for the past few years.
i know what you guys are thinking "why would blizzard make another mmo to compete with themselves when they already have WoW doing so well?"
the answer to this question is that this next-gen mmo (i'll be as bold to say it IS infact diablo 3) will not be out until at least late 2010, if not later. By this time WoW will be about 6 years old, with subscriptions likely dwindling due to other more new, fresh, and innovative mmo's that will have been released before this next-gen mmo is released. with diablo 3 being an mmo, blizzard is building upon an already established community in diablo 2, and will also see the return of many previous mmo players that left WoW for other games.
i know a lot of you guys don't want to hear this, but this is honestly what i/as well as many others think. i know a few people who work for blizzard in irvine (albeit in the WoW department), who also share my same beliefs (based purely on speculation and what seems to make 'sense').
My personal opinion to what type of game Diablo 3 should be is indifferent. As Drixx explained, paying to play really isn't that bad considering all of the new content and fixes you are getting for a very minimal fee (comparing hours played / monthly fee price) compared to other forms of entertainment.
When you people say MMO, are you only talking about third person slow-paced RPGs?
I could see a fast-paced D2-like MMO with hundreds of players on screen instead of 8. Tons of mobs instead of the 2-5 mob battles we've seen in WoW.
jesterlolz
21-04-2008, 23:01
When you people say MMO, are you only talking about third person slow-paced RPGs?
I could see a fast-paced D2-like MMO with hundreds of players on screen instead of 8. Tons of mobs instead of the 2-5 mob battles we've seen in WoW.
QFT. Diablo wouldn't be diablo if it was really slow paced.
And just thinking about attacking giant mobs of enemies with dozens of your friends. Now THAT would be cool. Its a next-gen MMO, you guys say, this could be how its next-gen. It would be different than WoW, but still could be MMO while maintaining the diablo feel.
Regarding MMO's & Hack-n-Slash:
I'd like to see some good cinematic action similar to that of diablo 2 (and diablo 1 i suppose with the 3 that it had) in the next Diablo game. That and a good singleplayer story, which is usually lacking in MMO's in my opinion.
If D3 were to be an MMO, i do like the concept of keeping it hack-n-slash style; however, unless they keep the graphics at a baseline low <similar to that of wow or below>, i don't see it possible to have thousands of players running around with thousands of monsters that constantly respawn for other players. Also consider chests and piles upon piles of drops due to fast kill rate all lead to outrageous lag if even spread accross many servers. No more Boss runs either....and forget doing storyline quests- Easy when there is 8 people in a world, but not when there is 3000-5000+. All i can think about is waiting in a line to kill andariel.
Also consider that there wouldn't be a single computer that could handle every single d3 player in one universe. . . it would be divided just like wow is into smaller servers, not to forget the Hardcore servers.... Wow is, in a small way, like diablo in the sense of creating a game because of X amount of servers there are now. In essence, rather than one big diabloverse, there would be 100 "games" always running. Thus one big diablo world wouldn't work- at the best it would be broken down server by server due to blizzard's popularity. But i just don't think diablo would work using crappy, cartoony graphics like wow in a hack-n-slash enviornment.
We already know D3's in 3D...so unless it's a 3rd person perspective 3d, lag will go through the roof with a hack-n-slash gamestyle.
Maybe technology will prove to be the winner here. who knows. Currently i don't think that the hack-n-slash style we all love will work in an MMO enviornment though.
delosombres
22-04-2008, 02:24
Just one thing. Randomly generated maps. I wonder why no one has mentioned it here. Persistent MMO worlds will NEVER have that amout of replayability as generated environment. Actually, Diablo IS a hack&slash game, probably the best of that sort ever created. Good H&S game needs to be randomized, fast, easy controlled and replayable which doesn't go together with MMO concept well.
I hate that sort of thinking when every second game NEEDS to be a MMO because it just needs to be... This is wrong. It isn't progressive at all, it just destroys the original concept it this case.
AxlStrife
22-04-2008, 08:31
Indeed, to keep the Diablo feel it needs to be hack-and-slash. I just hope Diablo III doesn't forget its gamestyle roots and ends up going the way of MK Mythologies: Legend of Sub-Zero.
I'm currently playing Rappelz, waiting for the next patch-overhaul to ensue. After playing Diablo II since 1.09 I find the grinding somewhat tedious and the 'quests' boring, as most don't involve the main storyline whatsoever. I've never played WoW so I don't know if it is the same, but if Diablo III would run the wide-open MMO system like Rappelz does would pretty much be a sellout, plus not good for the marketability of the Diablo brand, which was forged upon the dungeon-delving the-end-is-nigh theme.
In every game you will have people farming bosses. D2's setup (before the drop patch came) abuses this too much IMO. A mesh of the D2 game-making system with a MMO monster respawn system implemented. Preferrably, have two kinds of game styles: solo and party, kinda like how we have now, and have seperate lists of boss/world-event monsters. In solo, have the monsters respawn more frequently, yet have less of a selection of bosses. Vice versa in party play.
Overhead view should be kept, since it's been around from the beginning. I adored the speed of D1, where the monsters were faster than you and the dungeons were horrifically gruesome. It was like the Doom of H&S.
Okay, enough with what I want. What will be is most likely WoW 2.0 with Diablo flavor. It's sad to think of it that way, but the MMO cow is apparently not milked dry just yet.
Retardje
22-04-2008, 15:24
As long as they include Hardcore.
1 - It should most definitely include Hardcore mode (only real play stile for a true cowboy)
2 - It should definitely include a monthly subscription to (at least) drop down a lot of "lolcat idiots", who would be better off spending their time doing homework
3 - It should be at least as hack free as WoW
Something being an MMO does not necessarily mean it has to be a world with 1000's of players connected. Those two things are not necessarily hand in hand. Remember that the server doesn't send GRAPHICS ... it sends data which the client renders into what you see.
Therefore, a Diablo 3 MMO that is heavily instanced (Making use of Layered instancing) would be perfect. When you're in town you can see and interact with everyone on your server who's also in town. If you want to enter the play world solo, go ahead. If you want to group up to do something together, do that.
If you want to go kill a superboss, hop in town and say "LFG to kill Diablo!!!" and form a group of 10 or 20 or however many it takes and go slay Diablo. Every group gets their own "instance" of the world... which I suspect could EASILY be randomized.
But even if it wasn't randomized... that's no big deal. For those of us who play single player Diablo 2, our maps are static... so we're living proof you can have fun without randomization :)
Victorinox
22-04-2008, 19:37
To add my two cents, I think Diablo 3 will be heavily based on multiplayer and require a monthly subscription. When you think of games that are successful on the PC, they will require an emphasis on multiplayer. If D3 will be a single player, or at best an optional Multiplayer game as D2 is (was for me tbh ;)), I'd release it for consoles instead of the PC - games sell significantly better for consoles than PC and are much more computer-piracy proof. Second, making the game be exclusively playable online for a fee, will reduce the amount of hacking and give Blizzard the financial means to control the hacking that does happen.
When I was still playing D2, I always said I'd refuse to pay a monthly fee for a game. That all sort of changed when WoW was released. The minor amount of cash you pay each month, is by far worth it. Anyway, at the end of the day, Blizzard is still a company that wants to make cash - the amount of turnover generated from an MMO must be attractive ;)
I hope that D3 will actually be mainly an MMO. Maybe with more of the elements of the old D1 and D2, but still an MMO. What could set it apart from the traditional MMOs is that it should have a continuously evolving story line, NPCs with their own agenda's and in general just be a much more vivid world. Taking the random level design from D2 and implementing it into an wow-like instance and limiting the group size to about 5, would make it all workable. It would be awesome if it would be a giant continuous war between heaven and hell.
Vic
If it is a MMO, it really wont be as bad as people who are against it think as long as they remember that it is Diablo and not WoW. The trouble is, WoW has SOOOOOO much influence from Diablo, as almost all of the skills are taken from diablo, and a bunch of the items are also. They would without a doubt have to change the gameplay and me and my buddy have talked a ton about what you guys have said, there has to be mobs of enemies. Seriously, killing 1 enemy at a time is very boring, and that is why so many of you dont like WoW. I didnt like it at first (it grew on me sadly) because diablo was SOOOOOO much faster paced. Teleporting like a mad sorc and shooting orbs and fireballs left and right is awesome. To go to WoW and walking slaying 1 enemy, recharge my 10 min cooldown spell, sit, drink, recharge life I mean it doesnt fit.
Diablo MMO would have to be very fast paced
Would have to have mobs of enemies
Hardcore!!! Has to have a hardcore mode
I think it should be a harder game in general too, I mean Diablo II is a joke at how easy it is. I would totally be ok if there were some bosses that took 20 people to get together and go hunt down, think about it, it doesnt have to be the main focus of the game, but a something on the side for those who would want to talk down the Evil Tyrael haha.
Also, keep quests that improve your skills and stats and life! I hate how WoW all you get is items, we need the den of evil MMO style to get that extra skill point.
Auction House is a must, prob. on of the most fun things in WoW, Skill Trees also, none of this every other level you get a skill or two.
Just my thoughts! I am excited for it and would def. pay to play or not whatever they decide! I think one last thing to remember is Blizzard is trustworthy when it comes to delivering a fun game with great gameplay and is true to the franchise they are building on, so if its announced a MMO, dont freak out till you give it a shot, they know what they are doing over there........most of the time
Edit: D2 is a joke at how easy it is to "beat the game" getting to lvl 99...not so easy
What will be is most likely WoW 2.0 with Diablo flavor. It's sad to think of it that way, but the MMO cow is apparently not milked dry just yet.
Agreed.
On a side note, i'm not anti MMO. I've played them for years and enjoyed them.
However, after weighing the pros and cons, i've decided i'm personally anti World of Diablocraft.
LouisLeGros
22-04-2008, 22:13
It needs to have the single player element where you can experience it all on your own. There shouldn't be a need to be a part of a guild or something to accomplish something in the game. I want to be able to kill Diablo on my own!
The action needs to be fast! Diablo is a hack & slash action RPG. I won't buy it if it doesn't retain that element. I have Diablo 1 version 1.0 & Diablo 2 version 1.0 for a reason & it isn't 40 man raid instances. It is fighting the overwhelming forces of hell at a million clicks per second!
I don't want to grind forever to get a mount so I can grind faster. I don't want to do a 3 hour instance to try to get a specific item from a specific boss so that I can advance to the next instance to get the better armor... oh ya and I can't trade my old armor and old weapon. I could go through Diablo 2 naked if I really wanted too.
I'm not going to pay for some diablo flavored MMO. I want a Diablo game not a MMO that just happens to be Diablo. If it is a p2p MMO it wold have to be vastly different from any MMO I have ever seen for me to pay.
Rev Sysyphus
22-04-2008, 22:36
In theory that all will be possible in near future with new physics engine. nVidia promises control of 8million particles in future. Who interested can read article here (http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/36915/135/)
The only other game that I am as big a fan of as I am a fan of Diablo is the Hitman series from IO. When Hitman Blood Money (#4 in the series) was released I had to upgrade my PC to run it. I am not an early adopter of bleeding ege stuff. My PC does not have 2 GPUs in an SLI config or even any PCI-E slots. It's 4 years old and plays D2:LOD just great. And in the more recent years since broadband Internet became common I have had no noticable lag issues that we had in the dial-up days.
If D3 needs more power than my humble 2.8Ghz P4/AGP 8x eVGA 7600 can provide then it will be time yet again for an upgrade.
This is the real test of the power of a video game. Does your game make people go out and buy upgraded hardware (or even whole new computers) just to play your game? I only upgrade my PC when it either dies or is not capable of doing something I want it to do. Mostly I use it to web surf and play games that are a few years old. The new games I play are on the Xbox 360. So far no PC game maker has released anything to compel me to upgrade.
That would change in a heartbeat if Blizzard announced D3 and reading the minimum hardware spec I discovered my PC won't cut the mustard. I would be buying a new MB, CPU, RAM, GPU, etc. that very day!
Although part of me likes the now slightly retro feel of the D2 interface. But I would not want D3 to be nothing more than LOD pt. 2.
Most people don't need an addicting game you have to pay for. I, myself, would neglect bills to pay for D2 if I had to. I know countless others with the gaming addiction that would do so.
If Blizzard makes D3 anything different than the original feel and style, it would ruin the franchise.
Why do you think after 8 years it's still running strong? No other game has as many players online after this long.
Keep it the way it is, just make it bigger, longer, and better. 100 hours of game-play for one difficulty level, more skill selections for massive viable variety, etc. release everything it needs in the first game and we wont need 50 expansions. -Although, maybe a better graphics card and more memory >.<!-
I'm not going to lie, I didn't read pages 2-4, don't have the time right now, but I will go back.
Personally, I think it would be somewhat alright if DIII was made into an MMO, but it couldn't be like WoW. For one thing, the reason I really like D2 is that it feels solid. You can see yourself hitting something (usually), and when you can't, say your zealot has 2ar and won't hit crap, you think, "Wow, this is annoying and boring." That's what I get when I play WoW, I hate swinging through a monster and seeing little numbers pop up. Secondly, one of the main things about D1/D2 is that the world(s) weren't gigantic. You couldn't spend literal real-time days walking across them, it takes like...4 minutes max to walk across the Cold Plains? Like...walk. I personally think D3 should be based off of D1/D2, just get some new graphics, new characters, new monsters, acts, skills, all that good stuff, and then change the perspective, and then throw in a little bit of different stuff. For instance, players could work together more, or add more strategy to characters other than "Press W, right click, press other key, right click, press W again, buff HS, press key, tele, press Conc. key, spam hammers." For me, that's the only real thing that I constantly didn't love in D2. It got repetitive,but IMO, grinding hours to get one level, not even to get a high one, is worse. Oh, and another thing I'd like to change is item availability/drop-chance. I feel like I spent a lot of time in D2 MFing for stuff that never came, but maybe that's just my epic phailness :cry:
Also, I still think combining classes/skills would be cool. Multi-Guided-Arrow? Meteor-Blizzard? Now THAT would be sweet.
I'd like everyone that proposes that DIII should be a MMO to consider the main difference between Diablo 2 and, say, World of Warcraft. Diablo 2 is a single player game with the added possibility to play online. It works perfectly as a single player game, and the online part is a bonus. WoW on the other hand would be dull and at a certain point unplayable as a single player game. The only reason the game works is that other players are playing at the same time as you.
With this said, I really, really hope that Blizzard sticks close to the Diablo 2 formula when/if they make a sequel to that game. I'd gladly pay a monthly fee for a easy to use, hack free online environment, though. While not mandatory, the online part brings the Diablo 2 experience to a new level - one that I would gladly see in a future Diablo 3 as well.
The reason I quit playing WoW, is that whenever I log in, I realize that I will not accomplish anything. I have two level 70 characters, but I cannot be arsed to include raids in a game in my daily schedule. I personally love the fact that you can play diablo II for five minutes and still accomplish something. As people have already pointed out, the same is definitely not possible in WoW.
delosombres
23-04-2008, 02:35
But even if it wasn't randomized... that's no big deal. For those of us who play single player Diablo 2, our maps are static... so we're living proof you can have fun without randomization :)
Singleplayer game has radomized maps as well even without mods. Random environment is one of the aspects (not just the only one, but one of the most important) why Diablo hasn't been beaten yet by any other H&S game like TQ, DS or Sacred... Believe it or not, time will show. Please, don't argue with "but WoW has static maps" because it's a huge multiplayer MMO and not a farming H&S game - which IS actually H&S as well as Diablo concept, just reminding... if someone wouldn't know that.
I am not against MMO Diablo, if it'll include random EVERYTHING including environment.
I've changed my mind. I will hate any and every MMO version of Diablo that Blizzard will ever make. You just...can't do that. The reason WoW is so popular is it's almost childlish in nature. You don't have to be into MMO's to start playing WoW, and that's what makes me angry about Blizzard trying to do that to D3. It's not like everyone that played WC3 switched over to WoW, far more people joined the Warcraft "saga" just for WoW, because of its ease of use. I feel that it may be the same with D3, just a lot worse, because if they make it as old-school and comfortable-feeling for us veterans, then people won't want to play it. So we'll have a crappy MMO with no players on our hands.
delosombres
23-04-2008, 05:14
tuxor: WoW wasn't supposed to be a sequel to Warcraft 3. It's a fresh new game - MMO game just placed in Warcraft universe. Diablo 3 IS a sequel.
jesterlolz
23-04-2008, 05:34
Who says that diablo 3 will be: diablo 3.
It could just as easily be World of Diablo, not a sequel, but a MMO placed in the universe of Diablo.
Everybody would be pretty angry at that though.
@Krynn - "If Blizzard makes D3 anything different than the original feel and style, it would ruin the franchise."
I disagree. Many folks said when World of Warcraft was announced that the Diablo franchise would be much better suited to an MMO and that taking Warcraft, a RTS, and making an MMO out of it would be a colossal mistake. Turns out the only thing it was where the adjective "Colossal" is appropriately used is "moneymaker".
Blizzard has consistently for more than a decade defied conventional thought on things. I'm pretty much convinced that they can and will in this case as well.
@Yima - "I'd like everyone that proposes that DIII should be a MMO to consider the main difference between Diablo 2 and, say, World of Warcraft."
This is a bad comparison. Let us call Warcraft 3 the "previous" generation warcraft game and World of Warcraft the "Current" generation game. That would make Diablo 2 the "previous" generation and whatever is going to be diablo 3 the "current" generation game. You need to compare "previous" to "previous" ... not "previous" to "current"... you can't compare Diablo 2 to World of Warcraft in the way that you're trying to because WoW was a paradigm shift from Warcraft 3 ... it breaks the analogy.
Everybody would be pretty angry at that though.
By definition the word Everybody means every single person .... being as I am part of "Everybody" and I have faith that Blizzard can make D3 an MMO and still retain the Diablo feel... I won't be angry. Therefore ... everyone isn't quite correct.
In all seriousness though ... I think most of the objections to the next Diablo game being an MMO revolve around assumptions that it would be similar in look/feel/playstyle to WoW. AGAIN I submit Asheron's Call as an example of how gameplay can be radically different in an MMO. As a mage in AC, I have routinely used area of effect spells to kill hordes of mobs at once. In fact, one of the basic tenets of the game is the player fighting against a neverending stream of enemies at once.
@Drixx
"This is a bad comparison. Let us call Warcraft 3 the "previous" generation warcraft game and World of Warcraft the "Current" generation game. That would make Diablo 2 the "previous" generation and whatever is going to be diablo 3 the "current" generation game. You need to compare "previous" to "previous" ... not "previous" to "current"... you can't compare Diablo 2 to World of Warcraft in the way that you're trying to because WoW was a paradigm shift from Warcraft 3 ... it breaks the analogy."
I don't really see how my comparision is faulty. When discussing the topic "Diablo as an MMO", World of Warcraft is interesting for several reasons. Firstly, WoW is the most successful MMO of all time, and as such it can be counted as the "winning formula" for a game in this particular genre, no matter what generation it belongs to. Another important reason is that WoW is the only MMO developed by Blizzard so far. WoW (hopefully) constitutes what Blizzard deems a good concept for this kind of game.
Diablo 2 is 8 years old, but that doesn't mean one should think of "World of Diablocraft" in terms of 8 years old MMO:s. This is why I not only feel that it's valid to compare previous to current - it would be wrong not to do it.
Also, I think that any constructive discussion about these matters should pay more attention to actual concepts of the genres, rather than when the games were published. "Generations" is generally not a interesting term when speaking of quality game design.
Good concepts will always work, while new trends will only be popular until the next generation takes over. I am one of those people that still feel that Super Mario Bros 1 to the NES is a strong game, even by todays standards. It's because the game has a good design, and not because it's "new and trendy".
The same of course goes for Diablo II, and that's why we still play it. We don't play it because of the high resolution, top end 3D graphics, and realistic physics, because obviously it doesn't have anything like that. It is however designed in a superb way, combining arcade style hack and slash with a semi deep RPG character development formula. It's also fun in single player and multiplayer alike, and this is where the game has a definite edge over WoW and most other MMO:s. This is why any step towards Diablo 3 as a MMO should be a very careful one, so the original concept i still maintained.
delosombres
23-04-2008, 10:20
Who says that diablo 3 will be: diablo 3.
It could just as easily be World of Diablo, not a sequel, but a MMO placed in the universe of Diablo.
Everybody would be pretty angry at that though.
If it won't be a sequel, then this whole thread is pretty pointless.
I doubt that Warcraft 3 fans believed that WoW will be a realtime strategy...
AGStilend
23-04-2008, 10:50
I agree with nearly all that has been said here in these posts, I havent played Wow but a few of my friends do and I just havent got the time or money to play that type of game. A while ago i played a game called Shadowbane, this was a purely on line game and took your life away. Raids at 2 in the morning, Had to be there to protect your cities mines, A town that you built from scratch and had to pay up keep on and the shop keepers. It took all my time. 6 to 8 hours every day and that was just to keep town and get character to lvl 70 ish. Time Time Time is all what it comes down to. Not a lot of people have the time to play for hours every day to get a decent character.
The people that play D2 are mostly old school gamers, who like the easy leveling in D2 but mainly a lot of us have played it since its release, but when it was released didnt have broadband to stay on line and play.
These are the facts
1. Time = Money
2. Cost of Game + Time on Line = Money
3. Paying for a game then having to pay again to play it is not my idea of fun and not a lot of other peoples.
4. If it goes MMORPG then a lot of the Old style Diablo fans will not bother
I've seen a few people in this thread emphasizing the "story" element of D2. Well, I have to disagree. The story in D2 is simplistic and somewhat redundant. IMO what make D2 a successful game is the sinister, dark feeling that the game succeeds in presenting and ample but simplistic character building system. Story is there to back up the cinematic between the acts.
The single player experience in D2 is superb IMO, but I find the online multiplayer very lacking. That is the area in which I would like to see the most progress for the future Diablo game. I mean, we have seven classes, each class has it's background and history, but they all start in a Rouge Camp with a basic weapon and shield. Whats up with that? I want to see seven different regions, each with different surroundings, quests and monsters, partys of adventures combating monsters as well as other partys on their way to slay the Lord of Terror. Of course, things have to be changed to achieve that. And that's good IMO. Those who expect to have a "D2 bigger, longer and uncut" should really stick to D2, or some of the mods.
WhiteAlien
23-04-2008, 15:39
The same of course goes for Diablo II, and that's why we still play it. We don't play it because of the high resolution, top end 3D graphics, and realistic physics, because obviously it doesn't have anything like that. It is however designed in a superb way, combining arcade style hack and slash with a semi deep RPG character development formula. It's also fun in single player and multiplayer alike, and this is where the game has a definite edge over WoW and most other MMO:s. This is why any step towards Diablo 3 as a MMO should be a very careful one, so the original concept i still maintained.
Very nicely said!
As for the WoW I would say that it should be forbidden for players under 21! This game is just very very dangerous for its addictiveness. That is the main reason why WoW is so popular, because player just can not stop playing!
I worked 2 years at casino at slot machines and American poker machines. I just saw how people goes mad and finally mentally sick. They just can not stop playing, because it is never ending circle. You start to play, you won, you think you can win everyday. Then next day you loose. Then you start to play no to win, but to get back money you lost. And here the dead circle begins. Every day you play and believe you gona win and will get back lost money, but actually what happens is that you loose more and more. I've seen people loosing everything they had, 1st all money, house, cars, then friends, then family etc. What people dont know is that these machines are programmed to generate gain of 10-15%, means what you will loose no matter how lucky you are.
WoW uses similar principe, except for running after lost money WoW players run after higher levels and self ego to be best. When you start to play WoW you play for fun. Later you play just because you "have to" play. You have endless feel of necessities to do raids, support your guild, get more level etc.
My 2 cents
arcticknight
23-04-2008, 15:51
Things I'd like to stay:
-Fast gameplay PvM & PvP
-ability to slay lots of monsters really fast
-ability to stop playing at just an hour a day and still achieve something.
-varying item modifications. I like how it is now and I hope they add to it (more crafts, more uniques, more item types, more sets etc.)
-Special quests/side quests (imbue, gidbinn, cow level, uber diablo, uber trist) Possibly adding more.
-Character types w/ more added
Things I'd like to be rid of
-Difficulty levels
-Graphics system (lots of weird glitches with it atm)
-Bnet message/channel system
New things I'd like
-One continuous difficulty level with 15+ Acts that gets harder as you go and your exp gain continually increases (keeps leveling interesting) and you have to actually find the town instead of relying on merchants to take you there.
-More items! Everything from runewords to crafts.
-All new graphics system with environmental effects, better item looks on character etc. (Diablo 2 could do for a large upgrade)
-revamped story
-Guilds w/ built in headset communication
-Single currency thats worth something from the beginning
-Revamped item generation
-More side quests/special quests
-PvP arena area w/ wagering
-New skills/characters and revamped skills for balance issues
-New patches released every month with added/deleted gameplay (limited time uber quests and uber items)
-Map revealer items found after completing an area the first time by killing all monsters and doing all main quests from that area.
-New ways to item find and more places to item find (meaning that Blizzard will mean for it to happen)
-New stashing ability (bank accounts with passwords/ip checker) Accessible from in game.
-Weighted items/ability for a character to build muscles and go longer without stopping.
-Make it possible to create your own scripts for actions in game (stashing all items/putting all items in trade screen, running to specific places, possibly boss running)
-Some sort of item grabbing script so no one steals your drops. Parties it would be a free for all.
-Reduce reasons for having hacks/skipping portions of gameplay
-Revamped leveling/stat placement. Gain experience for doing specific actions. PvM would be a lot like D2 and PvP would be the same but with an arena.
-Fully customizable looks to characters (tattoos, eye color, hair color, skin tone, height, build)
-Unlockable areas after completing the game/part of the game that require you to go back and play through parts.
-Completion %. This game will have so much gameplay and you'll only finish 50% if you go through and beat the normal game.
Things I don't want
-WoW looks
-need to play for hours to get anything done
-Generic MMO gameplay (parties required/raids required for the majority of bosses)
-Really easy gameplay (I want entertainment!)
-Hacking
D3 (or whatever they call it) should be a MMO. The need for playing with other people should be taken out of it though. People should be able to play at their own pace and still do well in the game. There should be a story and also many things for a person to choose from when playing. The game should entertain the player and have continual gameplay. Interactions with other players should be fun and useful and not a drag like D2.
I don't think that D3 can stay with the multiplayer setup of D2. A lot of D2 could be transferable while I would expect new gameplay and areas as well from D3. I have a lot of ideas on more of the specifics but I think I hit most of the main ones as well as some of the stuff that I'd really like to see changed/upgraded.
Alot of people seem to be caught up in whether D3 should be an MMO or not, or p2p or not. Personally I think that misses the entire point. Those are both secondary to what it HAS to be; FUN. What format they use to present the game won't matter at all if they're game CONCEPT is faulty. In my opinion the most important aspects of that concept are:
1. Stay true to the previous Diablo games. D3 should be a major improvement based in what was previously successful.
2. Maintain a dark, ominous feel. Look at D2's ending, your hero killed the 3 prime evils, but the worldstone is still crumbling; you didn't stop baal in time. It doesn't end with 'happily ever after'
3. Replayability, through variety. A variety of skills can be developed into end-game skills, not just the highest lvl req skills. Different gear allows for a customizable focus for your hero(IAS, +dmg, +mana, etc); there can't be just one 'best' piece of gear for all mele or all caster builds. Ask yourself what the best weapon is for a mele build in D2; there's a ton of options that vary with your build & your playstyle.
4. Pace. Diablo 1 & 2 are both FAST paced hack & slash. D3 must be fast paced as well. No standing in place for 5second while you try to cast a fireball. Being able to hit & run is vital IMO. In D2 I shoot a fireball & tele to a different angle for another shot b4 the first one hits. This is where I think the overhead view of d2 might have an advantage. It seems that a first person MMO (which is the common type) will have difficulty since you have to turn around to shoot behind you and there is no way to make your mouse pointer define a distance. How do you tele 5 yards behind you? How do you shoot multi in a narrow spread VS a wide spread? I think it would feel slower paced if you can't start shooting fireballs both in front of you and behind you because you just got ambushed.
Thats my 2 cents, it just won't feel like a diablo game if those 4 things don't get worked in. And if they make sure they've handled those 4 things I think it'll be a great new diablo, regardless of the aesthetics they use to implement it.
I have never played a Blizzard game I didn't like. Their PC games are FUN. Their console games are FUN. Their card games are FUN. I will always buy a Blizzard game when it's released and try it before I decide if I like it. One thing is always true about Blizzard, their games are FUN.
Now with that said. I would like to list the things I love about Diablo I & II.
Fun
Strong story and lore
Fast leveling
You can play online
You can play alone
You can PVP
You can PVE
Content changed with patches
Blizzard will make 99% of Diablo fans happy with the next release. I don't care if it's an MMO or not. It will be FUN.
Regardless of if D3 is an MMO or not, they could add a faction based twist to it. Something like they did with WoW, but instead of having Alliance vs. Horde you would have the Forces of Heaven vs. the Forces of Hell, and several smaller factions spread inbetween.
That adds an intresting twist on gameplay and storyline, especially with the player being able to choose sides.
Regardless of if D3 is an MMO or not, they could add a faction based twist to it. Something like they did with WoW, but instead of having Alliance vs. Horde you would have the Forces of Heaven vs. the Forces of Hell, and several smaller factions spread inbetween.
That adds an intresting twist on gameplay and storyline, especially with the player being able to choose sides.
Good point. I would love to play as a 12 foot tall 6 armed topless demon chick. :laugh:
Dorfoumous
23-04-2008, 20:11
If Diablo is a MMO I will not play it. Pay to play games are a scam.
they make almost two hundred million A MONTH on WoW... a MONTH..
Not to mention the 50 bucks you shell out for the game. And the extra what..20$ for each and every expansion pack?
I would love for the game to be more like Oblivion... or at least the single player format...rather than an MMO..
If Diablo is a MMO I will not play it. Pay to play games are a scam.
Prove that.
Dorfoumous
23-04-2008, 20:21
Perhaps "scam" was a bad word to use..
Perhaps... a watse of money..
Like I said two hundred million a month...thats what a year? 2400000000 a year..
Not to mention the 50 you put into the game, and the 20 dollars per expansion pack released every what..year?
Overall you have spent: To play since its released you have spent:
Call it a even 15 bucks since 2002... thats $1080 Plus the 50 for the game when it came out, and the expansions..
When Diablo you spent how much? and can still play it? 70 bucks?
Catch with that is, you're still playing the same old game. Regardless of if you play Hardcore, PvP Uber Running or Key farming or whatnot, or any one of the variants the current version (or for SP whatever patch version you play) has to offer. This includes various SP challenges, Grails, etc as well as playing Twinked or Untwinked, etc, etc, etc.
Everything pretty much stays the same as far as the game is concerned on a week or week or month by month basis, meaning that if you take a month or three off, there's nothing new to do when you return that you were either unable to do or did not have access to because it was not part of the game, you are still playing the same game you took a break from.
With pay to play you are getting patches almost every month if not more frequently, new areas being added new quests and areas of the game going live. Also, the classes themselves are always getting revamped - either with minor tweaks that fix a skill or change something minor to major changes that cause skills to work different and even change certain game mechanics.
On top of that because of the pay to play part, there's so much to do that you can't possibly do everything there is to do in the game - it would take too much time, not to mention there's something to suit almost everyone from PvP (world PvP and battlegrounds) to class specific stuff including quests and special skills and armor sets to raids and such.
Granted I'm using WoW as an example but it's the same idea.
Dorfoumous
23-04-2008, 20:40
....With pay to play you are getting patches almost every month if not more frequently, new areas being added new quests and areas of the game going live. Also, the classes themselves are always getting revamped - either with minor tweaks that fix a skill or change something minor to major changes that cause skills to work different and even change certain game mechanics.
Thats fine a dandy...however you have to pay additionally for that...thats what the expansion packs usually do, if i'm not mistaken...as far as adding classes and what not..
Sure the patches are great, and new quests and all of that, but I'm going to use your second point to rebuttal...
On top of that because of the pay to play part, there's so much to do that you can't possibly do everything there is to do in the game - it would take too much time, not to mention there's something to suit almost everyone from PvP (world PvP and battlegrounds) to class specific stuff including quests and special skills and armor sets to raids and such....
You are paying for parts that you aren't going to use. Thats like buying a CPU with a awesome video card just to use it for solitare.
However, to rebuttal myself there is 10million people playing the game, meaning there is enough content for those people to play on..
However, the game is targeted obviously for high schoolers or younder children who don't have a working life and have a lot of free time to burn by playing a game that takes you several hours to play on..
Thats not to say that beyond highschoolers don't play the game, I'm just saying IMO its a waste of money if you do have the time to play the game that has that much content in if you aren't going to use it.
Also, you wouldn't need all of that extra stuff if you had a game that was perfect from the get go...
I deleted some parts of your quote...
Jerkazoid
23-04-2008, 21:48
i would make diablo3 a 3d MMO engine hands down.... if not to further corner the market, but simply bc diablo kicks!
i would also make the pay to play be a flat $15/month and the SAME account would be usable for wow AND diablo. (but ofoucrse could only play one at a time.) that way its a package deal.
we pay in wow for the support and the updates.
kicking off cheaters, updating the public gamma, cleaning, patching and evolving the game.
that MMO rpg needs to add content regularly bc of the set loot table and the unique encounters that becomming booring. and ofcourse the constant need to patch all the bugs that no matter HOW much u spend in beta testing, will never clean up 100%
the profitability of WoW is astounding,make no mistake, the reason you pay to play is a smart profit model.
but thats how business works, and thats how the future of LARGE games will need to operate.
you cannot invest 400+ million making a game for over 7 years, beta testing it for millions of hours just to fine tune things that cant be addressed in a limited release, you need to release it and get a large feedback of practical implication, there ARE no standards. the game MUST evolve to be that large and appeal to many people and need large updates, customer service and support.
... it is one hell of a large game with TONS of well modeled, textured, animated creatures, and some decent storytelling, TONS of updates and worth the money in so many ways (if u like mmo's), not to mention the support compared to others is great.
Perhaps "scam" was a bad word to use..
Perhaps... a watse of money..
Like I said two hundred million a month...thats what a year? 2400000000 a year..
Not to mention the 50 you put into the game, and the 20 dollars per expansion pack released every what..year?
Overall you have spent: To play since its released you have spent:
Call it a even 15 bucks since 2002... thats $1080 Plus the 50 for the game when it came out, and the expansions..
When Diablo you spent how much? and can still play it? 70 bucks?
Think of it this way. You'll probably waste more money in a month while driving your vehicle and pissing away gas on backed up roads than a 10-15$ game fee. Plus, the game fee grants you entertainment, something that driving on Route 1 during rush hour doesn't.
They have to maintain their servers, pay staff to create new material, and ultimately accumulate profit to fund more projects. Piracy is taking a gargantuan toll on games like D2, where you play the game that you paid for. Pay-to-play is increasingly being viewed as a reliable alternative to the internet age of PC gaming and the way things are heading, it's not likely to stop. I mean, hell, if you ran a game company, which would you choose? One-time sale with massive profit losses due to piracy, or a controlled means of monthly income? How dare you want to make money!:greedy:
Article regarding Iron Lore's closure (developer of Titan Quest)
http://www.quartertothree.com/game-talk/showthread.php?t=42663
Two, the numbers on piracy are really astonishing. The research I've seen pegs the piracy rate at between 70-85% on PC in the US, 90%+ in Europe, off the charts in Asia. I didn't believe it at first. It seemed way too high. Then I saw that Bioshock was selling 5 to 1 on console vs. PC. And Call of Duty 4 was selling 10 to 1. These are hardcore games, shooters, classic PC audience stuff. Given the difference in install base, I can't believe that there's that big of a difference in who played these games, but I guess there can be in who actually payed for them.
So, either get used to more pay-to-play games, or buy a console, because that's where the money is and, naturally, that's where the developers are headed.
Personally, I'd like to see D3 go the Hellgate route, where you have the option to pay-to-play. Although I'm left wondering how that has worked out for them.
diabloegghead
24-04-2008, 00:38
Value for your buck you say. Well lets do the math. So you pay about 60-70 dollars to buy WoW ( but you can't play it when u get home) then you pay, what is it 30-40 dollars 4 2months worth of game time, so thats 240 dollars for the year to play the game. So for 1 year you have now payed 310 dollars to have the right to play WoW. Now not all of us play 20 hours a week ( some of us have lifes ). Cash cow is right. Boy that seems like a big value for your buck. Thanks but no thanks here is one diablo 2 player that will say goodbye to diablo ( with a heavy heart) if it will be Pay to play.
And Blizzard justifies all this money because they are making patches and getting rid of cheaters and blah blah blah, all they are doing is lining they pockets with more green on the backs of us loyal fans.
PerfectFifth
24-04-2008, 01:29
As excited as I am for this game, I will NOT buy it if it is a MMORPG. Aside from the fact that I'm sure ALL diablo fans will want a linear single player plot for at least some of their experience with the game, a lot of the D2 crowd (it's been out for 8 years) are getting older now, and do not have the time or desire to spend enough time on it weekly to justify the cost. As was stated above, to co-exist with WoW and remain competitive to the die-hard Diablo fans, D3 must be able to be played for 1-2 hours a week and enjoyed. Paying per month for that is just not worth it.
If MMO could mean "Many More Options" I will be a happy D3 addict. :-)
Instead of pay for play, how about pay for patches. A small ammount for minor patches (NOT for bug fixes) and a larger ammount for major patches?.
Does this sound fair?
delosombres
24-04-2008, 02:03
Things I'd like to be rid of
-Difficulty levels
Forget it.
I read page 1 and 2 and decided to move on. If my points (that are about to come) are already made, then I apologize
An MMO constantly grows and changes (hopefully for the better).
That is an awesome idea BUT ONLY for the people that followed from the start.
If you game is large, complex, and complete enough, you don't need constant patches. Minor changes and additional quest update here and there is sufficient IMO. Uber/Cow/Whatever is still a lot of fun for people. You can achieve high replayability by having more complex randomization (is that a word?).
I am intrigued to enter WoW, but the fact that the game changed so much and has gotten so big and complex that it put me off greatly from enter. When you design game, you are not designing the game for the first 1000000 people that bought the game, you are also designing for the additional players that will come. Creating an online elitism is the only effect that came out of MMO D3.
The other thing to realize is that you're paying for entertainment time. I play Diablo 2 and WoW. I play D2 about 10-12 hours a week on average, and WoW somewhat more like 20 hours a week. Some weeks it's more! For the most part, that time is very enjoyable. So ... the cost per hour of entertainment for me is something like $0.18 ...
That is horrible. Normally, a work-eligible person 18+ can have up to 40+ hours of work/school. Why would they want to invest additional 30 hours to play a game? What is a game? A game is not life... a game is just as you stated: entertainment. If I just want to play for 1 hour a day as stress reliever, why would I need to be constantly overwhelmed by an ever changing word?
(As for your subsequent argument of movies and gas money... GAS MONEY IS SO THAT YOU CAN MAKE MORE MONEY. "Movies" is an entirely different different sensation of entertainment. I think that's fairly self explanatory.
The monthly fee for an MMO is both reasonable and worthwhile.
That's like momopoly charging everyone 50 dollars for a new piece on the board every month.
I for one would like to see and Diablo 3 that is a totally new game experience.
Hence, you want to play a WoW version of Diablo... wouldn't it be more pratical for a Diablo mod in WoW?
I don't want my "endgame" to be farming the same boss 500,000 times in order to collect every item in the game.
That's why I always advocated for a free play mode where you can do whatever you want in a single/multiplayer temporary play mode with full capability to customize gear/stats.
------------
I play Diablo because I want to have the feeling of "end." If I want to repeat, that's where "replayability" comes in. I don't agree that you extend the "end" just so that the players keep on playing. So I killed Diablo. WOOHOO!! Oh wait, there is this Diablo Super Lieutenant who just spawn from the depth of darkness and is ravaging the sanctuary again. Okay, I killed that! WooT! Oh wait, did I mention that Super Lieutenant had a twin cousin of the fifth relation?
You see what I am saying? It never ends. Well, I want an end. I don't want Super Saiyan level 55. Should have ended after the Cell Saga, but he got greedy and Poo Saga totally stunk.
And if the expansion and patches only add to minor quests, then I could care less then. I won't kill myself if I never kill a single cow. But you know what? Those minor quests can be produced without needing a MMO structure.
I was looking at something on Wikipedia the other day, so maybe it's not the most credible, but it put D2/D2LOD sales at ~ 5 million combined. It just shocked me because that's more than HL2 and a bunch of other good mainstream games. Like, imagine that, plus millions of other kids and adults who will join the franchise if D3 comes out soon, and is as popular as WoW. It makes me sad because D2 will lose some of its unique, comfortable feel. We'll have millions of noobs rampaging through games. :cry:
p.s. what is online elitism?
see above
PerfectFifth
24-04-2008, 07:26
Razen. All excellent points. Guys: think about it. We still play Diablo 2. Why does it need to be completely changed to mimic WoW, something we're already tired of? I say improve the series significantly, just like D2 was to D1.
Value for your buck you say. Well lets do the math. So you pay about 60-70 dollars to buy WoW ( but you can't play it when u get home) then you pay, what is it 30-40 dollars 4 2months worth of game time, so thats 240 dollars for the year to play the game. So for 1 year you have now payed 310 dollars to have the right to play WoW. Now not all of us play 20 hours a week ( some of us have lifes ). Cash cow is right. Boy that seems like a big value for your buck. Thanks but no thanks here is one diablo 2 player that will say goodbye to diablo ( with a heavy heart) if it will be Pay to play.
And Blizzard justifies all this money because they are making patches and getting rid of cheaters and blah blah blah, all they are doing is lining they pockets with more green on the backs of us loyal fans.
I'm still trying to figure out how you got 310$...
Regarding MMO's & Hack-n-Slash:
I'd like to see some good cinematic action similar to that of diablo 2 (and diablo 1 i suppose with the 3 that it had) in the next Diablo game. That and a good singleplayer story, which is usually lacking in MMO's in my opinion.
If D3 were to be an MMO, i do like the concept of keeping it hack-n-slash style; however, unless they keep the graphics at a baseline low <similar to that of wow or below>, i don't see it possible to have thousands of players running around with thousands of monsters that constantly respawn for other players. Also consider chests and piles upon piles of drops due to fast kill rate all lead to outrageous lag if even spread accross many servers. No more Boss runs either....and forget doing storyline quests- Easy when there is 8 people in a world, but not when there is 3000-5000+. All i can think about is waiting in a line to kill andariel.
Also consider that there wouldn't be a single computer that could handle every single d3 player in one universe. . . it would be divided just like wow is into smaller servers, not to forget the Hardcore servers.... Wow is, in a small way, like diablo in the sense of creating a game because of X amount of servers there are now. In essence, rather than one big diabloverse, there would be 100 "games" always running. Thus one big diablo world wouldn't work- at the best it would be broken down server by server due to blizzard's popularity. But i just don't think diablo would work using crappy, cartoony graphics like wow in a hack-n-slash enviornment.
We already know D3's in 3D...so unless it's a 3rd person perspective 3d, lag will go through the roof with a hack-n-slash gamestyle.
Maybe technology will prove to be the winner here. who knows. Currently i don't think that the hack-n-slash style we all love will work in an MMO enviornment though.
You have a very dated view of what MMORPGs are. Most of them have instanced content now.
Dorfoumous
24-04-2008, 17:11
MMO where you never actually get to kill Diablo until you are level 75 which takes 7 years to do ZOMG!
@razen - I don't appreciate your judgmental comments about me because I happen to spend more hours a week playing games than you deem responsible or appopriate. Here's a thought... not everyone is YOU.
And as far as a game growing and getting more complex and therefore only the original adopters of the game... that shows a lack of understanding of MMO's. If you started WoW today... and you started a human, you would start at the same place as every other human character has started since the very first day the game started. You would have the same quests availalbe to you all the way up.
New content in an MMO always gets added in the middle or late game.
Additionally, as a player adopting now, four years later, you would have access to many improvements the game didn't have when it first came out. Just off the top of my head ....
1.) Quest tracking
2.) Action bars
3.) The ability to have 25 quests in your journal (versus 10 originally)
4.) Auction house in all capital cities (instead of just Orgrimmar/Ironforge)
5.) Several paths to epic quality loot (PvP, Arena, PvE Raiding, Heroic 5 mans) which means you don't have to be a raider comitting tons of hours to gear up. You can log in and spend ONE hour doing a heroic instance and make real progress towards really good gear.
The bottom line is that the lifecycle of an MMO improves the game for everyone who plays it. With the case of WoW, it has been the CASUAL players who have continuously receieved changes to the game to their benefit.
Yes... there are things in the game for the people who are hardcore... but there is by no means a REQUIREMENT to do those things to be competitive. I can get badge gear and be as well geared or better geared than someone who pvp's all day. Or someone who raids every night.
And all of that is really beside the point. If Diablo 3 is just a linear game then it will be a disappointment. It will just be a re-faced Diablo 2. BUT if they make it some sort of MMO where they continue to support and grow it, then the game doesn't ever fall into a stale mold, and it's not just a re-skinned Diablo 2.
I think there are a world of things that other MMO's do that could be incorporated to make the next diablo game still a DIABLO game but still a next generation game.
diabloIInoob
24-04-2008, 19:06
if you make it mmo i wont get the game cuz i only play f2p not p2p runescape is both p2p and f2p but its not very good i like the way it is f2p instead of p2p i dont like to pay the cost.
only thing we should pay for is the cd and the memory on our comps to put the game on.
@razen - I don't appreciate your judgmental comments about me because I happen to spend more hours a week playing games than you deem responsible or appopriate. Here's a thought... not everyone is YOU.
And as far as a game growing and getting more complex and therefore only the original adopters of the game... that shows a lack of understanding of MMO's. If you started WoW today... and you started a human, you would start at the same place as every other human character has started since the very first day the game started. You would have the same quests availalbe to you all the way up.
New content in an MMO always gets added in the middle or late game.
Additionally, as a player adopting now, four years later, you would have access to many improvements the game didn't have when it first came out. Just off the top of my head ....
1.) Quest tracking
2.) Action bars
3.) The ability to have 25 quests in your journal (versus 10 originally)
4.) Auction house in all capital cities (instead of just Orgrimmar/Ironforge)
5.) Several paths to epic quality loot (PvP, Arena, PvE Raiding, Heroic 5 mans) which means you don't have to be a raider comitting tons of hours to gear up. You can log in and spend ONE hour doing a heroic instance and make real progress towards really good gear.
The bottom line is that the lifecycle of an MMO improves the game for everyone who plays it. With the case of WoW, it has been the CASUAL players who have continuously receieved changes to the game to their benefit.
Yes... there are things in the game for the people who are hardcore... but there is by no means a REQUIREMENT to do those things to be competitive. I can get badge gear and be as well geared or better geared than someone who pvp's all day. Or someone who raids every night.
And all of that is really beside the point. If Diablo 3 is just a linear game then it will be a disappointment. It will just be a re-faced Diablo 2. BUT if they make it some sort of MMO where they continue to support and grow it, then the game doesn't ever fall into a stale mold, and it's not just a re-skinned Diablo 2.
I think there are a world of things that other MMO's do that could be incorporated to make the next diablo game still a DIABLO game but still a next generation game.
1) I was judgemental in my original version. But I edited it out. Maybe you are referring to the fact that I said "Horrible"? That was referring to the argument, not your life style.
2) As the game grows more complex... yaddy yadda... the thing is... is that necessary? That's my new argument. Maybe for a "hardcore" player like yourself that get through many many things in rapid fashion, then maybe MMO is the PERFECT format for you. But for most players, they discover new things just because they don't play as frequent. Rather than trying to make MMOize things, if you make a game that require 40 hours to 80 hours to beat, I say that's complex enough to keep casual players from getting bored. Occassional update every 6-10 months with some new tweak and addition is more than enough to keep the game alive.
Why is there a need for MMO then? MMO in my opionion is only a different way to milk more money off of you. Constant patches? No need if you release a complete game. New quests? Great, but I don't play that much.
Look, in WoW, if I start today, I am only the same as those that RESTARTED. But that's only in terms of perhaps starting location and character level. The knowledge that these players possess and whatever higher level characters that they have already surpassed me by leaps and bounds. And by the time I catch up to their standards? Sorry, the game moved on.
Beside, why is it that I can't enjoy the game offline? As you stated already, there should be a single player. Well, isn't that awfully similar to the current D2 system then?
One: There is no need
Two: Whatever MMO element, they can do just as well without needing MMO format
Three: It's already been done.
P.S. the system of MMO doesn't even make sense for Diablo in the first place. Diablo is all about a UNIQUE hero questing to rid the world of evil. Not a bunch of fighters engage in a world conflict. If you have to party thirty players to fight Diablo, what's so unique and special about you?
Little did everyone know... everyone in WoW is just another citizen of the world. They are not unstanding or unique. Well, I play game because I want to be super awesome. If I just want to be one of "them", I can do that in real life.
I've read people making an argument for MMO's because of the ability to consisitently add new content (quests, items, areas, monsters, etc), essentially saying they'll never get bored of the game. Saying it'll be better since it won't be "the same old game".
I was just wondering how many people realize that they are STILL playing D2? I'm sure there are exceptions, but I'm assuming the majority of people on this forum are still playing D2. The same old game its always been, though arguably only the same since the .09 patch. Personally I've been playing this same old game for 5 years, while I got sick of WoW in 9 months.
So my point is this: Why do we need a never-ending universe where there is always new content? To keep us playing? D2 has kept people playing a long time WITHOUT new content every month or 2. I just wanted point out that D2 has kept people playing a long time by having a solid game from the beginning, not by throwing us new content every month because we got bored of the original content.
I've read people making an argument for MMO's because of the ability to consisitently add new content (quests, items, areas, monsters, etc), essentially saying they'll never get bored of the game. Saying it'll be better since it won't be "the same old game".
I was just wondering how many people realize that they are STILL playing D2? I'm sure there are exceptions, but I'm assuming the majority of people on this forum are still playing D2. The same old game its always been, though arguably only the same since the .09 patch. Personally I've been playing this same old game for 5 years, while I got sick of WoW in 9 months.
So my point is this: Why do we need a never-ending universe where there is always new content? To keep us playing? D2 has kept people playing a long time WITHOUT new content every month or 2. I just wanted point out that D2 has kept people playing a long time by having a solid game from the beginning, not by throwing us new content every month because we got bored of the original content.
That's because there's nothing else to play out there that's similar to D2. What else is there to play? The hack 'n slash market is a desert and people are dying of thirst (a reason why Blizzard would be stupid to not make another hack 'n slash game). Titan Quest was probably the closet thing since D2 and the developer of that game just tanked.
Also, a lot of D2 players do quit and a lot of the ones who hang around seem to get more attached to the social element and communities rather than the game itself. I'm constantly adding and removing people from my /f list. Many just seem to play the game for 2-4 months and I never see them again. Although I'm strictly hardcore and hardcore has even fewer players these days. :(
Back in the day when D2 was still fairly new people hung around for years. But right now there's just too much newer and evolving schtuff out there to lure people and hold their attention. Hell, even I can hardly manage killing cyber monsters in D2 for any longer than 30 minutes. Simplicity and redundancy is both D2's blessing and curse.
I think if someone made a hack 'n slash game akin to D2, but regularly updated it with fresh content and an ever expanding world, it would be a blast and financial success. Hellgate tried this but unfortunately they fouled up with rampant bugs and a terrible release; plus the game is even more repetitive and boring than D2 is after 7 years.
arcticknight
24-04-2008, 20:42
WoW has come down in price here in the states since it originally came out. Blizzard has put battle chests out where you get 30 days free + game + expansion for 40$. I believe WoW's P2P can be set up so you pay for a 1/2 year at a time and its only 13$ a month. First years cost is 196$ and subsequent years are 156$. (plus some taxing of course). If they made the cost of Diablo 3 comparable to that, I wouldn't mind paying if the game is good and they update it regularly.
My issue with it is that if you're paying to play YOU HAVE TO PLAY.
With D2 as it is I can pick it up, play for 20 minutes, chat with friends (some of which I've been playing with since before LoD) and then go away for 4 months with no worries. Then after that I pop online, do a 13 hour CTA run and abandon the game again. I fit it in around my schedule if I feel like it, which I wouldn't be able to do if I was paying a monthly fee. Sure I could stop the payment every time I quit, but then those spontaneous urges to do a Baal run with friends would fall by the wayside.
I personally feel like that is one of the reasons people still hang around D2, it's a game that works for you - unlike Evercrack and its ilk which force you to devote your life to it or fall behind.
Cheers
-Tai
My issue with it is that if you're paying to play YOU HAVE TO PLAY.
With D2 as it is I can pick it up, play for 20 minutes, chat with friends (some of which I've been playing with since before LoD) and then go away for 4 months with no worries. Then after that I pop online, do a 13 hour CTA run and abandon the game again. I fit it in around my schedule if I feel like it, which I wouldn't be able to do if I was paying a monthly fee. Sure I could stop the payment every time I quit, but then those spontaneous urges to do a Baal run with friends would fall by the wayside.
I personally feel like that is one of the reasons people still hang around D2, it's a game that works for you - unlike Evercrack and its ilk which force you to devote your life to it or fall behind.
Cheers
-Tai
That's why I like Hellgate's approach to it. In Hellgate, pay-to-play is an OPTION rather than a necessity. You can pay if you want more content, extended features, etc., but you can also buy the game and play it right out the box, free of fees. WoW's fee system is too controlling and cumbersome, I agree. I think someone will come up with something more flexible though since PC game fees is a hot topic in today's industry.
Dorfoumous
24-04-2008, 22:21
actually I think thats why Hellgate flopped.
Yay you get to pay 50 bucks for half of the game....if you want the full game it will be an extra 14$ a month...YAY..
Honestly, a format like Guild Wars I would settle for...A full game, and a new content with expansions every once in awhile...
That way...I can buy the first one, and leave it at that...and have really a full game...if I wanted new content,I go buy the expansion..
Also that cuts down on people whinning about how they liked the orginal.
actually I think thats why Hellgate flopped.
Yay you get to pay 50 bucks for half of the game....if you want the full game it will be an extra 14$ a month...YAY..
Honestly, a format like Guild Wars I would settle for...A full game, and a new content with expansions every once in awhile...
That way...I can buy the first one, and leave it at that...and have really a full game...if I wanted new content,I go buy the expansion..
Also that cuts down on people whinning about how they liked the orginal.
Actually if you played Hellgate you'd know why it flopped lol. Also, I think Hellgate's fee is 10$ a month.
Anyway, another reasonable approach would be like what you said, or something similar to what BioWare did with NWN. BioWare was always creating little mini add-ons that you could download for a fee, like extended gameplay, content, engine improvements, etc. These add-ons were released every 4-6 months or something like that. Another game that used this approach was BF2--they released downloadable packs like EU Forces, Armored Fury, etc., every certain amount of months.
Beside, why is it that I can't enjoy the game offline? As you stated already, there should be a single player. Well, isn't that awfully similar to the current D2 system then?
One: There is no need
Two: Whatever MMO element, they can do just as well without needing MMO format
Three: It's already been done.
P.S. the system of MMO doesn't even make sense for Diablo in the first place. Diablo is all about a UNIQUE hero questing to rid the world of evil. Not a bunch of fighters engage in a world conflict. If you have to party thirty players to fight Diablo, what's so unique and special about you?
Little did everyone know... everyone in WoW is just another citizen of the world. They are not unstanding or unique. Well, I play game because I want to be super awesome. If I just want to be one of "them", I can do that in real life.
I feel like this is similar to a political debate now. Democratic or Republican, MMO or Standard, and a very small neutral party. Each defend their own ideas, progressively becoming more aggressive in their opinions as more and more daggers are thrown.
I myself am, as the dnd crowd would say, Aggressive-Neutral. :thumbsup: I'm not for or against one thing, but i do lean heavily away from MMO's being a former MMO gamer and seeing what they do to lives and the massive amounts of time dumped into them.
Honestly - Has anyone seen someones life improve after they started up an MMO? I have only heard and seen negative remarks, similar to the effects of drugs....a temporary high, good at the moment of intoxication. Bash me all you want, but think of a healthy lifestyle objectively before you do.
Then again, if you want to live, breathe, and be one with the game,....as another had said, devoting 20-40+ hours a week to it similar to a full time job and/or school, then MMO is truly the best solution.
MrNobody
24-04-2008, 22:50
Should Diablo 3 be a MMO?
No!
I absolutely hate raiding, although my WoW priest with Mag, VR, and Eye loot might make me look like a hypocrit. I loved WoW, but it gets to a point where I feel like I'm trading in living real life for a few pieces of gear in a game I won't play in another year or so.
I like the fast paced Diablo gameplay. I like being able to play all parts without needing to manage people to be able to take on high end content. I like being able to log on for 10 minutes and do a couple of things. I don't want to see a core gameplay that is tailored to solo or group players be turned into a group based game.
However, I am willing to pay $10 a month to play Diablo 3 online, if some key issues are addressed like permanent characters (no 90 days), the crazy too-fast game joining or other esoteric things ending in a temp ban or inability to join games, and a single-person interface to mule items without needing a friend or trusting that a game will still be there (Sacred had a shared stash any of your chars could access-perfect solution).
Things that are present in some MMOs, but by no means all, or even, most:
Monthly payments
Raiding
Microtransactions
Reliance on grind to acquire items
Slow pace
1 vs. 1 pve
Addiction
Camping spawn points
No instances
Let's not fly off the handle about MMORPGs, whether you like them or not. They are all different, and a MMO D3 very well may not have the things you dislike about MMOs.
ChobitZero
25-04-2008, 04:15
When I said based off WoW, I meant as a starting place. I would expect the world to be much darker. BTW, I've put in something like 40 or 50 hours so far on level 93 for my Blizzard sorc and have not yet leveled ;p
Huh?
I can make a fresh level 1 character and get to 96 in a max of 4 days if I want to...I can get 1-93 in a day no problem whatsoever...
delosombres
25-04-2008, 09:03
Yeah. Rushing is one of the things i wouldn't like to see in Diablo 3.
@ Gorny:
it's a two edged sword. It cuts on bots sides. Yes changing this a good, though this also means that the character you made yesterday, will become useless tomorrow. I don't want that. Changing several times a month is to fast, atleast for me it. Once they have a decent patch, they should stay with it for about a year atleast. That way you can explore the patch and find out what is good and what not. Then they can make a huge patch and we can start over again. I just don't want to start over again every month.
Second, and people will find this strange, though even for bug fixed, I don't think they should patch to often. Who doesn't love the fact that they can make ebugged armours? Hack, I even like overpowered hammerdins as long as they don't stay like to for to long.
P.S. this is a reply on Gorny's post at page 7.
solutionx
25-04-2008, 09:48
Diablo is basically a real-time rogue-like game, the first of its kind -- unique and successful. There is no reason for Blizzard to take Diablo in the direction of WoW when it has done so well as a pure action rpg.
In my opinion, Diablo will go the way of Diablo; but unlike the transition from Diablo -> Diablo II, I believe Blizzard will look for new ways to add randomization into the core gameplay. That's what this game is truly about, that's why you're still playing, and that's how other rogue-likes got "better" with time.
highonpop
25-04-2008, 20:02
there will be no diablo 3. Everyone who pays attention knows that the Devs who made diablo do not work for Blizzard anymore
Diablo 3 = Mythos
Mythos is being developed by Flagship, Flagship is run by ex-Blizzard North devs/execs
mythos.com
Dorfoumous
25-04-2008, 20:11
there will be no diablo 3. Everyone who pays attention knows that the Devs who made diablo do not work for Blizzard anymore
Diablo 3 = Mythos
Mythos is being developed by Flagship, Flagship is run by ex-Blizzard North devs/execs
mythos.com
Man, I feel like someone is beating a dead-horse, or a buffalo, or something dead..
Anyways..
Not everyone that worked on diablo left. Only a hand full maybe like 10-15 people left..
Diablo 3 does not = mythos...granted Mythos is probably going to have a big diablo feel, but that will be about it.
TO GET BACK ON TOPIC:
If diablo 3 becomes a MMO it will ruin the game, and then it will show me ONCE AGAIN that Blizz is after the money, rather than making quality games. MMO's really is going to be the downfall of video games.
Huh?
I can make a fresh level 1 character and get to 96 in a max of 4 days if I want to...I can get 1-93 in a day no problem whatsoever...
I play Single Player :-0
Diablo is basically a real-time rogue-like game, the first of its kind -- unique and successful. There is no reason for Blizzard to take Diablo in the direction of WoW when it has done so well as a pure action rpg.
In my opinion, Diablo will go the way of Diablo; but unlike the transition from Diablo -> Diablo II, I believe Blizzard will look for new ways to add randomization into the core gameplay. That's what this game is truly about, that's why you're still playing, and that's how other rogue-likes got "better" with time.
Sounds like a logical approach. :thumbsup:
@highonpop - I'm sure everyone on this forum would agree with me in telling you to go read the diablo 3 wiki to read up on why blizzard north was dispanded and why the people left. That and consider reading other posts that mention other hints to its release (I.E. Trademark post, June 28th Blizzard Invitational in Paris-D2's release date, insider speculation, etc)
there will be no diablo 3. Everyone who pays attention knows that the Devs who made diablo do not work for Blizzard anymore
Diablo 3 = Mythos
Mythos is being developed by Flagship, Flagship is run by ex-Blizzard North devs/execs
mythos.com
Actually ... Mythos is a game based on FATE (Google it), and the main guy who made fate is now working for Flagship and that's why they're doing Mythos. Fate is actually pretty fun for what it is, and I own a copy, but it is by no means developed by the folks who made Diablo 2.
Also, your post seems to indicate that anyone who doesn't agree with your viewpoint is a moron. It's the "Everyone who pays attention knows..." part I'm referring to.
Also, Blizzard higher ups are on record as saying that they will revisit the Diablo franchise. This indicates that there will indeed be a 3rd Diablo game. It's a matter of time.
A lot of people are reading "MMO" and coming up with "in the direction of WoW" or "just like WoW". An MMO does not have to be anything at all like WoW.
Prior to World of Warcraft, the largest playerbase for an MMO in history was under 2 million people. WoW completely shattered that. This seems to indicate that they have made the best MMO ever... once again setting the standard with their game. I would suggest this means that they have not sacrificed quality for money.
The reality is; however, that Blizzard doesn't own their own company. They have a parent company. The parent company is not going to be happy with a one time profit from the game of let's say 500 million. That would be like 30 million single copies sold of a game. That's kind of a high estimate for a one time only game.
But ... the gross income from an MMO with a playerbase the size of WoW's is over 2 BILLION dollars. Per year. For every year the game is operational.
And if they come out with a Diablo 3 mmo that is totally different than any other MMO and keeps the mold of Diablo (which I have faith they can do), then they could have a LARGER playerbase than WoW does.
What parent company would be happy with their cash cow company choosing to make 25% of one years take on a game rather than potentially making money at a factor of 20 to 1 or more?
That's reality. What blizzard does with that reality is make the best games on the market.
And finally, a point about time investment. The average american adult spends 2-3 hours per day watching TV. If you move to playing an MMO, you go from passive entertainment (Watching the boob tube) to active entertianment that actually works your mind and forces you to keep yourself switched "on" ... 15 hours a week is the average for TV time. And lots of people watch even more.
Playing an MMO for 20 hours a week isn't really all that much time, when you consider that most people who play them aren't ADDING that time into their schedule, they're just moving it into their schedule in place of watching TV or other activities that most americans do.
1) Name me three games where the developers/coders were the same in every game and sequel
2) Are you still playing exactly what you were eight/eighteen years ago. Yes I love Sim City but I have to say Sim City 4 has a wealth of different gameplay.
3) Is D1 the same as D2? No.
Things evolve. Games too.
A lot of people are reading "MMO" and coming up with "in the direction of WoW" or "just like WoW". An MMO does not have to be anything at all like WoW.
To play devils advocate here- It is a logical assumption to think a company who has produced an MMO has a good chance of producing a similar MMO though. I think that's why so many have referred to wow
And if they come out with a Diablo 3 mmo that is totally different than any other MMO and keeps the mold of Diablo (which I have faith they can do), then they could have a LARGER playerbase than WoW does.
Another reason i'd like them to stay away from an MMO. I thought a large player database was 800-900 players on one faction on at the same time x3-5 servers.
What parent company would be happy with their cash cow company choosing to make 25% of one years take on a game rather than potentially making money at a factor of 20 to 1 or more?
Yup. The cash cow's.
That's reality. What blizzard does with that reality is make the best games on the market.
If we consider Blizzards current statistics, i think odds are in favor of sticking to the original RPG w/ multiplayer option enviornment.
Warcraft
Warcraft 2 +Exp ---> Singleplayer with multiplayer option
Warcraft 3 +Exp ---> Singleplayer with multiplayer option
World of Warcraft ---> mmorpg.
Starcraft ---> Singleplayer with multiplayer option
Starcraft Exp---> Singleplayer with multiplayer option
Starcraft 2 ---> Singleplayer with multiplayer option
Diablo 1 ---> Singleplayer with multiplayer option
Diablo Hellfire ---> Singleplayer non-blizzard made title
Diablo 2 ----> Singleplayer with multiplayer option
Diablo 2 Exp--- Singleplayer with multiplayer option
~Just a thought.
Dorfoumous
25-04-2008, 20:53
Let me point out this:..
WC1-2-3 Is is nothing like WoW: infact they completely change everything about the WC series and ( I haven't played WoW), completely destroyed the more "historical" play and feel of WC..
Do you really want Blizz to make Diablo an MMO?
StarCraft remains a RTS because their other RTS got turned into an MMO. You can't read the fact that it stayed RTS into what D3 will be. Not a logically sound conclusion given the facts.
StarCraft remains a RTS because their other RTS got turned into an MMO
So according that this, do you believe it was inevitable that one or more of their games become an MMORPG? For example, if Wow came out as an RTS, then Starcraft 2 would have been an MMO? Or if the Warcraft & Starcraft titles both remained RTS', then Diablo would for sure be an MMO or something?
I was simply overviewing published titles and their game design styles thus far. Concrete evidence, by all means no. Just for speculating how Blizzard might approach their next published title based on what they have already produced, and their respective genre's is all.
LouisLeGros
25-04-2008, 23:30
"StarCraft remains a RTS because their other RTS got turned into an MMO."
So what? Why couldn't have Starcraft been turned into an MMO? Is their some law saying they can't turn more then one RTS into an MMO? You have already pointed out how MMOs make much more money are the better economical choice for the parent company. Following that line of logic Blizzard should have made Starcraft an MMO and make Diablo an MMO as well.
You could bring up market saturation, but you have already stated about how MMOs don't have to be like WoW. They could make them all different kinds of MMOs and reap the riches of millions of subscriptions for each game.
Dorfoumous
25-04-2008, 23:53
The point that I was trying to make was WoW ruined the "classic" WarCraft games.
I would think that making Diablo a MMO would ruin it..
DiabloII was just an enhanced version of Diablo.. at least I thought..
making it an mmo would ruin the gameplay of it...just like WoW did with WC.
I'm in the crowd who doesn't have time for a MMO. I'm not going to pay $15/month for the 5 hours I spend playing a game per month. I've got games just sitting around that I haven't even opened in months. I bought them cause I want to play them. I hear they're good, but they just don't fit in my schedule and gaming is not a high priority in my life these days.
So, if I get a game these days I want it to have a distinct start and a distinct end. I want to feel satisfied that I completed something. Sure I want some replay value in there, but I don't want to feel like I'm constantly falling behind everyone else.
So, if Blizzard makes a MMO Diablo game then I probably will not play it.
I don't get why every says that they should make an MMO simply because that makes more money.
First and foremost, you have to look at the relative profit and not the absolute profit. Yes WOW may have brought in more then 2 billion, though what was the invest. If they invested 1.5 billion, that ain't so super great.
On the other hand, if they make a 'normal' rpg for lest say 1.5 million and it brings in 5 million, that last choice is economical just as possible as the first.
Second thing to consider is that fact that if we play diablo and keep playing diablo 3, we aren't playing a game from an other company. Thus making the blizzard more dominant, which is good for the company.
If they aren't careful, they may lose lost of people to other companies, certainly if they try to make a diablo3 and WOW2 in one game, as some people indicate.
btw, never change a winning team/combination right?
P.S. mythos ain't diablo 3, just alone for the fact that they only have 3 classes which is way to little for diablo3. If they go for less then 7, I think people will look strange.
@Nase - World of Warcraft had a development cost pre-release of something like 100 million. There is obviously some ongoing tech and development cost each month. Let's say they only get a 10% profit margin (and that's a very low estimate). That means that World of Warcraft has made a profit of $800 million dollars. If they have a 20% profit, then that's $1.6 Billion ... and so on and so forth.
I rather suspect they have more like 50% or more profit. They have to pay for a lot of servers and bandwidth, but they really only have like 500 employees for WoW. If they make $20 an hour and work 40 hour work weeks, that's 500 x 160 x 20 = 1.6million ... that's a tiny amount in salary compared to the nearly $200 million per month coming in. You could quadruple the number of people employed and double what they make to $40 an hour, and it STILL barely scratches the surface of what's coming in.
@Louis - StarCraft 1 remains to this day a national sport in Korea. Additionally, to date, no company has successfully released a sci-fi setting MMO. Planetside flopped, Anarchy online flopped, Tabula Rasa (despite being a fun game) appears to be flopping. I was really hoping that the next StarCraft would be an MMO, just because I'm sure Blizzard can make it work. I don't think Diablo 3 will be a traditional MMO. But I do think it will likely be pay to play and be of a more massive online scale than D2 was.
@Dorf - No ... World of Warcraft did not "Ruin" the original Warcraft games. You can still load them up and play and find matches easily on battle.net. They're still played every day by lots of people.
Mcwhopper
26-04-2008, 22:11
WoW ruined WC? That's utter nonesense. I played WoW and after that I stopped playing that and came back to Wc3 and it was still as crowded as ever. RTSs player that suddenly become RPG players just because the game is named World of Warcraft?
Makes no sense.
I could even say that I enjoyed Wc3 more after the release of WoW than before that since DoTA became pretty big months after wow.
Blizzard's profit is huge. Forget the crap about 10% profit or 20%, Blizzard is not someone's lapdog, the only place where they have to share profit is when they sell a boxed copy or a card. All the credit cards charges go directly to them, perhaps the credit company get a tiny fraction but that's it.
About the relative profit; 1 opportunity to make a 100 million while investing 10 million is as good as 10 opportunities to make 10 million and that each cost 1 million. But the thing is : There are no 10 opportunities : Blizzard will not suddenyl make up another franchise they can't risk their good name. They will stick with what works even if they could theoretically try smaller project that might provide a higher relative profit.
delosombres
27-04-2008, 00:20
Diablo 3 won't be a MMO, dot. Blizzard is not some EA scum, so that theory about well profiting is wrong here.
I don't want to live in world of games, where MMO term means just a best profit ratio rather than the massive entertainment and quality. I'm not against MMO games (of course you can still develop good and profiting games as well), but i hate that greedy presumtions which leads to the only "holy" possibility - a MMOfication.
Blizzard will not make a new MMO while World of Warcraft is strong and well. =Diablo 3 will not be a MMO or not realesed while WOW still is popular.
MMOs are prinicipally designed to keep the player playing, often at the expense of making an enjoyable game in order to keep a steady monthly fee going. If Diablo 3 were to be made an MMO, it would not simply be Diablo 2 in an MMO environment. It would be a completely different game with much more in common with WoW than Diablo 2. I would much rather see them make a very expansive (not expensive) game that provided as much replay value as Diablo 2 does (if you're on these forums chances are you're playing this game in some form or another eight years after it came out) while bringing new things to the table, such as more balanced gameplay/character classes, longer and more interesting quests, more empowered randomized items, greater randomization and danger to what will eventually deemed the "useful" areas of the game, and party benefits that extend beyond killing things faster.
coldsong
27-04-2008, 22:56
I'm in the crowd who doesn't have time for a MMO. I'm not going to pay $15/month for the 5 hours I spend playing a game per month. I've got games just sitting around that I haven't even opened in months. I bought them cause I want to play them. I hear they're good, but they just don't fit in my schedule and gaming is not a high priority in my life these days.
So, if I get a game these days I want it to have a distinct start and a distinct end. I want to feel satisfied that I completed something. Sure I want some replay value in there, but I don't want to feel like I'm constantly falling behind everyone else.
So, if Blizzard makes a MMO Diablo game then I probably will not play it.
explain to me how D2 is not a MMO?
Blizzard will not make a new MMO while World of Warcraft is strong and well. =Diablo 3 will not be a MMO or not realesed while WOW still is popular.
This is a fallacy. Other companies have had and continue to have more than one MMO on the market. Not only that, a Diablo based MMO would be still some years away, making WoW and 7+ year old game by the time the Diablo MMO would come out...
MMOs are prinicipally designed to keep the player playing, often at the expense of making an enjoyable game in order to keep a steady monthly fee going. If Diablo 3 were to be made an MMO, it would not simply be Diablo 2 in an MMO environment. It would be a completely different game with much more in common with WoW than Diablo 2.
Support this statement please. Who are you to say what sort of game Blizzard would make? Who are you to say that a fast paced game facing hordes of monsters would lead to less time of the player playing? That's another fallacy. Many people still play D2 for hours and hours and hours ... and it's not a game designed to draw out your time spent.
Lord_Jaroh
28-04-2008, 06:11
Well, I don't post here that often, but I figured I would chime in on my two cents on this topic.
I would very much be opposed to Blizzard spitting out a World of Diablo. If they create a D3, I very much hope that it will be a game designed as the previous games were: single player with multiplayer options.
I would like to start by addressing one statement:
To understand the MMO pay to play model, you just need to adjust your viewpoint of what the payment is for. An MMO constantly grows and changes (hopefully for the better). There's always new content, skills, quests, items, etc... being developed. Part of the montly fee to play goes towards paying the staff who continuously move the game forward.
There has only been one MMO of the standard design that has done what you have stated without paying for more content on top of paying for content (ie. buying an "optional" expansion or two), and that game is not made by Blizzard. I take huge offense to paying monthly for a game in order to get patches that should address game issues for free (ie. fixing existing bugs and or balance issues), and in addition to paying monthly already for new content, being asked again to pay for new content through an expansion.
I do not see any indication in the way any MMOs are run to impact any sort of straying from that train of thought when the current one "works", thus I believe World of Diablo would follow in WoWs "flawed by my eyes" approach.
Further, in order to appeal to as many people as possible, which is an MMO's goal, Diablo would have to be "tamed down" in order to have that mass market appeal and draw in younger players. Thus, Diablo would gain that same cartoony, young feel to it that WoW has, albeit with updated graphics and such.
You mentioned storyline in MMOs and I feel that if you were to adapt Diablo's theme to the same style of play, you would lose much of what makes the world of Diablo seem so deep. It would turn into generic fetch-quest #56 in order to give you another snippet of story which, aside from not feeling unique, would ultimately not have an "ending" per se as a normal game would.
Paying for entertainment time as you put it is also a bit different then you say. If I were a big fan of movies and no movies came out that month or even for a couple of months I can choose not to go, thus saving me money. I cannot do the same with MMOs as they currently are (I do not include Guild Wars in this statement nor any other non-standard MMOs). I don't pay, I don't play, and I lose everything I've up to that point. Regardless of the actual amount of entertainment value I get from the game, I'm still paying for it.
As well, I'm getting far more "bang for my buck" on any non-MMO game if you want to argue that route. Oblivion? Hundreds of hours and counting, as well as the game always being in a state of flux due to countless mods that I can choose to install or not to improve my own individual play experience. Disgaea? Hundreds of hours. Gran Tourismo 2? Same. Diablo II? Ditto. Guild Wars? I can keep going. What I am getting at is that your arguement of "bang for the buck" is ridiculous in the face of non-MMOs. Everyone has an "entertainment" budget. However with MMOs, you are "required" to pay an amount of that each month to one specific thing. If you want to see the latest Batman movie in addition to playing your game, you need to pay those movie costs in addition to what you are already paying for entertainment.
You say the following:
The monthly fee for an MMO is both reasonable and worthwhile. How many times have we all lamented and wished there were more patches for Diablo 2? If Diablo 3 works on a monthly fee model, that will not be a conern again. To me, it's worthwhile to pay to play.
Reasonable to you, not to me. I should not have to pay for patches that should fix issues in place from the start. Those issues should be fixed before launch or shortly after for free. Paying for patches is ridiculous. Sure I wish there were more updates to D2, but I also want the same for Final Fantasy Tactics. Guess what? I got more from D2 than I thought would happen, plus there are additions from modders as well for a change of pace. As well, paying monthly is by no means an indication that issues will be addressed in a timely fashion. What's more of a concern is how long will I have to pay in order to get my particular issue addressed?
I do NOT want anything from Diablo 2 gameplay wise honestly. I don't mind some references to D2 stuff ... be it with items carried over into D3 or some basic classes retained. Other than that, let's see something fresh and new. I don't want my "endgame" to be farming the same boss 500,000 times in order to collect every item in the game.
Then why not make Ragnarok: The New Beginning? Why make Diablo III and offer fans of the series something that they do not want? I want the gameplay to be untouched as far as the core style, just give me more options, more customizing, more trees, more freedom to make what I want.
So instead of one endboss, you want to be raiding one boss three million times until it drops something you need and you are lucky enough to win that turn's lottery to get it? I'm not seeing the improvement in what you are suggesting. The reason D2 and D1 is popular is due to the fast, easy fun style of gameplay that has you item-hunting throughout a deep story-rich world. You cannot get that same feel in an MMO.
I VERY MUCH would like to see the game be playable single player if one chooses. I know that's completely outside of the realm of current MMO game design but Blizzard has never played by everyone else's rules before ... why should they now?
Blizzard will play by their own rules and create a game that is going to do the same thing as WoW, pull in as many people as possible. They will do that by offering them the same thing as they've already done and known to succeed: WoW with a Diablo-lite flavoring. This is of course something I am rabidly opposed to, as I do not like WoW, nor any other current pay to play MMO.
I guess the bottom line for me is this. If Diablo 3 is just Diablo 2 with new graphics, a new storyline and other than that it plays and feels the same... I'd just as soon stick with Diablo 2. When it comes to the Diablo series, I don't think Blizzard can give it the "Starcraft 2" treatment and have it really succeed.
Why was God of War 2 so successful? Or the Chains of Promethia for PSP? was it because they offered something completely new and different from the current God of War game? Or was it because they offered more of the same, just expanded?
All I want is more of the same, just expanded. More story, more character class choices, more character look choices, more items, more skills, more enemies, and all with the same old feel of the first 2 games. If they change that they will lose what makes Diablo unique, as well as me as a potential buyer. I am looking for a sequel to Diablo, not WoD.
PerfectFifth
28-04-2008, 07:30
Lord_Jaroh...
Thank you for articulating absolutely everything I wanted to say.
aishilee
28-04-2008, 08:01
hmm. me too . a sequel to diablo. Not WOD.
I would venture a guess and say that people who continually play Diablo 2 to this point are getting some form of enjoyment out of it as they really have no obligation except to themselves to continue playing.
The endgame WoW environment works by consistently ensuring that no player has ever reached the end of the game while creating an environment in which an individual can accomplish nothing as an individual and must depend on a group that depends on them. Simply put, this allows Blizzard to use an individual's obligation to a group to keep playing to continue playing the game even after an individual's enjoyment of the game has long since worn out. Ever tried to solo a 25-man raid? Bet it didn't go over well. Ever tried to pug BT? Bet that didn't go over well either. To become sucessful at the game you must be consistent and reliable in some manner, playing the game like it's a job, even when you don't want to play and even when it conflicts with your actual life. Should you decide you want to take a break for awhile, you might as well be at square one as you'll innevitably find yourself having to search for a new group of players to play with as you've surely fallen behind. This is reinforced in Blizzard's insurance that you will never have all of the best items in the game, and if at any point you do, you can be sure that an expansion pack will come out soon that will have greens that will blow them away.
Simple things such as 48-hour cooldowns and one week resets on raid instances reinforce the idea of a player playing a game not for large amounts at a time, but spread out over weeks and months, which plays quite well into Blizzard's business model. It's obvious to see how Blizzard has used the very mechanics of the game to create one that causes players to play consistently and over a long period of time, often at the expense of enjoyment.
coldsong
28-04-2008, 15:46
I would venture a guess and say that people who continually play Diablo 2 to this point are getting some form of enjoyment out of it as they really have no obligation except to themselves to continue playing.
The endgame WoW environment works by consistently ensuring that no player has ever reached the end of the game while creating an environment in which an individual can accomplish nothing as an individual and must depend on a group that depends on them. Simply put, this allows Blizzard to use an individual's obligation to a group to keep playing to continue playing the game even after an individual's enjoyment of the game has long since worn out. Ever tried to solo a 25-man raid? Bet it didn't go over well. Ever tried to pug BT? Bet that didn't go over well either. To become sucessful at the game you must be consistent and reliable in some manner, playing the game like it's a job, even when you don't want to play and even when it conflicts with your actual life. Should you decide you want to take a break for awhile, you might as well be at square one as you'll innevitably find yourself having to search for a new group of players to play with as you've surely fallen behind. This is reinforced in Blizzard's insurance that you will never have all of the best items in the game, and if at any point you do, you can be sure that an expansion pack will come out soon that will have greens that will blow them away.
Simple things such as 48-hour cooldowns and one week resets on raid instances reinforce the idea of a player playing a game not for large amounts at a time, but spread out over weeks and months, which plays quite well into Blizzard's business model. It's obvious to see how Blizzard has used the very mechanics of the game to create one that causes players to play consistently and over a long period of time, often at the expense of enjoyment.
thats very true.
I think we can all agree that D2 model is preferable to WoW model. My only beef with non pay-to-play model is that its natural incentive to hackers, little kids and all other sorts of negative elements. What I dont want D3 to be is a raid-mentality game. I agree with all the posted who mentioned that it should be better and bigger D2 with constant upgrades and anti hacker/exploit support. For that i am willing to pay my hard earned 15 bucks a month.
mouseman
28-04-2008, 16:06
Okay, let me just speak out for all the players who don't play "only" 20 hours per week. I play more like 0-4 hours per week.
Paying for a game is not an option for me. I'm not that short on money, because I have a job on side of studying, but it would put me in a position where I "save money" the more I play. I dislike this very much.
Since the founder offers are really expensive there is no good option for me to play pay to play games. I have not played wow or any other such game. I will not ever pay a monthly fee. I know a lot of people who don't have such time to dedicate to a game and don't pay monthly fees, even though we enjoy gaming and have some LAN parties once in a while. These people don't usually write to a forum where 20 hours per week is considered to be "only".
Oh, and by the way, I would much rather go to a movie with my wife than play a computer game alone. The gaming industry really has to move on from teenage boys who can play 20+ hours a week. The gaming industry has to move on from those guys who act as teenage boys, as well :) There are so much untapped potential in gamers like us, who enjoy the game but don't want to pay to play. We browse the gaming megazines, get excited and then - no LAN, pay to play. Otherwise the initial cost of the game wouldn't be a problem for us.
And for the record, I have bought all my games with my own money and I still play D2:LoD sometimes. I just don't like the on/off mentality of the pay to play games.
Mcwhopper
28-04-2008, 16:08
Not paying for playing means : No real support, no continued patches, no moderators. I really don't mind paying 10 euro for regular patches regular fixes regular events and moderators. If someone scams me I want to send a mail to a GM and have that GM smack the scammer around. Raiding is not needed per se unless I get a lot more time on my hands. If I had plenty of time i would love WoD.
coldsong
28-04-2008, 16:14
a progressive system of pay would be nice...
$5 for a day of playing per month (24 hours)
$10 for 2 days (48 hours)
$30 for a week (168 hours online :O )
mouseman
28-04-2008, 16:16
Mmm this is real funny to me.
Since when did the monthly fee become only way to gain support to a game?
It's just basic logic that if you buy a game you are entitled to receive support for that game.
What you're saying is like this: I buy a video card, but I don't get drivers if I don't pay monthly fees. Oh, and if you want service packs and security patches for your windows - please pay a fee for that, too. Or wait, you could still use your windows but you can't even play a game you legally own, so it's even worse still.
It's just the nature of the computer industry, everything works like that: you pay a price, you get a product and support. I don't know why people started to go along with this pay to play crap.
For Blizzard to care about someone who plays 0-4 hours a week would be financial suicide.
mouseman
28-04-2008, 16:30
Really?
What does it really matter how much I play the game if I buy it? There are probably millions of people like me out there, who would buy a nice game and play it sometimes.
I agree that blizzard gets more money this way, but then you have to agree it's not about "providing patches" - it's about making money selling people something they should already own since they bought the game.
It's always funny for people to be so concerned about blizzard's financial state. As if WoW without monthly fees would've been a financial catastrophe.
And again, let's think this in another context:
"Dear Customer,
We are sorry to inform here at Nvidia that it would just be financial suicide for us to support your graphics card since you don't pay a monthly fee and simply put, you play too little. If you would be willing to increase your gaming time to twenty (20) hours per week and pay a fine of 15$, we would be willing to reconsider.
Yours sincerely,
The Nvidia team"
Now, it would be more financially beneficial to Nvidia to get monthly fees for their drivers, but it would seclude a lot of folks who wouldn't be willing to pay for it. If you have any sense in ethics at all, you know the answer to this problem.
coldsong
28-04-2008, 16:54
Mmm this is real funny to me.
Since when did the monthly fee become only way to gain support to a game?
It's just basic logic that if you buy a game you are entitled to receive support for that game.
What you're saying is like this: I buy a video card, but I don't get drivers if I don't pay monthly fees. Oh, and if you want service packs and security patches for your windows - please pay a fee for that, too. Or wait, you could still use your windows but you can't even play a game you legally own, so it's even worse still.
It's just the nature of the computer industry, everything works like that: you pay a price, you get a product and support. I don't know why people started to go along with this pay to play crap.
look, what you are saying is right and thats the way things OUGHT to be. But they arent. Games without monthly fees die out. Look at titan quest - massively successful, yet their company closed down.
Look at D2 where hacking is rampant and TFT to lesser extent, and these are holy blizzard's creations.
SHOULD they provide best customer care when we only pay for the cd-key? yes.
DO they?
no!
live with it.
mouseman
28-04-2008, 17:00
I get your point, but have to disagree.
Diablo 2 has been hugely successful. Why? Because they patched and patched it and people kept buying the game. As for expansion packs instead of "continuing patches", LoD speaks for itself being the most successful expansion pack ever.
As for the hacking in diablo 2, it's largely because the game is so old.
The last I was checking, the gaming industries wanted to expanse their player base to more age groups and also gender-wisely. I feel like we are moving backwards on this with pay to play games. As long as the gaming industry only makes games for people who play 20+ hours per week, I don't see this "expansion in player base" happening any time soon.
I feel sorry for Titan Quest. But the reason it died was the lack of multiplayer servers which led to piratism and hacks. You should force people to buy the game, not force people to pay to play the game you've bought. With secure multiplayer servers (and the investment money needed) it could've been a different tale. Blizzard has the money to make it happen, so it's no excuse. And by the way, I bought the game - how many of you can say the same thing? From that we can find the real reason the company is closed down.
Why do I feel like people have been brainwashed?
coldsong
28-04-2008, 17:51
really? so you are saying people didnt dupe the hell out of crazy rares and SOJs in the first year D2 was out? and that blizz deleted them? lol.
Or that maphack wasnt created as soon as Wc3:RoC was out? And a newer and newer version consequently for every WC3 Roc/TFT patch?
Brainwashed? Rather realistic about what to expect from a game that only profits from a single box sale.
ILackEmpathy
28-04-2008, 18:13
IMO I wouldn't care much bout the fee of the game but rather the balance of it. I wouldn't want every ****ing kid in town grushing for CS runs or uberleveling. Rather have teamwork to party and level. Private room opening would be good *base on d2* but hope they do something about searching for rooms. Its pretty annoying to see all those people selling **** and opening rooms every other second.. should have some kinda raid thing or *baaling* kinda thing. If i have to pay to make bots and spammerbots to stop i would do it. Items hoping generate rares and blues like now, a larger pool of choices would be nice rather then every one holding a goddamn hoto and other rws, good to have differences. Graphic - hope its top down view and don't have to be all wtf1337 graphic, pass-able is good.
explain to me how D2 is not a MMO?
Single Player Mode.
coldsong
28-04-2008, 18:26
IMO I wouldn't care much bout the fee of the game but rather the balance of it. I wouldn't want every ****ing kid in town grushing for CS runs or uberleveling. Rather have teamwork to party and level. Private room opening would be good *base on d2* but hope they do something about searching for rooms. Its pretty annoying to see all those people selling **** and opening rooms every other second.. should have some kinda raid thing or *baaling* kinda thing. If i have to pay to make bots and spammerbots to stop i would do it. Items hoping generate rares and blues like now, a larger pool of choices would be nice rather then every one holding a goddamn hoto and other rws, good to have differences. Graphic - hope its top down view and don't have to be all wtf1337 graphic, pass-able is good.
agreed. constant balancing patches would be nice too, like in wow, so all the classes are equally good in their areas of expertise and there are no crazy all around monsters :O (hammadin)
And then we come back to the fact that Diablo 3 could be set up completely different from WoW. Look at Guild Wars for a few good ideas on layered instancing. And for whoever asked if I'd ever tried to solo a large raid in WoW ... yes. I've solo'd Onyxia and done Molten Core with 3 people.
Also. My wife and I play WoW together, so I neither sit alone at my computer to play nor am I a teenage male. Steretypes and poor assumptions aren't helpful in the least.
There are so many positives that come along with pay to play. Nobody says that pay to play or MMO means World of Diablo. There are quite a few examples already on the market of pay to play games that aren't set up like WoW. Off the top of my head, the positives include:
Guild systems and housing / storage
Additional content continuously
Faster bug fixes and patches (Whereas patches for D2 were really spread out, not monthly)
More customer support (I can get a GM response within an hour in WoW ... how long does it take to get support for D2? Can it even be done?)
A less abusive environment (Hacks, stealing, language, etc...)
I'm sure there's way more that I'm not aware of. Honestly, the biggest objection I see here is people who don't want to pay to play their game. Unfortunately the reality is that servers and bandwidth cost money. The more complicated a game becomes, the more resources it's going to take. I'm not sure D3 would be supportable on the battle.net system, and I'm even less convinced I would WANT it to be.
You did so after BC came out, in BC gear, at which point it didn't matter because Onyxia's drops are crap relative to BC gear. Crappy loopholes are crap.
Tell me, Drixx, when have you ever heard NCSoft refer to Guild Wars as an MMO? Have you ever paid a monthly fee for Guild Wars?
When we discovered that you could exploit AB to five-cap before the game had even started, do you know what Blizzard told us? Working as intended.
When we discovered that it was possible to fall through the Undercity, do you know what Blizzard told us? Working as intended.
When we were camped for three hours by three guys on a rooftop (it's against Blizzard's TOU -- read it), do you know what they told us? Deal with it.
When my buddy said a bad word in public chat, the CMs were on him in seconds. I detect some inconsistencies.
If you recall from the Diablo 2 beta (which you might not, I don't know), guild halls were originally planned for Diablo 2 but had to be scrapped due to time constraints (they were scrapped again in the expansion for the same reason). You might also want to note that Diablo 2 was relatively clean until Warcraft 3 entered beta testing; early Diablo 2 players may remember the weekend from hell back in late 2000 when the realms were flooded with duplicate items and hardcore characters were killed en masse in towns. So you know what Blizzard did? They fixed the exploit and rolled the realms back two weeks. I don't recall paying a monthly fee for that. Let's compare this to a little scenario I ran into during my WoW playing.
When the Burning Crusade came out, my friends and I thought it would be a good idea to roll new characters on a new realm that had been launched to co-incide with the expansion. For those of you keeping track, the realm was called Shattered Halls and is still up and running. From the get go this server had problems that was mostly based around the fact that the horde outnumbered the alliance seven to one, meaning battleground ques were horrendously long (the entire battlegroup was launched with the expansion pack and had simillarly bad A:H ratios so there was a total lack of alliance in general) if you were horde and leveling was brutal if you were alliance as you were virtually guaranteed to be surrounded by horde at every turn. A month or two later I found myself in being the position of being one of the two level 70s on the entire realm and then eventually finding myself in the position of being the leader of the only three guilds that raided on that server. I played on that server for six months before paying $35 for a transfer off (I live in Canada). Why? Because despite repeated complaints to Blizzard, nothing was being done to justify paying $20 a month to continue playing there:
- The ratio was still pushing 7:1 and I distinctly remember waiting four and a half hours to get into WSG on WSG weekend
- One warlock - I can't remember his name, started with an m - literally had a monopoly on the economy as he had consistently bought out the entire auction house and relisted it for higher prices; I remember seeing a screenshot of the game telling him he can't carry anymore gold as he had hit the cap
- The top Alliance guild (the only Alliance guild that had raided at the time) had rolled off of the server so there was literally no competition for the horde
- The Horde population was also quite tiny and we had maybe 6000 people total, making us one of the least populated servers.
Could Blizzard have fixed this? Certainly! They could have opened up free alliance-side transfers to the realm, or simply merged it with a realm that had alliance bias. If they knew they couldn't have fixed the realm, they could have provided free transfers off the realm and simply shut it down. Did they? No, and instead they ignored our complaints. I'm told there's one guild in Black Temple now, but nobody should have to wait that long -- especially if they're paying $20 a month -- to see results.
The fact is it's inherent for a company seeking to make money to design an MMORPG with the intention being lastability, not gameplay. I don't like to believe these things but it's quite apparent that there are no morals involved in capitalism and that a company has no inherent obligations from being paid a monthly fee as long as they can keep their customers hooked; if you'd like to believe otherwise you're free to but you've yet to present me some consistent evidence.
EDIT: I paid for WoW from launch until about four months ago, taking numerous breaks in between. If Blizzard was prepared to make a game that I would enjoy and that wasn't tailored just to keep me playing, I would gladly pay a monthly fee for it, but that's in stark contrat to the principles of Capitalism.
mouseman
28-04-2008, 20:41
Yes, people started duping back in 2000. Although the game was relatively new, it was based on the technology available then. You simply can't patch the core of the game. Now it is a different world and with this technology a game can be cheat-free without pay to play - fear politics are just as efficient in running for president as they are in getting people to pay to play. So yeah, brainwashed.
I was speaking generally about the age of gamers out there and how the industry wants more diversity but they only seem to appeal teenagers or those who started gaming as a teenager. I belong to this group so I'm not saying it is a bad thing. I'm just saying that if you want to diversify, monthly fees are the wrong way to go.
And as the two previous posters pointed out, there are two sides of a coin. Monthly fee doesn't necessary guarantee sufficient support whereas games without monthly fee can "surprise" you. I don't think it's fair to compare a nearly ten-year-old game to the world's most successful game ever. If you compare what D2 promised and what it gave to what WoW promises and what it sometimes fails to give (as Me2NiK pointed out), I've got myself a pretty obvious winner.
Guild systems and housing / storage
Additional content continuously
Faster bug fixes and patches (Whereas patches for D2 were really spread out, not monthly)
More customer support (I can get a GM response within an hour in WoW ... how long does it take to get support for D2? Can it even be done?)
A less abusive environment (Hacks, stealing, language, etc...)
I'm not a MMO guy. What's Guild systems and housing/storage? Why would I want this? From what I'm gathering out of the context of how "guild" is used it sounds like a clan basically. I've never been a fan of clans. I'm more of a move at my own pace type of guy and I don't want to feel obligated to anyone else.
If you've noticed a number of us have said we don't want additional content continuously. We want a game with a start and an end. We want to feel like we've done it all and the satisfaction that comes from that.
Bugs should be fixed no matter what. I know that is sort of an ideal view but it's the truth. Though since I'm still playing Diablo I guess the bug fixes we've gotten are good enough for me.
I've never contacted customer support once for Diablo. I don't see why I should pay for more when I haven't needed any.
I don't care about bad language. I don't know what this stealing is that you speak of. I've grown used to hacks. It's not the end of the world IMO.
So, far I see only negatives to MMO.
It also sounds like you really enjoy MMO and just want a new one from Blizzard. There's nothing wrong with that, but I doubt you're going to convince everyone to jump on board. A lot of us just want an update to a game style we like. I think we're just arguing in circles.
Dorfoumous
28-04-2008, 21:13
Let me say a few things:
A MMO format doesn't mean NO HACKS or CHEATING...I see this countless times...well if we pay a montly fee that means it will be hack free. NO! it doesn't...Let me take you back to Everquest.. people we hacking that game, and not to mention selling characters on EBAY...people do that with WOW
The reason why Diablo 2 LOD has so many hacks and crap is because its old and the game coding sucks. If they would change the coding around in the next patch...problem would be solved. Also make it so you can't ALT-TAB out of the game, that would ruin about 50% or more of the trainers/hacks that are for diablo.
By making Diablo 3 a MMO..you are going to ruin the story line, its not going to have a storyline which is common in MMO's....
Single player isn't going to be available.
Not to mention a point that a lot of people are missing:
If Diablo 3 as an MMO isn't as popular as WoW do you really think Blizz is going to support it? Why waste the money for it when they can shut it down, cut the losses and keep WoW as their cash cow...rather than waste the money for a not-so popluar game that is taking up a lot of resources.
Not to mention IMO a lot of WoW players won't switch over to diablo 3 because..why start over "when I have my 75 level pwner char?" and why the crap would you play both and pay for two mmos.
only if Diablo 3 is more popular than WoW will diablo 3 work as an MMO..
If not, Diablo will be a dead franchise that they will do nothing about...
Its better to make diablo 3 like Diablo 2, and have WoW be the cash cow.
not mention that the classic diablo 2 player isn't going to buy a MMO Diablo 3... because they don't want to pay for a game that they only play for 4 hours a week.
coldsong
28-04-2008, 21:41
i agree that D3 should be like D2 with more stuff, but i wouldnt mind paying 10-15 dollars a month. The fact that it would scare kiddies/hackers away from it is enough for me, support is a nice bonus.
btw when i say hackers are less likely to try a p2p game is because they will be more afraid to get banned. The only true hack ever created for wow was speedhack and anyone noticed with it to a GM was immediately banned.
<His post>
:thumbsup:
It also sounds like you really enjoy MMO and just want a new one from Blizzard. There's nothing wrong with that, but I doubt you're going to convince everyone to jump on board. A lot of us just want an update to a game style we like. I think we're just arguing in circles.
:thumbsup: Agreed.
I wouldn't be surprised if the "Next Gen MMO" Blizzard speaks of is Wow2 w/ updated everything especially graphics. I think i'd be a bit shocked if they reverted back to the RTS style to continue the Warcraft storyline. This would, of course, take years to create, which would mean they would need to start working on the project yesterday <Hense recruiting for Next-Gen MMO now>. Just a thought
diabloegghead
29-04-2008, 00:50
WoW has come down in price here in the states since it originally came out. Blizzard has put battle chests out where you get 30 days free + game + expansion for 40$. I believe WoW's P2P can be set up so you pay for a 1/2 year at a time and its only 13$ a month. First years cost is 196$ and subsequent years are 156$. (plus some taxing of course). If they made the cost of Diablo 3 comparable to that, I wouldn't mind paying if the game is good and they update it regularly.
So what will the game cost you after 7 years of playing? Are you willing to spend that kind of money for 1 game? I'm not!
diabloegghead
29-04-2008, 00:51
i agree that D3 should be like D2 with more stuff, but i wouldnt mind paying 10-15 dollars a month. The fact that it would scare kiddies/hackers away from it is enough for me, support is a nice bonus.
btw when i say hackers are less likely to try a p2p game is because they will be more afraid to get banned. The only true hack ever created for wow was speedhack and anyone noticed with it to a GM was immediately banned.
so you are saying that we shouldn't try to bring in new gamers to the best game in the world?
coldsong
29-04-2008, 00:55
its rated M. by kiddies i mean immature 12yolds
delosombres
29-04-2008, 22:04
so you are saying that we shouldn't try to bring in new gamers to the best game in the world?
No. Not worth trying when you'll risk a loss of millions Diablo fanboyz. Have you noticed that the Starcraft 2 is a radically different game than the original? No, it isn't, there is no reason for that, cause 10M+ milions fanboyz will play it. Blizzard doesn't care about new kiddie console gamers who know a s**t about the Starcraft (and Diablo respectively) game.
PerfectFifth
30-04-2008, 03:25
It's going to come down to economics. It would be ridiculous for Blizzard to create a direct competitor to WoW, its own game. Blizzard will creat another MMO when WoW's popularity begins to wane. If D3 is slated for release before that happens, it will very likely NOT be a MMO. Intead, it will cater to the desires of this "aging" D2 market of gamers with jobs that want a linear single player plot and can play as often or as little as they please.
Capitalism is all about getting a bigger piece of the pie. Whatever they can do to make the most money is what will be done.
Lord_Jaroh
30-04-2008, 04:51
It's going to come down to economics. It would be ridiculous for Blizzard to create a direct competitor to WoW, its own game. Blizzard will creat another MMO when WoW's popularity begins to wane. If D3 is slated for release before that happens, it will very likely NOT be a MMO. Intead, it will cater to the desires of this "aging" D2 market of gamers with jobs that want a linear single player plot and can play as often or as little as they please.
Capitalism is all about getting a bigger piece of the pie. Whatever they can do to make the most money is what will be done.
Actually, what I see a little bit of a different scenerio. Diablo III will come out to garner interest in the line again, much like Warcraft 3 did in the Warcraft line, and also announce a Diablo Online game. The reason for the MMO will be two-fold: one to grab the adult gamers who will be playing other MMOs (ie. Conan), and also to have a new MMO in place before interest in WoW dies off. This way they don't lose money to the "waning" of the game that will naturally happen over time, by having a "next-generation" MMO ready to go off the hop.
Of course, that's my hope so that we all get the best of both worlds: us with a sequel to our game series, and others with the MMO that they want.
It's not so much that I want it to be an MMO, but that I'm convinced it likely will be, and that was really the basis of my post. The original WoW game had a culmination. If you did it all in order, the final step was Naxx and bringing down the necropolis.
BC had a storyline. If you did it in order you took out the major demonic threats to the world. Magtheridan is dead, Gruul is dead, Vashj is dead, Kael is dead, Illidan is dead, the plot to bring Kil'jaedan into the world was foiled. There is a story to WoW, and it starts at level one and if you dig story you can progress through the entire thing and see it all, and it's pretty darned cool.
The thing about an MMO that confuses people is the replayability. In reality, if you do something a second (or third,fourth,etc...) time, you're revisiting a favorite part of the story. As a level 10 horde character, I get to "discover" the shadow council and the threat the bring to the world of Azeroth as I go into Ragefire Chasm, and I get to put an end to it. Eventually that thread comes to a conclusion as I fight to keep Kil'Jaeden from entering the world.
Despite the common assertation that in MMO's storylines never finish, that is not the case. Individual storylines conclude all the time in MMO's ... there's just always new ones to pursue if you want. And you can always go back and re-do old storylines :)
AluminumKnight
30-04-2008, 22:14
I have faith in Blizzard. They have succeeded with basically all of their games. Now, having said that, I don't think WoW is my cup of tea, what with all the cartoonish graphics and stuff, but I would bet you that if I bought it and started playing, I would play, at least for awhile.
If Blizzard makes a Diablo MMORPG, I'm sure it will be great. I also don't think they're going to make a WoW-clone style MMO. Knowing Blizzard, it will be something innovative, probably something none of us have thought of here.
Maybe I'm putting too much faith in them?
Dorfoumous
30-04-2008, 22:22
Maybe I'm putting too much faith in them?
Thats an understatement...
<rant> :soapbox:
I'm still waiting on Starcraft Ghost...
And SC2 comes out what 10 years later?
All because of WoW being an MMORPG..
Sorry, but I'll be honest, ever since Blizz closed down North, I've lost all interest in them, and don't really care for them anymore.
Will SC2 be great. Yeah, will I buy it... I don't know, IF IT EVER COMES OUT!
I don't care what the reason is, or why, or whatever excuses they have, Diablo III should have came out no later than 2003-2004...ITS 2008!!!
</rant>
Hopefully, Diablo III won't be an MMO. I really hope not. And from the poll I made a few days ago...a lot of people agree.
Angel_of_Wrath
01-05-2008, 01:30
First, would I pay $10/month for D3. Yes, yes I would. $10 would keep the kiddies out and hopefully less hacking.
Do I want it to be WoW style MMO.... No.
The Diablo series have always been driven by the single player storyline and cinematics, which fans have been salivating for more of. I'm drooling right now! WoW was so successful, in part, because they brought down the rating to a Teen level and opened up the market to almost anyone. If they do this to Diablo, they have failed IMO.
Diablo has characters like: The Butcher who resides in a room covered in blood; The Countess who bathed in the blood of a hundred virgins; dead rogues impaled on spikes; hordes of goatmen huddled around cauldrons of blood; the Lord of Terror possessing a young boy's dreams in order to manifest himself; Inarius having his angel wings and eyelids ripped off and being shoved in a room of mirrors for eternity. That **** is gruesome and awesome, and what the franchise was built upon. :laugh:
Part of what makes Blizzard 'Blizzard' is their rep. Making another epic, single-player-capable, online Diablo game in isometric view with improved graphics/chars/weapons/levels/skills, a wicked soundtrack, epic cinematics, and some new innovations would further their rep as delivering the best games. It would be another investment for their future and fan-base, which also makes parent companies happy.
delosombres
01-05-2008, 02:30
First, would I pay $10/month for D3. Yes, yes I would. $10 would keep the kiddies out and hopefully less hacking.
Do I want it to be WoW style MMO.... No.
The Diablo series have always been driven by the single player storyline and cinematics, which fans have been salivating for more of. I'm drooling right now! WoW was so successful, in part, because they brought down the rating to a Teen level and opened up the market to almost anyone. If they do this to Diablo, they have failed IMO.
Diablo has characters like: The Butcher who resides in a room covered in blood; The Countess who bathed in the blood of a hundred virgins; dead rogues impaled on spikes; hordes of goatmen huddled around cauldrons of blood; the Lord of Terror possessing a young boy's dreams in order to manifest himself; Inarius having his angel wings and eyelids ripped off and being shoved in a room of mirrors for eternity. That **** is gruesome and awesome, and what the franchise was built upon. :laugh:
Part of what makes Blizzard 'Blizzard' is their rep. Making another epic, single-player-capable, online Diablo game in isometric view with improved graphics/chars/weapons/levels/skills, a wicked soundtrack, epic cinematics, and some new innovations would further their rep as delivering the best games. It would be another investment for their future and fan-base, which also makes parent companies happy.
Amen dude.
Mestre Crjspim
01-05-2008, 23:28
Making another epic, single-player-capable, online Diablo game in isometric view with improved graphics/chars/weapons/levels/skills, a wicked soundtrack, epic cinematics, and some new innovations would further their rep as delivering the best games.
The evolution from Diablo to Diablo II was much more than simple innovations in game play. In some sort, they "redesigned" the skill use. So, I believe that Diablo III will have some surprises that we don't expect (and maybe some are not ready for it!?)... and I belive that the fact that the most influent Diablo programmers/creators left Blizzard is one more reason for "redesign" the gameplay.
I'm just speculating... and these are not my wishes. I would stick with what you have stated above for DIII, Angel of Wrath.
BTW, The Warlord of Blood is the perfect example of a character that "incarnates" (or not!!) the pure deep evil in the Diablo lore.
The armories of Hell are home to the Warlord of Blood.
In his wake lay the mutilated bodies of thousands.
Angels and man alike have been cut down to
fulfill his endless sacrifices to the dark ones
who scream for one thing - blood
In "Steel Tome", Diablo
BTW, The Warlord of Blood is the perfect example of a character that "incarnates" (or not!!) the pure deep evil in the Diablo lore.
The armories of Hell are home to the Warlord of Blood.
In his wake lay the mutilated bodies of thousands.
Angels and man alike have been cut down to
fulfill his endless sacrifices to the dark ones
who scream for one thing - blood
In "Steel Tome", Diablo
Diablo 1 certainly did have more of a dark, evil, & twisted sense to it. :grin: D2 Definitly lacks great tombs like the one above. I hope they bring out more of the Diablo 1 feel of pure, raw evil & corruption to the next game
Mestre Crjspim
02-05-2008, 01:01
Diablo 1 certainly did have more of a dark, evil, & twisted sense to it. :grin: D2 Definitly lacks great tombs like the one above. I hope they bring out more of the Diablo 1 feel of pure, raw evil & corruption to the next game
100% agreed!!! In fact I had some "difficulties" adapting and enjoying Diablo II when I first started playing it, because I really had huge expectations ona dark and twisted aura. With time I got used to it, but I still venture in the dephts os Tristam's monastery just to feel the "kick" of that awsome dungeons...
Dorfoumous
05-05-2008, 20:12
I kinda wish that they would spend more time on the Single Player aspect, rather than the Multiplayer.
I am surprised it took as long for people to start crunching numbers on the cost of an MMO. Props to Dorfous for being the first. The truth is, Drixx offers us an invalid comparison in the OP. Playing computers games is not like watching movies in a movie theater. Cost comparisons are meaningless (and misleading). A valid comparison would examine two games and their costs... say, i don't know, WoW and Diablo 2. Drixx conceded that one of the standards for determining the merit of a sequel would be "can i play it for 7+ years?". If, as Dorfous noted, you played WoW for 7 years, you would've dished out almost 1,300 dollars in montly fees... and that doesn't include the money spent on actual gameplay CDs (original + expansions). This is in contrast to between 30 and 70 dollars (depending on when and where you bought the game) spent on D2.
I can't give you a cost/hour comparison because for every hour that you play D2, the cost actually goes down. In contrast to WoW where, considering that y ou have to buy expansion packs inaddition to monthly fees, the cost goes up!
As I see it, anyone willing to pay over a thousand dollars for a video game loses credibity as a rational human being. The only way to make it sound reasonable is through fallacies of comparison. In short, if D3 has a fixed monthly fee, i'll stick with D2.
Mestre Crjspim
08-05-2008, 02:04
If Blizzard wants Diablo III to be a monthly-fee MMO, then Diablo III will be a monthly-fee MMO no matter what. Being so, and if everyone that say they'll stick to Diablo II if Diablo III is monthly-fee based, actually do so, Blizzard will have no other option but to transform the creepy, gothic Diablo into a WoW-ish childlike Diablo. It's a matter of money and sales volume. Although I clearly belive that Blizzard will not go on canibalism on one of their best selling products (WoW). Which brings us to other point, if Diablo is going to be a monthly-fee MMO, then we will have to wait a long, very long indeed, time to even hear something about it.
Blizzard have already showed that their main concern, as any other enterprise, is to make money and to follow their (administration?) ideias. Blizzard North was, infortunetly, a victim of that... I just hope that Diablo series won't be the nest one.
As I see it, anyone willing to pay over a thousand dollars for a video game loses credibity as a rational human being. The only way to make it sound reasonable is through fallacies of comparison. In short, if D3 has a fixed monthly fee, i'll stick with D2.
That's a pretty harsh statement. It's not a fallacious comparison that I made. You can look at it either way ... you can compare the cost of an MMO to the cost of a non-p2p game, in which case the non-p2p game always comes out ahead. That's just common sense.
My original argument about the cost for time spent still holds. I never said it was as efficient as D2. I just pointed out that it's far more efficient than other forms of entertainment. Cable TV, movie rental, going out to the movies ... it's all more cost per time spent enjoying it. While an MMO is more expensive as a game choice than other games, it remains a very solid entertainment money choice for time spent.
I do not appreciate you saying that I lose credibility as a rational human being. My argument is definately sound as it is far cheaper for my time to play an MMO than to do any of the following for entertainment:
1.) Go to the movies
2.) RENT a movie
3.) Subscribe to cable TV
It is also true that it's cheaper per time to purchase a game like Diablo 2. Funny that ... I own a copy of D2 ... maybe I'm more rational a human being than you thought?
Lord_Jaroh
09-05-2008, 14:43
My argument is definately sound as it is far cheaper for my time to play an MMO than to do any of the following for entertainment:
1.) Go to the movies
2.) RENT a movie
3.) Subscribe to cable TV
Except that ou do not stop doing any of those things when you pick up an MMO. You continue to do them, in addition to, so instead of making your monthly budget for entertainment lighter, it actually adds to it. I don't just stop liking movies that I want to see just because I play an MMO, nor do I all of a sudden start hating T.V. This is why you arguement is false.
What MMOs "should" be replacing are things you do as a hobby, such as sports or other video games. But if you spend very little on your original hobby, then your cost again goes up. Or if you try to do more than 1 hobby, again your cost rises.
There is also one bonus that movies/t.v. has that you did not touch on. Sure, time spent on the MMO may end up being cheaper overall in the long run, but if I feel like an action movie/show, I can watch that or if I feel like a drama I can choose that one. You cannot do the same with an MMO. You are stuck with the one you choose unless you play multiple ones, and then the cost begins to skyrocket. There is something to be said for having a choice in what to do. MMOs don't give you that choice.
Lord Jaroh ... it's not a safe assumption to read into what I do with my entertainment budget ... or anyone else for that matter. I was a very early adopter with mmo's, starting with Ultima Online, EverQuest and Asheron's Call... my investment in them is into the thousands of dollars.
Cable TV costs $1200 a year.
I watch maybe 5 hours of tv a week ... do I lose credibility as a rational human being because I pay $1200 a years for cable tv which I Watch a mere 250 hours a year?
Mestre Crjspim
11-05-2008, 01:21
Having a family is going to raise your TV watch time. Let's say you have 4 more people in your house and everyone watches TV the same 5 hour/week... in that case you'll have 1250 hours per year, lowering your cost per hour drasticlly. On the other hand, if you're the only one playing the MMO, you will not have a ratio like this.
I read the start of this thread, and the last page of this thread. I don't want to go into the argument of cost per hour. If Blizzard want to charge us to play online they will. The people who want to play it will pay it. (I won't.)
What elements I want from Diablo III has no doubt been repeated time and again throughout this thread.
I know there there will be elements taken from Diablo II (names, places, storylines, items, characters, and so forth.)
I know there will be elements taken from World of Warcraft Online, purely because they are merely extrusions of elements taken from Diablo II. I'm sure this will all be done in good taste to keep most people happy some way or another.
But what I *want* is an interactive world. A place where the storyline changes based on your choices in quests and alliances.
To give a Diablo 2 version of how this could have worked: You find the Horadric Malus. You can give it to the blacksmith Charsi, and get an item imbued (and keep the rogue camp alliance) or you can give it to the merchant and get something else - some other reward which is unique only to him. If you give it to the blacksmith, the merchant over charges you for gambling and sales. If you give it to the merchant, the rogues don't like you, and charge to heal, or over charge to fix equipment. Or ignore you completely. (It *was* theirs, after all..)
In this regard, the world itself can then evolve as the story does. Later on, you need something from the rogues, but every choice you made angered them? Now you have to fight your way back into the camp to steal it.
Perhaps Charsi leaves the village to kill the merchant (who wisely fled the village) and becomes a major villian in the gameworld story. You then either have to chase her down (and let the original supervillian improve greatly) or continue your journey, but are potentially overwhelmed by this new growing threat - the corrupted Charsi.
Or if you take the other path, and the rogues are your allies, perhaps the merchant then leaves and his ally merchants in other towns work together to deny you of sales. You're forced to contact the merchant guild's guildmaster and a new story line develops. You're either forced into their employ to make things right (making something else wrong somewhere else) or you kill the guildmaster, and make matters worse in some ways but better in others.
With this model, each online game evolves differently for the small group of players who have connected. Similarly, every time you connect to an online game already established, you have no idea who the current supervillian *is*. Is there a necromancer filling the world with undead, from some remote corner of the first act? Or is there a powerful demon (akin to the likes of Baal or Mephisto) walking the land, not confined to his prison?
This model has a world that is never solved, and a game that never ends. Combine this with characters that are built to defeat one super villain but will be crushed by another, and you're forever needing to improve your game. It can be single player, it can be multiplayer. You don't have to grind - in fact, the storyline is every bit as fulfilling as the character building.
And every little thing you do - even between who you choose to sell your junk to - has an impact on the environment and the outcome of the game.
Stop one super villian from emerging, and another appears in its place. Or - in the ultimate experience - become the super villian yourself.
That's what *I* want from an "RPG" (or even "ARPG") game. A variable, interactive, world.
Sure the war between heaven and hell rages, but who is allied with each? And who will you ally with for victory - this time?
Mestre Crjspim
11-05-2008, 12:00
Smells like a MMO...
Smells a bit like Fallout...
I think that cogline was suggesting that this all takes place in the current D2 MP config, each person sets up their own game & people join it, the game creator's actions would define who the baddies are (unless I've misunderstood it).
piggybank
13-05-2008, 06:47
If D3 turns out to be an MMO, I really, really hope they don't try to shove that "tank/healer/dps" crap down our throats with it.
D2 was great, because you could play any class you wanted and be just as useful in a group as anyone else. Everyone was DPS, basically. Yeah, some characters could "tank", but the classes that can't really tank had compensating abilities.
What I hate about WoW is that grouping is such a pain. In D2, grouping is instant, and even in the odd times when I can't find a game to join, I can just start my own and work toward my current goal by myself and hope people join me... something that's simply impossible in WoW.
I read the start of this thread, and the last page of this thread. I don't want to go into the argument of cost per hour. If Blizzard want to charge us to play online they will. The people who want to play it will pay it. (I won't.)
What elements I want from Diablo III has no doubt been repeated time and again throughout this thread.
I know there there will be elements taken from Diablo II (names, places, storylines, items, characters, and so forth.)
I know there will be elements taken from World of Warcraft Online, purely because they are merely extrusions of elements taken from Diablo II. I'm sure this will all be done in good taste to keep most people happy some way or another.
But what I *want* is an interactive world. A place where the storyline changes based on your choices in quests and alliances.
To give a Diablo 2 version of how this could have worked: You find the Horadric Malus. You can give it to the blacksmith Charsi, and get an item imbued (and keep the rogue camp alliance) or you can give it to the merchant and get something else - some other reward which is unique only to him. If you give it to the blacksmith, the merchant over charges you for gambling and sales. If you give it to the merchant, the rogues don't like you, and charge to heal, or over charge to fix equipment. Or ignore you completely. (It *was* theirs, after all..)
In this regard, the world itself can then evolve as the story does. Later on, you need something from the rogues, but every choice you made angered them? Now you have to fight your way back into the camp to steal it.
Perhaps Charsi leaves the village to kill the merchant (who wisely fled the village) and becomes a major villian in the gameworld story. You then either have to chase her down (and let the original supervillian improve greatly) or continue your journey, but are potentially overwhelmed by this new growing threat - the corrupted Charsi.
Or if you take the other path, and the rogues are your allies, perhaps the merchant then leaves and his ally merchants in other towns work together to deny you of sales. You're forced to contact the merchant guild's guildmaster and a new story line develops. You're either forced into their employ to make things right (making something else wrong somewhere else) or you kill the guildmaster, and make matters worse in some ways but better in others.
With this model, each online game evolves differently for the small group of players who have connected. Similarly, every time you connect to an online game already established, you have no idea who the current supervillian *is*. Is there a necromancer filling the world with undead, from some remote corner of the first act? Or is there a powerful demon (akin to the likes of Baal or Mephisto) walking the land, not confined to his prison?
This model has a world that is never solved, and a game that never ends. Combine this with characters that are built to defeat one super villain but will be crushed by another, and you're forever needing to improve your game. It can be single player, it can be multiplayer. You don't have to grind - in fact, the storyline is every bit as fulfilling as the character building.
And every little thing you do - even between who you choose to sell your junk to - has an impact on the environment and the outcome of the game.
Stop one super villian from emerging, and another appears in its place. Or - in the ultimate experience - become the super villian yourself.
That's what *I* want from an "RPG" (or even "ARPG") game. A variable, interactive, world.
Sure the war between heaven and hell rages, but who is allied with each? And who will you ally with for victory - this time?
Your entire post is a description of what layered instancing is ... and yes, that would be AWESOME :)
Dorfoumous
13-05-2008, 22:07
and that means no single player..
and an MMO that you have to pay for..
no thanks.
and that means no single player..
and an MMO that you have to pay for..
no thanks.
MMO does not necessarily mean no singleplayer. Minions of Mirth ... google it. The graphics are awful but the gameplay is pretty good.
Angel_of_Wrath
15-05-2008, 22:19
I read the start of this thread, and the last page of this thread. I don't want to go into the argument of cost per hour. If Blizzard want to charge us to play online they will. The people who want to play it will pay it. (I won't.)
What elements I want from Diablo III has no doubt been repeated time and again throughout this thread.
I know there there will be elements taken from Diablo II (names, places, storylines, items, characters, and so forth.)
I know there will be elements taken from World of Warcraft Online, purely because they are merely extrusions of elements taken from Diablo II. I'm sure this will all be done in good taste to keep most people happy some way or another.
But what I *want* is an interactive world. A place where the storyline changes based on your choices in quests and alliances.
To give a Diablo 2 version of how this could have worked: You find the Horadric Malus. You can give it to the blacksmith Charsi, and get an item imbued (and keep the rogue camp alliance) or you can give it to the merchant and get something else - some other reward which is unique only to him. If you give it to the blacksmith, the merchant over charges you for gambling and sales. If you give it to the merchant, the rogues don't like you, and charge to heal, or over charge to fix equipment. Or ignore you completely. (It *was* theirs, after all..)
In this regard, the world itself can then evolve as the story does. Later on, you need something from the rogues, but every choice you made angered them? Now you have to fight your way back into the camp to steal it.
Perhaps Charsi leaves the village to kill the merchant (who wisely fled the village) and becomes a major villian in the gameworld story. You then either have to chase her down (and let the original supervillian improve greatly) or continue your journey, but are potentially overwhelmed by this new growing threat - the corrupted Charsi.
Or if you take the other path, and the rogues are your allies, perhaps the merchant then leaves and his ally merchants in other towns work together to deny you of sales. You're forced to contact the merchant guild's guildmaster and a new story line develops. You're either forced into their employ to make things right (making something else wrong somewhere else) or you kill the guildmaster, and make matters worse in some ways but better in others.
With this model, each online game evolves differently for the small group of players who have connected. Similarly, every time you connect to an online game already established, you have no idea who the current supervillian *is*. Is there a necromancer filling the world with undead, from some remote corner of the first act? Or is there a powerful demon (akin to the likes of Baal or Mephisto) walking the land, not confined to his prison?
This model has a world that is never solved, and a game that never ends. Combine this with characters that are built to defeat one super villain but will be crushed by another, and you're forever needing to improve your game. It can be single player, it can be multiplayer. You don't have to grind - in fact, the storyline is every bit as fulfilling as the character building.
And every little thing you do - even between who you choose to sell your junk to - has an impact on the environment and the outcome of the game.
Stop one super villian from emerging, and another appears in its place. Or - in the ultimate experience - become the super villian yourself.
That's what *I* want from an "RPG" (or even "ARPG") game. A variable, interactive, world.
Sure the war between heaven and hell rages, but who is allied with each? And who will you ally with for victory - this time?
Well done. When I was first reading the post I thought... hmm not bad, but Diablo is based on randomization so, you know, how would that fit in. I don't want it to be like KotOR or something, but varying storylines based on your choices is always welcome. But, with the second part of your post that was kind of resolved. If you 'create' a game, then everyone who joins is subject to the 'world' you have created as a result of your 'choices'. If you join someone else's game, the world might be totally different. It would be interesting to see how that would handle partying and such, if it would affect their progress.
Then I started thinking of the possibilities and it sounded really cool. I would love to see something like this. MMO-esque with teh different worlds, but yet still an RPG with the storylines and character developments, but still ARPG with the click to kill and mass loot. So, again, well done.
mouseman
21-05-2008, 14:44
Layered instancing, as you described it, goes great with single player storyline, but not so great with multiplayer games.
If you could only play with people who have the same kind of world you do, the gamers would be shattered to thousands and thousands of parties unable to play with each other or with their friends.
If you could join games displaying the other possible worlds, it'd be plain chaos. Even though you angered charsi in the first place, she is now your best buddy since you joined this game. It would be very confusing for the players, everything changing constantly.
Only way to do it is get rid of most of the NPC's. The players form guilds and can give quests to each other. There are just one big world where everyone can interact. The problem is that it's hard to direct and the storyline would be non-existing. It's lame when monsters just spawn after you've killed them.
So either stick with straightforward multiplayer or go single player. If you want an interactive world, I'd go with single player games: such as Kotors or the witcher.
The game developer who can solve this problem will become very rich.
What Diablo 2 has going for it is uniqueness. If you want to have the weirdest build in the game, you can make it work. If you want to be the only person in the entire game with a certain item, you can win the lottery and get it. You can be totally different from any other player if you want.
Unlike WoW, where everyone levels the same way, has the same quest rewards, then does PvP and everyone gets the same damn items, everyone looks the same, and on and on. There's really nothing to mark your unique, single accomplishment against other people.
Omikron8
22-05-2008, 08:35
Think of it this way. You'll probably waste more money in a month while driving your vehicle and pissing away gas on backed up roads than a 10-15$ game fee. Plus, the game fee grants you entertainment, something that driving on Route 1 during rush hour doesn't.
They have to maintain their servers, pay staff to create new material, and ultimately accumulate profit to fund more projects. Piracy is taking a gargantuan toll on games like D2, where you play the game that you paid for. Pay-to-play is increasingly being viewed as a reliable alternative to the internet age of PC gaming and the way things are heading, it's not likely to stop. I mean, hell, if you ran a game company, which would you choose? One-time sale with massive profit losses due to piracy, or a controlled means of monthly income? How dare you want to make money!:greedy:
Article regarding Iron Lore's closure (developer of Titan Quest)
http://www.quartertothree.com/game-talk/showthread.php?t=42663
So, either get used to more pay-to-play games, or buy a console, because that's where the money is and, naturally, that's where the developers are headed.
Personally, I'd like to see D3 go the Hellgate route, where you have the option to pay-to-play. Although I'm left wondering how that has worked out for them.
i knew someone was going to bring up that comment from the THQ CEO
it's funny how that CEO conveniently forgets that the vast majority of games released these days are essentially unstable half-finished betas
and then he passes off the frequent piracy checks in TQ (which lagged the game to hell frequently with no way to avoid them) by essentially saying "we didn't really have a choice, deal with it"
the executives of game companies have no right to ***** about piracy if they can't bother to make a complete stable game ON LAUNCH
people are sick of paying $50+ for betas
you're too lazy/incompetent to create a stable and complete game upon launch ? then expect us to be equally lazy and pirate your worthless game instead of buying the retail copy
Omikron8
22-05-2008, 08:42
That's why I like Hellgate's approach to it. In Hellgate, pay-to-play is an OPTION rather than a necessity. You can pay if you want more content, extended features, etc., but you can also buy the game and play it right out the box, free of fees. WoW's fee system is too controlling and cumbersome, I agree. I think someone will come up with something more flexible though since PC game fees is a hot topic in today's industry.
unfortunately the hellgate system fails because they cut out a huge chunk of the game from beta and are now serving it up as "subscriber content" as if they made it from scratch in the past few months
it's like telling your customers "we screwed up and our game was way worse than intended, now you have to pay us more money to get the same game experience as was promised"
it's attitude like those of flagship studios that gave birth to flagshipped.com
Omikron8
22-05-2008, 08:45
there will be no diablo 3. Everyone who pays attention knows that the Devs who made diablo do not work for Blizzard anymore
Diablo 3 = Mythos
Mythos is being developed by Flagship, Flagship is run by ex-Blizzard North devs/execs
mythos.com
with the hilariously poor quality of mythos and hellgate london it proves that whoever left blizzard to form flagship studios were nobodies to begin with, that includes self-proclaimed geniuses like Bill Roper the sushimonger
Omikron8
22-05-2008, 08:51
For Blizzard to care about someone who plays 0-4 hours a week would be financial suicide.
because the hardcore players of WoW are paying more per month than the casual players right ?
it is very much in blizzard's financial interest to cater diablo 3 ENTIRELY to the casual player from start to finish
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.