Diablo? Not a true mmorpg yet?

[kymidei]

Sigh. I played Diablo 1 and Diablo 2 Lord of Destruction for years, and recently created new toons for D2LOD to occupy my time while I waited for a new mmorpg. However, I am not willing to go back to sitting in a channel, doing nothing but listening to spam from sellers while I try to meet people to quest with. Dark Age of Camelot, Lord of the Rings Online, World of Warcraft, Age of Conan have all made me aware of the limitations of Battlenet's method of operation. Even Guild Wars, though totally instanced, has a social scene in towns. Nice graphics and new armor and skills simply won't do it anymore in our gaming family.

[Mizantrop]

Blizzard are known for thier ability to simplefy things. You said WoW, and even that is not a perfect game for hooking up with friends/randoms to play with. But who said blizzard aren't going to learn from thier mistakes (and thier successes) in this department and improve the social feature of the new battle.net along with the other improvments?

[sicilian]

You can have a central town with hundreds of people in it in an MMO like WoW or GW, etc, because not everyone is going to travel from there to the same place and strive towards the same goals. That way, it seems much more like a gathering of adventurers with their own identity.

Do that in a linear game like Diablo, and all of the sudden you're a lone hero fighting for the fate of the world... oh wait, no, there are a hundred other people about to head out and attempt the same thing you are. Not a very desperate situation, is it?

[Zerosugar]

Sigh. I played Diablo 1 and Diablo 2 Lord of Destruction for years, and recently created new toons for D2LOD to occupy my time while I waited for a new mmorpg. However, I am not willing to go back to sitting in a channel, doing nothing but listening to spam from sellers while I try to meet people to quest with. Dark Age of Camelot, Lord of the Rings Online, World of Warcraft, Age of Conan have all made me aware of the limitations of Battlenet's method of operation. Even Guild Wars, though totally instanced, has a social scene in towns. Nice graphics and new armor and skills simply won't do it anymore in our gaming family.

A followup to D2 shouldn't have "mmo" features in it in my opinion. This is why we have RPG's and MMORPGS in different categories. Different styles for different audiences. An auction house would be nice and a looking for group tavern but that's about it. If i wanted to play an MMO i would play one of the many out there. I play Diablo to get away from all of that.

As long as you have a public channel you will have people spamming their wares ..this is unavoidable unless you have channel mods working 24/7, i don't really see a way around this. An auction house would possible cure some of it.

[stillman]

You can have a central town with hundreds of people in it in an MMO like WoW or GW, etc, because not everyone is going to travel from there to the same place and strive towards the same goals. That way, it seems much more like a gathering of adventurers with their own identity.

Do that in a linear game like Diablo, and all of the sudden you're a lone hero fighting for the fate of the world... oh wait, no, there are a hundred other people about to head out and attempt the same thing you are. Not a very desperate situation, is it?

But you are going by the old d2 story line. I don't see why d3 necessarily has to be about the one and only hero who is the sole protector taking on the one and only mission.

They made a huge mistake in setting up this sort of story in d2. Wariv starts off well enough by explaining that "many" have come since the recent troubles began...but after Wariv, absolutely nothing makes sense on bnet at all. There are 1000 barbariabs all going after Charsi's hammer and Andy's head on a platter. Just like you said, it doesn't sound like such a desperate situation at all. I mean, how can one million barbs and one million paladins and one million amazons fail? It makes sense for single palyer, but not bnet in an 8 player game.

So, what they SHOULD have done, IMO, is set up the whole story the way they had started with Wariv's intro speech. First, Wariv tells you that loads of heros have come to fight the evil in this land (check, done). Secondly, every other NPC backs this statement up. For instance, when you kill Andy, there are a lot of fresh barb corpses in her lair and when you go back to town, they all thank you as being "part of the great force who pulled together in the great effort against evil". They should NOT treat you like the one and only savior. Unless of course, they use different sets of dialogues for single player vs multiplayer. Likewise, Charsi asks you if, "during your campaign with the troops marching through the monastary" you could kill the Butcher-spin-off Smith who has her hammer.

When you get to act 3, an NPC states how the wanderer seems to "always narrowly avoid capture by all those who've been this way" as opposed to your chr being the only one who makes this discovery when the wanderer dissolves before your eyes. And, when you get to act 2, "many are now combing the vast desert searching for the staff of kings..." And in act 4, none of this "Hail to you champion (THOW ART THE ONE HERO)" nonsense. Instead, well, you get the idea; something that makes sense for an 8 player game in bnet where there are potentially thousands of other heroes.

My point is, it's very hard to pretend I'm the big hero when there are 8 tps in town and when 8 staff of kings drop. They need to make the story clarify that it is a group effort or at least explain why there are so many barbs around here. That's what I'm hoping for d3 anyway. The whole big-man-on-campus-single-handedly-saves-the day is so old.

D2 sort of started with the paladins (so many of them) being from their temple or w/e and the many necros being from their swamp, but the story did not follow through and ended up treating everyone as a lone wolf.

Frankly, I think all the "hail to you, you're the champion, you are so heroic" is just a lot of positive energy and self help nonsense that we don't need. I don't play to boost my confidence, so imo the game should incorperate the grand group effort into the story line.

Note: About d3, a Blizzard guy said something like "It's the same barb from d2...the same person." Now this worries me a bit. THE same barb? Like there was only ONE? Weren't there thousands of them? Is Blizzard saying that in d1 there was only one warrior and in d2 there was only one barb? Why did they make a barb homeland in act 5 if there only needs ot be one barb for the story? I hope they can get some consistancy with d3....

[AlexanderM]

The Diablo games started as single player RPG-adventures, and while I agree they've become far more social than they were originally, I'm not sure I'd want the in-game dialogue to talk to me as if I had tons of help in my quest. It's the difference between killing a prime evil and being heralded as hero upon your return, and working for a corporation who's primary goal is the killing and/or banishing of greater demonic beings and getting a free paper hat during employee appreciation week.

Diablo isn't an MMORPG, it was never meant to be one, and from what I've heard Blizzard has no intent of making D3 into one. The linearity of the Diablo story, as mentioned, wouldn't make a great MMO, but it makes an exceptional single player game.

I agree with Zerosugar, a tavern* wherein people can find groups sounds nice, though instead of an auction house I'd like to see an trading board (You post your "longsword of thunder" and say "looking for staff with + fireball", you'd get automated messages about offers, click accept and the items are swapped) and possibly a trading-only channel to prevent normal modes of communication from being clogged with it.

*Ale with visual drunkenness effects, that's all I'm saying!

Edit: I guess if gold becomes viable currency, a standard auction model could work. I'd still like to see an item-for-item model though.

[Zerosugar]

The Diablo games started as single player RPG-adventures, and while I agree they've become far more social than they were originally, I'm not sure I'd want the in-game dialogue to talk to me as if I had tons of help in my quest. It's the difference between killing a prime evil and being heralded as hero upon your return, and working for a corporation who's primary goal is the killing and/or banishing of greater demonic beings and getting a free paper hat during employee appreciation week.

Diablo isn't an MMORPG, it was never meant to be one, and from what I've heard Blizzard has no intent of making D3 into one. The linearity of the Diablo story, as mentioned, wouldn't make a great MMO, but it makes an exceptional single player game.

I agree with Zerosugar, a tavern* wherein people can find groups sounds nice, though instead of an auction house I'd like to see an trading board (You post your "longsword of thunder" and say "looking for staff with + fireball", you'd get automated messages about offers, click accept and the items are swapped) and possibly a trading-only channel to prevent normal modes of communication from being clogged with it.

*Ale with visual drunkenness effects, that's all I'm saying!

Edit: I guess if gold becomes viable currency, a standard auction model could work. I'd still like to see an item-for-item model though.

trading board sounds better than an auction house. Once agreed on a trade there could be some form of mailing system in place perhaps? Like a a trade window thing so you can see what you are accepting to prevent scamming.

[AlexanderM]

We're getting a bit off topic, but yeah. I'd like to see a system where you can specify what you want "item type:", "mods:", etc, and maybe check a box for "or best offer" so people can offer up other items. I'm hoping that trade-hacks and the like will be made impossible in D3, even if it requires a WoW-esque warden program.

[stillman]

AlexanderM,

I agree with most of your posts from other threads, but in this case, I disagree. The reality is that there are thousands of players going after Diablo. There are also 8 player games to reinforce this. Blizzard needs to finally make their storyline reflect this reality.

It's not that difficult. These are not the old days of DragonWarrior where it's the one and only hero. You suggest the goals/heroism are diluted if the story encorperates group concepts. All Blizzard would have to do is make the percieved dangers greater to match the number of players these days. For example, NPC's can ramble on about how "infinite legions" are massing in hell, preparing for an invasion that no mortal can hope to stop. They can say demons are discovering new magics by the hour, and new hell forges and armories are rumored to be poping up. Undead are being promoted to generals...the world will be doomed at the whim of the forces of chaos. No one man or woman can stop the legions, but a leader may rise (your chr) and become influential in turning the tides.

See? Easy. The problem is we are all stuck in the old d2 mindset. The towns are tiny, even hell itself is tiny. The percieved threat in d2 doesn't seem all that bad; it is designed for one dude with a big sword who can feasably tackle it all. Well d3 should step it up and make the mission appear more impossible for one player, but with forces of good uniting for the cause it just might be possible to win. For single player, as I noted in my earlier post, they should just add some soldier bodies everywhere to support the theme that many, many are involved in the war against chaos.

Again, note that your chr can still be a sort of "one and only hero" who turns out to be the great leader that stands above the rest. Your chr can turn the tide and be the greatest of all the forces of light. Nothing is diluted.

[AlexanderM]

I think a good medium would be different dialogue for single player and multiplayer, though I doubt that would happen as it could double the time they'd need for recording.

I meant the feeling of heroism would be lost in single player if all the NPCs spoke as if he/she had TONS of help, even though they'd been running solo from the start. The bodies of other adventurers would be a convincing start (except in places where it wouldn't make sense, like Duriel's lair, what with the unlocking with the staff) even if you're the only player. Larger towns, larger monsters (which we've seen) and more challenging act bosses that would demand 8 players of the area-appropriate level to kill it, would all reinforce the idea of a 'war against evil'. Though being a soldier in a war against evil, and being a hero, don't always coincide, not everyone can be the great leader.

[konfeta]

The reality is that there are thousands of players going after Diablo. There are also 8 player games to reinforce this. Blizzard needs to finally make their storyline reflect this reality.


The reality is that there are a couple of exceptional individuals of varied backgrounds that succeed in hunting down the Prime Evils. The rest are redshirt fodder that die before doing anything of significance. If we start forcing multiplayer aberrations and mechanics into the story, than, the "reality is" that Mephisto gets killed hundreds of thousands times every day for the phat lewt that falls out of him. Another fun "reality" of forcing multiplayer into the story is that Sanctuary is infested by hundred thousands of champions end up strong enough to walk over the Prime Evils as if they are nothing.

The story of Diablo focuses on efforts of the few - hence their intention to lower the maximum players for multiplayer games (they were talking about something in line of 6) and their continued effort in keeping Diablo as much a single player game as it is a multiplayer game by adding character centric dialogues and specific backstories.

See? Easy. The problem is we are all stuck in the old d2 mindset.

The problem is that you are stuck in a World of Warcraft "Age of Mortal Heroes" mindset. Warcraft 3 specifically set the stage for World of Warcraft up, with the final narration by Medivh. Diablo does not need to be shoved in the exact same story grinder.


Well d3 should step it up and make the mission appear more impossible for one player, but with forces of good uniting for the cause it just might be possible to win.

The whole big-man-on-campus-single-handedly-saves-the day is so old.


Even though the whole point of the series is that the Prime Evils were defeated by efforts of the few exceptional individuals. And not to mention, the whole "a bunch of generic heroes come in, rally a bunch of generic normals, and save the day" thing is just as old and has managed to become stale thanks to the flood of MMORPGs.


Note: About d3, a Blizzard guy said something like "It's the same barb from d2...the same person." Now this worries me a bit. THE same barb? Like there was only ONE? Weren't there thousands of them? Is Blizzard saying that in d1 there was only one warrior and in d2 there was only one barb? Why did they make a barb homeland in act 5 if there only needs ot be one barb for the story? I hope they can get some consistancy with d3....

And this makes me happy. Last thing we need to see is degeneration of plot and characters that is introduced by MMORPG styled accommodation. Blizzard wants this game to have an actual story beyond the disaster that was "a bunch of generic Alliance or Horde heroes went ahead and offed almost every major Warcraft character to date."

I give you that Diablo 2's implementation of story and multiplayer gameplay was jarring, with 8 horadric cubes dropping and all that - but that's because the storyline was ultimately focused on one character and multiplayer was a gameplay focused, not storyline focused.

Maybe Blizzard will figure out a way to acknowledge the efforts of the few as opposed to efforts of the one in-game to make the multiplayer experience more effective storyline wise. But they shouldn't slaughter the feel of Diablo's story as presented in single-player for that. I absolutely loved, for example, the feeling of the story as I played through the game as a Necromancer - "Lord Diablo, I have bested you." It conveyed a proper feeling of classic heroism and personal triumph, something that games like World of Warcraft sorely failed to deliver. Diablo, to me, storywise was always about the champion challanging the Prime Evils. I accepted the 8 staff of kings, or 8 khalim flails as part of on-line gameplay as opposed to part of the story.

[Morannon]

Sigh. I played Diablo 1 and Diablo 2 Lord of Destruction for years, and recently created new toons for D2LOD to occupy my time while I waited for a new mmorpg. However, I am not willing to go back to sitting in a channel, doing nothing but listening to spam from sellers while I try to meet people to quest with. Dark Age of Camelot, Lord of the Rings Online, World of Warcraft, Age of Conan have all made me aware of the limitations of Battlenet's method of operation. Even Guild Wars, though totally instanced, has a social scene in towns. Nice graphics and new armor and skills simply won't do it anymore in our gaming family.

You think they make a new game with 90s player match-up? Don't think so. I'm sure match-up will be even more brilliant than it is in WC3. After logging on I expect to spend less than a min in the lobby before I'm questing with people of exactly the same lvl and goal as me.

[sicilian]

AlexanderM,

I agree with most of your posts from other threads, but in this case, I disagree. The reality is that there are thousands of players going after Diablo. There are also 8 player games to reinforce this. Blizzard needs to finally make their storyline reflect this reality.

It's not that difficult. These are not the old days of DragonWarrior where it's the one and only hero. You suggest the goals/heroism are diluted if the story encorperates group concepts. All Blizzard would have to do is make the percieved dangers greater to match the number of players these days. For example, NPC's can ramble on about how "infinite legions" are massing in hell, preparing for an invasion that no mortal can hope to stop. They can say demons are discovering new magics by the hour, and new hell forges and armories are rumored to be poping up. Undead are being promoted to generals...the world will be doomed at the whim of the forces of chaos. No one man or woman can stop the legions, but a leader may rise (your chr) and become influential in turning the tides.

See? Easy. The problem is we are all stuck in the old d2 mindset. The towns are tiny, even hell itself is tiny. The percieved threat in d2 doesn't seem all that bad; it is designed for one dude with a big sword who can feasably tackle it all. Well d3 should step it up and make the mission appear more impossible for one player, but with forces of good uniting for the cause it just might be possible to win. For single player, as I noted in my earlier post, they should just add some soldier bodies everywhere to support the theme that many, many are involved in the war against chaos.

Again, note that your chr can still be a sort of "one and only hero" who turns out to be the great leader that stands above the rest. Your chr can turn the tide and be the greatest of all the forces of light. Nothing is diluted.

But I don't want that. I don't want to lead thousands, I want to be the one. Selfish? You bet :D

And no, there are not THOUSANDS of people going after Diablo. There are 8 max. Only 8 in any one game world = only 8 in the storyline going after the evil. Why would the storyline reflect players that can never interact or aid each other? Should the NPCs start talking about other games and parallel universes? And having a weak Barbarian NPC wander along beside me until he's killed by a low level mob doesn't mean they're helping :P

This isn't a strategy game. It's not Starcraft where you're a commander who leads forces. It's an RPG and you're a HERO. I want to feel like without me there is no hope, not without me it'll probably be a bit harder.

[pantherus]

Why are you trying to make this more "realistic" in the sense of "we have a party of 8, 4 of them are Barbarians who are supposed to be a single person" when there is the staggering lack of realism of Mephisto, Diablo and Baal being killed millions and millions of time over...

Newsflash - it's a friggen game!!! Don't nitpick the realism and inconsistency issues whern there are vast issues with that across the whole game - if you're going to challenge one, then you should challenge it all.

[CaptainDingo]

Ummm.

sitting in a channel, doing nothing but listening to spam from sellers while I try to meet people to quest with

How is this different from World of Warcraft, again?

[mince pies]

This may sound strange kymidei, but nobody is FORCING you to play DIII...