So basically, it narrows down to two options: 1) Make the game a game or 2) Strive to make a "realistic" experience. (The last one is what I opt for. I hate all these stupid kids with character names like niuae88975_8894nfjiahsrfe and how they have 50 mule characters and 10 accounts. It should be one character that you become.)
There could always be something along the line of a house to be acquired or the ability to form guild buildings (halls) or something. Some place personal that you can store whatever you want. That would solve the weight problem in the ability of a character being able to store items, but I guess you'd still need constant town runs. I'm all for that, though- more realism and RPing for me
Which is what I'm for, but I don't think anyone agrees with me. Everyone just wants a childish game were you kill, level, get rich, and kill some more.
I don't. I come from the world of Baldur's Gate and Legend of Zelda. Running around doing quests because people ask me to often for no reward is clearly what I enjoy, not mindlessly grinding my way to the maximum level then going to harass newbiew.
There could always be something along the line of a house to be acquired or the ability to form guild buildings (halls) or something. Some place personal that you can store whatever you want. That would solve the weight problem in the ability of a character being able to store items, but I guess you'd still need constant town runs. I'm all for that, though- more realism and RPing for me
That's me alright. I love me my RP. But maybe not buying houses, more like dump my crap in a shitty room in a crappy tavern.
Diablo isn't about real estate it is about slaying demons, but when the pressures of adventuring get too much, you can go drown your troubles at a tavern.
Elzix owns a tavern, Atma owns a tavern, Lut Gohlein has brothels, err had, Jehren took all the harem girls into his palace, then they all got slaughtered by the demons from the Arcane Sanctary, so no one can say Diablo doesn't have taverns, bars and brothels!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
-Humankind cannot gain anything without first giving something in return. To obtain, something of equal value must be lost. That is alchemy's First Law of Equivalent Exchange. In those days, we really believed that to be the world's one, and only, truth.
But the taverns had no interactivity at all. And wouldn't it be a more comprehensive and wide-range appealing game if such things were possible? It would blur the distinction between town-dwelling NPC's and town-dwelling players. And what if things like- well here's an example:
Say you have a farmer who is a real person...
...Before you say "Who the hell would play a game to farm?", I will point you to games like Harvest Moon. Back to the point...
...And the town is currently being affected by a plague of darkness in some tomb somewhere. The real-person player would sincerely want an adventurer, someone who can actually fight, to fix it, because they're a farmer and can't fight as well as you can. They would also have to provide a reward. And the best part is, it would be open-ended- it wouldn't affect a main quest line, and you could do things like this as much as you wanted to!
And to further elaborate, what if some character could do things like affect a darkness plague over a town? What other things could be possible? Quests would cease to be designed by the game makers. The quests would begin to become real problems that certain characters need to solve, directly or indirectly, to flourish in their activity.
That seems more appealing to me than hack'n'slash, follow the quest line, new act, etc. Just me, maybe.
I like that. Not so much much the playing as a farmer, that might get boring, but your general point.
However that seems like more MMO territory. D3 could be like LOD. Hack and slash with story.
But i do like the of players essentually making quests for others. though that might be hard to implement, I mean how would the game offically note this?
I could ask you to come with me and slay that demon horde of there, but how would the game know that is a quest not just random chit chat?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
-Humankind cannot gain anything without first giving something in return. To obtain, something of equal value must be lost. That is alchemy's First Law of Equivalent Exchange. In those days, we really believed that to be the world's one, and only, truth.
Yea, I think blizz should just make the stash way way bigger than it was in D2, or at least you should be able to buy/rent more space so people don't have 3-4 mule accounts stuffed full.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
---- And the evil that was once vanquished shall rise anew! ----
There would be no need for a special prompt or anything. What I'm saying is that another player is causing havoc to a particular player's province.
The victim is not a fighter- he is some other sort of player, maybe someone who runs a tavern and has bandits robbing drunks that wander out or a librarian whose had a special tome stolen.
The instigator is a real player.
Assume you are the adventurer who just happens to hear a conversation about the victim's problem (assuming the game has blue tooth or something), and that you are an able fighter.
You meet up with the victim, the victim explains the problem which is hindering his productivity- the victim might need that tome to create a certain salve, maybe to help another real-world player who's been infected with some manner of demon venom.
The victim tells you the reward he'll offer.
You accomplish the feat, return and retrieve the reward (unless he refuses to give it to you or runs away or something.)
The end.
And it would only use strictly person-to-person interaction- no flashy menus or "Begin Quest!" pop-ups. It would be a real, living world composed of mostly real players and some NPC's to fill positions when necessary.
And for further elaboration:
Spells and such should be able to affect large areas and do special things to the enviroment. For instance, a Sorceress could use a Blizzard spell over an entire fortress to hold it at bay, assuming the Sorceress is powerful enough to hold the spell up or is able to make a Blizzard of the proper size and output power.
Real governing systems- the ability to be a part of, I don't know, the Travincal Council or become a Harrogath village elder. Given, it might not take place in those cities, but real-world politics. And, of course, these politicians would be able to affect the laws of the land, and could be killed just as easily as anyone else by a demon or another player.
That definitely amps up the story, which I do like but t seems a bit much. And few will go a truly weak character, and remembering how often you actually come across someone who wants to help you and not just duel you pointlessly (you level 10 there over 50), this seems like an unlikely possibility, but I do like the idea.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
-Humankind cannot gain anything without first giving something in return. To obtain, something of equal value must be lost. That is alchemy's First Law of Equivalent Exchange. In those days, we really believed that to be the world's one, and only, truth.
Real-world police (kind of a lame name) to guard cities. Like Gheiz (whoever the guy is that owns the mercenaries in Act 2), except that people that enter it have to conform to uniform behavior while on duty, and have to be a certain level, be so strong, etc. to join. And of course the governing system of the town, city, or what-have-you would be on the look out for problems like this, and would have to fix them by use of political means, or highering someone to "take care of" the problem.
I don't think there is a point went realism goes too far. The gaming world needs to come up with new ways of entertaining the masses- why not create an utterly realistic medieval dark fantasy game that blows all preceding games out of the water?
Wow, you're really striving for the most realistic game possible. This is the kind of thing that independent companies should try out, because large companies just aren't gonna take the financial risk.
I like your idea of "Okay, I'll guard the city for a while and get paid for it - but if I leave my post then I get fired". And everyone's character would only have one life - or else you wouldn't take it seriously. It would really be like an alternate life.
Its the kind of thing that would be PERFECT for virtual reality games lol.
Actually, I think I have heard of a game that has "player-created quests", where you say what needs to be done (certain items collected or monsters killed), provide the award, then sit and wait for someone to click on your '!' above your head. Like if you're too lazy to just go get the items yourself you can ask someone else to do it. I can't remember what game it is though lol. But you can google it?
Wow, you're really striving for the most realistic game possible. This is the kind of thing that independent companies should try out, because large companies just aren't gonna take the financial risk.
I like your idea of "Okay, I'll guard the city for a while and get paid for it - but if I leave my post then I get fired". And everyone's character would only have one life - or else you wouldn't take it seriously. It would really be like an alternate life.
Its the kind of thing that would be PERFECT for virtual reality games lol.
Actually, I think I have heard of a game that has "player-created quests", where you say what needs to be done (certain items collected or monsters killed), provide the award, then sit and wait for someone to click on your '!' above your head. Like if you're too lazy to just go get the items yourself you can ask someone else to do it. I can't remember what game it is though lol. But you can google it?
I'm sure a huge company such as Blizzard with millions and millions of dollars coming from WoW they can take a couple risks.
Well, not really. Blizzard aims at creating games that appeal to all parties. They've said that themselves a few times. Diablo was created as a clicking-game so everyone can pick it up easily, rather than a stat-based game that would only really appeal to the people who love things that are based on rolling the dice.
But who knows, maybe they can pull something like this off that everyone would love. Its just that some people might find it boring. Because real life is very time consuming as it, and often boring.
Im loving the idea of an ultra realistic game but, I dont think it should be Diablo III
Because an ultra realistic game would have to be first person view, which I have nothing against but its just not Diablo at all
If this game had player controlled merchants\armorers\farmers\fishermen\politicians\council\monarchy etc who owned stores and shops and fishing boats and changed laws and were also weak in fighting monsters then you would need more than one character per account because people would get bored in those positions. People would make all their money using those money\power orientated characters so they could fuel their warrior type characters
Speaking of RP though, doesnt WoW have servers where its server rules that you should speak in roleplaying character 24\7 else be warned and maybe banned if you persist to talk out of character?
I not sure about the RP speak thing, but that could be true.
The only real difference with the RP servers as far as I can tell is you give your character a proper name like Brok Axehand, and your goal is to do the quests and not run around dueling people, and harassing newbies.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
-Humankind cannot gain anything without first giving something in return. To obtain, something of equal value must be lost. That is alchemy's First Law of Equivalent Exchange. In those days, we really believed that to be the world's one, and only, truth.
We really only have sound enough evidence to conclude they are working on a game in the Diablo series. We don't really have anything absolutely conclusive that suggests it is either a sequel (Diablo III) a prequel (set before diablo 1) or a Spin off side project, or a MMO.
So when you suggest ideas like how quests work, it could hurt to also suggest for another possibility other than a direct sequel (which DIII would be). a Diablo MMO is very possible, People still play and pay for Ever Quest, despite Ever Quest II existing, I sure money from both games go to the same company, so clearly having "competing" pay to play MMOs is not a foreign concept, one I am sure Blizzard has considered.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
-Humankind cannot gain anything without first giving something in return. To obtain, something of equal value must be lost. That is alchemy's First Law of Equivalent Exchange. In those days, we really believed that to be the world's one, and only, truth.
- Weather/Climate effect would have to be top-notch, including more than just rain, snow, hail and sun. like mirages in the desert and rainbows after rainy periods
- High pitched/ringing noises in the ear after explosions
- Dust clouds in that are kicked up in dusty tomes
- Mist that wavers and moves around the person as he steps into it for those spooky graveyards and such
- Bright magic skills etc fully light up the persons screen momentarily (like a flashbang in cs LOL)
- Wet clothes when raining or recently swimming
- Weight restrictions aswell as room restrictions. Cant swim or run as fast when overweight
- The ability to climb or swim over obstacles in a free moving 3D environment (not just restricted to certain climb\swim points)
- Near to fully destructible environment. I don't like the idea of cave-ins in tombs and caves though but they could be implemented if caves and tombs randomly generated in a massive 3d environment (but should be very hard to achieve)
- Monsters only drop what they should. Fallen shouldn't drop throwing potions when they don't throw them. Quill Beasts shouldn't drop armors when they don't wear them
List could go on and on
The problems with alot of added realism is this game would be very graphically demanding because realism should look realistic too
Its not really Diablo though. Diablo players are lazy lol
They have been working on this game for how long? 6? 7 years? I think they could have implimented some of those in the time it's taken to make the game.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
-Humankind cannot gain anything without first giving something in return. To obtain, something of equal value must be lost. That is alchemy's First Law of Equivalent Exchange. In those days, we really believed that to be the world's one, and only, truth.
In my home town, there's about 90,000 people. In WoW, there's 10 billion players. I see no problem with people being able to fill every position.
And by realistic I do NOT mean non-fantastical. If you read my earlier posts, I talked for a bit about the effects of magic in the world.
And who's to say it couldn't be "relaxing", as someone has said? Turn off the volume and disengage yourself, if you want. I personally do not find that relaxing, as relaxing in my mind is puting my thoughts somewhere else, which in this case would be the game (assuming it's entertaining.) This just depends on your definition of "relaxing". And of course there would be places like taverns and stuff where you could just bum around if you wanted to.
There could always be something along the line of a house to be acquired or the ability to form guild buildings (halls) or something. Some place personal that you can store whatever you want. That would solve the weight problem in the ability of a character being able to store items, but I guess you'd still need constant town runs. I'm all for that, though- more realism and RPing for me
Well I don't think anyone is intersted in that high of a level of realism. This isn't WoW after all.
Also, the idea of a house might not be too good, unless you want a "living world" type deal...
That's me alright. I love me my RP. But maybe not buying houses, more like dump my crap in a shitty room in a crappy tavern.
Diablo isn't about real estate it is about slaying demons, but when the pressures of adventuring get too much, you can go drown your troubles at a tavern.
Elzix owns a tavern, Atma owns a tavern, Lut Gohlein has brothels, err had, Jehren took all the harem girls into his palace, then they all got slaughtered by the demons from the Arcane Sanctary, so no one can say Diablo doesn't have taverns, bars and brothels!
Say you have a farmer who is a real person...
...Before you say "Who the hell would play a game to farm?", I will point you to games like Harvest Moon. Back to the point...
...And the town is currently being affected by a plague of darkness in some tomb somewhere. The real-person player would sincerely want an adventurer, someone who can actually fight, to fix it, because they're a farmer and can't fight as well as you can. They would also have to provide a reward. And the best part is, it would be open-ended- it wouldn't affect a main quest line, and you could do things like this as much as you wanted to!
And to further elaborate, what if some character could do things like affect a darkness plague over a town? What other things could be possible? Quests would cease to be designed by the game makers. The quests would begin to become real problems that certain characters need to solve, directly or indirectly, to flourish in their activity.
That seems more appealing to me than hack'n'slash, follow the quest line, new act, etc. Just me, maybe.
However that seems like more MMO territory. D3 could be like LOD. Hack and slash with story.
But i do like the of players essentually making quests for others. though that might be hard to implement, I mean how would the game offically note this?
I could ask you to come with me and slay that demon horde of there, but how would the game know that is a quest not just random chit chat?
Are you going to move my post or should I do it?
And for further elaboration:
Spells and such should be able to affect large areas and do special things to the enviroment. For instance, a Sorceress could use a Blizzard spell over an entire fortress to hold it at bay, assuming the Sorceress is powerful enough to hold the spell up or is able to make a Blizzard of the proper size and output power.
Real governing systems- the ability to be a part of, I don't know, the Travincal Council or become a Harrogath village elder. Given, it might not take place in those cities, but real-world politics. And, of course, these politicians would be able to affect the laws of the land, and could be killed just as easily as anyone else by a demon or another player.
I don't think there is a point went realism goes too far. The gaming world needs to come up with new ways of entertaining the masses- why not create an utterly realistic medieval dark fantasy game that blows all preceding games out of the water?
I like your idea of "Okay, I'll guard the city for a while and get paid for it - but if I leave my post then I get fired". And everyone's character would only have one life - or else you wouldn't take it seriously. It would really be like an alternate life.
Its the kind of thing that would be PERFECT for virtual reality games lol.
Actually, I think I have heard of a game that has "player-created quests", where you say what needs to be done (certain items collected or monsters killed), provide the award, then sit and wait for someone to click on your '!' above your head. Like if you're too lazy to just go get the items yourself you can ask someone else to do it. I can't remember what game it is though lol. But you can google it?
I'm sure a huge company such as Blizzard with millions and millions of dollars coming from WoW they can take a couple risks.
But who knows, maybe they can pull something like this off that everyone would love. Its just that some people might find it boring. Because real life is very time consuming as it, and often boring.
Because an ultra realistic game would have to be first person view, which I have nothing against but its just not Diablo at all
If this game had player controlled merchants\armorers\farmers\fishermen\politicians\council\monarchy etc who owned stores and shops and fishing boats and changed laws and were also weak in fighting monsters then you would need more than one character per account because people would get bored in those positions. People would make all their money using those money\power orientated characters so they could fuel their warrior type characters
Speaking of RP though, doesnt WoW have servers where its server rules that you should speak in roleplaying character 24\7 else be warned and maybe banned if you persist to talk out of character?
The only real difference with the RP servers as far as I can tell is you give your character a proper name like Brok Axehand, and your goal is to do the quests and not run around dueling people, and harassing newbies.
So when you suggest ideas like how quests work, it could hurt to also suggest for another possibility other than a direct sequel (which DIII would be). a Diablo MMO is very possible, People still play and pay for Ever Quest, despite Ever Quest II existing, I sure money from both games go to the same company, so clearly having "competing" pay to play MMOs is not a foreign concept, one I am sure Blizzard has considered.
- Weather/Climate effect would have to be top-notch, including more than just rain, snow, hail and sun. like mirages in the desert and rainbows after rainy periods
- High pitched/ringing noises in the ear after explosions
- Dust clouds in that are kicked up in dusty tomes
- Mist that wavers and moves around the person as he steps into it for those spooky graveyards and such
- Bright magic skills etc fully light up the persons screen momentarily (like a flashbang in cs LOL)
- Wet clothes when raining or recently swimming
- Weight restrictions aswell as room restrictions. Cant swim or run as fast when overweight
- The ability to climb or swim over obstacles in a free moving 3D environment (not just restricted to certain climb\swim points)
- Near to fully destructible environment. I don't like the idea of cave-ins in tombs and caves though but they could be implemented if caves and tombs randomly generated in a massive 3d environment (but should be very hard to achieve)
- Monsters only drop what they should. Fallen shouldn't drop throwing potions when they don't throw them. Quill Beasts shouldn't drop armors when they don't wear them
List could go on and on
The problems with alot of added realism is this game would be very graphically demanding because realism should look realistic too
Its not really Diablo though. Diablo players are lazy lol
In my home town, there's about 90,000 people. In WoW, there's 10 billion players. I see no problem with people being able to fill every position.
And by realistic I do NOT mean non-fantastical. If you read my earlier posts, I talked for a bit about the effects of magic in the world.
And who's to say it couldn't be "relaxing", as someone has said? Turn off the volume and disengage yourself, if you want. I personally do not find that relaxing, as relaxing in my mind is puting my thoughts somewhere else, which in this case would be the game (assuming it's entertaining.) This just depends on your definition of "relaxing". And of course there would be places like taverns and stuff where you could just bum around if you wanted to.