Diablo 3 Rumored

[JustAGuy]

Doc, I love your story ideas. The thought of playing in Cathan's, Isenhart's, Milabrega's, or Sigon's shoes sounds pretty cool.

The problem with open-ended play is that it robs Diablo of it's class-oriented RPG style. An open-end system means no types, and more specifically, types that Blizzard has made. Blizzard can't really control the balance when they're not in control of what the player is going to pick. Blizzard is obviously a big fan of blanace. It appears that they believe they can balance anything, even things that are inherently unbalanced and unbalanceable (just look at PvP in WoW). In open-ended play, there is no balance. There will always be characters more powerful than others, some extremely so. There will always be a most powerful build.

Starcraft was perfectly balanced three ways, but with Diablo 2 they tried to balance it 7 ways. They did a good job, but it's not balanced. With an open-ended Diablo 3, they would be throwing balance out the window, ala Morrowind.

Blizzard is also a fan of diversity. If they're going to host a server full of players, they don't want everyone wearing the same thing, with the same set of skills, running the same area over and over. When things are unbalanced, this isn't unlikely.

I tell ya, Blizzard wants to see some sort of gaming utopia where everyone is powerful and everyone has the same advantages and opportunities, but everyone is unique. They want their games to appeal to EVERYONE, even the unskilled and poor players. It's almost like Blizzard is Jekyl and Hyde; one side making huge money off of easy to play, non-skill-testing games that appeal to the masses, and the other side making the best possible game that incorporates strategy, skill and fun, not caring how long it takes to make or how many demographics it appeals to. So far, all of their games have done everything; made lots of money, required at least a modicum of skill, and were/are extremely fun.

What Blizzard really wants, but they don't know it yet, is a game that rewards player skill, instead of player time investment. All of the Diablo series has been hack-n-slash, hardly a user-controlled skill game, where all you really need to do is put the time in. The same goes for WoW; you spend enough time in there, and you'll be level 40 riding a mount. In Diablo 2, I remember being able to hit level 60 in a night (long night, but still). Time is their main gameplay element. More time = more powerful.

If they made a game that rewarded skill, rather than time investment, then it would be even more of a pick-up-and-play thing, arguably with more replay value. An RPG that allows a low level player to be powerful (not overly so, but powerful in relation to the monsters he would face) right away, just by the way he plays, doesn't sound like a bad thing to me (I'm thinking difficulty balance the likes of Ninja Gaiden for Xbox). For example, player-guided critical hits; a player with the right skill level could be able to guide his sword directly into the neck of the monster, casuing extra damage. Like a head-shot in FPSes. I would imagine it not that simple, though. It's the details that determine skill, and distinguish men from the boys, so to speak.

I'd imagine that replayability is also Blizzard's aim, after all, no one wants to make a game that you play once and say, "well, that was great. On to the next thing." Just look at Unreal 2; they added multiplayer because they realized that people were doing just that, playing once and moving on. The same goes for DOOM 3; the multiplayer is weak, but id software realized that they couldn't release DOOM 3 without it.

Allow me to present an example of great replayability: the Street Fighter series of fighting games. It's very simple, and fun, and although not a role playing game, it serves as a good model of addictive play with good balance based on user skill. Sure, there are cheese moves and some "exploits," but executing them takes good hand-eye coordination (a form of player skill). I liken the Street Fighters to hyper-chess. "Fist to chin 2? Well, I'll do sho-ryu-ken to chest 1." Chess with Hadokens...

A good example of balance is Soul Calibur (not SC 2, though. Damn Todd McFarlane and his balance breaking monster!). There are advantages to each character, but anyone can beat anyone. A very skilled player can beat every challenger, whereas moderate and poor players might only get wins by the advantages the character they've chosen has over their oppenent's character.

I think you can tell that I've never been a fan of rolling dice. Why should I leave my hits up to chance? I can see the monster's chest. Let me try and stab it myself. If he blocks, then good for him, I'll try again; eventually I'll get good at it, and I just might master it.

With time no longer the main gameplay determinant, and skill being most important, all other gameplay elements become bonuses. Candy for the player, treasure to keep him hunting. Wonderful treasure. Instead of relying on your Grandfather or Lightsabre, you could do just as well with a Bastard Sword of Strength, if you had the player skill level to wield it like a pro. Killing stuff with a Lightsabre would obviously be easier than with a Bastard Sword of Strength. Delicious candy! But in the later stages, you wouldn't NEED the Lightsabre to kill stuff.

In Diablo 2, all it was was a treasure hunt. You didn't need that much skill, just a knowledge of what skills are "best" and how to use them effectively. Diablo 3: a skill based game and a treasure hunt? That would be pretty damn addictive.

EDIT: Minor addition.