Diablo III originally had Branching Storyline with the option to turn evil.

[Skytotem]

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news...m_campaign=all

"It's because [action RPGs] move quickly, but I think the bigger issue has to do with multiplayer," he explained. "Because if we offer you two different paths and I want to take a different path to my friend, how do we then reconcile that?"
Read more at http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news...rYBCPg24iVZ.99

*SEETHES*

[Flutterguy]

Good. The morality thing is retarded. It doesn't work in any video game well.

[Skytotem]

Good. The morality thing is retarded. It doesn't work in any video game well.

I think it would've worked better than perfect invincible Nephalem.

[Gelda82]

TOR's implementation of multiplayer morality was definitely insulting. It was a joke past their first Black Talon/Esseles runs. That was a poorly thought-out, half-assed feature.

[Tzalix]

It works in some games. Fable and KOTOR being good examples, but that's because it's a main focus of those games.

That being said, I really don't think this would've fit in Diablo.

[Fencers]

Good. The morality thing is retarded. It doesn't work in any video game well.

KOTOR, Planescape, Fallout, Baldur's Gate 1 & 2, Silent Hill 2 and Witcher 2 all used moral choice (through gameplay &/or dialogue) to great effect. The usage of morality as mechanic is one of the things that makes those games remarkable too.

Though I think it makes little sense to have a morality system in Diablo. It goes against the very theme and premise of the franchise. You would lose some of the Diablo "creepiness" too if the player were themselves evil.

[Shocktroop]

D3 originally had a lot of things going for it, too bad it all ended up shit. That is what happens when a company hires incompetent morons to develop a game like diablo. There is a reason why the old diablo devs went on to make games that are actually enjoyable and they even communicate with their playerbase. When a company can only answer your questions with "i do not know" or they don't respond to any of the constructive criticism, their game is shit and they do not care about their customers.

[cudomix]

There is a reason why the old diablo devs went on to make games that are actually enjoyable and they even communicate with their playerbase.

Outside of Torchlight, which games would that be?

[ro9ue]

Good. The morality thing is retarded. It doesn't work in any video game well.

I thought Fable implemented it well. Otherwise, I'd agree.

[Keile]

I thought Fable implemented it well. Otherwise, I'd agree.

KOTOR 1 and 2....good an evil felt vastly different. It was the in-between that was an issue.

[Spray]

KOTOR, Planescape, Fallout, Baldur's Gate 1 & 2, Silent Hill 2 and Witcher 2

Yeah, okay, you're definitely right, it can play a great role in singleplayer titles, but loses its immersion when you're playing with friends, like aforementioned ToR.

I love being able to choose what to do, what to be, to feel that I have a real, significant impact on the story and how it progresses. That being said, it loses its "magic" when it's only cosmetic, seeing how you can run around with your friends jumping and giggling nonetheless the affiliation/karma/whatever.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

It's very difficult to do in a Multiplayer game.

[Mormolyce]

Much as I like morality systems and branching storylines, I don't think that would really work in a game like Diablo.

[KungFuFanta]

The ending of ROS suggests that the player will at some point in the future be tempted to turn evil, so this feature may see light of day in the next expansion, although I doubt blizzard are still as innovative as they used to be back the WC3 days.