Back to basics? (How to make Diablo 4 work)

[Deleted]

get rid of set items being BiS

diablo 3 was imo ruined by every class getting 3-4 sets and the sets being BiS.
they're boring and wayy too strong, a few sets are okay, namely the ones that only require 2-3 items.

They ruined it even more by giving everyone a free set by simply getting to lvl 70 and playing for a few hours meaning you jump from a low difficulty to easily farming high difficulties and getting soo many legendaries.


Sets aren't boring, they're nice and fun, but they're boring in the way that they killed any sort of playing around with trying out different legendary combinations etc.

[ro9ue]

I think they need completely different approach to the Diablo franchise. Personally I'd like to see a 3rd person game in the Diablo universe similar to Bloodborne but with the playstyle of something like Overwatch or Gears of War.

[Daedius]

I think they need completely different approach to the Diablo franchise. Personally I'd like to see a 3rd person game in the Diablo universe similar to Bloodborne but with the playstyle of something like Overwatch or Gears of War.

Something that drastic, like Fallout 1&2 -> 3+ ?

Sure!

[Deleted]

I think they need completely different approach to the Diablo franchise. Personally I'd like to see a 3rd person game in the Diablo universe similar to Bloodborne but with the playstyle of something like Overwatch or Gears of War.

Hum, it does not work so well, i have tried Nioh recently and the RNG diablo like in a souls game, well it does not work.
Another option would be musha games, but for some reason i dislike them.

[ro9ue]

Hum, it does not work so well, i have tried Nioh recently and the RNG diablo like in a souls game, well it does not work.
Another option would be musha games, but for some reason i dislike them.

I don't think they should keep it a game based on RNG loot anymore. It's a tired concept and I think people are sick of it which is why the game failed. I just want a fresh game that's totally different, but it lives in the Diablo universe.

[Nihilist74]

The only thing i want them to change about diablo4 is to have more of an open world feel. I would like there to be a large open world with mobs that level up to your level. I would like there to be mats that you farm for crafting and professions. Mats that you farm in more ways than just killing mobs. I would also like them to add more classes. I would like them to add a druid class than can transform into a bear, cat and/or wolf. I would also like a rogue character that uses daggers and stealth. I would like them to keep all the classes and class ability from diablo3. I would like them to bring the auction house back but not the real money auction house. It would be nice if they added mounts to the game that could be crafted for or created.

[Deleted]

I don't think they should keep it a game based on RNG loot anymore. It's a tired concept and I think people are sick of it which is why the game failed. I just want a fresh game that's totally different, but it lives in the Diablo universe.

Ah, yes that is different.
I would also like a game like that.

[Seidhe]

FO fuk sake gimme back my RMAH + AH, or who cares gimme just AH. Social game without auction house? Or just enable tradeable gear back. And one hting that would make d4 more cool - if they implement Ecnhantment of items that may destroy it. I think it would fit this game.

[Halicia]

Where and when Diablo has ever been roguelike? HC mode is just a side game and not even that popular - even in D2 (only thing that comes to my mind).

Hint: The franchise existed before Diablo 2.

[Coldkil]

Hint: The franchise existed before Diablo 2.

Again, where in the history of Diablo the game has been a roguelike? Because it wasn't.

[Wilian]

Again, where in the history of Diablo the game has been a roguelike? Because it wasn't.

There's an article/interview retrospective in Finnish gaming magazine Pelit from decade ago or so where one of the key people behind D1 (can't remember which) stated that it was originally a turn-based roguelike dungeon crawler before Blizzard had bought the studio and that the whole real-time matter was actually bug in the coding the team began to explore upon after finding the gameplay very engaging.

The interview furthermore elaborates on it that the many aspects of the game functioned the way they did because of it's turn based origins (For example all characters moving exactly at same pace and something about attack speeds).

Beyond that it's roguelike aspects are quite smash in the face type so I'm not sure where this confusion comes from.

100% randomized everything aside from quests and overworld hub
Perma-death style gameplay
Descending more difficult levels
RPG mechanics

[Raqubor]

I think D3 was great, I wouldn't have played it for over 200 hours if it wasn't. The thing is... If D2 was released today... it wouldn't be successful... It was a different time. People expect something else from games.

The new game in Sanctuary, please make it real horror. Like a Witcher 3 like dark fantasy, but more horror like. Add survival elements and an explorable open world, you got a winner. Have Blizzard like very polished game systems, that are easy to understand, but have enough depth that you need to think how you spend your resources.

[ManiaCCC]

I think D3 was great, I wouldn't have played it for over 200 hours if it wasn't. The thing is... If D2 was released today... it wouldn't be successful... It was a different time. People expect something else from games.

The new game in Sanctuary, please make it real horror. Like a Witcher 3 like dark fantasy, but more horror like. Add survival elements and an explorable open world, you got a winner. Have Blizzard like very polished game systems, that are easy to understand, but have enough depth that you need to think how you spend your resources.

Problem with D3 was it was a Diablo game. It just shouldn't. It sacrificed too much and got very little in the return. I also agree D3 was good game on it's own merits, put even more time into it than you, however.. fact, that it is Diablo game made it probably the worst game in Blizzard's lineup.

[Shanden]

Basically everything about Diablo 3 was bad. No decent skill system, playing with just self found loot not doable in early versions, no trading, auction house, always online errors and last but not least the story and presentation was weak beyond believe. Like others already stated it was no Diablo game to begin with.

Diablo 4 should at most reuse the engine but with a darker atmosphere. No gameplay mechanics of D3 should be found in D4.

Go back to the real basics and have a look what made D2 good. Take the atmosphere, a simple but well told "horror" story, a skill system with spendable points and loot that is not character bound. Combat should at no point resemble Dynasty Warriors where you fight billions of monster and deal trillions of damage. From that point think about how to modernize these.

[Dartz1979]

I like diablo 3's system there is no need to even bother with a diablo 4.. i said thesame way of no need for a World of warcraft 2 whats the point because if they did that they'd have to do a complete overhaul of everything in a completely new graphics engine which would cost too much... and let's be real it just aint gonna happen just be glad you people are getting vanilla/legacy servers.

[KainneAbsolute]

I think they will make pvp possible and the nephalem will be able to choose factions: heavens or hells.

[Jokubas]

The original post makes some good points. Horror is more about context than anything else, and that's a really big question for the next Diablo game. Personally, I think Blizzard is going to have to reinvent the genre. It's simply impossible to capture the right feel in a game where you're picking up powerful equipment and wading through demons with flashy spells like they're nothing, but it's core to the genre nowadays, and if you just tried to weaken the player it just wouldn't be fun.

The art's similar. Art style is something we take for granted a lot in these days of being able to make photo-realistic graphics. Diablo 3 is dark compared to other games, and there are a lot of creepy areas, and plenty of ominous Gothic locations and horrifying details. It's all just real though (more or less), so you don't feel it. Which isn't to say that real gore isn't disturbing, but it's a sort of "reality is unrealistic" situation. I don't think I'm explaining this well, but I agree that the technical limitations of Diablo 1 and 2 contributed to the tone. Like the gameplay, you can't just straight up enforce old limitations, at least not directly.

I'm reminded of Ultima 6 and the Savage Empire. I remember those games having a lot of atmosphere for me and you didn't really want to go traveling around at night. But that was because the game window was about a quarter of the screen in a game that already had a really low resolution, and nighttime reduced that window further with darkness around the edges. It worked in that context, but you can't just imitate that directly in a modern game. If nighttime in Skyrim, for instance, just made everything literally pitch black except the ground a couple of yards around you, it would just be frustrating.

Both of these things tie back to context. I've seen a lot of people make fun of Leah for not believing Deckard Cain about the kind of things that can happen in Sanctuary, but I always have to point out that, in the grand scheme of things, most people in Sanctuary have not really experienced this stuff, and there was a lull during her entire lifetime up to that point. In Diablo 1, the entire threat was localized in Tristram. Even many of the people in Tristram were skeptical about what was really going on at the time. Even in Diablo 2, the demons only appeared in the path of the Dark Wanderer, so most areas would have been completely oblivious. Arguably, even in Diablo 3, you are only dealing with a handful of major pockets of demonic activity (until Malthael's mass killing at least).

Demons are supposed to be scary and rare even in Sanctuary, but the player hasn't really gotten a sense of that since the first game. To some extent, I'm not sure how you can fix that, because at this point we all know what can happen on Sanctuary, even if a character we play doesn't. Contrast is definitely important for establishing proper horror though. We need to know what's being lost in order to appreciate the fear of losing it. I think this is something else that Diablo 1 did well (on purpose or not) that we've lost since. It was a single town with a handful of named NPCs, and you get to see them in a relatively normal context. Their lives and their livelihood are on the line. Even if you don't get attached to them, you can see that there's something at stake. When the player just expects the world to be at war with demons and the ground to be littered with the bodies of dead villagers, then there's nothing left to lose in the setting, and thus nothing to fear losing. It's not scary for an apocalyptic setting to be apocalyptic, that's just what it is.

An idea I had to work on rebuilding that tone before, was a Diablo survival-horror spin-off in the vein of the Clock Tower games. A game where you're just a normal person in Sanctuary as your village comes under attack by a single demon, and you have to evade this demon for the duration of the game because you can't simply kill it.

As for a true sequel, I'm not exactly sure what to do, but I'll brainstorm a list of suggestions:
* Create a unique art style for the game. For example, the claymation-like look that the original poster mentioned which gives a slight uncanny feel.
* Dial the power level way back. In modern lore terms, make the next protagonist a human again and not a Nephalem. Demons need to be a threat to be scary.
* Have a combat system that's more about tactically fighting small numbers of enemies rather than wading through large numbers with ease. Being weaker needs to be part of the gameplay or it won't be fun.
* Dial the plot way back. For example, Diablo was released again after Reaper of Souls. Let us not confront him in the next game, and have him be this looming threat in the background. It's hard to relate to everything being at stake all the time, which makes it less scary.
* Show us an area or two with a wilderness that isn't instantly deadly to a normal person so that the places that are feel that much worse. Alternatively, focus on a smaller area like Diablo 1 where it's very explicit that the conflict of the game is why things are bad.

[Kokolums]

I remain unconvinced. I dont think atmosphere or storytelling have anythig to do with it. The key to success is establishing an in-game community which means strong social tools. Blizzard was orginally a social hub for gamers that also happened to make games. When they departed from that format their titles ran into problems and they stopped being a special company. Theres just far too many polished games with interesting mechanics and no social tools that went nowhere to make me believe that if we just crank out one MORE it will finally work. If torchlight 2 built an in game community it would probably be the #1 ARPG. Instead it is dead.

[Shanden]

I remain unconvinced. I dont think atmosphere or storytelling have anythig to do with it. The key to success is establishing an in-game community which means strong social tools. Blizzard was orginally a social hub for gamers that also happened to make games. When they departed from that format their titles ran into problems and they stopped being a special company. Theres just far too many polished games with interesting mechanics and no social tools that went nowhere to make me believe that if we just crank out one MORE it will finally work. If torchlight 2 built an in game community it would probably be the #1 ARPG. Instead it is dead.

And again you with your social tantrum. Everything you say is mostly in your head and just your own thinking. It is neigher a fact nor a must have for any game. You can say it a billions times but this wont make it true. Next to nobody is willing to board your though train. You have nothing to back your theory, just delusional anecdotes all over the place.

A developer cannot force social aspects of a game. Sure without any form of interaction its unlikely that any form of community will establish but everything else is up to the community itself. You act like its something the devs did in the past and has been lost today. Nonsense.

You even dare to tie the whole success of a game to just catering social interaction. That is most ridiculous thing I have read in weeks. There are countless factors that determine if a game is successful or not. Torchlight 2 was a nice game but it had many flaws and many dubious design decisions.

At no point during Diablo2 have I seen any sort of "special social hub" whatsoever. The famous ingame chat rooms? Mostly trading. Its not like people gave a single fuck about each others life. The games social aspect was directly tied to trading and finding groups. I read several boards back in D2 times to trade and see new builds. In Diablo3 without trading there was no reason to ever do something like that, simple as that.

[Jokubas]

Oh, I just realized I had something to say about the music. I think what applies to the art style can apply to the music as well. Just because you can make something sound really good, doesn't make that actually good for the context it's used for. Like how I used to go searching for orchestral versions of Final Fantasy and other nostalgic game soundtracks, but nowadays I'm starting to prefer the original versions because they have a unique charm to them.

Diablo 3's music is well made, and I think there are a few tracks that are good in context, but I think being well made itself isn't enough. Look at Silent Hill's theme. It sounds old. It doesn't sound like it was recorded with modern equipment, and I think that's what makes it work. It sounds as old and worn as the town. Diablo needs to deliberately introduce flaws into its art and music in order to give it the character it needs.

Edit: Speaking of basics, I remembered another thing I was going to bring up. I watched someone play Bloodborne when it was new, and I remember it was actually really impressive the first time they found a normal sword. Up until then, while their weapons still looked deadly, they looked somewhat makeshift. You worked up to a perfectly normal sword in that game, and because that was special, it was cool even though it wasn't over the top.

In other words, I think another thing a Diablo 4 could do, along with bringing down the power level by making you human again, is significantly shift the equipment design in a mundane direction. World of Warcraft can have its giant shoulderpads and huge swords, but Diablo should distinguish itself from that. I think subtlety would go a long way in reestablishing the feel of the original Diablo. It would also make it easier to create things that stand out when you need them to stand out, instead of everything being so awesome that nothing is special anymore.

On the topic, I think a similar concept should be applied to the enemy designs. There are things about the way the Butcher made players feel that you can't bring back. Him having a creepy voice line meant something in an era where voice acting in games was still rare that it can't mean nowadays, but there are other things that made him scary that have been lost. While the Butcher in Diablo 1 is large, he's not quite inhumanly so. In many ways, he resembles an overweight, literal butcher, but with a demonic visage (and covered in blood). In Diablo 3, he is just a colossal monster. I think him looking almost human contributed to him being scary in Diablo 1. It took the familiar, but gave it a twist that made it wrong. That's important for horror. The Butcher in Diablo 3 is just a monster now, not something disturbing.

It's a problem I've seen elsewhere, not just Diablo, where demons have just become generic monsters that wouldn't look out of place in any fantasy game, not just dark fantasy. Horns and fire aren't enough to make them scary. They need to evoke a fear. I think I've heard more people upset about the spiders in Diablo 3 than any of the demons, which is a good indicator of how to make something scary. Silent Hill may be a decent comparison to make here again. Most monsters in Silent Hill are recognizable as once human or animal, but warped in a variety of horrifying ways. That isn't to say that Diablo 3 would suddenly be scary if the monsters were all replaced with Silent Hill creatures, but a little bit can go a long way when it comes to establishing tone. I think Diablo would benefit a lot from significantly more mundane enemies, but ones that are the familiar turned wrong, rather than just any old monster made large.