I got this idea from Baldur's Gate 2, which is an amazing game that I think Blizzard should borrow some elements from. Obviously you could choose what to talk about in the previous Diablo games but not what to say. I agree that all that VO work could be too much, but even incorporating a little could help.. it might be worth it. Besides I'm seeing Blizzard using this in Starcraft 2's single player campaign, why not Diablo 3. I think this could add a lot more replay value, enrich the storyline a bit and get a different experience depending on how you navigated through your story path.
Think reputation would be too much? Would it require too much upkeep and take away the fun? Or can it add more things to do in the D3 world. Like how well you performed your quest, if you fought with style, etc. Maybe it could be a way to lessen flames and swearing, I dunno. What do you think?
Personally I would like to see Blizzard take examples from the Fallout games, because this heaven and hell topic is just that, a question of morality, but it's always been a christian overtone of justice prevailing.
I of course know that this is Diablo and it will never be like that. I just love the Fallout style of telling a story, It was serene and pure and absolute beauty.
Personally I would like to see Blizzard take examples from the Fallout games, because this heaven and hell topic is just that, a question of morality, but it's always been a christian overtone of justice prevailing.
I of course know that this is Diablo and it will never be like that. I just love the Fallout style of telling a story, It was serene and pure and absolute beauty.
Human overtone of justice prevailing, you mean.
Christianity, and just about every other religion as well, don't exactly go into the history books as just or fair.
I feel that the setting of Diablo really blurs the lines of justice and injustice. Even the most cowardly of men fights when cornered, with evil threatening to kill off humanity even bandits are likely out fighting demons rather than robbing travelers.
Baldur's Gate is a simply beautifully mastered game. So many aspects of it are so enjoyable. I would like to see some more of err some of what was in BGII displayed in Diablo (3). But only if it will add value, no coping stuff for the sake of it.
While I enjoy the crazy psychotic antics of Lawrence Lilarcor the talking Sentient sword, I do not want to see it in Diablo.
I love dialog options, though they are generally pretty basic, "yes", "no", "are you kidding?", "no way in hell screw that", ok, but this better be good"
It's adds a bit more realism to the character, the character is no longer just some emotionless zombie accepting quests and items without question.
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.
Depends it's only dialog options not good or evil alignments. At it only affects your present situation/location. Not the end game.
NPC: Here take this (crappy) sword you earned it for ridding me of those Zombies.
You:
1 - The Hell I will!!! I risked my life killing a horde of zombies and in return you give me this filith! I want something else!
2- It would be my pleasure
3- You have a set of armor over there, you give it to me or I will take it, either way I am getting that armor
4- Well alright, but I still feel like I deserve more than just this
4- Well alright, but I still feel like I deserve more than just this
NPC: Don't be so greedy, you get want you deserve, a pleasure doing business with you my friend, Ungo over the has a quest for you I am sure he will have something (even crappier) for you.
You:
1- Well alright, but he better pay up better than you did old man
2- If there are those in need I shall aid them!!!
2- If there are those in need I shall aid them!!!
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.
so in your example its just for giggles when talking to npcs? or does it have dare i say, deeper meaning. i was thinking on the line of a deeper bioshock, where the ending is affected by your actions. which is interesting, but so un-diablo also...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Remember the String of Ears
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
They had that in Bard's Tale as well. The ending was determined by your actions. So did Fable.
Whereas Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn had multiple dialog options, for almost every situation, yet it had only one conclusion. It didn't matter what you did.
Baldur's Gate II: Throne of Bhaal had a bit of actions determining the ending but there was really only one logical conclusion anyway.
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.
People prefer to hack'n'slash rather than useless chatting with NPCs that doesn't affect the ending at all.
Personally, I enjoy talking to NPCs about nothing. I gossip with ever NPC before, during and after quests. Just to hear what they say. More often not that is where you pick up the biggest details and facts about the lore and story.
I don't want your actions to determine the end of the game, but just a little things like what will be your reward, maybe if you are good at speaking you will manage to get additional information about quests, story, etc.
I would certainly enjoy persuading a NPC to give me a better reward or bartering an NPC's prices down a bit, Gheed's prices are far too steep. I want to teach him a lesson, even if I have to teach him that lesson with my fist and boot! But me knocking some sense into Gheed should not affect the final out come of 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.
Play Baldur's Gate. It's all there. In essence you either get a better reward, no change, a worse reward or you get your ass kicked.
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.
I not a fan of branching dialogue trees which lead to alternate story paths or alternate quests.
They seldom do that. At best it is an option between several items, like what was present in WOW, or persuading the NPC to give you more of a reward.
or picking up an optional quest where otherwise there might not have been one.
Did anyone else find it strange that Gheed asks you for a small gem, some gold, in exchange for the items you will need, yet this transaction never achieved fruition. Well technically it did, you could sell a gem and buy the items off of Gheed, but the way he describes it it sounds more like a transaction.
And Geglash said he would go with you to the tombs, but he doesn't like all that living dead stuff. Geglash is a drunk, a smart man with a way with words, or perhaps even just a sober person could convince Geglash that the tombs are not filled with living dead monsters, and gain some fodder, I mean an ally whilst in the tombs.
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.
You could make it simple for reputation in that you just choose the path of good or evil. Good is pretty straight forward. Evil is a bit tricky, I know you'd be killing monsters but lets say you'd be killing them on they way to take over diablo's spot.
Good vs Evil would be great for duals on multiplayer.
You could make it simple for reputation in that you just choose the path of good or evil. Good is pretty straight forward. Evil is a bit tricky, I know you'd be killing monsters but lets say you'd be killing them on they way to take over diablo's spot.
Good vs Evil would be great for duals on multiplayer.
Eh, the hierarchy of the burning hells doesn't work like that.
Belial and Azmodan kicked the prime evils out of hell, but they are still lesser evils even with all the three dead.
The only reason I wanted selectable dialogue was to have more of the lore, storyline or quests explained in a casual manner rather than some bodyless narrator doing that for you, which that alone I think is worth it. It's optional too, if you don't care about lore or getting to know a different sides of the story, bestiary, quests, etc then just skip it. For example say your able to get different rewards for a quest depending on what you say, that's pretty good no?
Diablo is not a decision-consequence game. It is a hacknslash. Dialogue would be a nuisance, even if alternate responses were programmed. Most people only listen to the story the first few times through. Imagine having to navigate dialogue trees to get quests every time.
I fail to see a problem with navigating through a tree of dialog.
Icewind Dale, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, and a whole host of others. It is not like this concept is foreign or new.
Some people like it and some people don't.
What Blizzard has already done is give a focussed narrative perspective, providing your player character with a voice and dialogue you can't choose. This maintains a single line of dialogue that can easily be clicked through to skip, while maintaining a strong personality for your character.
That tends to make the character someone else, if you have forced Dialog. They become more of a "Kratos" than some generic character that is in essence an avatar representing you.
Dialog options gives you more play and more chances to act more according to how you act or view things.
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.
Reputation could work to a certain extent, I'd say throw in a Reputation system similar to Divine Divinities or Baldur's Gate, although I don't like having to follow the rules to get the best service by vendors. Diablo 3 would have to include distinct quests that would affect reputation as well. Also, being able to Kill NPC's at anytime in any town or area in order to be able to reduce the Reputation Points one posseses. The only problem is that it would turn Diablo 3 into a different RPG than what were used to. Like someone said, Diablo 3 isn't a decision consequence game and probably won't have enough factors to include a Reputation system worth using.
I like the idea, but since its a HackNSlash game that encourages Multiple player, how does cooperation work? If say, it was Elfen Lied's perspective where your actions have little consequences to the conclusion. How does this work in multiple player? Hero may choose to do this quest (which makes him good), so he has to go to a specific location. Another hero refused to do the quest (which makes him bad) but he gains some gold in return. Wouldn't this mean side quests are less cooperative and more solo?
Also, assuming that there are only 2 possible paths that you can take with your dialog (good or bad). This means that around 50% of Diablo III characters have taken a different "side quest" path to the other 50%. Maybe it won't affect the overall "main quest" cooperative, but side quest wise, seems to affect alot.
Na, I'm not liking how people are making the Reputation System sound, to messy. I say forget the Reputation but in terms of Fame like someone mentioned, give titles and marks to people that are good in PvP ( If they even have PvP worth doing ) in Diablo 3. Crazy to think that it might not be worth doing isnt it ? Considering that Diablo 2 lived so long due to it's PvP, if Blizzard drops the ball on PvP in Diablo 3, which hopefully they probably won't, I don't know what to expect.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Think reputation would be too much? Would it require too much upkeep and take away the fun? Or can it add more things to do in the D3 world. Like how well you performed your quest, if you fought with style, etc. Maybe it could be a way to lessen flames and swearing, I dunno. What do you think?
I of course know that this is Diablo and it will never be like that. I just love the Fallout style of telling a story, It was serene and pure and absolute beauty.
Human overtone of justice prevailing, you mean.
Christianity, and just about every other religion as well, don't exactly go into the history books as just or fair.
I feel that the setting of Diablo really blurs the lines of justice and injustice. Even the most cowardly of men fights when cornered, with evil threatening to kill off humanity even bandits are likely out fighting demons rather than robbing travelers.
Words I hate in Gaming Culture:
Epic
Hardcore
E-Sports
While I enjoy the crazy psychotic antics of Lawrence Lilarcor the talking Sentient sword, I do not want to see it in Diablo.
I love dialog options, though they are generally pretty basic, "yes", "no", "are you kidding?", "no way in hell screw that", ok, but this better be good"
It's adds a bit more realism to the character, the character is no longer just some emotionless zombie accepting quests and items without question.
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
NPC: Here take this (crappy) sword you earned it for ridding me of those Zombies.
You:
1 - The Hell I will!!! I risked my life killing a horde of zombies and in return you give me this filith! I want something else!
2- It would be my pleasure
3- You have a set of armor over there, you give it to me or I will take it, either way I am getting that armor
4- Well alright, but I still feel like I deserve more than just this
4- Well alright, but I still feel like I deserve more than just this
NPC: Don't be so greedy, you get want you deserve, a pleasure doing business with you my friend, Ungo over the has a quest for you I am sure he will have something (even crappier) for you.
You:
1- Well alright, but he better pay up better than you did old man
2- If there are those in need I shall aid them!!!
2- If there are those in need I shall aid them!!!
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
Whereas Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn had multiple dialog options, for almost every situation, yet it had only one conclusion. It didn't matter what you did.
Baldur's Gate II: Throne of Bhaal had a bit of actions determining the ending but there was really only one logical conclusion anyway.
I would certainly enjoy persuading a NPC to give me a better reward or bartering an NPC's prices down a bit, Gheed's prices are far too steep. I want to teach him a lesson, even if I have to teach him that lesson with my fist and boot! But me knocking some sense into Gheed should not affect the final out come of the game.
As long as there is ONE story, then I'm fine with it.
I don't want to be playing Choose Your Own Adventure.
or picking up an optional quest where otherwise there might not have been one.
Did anyone else find it strange that Gheed asks you for a small gem, some gold, in exchange for the items you will need, yet this transaction never achieved fruition. Well technically it did, you could sell a gem and buy the items off of Gheed, but the way he describes it it sounds more like a transaction.
And Geglash said he would go with you to the tombs, but he doesn't like all that living dead stuff. Geglash is a drunk, a smart man with a way with words, or perhaps even just a sober person could convince Geglash that the tombs are not filled with living dead monsters, and gain some fodder, I mean an ally whilst in the tombs.
Good vs Evil would be great for duals on multiplayer.
Eh, the hierarchy of the burning hells doesn't work like that.
Belial and Azmodan kicked the prime evils out of hell, but they are still lesser evils even with all the three dead.
Words I hate in Gaming Culture:
Epic
Hardcore
E-Sports
I fail to see a problem with navigating through a tree of dialog.
Icewind Dale, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, and a whole host of others. It is not like this concept is foreign or new.
Some people like it and some people don't.
That tends to make the character someone else, if you have forced Dialog. They become more of a "Kratos" than some generic character that is in essence an avatar representing you.
Dialog options gives you more play and more chances to act more according to how you act or view things.
like if your a notoriously good pvper, you get acknowledged...:P
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
Also, assuming that there are only 2 possible paths that you can take with your dialog (good or bad). This means that around 50% of Diablo III characters have taken a different "side quest" path to the other 50%. Maybe it won't affect the overall "main quest" cooperative, but side quest wise, seems to affect alot.
Blizzard
Valve
:thumbsup: