I would hope if they do split it like Warcraft (Diablo III then WoD) they release Diablo III first. I'm not that excited about another MMO before/instead of another classic HacknSlash. The great thing about Diablo is it can be picked up and played whenever anybody wants to, it takes all of 5-10min on a char to be fighting a boss for phat lewts.
Not to say Blizzard can't try to make a HacknSlash MMO like Diablo, but when I think about it I can't name any. Not that my MMO experience is absolutely huge, but even from videos i've seen of other MMOs they don't fit it. The only one that comes to mind is Dungeon Runners, they call themselves an MMO but its really just Diablo with more acts basically.
Pandemonium's a jerk. Using my leet hacking skills and google I found that this is actually an article about Star Craft II not being released until after '07. Not one mention of Diablo III there. :mad:
What part of "I'm not against a WoD" do you not understand?
Was Warcraft 3 the MMO? NO! Is WoW a MMO? Yes!
Will D3 be a MMO? NO! Could there be a Diablo MMO with for example the name WoD? Yes!
I mean, sheez, haven't you read anything i wrote and provided in this thread?
I understand what you are saying there how if it was named Diablo 3 it could not be a MMO, but if it was something else like WoD it would be. But tell me why it can't be a MMO if it was Diablo 3....is this just going by the past of Blizzard ie. Warcraft 3 - WoW.
And I do apologize if I have missed anything that has already been said as I am in a rush.
Without trying to flame i'll quote one more thing and then nothing. Its pretty obvious you wont be convinced, but its more about my thoughts than an actual try to convince you anymore:
Exept that it was far from being a RTS, so i could say the exact same thing about Warcraft3.
You're still in denial what Rob said in the interview after being in 2 years of development of Warcraft 3.
It was still an RTS, only it had way more RPG elements, thats what he said (in many interviews). They overhauled it after the first 2 years of development. Overhaul doesnt mean anything like changing it completely. More like repairing. Either way, if Warcraft 3 was closer to WoW at that time than to the title that was released in the end, it would take much more time to "make it right". Way more than 2 years that it took to be released anyway. And as i mentioned before it takes time to assemble an MMORPG developing team. Assuming they dont need to start working on everything (servers/hiring support teams etc) before the last couple years (before release). And also think about the storylines. The story of Warcraft 3 (and Frozen Throne) led to the story of WoW (and Burning Crusade).
What i'm saying (again) is that everything. Both your theory and mine are based on assumptions and interpretation of mr Pardos interviews.
To you what he said that "it was going to a wrong way and we had to change direction" ment it was the same game. To me (and most) it ment it was going somewhere closer to their other upcoming game. Such kind of games need careful planning. Years before. And Blizzard plans more than 5 years ahead.
Thank God i saw a post of yours without an insult in it.
Now on the 2 possible replies you got another big assumption.
before i go on to answer the question i'll comment a bit this little statement of yours:
The reason why i ask this is because its extremely unprofessional to work on a Warcraft game for two years just to come to the conclusion its becoming to much like the other game they are making, wich on top of that also plays in the Warcraft universe.
It sounds more like they don't know what each development team is doing and it doesn't sound Blizz at all.
one thing thats most important for it: point of view
Blizzard wants their games to be great. The best out in their genre the time they're released. They never fear to completely scrap a game if theres the slight chance its not as good as "it should" (think of Warcraft Adventure, a game completely scrapped and out as a book to provide the lore about Thrall and Warcraft 3 and WoW). Theres also the rumor of Diablo 3 being scrapped and started all over again (which could explain the delay - but thats just a rumor so its not as important as Warcraft Adventure).
With your logic you'd say Blizzard is not that professional for developing a game they completely dumped. But i dont think they arent.
Now on the Warcraft 3 case, all we know (from the interviews of mr Pardo) is that within the first 2 years of development it seemed to go the wrong way (note that wrong might be a way "it shouldnt go cause something else might be planned in that direction") and they had to overhaul it - not make it a different game (as it would be if it looked like you said in the WoW alpha screenshot).
Now another note is that Blizzards developer teams work independent from each other. There is some basic planning in the game but they tend to throw ideas to improve the gameplay but thats about it. The leadership of the company (i feel i dont know the right word for it) of course knows about what they're doing. What would make sense to me was that the Warcraft 3 development team, while trying to improve the RPG elements of the game ventured bit too far into some of the aspects of WoW - thus it was necessary to change it. Making Warcraft 3 more of an RTS title and using all the basic MMORPG rules to WoW (its not that new gameplay wise - only thing they did was make it friendlier to the people new to MMOs) making both games a success. Its well known it takes more time to develop a successful mmo than to develop an RTS, even with RPG elements as Warcraft 3. Which could explain why WoW came out 2 years after Warcraft 3 and it could easily be developed at before the time they did the overhaul - or was in plans before the overhaul occured.
Thats about how i think about it. I do assume from the interviews just as you do, and i do see reason in what you say. But theres logic in both opinions in here, its just what everyone believes. Unless we have a clear statement from Blizzard that says if they didnt plan WoW before the Warcraft 3 overhaul or not.
And i do believe Blizzard is formed of professionals, but their passion to make the best games around is what led them to the top. And they didnt fear to do things other companies wouldnt consider (scrap games - Warcraft Adventure - or indefinitely postpone others - Starcraft: Ghost and of course overhaul even if they're halfway in development). It doesnt look logical in some cases. But it leads to having great games (none could doubt that, right? :P) and its the Blizzard policy.
Making Warcraft 3 more of an RTS title and using all the basic MMORPG rules to WoW (its not that new gameplay wise - only thing they did was make it friendlier to the people new to MMOs) making both games a success.
it was a bit late and i didnt put it right (was sleepy)
what i ment by that is that even with more RPG elements, Warcraft 3 wouldnt be that similar to WoW since WoW is a typical MMORPG. Warcraft 3 (as said by the title and the development team - it was the same that did Starcraft 1 and the same thats working on Starcraft 2) was made to be an RTS with RPG elements (RPS as mr Pardo said). Even without having more RPG elements (thats most likely what they "overhauled" after the 2 years development). Now on WoW being a typical MMORPG, it would require another developing team that knows how to make such a game. And that needs planning. You cant start without having a team and then within 4 years release the best MMORPG on the market.
Sometimes lack of proof is evidence enough in itself.
If there is one single quote or anything pointing towards there being a WoW or plans to make WoW not in relevance to WC3 before the WC3 change then i like to hear it.
So i don't even need a statement from Blizz to let my mind be changed on this topic (to bad you do, and thats why i have the stronger arguments, sorry ;))
This isnt the case, though.
An MMORPG cant come out without careful planning. Having the basics before hiring a team for it isnt something a professional game developer company would do.
WoW and Warcraft 3 have some similarities graphics wise, thats obvious. But it doesnt mean they used to be the same game.
And as you mentioned Ghost, theres this other thing. StarCraft II was being developed at the same time as Ghost. Apparently some of the units look very much alike. Buildings, terrain etc. It doesnt mean that StarCraft II was Ghost at some point of their development, though (playing a bit with paralogue here, dont get angry). What i mean is they both play in the same universe and they both were developed at the same time. It could be the same thing Blizzard did with WoW and Warcraft 3.
I don't feel like you truly answered my question, btw almost all gamecompanies scrap or postpone (or change) games but letting a game become to similar to another game in the same "franchise" and then change it after two years doesn't really fit in this.
(its a bit like creating two Starcraft games at the same time but letting them both become like Starcraft ghost, it just doesn't sound right)
ok, let me explain a bit more. With Warcraft 3 Blizzard took a risk. Something none else tried before. They merged some RTS with RPG elements. They took the experiment bit further (apparently) and then had to re-balance it (at least thats what i get out of it). I have no doubt that WoW didnt come out of nowhere when they saw the rpg aspects of Warcraft 3 at that time (thinking that after 2 years they'd cut a part of the game to make a complete different without previous planning doesnt feel like Blizzard at all). A successfull MMORPG needs careful planning. Hell, even some well planned MMOs didnt come out as good as that particular one from Blizzard
*edit*
its the first time from the start of this arguement that i actually enjoy this conversation
Since we know Blizzard is working on a new MMO, there's a high probability that it will be set in the Diablo universe and be the next Diablo game. There's no denying that. However, why does everyone automatically assume it's going to be like WoW or EQ in which the gameplay revolves around grinding and raiding? Remember, Blizzard has described this next MMO as "innovative" and "not another WoW", so who knows what it's going to be like? My guess is it will be balanced completely around skilled PvP (seeing as how popular PvP is in WoW, even though the game wasn't designed around it), with the PvE aspects being like that of the traditional Diablo games: solo hack'n'slash with raid instances consisting of a maximum of just a handful of players and pure damaged-based classes. I think a Diablo MMO would have to be like this, otherwise, the established Diablo fanbase wouldn't buy it, and it would end up competing with WoW.
I think the bottom line is that a PvP-based, Diablo MMO with traditional Diablo style PvE will allow Blizzard to continue their domination of the MMO market which will soon have all sorts of new titles that focus more on PvP, don't follow the grind/raidfest mentality, and have more interesting, non-linear forms of character advancement.
Isn't Blizzard all about cementing their domination of the MMO market. Properly positioning Diablo is the key. Diablo II fans must be brought along for the ride. New fans must be brought in but not at the expense of WoW. Ultimately Blizzard will cover all bases in the MMO market. Players will have a fairly clear choice: WoW or D3. (I suspect for a real pro HC experience that SC2 will be the other option).
The bad aspects of the bnet experience must be done away with. Blizzard can chance their arm with a new bnet engine and if it is accepted in D3 it would then roll it out into its much more important WoW franchise.
Exploring new PvE ways of playing interests this long time gamer. Basing D3 around PvP with PvE as an afterthought will not please people such as myself. An innovative PvE experience certainly. 3D graphics in this respect is a secondary consideration to the game playing experience.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
So we've got over the problem of colour in D3. Great. Now let's argue about everything else not yet set in stone and help make this game simply great! Game on.
from the rumors i have heard daiblo sounds like just that a pvp based mmo which i am all for. i miss games like shadowbane and long for warhammers new game. I love pvp and hope very much that wows sorry excuse for pvp gets revamped.
i dont really believe Blizzard would make it a pvp oriented MMORPG. It would remind too much of Warhammer Online (which is supposed to be Realm vs Realm - something that would be the only possibility to have as a pvp oriented Diablo game). I think it would be too much of a risk to go there. Especially since Diablo isnt about going on one-on-one combat, but slashing through the hordes of your enemies to defeat their dark masters.
I have no clue what goes on in Blizzard so i cant be sure of anything. But i do believe that they'll keep the next game a single-player title with multiplayer aspects (new battle.net) and if they make an MMORPG in its universe, it will be like a faster paced WoW (gameplay wise) with way darker and bloodier graphics.
Even a Diablo 3 with better battle.net security, no item buying and 3D more quests and acts and harder game but easier at hell would all be fine And bigger stash. And more spells. Then happily I play. So blizzard doesn't really have to do much for me.
You can trust blizzard ne ways
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Cards and flowers on your window, your friends all plead for you to stay,
sometimes beginnings aren't so simple, sometimes goodbye's the only way."
i dont really believe Blizzard would make it a pvp oriented MMORPG. It would remind too much of Warhammer Online (which is supposed to be Realm vs Realm - something that would be the only possibility to have as a pvp oriented Diablo game). I think it would be too much of a risk to go there. Especially since Diablo isnt about going on one-on-one combat, but slashing through the hordes of your enemies to defeat their dark masters.
I have no clue what goes on in Blizzard so i cant be sure of anything. But i do believe that they'll keep the next game a single-player title with multiplayer aspects (new battle.net) and if they make an MMORPG in its universe, it will be like a faster paced WoW (gameplay wise) with way darker and bloodier graphics.
We'll see how Warhammer turns out. It's got a lot to live up to, what with all the hype, and claims of it being the "WoW Killer". I, for one, am not holding my breath. Anyway, the reason why I think Blizzard's next MMO might be PvP based is not so much because of the competition with Warhammer (although that's definitely a big part of it), but because the whole massive raids/epic PvE encounters thing involving large groups of players has kind of been done with WoW and previous MMOs. A lot of players, including myself, are not really interested in this, and there's a growing niche market for something different. Blizzard seems to have noticed, as they have said this next MMO will be completely different from WoW. Also, if you're going to go the massive PvE raiding route (like WoW and EQ), it automatically exludes balanced PvP, simply because the classes will then need to be designed with specific jobs in mind, instead of pure damage. Diablo II is essentially already like the PvP-based MMO I'm envisioning here. In fact, you could probably port it directly into a MMO world and be nearly finished. For example, all the classes are damaged based, and all the PvE encounters and item aquistions are soloable. When you said "a faster paced WoW (gameplay wise) with way darker and bloodier graphics", that's exactly what I'm thinking, except with a truly awesome, skill-based PvP aspect thrown in. It's just the details that would have to worked out after that.
d3 can be heavy pvp as long as they dont copy warhammers rvr thing they got going. they dont even need to change the gameplay much just up the graphics, make it hard to cheat (which might require a monthly fee which i am for due to the all the 13 year olds what wont play cuz of it) ... but most of all make it so pvp doesnt last 2 seconds like most games out right now are like.
d3 can be heavy pvp as long as they dont copy warhammers rvr thing they got going. they dont even need to change the gameplay much just up the graphics, make it hard to cheat (which might require a monthly fee which i am for due to the all the 13 year olds what wont play cuz of it) ... but most of all make it so pvp doesnt last 2 seconds like most games out right now are like.
I totally agree. In fact, I hope the next Diablo game is the new MMO Blizzard is working on simply because they'll be able to stop all the cheaters and hackers. The monthly charge would also be enough of a deterrent to keep most idiots and kiddies away. That's the one good thing about MMOs - since you have to pay to play, most players automatically have a little more devotion to the game, instead of hanging around just to cause trouble. As for RvR, who knows? I'm not necessarily for or against it, however, I don't think a PvP-based Diablo MMO would necessarily require it. You also have to consider what happens when one realm starts winning all the time...bottom line is people don't like to be losers, so you'd probably see a mass exodus from the losing side to the winning side, and the game would then become totally unbalanced. WoW kind of has it right, in that no matter what happens, the consequences of PvP are short lived, fixable and more for fun/character progression. Neither side can completely dominate the other, regardless of numbers or manpower. I know a lot of players don't like this and want capturable towns and stuff that affects the world long term (like Warhammer is offering), but that might not work out. This isn't like reality, where one side has to soldier on, in an MMO, you can just delete your character and roll a new one on the winning side to have more fun (or stop playing all together if re-rolling's not possible). The key is to find a nice balance between PvP consequences and fun for all sides.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Not to say Blizzard can't try to make a HacknSlash MMO like Diablo, but when I think about it I can't name any. Not that my MMO experience is absolutely huge, but even from videos i've seen of other MMOs they don't fit it. The only one that comes to mind is Dungeon Runners, they call themselves an MMO but its really just Diablo with more acts basically.
Pandemonium's a jerk. Using my leet hacking skills and google I found that this is actually an article about Star Craft II not being released until after '07. Not one mention of Diablo III there. :mad:
Like a cat, tied to a stick
I understand what you are saying there how if it was named Diablo 3 it could not be a MMO, but if it was something else like WoD it would be. But tell me why it can't be a MMO if it was Diablo 3....is this just going by the past of Blizzard ie. Warcraft 3 - WoW.
And I do apologize if I have missed anything that has already been said as I am in a rush.
It was still an RTS, only it had way more RPG elements, thats what he said (in many interviews). They overhauled it after the first 2 years of development. Overhaul doesnt mean anything like changing it completely. More like repairing. Either way, if Warcraft 3 was closer to WoW at that time than to the title that was released in the end, it would take much more time to "make it right". Way more than 2 years that it took to be released anyway. And as i mentioned before it takes time to assemble an MMORPG developing team. Assuming they dont need to start working on everything (servers/hiring support teams etc) before the last couple years (before release). And also think about the storylines. The story of Warcraft 3 (and Frozen Throne) led to the story of WoW (and Burning Crusade).
What i'm saying (again) is that everything. Both your theory and mine are based on assumptions and interpretation of mr Pardos interviews.
To you what he said that "it was going to a wrong way and we had to change direction" ment it was the same game. To me (and most) it ment it was going somewhere closer to their other upcoming game. Such kind of games need careful planning. Years before. And Blizzard plans more than 5 years ahead.
Now on the 2 possible replies you got another big assumption.
before i go on to answer the question i'll comment a bit this little statement of yours:
one thing thats most important for it: point of view
Blizzard wants their games to be great. The best out in their genre the time they're released. They never fear to completely scrap a game if theres the slight chance its not as good as "it should" (think of Warcraft Adventure, a game completely scrapped and out as a book to provide the lore about Thrall and Warcraft 3 and WoW). Theres also the rumor of Diablo 3 being scrapped and started all over again (which could explain the delay - but thats just a rumor so its not as important as Warcraft Adventure).
With your logic you'd say Blizzard is not that professional for developing a game they completely dumped. But i dont think they arent.
Now on the Warcraft 3 case, all we know (from the interviews of mr Pardo) is that within the first 2 years of development it seemed to go the wrong way (note that wrong might be a way "it shouldnt go cause something else might be planned in that direction") and they had to overhaul it - not make it a different game (as it would be if it looked like you said in the WoW alpha screenshot).
Now another note is that Blizzards developer teams work independent from each other. There is some basic planning in the game but they tend to throw ideas to improve the gameplay but thats about it. The leadership of the company (i feel i dont know the right word for it) of course knows about what they're doing. What would make sense to me was that the Warcraft 3 development team, while trying to improve the RPG elements of the game ventured bit too far into some of the aspects of WoW - thus it was necessary to change it. Making Warcraft 3 more of an RTS title and using all the basic MMORPG rules to WoW (its not that new gameplay wise - only thing they did was make it friendlier to the people new to MMOs) making both games a success. Its well known it takes more time to develop a successful mmo than to develop an RTS, even with RPG elements as Warcraft 3. Which could explain why WoW came out 2 years after Warcraft 3 and it could easily be developed at before the time they did the overhaul - or was in plans before the overhaul occured.
Thats about how i think about it. I do assume from the interviews just as you do, and i do see reason in what you say. But theres logic in both opinions in here, its just what everyone believes. Unless we have a clear statement from Blizzard that says if they didnt plan WoW before the Warcraft 3 overhaul or not.
And i do believe Blizzard is formed of professionals, but their passion to make the best games around is what led them to the top. And they didnt fear to do things other companies wouldnt consider (scrap games - Warcraft Adventure - or indefinitely postpone others - Starcraft: Ghost and of course overhaul even if they're halfway in development). It doesnt look logical in some cases. But it leads to having great games (none could doubt that, right? :P) and its the Blizzard policy.
it was a bit late and i didnt put it right (was sleepy)
what i ment by that is that even with more RPG elements, Warcraft 3 wouldnt be that similar to WoW since WoW is a typical MMORPG. Warcraft 3 (as said by the title and the development team - it was the same that did Starcraft 1 and the same thats working on Starcraft 2) was made to be an RTS with RPG elements (RPS as mr Pardo said). Even without having more RPG elements (thats most likely what they "overhauled" after the 2 years development). Now on WoW being a typical MMORPG, it would require another developing team that knows how to make such a game. And that needs planning. You cant start without having a team and then within 4 years release the best MMORPG on the market.
This isnt the case, though.
An MMORPG cant come out without careful planning. Having the basics before hiring a team for it isnt something a professional game developer company would do.
WoW and Warcraft 3 have some similarities graphics wise, thats obvious. But it doesnt mean they used to be the same game.
And as you mentioned Ghost, theres this other thing. StarCraft II was being developed at the same time as Ghost. Apparently some of the units look very much alike. Buildings, terrain etc. It doesnt mean that StarCraft II was Ghost at some point of their development, though (playing a bit with paralogue here, dont get angry). What i mean is they both play in the same universe and they both were developed at the same time. It could be the same thing Blizzard did with WoW and Warcraft 3.
ok, let me explain a bit more. With Warcraft 3 Blizzard took a risk. Something none else tried before. They merged some RTS with RPG elements. They took the experiment bit further (apparently) and then had to re-balance it (at least thats what i get out of it). I have no doubt that WoW didnt come out of nowhere when they saw the rpg aspects of Warcraft 3 at that time (thinking that after 2 years they'd cut a part of the game to make a complete different without previous planning doesnt feel like Blizzard at all). A successfull MMORPG needs careful planning. Hell, even some well planned MMOs didnt come out as good as that particular one from Blizzard
*edit*
its the first time from the start of this arguement that i actually enjoy this conversation
I think the bottom line is that a PvP-based, Diablo MMO with traditional Diablo style PvE will allow Blizzard to continue their domination of the MMO market which will soon have all sorts of new titles that focus more on PvP, don't follow the grind/raidfest mentality, and have more interesting, non-linear forms of character advancement.
Isn't Blizzard all about cementing their domination of the MMO market. Properly positioning Diablo is the key. Diablo II fans must be brought along for the ride. New fans must be brought in but not at the expense of WoW. Ultimately Blizzard will cover all bases in the MMO market. Players will have a fairly clear choice: WoW or D3. (I suspect for a real pro HC experience that SC2 will be the other option).
The bad aspects of the bnet experience must be done away with. Blizzard can chance their arm with a new bnet engine and if it is accepted in D3 it would then roll it out into its much more important WoW franchise.
Exploring new PvE ways of playing interests this long time gamer. Basing D3 around PvP with PvE as an afterthought will not please people such as myself. An innovative PvE experience certainly. 3D graphics in this respect is a secondary consideration to the game playing experience.
Bad dream honey?
"Cards and flowers on your window, your friends all plead for you to stay,
sometimes beginnings aren't so simple, sometimes goodbye's the only way."
I have no clue what goes on in Blizzard so i cant be sure of anything. But i do believe that they'll keep the next game a single-player title with multiplayer aspects (new battle.net) and if they make an MMORPG in its universe, it will be like a faster paced WoW (gameplay wise) with way darker and bloodier graphics.
You can trust blizzard ne ways
"Cards and flowers on your window, your friends all plead for you to stay,
sometimes beginnings aren't so simple, sometimes goodbye's the only way."
If I suckd your balls, that would not be an opinin, but yet a factt. Whats up with the post neways...
"Cards and flowers on your window, your friends all plead for you to stay,
sometimes beginnings aren't so simple, sometimes goodbye's the only way."
We'll see how Warhammer turns out. It's got a lot to live up to, what with all the hype, and claims of it being the "WoW Killer". I, for one, am not holding my breath. Anyway, the reason why I think Blizzard's next MMO might be PvP based is not so much because of the competition with Warhammer (although that's definitely a big part of it), but because the whole massive raids/epic PvE encounters thing involving large groups of players has kind of been done with WoW and previous MMOs. A lot of players, including myself, are not really interested in this, and there's a growing niche market for something different. Blizzard seems to have noticed, as they have said this next MMO will be completely different from WoW. Also, if you're going to go the massive PvE raiding route (like WoW and EQ), it automatically exludes balanced PvP, simply because the classes will then need to be designed with specific jobs in mind, instead of pure damage. Diablo II is essentially already like the PvP-based MMO I'm envisioning here. In fact, you could probably port it directly into a MMO world and be nearly finished. For example, all the classes are damaged based, and all the PvE encounters and item aquistions are soloable. When you said "a faster paced WoW (gameplay wise) with way darker and bloodier graphics", that's exactly what I'm thinking, except with a truly awesome, skill-based PvP aspect thrown in. It's just the details that would have to worked out after that.
Bad dream honey?
I totally agree. In fact, I hope the next Diablo game is the new MMO Blizzard is working on simply because they'll be able to stop all the cheaters and hackers. The monthly charge would also be enough of a deterrent to keep most idiots and kiddies away. That's the one good thing about MMOs - since you have to pay to play, most players automatically have a little more devotion to the game, instead of hanging around just to cause trouble. As for RvR, who knows? I'm not necessarily for or against it, however, I don't think a PvP-based Diablo MMO would necessarily require it. You also have to consider what happens when one realm starts winning all the time...bottom line is people don't like to be losers, so you'd probably see a mass exodus from the losing side to the winning side, and the game would then become totally unbalanced. WoW kind of has it right, in that no matter what happens, the consequences of PvP are short lived, fixable and more for fun/character progression. Neither side can completely dominate the other, regardless of numbers or manpower. I know a lot of players don't like this and want capturable towns and stuff that affects the world long term (like Warhammer is offering), but that might not work out. This isn't like reality, where one side has to soldier on, in an MMO, you can just delete your character and roll a new one on the winning side to have more fun (or stop playing all together if re-rolling's not possible). The key is to find a nice balance between PvP consequences and fun for all sides.