I like the idea of acts. it gives a good transition for story advancement. although i like the idea somebody passed about multiple towns or camps in one act. that would provide more types of goals for play (escort missions, spy, raid the caravan, even messanger service serve a purpose)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DoubleTalk Isn't.
There are no perfect characters, only progress towards...
I like the idea of acts. it gives a good transition for story advancement. although i like the idea somebody passed about multiple towns or camps in one act. that would provide more types of goals for play (escort missions, spy, raid the caravan, even messanger service serve a purpose)
i completely agree, there should be like about 4 or 5 towns (outposts) in each act.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Diablo- The first game i ever played for the PC in 1997. Diablo 2- The first online game i ever played in 2001.
there should be acts but it would be kind of cool if they werent tied to any particular city. like instead of act 2 being centered around lut golien it could have you going all over the world too do things.
I agree with Guardian because alot of people like diablo how it is and they should keep it the way it is but just make it more fun and scary. One thing they should change from d2 is that it wasnt scary at all d1 was.
'>I agree with Guardian because alot of people like diablo how it is and they should keep it the way it is but just make it more fun and scary. One thing they should change from d2 is that it wasnt scary at all d1 was.
yeah i think D1 was more scary than D2 because you moved slower, the music was more eerie, and the quests were more gruesome and hellish to D2, also the whole game was based inside (as opposed to D2 which is mostly based outside)
I also agree with keeping the game similar to the others because so many sequels have taken the path to "originality" and failed so horribly.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Diablo- The first game i ever played for the PC in 1997. Diablo 2- The first online game i ever played in 2001.
I really do like the idea of multiple towns per act. It opens up so my possibilities. Or possibly one main town with several small outposts and villages on the outskirts.
As far as acts or no acts go, I would have to say go with acts or possibly 'chapters'. I think having something like chapters would make it seem epic and have a storylike quality to it.
And I'm not much of a believer in the idea that D3 should stay like D2 and that so many sequels have gone bad because they try to be original. To the people who say that, have you even played the original Diablo? There was only one town and no acts in D1, so did D2 suffer from being 'original' and adding different towns and different acts?
I think that there should be no acts like the original. It will have to be much longer then it not just 16 levels. It should be the same "world" type map style. And you should travel to different places, but it should be one continueous system. That would be a little better.
i like the idea of acts with seperate cities in each act..thats a good idea....i also agree with the idea of new patches that include new acts...they would have to be side acts of course and coud be completly non relatated to the story but would still be alot of fun
How about a combined D1 and D2? The seperate acts (with multiple towns each) could have deep dungeons like the original. Each with some tidbit of knowledge that allows for the opening of a door to a new plain of reality. Each plain is not real but an illusion set up by Diablo to hide himself. The game ends with you thinking you got him, but the next patch comes out to reveal it as yet another illusion, and a new door opens...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DoubleTalk Isn't.
There are no perfect characters, only progress towards...
i dont think there should be acts. there were no real point to them except that they took a big chunk of the journey out of it. it would be nice to just have the wps and instead of having act 1 or act 3 it could just have rouge ecampment and kurast.
i dont think there should be acts. there were no real point to them except that they took a big chunk of the journey out of it. it would be nice to just have the wps and instead of having act 1 or act 3 it could just have rouge ecampment and kurast.
damn it man, don't necro a thread that hasn't been posted in, for over 2 years
I think it should be broken into acts.
Diablo - The first game i ever played for the PC in 1997.
Diablo 2 - The first online game i ever played in 2001.
There are no perfect characters, only progress towards...
i completely agree, there should be like about 4 or 5 towns (outposts) in each act.
Diablo - The first game i ever played for the PC in 1997.
Diablo 2 - The first online game i ever played in 2001.
I also agree with keeping the game similar to the others because so many sequels have taken the path to "originality" and failed so horribly.
Diablo - The first game i ever played for the PC in 1997.
Diablo 2 - The first online game i ever played in 2001.
As far as acts or no acts go, I would have to say go with acts or possibly 'chapters'. I think having something like chapters would make it seem epic and have a storylike quality to it.
And I'm not much of a believer in the idea that D3 should stay like D2 and that so many sequels have gone bad because they try to be original. To the people who say that, have you even played the original Diablo? There was only one town and no acts in D1, so did D2 suffer from being 'original' and adding different towns and different acts?
____________________________________________________________
Cody
There are no perfect characters, only progress towards...
damn it man, don't necro a thread that hasn't been posted in, for over 2 years
THREAD NECRO