Op Ed

GameSpy - Should Diablo III have been first person?
I'll admit it. My first ever hands-on time with any Diablo game occurred just 24 hours ago, when my inexperienced Demon Hunter took his first fumbling steps into the Diablo III beta's dark and ominous dungeons. It took just three hours before I'd hacked and slashed my way to the main storyline's satisfying conclusion, but in that short period of time my eyes were opened to an entirely new perspective on a gaming world. As a lover of first person games, the isometric camera system in Diablo III felt very unfamiliar, and I inevitably wondered why Blizzard didn't make the leap to first person like so many other developers. This led me to wonder - should Diablo III have been a first person game, and what are the pros and cons of this approach? Let's find out.

View : : :
9.
 
Re: Op Ed
Sep 22, 2011, 11:22
9.
Re: Op Ed Sep 22, 2011, 11:22
Sep 22, 2011, 11:22
 
Should D3 have been a FPS? Obviously not... Obviously...

Should a FPS be made with Diablo style game play? Hell yes... And it's not like there isn't, but the FPS-RPG 'genre' (sub genre?) needs to expand... One of the aspects I like the most about Borderlands (or honestly, any game), is the 'rpg' elements...

Part of the problem has, and will continue to be, the differentiation (/bigwords) of auto-hit (where your characters stats matter), and player-hit. GW2 is trying to get away from auto-hit a bit, but it's still going to be relevant...

Fallout tried to get away with it by having the RPG elements increase weapon damage (and other stats)... But is still heavily auto-hit (VATS) based...

And on the other end of the spectrum, FPS' are more about player dodging (and weapon selection) than any kind of player stats, but even that has been changing (again, gun stats, but also speed, jump height, etc...)... reminds me of that awesome RPUT mod for UT : )

-Alamar
Avatar 22996
Date
Subject
Author
1.
Sep 22, 2011Sep 22 2011
2.
Sep 22, 2011Sep 22 2011
10.
Sep 22, 2011Sep 22 2011
12.
Sep 22, 2011Sep 22 2011
13.
Sep 22, 2011Sep 22 2011
14.
Sep 22, 2011Sep 22 2011
15.
Sep 22, 2011Sep 22 2011
18.
Sep 22, 2011Sep 22 2011
27.
Sep 22, 2011Sep 22 2011
16.
Sep 22, 2011Sep 22 2011
17.
Sep 22, 2011Sep 22 2011
19.
Sep 22, 2011Sep 22 2011
20.
Sep 22, 2011Sep 22 2011
22.
Sep 22, 2011Sep 22 2011
   Re: Op Ed
41.
Sep 22, 2011Sep 22 2011
   Re: Op Ed
42.
Sep 22, 2011Sep 22 2011
    Re: Op Ed
46.
Sep 23, 2011Sep 23 2011
     Re: Op Ed
26.
Sep 22, 2011Sep 22 2011
3.
Sep 22, 2011Sep 22 2011
4.
Sep 22, 2011Sep 22 2011
5.
Sep 22, 2011Sep 22 2011
6.
Sep 22, 2011Sep 22 2011
7.
Sep 22, 2011Sep 22 2011
8.
Sep 22, 2011Sep 22 2011
 9.
Sep 22, 2011Sep 22 2011
Re: Op Ed
11.
Sep 22, 2011Sep 22 2011
21.
Sep 22, 2011Sep 22 2011
23.
Sep 22, 2011Sep 22 2011
24.
Sep 22, 2011Sep 22 2011
28.
Sep 22, 2011Sep 22 2011
30.
Sep 22, 2011Sep 22 2011
   Re: Op Ed
25.
Sep 22, 2011Sep 22 2011
29.
Sep 22, 2011Sep 22 2011
31.
Sep 22, 2011Sep 22 2011
32.
Sep 22, 2011Sep 22 2011
33.
Sep 22, 2011Sep 22 2011
34.
Sep 22, 2011Sep 22 2011
35.
Sep 22, 2011Sep 22 2011
36.
Sep 22, 2011Sep 22 2011
   Re: Op Ed
38.
Sep 22, 2011Sep 22 2011
    Re: Op Ed
40.
Sep 22, 2011Sep 22 2011
     Re: Op Ed
45.
Sep 23, 2011Sep 23 2011
      Re: Op Ed
47.
Sep 23, 2011Sep 23 2011
       Re: Op Ed
48.
Sep 23, 2011Sep 23 2011
        Re: Op Ed
49.
Sep 23, 2011Sep 23 2011
         Re: Op Ed
37.
Sep 22, 2011Sep 22 2011
43.
Sep 22, 2011Sep 22 2011
   Re: Op Ed
44.
Sep 23, 2011Sep 23 2011
    Re: Op Ed
39.
Sep 22, 2011Sep 22 2011