Op Ed

[Sep 22, 2011, 10:38 am ET] - Share - Viewing Comments

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

46.

Re: Op Ed

Sep 23, 2011, 10:15

BurntSoul

Beamer wrote on Sep 22, 2011, 18:50: Know what never works with FP? Randomly generated content. It works in Diablo because you're so removed from the landscape that you don't notice how sparse and repetitive it is. Zoom down to eye level and you will. I think that back in the 90's/early 2000's you'd get that kind of sparse and/or repetitive content. I remember Soldier of Fortune 2 had the option for random multiplayer levels. It was almost there (the experiment worked), but the tech wasn't ready. I think that nowadays developers could certainly figure out a way to make better use of tileset transitions and add random environmental things like stalagmites, flora/fauna, rocks, use of water and weather in a random way that will be more interesting and immersive.

		Date	Subject	Author
	1.	Sep 22, 10:40	Re: Op Ed	nin
	2.	Sep 22, 10:47	Re: Op Ed	Creston
	10.	Sep 22, 11:27	matthew@welchkin.net	Watter
	12.	Sep 22, 11:31	Re: matthew@welchkin.net	Alamar
	13.	Sep 22, 11:43	Re: matthew@welchkin.net	Shok
	14.	Sep 22, 11:48	Re: matthew@welchkin.net	nin
	15.	Sep 22, 11:53	Re: matthew@welchkin.net	Bhruic
	18.	Sep 22, 12:03	Re: matthew@welchkin.net	Creston
	27.	Sep 22, 13:46	Re: matthew@welchkin.net	Bhruic
	16.	Sep 22, 11:54	Re: Op Ed	gilly775
	17.	Sep 22, 11:58	Re: Op Ed	Darks
	19.	Sep 22, 12:24	Re: Op Ed	Admgloval
	20.	Sep 22, 12:37	Re: Op Ed	PHJF
	22.	Sep 22, 12:42	Re: Op Ed	Creston
	41.	Sep 22, 18:47	Re: Op Ed	dangerman77
	42.	Sep 22, 18:50	Re: Op Ed	Beamer
>>	46.	Sep 23, 10:15	Re: Op Ed	BurntSoul
	26.	Sep 22, 13:30	Re: Op Ed	beigemore
	3.	Sep 22, 10:52	Re: Op Ed	space captain
	4.	Sep 22, 11:00	Re: Op Ed	Verno
	5.	Sep 22, 11:01	Re: Op Ed	Bhruic
	6.	Sep 22, 11:03	Re: Op Ed	Kajetan
	7.	Sep 22, 11:06	Re: Op Ed	Cutter
	8.	Sep 22, 11:16	Re: Op Ed	Mad Max RW
	9.	Sep 22, 11:22	Re: Op Ed	Alamar
	11.	Sep 22, 11:30	Re: Game Reviews	CommunistHamster
	21.	Sep 22, 12:39	Re: Op Ed	beigemore
	23.	Sep 22, 13:08	Re: Op Ed	Lobster
	24.	Sep 22, 13:13	Re: Op Ed	DG
	28.	Sep 22, 15:06	Re: Op Ed	nin
	30.	Sep 22, 15:26	Re: Op Ed	Creston
	25.	Sep 22, 13:18	Re: Op Ed	Red
	29.	Sep 22, 15:21	Re: Op Ed	Ruffiana
	31.	Sep 22, 15:41	Re: Op Ed	eunichron
	32.	Sep 22, 15:58	Re: Op Ed	Silicon Avatar
	33.	Sep 22, 16:02	Re: Op Ed	Creston
	34.	Sep 22, 16:17	Re: Op Ed	eunichron
	35.	Sep 22, 16:20	Re: Op Ed	nin
	36.	Sep 22, 16:40	Re: Op Ed	Cutter
	38.	Sep 22, 16:51	Re: Op Ed	nin
	40.	Sep 22, 17:00	Re: Op Ed	BurntSoul
	45.	Sep 23, 08:52	Re: Op Ed	yuastnav
	47.	Sep 23, 10:58	Re: Op Ed	BurntSoul
	48.	Sep 23, 11:57	Re: Op Ed	yuastnav
	49.	Sep 23, 13:09	Re: Op Ed	BurntSoul
	37.	Sep 22, 16:48	Re: Op Ed	Creston
	43.	Sep 22, 19:54	Re: Op Ed	Sepharo
	44.	Sep 23, 04:06	Re: Op Ed	InBlack
	39.	Sep 22, 16:56	Re: Op Ed	Jdrez