yuastnav wrote on Sep 23, 2011, 08:52:
Something like nethack or dungeon crawl doesn't really work with coop.
Why? Can't we get creative and make it work?
First off I would never want Diablo III to be an FPS. However, I do think there is room for an FPS that has the Roguelike qualities of the diablo series as well as games like nethack/dungeon hack.
You probably already know this, but the Diablo series' roots were derived from the 'roguelike' game (random hack and slash + dungeon crawler adventure game, random loot drops). There are also multiplayer roguelike games. Go check the wiki on roguelikes
to see it. Why is Diablo/Diablo II still being played today? I believe it's because of the Co-op, and the fact that the game is different enough based on random dungeon levels and item drops.
So why does this formula have to stay in the realm of isometric view?
There are more than a few FPS games right now that have everything Diablo has, excluding the level randomization. The story is generally the same: Kill bad guys + boss with quest, get loot, stay alive, level up and do it again.
FPS play + Randomization of levels and the options for them (before the game begins) are the only components that would need to be added.
What has to stay basically the same? The general storyline.
Future new campaigns could be created with new content, textures, creatures and tilesets - while the story changes with which baddies/bosses to kill. Alternatively, the original story could be retrofitted on the fly with a different tileset for that game (Kill boss A but now he lives in a dungeon as opposed to a castle, or he lives in the desert as opposed to the jungle).
You can also add randomly generated and/or recurring side-quests. MMORPGs do it all the time. Even if you didn't want that kind of randomization, you could create specific side-quests but randomly place them in the 'levels' when a new game starts or add more or less side-quests (or none at all).
This keeps things interesting and fresh.
You see, I'd rather be creative to solve this as opposed to saying it just cannot work.