yuastnav wrote on Sep 23, 2011, 11:57:
Mhm I was not aware that there are roguelike multiplayer games.
The only one I knew was the online component of dungeon crawl stone soup which is more of a score-based ladder system or something like that.

The thing is that I wouldn't want to give up the round based concept of something like nethack.
It would not be impossible to make multiplayer, though, it would just be kinda difficult and straining on all the players because you'd always have to wait for the other player before you could make your turn again.

But thanks, I'll check that link out.

Cool, no problem. You'll see that the Wiki references Diablo under the 'mainstream success' section. I'll have to agree that a Wiki will not necessarily be the official end-all answer about the Diablo series, the included statements do follow (in my mind) that Diablo is a Roguelike hybrid of sorts, not a pure definition of the roguelike.

In the case of Diablo, it is not a turn based roguelike (hybrid), correct? So it follows that you wouldn't have to go down the path of turn-based strategy gaming with your FPS unless you wanted to. Dungeon Hack (1993) was not turn based and not strategic per se. It was all real-time until you 'rested'.

I do understand your preference for the round based nethack concept, however. Unfortunately, there are less and less of us able to focus on those types of games anymore (turn based real-time strategy). The FPS idea cannot dwell on that mechanic in this day and age and so is relegated to a more action based demographic.

It would be great to see games like Jagged Alliance or a 'real' X-Com come back from the dead, wouldn't it?

BurntSoul wrote on Sep 23, 2011, 10:58:

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.

Mhm I was not aware that there are roguelike multiplayer games.
The only one I knew was the online component of dungeon crawl stone soup which is more of a score-based ladder system or something like that.

The thing is that I wouldn't want to give up the round based concept of something like nethack.
It would not be impossible to make multiplayer, though, it would just be kinda difficult and straining on all the players because you'd always have to wait for the other player before you could make your turn again.

But thanks, I'll check that link out.

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.

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.

BurntSoul wrote on Sep 22, 2011, 17:00:
Okay, for Diablo 3 to be an FPS? No F'n way, the guy is trolling for controversy. However, I do like the idea of a NetHack game in an FPS. In other words, give me the RPG elements. But also give me a completely random maps to cover. Also, I'd like to randomly create the map/dungeon/castle based on specific things like Dungeon Hack. Will I need food to survive, or not? More or Less creatures per level of dungeon? How many levels down? How large of a map can I create on the fly? Which tileset(s) to use? How much magic? Permadeath or not? You get what I mean. Finally, bring on the option for co-op gaming as well as single player and I'm good. Bonus? LAN only play and Dedicated server files, of course

Something like nethack or dungeon crawl doesn't really work with coop.

What a tool. Not only is he a tool, but his friend the supposed Diablo "pro" is an even bigger tool.

I really like how he states as "fact" that Diablo never gets much more difficult....

I guess his friend never played on Hell difficulty let alone "Hardcore".

Whats really surprising to me is not the utter stupidity of that article (long a staple in gaming journalism) but that the guy even WROTE an article, since his intelligence indicates that he probably cant even read or write. Maybe he dictated it to his Diablo "Pro" friend.....

Creston wrote on Sep 22, 2011, 16:48:
So, good on you, Gamespy. Your thirteen year old mouthbreather of an editor got you a few hits, and your continued slide into obsolescence continues unabated.

http://penny-arcade.com/comic/2003/12/05

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.

PHJF wrote on Sep 22, 2011, 12:37:
asdf Al;sdSDJ FLKJASGKLWE LGKERJALGKHJASLKFHSDJLKG JAGLFHGSJLFSHLSKAFJSDALKFJHAGLKJ HGELKWHGERAJGFKHALKJFDA!~@#$!@$!$JRKL FDG FLKGJ SDALHJSDA KSDJAFSD@#LK% QJ@%L!??!~?!!?@!?!@?!@!@?

Fuck, it appears when I bang my head against the keyboard like a fucking moron I don't end up with a stupid fucking op ed for Gamespy. Maybe I'll try again.

I was going to write something sarcastic and biting, but I can't stop laughing at this. Post of the Year for me.

Okay, for Diablo 3 to be an FPS? No F'n way, the guy is trolling for controversy. However, I do like the idea of a NetHack game in an FPS. In other words, give me the RPG elements. But also give me a completely random maps to cover. Also, I'd like to randomly create the map/dungeon/castle based on specific things like Dungeon Hack. Will I need food to survive, or not? More or Less creatures per level of dungeon? How many levels down? How large of a map can I create on the fly? Which tileset(s) to use? How much magic? Permadeath or not? You get what I mean. Finally, bring on the option for co-op gaming as well as single player and I'm good. Bonus? LAN only play and Dedicated server files, of course

So was saying he'd never played any Diablo game before part of his troll exercise?

If not, dude, seriously? What is he, ten? How could anyone not have played Diablo unless they weren't born yet.

Cutter wrote on Sep 22, 2011, 16:40:

nin wrote on Sep 22, 2011, 16:20:

So it was all a stunt then...

Now, what did I say a the beginning of this thread?

Yeah, but you naysay everything.

eunichron wrote on Sep 22, 2011, 16:17:
And this is the guy that is editor-in-chief of Gamespy.

If your rag of a website has faded into obscurity for the past eight years, you have to do SOMETHING to get traffic. It actually speaks more to the absolute pathetic state most gaming websites are in that pretty much all of them have to resort to trolling 101 in order to get hits.

So, good on you, Gamespy. Your thirteen year old mouthbreather of an editor got you a few hits, and your continued slide into obsolescence continues unabated.

Creston

nin wrote on Sep 22, 2011, 16:20:

So it was all a stunt then...

Now, what did I say a the beginning of this thread?

So it was all a stunt then...

Creston wrote on Sep 22, 2011, 16:02:
He seems to be trying really hard to make a serious case, so I doubt he's trolling. But even if so, he's a cunt either way.

I was actually more surprised that Gamespy still exists.

Creston

From the comments section he insulted the entire Diablo fanbase on his Twitter:

bennettring Bennett Ring
@jane_tobes It's easy - find a game that has the nerdiest following, and have an open discussion about radically reinventing it.
14 hours ago

bennettring Bennett Ring
@jane_tobes Ha, pretty good eh? Who'd have thought Diablo fans would have more rage than the COD kiddies?


And this is the guy that is editor-in-chief of Gamespy.

He seems to be trying really hard to make a serious case, so I doubt he's trolling. But even if so, he's a cunt either way.

I was actually more surprised that Gamespy still exists.

Creston

I can only assume the author of this article is trolling.

I usually find 1st person games easier than those with a fixed camera, for what it's worth. It's way easier to exploit stupid AI in game where you can climb over everything and kill stuff from 7 screens away (AKA: the Fallout 3 example he keeps referencing)..

That is possibly the worst piece of journalism I have ever seen, gaming or otherwise. I seriously hope this guy doesn't have a job by the end of the week.

nin wrote on Sep 22, 2011, 15:06:

DG wrote on Sep 22, 2011, 13:13:

qisometric camera system in Diablo III felt very unfamiliar,

How do you get to be a gaming "journalist" yet have not used iso before?

This explains confirms a lot.

Wasn't there someone on here awhile back talking about how good gaming journalism is these days? And that just because they're young, doesn't mean they don't know the scene?

Oh yeah, here we go.

Yeah, that was funny. Especially since he's yet to give a single link to that mythical 25 year old writer who knows anything about games. (beyond the inevitable "DOOD! CALL OF DUTY IS TEH SHIT, BRAH!"

Creston