I thought this was quite an interesting topic. I can see what Adam means with it, and I agree with the concept of this, but I also have some questions about this. In my opinion the developers of D4 do create this problem themselves a bit.
As Adam also stated many times is that they have a big audience, with very different playstyles. They try to make Diablo 4 “A game for everyone.” I see why this is attractive, more players means more $$$, but it also emphasize this problem.
It is very hard to make the game for everyone.
I agree with the D4 team that the game should not be as deep as say POE, but its also strange to me to think that ARPG players will be happy without a lot of endgame content and simple mechanics. We love some depth and theorycrafting and having very hard content to overcome.
I think they approach it sometimes a little too much as an MMO, wich is (in my opinion) easier to appeal to large audience. ARPGS are games that are not for everyone.
And to be fair we see a lot of moves in the right direction, so kudos there.
TLDR: In my opinion the “Cursed Problem” Is partly self inflicted because they dont have a clear audience in mind that they are making the game for.
You are choosing the fate of side characters/factions. Which seems like what OP is saying too.
Now, I also agree that it shouldn’t change the ending of the game in any meaningful way. You end the game by killing the big baddie. No “Good/Bad/Mid” endings.
What the decisions do to your characters powers, should always be the focus. With any story stuff being more like the story that comes with the seasons.
It should maybe be noted here too, that it would be a wild exaggeration to say that Souls games are about picking different endings either. They are such a tiny part of their campaigns, with a small cutscene at the end or something. For genuine games with different paths, we are more into CRPGs or JRPGs.
Btw, there is one A-RPG series that had good/evil campaigns: Sacred.
Yeah. Outright impossible.
A big part of Blizzards problem imo. They struggle with picking a direction and sticking with it.
You reference big open ARPGs and normal RPGs alike that offer a variety of choice, not fast paced action ARPG’s like Diablo, PoE, Torchlight, etc. Again I like your idea, but you’re missing the point of these games. It’s just to get in, kill some enemies, have some fun, then call it done when you get bored, that’s all they’ve ever been. Could they be more? Absolutely, but then you get into the games you referenced.
What makes the games you mentioned special is the wide variety of choices and the ability to take your time within those games to make those harder decisions. Diablo games are the antithesis of this model. I would say the vast majority have played the Diablo campaign, and while entertaining in its own right, would be have to be completely rewritten to add what you’re asking.
This would be a huge undertaking for the studio that already has multiple teams working on their own individual projects. It would be akin to making the patch we’re getting in a few days, if not even more labor intensive. At which point the player base, as lovely as they are, would be throwing fits left and right that there’s been no new content for however long it would take to get this done.
I’m not saying they couldn’t do it, I’m just saying more then likely they would never do this for this type of game.
Its also a cursed problem because a lot of people can’t imagine how this sort of thing can be successfully integrated. Most people need to see an example in order to see if it would work or not. Unfortunately there are not a lot of ARPG’s that do this and those that do it are not widely successful. This isn’t due to this particular idea itself being unsuccessful but more to do with those games as a whole package not wanting to appeal to a wider audience.
Diablo 1 and Diablo 2 were not by nature a fast paced monster looting game. They were more traditional RPG’s. Of course when you level up to max and get all the best gear in those games, they become more fast paced. I am not talking about the endgame here. This is the just campaign which has no bearing on the endgame.
I haven’t had a chance to watch DM’s video yet. But as far as the “Cursed Problem” is concerned, they had a solution within the first Diablo that they should have used and expanded upon: Some quests were randomly in your game upon repeated playthroughs. This could have been added too a lot with the amount of “sidequests” they have in DIV.
But as well, they should have expanded upon the randomness within dungeon design and events themselves, as well. These are things that have already been done in ways within the franchise. They are amongst the things that used to set the Diablo series apart from other ARPGs.
The game is supposed to be repeated constantly, and nothing in it is designed for that.
Fair enough, all I can say is good luck in your fight. I won’t turn down more options, I’m just skeptical of them adding in this type of content. That and I love playing Devil’s Advocate.
Why does having more options while leveling up even have to be a fight? Cant it just be purely a win? Who is going around saying that having options is bad?
If we are talking about whether the juice is worth the squeeze, imagine this: They move the timeline of a planned seasonal theme back 1 season and instead revamp the campaign to include these changes.
What does that do in the long term? Well I will say that at least 3 or more season worth of leveling up characters in the campaign wouldn’t be boring. 1 season patch for 3+ seasons worth of fun in leveling up through the campaign. In my opinion, that juice is worth the squeeze but that is just me.
Yeah I tend to agree with you here. To keep a game interesting to me for a long time the randomization is key. I see how its impossible for the overworld, but dungeons could have gone a lot further in the randomization part. The randomization of areas gives me a feeling of adventure instead of a feeling of ‘doing tasks’, its more mysterious and more autonomous. I remember very well in D2 that I showed my brother very excited that on my 4th or 5th char the exit from the very first town was on the other side! We were both very excited about this, because we didnt even think this was possible and were wondering what else might be completely different
Well it’s a fight against the devs philosophy of getting the player back into the core elements of the game. They’ve discussed this multiple times in various live streams/campfires. You don’t have to convince the player base on this one, you have to convince the entire dev team.
Sorry for not reading @OP, but SSF is pretty much the way
If they make it work, and then update it in a way where players can have a different starting experience (not campaign, not leveling, STARTING experience, start from making all regions have a starting spot and continue from there) that problem will go away much easier
The other problem that remains is how to add something that’s in between the hardest Elites and “marauder” class mobs like Hellbournes/Maiden/Butcher…
Like there’s THAT huge gap that I’m personally not a fan of tbh, and because of the game lacking THAT it feels too repetitive in nature and therefore exaggerating the problem between replayable content and “one time” stuff…
I’d like for something to be added for that particular instance of mob/tier, so I know whether I’m doing good or not
And even without that reason, it’s really weird when the game works as an ON/OFF switch when it comes to difficult content as it has tended to be by now
I think the Expansion could solve that problem as well tbh
Depending where they add the Expansion stuff (start in a new area from lvl1, do Expansion campaign as extra Chapter/s after the original is done, start Expansion campaign at WT4 i.e. after killing Elias ?, e.t.c.)
Well I just hope NRftW devs are more open minded about putting this in their game. Seems like they are going that route but it is still in early development so who knows.
I think this biggest misfire Blizzard made with Diablo 4’s campaign was not allowing the players to choose to side with Lillith instead of Inarius. At least so far as their final confrontation was concerned.
If they gave us two different endings, right there we’d have a reason to go through it again.
They also could have created two player factions there and done some other cool things unique for each.
But they went all in on Lilith and took that choice away from us in favor of a linear story.
I think that you can still have a linear story and still have multiple endings at the same time. Since this is a game that is suppose to include multiple expansions, you can have everyone’s path through the campaign be unique as long as the ultimate final ending of the final expansion is where you end up.
Sure things can go really good or bad in the base game but that isn’t the final destination in Diablo 4.
Funny thing is, one of Blizzards sales pitches on the campaign for D4 was that it was designed for being played in any order you wanted to. For replayability.
Obviously not how it ended up, but the dev team might be closer to that line of thinking than you might expect.
To be fair, it always seemed like a bad idea to me to let people choose the order of acts/zones themselves in a campaign. There is no way you can tell a very coherent story, if the order of events are up to the player.
Blizzard have tried the exact same in WoW expansions, generally not positive, and seem to have abandoned it again.
Blizzard’s approach in WoW to choosing the zone you level up in is flawed as it creates timeline inconsistencies. However in Diablo 4 it is cleaned up some with the first 3 zones having their own self contained stories that ultimately converge.
I am talking about doing that same thing except across expansions. Does the ending in the base game really matter when Lilith will eventually be reborn in the hells in the future? If Inarius is killed, the Crystal Arch will just create his replacement. The only thing that really matters is in the base game is that that one girl left with Mephisto.
The base game could have other alternate endings where you sided with Lilith but she betrays you. You could side with and save Inarius but he betrays you because he is the “Chosen One”. A different side character could have taken the place of the girl and made off with Mephisto. You could have exposed Inarius to the masses and be lauded as a Hero instead of an outcast hunted by the church (some of the church would still hunt you). Maybe you convince the Horadrim guy’s son to do something else while you took care of things. This would lead to the son being alive but the father still dies in the end.
These are just a few examples of different endings that could have happened but all sort of lead to the same place in the end. The point is that the journey to get there could have been different depending on who you helped and what lead to that point.
What you called can be simplified as “ARPG with Branching Path”
Those only work on the game focus on campaign and side quest like those Souls like ARPG and Baldure Gate 3. It does not suit the Life Service Game like Diablo which the game designed in a way that light on Campaign and quest, so players will focus on post-campaign activity like repeatly grind a seasonal content.
There is Life Service Mode in Elden Ring, Baldur Gate 3 and Armor core 6 for this reason.
