So I have a setting I've been thinking about, and posted about searching for a story to go with it. The result was it seems I should think more about game play first and work story into that rather than gameplay into story. In retrospect this makes sense as it is gameplay and not story that carries most games (such as the one I'm about to talk about). I've been thinking about games I've played and enjoyed a lot that seems to have a scalable world I could maybe tackle. Diablo 2 was one such game I enjoyed immensely and the gameplay and the structure of the game doesn't demand dozens or more NPCs to interact with or huge expansive countrysides, or complex (and populated) cities in the way Oblivion does. (another game I like in many ways) So, in anycase, while my idea will eventually be a mix of ideas taken from many sources I am thinking of taking heavily from the game play found in Diablo 2 and I am wondering, with it being a hugely popular game and still running hard years later, are Diablo style games a dime a dozen? Is this sort of game something that would be well received? ps. some notable differences I really plan on implementing unless things go horribly wrong: 3d game, no matter how small this makes the game A unique feel to each area no procedural generation of maps I want the whole game to feel like a handcrafted work of art, even if its very small and makes for a short game. [Edited by - JasRonq on March 10, 2008 7:48:53 AM]

Quote:

Original post by JasRonq So I have a setting I've been thinking about, and posted about searching for a story to go with it. The result was it seems I should think more about game play first and work story into that rather than gameplay into story. In retrospect this makes sense as it is gameplay and not story that carries most games (such as the one I'm about to talk about).

You have to decide what is right for your game.

Quote:

I am wondering, with it being a hugely popular game and still running hard years later, are Diablo style games a dime a dozen?

If they were, wouldn't you be able to name several?

Quote:

Is this sort of game something that would be well received?

It's a bit of an unanswerable question. If you're going to clone the game, then it'll be noted as a clone. If you do something very different, it'll stand or fall on the things you add. Just make the game you want to make and do the best you can. There's not much point asking marketing-type questions if you are setting out to make a 'work of art'.

Well, Iron Lore (creator of Titan Quest) just went under, although sales of TQ weren't too bad reportedly.

I think there's still a big market for good Diablo2-like games, but it's just hard to do them well. What I do remember from Titan Quest is the large number of complaints about being unable to modify the camera viewpoint. So at least make sure you have that.

The Dungeon Siege interface was pretty good (shame about the game though), I think people would look for that as their minimum standard these days.

You will never capture the gameplay of Diablo 2 with a small, short game though.

Be freaking careful if thinking about recreating blizzard games. Blizzards games are huge and thus - most of the time - awesome. Diablo 2 might look simple and not much on the surface, but this is just wrong.

Diablo2s "drug" is the massive, massive item system. This item system (that is, runes, jewels, runewords, elite-nonelite, different base items, spells, curse me if I forgot something. :) ) was probably a lot more work than other games altogether.
And this is a reason why so many Diablo2-Clones fail.

Ok, those clones have items, spells, quests and whatever, however, they usually miss being awesome at something. Take Sacred for example. It is no bad game, however I got bored pretty soon, because it was just solid at everything.
Diablo 2 has a mediorce gameplay, solid enemies... but the awesome item system.

I have to agree with what most are saying. I think a really good D2-ish game could be successful. It is true that the items play a big part of D2, but IMO it's the gameplay and feel that make it awesome. Like all blizzard games, it's very well put together and super polished.

I think it's hard to compete with, even today.

the diablo clones that are already out there generaly follow the game play of of D2 but improve on different areas. like dungeon siege and hellgate london take the diablo concept and put it in a 3D world. Maybe look at these clones and look whats works better and what doesnt.

i havn't come across any other game that plays better then D2 yet but hellgate was a good try.

I believe hellgate had some of the same minds behind it as Diablo actually, even though it's not blizzard any more, but flagship studios. The biggest fault was that they were too busy getting it to market to complete it with the polish that Blizzard does, and the procedural generation was some of the worst I've ever seen, it seems like they made finished modules which they then just tacked together randomly.

As others have noted, it's a fine type of game as long as its well executed, but if you don't get the magic spark that diablo had, it'll get tedious far too quickly. You need everything to be as fast-paced as the game itself, so really streamlined menus and inventory system, as well as providing a variety of challenges, rather than just the usual:
1. walk forward until you find a monster
2. right click for fireball
3. loot corpse
4. rinse and repeat

I'd be especially careful doing a game like this in 3D as well, and if you want it to be quite artistic, you'd be better off in some ways doing 2D as it's easier to express artistic flair and uniqueness effectively in 2D, and as Diablo proves, the gameplay suits itself to 2D quite well.

Random maps is a key element in what makes a roguelike good. Foregoing that is... just kinda silly imo. And looking at roguelikes historically, it's really not the art/artistry that makes the game good it's the character/loot improvement.

I believe hellgate had some of the same minds behind it as Diablo actually, even though it's not blizzard any more, but flagship studios. The biggest fault was that they were too busy getting it to market to complete it with the polish that Blizzard does, and the procedural generation was some of the worst I've ever seen, it seems like they made finished modules which they then just tacked together randomly.

As others have noted, it's a fine type of game as long as its well executed, but if you don't get the magic spark that diablo had, it'll get tedious far too quickly. You need everything to be as fast-paced as the game itself, so really streamlined menus and inventory system, as well as providing a variety of challenges, rather than just the usual:
1. walk forward until you find a monster
2. right click for fireball
3. loot corpse
4. rinse and repeat

I'd be especially careful doing a game like this in 3D as well, and if you want it to be quite artistic, you'd be better off in some ways doing 2D as it's easier to express artistic flair and uniqueness effectively in 2D, and as Diablo proves, the gameplay suits itself to 2D quite well.

In (non computer board games, this trend has been increaseing for a while now. Euro style board games have a strong mechanic and athin venere of a theam over the top, so thin that you don't realy need it to play the game and it can often be easily repleaced so that many varients come out.

This could also work for computer games. IF you focused on the gameplay and mechanics, and then fit a theme to those mechanics, you could make small, fun gmaes. If you keep the mechanics simple, they should also be easy to program.

Have a look at some games like "Carcassonne", "Setlers of Catan" and "Kingdoms".

Check out the website "Board Game Geek" as it lists a lot of baord games and even has the rules for many of the games that you can read. It is great for researching simple, fun mechanics.