https://us.battle.net/forums/en/d3/topic/20742954852#post-5
Another Diablo (IV) designed by the same members of the existing Diablo 3 team will not solve anything because their design ethos has shown a clear lack of understanding of what are the core pillars (using an overused design terminology to make designer BS speak sound smart) of the action RPG genre.
Vanilla D3 just had a different game director (Wilson) without newer designers (like Yang); most everyone else associated with RoS has been part of the team since 2009 though (except current game director Mosqueira who joined in 2011 as a designer with the D3 console team).
To put it more simply, the original designers for D1 and D2 were old school D&D type players where they understood what makes ARPG’s and rogue-likes really tick or as Max Schaefer (one of the original co-founders of Blizzard North and D2 senior designer) put it back around 2001:
“A story about heroes and conquests needs villians. Hordes of identical monsters do not fulfill this requirement in my opinion. Part of what makes the Diablo II community great is the great variety of personalities and styles. The last thing we want is to force people into some idealized regimen of “proper” role-playing. Rather, we sought to make a game where people create their own fantasies and adventures.”
-and-
“I used to play the D&D’s and similar pen and paper games. One of the things I liked about them is the freedom to be whatever you want to be. The same is true in Diablo. We provide a construct, a history, and an environment, but we don’t tell you who YOU are. That’s up to you to determine.
In too many computer RPGs, I’m forced to play a particular character who’s traits are determined by the game developer. I am often given three choices of how to respond to (usually abysmally written) NPC speeches. When I feel the story is already written, and I’m just fulfilling the author’s fantasy, I don’t feel I’m role-playing. Rather, I’m just solving a simplistic puzzle while being led through a story. It can be entertaining, but it’s not role-playing to me.”
D3 takes the 2nd paragraph approach in the above of trying to define everything for the player. Diablo II’s end game wasn’t specifically defined because players themselves decided what end game meta would exist. For some, it was that endless grinding leveling to 99. Others grinded for loot to take part in trading or just going into a game and dumping those items on the ground for newer players. Many enjoyed the challenge of the Pandemonium event (closed Battle.net realm only). For others, they didn’t mind doing countless Baal or Pindleskin runs. Others took part in low level dueling. And yet others took pleasure in ganking and PKing unsuspecting players. Others organized their own PvP with actual rules (there is no real sanctioned PvP mode design except for a simple hostile button). Others just enjoyed the play through and were done with the game. Some played completely offline including using one of the game extending mods like Eastern Sun or MedianXL with PlugY. The key takeaway is player defined end game.
Not saying D2 was perfect. The original designers like the Schaefer brothers and Brevik admitted to making a lot of mistakes (read David Craddock’s book Stay Awhile and Listen) or read this shorter online interview with some of them.
The current maintainers of the franchise do not get this aspect and have an overwhelming desire to maintain a firm control on every part of those game systems that are key to the role playing element in this genre. You cannot change that designer mindset without having decision makers that grasp this and also maintain a firm line stance in terms of upholding those sort of ideals. And in the current Blizzard where the focus is more on games that are meant to be friendly to a wider demographic of players, old school style formula’s like the above would not be an easy sell.
D4 designed by these exact same designers will end up having the exact same issues as D3. A D4 would require a new game director, new lead content designer, and new lead technical game designer as the bare minimum for not repeating a lot of the same mistakes over again.
My key point in the above was that it will be difficult to bring the Diablo franchise back to its player driven role playing roots because the Blizzard of today has to create titles that appeal to a wide demographic as much as possible. “On rails” design is much more saner to develop for especially in an online only game (and forcing what is normally a single player genre online, is part of the reason why these sort of design compromises come into play). Likewise, player defined end game metas doesn’t really align with Blizzard’s larger objective with having to appeal to a larger audience.
It doesn’t mean there can’t be a better balance though. Part of that comes from design philosophy where it’s not about controlling every facet of a character like what has happened in Diablo III. It’s absolute bizarro world when I can go into MMO’s like ArcheAge and TERA, find these little nook and crannies to play the way I want to, and have more of that role playing feel to character progression than Diablo III ever did.
It’s why I ended up re-labeling the game from being a proper ARPG to an action/adventure combat arcade game (and it does great there since you can quickly power level to cap, have all skills unlocked and easily reset, and with the armory, quick loadouts to change skill/gear; all of it geared to the main end game meta of clearing a timed rift as quickly as possible). Blizzard could’ve balanced things out a bit by putting the adventure and exploration back into Adventure Mode by removing the on rails aspect of the act bounties where you are told to do this task (sort of like dailies in your typical MMO).
It remains to be seen how the new team they are assembling for the next Diablo game will handle things. I have no doubt the concept they will be working will end up coming across very well in the first cinematic teaser they will end up revealing (possibly in the 2nd half of 2018) but the challenge comes in the core design and actual game systems.
