This thread fails to deliver.

But no, I never had the sense Diablo had the kind of fleshed out world that Warcraft had.

Apparently Blizzard have a third development team working on something that isn't WoW and isn't Starcraft II. I'm hoping they've come up with some new IP and aren't doing another Diablo game. I'm sick of seeing sequels.

I thought someone from Blizzard said pre-BC that their plan was to do a WoW expansion every year. I'd think the announcement of a WoW expansion is going to be a given.

Twice, even.

Single player roots? The best part of Diablo 1 was playing multiplayer. I barely made it through my last semester at college because of Diablo 1 multiplayer.

But yeah, it needs to be free, small scale multiplayer on Battlenet, not a pay to play MMO.

What, precisely, would be the difference between a Diablo MMO and WoW?

It would be interesting to see what Blizzard has in the pipeline for a D3. Diablo 2 was an addiction of choice for many months before WOW and need to have a "angle" to draw interest away from other MMO's that former D2 players are playing now. Or maybe the angle is NOT an MMO...hmmm

Not to mention the PvP was fun in Diablo, at least if you had the gear. (i want more ears!)

Now if they went the hardcore route that would very impressive.

An MMO where if your character died that was it and you'd have to reroll would change the way people played.

To me, Diablo and Diablo 2 were both very much single player first, multiplayer second. I spent a lot of time on bnet playing, but always in private rooms with a handful of friends.

Ditto this. Heck, I never played Diablo 1 multiplayer, and Diablo 2 was almost exclusively single player for me until the last year when I finally got Fyedaddy hooked and got some multiplayer with him, but those were private games, not public.

I can definitively say that D3 was/is/will not be an MMO.

Valleja and I played both Diablos to great enjoyment. Even on WoW, there are just some days and times where all you want to do is log on, whack a few baddies for a pocket full of minutes, and log out with maximum immersion and minimal maintenance.

Without a doubt (imo), Diablo would still have great appeal in that regard over WoW (and its ilk). Far too often, even at level 70, do I find myself wishing I didn't have to spend so much time traveling and waiting for action. Not to mention the whole LFG/LFM patience test.

While I enjoyed the WarCraft series and SpaceCraft tons, Diablo is what hooked me and made me a big fan of Blizzard.

So, yes, count me as interested in a continuation of the series as long as it stays true to its form.

Yeah sorry about that but in all honesty there's very little to go on in terms of info...basically all we know is what blizzard will not be doing and what options they have left (ie: D3 or something new). Besides that it seems to have started some pretty good discussions =P

I just have to wonder what the story line will be, in D2 the worldstone is destroyed by tyreal (sp?) so that there means the world is more vulnerable to attack but you can't call it diablo with out having him in the game in my opinion so I think we will see reincarnations of the three again as well as some more of the lessor evils that we haven't seen yet. I can't wait to see what they do with it.

On a side note: Has anyone here played Titan Quest, some of my friends have started playing it and I ordered it from Amazon.com (huge fan of greek mythology what can I say) but is it a really fun game? So far the videos and screens I have looked at seem very promising.

I played Titan Quest a little (and enjoyed it a lot), but it crashed after the first time playing it, and every time afterwards, it has said that the computer doesn't meet minimum specs and refuses to play. Which is weird, because when I played it the first time, it ran for several hours with no problems (other than, as I said, that it ultimately crashed).

Exactly, so did I. That's what I call multiplayer

Titan Quest with the Immortal Throne expansion is definitely the closest you're likely to get to a game that satisfies the Diablo itch without an actual Diablo 3 to play. It is pretty good. The graphics and gameplay are top notch.

You sir are forgetting the amount of content and gameplay time compressed into both games. A Diablo MMO would NOT resemble Diablo 2 gameplay in any sort, shape or form.

Diablo 2 is an actionfest. It's like a neverending collection of best WoW instanced quests all chained together. There's no 'travel' or any other time-consuming MMO tasks. The combat is fast-paced because the expectations of longevity and the TYPE of the game are entirely different.

I see a Diablo MMO as Raven Cemetery in WoW's Darkshire, which is pretty unexciting. I don't think Blizzard is dumb, and I think the game they're working on is Diablo 3.

Well, I found Diablo fun single-player, and an entire order of magnitude more fun with other people. I played with the same 3 folks daily for about 4-5 months in the spring of 97 when it came out. It was the best multiplayer I had played at the time (being a fantasy CRPGer at heart - it was the closest thing to D&D I had played over the internet at the time). Battlenet was fully implemented from day 1 and definitely did not feel tacked on to me. It was very elegantly implemented into the game. Granted the lobby and the ladders and all the goodies from D2 weren't there yet, but it was a hit out of the park for a first time implementation.

Bring on Diablo 3 with free multiplayer Battlenet. Take the good from TQ and others of its ilk that have been out and successful since D2.