I've Completed Dark Souls 3. Conclusion? Diablo Has to Become Soulslike

Table of Contents

• I've Completed Dark Souls 3. Conclusion? Diablo Has to Become Soulslike
• Do the evolution!

Do the evolution!

Project Hades would be a spin-off rather than a full-fledged installment number four. Though as such, it started under the auspice of Josh Mosqueira, the guy who saved Diablo 3 with the Reaper of Souls DLC. The designers admitted that the idea had begun to diverge too far off the tradition of the series. Unfortunately, the game was binned in 2016 (as was the second expansion to Diablo 3, King of the North). Apparently, the production wasn't going too well either. In a perfect world, we would get both games: the modern spin-off, Hades, and the conservative Fenris (codename for Diablo 4). After all, we can dream... so let's.

I imagine that at first, after the previews, Project Hades would cause some consternation. Astonishment, disbelief, maybe even a momentary backlash from the traditionalists. Much would depend on whether it was more gracefully revealed (e.g. alongside Diablo 4, rather than instead of). Surely, however, no one would call it an April Fool's joke. And then, we would accept the issue without much fuss, after all, it's a spin-off; let them have fun outside the main series.

I think the hypothetical, now-dead Hades is the the only game that could really challenge From Software's position in the Soulslike field. Blizzard has all the resources and talented employees to create great things if it wants to. Even if everything else fails, there's always that single, key aspect that seems to save the day. Diablo 3 may have been controversial, ailed by the auction house, suffering candy colors, but even in its agonal state, it delighted with the feel of combat. There's few other games that give so much fun from mowing down hordes of enemies, giving you this immense sense of power.

Defeating a boss in Souls provides a shot of endorphins usually reserved for pro athletes (this is not a medically certified opinion).

And part of Souls' appeal beyond all of the above, was decent, chunky combat. We enjoyed it even though losing happened much more often than winning, because every thrust of the spear, every great swing of a war hammer carried something powerful, and it wasn't just damage. Souls created this feeling by perfectly coupling the sound with the animation of the blow and receiving damage. Blizzard knows a thing or two about this kind of stuff (although the Overwatch guns are pretty bland, but that's a different story). Most of the competition doesn't have the ability to get this feeling of power across – like Lords of the Fallen, for example.

Looting gear, so important to fans of Diablo and hack'n'slash in general. There you go, in bulk. I think the Souls formula could be reconciled by a more advanced inventory system. Exploration of abyssal, eerie, beautiful dungeons? It's quintessentially both series (except maybe the fourth act of Diablo 3...) And since now those Diablo locations would have to have roofs and vaults, well – tough luck. I think players would be able to swallow this novelty. An over-the-shoulder perspective could deepen the immersion for those looking for an atmospheric experience, a story, a sense of moving their protagonist deeper and deeper into the darkness, towards doom – all the things Diablo is famous for.

Such a spin-off experiment could reconcile the needs of players looking for immersion, and the munchkinists hunting for epic builds. After all, Souls, by its very nature, allows and encourages you to be creative and create crazy combos that, for example, kill a boss in one hit.

There is one more condition that such a hypothetical "Diablo Souls" would have to meet. Blizzard would have to do their homework at the conceptual work level and force themselves to think in such a way that every cog of the game revolves around the core idea. As in Dark Souls, the message, the world, and the mechanics work together to tell the story of the title souls and what they mean (currency, experience, but also something heroes and antagonists crave for). For Diablo to really tap into the potential of the genre, the game needs fleshed-out philosophy realized in every aspect of the game. Otherwise, we would get an empty shell.

A Souls-like Diablo spin-off, if you will, would help expose some of the darker, heavier themes that underline Blizzard's series, but are barely touched upon because they have to fit in with the grind. In Souls, we explored the whole story of the changes in civilization, the cyclical nature of human error, the decline and waning influence of religion and mythology, and Diablo has its own set of overarching themes, somewhat similar. Man's susceptibility to corruption, succumbing to and being attracted to the "dark side," but also the fact that evil cannot be destroyed, only contained. We could also explore the question – what happens to the possessed after death? So many worthy characters in Diablo have fallen victim to possession that it makes for quite a story. Both series also allowed for catharsis as we slashed demonic or zombie bishops rotten to the marrow.

There is something cleansing about these moments.

I wouldn't expect a revolution from a game like this. More like an efficient, thoughtful evolution of the FromSoftware formula, and even that would be amazing. And perhaps supported the entire soulslike genre. In addition, it could have a simpler, more understandable co-op for those who don't want to get that much of a beating from the game. Anyway, I suspect that Hades was meant to present players with a bit more forgiving challenges. After all, Blizzard operates on a larger demand scale than FromSoftware. But is a lighter, though still dark cousin of Souls a bad thing? If done with equal care, definitely not.

And as I ran around the castles, ruins, and cathedrals of Dark Souls 3, I thought that this approach and this kind of appeal wasn't far from Diablo at all. Such romance definitely wouldn't hurt the series, especially as a spin-off. This makes it all the more unfortunate that we are unlikely to see anything like that happen.

Pipedreams

Diablo 4 looks like an extremely conservative move, but I still got hyped from the first previews.

It's a little strange that Blizzard has given up on the idea that could have brought the company (and the money-loving Activision management) huge profits and an opening to a new, slightly different market sector. On the other hand, I understand it. The work on the project itself, as we read in the official sources, was not very advanced, and things were not going well in the company even before that. To make matters worse, there were some huge PR slip-ups. Back then, in 2016, the memory of the Auction House was still hiccuping, and a feeling of exaggerated candyiness accompanied every launch of Diablo 3, up until act five. Activision was slowly starting to take over the partner's finances. So Blizzard had to cut costs and play conservative, giving fans exactly what they wanted. A dark, isometric hack'n'slash that takes no prisoners, but doesn't make a revolution either. It's just the Diablo we were always supposed to get, but never fully received due to unfulfilled promises.

That's why they focused on Fenris. And after the turmoil of the last few years – Warcraft Reforged Refunded, Hong-Kong and Hearthstone, as well as the disastrous announcement of Diablo Immortal – it only makes more sense to try to reconcile with the players. The competition, especially Path of Exile, is not asleep. Diablo needs to reclaim the throne of hack'n'slash, roar triumphantly, and gather back the hearts and minds of gamers so that Blizzard can start fantasizing about its next projects again, taking bold steps. Maybe once Blizzard stabilizes the position, it will welcome some more off-the-wall ideas.