For 1 thing, I think the 3D/2D looking-down-at-an-angle type RPG games have been way overdone. Though I realize AVWW isn't meant to be a Diablo 2 clone (and probably has almost nothing in common), it was the first thing I thought when I saw it. I've played so many damn ARPGs in my life, with better graphics than AVWW has, and probably ever will have, that this aspect alone would have ruined my enjoyment of the game in many ways.
The action gameplay does kind of fall somewhere between Zelda and Diablo (or WoW), actually. The 1-9 keys for using abilities is very WoW-ish, but the tactical use of environment & position and enemies being obstacles rather than "good stuff pinatas" is much more on the Zelda side. It's definitely not hack&slash (even metaphorically using magic), much more in the adventure direction.
Anyway, yea, I'm a bit surprised by some of the folks (mostly elsewhere) who think this makes the game idea less distinctive: I think there's a lot more (recent) top-down-ish games with that kind of general gameplay than there are side-view ones.
I will admit that I find it hard to believe a 2D side-scrolling game can have as much potential for depth as a pseudo-3D type
I can understand that from a prima-facie standpoint, but really it goes the other way: in top-down you have 4 directions, all of which are fundamentally equal to each other. In side-view you have 4 directions, 2 of which (left and right) are fundamentally equal and then 1 that's very different in that gravity pulls you away from it (up) and another that's very different in that gravity pulls you towards it (down). That right there makes a huge difference in actual depth of gameplay and movement, etc.
As far as depth in the broader scope of explorable area: it's basically the same as before. Actually, more:
Before in a single region (a single square on the world map) you would have had 2D "slices":
- 1 surface layer.
- 0-to-N underground layers
- Linked from the surface and underground layers, 0-to-N interiors each with 1-to-N "floor" layer.
Now instead on a single region (a single square on the world map) you have:
- 1-N surface chunks (each generally partly above ground and partly below ground in surface tunnels), connected horizontally.
- 0-to-N underground chunks chained together (starting from the surface tunnels).
- Linked from the surface and underground chunks, 0-to-N interiors each with 1-to-N "floor" chunks each of which have 1-to-N "slices" (separate chunks) along the z-axis.
Anyway I think you already got the idea
