Diablo had these, but the whole game took place in a monster populated enviornmet.>>
Yes, and this was Blizzard's priority on this game. Talk less, hack more.
Talking about quests DD closer to BG IWD series, as quests are deeper. There are lots of side-quests, and as you have written, there are quests that do not require combat to solve them.
What makes a game to be a good game. Ballance. You can't play a peacekeeper in Diablo, this game is not meant to do this, but you can try in Fallout, BG, DD.
And I have written you that, it is pointless to compare them. Yes, all theese games are RPGs, some are hack-n-slash, some are more quest related.
Yes, action in D1 was set mostly in dungeons, but D2 had plenty of open air action. - just game design, nothing more.
Those kind of pointless quests acualy offend me, make a game world then fill it with pointless-ness and call it an rpg simply becaus you can waste countless houres doing random tasks for NPCs? bah!>>>
The idea was to create and promote good fighter, develop skill trees. It was combat for the lack of quests. But, anyway there were plenty of good quests in there. And the main story of the game was very well implemented.
(thank you for comment Alrikfassbauer)
The thing to remember is that diablo has never tried to sell it for more than an action-rpg type thing. >>>
It was, and it was excellent action RPG. Right, it was about chopping heads and getting items - Diablos were awesome games, even the best games to date in doing this. Hundreds of unique items, balanced skill trees, balanced characters, hundreds of different mobs - Diablos are RPG-combat heaven!
Diablo is a hack and slash with amazing rpg elements transposed over it. Dungeon siege is a poor rpg with a crappy hack and slash system transposed over it. Divinity is a hack and slash base with rpg-ness built up on it, like diablo. The only differance is divinity is not one really long dungeon, but isntead goes outwards and hence, has room for non dungeon-related things *wich would not have fit in diablo, your not gona run into a new town on level 3 of hell..* >>>>
Diablo - excellent RPG in terms of creating and progressing character.
Overall storyline and idea is excellent. Quests, are just ok.
Dungeon Siege - I have no idea, haven't played it.
DD is good RPG in terms of creating and progressing, but chars become too overpowered by the end of the game - this needs to be balanced.
DD is good in terms of quests, but storyline lacks deepness.
And why do you stick to dungeons that much. Diablo was set mostly in dungeons just because of it's hellish design. Remember, it is Diablo, not Farmer, or Child of a neighbourhood. There haven't been large cities in ancient times, only villages, smaller towns, open air and yes caves and dungeons.
There are plenty of dungeons in BG, in PST. And you can't run into lvl 7 of the house, they just didn't build such buildings.
So basicly.. my point is. If you dont like diablo, but clame to like divinity.. then you are eather totaly out of your mind, dont really like divinity all that much and dont really dislike diablo all that much, or just dont know what your talking about becaus you never took the time to really see what diablo was. (a classic game such as diablo demands a short perid of cult like obsession in order to be understood)>>>>
Basically you just miss the point. I like Diablos and I like DD and I like BG and I love PST. And I am glad to see that theese games are different. They should be different.
To finalize this. I found interesting things in all above mentioned games and enjoyed them. You are trying to put all of them into one line and this is wrong. If you didn't like Diablo, don't play it. If you like quests - play BG.
And about DD. What will be stronger, your dislike of dungeons and hack-n-slash or your simpathy to numerour quests in it ?