Yeah, I too remember the articles that Chris wrote in InterAction. About how Roberta said he couldn’t play Phantasmagoria, but then he did anyway. I remember the articles about Mask and Outpost… and I’m sure there were more.
I don’t see the necessity of an isometric or pre-rendered view, although that’s certainly one way to do it.
The idea of having a bank of quests that players can choose from (or be assigned), and if they want to give it up can return it to the pool is interesting, but also perhaps not necessary. Why divide up main quests and subquests – if the subquests are just diversions? Say for a really simple one, a farmer’s cow has been stolen. When player #2 talks to the farmer, farmer has all his regular dialogue and then says “player #1, player #4 and player #6 have gone to look for my cow. I hope they bring it back to me, but if they don’t, maybe you can!” And then player #2 is added to his list. I don’t know if that’s the best solution. My perspective is that the game world needs to have realism to immerse the player in it, and it won’t be realistic if player #1 walks up to farmer and has a chat with him while player #2 sits there watching, then player #2 goes up to the farmer and the game tells you “It’s a farmer going about his business, don’t bother him” because the farmer is locked-off as a player #1 quest. I think players should be able to interact with each other on two levels – one, to solve quests together. Two, to have those diversions together. Such as playing a game of checkers or darts in an inn.
Good ideas, keep them rolling. I might post a few more in reaction to what you wrote later.