THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)

Fun Stuff => CLIKC => Topic started by: Surgoshan on 28 Jun 2008, 10:55

Title: Diablo 3
Post by: Surgoshan on 28 Jun 2008, 10:55
Their site seems to be getting slammed by traffic for some reason (http://www.blizzard.com/diablo3/), but Blizzard has announced Diablo 3.  Official like.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: 0bsessions on 28 Jun 2008, 10:58
You're shitting me. FUCKING FINALLY!!!
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: StreetSpirit on 28 Jun 2008, 11:08
This is some great news! Truly something to look forward to from one of the greatest companies in the computer game industry. But, seriously, when are we going to see a Rock -n Roll Racing 2?
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: Dimmukane on 28 Jun 2008, 11:16
I'm still waiting on a Lost Vikings sequel. 


As for Diablo in general, I'm on the fence.  With 2, I would get to the third act and either cheat or just give up because of the ridiculous amount of terrain you had to cross, which was even worse when you died.  I'm still excited for 3, but I'm not foaming at the mouth like everyone else.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: KvP on 28 Jun 2008, 11:18
It'd be nice if they had somebody other than one of the art directors from the other games working on it.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: Storm Rider on 28 Jun 2008, 11:22
It would be nice if Blizzard actually bothered starting a new franchise for the first time in like, ten years. I guess that's just wishful thinking, though.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: will: wanton sex god on 28 Jun 2008, 12:01
this plus starcraft 2 sealed the deal as far as im gonna need a 24 inch imac with the good graphics card.

...good thigns blizzard delays shit like crazy, ill need it for the moniez.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: KvP on 28 Jun 2008, 12:33
Trailer tyme! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwtL2o1apn4)
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: Melodic on 28 Jun 2008, 13:08
this plus starcraft 2 sealed the deal as far as im gonna need a 24 inch imac with the good graphics card.

Insert too-easy insult about you buying a mac for gaming.

I never played Diablo. I was never intrigued when the first or second came out, can't give an arse now. Sorry, internets.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: imapiratearg on 28 Jun 2008, 13:21
My eyes literally welled up with tears when I read this.

EDIT - I'm not sure how I feel about this, though, after watching the trailer and the gameplay video.  I kind of feel like it might lose some aspects of Diablos I and II that made it feel realistic, while modernizing others.  The graphics look pretty cool, though not groundbreaking.  I'm not really sure how the story will go, but the trailer showed a lot of locations similar to the last game, namely, a desert city like Lut Gholein and a jungle city like Kurast.  There was one set into a mountain that reminded me a lot of Gondor from Lord of the Rings, though, so I'm a bit iffy on the plot.  Blizzard do some damn fine cinematics, though.

Destroyable environments = win.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: McTaggart on 28 Jun 2008, 14:04
After dealing with the painful website design and the way it's getting a whole lot of traffic enough to give up and watch the gameplay video on youtube I have to say I'm damn excited. It looks like it's still got the same kinda feel to it that two had. As long as they're keeping the random generation of loot, terrain and mobs it should go down well. Kinda makes me want to give d2 another run through.

I'm slightly disappointed in the look of it though. I was kinda hoping for more grit and less giant shoulder armour. And maybe a different shader to that one they've been using since warcraft three.

[edit]I don't think they've really changed much at all. All the features they mentioned bar the health things were pretty much already there. The more interesting mob dynamics thing and destructable terrain was well on it's way by LoD, quick switching between skills was always there (rebinding function keys to somethign nearer your stop and sprint buttons is the first step). By the look of the video they haven't done anything to hurt the pace of the game. I don't think there's much to be worried about.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: Boro_Bandito on 28 Jun 2008, 14:34
Trailer tyme! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwtL2o1apn4)

I hate you. I hate you I hate you.


I'm all kinds of excited for this. Everything I saw in the gameplay video pointed towards good, and I think it'll stay within the spirit of the game well enough.

This tears it, I'm gonna go and buy a copy of Diablo 2 real quick (lost mine a few years ago now). Man, hard to believe that game came out in 1998 though eh? I mean, you can say all you want about Blizzard recycling their IP rather than creating new franchises, but I think its definitely about time for an update to this one. I'm also perfectly okay with them making a Starcraft II, and they've got a lot on their plate between those and WoW, so I'm not gonna complain too much about their lack of originality.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: Phil73805 on 28 Jun 2008, 15:50
The return of the original 'Hack, hack, sparkle'! Yay! Loved Diablo II and this looks promising.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: will: wanton sex god on 28 Jun 2008, 19:55
this plus starcraft 2 sealed the deal as far as im gonna need a 24 inch imac with the good graphics card.

Insert too-easy insult about you buying a mac for gaming.

I never played Diablo. I was never intrigued when the first or second came out, can't give an arse now. Sorry, internets.

insert too-easy remark about how often you come across a jerk, how youve even noticed it yourself, and how youre continuining to do it :)

Anyhow i said nothing about buying the mac FOR gaming, it's buying a mac that wil also be capable of running these (relatively low system requirement) games.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: ackblom12 on 28 Jun 2008, 20:43
"Fucking finally" is all I can say to this news.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: TheFuriousWombat on 28 Jun 2008, 21:55
YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES!

My favorite franchise of all time is finally, finally going to (so it seems) get even better. Of course, this is Blizzard we're talking about so I'm not expecting this for another...year and a half maybe. Because they delay everything.

EDIT:
Just watched the gameplay trailer on the site. Holy shit!! I was grinning from ear to ear the entire time. Damn it I want this game now!
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: est on 28 Jun 2008, 22:50
Holy fucking shit awesome.  The Diablo series is one of my all-time favourites.  I watched the gameplay video and was smiling and feeling nostalgic, especially with the music.

This is also pretty cool: "Players will be able to create male and female characters for all five classes."

Hooray!  Maybe now I can play a male caster that isn't shite.

Also, just so we're all clear, the Witch Doctor is the new necro, right? His skills seem very similar.  Enough so that having the necro as one of the first 5 classes (because there will be more in an expansion pack, obviously) would seem like a waste. He seems kind of like a meld of the Necro and the Druid.

I have a feeling that the other three of the first five will be something like: Mage/Sorceress meld, some kind of hunter/assassin with ranged weaps & traps, and probably a cleric/paladin.  I would love to be wrong and for them to bust out some really interesting new classes, though.  Then half the fun will be figuring out how to play them.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: KvP on 28 Jun 2008, 22:59
Hooray!  Maybe now I can play a male caster that isn't shite.
D: YOU TAKE THAT BACK

(http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/5452/render01dq7.jpg)
Necromancerrrrrr <3
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: imapiratearg on 28 Jun 2008, 23:00
They added the Necromancer?  Yay!  I hope they bring the Druid back.

Druids pwn.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: est on 28 Jun 2008, 23:09
As I said in my edit, I think that they are already both in:  as the Witch Doctor.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: KvP on 28 Jun 2008, 23:15
yeah, Witch Doctor seems like a synthesis, weighted towards the necromancer end of things. Hopefully they don't end up diluting one another. The tribal aesthetic they have for him / her is certainly interesting, I will say.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: imapiratearg on 28 Jun 2008, 23:17
I posted before you edited, I think.  But yeah, that was kind of what I thought, too.

My first reaction was like: "What another?"
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: est on 28 Jun 2008, 23:17
Oh, and the thing I want the mostest in regards to the storyline would be for none of the demon brothers to be alive and for the players to be facing some kind of widespread low-level threat and a bunch of lesser demons, perhaps some that have been empowered due to taking over certain parts of the old demon lords' domains and have become a lot more powerful than usual.  I mean, we've fucking killed them all already.  I really hope they don't just dust themselves off and come back to fight.

Either that, or maybe some of the cultists we see chanting and raising demons in the gameplay trailer can succeed in raising Diablo right toward the end of the second-last chapter and then the final chapter involves him somehow, but up until that point you just think you're gonna be fighting these cultists and their lesser demonspawn.  I dunno, I guess I just hope it's gonna be something that sets itself apart from the first two.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: KvP on 28 Jun 2008, 23:22
I think they've said that Diablo is definitely back.

They've also alluded to Divine antagonists as well as Infernal ones.

Also PRETTY HUGE SPOILER COMIN OUT DOWN HERE SO LOOK OUT NOW



SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
Deckard Cain dies / gets killed fairly early on in the story, or so they say
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: est on 28 Jun 2008, 23:28
One more thing:  It looks like Blizzard aren't above taking influence from other games in the genre.  Am I the only one that was reminded of Kratos when the barbarian was displaying his new moves?  The countryside and a few of the monsters also reminded me of Titan Quest are fair deal also, but that could be due to TQ being heavily influenced by the style of D2 and taking it into a 3d engine before D3 did.  The final boss in the second gameplay trailer (big centaur-type dealie) especially reminded me of TQ, and the outdoor areas were very similar in feel also.

Just to clarify, I think these are good things.  I loved Kratos' moves in GoW and thoroughly enjoyed TQ, so to be reminded of those games is not a negative thing in any fashion.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: est on 28 Jun 2008, 23:30
re: your spoiler, thank fuck for that.  I expected that to happen late last game, or between then and now to be honest.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: Thaes on 29 Jun 2008, 04:25
Ah, Diablo! The only role-playing game which I´ve enjoyed even though it didn´t have the chance to be all sneaky and stuff. The sad thing is, as someone here already said, that with all these great games being published, I may have to buy a new computer.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: McTaggart on 29 Jun 2008, 05:18
Blizzard are usually pretty good when it comes to making their games run on last year's tech.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: will: wanton sex god on 29 Jun 2008, 07:09
^
I, unfortunately, would have last last last last years tech.

As for character classes, all i have is speculation

Of the original 5, barb, ama, necro, pally, and sorc

Barb is back

I think amazon won't be (due to both sexes.) i think it'll just be a name switch.  basically a "ranger" or somethiing that plays really similarly. 

Necro is basically replaced as disease=poison, pets=pets.

Pally should be interesting.  If someone is right about Divine antagonists maybe the church of Zakarum (iirc a pretty decently-big part of Diablo lore) has gone corrupt?  So we'll see either pally being the few noble ones left, or maybe like some sort of dark knight?  For those that watched (or didin't watch) the big gameplay trailer, the days of consta-potioning are supposedly over, so I wonder if there will be any healing-oriented players.  Maybe a more full fledged cleric type. Or maybe Pally will actually do some decent healing. (lol holy bolt)  Maybe none of this!

Sorc will be back in some way.  There has to be some big casting nuker with low hp.

Other than that, the only thing that irked me (and 90% won't be in the final build, obvz) was that the narrator kept saying "for MASSIVE DAMAGE," but I never saw anyones health globe drop below maybe 40%
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: Katherine on 29 Jun 2008, 10:01
I still haven't been able to get the gameplay video to play all the way through yet, but I am super excited about what I have seen so far.  The Witch Doctor spells and abilities look amazing.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: Thaes on 29 Jun 2008, 10:03
Pally should be interesting.  If someone is right about Divine antagonists maybe the church of Zakarum (iirc a pretty decently-big part of Diablo lore) has gone corrupt? 

Wasn´t the church shown to be corrupted in Diablo II?
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: will: wanton sex god on 29 Jun 2008, 10:08
^ Definitely possible.  I only know they were a major part of the lore from scanning over things and reading things a long time ago.  Them being corrupt in 2 wouldnt surprise me.  Either way theyre significant and i believe will somehow affect a character class.

wonder if barbs and druids will be consolidated at all, given that druids came from barbs.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: Boro_Bandito on 29 Jun 2008, 10:31
What about Lazarus in Diablo one? I'd say even then there was some wear and tear on the borders of the church.

Honestly if they completely get rid of druids I'll be pissed, it was more or less my favorite character class.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: TheFuriousWombat on 29 Jun 2008, 12:00
Based upon the video, I can't imagine this game having very high system reqs. I hope that's the case since I might not be able to play it otherwise. The graphics may get an update before release but it doesn't look much better than Dungeon Siege/Titan Quest at the moment. It still looks good, but not next-gen good. I'm praying I'll be able to play it.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: Dimmukane on 29 Jun 2008, 12:14
If it's going to have a simultaneous release on Macs, it's gonna have to run on somewhat low spec to sell well.  Most Apple laptops use Intel GMA X3100's (a high-end onboard chipset, which despite running things better than most onboards, is still kinda crappy), as do some of the desktops.  I know that supposedly the laptops are getting a hardware re-design sometime this summer, but Blizzard probably isn't counting on everyone going out and buying the new ones.

That being said, it still looks pretty damn good.  If there's one thing that's got me really fascinated, it's that they're still using random layouts.  I didn't think it would look this organic (it certainly didn't in the first two), but it's on par and even better than some pre-baked layouts I've seen in other games.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: imagist42 on 29 Jun 2008, 12:18
They may not be using extremely high-resolution textures and what not, but I imagine the game will still be somewhat processor and memory-intensive simply because of the mass quantity of crap happening on-screen at times. The very beginning of the video when all the monsters come climbing up the supports and surround the barb on the bridge looks like it would get pretty laggy on machines more than three to five years old. And IIRC, they have stated that their intention is to bring the focus back to the sheer action of facing gigantic hordes and swarms of enemies, so that type of thing probably won't be uncommon.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: Melodic on 29 Jun 2008, 12:34
Right, but if you have a 5 year-old PC you aren't really in a position to argue about high-end specs anyways. Guaranteed it's an easy feat to make a sub-$500 computer that plays this maxed out.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: imagist42 on 29 Jun 2008, 13:05
Probably, sure. You can do the same to run most games that aren't called Oblivion and don't run on DX10/Vista if you're shopping for the parts right. I'm just saying, I wouldn't count on being able to play the game without difficulty unless your machine is at least that current.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: will: wanton sex god on 29 Jun 2008, 13:19
What about Lazarus in Diablo one? I'd say even then there was some wear and tear on the borders of the church.

Honestly if they completely get rid of druids I'll be pissed, it was more or less my favorite character class.

i liked em too.  My friends going with whatever the bow-using class will be, and im gonna be some sorta medium armor type fighter.  were not into having tanks, to keep shit frentic.  so yeah.  hopefully druids will be around (i had a pretty awesome wind druid in 1.10) or at worst i guess i can go werewolf.  Hopefully werewolf appearance (assuming druids are even in the game) will change based on weapon/eqp this time.

...Am i the only one who's feeling extremely nerdy in that I'm already excited for an unannounced EXPANSION to game that JUST got fucking announced?  I'm just a little shocked at only 5 classes, so yeah.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: KvP on 29 Jun 2008, 13:58
Just some speculation here...

We've read that they're aiming to make Diablo 3 a "better role-playing game", albeit one that's more MP-focused. And I've noticed that the character descriptions so far all detail class-specific backstory conflicts (the loss of what e'er sacred mountain for the barbs, the tribal conflict for the witch doctor) so what I'm thinking is possibly they'll have class-specific campaigns for SP and a big playground for MP? Maybe I'm reading to much into the descriptions.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: will: wanton sex god on 29 Jun 2008, 14:04
^ in the faq on diabloii.net they had an interview in which (i forget the name of who was interviewed) confirmed class speciific quests :)
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: bryanthelion on 29 Jun 2008, 15:47
I was watching this trailer with my close friend, whom never played the games, and we were both shouting "That is sweet!" throughout the gameplay video.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: KvP on 29 Jun 2008, 17:34
It should also be noted that the Lead World Designer on D3 is Leonard Boyarski, who was more or less the creative director for all the visual aspects of Fallout (and the only principal on that game to have any sort of massive success post-Troika).
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: will: wanton sex god on 29 Jun 2008, 19:52
Man, once I saw this trailer i pretty much got rid of the fear id been having for years of how bad diablo 3 might be post roper/schaffer, etc leaving to create the (mostly forgotten, and apparently lack luster) game i can't even remember the name of!
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: McTaggart on 30 Jun 2008, 00:35
It should also be noted that the Lead World Designer on D3 is Leonard Boyarski, who was more or less the creative director for all the visual aspects of Fallout (and the only principal on that game to have any sort of massive success post-Troika).

I realy hope he brings with him the rediculously gory Troika critical hits.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: imapiratearg on 30 Jun 2008, 06:24
Man, once I saw this trailer i pretty much got rid of the fear id been having for years of how bad diablo 3 might be post roper/schaffer, etc leaving to create the (mostly forgotten, and apparently lack luster) game i can't even remember the name of!

Hellgate: London?
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: will: wanton sex god on 30 Jun 2008, 08:43
^ That's the one.  Also there was another game (I don't THINK it was made my flagship, though I'm not sure) that was supposedly very Diablo-esque.  Either way, i got kinda medium excited about both when they were announced/being developed.  Then they came out to little fanfare and I kinda just wanted another Diablo :p

edit: Guild Wars was the other one.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: Scruffy on 30 Jun 2008, 11:06
This is some of the best news I've heard in a while.  Why is all the good news, video game news?
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: onefineday on 30 Jun 2008, 13:59
my response to the statement "I hope you don't spend all your free time doing that crap":  "let's just say i can't wait for my new girlfriend to hit stores."

in all seriousness though, it looks really really nice; the new aspects are quite interesting.  oh, and the trailer gave me chills.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: will: wanton sex god on 30 Jun 2008, 14:56
on lots of (diablo oriented) forums people are complaining about the WD being lackluster.  I was honestly pretty interested in him, given that weve seen, what 6 of 30 skills? (if same number of skills as d2, and it wouldnt be crazy to assume more skills)

wow, grammmar.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: imapiratearg on 30 Jun 2008, 14:59
Lackluster?  He can summon a wall of god damned zombies.  That attacks shit that gets near it.  That's fuckin' awesome!
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: will: wanton sex god on 30 Jun 2008, 15:44
its weird.  in the end it boils down to them being annoying whiners.  they dont like him being hunched over, they dont like how he doesnt summon skeletons, they dont like that hes (probably) replacing necro, blah blah.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: imapiratearg on 30 Jun 2008, 15:49
They should sack up.  Zombies > skeletons.

It's about time that Diablo had a fresh, new package.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: Orbert on 30 Jun 2008, 16:40
Before we all get too excited, remember that Blizzard also has a track record of not releasing a game until they feel it is ready, and that can be quite a while.  Starcraft II was announced a while back and there's been no release date given yet, so Diablo III will be presumably even farther off.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: imapiratearg on 30 Jun 2008, 18:21
Don't wet your britches yet, we won't see it for a decade or so, at least.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: will: wanton sex god on 30 Jun 2008, 19:46
They should sack up.  Zombies > skeletons.

It's about time that Diablo had a fresh, new package.

That's what im thinking.  If you want d2 characters, play d2, imo.


To poster mentioning far off release date: all the better, i can save money and get a pc or mac capable of playing it :).
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: est on 30 Jun 2008, 21:36
Yeah, that is what I was about to say.  ie: Those fucking whiners can keep playing D2 if they want to play with the necro.  This is a new game.  I am sure people bitched that they couldn't play as one of the 3 main chars in D1 when D2 came out, but then they shut up and played the game and found that it was awesome.

Also please note that this Barbarian is a bit older instead of the original bald one.  Not sure if it is the original and he's just aged or if it's a different one.  Either way I think it gives him more character.

I can't really think of any serious faults in the gameplay video I saw, because for one I am not sure that I saw enough to be able to start criticising anything properly, and for two this is obviously still a very early in-house alpha.  I bet one of the reasons why they only showed two characters is that they are the only two they have in a state that is playable enough to show in a demo.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: parm on 01 Jul 2008, 04:28
Yeah, so it turns out Diablo 2 still works perfectly on my Vista laptop, which is probably bad news for my mouse. And for my marriage.

*click*click*click* "BEDTIME PARM" "JUST A MINUTE" *click*click*click* "I AM NAKED IN BED RIGHT NOW WAITING FOR YOU" "I'LL BE RIGHT oooh shiney green UP" *click*click*click* "I AM LEAVING YOU FOR THE POSTMAN" "OKAY" *click*click*click*
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: 0bsessions on 01 Jul 2008, 06:27
*Sigh* That essentially DID happen to me last night, parm.

As for the Witch Doctor, I like him, but I'm wary.

There's only five character classes, allegedly. The Witch Doctor sounds almost exactly like the Necro. Judging by the short list of classes we'll have (Three to be named, allegedly), I'm worried my beloved Druid will be left by the wayside. I don't even necessarily need it to be a Druid, but I did like having my Shapeshifting Tank/Summoner. The Necro's got the summoning down and all, but I quite crave my shapeshifting, as it was one of my favorite aspects to Diablo II: LoD. I don't see how they'd fit the type in once they get down to the other three. You'll need a fighter class like the Paladin, a rogue or ranger like class and a high powered magic user

Considering the look so far, though, I have sincere doubts that I'll be left out in the cold. If I'm deprived of my Druid, I can probably content myself if they maybe retooled the Amazon into a catch all ranger type with some animal summons. That sounds plausible as I seem to recall reading that classes aren't gender locked like in Diablo II, meaning the Amazon as it was would have to be out.

(Edit for math)
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: mat_mantra on 01 Jul 2008, 06:43
I don't even care who they replace.  I just now stopped giggling like a schoolgirl after seeing the gameplay video.  Wall.  Of.  Fucking.  Killer.  Zombies. 

That is all
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: will: wanton sex god on 01 Jul 2008, 06:53
the one thing i ask of a shapeshifting class-
dynamic models which change based on eqp!
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: imapiratearg on 01 Jul 2008, 07:02
I don't even care who they replace.  I just now stopped giggling like a schoolgirl after seeing the gameplay video.  Wall.  Of.  Fucking.  Killer.  Zombies. 

That is all

That's what I thought!

I have the same sentiments as Jon, really.  But at the same time I would alright with them introducing some new aspects to the universe.  It would certainly sadden me to not trump around the levels opening up volcanic vents underneath mobs of enemies with an Elemental Druid, but I can look past that and embrace a fresh, new experience.

Besides, there's always the chance they might reintroduce them again in an expansion pack or downloadable content.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: 0bsessions on 01 Jul 2008, 07:33
That's the biggest reason I'm not too worried. While I'm surprised and a little disappointed there's only five classes in a game being developed in 2008, I'm rather over it considering they could always patch it or release an expansion pack it there's a fan outcry.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: KvP on 01 Jul 2008, 07:53
I'm not really all that broken up over the lack of character classes when they're trying to "deepen" the experience of playing a particular class.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: TheFuriousWombat on 01 Jul 2008, 16:00
My elemental druid who, at higher levels, had a kick ass bear shapeshift, was my favorite of dozens of D2 characters, even more than my early beloved Amazons (shades of my beloved Rogues from D1 which I played when I was 7). I feel like rouge's might come back in lieu of Amazon actually since Amazon are only women but you can choose the sex of your character in D3. Rouge has Amazon-ish attributes but can be male or female and has some additional potential abilities. I feel like the druid, however, is to be no more. Maybe there'll be a elemental character but I feel like shapeshifting, if it's in D3 at all, might even be relegated to the Witch Doctor. To me, this new class is a distillation of Necro and Druid into one new character. My guesses for character classes: Barbarian, Rogue, Witch Doctor, Sorcerer/Wizard, Paladin. I think the sorcerer type character is an obvious given and I feel like a MP action RPG without an aura class character is unlikely, hence the Paladin type character. A ranged character is needed to, hence the Rouge. The other two are confirmed. Thoughts?
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: MusicScribbles on 01 Jul 2008, 16:36
I feel like the ranged character will somehow be a mix of the amazon and the assassin. Rogue is a very likely name for the class, but I'm edging a little bit more towards a Ranger-type class. The Witch Doctor could very well be Blizz's idea of a mix between the Necro and the Druid, so those are done. The Barbarian is the Barbarian. We will probably get a Paladin that is a bit more like a Cleric. I'm thinking that the Magic-User will end up with a much wider range of spells, considering the loss of the Necro's Bone attacks. So that leaves the Amazon and the Assassin.
I would like to think that they would make a Ranger class, but you're very likely to be right about the inclusion of a Rogue class as a mix between Amazon and Assassin. I just don't think they'll call it a Rogue, because that sounds too much like you're just playing a thief. So, a mix of Ranger and Rogue elements. It will be a Roganger! Both Rangers and Rogues have that stealthy, agile aspect in D&D, and both tend to use ranged weapons and sneak attacks.
So, err...yeah!

Edit: But then again, they could destroy the whole thing and just add a class titled Elf. But I have more faith in Blizzard than that, so I hope I'm wrong.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: will: wanton sex god on 01 Jul 2008, 16:41
^ I was typing out a post, and then it said to review becuase a new had happened.  You actually summed up almost exactly waht i was gonna say with rogue=amazon+assassian. that was crazy.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: Dimmukane on 01 Jul 2008, 16:49
Apparently there is already a petition to change the art style.  Last I checked it had almost 4,000 signatures.  People are saying it isn't dark enough, looks lifted too much from WoW (they even say 'cartoony'!), and want the light radius back.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: ackblom12 on 01 Jul 2008, 17:00
I fuckin hate people.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: imapiratearg on 01 Jul 2008, 17:01
I honestly kind of agree with them.  It doesn't look a lot like a Diablo game, but the light radius (with the new, improved dynamic lighting engines and such) would bring back that "alone in the dark" feel that Diablo II nailed almost perfectly in several areas of the game.  The new graphics and such do look very nice, they just don't capture the same menace that the other games did.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: est on 01 Jul 2008, 17:07
The Rogues are basically the tribal people from D2 Act 1.  Given that the Barbarian is from D2 Act 5 and the Witch Doctor is from D2A3 I think there is a lot of weight to what you're saying.  I am wondering if from D2A2 they might give us one of the Arabic spell-sword guys as a playable character (think of him as a kind of arcane Paladin replacement), or if there will be some crazy other char from that area or if I'm totally wrong about the tribal thing and they'll do something totally different.

But, now that I think of it if they gave us a Rogue and a Spellsword then they'd have to give us a healer-type class other than the Paladin.  Some kind of cleric could be a possibility.  I know that clerics aren't usually attributed to being decent in a fight by themselves, but Blizzard's recently had experience tooling out World of Warcraft clerics to be able to hold their own in a fight, so perhaps it's not so far-fetched.  Another possibility would be to bring back the Monk type character they had in the add-on to the first game, and in addition to being a combat monk make it have healing abilities or auras like the Paladin.

Grah, I shouldn't be thinking about all this so much.  I know I'm just gonna work myself up too much.

edit: man, fuck those guys.  It's a fucking alpha demo and they wanted to show off a bunch of cool stuff.  Of course they aren't gonna make it all dark so no-one can see anything.  Fucking shitcunts!
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: will: wanton sex god on 01 Jul 2008, 17:30
I don't remember if i posted somethign similar to this already but the change of the health system makes me think that  thers atlesat more of a possiblity for a healer type.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: est on 01 Jul 2008, 17:38
Yeah, that and the removal of the utility belt in favour of a more readily-accessible set of skills points toward a total revamp in that regard.  So long as it's done right I'll welcome it, as I got pretty sick of having to juggle all those potions.  It would be nice to still have some potions in the game to use in emergencies, but having monsters drop health globes would definitely help keep things moving along more smoothly.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: will: wanton sex god on 01 Jul 2008, 17:44
People are actually complaining about the globes too.  tryna start petitions to get rid of those because apparently they ruin the atmosphere.  the atmosphere create when a swarm of bugs drops a partizan.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: KvP on 01 Jul 2008, 18:23
Yeah, that and the removal of the utility belt in favour of a more readily-accessible set of skills points toward a total revamp in that regard.  So long as it's done right I'll welcome it, as I got pretty sick of having to juggle all those potions.  It would be nice to still have some potions in the game to use in emergencies, but having monsters drop health globes would definitely help keep things moving along more smoothly.
Ehhhh, I think the potions were a good aspect of Diablo. They gave more control to the player. I recently started up D2 again (like lots of people, I imagine) and take for example, when you enter the second level of the Cave in the stoney field, there's at least 1 unique archer demon with a posse of archer demon minions. Well, I went into that level with my druid and there were 3 unique archer demons. The only reason I could beat them after dying 4 times was because I was able to horde potions and quaff them for long enough to get to my dead body, get my stuff back and knock down an archer or two before I became another inert pincushion (this was with a good 95% health bonus from lycanthropy, btw). Think of how much that level would suck without potions.

Not to be That Guy, but the Hulk:Ultimate Destruction model of health is going to seriously suck for non-tank characters unless they either A. Make every class a tank or B. seriously simplify an already incredibly simple gameplay paradigm. AND I DON'T LIKE THE LOOKS OF IT.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: est on 01 Jul 2008, 19:03
I did say that it would be good if they kept potions in for emergencies, your example would be a good reason to buy a stack of emergency potions.  I just see the globes as lessening the need for potions in the general run of play.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: Orbert on 01 Jul 2008, 20:18
Not that anything in these games is actually "realistic", but seriously, you kill something, and the result is a red ball floating in the air above it?  Then you run through it and suddenly you feel much better?  It's just not that much trouble to pull out a potion and drink it.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: Surgoshan on 01 Jul 2008, 20:35
You're fine with a plague-spewing witch doctor going to hell and raising a wall of zombies, but balk at a health power-up?  If you can wrap your head around zombies and demons carrying gold and items of class-specific armor, then essences rising from the corpses of the newly dead that renew the health of a demon-killing übermensch shouldn't be that much of a challenge.

Anywho, I really don't see how the art didn't fit diablo.  So it's not grainy and early 90s; so what?  I thought that a literal horde of ghouls climbing from an abyss to attack the barb en masse was very appropriate. 
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: Noct on 01 Jul 2008, 20:40
Hey, you know a few months back when I was complaining about how all current-gen games are boring messes of brown and gray, and that I wanted some fucking color in my games?  Actually I was joking, color is for losers who want to see what the world around them looks like.  I have also never played a decent game in my life that included health powerups.

...the internet is a fickle and infuriating mistress indeed.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: imapiratearg on 01 Jul 2008, 21:22
Not that anything in these games is actually "realistic", but seriously, you kill something, and the result is a red ball floating in the air above it?  Then you run through it and suddenly you feel much better?  It's just not that much trouble to pull out a potion and drink it.

They even had the little quick-keys before, too.  They could serious do the same thing and keep the bar for the skills, too.  I am going to parallel est's idea with the Cleric character as a result of tooling the Priest on WoW with the fact that they could even use those hideable quick bars that showed up on the left and right and directly above your character bar that you could turn on and off.  You could set a couple slots for potions and viola.  You're one click away from the regenerating properties of the various elixers and potions you find or buy, and no silly globe-things.

I was just wondering, though, if anyone got the sense that they might be dumbing Diablo down into just a plain action game?  I mean, I know it was pretty much the same thing before, but the games were more heavily focused on the plot than the action, really.   It's like they're saying, "Hey, fans.  So, uh...The guys who penned the plot before is gone...so, uh OH HEY LOOK, I JUST TOTALLY KICKED THAT PILLAR OVER INTO A MOB AND KILLED LIKE, THREE OF THEM.  THEIR GUTS ARE ALL OVER THE GROUND.  OH MAN.  ISN'T THIS AWESOME?  I JUST DID A THIRTY HIT COMBO."

At least the voice actor for Decard Cain was the same dude.  At least it sounded like him.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: Orbert on 01 Jul 2008, 21:57
Poor Cain.  "No one ever listens."
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: est on 01 Jul 2008, 22:07
Maybe if he wasn't such a wishy-washy sap he could make people listen.

There.  I said it.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: Noct on 01 Jul 2008, 23:19
I was just wondering, though, if anyone got the sense that they might be dumbing Diablo down into just a plain action game?  I mean, I know it was pretty much the same thing before, but the games were more heavily focused on the plot than the action, really.   It's like they're saying, "Hey, fans.  So, uh...The guys who penned the plot before is gone...so, uh OH HEY LOOK, I JUST TOTALLY KICKED THAT PILLAR OVER INTO A MOB AND KILLED LIKE, THREE OF THEM.  THEIR GUTS ARE ALL OVER THE GROUND.  OH MAN.  ISN'T THIS AWESOME?  I JUST DID A THIRTY HIT COMBO."

I have a really hard time believing that they're going to be dumbing down the plot for Diablo 3.  These are the same guys who spent months just trying to nail the general feel, style, and themes of Starcraft 2, before even getting into the specifics of a story arc or new/developing characters.  Blizzard has executed some of the most cohesive and believable game worlds ever created, and everything they've made since the first Warcraft has been a step up for them in terms of plot and atmosphere.  The one possible exception to this (being an MMORPG) would be WoW, but even that game has a general plotline and rich atmosphere lurking just beneath all the grinding.  I have no reason to start doubting Metzen and his team now. 

If you're gonna accuse their storytelling of anything, it would have to be that it tends to be somewhat derivative... but that's almost the intention.  They take your typical conventions (be it sci-fi, high fantasy, whatever), strip them to their core, add in a twist or two, then polish the entire thing to a dazzling brilliance.

/end fanboyism
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: McTaggart on 02 Jul 2008, 03:37
I don't think I could live without potions. My barb just can't handle any respectable mob without using three (level 21 in the start of act 3, roughly 400hp, that's half the amount my level 69 act1 hell necro has, resists chosen depending on what damage I'm gonna be facing, drawing people off and fighting on my terms, using warcries intelligently) and my necro can't do anything without quaffing super mana potions like a dodgy radiator goes through water. I don't want to play a game where I have to put any points into energy.

I don't think I like the idea of a cleric style support class either. The way in diablo 2 you have three and a half classes that do well as support, three and a half that are excellent tanks, and nearly all of them doing great damage, all in different styles and every class (except I suppose the sorc) falling into at least two categories was what made the game so good and replayable. Having classes fit one single style would take all the fun out of it.

I really hope they don't dumb it down at all. Or at least don't hide the underlying ruleset or go to boring timers on skills. I loved looking up in tables what ias breakpoints I needed to cut another frame off my attack speed. I loved playing odd or novelty builds (<3 bowadins, melee sorceresses, daggerzons (really my favourite tank ever, I might make another and not lose the save before she dies this time) and such) that just happened to almost work well because of some nuance of the ruleset.

Other really short points that I can't be bothered making into paragraphs:
I hope static items like uniques and sets aren't tremendously better than the best of the randomly generated rares.
I hope the horadric cube makes a comeback and there are more, less static crafting recipes.
I'd love to play hardcore right from the start.
At a guess there will be five classes, and if they're taken from the acts in d2, what would act 4 give you?
Barbarians are silly
I hope d3 isn't too influenced by wow. In the style of quests, the way pvp works, the way items happen, the way skills work, the gang dynamics, everything.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: est on 02 Jul 2008, 04:23
If you want to play a game exactly the same way as you play D2 how about you just save money an play D2?  Just sayin'.  I mean, D2 was radically difference to D1, but once I got used to the changes I could appreciate them.  Hopefully that is the way it will play out with D3.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: McTaggart on 02 Jul 2008, 04:46
You have a point, but really I'd prefer to play a game that's better. There are things it did that I thought were really good, and I think it's fair to say that I hope they keep them or at least not make them not so good. That's really all I'm saying there. I'm not gonna get all fired up and start writing petitions or anything (what the hell guys, petition to change the art? Jeez). I'll give the game a chance whatever happens to it, but I guess I'm just gushing about how well done some parts were in diablo 2.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: Noct on 02 Jul 2008, 08:39
Also, correct me if I'm wrong (can't watch the video again right now), but I don't think potions are going anywhere.  They'll still be in the game to use as you need them, health orbs will just be there to streamline the "trash mobs" so you don't have to be chugging health pots every minute on normal enemies.  Hey, maybe it'll make it so large amounts of life/mana leech isn't a requirement for higher level melee characters, so you can get a bit more diversity in your gear.  And really, did the gameplay look THAT different from Diablo 2? 
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: imapiratearg on 02 Jul 2008, 08:52
Don't get me wrong, I really like the new gameplay!  It looks totally bitchin' as opposed to Diablo II, where your character would stand in the same spot and do the same movements every time you clicked to hit or cast a spell.  It just kind of feels like they're bumping it up to an action game.  I think I over reacted with my last post, but I am just worried they might do away with all the nuances that made the game intelligent and challenging.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: will: wanton sex god on 02 Jul 2008, 09:15
I don't think I could live without potions. My barb just can't handle any respectable mob without using three (level 21 in the start of act 3, roughly 400hp, that's half the amount my level 69 act1 hell necro has, resists chosen depending on what damage I'm gonna be facing, drawing people off and fighting on my terms, using warcries intelligently) and my necro can't do anything without quaffing super mana potions like a dodgy radiator goes through water. I don't want to play a game where I have to put any points into energy.

I really hope atleast for a long time (like d2, it took forever for people to do the crazy "charms+enigma+whatever-to-get-the-bare-minimum-stats-you-need" builds.  Why include a stat you end up not needing?  I hate when core mechanics of a game are destroyed by stupid stuff through patches :-/
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: Noct on 02 Jul 2008, 09:28
Fair enough, with a game like Diablo I can see why you might get a bit apprehensive with some things (I sunk countless hours into D2 back in the day).  But for me, it comes down to two things: 1)the trailer, even in shitty resolution, looked great, and 2)Blizzard has yet to steer me wrong... ever.  This isn't something that any other game developer has done for me, so I've got some pretty strong faith in their stuff.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: Ozymandias on 02 Jul 2008, 09:31
I'm downloading D2 again.

Not because I like to play it, but because I want to remind myself of how horrible it is and how much I hate each and every one of you who wanted Blizzard to do this.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: 0bsessions on 02 Jul 2008, 09:36
I am actually Satan and I hate this game because I feel it is racist towards demons like myself.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: imagist42 on 02 Jul 2008, 09:39
You sure enjoy doing that, don't you.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: Dimmukane on 02 Jul 2008, 10:26
There can't be two Satans, can there?  'Cuz I'm with Ozy on this.  Game was at best mildly fun.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: MusicScribbles on 02 Jul 2008, 10:30
I'm pretty sure Ozy was joking, but let's wait for him to reply first before coming to any solid conclusions.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: Noct on 02 Jul 2008, 10:35
I've got no problem with people being lukewarm about the Diablo series in general; it's a very loot-driven game and that's not everyone's cup o' tea.  Some people love crafting a character into the perfect (or perfectly ridiculous) fighting machine, and the mentality needed to derive enjoyment from repeated boss loot runs is something like a zen-addict.  The internets are filled with this these people, and I just happen to be one of the sicker individuals.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: Orbert on 02 Jul 2008, 11:16
I must be one of the few who actually plays the game for the challenge.  I always want to play the game all the way through, but playing the same character over and over, running the same areas over and over, or killing the same boss over and over, sounds only slightly more interesting than watching cereal get soggy in milk.

I've been playing the game for years now, and have played through with at least one character of each class, and multiple subclasses.  When the 1.10 patch came out and basically redid the whole game (skill symmetries totally changed how you build characters, and destroyed most 1.08/1.09 builds), I started over, and have again finished the game with each class and a couple of subclasses now.  Some aspects of playing through are repetitive, yes, but that can't be helped.  What's always different is how you play it, taking advantage of each character's skill set.

I see posts on some of the gaming boards I visit ("Results of last 100 Mephisto runs" and "After 1000 runs, I finally got a --- Rune!") and think these people how no fucking lives.  Then I remember that everyone plays the game for different reasons.  But really, those people have no fucking lives.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: MusicScribbles on 02 Jul 2008, 11:19
What if they are awesome though! They could be awesome!
Also, if my computer can be revived, I am reinstalling everything Diablo.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: Storm Rider on 02 Jul 2008, 11:27
I might be the only one here, but I feel like I am completely lukewarm on everything Blizzard does in general at this point. Part of this is probably because I am almost completely a console gamer at this point, and the games Blizzard makes are 2 RTS series, an MMO based on one of those RTS series, and a dungeon crawler that can basically be summed up as 'click click click click click click click click click CLICK CLICK CLICK CLICK'. No thanks, guys. I was never a fan of RTS games in the first place, and as I got older I just lost patience with the genre entirely. MMOs are a massive timesink that I don't feel give a satisfactory payoff in any way. On top of that, they haven't made a new franchise in 10 goddamn years, and Starcraft wasn't exactly much of a leap in creativity so much as 'Warcraft in space'. I feel like their resources and talent could be so much better utilized if they took some fucking chances once in a while.

Admittedly, Diablo is the Blizzard franchise I have the least experience with, so maybe I'd love it if I tried it, but I seriously doubt it. I'll just have to accept that Blizzard doesn't make games that I'm interested anymore. They're making more money than God on a monthly basis, so they don't have to give a shit about what I think.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: KvP on 02 Jul 2008, 11:29
Not because I like to play it, but because I want to remind myself of how horrible it is and how much I hate each and every one of you who wanted Blizzard to do this.
I don't totally disagree, actually. Something about D2 makes me quit and either abandon the game or start over at around the middle of the second act, usually right after acquiring the horadric cube. Probably because the wait time between levels gets progressively longer and thus my patience gets tested as the urge to try out new skills and create new awesome socketed equipment combinations starts to go unfulfilled.

On the other hand, D3 enjoys significant involvement from Leonard Boyarski, more involvement than I had previously thought. Thus you are unequivocally wrong. So wrong, because it is going to be so awesome.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: Ozymandias on 02 Jul 2008, 11:57
Yeah, I'm completely serious. Diablo is a terrible franchise. It's the most boring piece of crap to ever be celebrated. The people who play it more than once, I'm reasonably sure have a debilitating brain tumor. You might be on the verge of one if you even manage to get through the game once without realizing you did the exact same thing 10 million times for 20 hours.

Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click. Click.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: KvP on 02 Jul 2008, 12:09
An argument that reductive doesn't say anything at all. Mario's just as retarded, with no more than 3 different buttons you push to play the game. Or what about Metal Gear Solid? You push thumbsticks around, press 8 different buttons (getting pretty advanced here guys) and then you put down the controller and watch cutscene after cutscene of wooden dialogue / monologue.

Man, video games suck.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: Noct on 02 Jul 2008, 13:27
Ozy, while your argument doesn't hold much water with me (all pc games are nothing but clickclickclickclick, more or less, and pc games are my first love), I won't deny that my brain is broken in several profound ways.  I guess it all just boils down to preference in games; personally I've never been able to stand platformers unless it's something visceral like the first Prince of Persia remake.  I've never finished a Mario game in my life.  Jumping on ledges just holds no appeal for me whatsoever.  The closest I've come to beating a platformer in years have been the new Ninja Gaiden and Ratchet and Clank games (mostly for the combat and addictive gun upgrades, respectively). 
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: will: wanton sex god on 02 Jul 2008, 13:39
Yeah, I'm completely serious. Diablo is a terrible franchise. It's the most boring piece of crap to ever be celebrated. The people who play it more than once, I'm reasonably sure have a debilitating brain tumor. You might be on the verge of one if you even manage to get through the game once without realizing you did the exact same thing 10 million times for 20 hours.
 

Uh what are you into on the PC that doesnt involve clicking?  FPS's?  RTS's?  both involve clicking mah frand.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: est on 02 Jul 2008, 17:53
Man, console games are all shit.  You just press buttons and move around.  They are all the same!  How boring!
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: Ozymandias on 02 Jul 2008, 18:12
Oh hardy har har.

You know what I mean. The clicking is constant and monotonous. It always produces the same result in levels that are pretty much exactly the same as the last with no variation or surprises. You might as well be clicking an OK button over and over. Progress Quest is more satisfying than Diablo 2.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: Spluff on 02 Jul 2008, 18:29
Ozy's serious problems aside, I can see what the people who wanted the art changed meant, now that I'm playing through D2 again. The first two games had a much darker and eviller atmosphere than what was previewed in the video - the video looked like a cross between Wow & Diablo.

I think this is mainly because they've made the move from 2D to 3D. This tends to happen, I think it's because 3D is much more limited in what it can produce - I mean, look at the Van Buren screenshots compared to screenshots from Fallout 2, much less atmosphere.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: MusicScribbles on 02 Jul 2008, 18:42
I don't know man, there have been some pretty atmospheric 3D games with such an evil mood.
I mean, the Silent Hill series is one, the Thief series is another, but I'm looking at Resident Evil 4. I love that game.
The problem could possibly be stemming from Blizzard's unending work on their big MMORPG machine. They probably, accidentally started to turn Diablo into a blood and guts version of Warcraft without orcs and elves. We won't know this until we see the final product. I mean, Blizzard is one of those company's that let's the fan's voice in on the process. The fans have been whining about the WoW bits, for ridiculous reasons and valid reasons. Warcraft was always a blocky game as well. I think the main problem here is all of the blocky bits, because it gives the game a more cartoonish look, which D1 and 2 didn't have obviously.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: est on 02 Jul 2008, 19:16
You know what I mean. The clicking is constant and monotonous. It always produces the same result in levels that are pretty much exactly the same as the last with no variation or surprises. You might as well be clicking an OK button over and over. Progress Quest is more satisfying than Diablo 2.

What the fuck game are you playing?  The D2 I remember playing has multiple different character classes, each with a large arsenal of special abilities that can be bound to left or right mouse button, along with assignable hotkeys to change what each button does on the fly.  Sure, maybe walking around is click, click (or maybe click & hold in the direction you want to go, I think.)  But if you're doing it properly the combat in D2 is a combination of clicking and almost constantly switching between skills you need at the time, as well as getting into the right position to use certain skills, making sure you don't get trapped in a fucking corner, making sure you manage your mana usage properly, that sort of business.

It's also got a lot to do with the planning out of your character to kit it out with the correct equipment and skills for your play style.  You can take your base character class in completely different directions based on the skills and eq you kit it out with, as has already been touched on by McTaggart talking about the unique and challenging builds he's played around with.  A lot of the depth and complexity of the game lies within the planning out of your character so that it plays the way you want it to and in choosing skills that complement/strengthen the main skills you want to use.

Basically if you seriously think D2 is all "click click click" you've probably either watched someone shitty playing it or perhaps played a character through the first few levels and given up on it because it's not your kind of game.  If it's not your kind of game then that's a shame, but it's totally understandable.  It's one thing to not like a game, but it's another entirely to completely write a massively complex game like D2 off as simplistic just because you can't get into it.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: Dimmukane on 02 Jul 2008, 19:41
What I did like about Diablo 2 was the item stuff and the loot.  That part was fun for me.  But the more I played, the more it felt like they were making the levels bigger for filler.  I thought the first two acts were well-paced, and then everything just slowed down to a crawl.  There was suddenly nothing interesting to do other than hold down the left mouse button for 8 minutes to get to your destination and hoping your avatar didn't get mowed down by the hordes of enemies you were aggroing.  After a while, the combat ended up being pretty bland, too.  Not because of the clicking (wellll, maybe a little), but because you (or at least I) had a tendency to end up relying on a limited number of special attacks. 

The Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance games handled this a little better, I think, and tried to mix things up a little with some puzzles and stuff.  I was also not a fan of the Diablo art direction, adding more to my dislike.  Diablo 3 looks like some kind of improvement, but I still expect there to be pacing issues and combat entropy (to a lesser degree, though).  I'm also thinking that 'combat entropy' may be behind my dislike of nearly every MMO, upon reflection.  I'd get a new attack and use it once to see what it looks like, and then never use it again...whatever.

I'm thinking Too Human will perhaps handle the combat entropy better. 
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: Noct on 02 Jul 2008, 22:52
I feel exactly the opposite you do regarding the one BG: Dark Alliance game I played.  The art didn't appeal to me at all and the character designs seemed extremely rigid without much room for crazy builds (I loved my throwing barb sooo much).

On the other hand, Baldur's Gate 2 is the shit.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: 0bsessions on 03 Jul 2008, 06:48
Ozy's serious problems aside, I can see what the people who wanted the art changed meant, now that I'm playing through D2 again. The first two games had a much darker and eviller atmosphere than what was previewed in the video - the video looked like a cross between Wow & Diablo.

I think this is mainly because they've made the move from 2D to 3D. This tends to happen, I think it's because 3D is much more limited in what it can produce - I mean, look at the Van Buren screenshots compared to screenshots from Fallout 2, much less atmosphere.

I think it's more a matter of technological limitations being overcome than anything. A lot of these people seem to be ignoring the fact that Diablo II was developed close to a decade ago. I'd bank more on the light radius and dark atmosphere being more a result of the hardware not being able to handle color and light and fully illuminated environments than an actual artistic choice for the sake of "atmosphere."

Suffice to say, these are the people that bitch about Mario and Zelda going 3D because it "goes against what the series is SUPPOSED to be." Who cares if it's an improvement or a natural evolution? It's not the same exact game they played ten years ago and that's scary!
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: KvP on 03 Jul 2008, 08:13
I think this is mainly because they've made the move from 2D to 3D. This tends to happen, I think it's because 3D is much more limited in what it can produce - I mean, look at the Van Buren screenshots compared to screenshots from Fallout 2, much less atmosphere.
Man that is untrue.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: Ozymandias on 03 Jul 2008, 08:15
It's also got a lot to do with the planning out of your character to kit it out with the correct equipment and skills for your play style.  You can take your base character class in completely different directions based on the skills and eq you kit it out with, as has already been touched on by McTaggart talking about the unique and challenging builds he's played around with.  A lot of the depth and complexity of the game lies within the planning out of your character so that it plays the way you want it to and in choosing skills that complement/strengthen the main skills you want to use.

So your argument is that the fun in the game comes from the thought experiment of making characters rather than actually playing the game?
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: KvP on 03 Jul 2008, 08:26
That's true of a lot of games, actually. Most all of them. There's a limit to the immersive factor of all games, such that if you're reductive enough you can pass them all off as stupid, pointless bullshit, and all gamers as deluded and sad. Think about roleplaying games. Planescape: Torment is a slog to play, really. The combat is awful. But the fun in it is all the different possibilities you can explore for your character, and the revelation of the character personalities in the game.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: Jimmy the Squid on 03 Jul 2008, 08:50
What shits me the most about Diablo 3 is that, having never really had a PC until I was just finishing high school means I've never played Diablo 1 or 2. And considering that I am now in postgrad university studies and have the same computer I did in late high school...well I don't think it can handle any of those games to be honest. It basically shit the bed when I downloaded photoshop.

Basically if you guys could, when you're finished playing, describe the experience of playing Diablo 3 (with the stealth/ranged attack type characters (rogues/rangers?)) in painstaking detail that would be just peachy.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: Dimmukane on 03 Jul 2008, 09:01
If you've ever played or even seen footage of World of Warcraft, it's very similar except that it's a much darker setting, you can only play with up to I think 8 people, and uses an isometric camera.  Your character selections are limited to classes, there's no pre-game stat configuring or appearance tweaking.  Essentially an MMO with less people but the same amount of items.

Also, semi-random dungeon layouts.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: Jimmy the Squid on 03 Jul 2008, 09:14
Uh...nope. Maybe I should clarify...I have never (as in "not ever") played a game on a PC (minesweeper, solitaire etc don't count). I tried to load Morrowind on my mum's computer when I was 15. The dang thing froze up. To me a computer is just a trash can with sparks coming out.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: KvP on 03 Jul 2008, 09:31
Maybe you ought to try older games. Morrowind might look comparitively shit by today's standards but it's a huge game that requires some good power to run. Diablo 1 is pretty easy peasy in comparison. But it still might not work.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: Vanuch on 03 Jul 2008, 09:34
Alright. I just read through this whole thread. 3 pages doesn't seem like much, but damn people like writing long posts about diablo III

Here's what I think.

If d3 was released with the style of art it has now, I would not be disappointed. However, if light radius was returned or things were a LITTLE darker, I also wouldn't be disappointed. Another thing we have to remember is that we saw TWO AREAS of a game presumably in its ALPHA phase. There's still plenty of room for GRIMDARK colors and gritty visuals. Anyone who signed that petition is an idiot.

Now, the classes! I'm pretty sure it's been revealed that there are going to 5 classes in D3. Presumably, it will be a straight up combat dude, a spell caster, a spell sword, a ranged fighter, and the dark magic/summoning guy. So far we have the returning barb as the combat player, and the witch doctor as the dark magic summoner guy.

For me, the witch doctor is a bitter sweet addition. The Necromancer was my favorite class from diablo II (UNDEAD ARMIES POISON NOVAS FUCK YEAH) and I will be sad to see him go, but I really don't mind the new guy. The witchdoctor's skills are cool as hell (soul harvest, WALL OF ZOMBIES) and still has the potential to raise my undead army that I love so much. The way I see it is this - assuming there's three skill trees like d2 - I see it mapped out like this - Summoning, Alchemy (elemental stuff - fire bombs) and Voodoo (spirit magic - horrify, soul harvest). If WALL OF ZOMBIES and mongrols are the WD's only summons, I will be severely disappointed. However, if they keep the tree system from the previous game, there HAVE to be more powerful summons. Maybe a zombie army? Shit yes, one can only hope.

As for the other classes, what can I say about the barb? He's a barbarian! He slices, he dices, body parts go flying. It's impossible to mess him up.

So that leaves the Spell Sword (ex-pally), the Spell Caster (ex-sorc) and the ranged fighter (ex-zon). I could totally see an assassin/zon mix as the ranged fighter. Some kind of ranger or maybe a returning rouge from A1 D2. The Spell Caster could be anything, a returning sorc, a new magic class all together, it doesn't really matter. With spell casters, it's about the SPELLS and not necessarily the one casting them. And then there's the spell sword. A Cleric or Monk would probably do well here, but I don't think that Blizzard will go in that direction. Diablo II was all about being able to PvE with every character, and not having to rely on a healing class.

As for the druid, I can't see him making a comeback.

There's my long, long post about D3 that was probably extremely incoherent. enjoy!
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: Dimmukane on 03 Jul 2008, 09:40
Well, in short, there's a lot of clicking...I don't suppose you can watch web videos?  I guess not, otherwise you wouldn't be asking us to describe it.  I don't suppose you've ever played Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance 1 or 2, or Champions of Norrath?  They were console games, that were somewhat similar.  Or perhaps God of War or Ninja Gaiden?  It's kind of like those, except there's a lot of weapons and armor and stuff that get dropped by enemies, and the camera is at a fixed point away from the player, at a 30-45 degree angle from the ground.  And significantly more enemies.  Plus magic spells.

The loot drops were a considerable draw of the game.  A lot of people really enjoy getting better equipment for their characters.  The way that worked was that most enemies dropped average stuff for your level, and every now and then you'd come across more powerful versions of those enemies, who had much better stuff dropped.  There were also 'boss chests' that were usually in a room full of baddies that had even better stuff.  And unique enemies and bosses who also had lots of cool stuff in their intestines.  There were maybe 15 enemy types in the game, that they just recycled and gave different colors and better stats.

The other big draw was the skill trees.  Basically new attacks and stuff you could learn that would offer bonuses depending on how much points you spent on them and other skills in the same path.

There was also a relatively deep item crafting system (which wouldn't give you better stuff than what you could find).  There were also shrines littering the playfield and dungeons that either healed you, summoned monsters, or gave a stat bonus. 

I think that sums up most of it. 

It was excessively bloody for a 2-and-a-half-D game, though.

Diablo 1 and 2 should be able to run on your computer relatively easily, even if it is very old.  If you are in any way intrigued, it's pretty cheap now.  When it came out, it ran on 4-year old computers just fine, so that means it could run on...12-year old computers?  Something like that.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: imapiratearg on 03 Jul 2008, 10:23
Yeah, it doesn't take a lot to run Diablo II.  My brother and I used to play it on an old Pentium II or Pentium III IBM desktop.  The thing had a 15 MB graphics processor and like, 32 MB RAM or something like that and an eight gig hard drive.  Ran it flawlessly.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: will: wanton sex god on 03 Jul 2008, 12:28
Shit can get hectic and laggy in Act 5, though.


to Vanuch:
I wouldn't rule out a Monk.  It actually was a class in diablo 1 expac Hellfire.  I didn't actually play d1 much at all, to be honest, but iirc the Helllfire expac wasnt by blizzard (or something kinda wonky like that.)  But yeah.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: KvP on 03 Jul 2008, 12:38
Nah, it was by Blizzard, they just disavow any knowledge of its existence. I don't think they even have a page for it on their site.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: Ozymandias on 03 Jul 2008, 12:42
Nope, it was officially licensed by Blizzard, but they didn't make it. Sierra did.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: KvP on 03 Jul 2008, 13:03
Ah, you are correct. I have an image of it. It's not all that great.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: teh pwn queen on 03 Jul 2008, 13:15
I have just one word. One word to describe why I am excited about this game.

NECROMANCERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That is all.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: will: wanton sex god on 03 Jul 2008, 15:01
I have just 21 words.  Read the whole thread or watch the gameplay videos and realize that necromancers are unlikely for diablo3, plausible for the expansion.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: est on 03 Jul 2008, 18:34
You're excited that Necromancers won't be in the game?  Ok!

And Ozy, when you're choosing one of my points to argue against and ignoring the meat of my post I don't see any point in continuing.  Let's agree to disagree, I guess.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: TheFuriousWombat on 03 Jul 2008, 18:38
Necro's aren't going to happen in D3 or the expansion. It would be way to redundant. Gonna have to wait for mods.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: Vanuch on 03 Jul 2008, 18:55
Shit can get hectic and laggy in Act 5, though.


to Vanuch:
I wouldn't rule out a Monk.  It actually was a class in diablo 1 expac Hellfire.  I didn't actually play d1 much at all, to be honest, but iirc the Helllfire expac wasnt by blizzard (or something kinda wonky like that.)  But yeah.
I played hellfire. It was shitty because there was no battle.net for it. You could only play multiplayer through LAN. If you entered a certain code into the command thing, it unlocked a new quest and 2 new classes - the Bard and the Barbarian (I think). The bard used the skin of a rouge and the barbarian used the skin of the warrior, but the Monk was the only "new" class that was ready to play straight from the box. I liked playing as him, it was fun for a bit, but I don't think he'll return. If he does, awesome. I like monks.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: Spluff on 03 Jul 2008, 19:15
I think this is mainly because they've made the move from 2D to 3D. This tends to happen, I think it's because 3D is much more limited in what it can produce - I mean, look at the Van Buren screenshots compared to screenshots from Fallout 2, much less atmosphere.
Man that is untrue.

Not when you're talking about a low/moderately powered 3D game (ie. not Crysis). Because the backgrounds in the old isometric RPGs are painted, you can add as much detail, and lighting effects as you want - and it won't lag any more than if there was just a big black background. Can you imagine how laggy Baldur's Gate 2 would be, if every single detail was painstakingly rendered into 3D?
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: KvP on 03 Jul 2008, 22:21
I was more referring to the last part. IWD is probably the best argument for pre-rendered environments in games, but the Van Buren engine was actually really good (if exceedingly difficult to work with from a production perspective) you ought to try out the tech demo. It's buggy, but the engine was pretty much a beautifully natural progression from 2D to 3D.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: Boro_Bandito on 15 Oct 2008, 18:17
hey guys new character class. Not sure how old this info is, but i just found out about the wizard (http://www.blizzard.com/diablo3/media/movies/wizard.xml). cool stuff, I like the teleport and slow time spells. There also seem to be something that makes multiple versions of yourself and whatnot. I'd say upgrade over the sorceress.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: Surgoshan on 15 Oct 2008, 19:53
The video just doesn't look as finished... I mean, my sixth graders can approximate a sphere with a 2-dimensional decagon...  Are they rushing things out the door?
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: Alex C on 15 Oct 2008, 20:02
I think it's too early in the development to worry too much about that. Besides, I didn't really mind the spell effect at all; it's simple and you can see through it clearly, which is nice considering that the times you'll want to use it the most is when there's tons of effects on screen and things are getting hectic. Of course, I'm the rare breed that thought the D2 sorceress was too "busy," so I'm not surprised we disagree on this.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: Katherine on 15 Oct 2008, 20:05
If I get any more excited for this game, I might spontaneously combust.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: Boro_Bandito on 15 Oct 2008, 20:37
I mean, she seriously looks like she'll have a lot of new tricks, which is good for me because I found the sorceress the hardest character in the world to solo with, and I always felt like I wasn't doing anything in multiplayer....
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: est on 15 Oct 2008, 21:35
I have a feeling that the other three of the first five will be something like: Mage/Sorceress meld (etc)

Hooray for the Wizard!  I honestly expected it to be a male Wizard to distance themselves from the Sorc, but then the final two would probably have to be female to balance it out.  From here I really believe there's going to be one more ranged character like a ranger (probably male) and one nimble damage-based char like a rogue/assassin combo (probably female).  I originally thought they would throw in some kind of cleric, but with the health orbs dropping all over the place that seems a little useless.

Anyway, after watching that video it's clear to see they are going with beam spells to make it seem different to the sorc's ball-based spells.  I approve, I think.  Hopefully it'll be non-targeted, and it'll be fun to wave a beam back and forth over a crowd or lower-power enemies to hose them down.

Also, the sorceress was pretty hard to begin with, but once you got her past a certain level she was probably one of the most powerful characters.  With Frozen Orb and some of the accompanying ice spells you could clear a room very quickly.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: imagist42 on 15 Oct 2008, 21:40
I think it's too early in the development to worry too much about that. Besides, I didn't really mind the spell effect at all; it's simple and you can see through it clearly, which is nice considering that the times you'll want to use it the most is when there's tons of effects on screen and things are getting hectic. Of course, I'm the rare breed that thought the D2 sorceress was too "busy," so I'm not surprised we disagree on this.

I believe the reference was to the "orb" she is carrying when she reaches the undead baddie's chamber. In the first close-up (of her, not where you can see the dude reflected in the orb) it is pretty jagged.

But, I'm not complaining, because I am pretty sure that pretty much all of that footage (probably not the aforementioned shot where he is reflected) is actively rendered using the in-game engine, not pre-rendered cinematics. And for being up-close, with eye-level cameras, when the game is normally isometric from a much greater distance with tons and tons of shit going on, it is pretty decently detailed.

Also, est: All classes can be both male and female. I expect you might have been referring to the "canon" gender they are presenting them to us with, but I'm not sure.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: satsugaikaze on 15 Oct 2008, 22:05
Surprisingly the developers of the Diablo series have retconned very little.

I'm glad to see Blizzard have rid themselves of sprites once and for all. While I enjoyed Diablo II to the end of fackall, Diablo III looks potentially refreshing. The official trailer (which I downloaded... silly size for a high-def version) looks fun. I'm not sure what to say about that character at the end who looks like she might be playing a significant role.

Nevertheless, we should learn more.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: est on 15 Oct 2008, 22:15
Oh man, I totally forgot about the male/female thing.  Awesome.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: Alex C on 15 Oct 2008, 22:31
Yeah, I'm totally going to be a male wizard. It will rock.

Also, yeah, sorceresses were really good in D2, but starting out did kind of suck, and as necessary as it was, I never did like Static Field. I just hated how susceptible she was to lag spikes, mostly, and the infamous Duriel loading time was essentially a death sentence to sorceresses (it killed its fair share of other classes too, but a Sorc was basically meat in that scenario).
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: imapiratearg on 15 Oct 2008, 22:38
Dang, Duriel was probably the hardest boss in the whole game.  I would rather take Mephisto, The Countess, and Andariel on at the same time rather than fight Duriel one on one.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: est on 15 Oct 2008, 22:50
I don't know about that.  For the level you usually are when you get to him he is pretty hard, but if you come up against him again after you get a few more levels on you he isn't quite so tough.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: est on 15 Oct 2008, 22:51
Oh god, I am not sure if he qualifies as the hardest boss, but the fallen seraphim in Hell is annoying as all hell because he has a gazillion hitpoints and is resistant to most things.  It took me forever to kill the bastard.

Also:

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v371/est_xplosif/random/d3rainbow.png)

Weee!
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: Spluff on 15 Oct 2008, 23:38
Yeah, duriel is pretty much the worst.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: Boro_Bandito on 16 Oct 2008, 07:05
Its Duriel's slowing attack that does it, beyond that he's not really all that special, but even being in the midrange of hitpoints and attack it makes him extraordinarily difficult just because he's got more than you of both and can move three times faster than you. Bah. I remember going up against him with a summoning druid and being nearly defenseless, kills every summon so easily.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: 0bsessions on 16 Oct 2008, 07:20
See, I didn't nearly as much trouble with him. I was a hybrid Summoning/Shapeshifting Druid who completely ignored spellcasting. As I recall, I just kept running my Oak Sage and a bunch spirit wolves/ravens and shifted into bear and tanked the living shit out of him. He took a while, but I had a lot more trouble with Andariel. Her poison spells and the fact she's way early in the game made her an absolute bitch.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: Alex C on 16 Oct 2008, 08:24
I should mention that if you only played the game after the expansion or after few patches, you really didn't get the full Duriel treatment. For whatever reason, some genius at blizzard decided it'd be a good idea to have the entrance to Duriel's lair require pulling some information off the hard drive and CD rom the first time you entered it. Depending on the quality of your PC, it was entirely possible that during the subsequent load time (during which you could see and do nothing) that Duriel would get several attacks in. I guess there were plenty of situations where even paladins and barbarians loaded his lair up only to find themselves crippled or already dead. For my sorceress, unfortunately, it was no contest; he could take out half her health just off one of his charges, so basically I never got to fight him without having to step into his lair naked first. Plus, he really is as close as an NPC can come to being the rock to the sorceress's scissors: he does high damage and he snares, while Sorceresses didn't really have the tools to hit and run properly yet at that level. He was certainly beatable, but considering the relative strength of the sorceress vs. other NPCs, he stands out as a real son of a bitch.

Edited for silly grammar mistake.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: Boro_Bandito on 16 Oct 2008, 09:30
And yet now the wizard is going to have teleport and slow time! Duriel type enemies beware!
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: Catfish_Man on 16 Oct 2008, 10:23
Duriel was absurd. One of my early sorcs went through 20 *TOMES* of town portal fighting him. Enter->Portal up->Lightning Duriel->Get oneshotted->Rinse->Repeat. These days I'm a lot better at it (I don't play lightning sorcs anymore, I pump vitality instead of energy,  post-expansion mercs can tank, and I know how to use static field now), but it's still harsh on Normal difficulty. Two meteorb sorcs on hell difficulty Duriel was easy though. Took about 30 seconds.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: est on 16 Oct 2008, 16:55
To compound the difficulty, I am not sure that Duriel's freeze could be resisted, could it?  As in, you could have high cold resist and yet he'd still freeze you because it was a boss special thing.  I also remember reading about Hardcore players having to level up way more than normal before getting to Duriel because they couldn't just take a few deaths to get the jorb done.

Man, now I kind of want to try out a Hardcore character again.  I played about with one way back when, but didn't really bother with it after a while.  The concept seems a bit more appealing to me nowadays.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: Alex C on 16 Oct 2008, 17:06
Yep, it's unavoidable. Duriel's really about the only npc in the game I ever considered grinding experience to beat. He doesn't have the highest stats in the game by a longshot, but he's really nasty relative to the level you're likely to face him at.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: Orbert on 17 Oct 2008, 10:27
I read a guide once that said Duriel has Holy Freeze, same as the Paladin aura, except he has to actually touch you.  "Cannot be Frozen" doesn't help, nor does Cold Resistance.  "Half Freeze Duration" supposedly works, but that's not much help if he's hitting you every couple seconds.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: will: wanton sex god on 17 Oct 2008, 11:30
^ bingo, its holy freeze.
the main reason duriel sucks so bad is theres a good couple seconds of lag when you first enter his chamber.  hes hard to run from since hes got holy freeze AND charge which knocks you and stuns you, while youre moving so slowly.  so yeah, sometimes you died before his room even loaded
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: satsugaikaze on 18 Oct 2008, 06:49
I find it's easier with two players: 1 to set up a town portal and 1 to distract. Mercs help too, but they usually die in a few hits.

The second dude has a town portal outside the tomb for rinse-and-repeat. =)
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: kaseysaidmaybetomorrow on 09 Apr 2009, 16:54
I need it to come out.

I actually just started playing D2 because my boyfriend has been playing it since it came out. He talked me into it and I'm kind of hooked. It was tough though, because I have Leopard and due to the incompatibilities I just kind of had to steal it from his computer to make it work for me.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: Orbert on 10 Apr 2009, 09:27
It's okay.  You do what you have to do to feed your addiction.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: satsugaikaze on 11 Apr 2009, 08:19
The latest character update is kinda awesome.

Although I don't know why every single demo video on the page involves him getting owned at the end by a zombie or falling debris o_O
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: Catfish_Man on 11 Apr 2009, 09:26
...because that character is an april fool's joke.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: Avec on 11 Apr 2009, 10:32
I think everything that was appealing in Diablo 2 Classic will be taken away, case and point; MONTHLY FEES.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: el_loco_avs on 11 Apr 2009, 10:34
wait. what? monthly fees?
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: McTaggart on 11 Apr 2009, 10:37
You're going to have to back that up.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: Avec on 11 Apr 2009, 10:45
Find the video demo, I believe it's somewhere in here.

Quote
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/diablo3/video/6193136/diablo-iii-live-demonstration?tag=videos;title;12
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: Dimmukane on 11 Apr 2009, 11:32
I'm pretty sure there would've have been huge internet ragez going on if they were planning on adding monthly fees by now.  Blizzard have never said anything about Battle.net costing the players anything whatsoever.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: imapiratearg on 11 Apr 2009, 11:43
Find the video demo, I believe it's somewhere in here.

Quote
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/diablo3/video/6193136/diablo-iii-live-demonstration?tag=videos;title;12


Nope, nothing.  I even checked the comments.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: Avec on 11 Apr 2009, 12:31
When I used to play D2 and the news first hit I'm almost positive they mentioned monthly fees. You can hold it against me, but I'm willing to bet Blizzard won't make the mistake of not charging for online play again.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: Dimmukane on 11 Apr 2009, 12:59
I don't think they ever saw it as a mistake.  Warcraft 3 came out after Diablo 2 and was free to play.  I mean, tons of games, including a bunch of Diablo clones, are free to play online.  What probably happened was someone extrapolated the comparisons to WoW's art style and UI and assumed that Blizzard said they were gonna charge for it, entirely out of context, and that's what you heard.

Seriously, it's not gonna happen.  That is the easiest way to alienate one of the hugest fanbases in the world.  It would've been a PR nightmare and worldwide boycotts against Blizzard would have ensued.  Something like that would not happen without getting a very noticeable reaction.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: imapiratearg on 11 Apr 2009, 13:51
Charging for Battle.net play would be like shitting on the keyboards of everyone who loved Diablo II and then smearing it under all of the keys.

Which is a lot of people.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: Avec on 11 Apr 2009, 13:54
I'm really curious if you're aware of how business works.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: imapiratearg on 11 Apr 2009, 13:54
I don't, but that is what it would be like for me.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: Avec on 11 Apr 2009, 14:01
Look at it like this, with the cult Diablo already has, they'll make more money with half the fan base and a monthly fee of let's say 10 dollars. The majority of the people I've dealt with were in their 30's and were foreign, who seemingly could manage a minute addiction.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: Joseph on 11 Apr 2009, 14:11
...Or they could sell many, many more copies of the game for $60 or whatever, crank out a couple expansions for more money, and easily make a profit.

I definitely wouldn't be getting the game if it required me to pay a fee to play online.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: Avec on 11 Apr 2009, 14:23
I'm in no way supporting the monthly fees, but let's be realistic.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: KvP on 11 Apr 2009, 15:17
There's always been a lot of crowing about charging for Battle.net but I remain skeptical of the claims of its apparent unworkability. People said the same thing when they started charging for WoW (battle.net was a free service for many years prior to that) and they still ended up with a never-before-seen number of players. Griping on the internet is easy to ignore and the number of people who will protest by not playing will be minimal from a sales standpoint, as long as the game works and is as well designed as Blizzard's games have been in the past and Blizzard doesn't gouge (and if they charge for battle.net they probably won't).

The internet is a warped prism through which to view future possibilities. Remember NMA and Fallout 3? They kicked and screamed about the wrongness of it all throughout development. I'd wager at least 90% of them bought the game on release. Remember when Ron Paul was going to be a formidable force in the '08 elections? Yeah. The number of Ron Paul voters is probably the number of highly principled gamers (at best), and more people will have bought D3 than voted. High-profile games to gamers are as candy to children. The only circumstances under which it isn't wanted is when it's bad.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: 0bsessions on 11 Apr 2009, 15:28
The reason Blizzard will probably not charge for Battle.net is WoW. Doing something like that, unless it came with a discount on WoW (Much like Sony's Station Plan a few years back that you could access their entire range of MMOs for $30 a month), would serve only to cut into WoW's userbase.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: KvP on 11 Apr 2009, 16:51
Possibly, but all failures of competing MMOs aside I don't think we've seen a compelling case for market saturation in the multiplayer gaming world. Diablo 3 will be a different beast from WoW. It isn't an MMO and presumably it won't require the sort of time commitments that WoW does. That opens up a lot of player markets that WoW hasn't tapped.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: Chesire Cat on 11 Apr 2009, 17:45
Im with obsessions on this one, making a pay for play MMORPG will be poaching from Blizzards own userbase.  Unless Diablo 3 is marketed to be a WoW killer, I doubt they will charge for it.

And this is based of market analysis and not my personal opinion on how swell the guys at Blizzard are, because that is a rather inaccurate barometre (or in this case thermometre) to go by.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: Alex C on 11 Apr 2009, 18:18
There's compelling reasons for going either direction. The benefit of charging is obvious, so I won't bother touching on that. As for why it would remain free, I would like to point out that charging a monthly subscription raises expectations that Blizzard may not be comfortable taking on at this point. Quite simply, people cut you more slack when your service is free, and battlenet would have a large player base to cater to even if charging money did end up thinning the herd. Keep in mind the vast majority of Blizzard employees work in WoW customer service as it is. Such a move could still probably end up being quite profitable if handled correctly, but on the other hand it really may not really be worth all the fuss when you consider the costs and how much of the playerbase you could cannibalize, particularly since Bnet already serves as a great gateway drug into online gaming and the Warcraft universe as it is. A lot of online gamers are still teens who can't hold credit cards or cannot convince their parents to blow a wad of money on perhaps the nerdiest of hobbies. There's benefits to keeping those kids in-house and I guarantee you that there's people playing WoW right now who got into online gaming in the first place thanks to Bnet.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: Zanzan on 11 Apr 2009, 20:52
Oh god, I am not sure if he qualifies as the hardest boss, but the fallen seraphim in Hell is annoying as all hell because he has a gazillion hitpoints and is resistant to most things.  It took me forever to kill the bastard.

Also:

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v371/est_xplosif/random/d3rainbow.png)

Weee!

That's now my wallpaper! Yay!

Anyway, dug my D2 CDs out of cryo-storage and started playing a week ago when I heard about D3 being announced. Already in Hell mode ... damn Blizzard.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: Boro_Bandito on 12 Apr 2009, 09:51
I pity da fool who doesn't read the whole topic and then posts without contributing anything to the conversation anyway.


I don't think they'll create a monthly charge for Battle.net with Diablo 3 simply because with it there will come the expectation of it being updated regularly for new content. Monthly pay for MMOs with new content added regularly works because they aren't following a linear storyline. Diablo has always been a pretty standard RPG hack-n-slash in that it follows a pretty linear quest path with a very clear game end, even with the LoD expansion. I agree with Obsessions, I'm betting it makes more sense to release the game, have free B.net and release a couple expansions, then ignore the game for another ten years, heh.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: Dazed on 12 Apr 2009, 09:55
Also, amongst the reasons they charged monthly for WoW service was that it's hosted server-side. Battle.net, I'm pretty certain, has always been hosted client-side. So, really, given that Battle.net has always been free, and given the reasons Jon and Boro etc just stated, to start charging for it now would create a massive PR shitstorm that I'm sure they don't want to deal with.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: Felrender on 12 Apr 2009, 11:23
I actually want to play the Archivist, joke or not.

LORENADO!
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: Beren on 12 Apr 2009, 18:10
It's already been stated that Battle.net will remain free for both D3 and the upcoming SC2.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: Avec on 12 Apr 2009, 18:16
Could you link me to that, please?
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: Avec on 12 Apr 2009, 18:27
D:
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: Alex C on 12 Apr 2009, 18:31
"With Battle.Net we're definitely looking at possible different features that we might be able to do for additional money. We're not talking about Hellgate or anything like that. We're not going to tack things on. I think World of Warcraft is a great example to look at. We charge people if they want to switch servers or if they want name changes, things that aren't core to the game experience, they're really just optional things that some people want. It takes us some development work to do it, so it makes sense to charge for it. We would never do something like say to get the full game experience, you'll have to pay extra." (http://www.joystiq.com/2008/10/13/blizzcon-2008-rob-pardo-talks-battle-net-monetizing/)


Can we put this baby to rest now?
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: Avec on 12 Apr 2009, 18:31
There's no going back now.

Edit: JA JA JA JA JA.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: Beren on 13 Apr 2009, 10:41
Ah, that wasn't even the post I remember, but that works too.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: Felrender on 13 Apr 2009, 11:52
Yeah, Activision is the retarded conjoined twin, not Blizzard.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: el_loco_avs on 14 Apr 2009, 03:00
It never really made sense to charge for a non-mmo. It's not even persistant world!
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: kaseysaidmaybetomorrow on 09 Jul 2009, 20:09
I neeeeed it.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: KvP on 21 Aug 2009, 18:03
http://www.blizzard.com/diablo3/characters/monk.xml

Def my favorite D&D class. Good to see it's making it through to D3. Looks a bit like the D2 assassin, plus bells and whistles.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: Alex C on 21 Aug 2009, 18:33
Impenetrable Defense made me smile because ranged attackers could be pretty obnoxious in the Diablo series, particularly if they tended to flee as you approached (I hated the succubi in D1 when playing a warrior). Even if the reflect isn't very good as a counterattack, at least it'll be something I can bust out while a ranged buddy tags them.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: Boro_Bandito on 21 Aug 2009, 18:40
I thought I was going to play as barbarian for my first playthrough, I think I've just changed my mind.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: est on 21 Aug 2009, 19:01
So we've got what, Barbarian, Witch-Doctor, Wizard & now Monk.  So all that is left is a ranger-type char, ie: a meld of the Amazon and the Druid from, D2.

There's only gonna be five classes to begin with, right?  So that is pretty much that?  With all the health globes falling all over the place you won't need a dedicated cleric class, with Barb and Monk we won't be getting another melee+healing class like the Paladin (and besides, it could be argued that the Monk is just another take on the Paladin), and it feels like any group would be pretty range-deficient with only the Wizard as ranged class.  Maybe they will surprise us, but seeing as a Ranger/Hunter class fills in basically everything that is missing (ranged attacks, spears/javs, crowd control via nets/some sort of nature magic, animal companion summoning) other than straight up heals (which they could throw in I guess, as nature heals?) and solves the problem of the Amazon being sex-specific I thoroughly doubt it.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: est on 21 Aug 2009, 19:03
Also, with character-specific quests I could easily see myself playing through with Barb, Monk and Wizard.  I never really liked the Druid or the Necro, so Witch Doctor doesn't really appeal, and if the final is a Ranger I won't have much interest in that either.  Playing through three times with Barb, Wiz & Monk will do though!
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: Orbert on 21 Aug 2009, 19:31
Sounds about right to me.  I believe they said there would only be five classes (to start anyway), and we don't have anyone yet who specializes in ranged physical attacks.

I always play the game all the way through with each class at least once.  In original Diablo, Warriors were easiest in the early game, but Sorcerors totally owned the higher levels.  Rogues had a tough start, too, but eventually got pretty handy in the mid-game, then sucked about as badly as Warriors in the endgame.  D2 and D2X were both much better balanced, and it really did come down to personal preference, but I managed to Matriarch/Patriarch each class at least once.  I plan to do the same with D3.

Man, this game is taking forever to come out.  Not complaining, it's just... okay, I guess I am complaining.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: Alex C on 21 Aug 2009, 19:46
Warriors were actually pretty nasty in the endgame of D1 (a well-built warrior can just smear Diablo) if you mastered the finer points of Tele-killing, but to do that you needed to find enough gear and shrines to bootstrap your way up to being able to cast the damned spell worth a crap to begin with. That was a real feat in and of itself.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: McTaggart on 22 Aug 2009, 00:27
I really hope they do pull out something surprising and new instead of just going the D&D style ranger/druid. Or at least put an interesting spin on it. Hell even just change up the elements they're assiciated with or something.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: Mr. Doctor on 22 Aug 2009, 02:46
I'm very exited about this... I remember when I first saw the wall of zombies, it was totally badass. I guess I would try a female witch doctor :P I really liked the fact that you can make female or male characters from every class.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: est on 22 Aug 2009, 02:58
I really hope they do pull out something surprising and new instead of just going the D&D style ranger/druid. Or at least put an interesting spin on it. Hell even just change up the elements they're assiciated with or something.

Yeah, it is amazing how much more fun an elemental ranger was in TQ, for example.  An Arcane/Holy Archer build would be a pretty cool twist, and would provide an excellent way of slipping a healer into the game.  Most dedicated healers need to be out of melee range anyway, so why not give them bows?  They could even explain it by saying that after the events of D2 the Amazons took refuge with the leftovers of the Horodrim and became/trained Horodric Archers.  That would be a bit more lore-centric and interesting, I think.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: McTaggart on 22 Aug 2009, 05:11
I don't think we'll end up with any straight healing abilities let alone any classes geared strongly towards that; as far as skills that were known as of last blizcon there don't even seem to be much in the way of group abilities. Maybe I'm expecting more than I should considering it's not an mmo but I figured that multiplayer would be a really big focus of the game. I hope that the last class has barb/paladin/druid style group buffs. I was hoping that every class would be able to fill both primary roles (dps, tank) and also be able to be useful support.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: TheFuriousWombat on 22 Aug 2009, 06:49
Definitely hoping they add in a ranger type. The Rouge was my favorite D1 character by far (the Wizard was too awful in the early game to make it anything but frustrating and I thought bows were cooler than swords I guess) and I played through D2 a couple times with an Amazon who are actually really awesome if balanced correctly. I just hope all the D3 characters are, in fact, balanced right in terms of skill power and such. I played through D2 with the Assassin and the Druid and both were way too powerful. For the Druid, I just used the same couple elemental attacks from about the mid-game on and all but breezed through, only dying a couple times before facing Baal, whose always a pain in the ass. In any case, I think they certainly will add a ranged character of some type. Don't know what they'll call it but I would imagine it'll be like the Amazon and good with the gamut of ranged weapons and the Druid with animal summoning/possibly shapeshifting since the other characters don't seem to possess those abilities.

A side note, not sure on which side of the argument I would fall but technically the Monk isn't new to the Diablo series, despite how the devs are advertising the Barbarian as the only holdover. I guess some people wouldn't consider Hellfire canon since it wasn't a Blizzard game but it was set in the Diablo universe. That monk was pretty cool and mean with a staff. I think I might be one of the few Hellfire fans in the world, however...
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: Alex C on 22 Aug 2009, 06:50
Strong, interesting multi-player is the reason why I think buff-centric characters need to be destroyed with fire. First off, buffs are boring as shit because it's typically a no-brainer decision when to use one. They often don't even have any true opportunity cost involved because there's nearly always a way to squeeze them out preemptively. Rarely does a buff change things to the extent that other players act appreciably different than they would had they not received the buff, leading to the curious situation in which the most group-centric abilities are curiously non-interactive. At least a sorceress laying down fire support might change who you target; a paladin's aura typically just means that you continue hitting things right in the face, only now you do it harder. Healing is also problematic in Diablo since if tradition holds than each character class must be reasonably self-sufficient through consumables when played well. Assuming that this is still the case, I would expect there to be a lot of over-healing involved with a true healer, since nobody with a brain in their heads really would want to leave their health total solely in someone else's hands when potions are an economical option. Healing would likely be reduced to the role it held in Diablo 1: post-battle patch jobs; convenient, but not something you can really balance a class around. Damage absorption abilities like WoW's Power Word: Shield would probably be more appropriate from a user friendliness standpoint, since the target could monitor the status of the defenses on his own to an extent, but those types of abilities run into all the same gameplay issues that a buff does; unless there's a real opportunity cost in the form of hefty mana consumption, debuff or a channeling requirement, such abilities are often simply too easy to use. I think there's a good reason that most of the "defensive" abilities we've seen so far in the trailers have been either crowd control related like Horrify and Mass Confusion or provide a zone of protection like Slow Time and Impenetrable Defense (provided you can keep the Monk between you and the casters, anyway). Such abilities are more interactive because they either cause opponents to behave differently or require your allies to be on the ball if they wish to benefit from your abilities. They also require some targeting or at least smart positioning to use well. Give me that kind of stuff over a fire-and-forget buff any day.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: est on 22 Aug 2009, 18:00
If it is a Ranger maybe there will be some kind of heal-over-time spell, or perhaps the Witch-Doctor will go a bit Shaman and drop various totems, some of which will heal?  That would gel better with things like Slow Time, etc.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: satsugaikaze on 24 Aug 2009, 07:05
The abundance of health orbs that could be in PvM might account for quite a bit of the self-sufficiency issue.

As for buffs, the paladin was probably the biggest offender in PvP unless the builds were spell-casting centric (aimed spells like FotH, although the lack of aiming required in some of the other class skills were borderline lazy. As for Amazon/Rogue replacements, I think the "Ranger" character-type would be the most obvious choice if they want gender selection, although there are probably other ideas for such a role that would work too. Also, this is a game taken off the tabletops and put onto the screen: in terms of innovations I wouldn't be screaming bloody murder too much if the other classes were derived.

EDIT: Alex, line breaks are your friend.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: kaseysaidmaybetomorrow on 04 May 2010, 06:31
Pre-order available on Amazon. It's coming, even if it's two years... it's coming.
Title: Re: Diablo 3
Post by: Orbert on 04 May 2010, 08:51
Interesting.  Starcraft II release date announced recently, now this.  We still have at least a few years before getting too excited, but these things take time.