Diablo 3

[sack_patrol]

I do find it hilarious that sack_patrol wants a carbon-copy D2 with new graphics but biotches CONSTANTLY about newer FPS/RTS/anything games being the same as older ones with nothing new.

never said I wanted D3 to be the same as D2. Honestly I don't really wanted a D3 but that doesn't matter. I'm saying that D3 won't be an improvement upon D2 in the ways that matter to the game. Their Diablo 3 could have been called something completely different, it wouldn't have made it less of a true sequel to Diablo 2. Could probably explain it better but f that...what do I know... I don't even own a console. some gamer I am rite...

[Waco]

Could probably explain it better but f that...what do I know... I don't even own a console. some gamer I am rite...

What is this I don't even.

 

 

I'm looking forward to the game. Diablo and Diablo II both rocked - I have faith that Blizzard won't disappoint with this one.

[Andrewr05]

I have faith that Blizzard won't disappoint with this one.

Despite my previous post, so do I.

[LuckyDeath]

I guess I can chime my 2 cents in...

 

I played D1 & D2 as a young lad... I remember the exhilarating feeling of too many bad guys chasing me across vast, unknown, randomized maps... wondering if a shiny yellow or green item was going to pop up after that big bad guy was killed. It totally hooked me from 8th grade, and I got bit by the bug plenty of times in highschool and even in college (I blame the pot and pizza).

 

I quit for 'good' a couple years ago. The game was still fun, but I was well into my 4th year of a WoW habit by that point and didn't really need the crappy servers with outdated gameplay styles.

 

Point is, D2 was a great game for its time. You would be kidding yourself if you think some upped graphics engine would have made the game playable in today's market. They really needed to re-invent the game, yet keep the style, story, and overall 'feel' similar. Thats why this game took years to develop, and thats why I don't expect to see it until 2012. I honestly have no idea if I will love it like I loved D2. I'm sure I will still love the story and the characters, but the mechanics will be entirely different. I'm excited about that, because another click-spam game would have made me die a little inside.

[tkrow21]

never said I wanted D3 to be the same as D2. Honestly I don't really wanted a D3 but that doesn't matter. I'm saying that D3 won't be an improvement upon D2 in the ways that matter to the game. Their Diablo 3 could have been called something completely different, it wouldn't have made it less of a true sequel to Diablo 2. Could probably explain it better but f that...what do I know... I don't even own a console. some gamer I am rite...

 

You were also saying Starcraft 2 was doomed to fail, but what do we have now?

 

& to everyone - thanks for posting new info, I updated the OP with the content.

 

Edit:

 

Beta could come soon?

 

http://www.curse.com/articles/other-en-news/945401.aspx

http://www.diablofans.com/topic/24518-wheres-beta/

Edited April 22, 2011 by tkrow21

[WhenKittensATK]

Wait, so the maximum for multiplayer games is 4 players now?

Yep, it was announced when they first debuted the game I think. They could raise it by the time it releases or with an expansion. As of yet I haven't heard anything higher than 4 players.

Edited April 22, 2011 by Krazyxazn

[greengiant912]

How many people here have actually played Diablo 3?

 

 

 

 

 

I guess only me

 

 

Anyways I just started playing Diablo 2 a little bit with a buddy of mine. I never touched a Diablo game since first trying Diablo 3 this past year. I must say that from what I experienced in the D3 demo, and then going back to playing D2 makes D2 look like a steaming pile of S@#$... The controls in D2 are clunky, and it seemed to be faster paced in D3.

 

I first thought D3 was pretty basic when playing it, but then when I started playing D2 and realized how basic that was I realized that it was a huge progression.

 

 

Also from what I have heard about D3 is that the replayability will be huge, with random quests being generated at the beginning of each dung on as well.

[WhenKittensATK]

You had to do a lot of skill swapping in Diablo 2 You would get lucky if your animation didn't get stuck when using Charge, Teleport, and Whirlwind. If you got FHR locked in PvP (amazons), you were just waiting to die haha. I love PvP vs Amazons. Once you get them into the dodging animation they can't do anything until you finally get a hit on them which usually kills them.

 

However nothing felt more against your odds than Diablo 1. Open a door and if you weren't camping that door entry you would have to fight multiple guys instead of one at a time.

 

I remember fighting Diablo in the original game. I had him chasing me on the outside of this small block. I get some distance from him, then stop and hit him once or twice then run like hell again haha. Thats how I beat him.

Edited April 22, 2011 by Krazyxazn

[ClayMeow]

Point is, D2 was a great game for its time. You would be kidding yourself if you think some upped graphics engine would have made the game playable in today's market. They really needed to re-invent the game, yet keep the style, story, and overall 'feel' similar.

For D2 fanatics that never played any other Action-RPG, then yes, they probably could have just released a graphically-superior "D2-reboot" and those people would think it was awesome. However, for those of us who have played other Action-RPGs since then, like Titan Quest and Torchlight, or even Fate, you quickly come to the realization that D2 only maintains its allure because of the nostalgia factor and games since then have improved drastically in practically all other areas of the genre.

You were also saying Starcraft 2 was doomed to fail, but what do we have now?

This is exactly what I was going to say to sack. So many people wanted SC2 to essentially be a graphical reboot of SC, yet SC2 is such a drastically different game and arguably better for it.

 

 

I first thought D3 was pretty basic when playing it, but then when I started playing D2 and realized how basic that was I realized that it was a huge progression.

Part of D2's appeal was its relative simplicity. Click-click-click-click-click...that's all you really needed to know.

 

 

You had to do a lot of skill swapping in Diablo 2 You would get lucky if your animation didn't get stuck when using Charge, Teleport, and Whirlwind. If you got FHR locked in PvP (amazons), you were just waiting to die haha. I love PvP vs Amazons. Once you get them into the dodging animation they can't do anything until you finally get a hit on them which usually kills them.

PvP was always lame in D2 and I don't expect it to be any different in D3. That's not a bad thing.

[Scott P]

I never was into the whole PvP thing in either Diablo. I did like killing the Acid Puppies though. Those little bastards would kick my warrior's butt in D1. I hope they bring them back for D3. I missed them.

[sack_patrol]

This is exactly what I was going to say to sack. So many people wanted SC2 to essentially be a graphical reboot of SC, yet SC2 is such a drastically different game and arguably better for it.

 

Yes it is, but unlike diablo 3, Starcraft 2 was made by the same group of people. D3 is being made by a completely different group that has nothing to do with Blizzard-North, what this means is that it might be good as game, but not as much for a Diablo sequel when considering the previous games and what kind of experienced they delivered.

[ClayMeow]

Yes it is, but unlike diablo 3, Starcraft 2 was made by the same group of people. D3 is being made by a completely different group that has nothing to do with Blizzard-North, what this means is that it might be good as game, but not as much for a Diablo sequel when considering the previous games and what kind of experienced they delivered.

Absolutely wrong. Sequels are defined by being in the same universe and having a storyline that occurs after the previous game(s) (as opposed to a prequel), it has nothing to do with who develops it.

 

Besides which, the development team name doesn't mean shit because developers come and go in the industry all the time. Less than 20% of the people that worked on SC2 had worked on SC, so I wouldn't say it "was made by the same group of people."

 

Furthermore, the main reason Blizzard North was closed down was because of they didn't meet expectations for Diablo 3. Based on Blizzard's proven track record, I'll assume they were correct in their assessment.