Blizzard is one of the largest and richest game companies in the world.

Battle net shows three VERY big screens for everything that the inudstry market leader is currently doing. These screens are for three games only: SC2, WOW and D3. All they do currently...is these three things.

I know about the Blizzard North drama and I heard all the negative comments and beta reviews. Let me tell you what I think is going to happen: D3 will sell MILLIONS of copies, will gain a large user base that will give the game a LOT of traction and it will probably develop into awesome never ending hack and slash PVE coupled with a competitive PVP esport. For millions of people. You heard me right. I see D3 game environmnent as the perfect place for PVP, much better than in a MMO setting where you have to balance tons of multiplayer PVE (sorry GW2).

I don't see how D3 is going to be in any way worse than anything out there in the same genre, much less POE and T2 and whatever else you try to convince me. Even if it ships in sucky state, which it won't, Blizz can just throw so many resources behind the game that they can make something awesome out it. Just because they can. Blizz can even buy whoever makes POE and Torchlight and put them to work for them if they want to.

D3 has the perfect setup for competitive esports PVP. I don't care about MMO worlds, stupid quest grinding, Azeroth, Middle Earth, Hyboria (I do care about New Eden though). All I want is to level my character in a fun fast paced hack and slash solo PVE experience that I can play at my own pace and without being bothered by multi user crap and at the end I want to get thrown into a PVP arena to fight other people.

World PVP=GW2. But it will still be worse than EVE...

Arenas and instanced PVP=D3. Not because D3 PVP will be better than GW2 PVP, but because D3 will attract so many more players that it will just obliterate competition.

Originally posted by Twistingfate

This is really a prime example that shows sometimes endless money does Not equal quality. I honestly would have been happy if they took all the classes from Diablo 2. updated the graphics and set it in a new world.

This is what makes me sad about games as I get older.  Like Square and FF, it's good business to sell the same content over and over again, but it's not particlarly good for the game industry though.

I get that SC2 was successful, but it was really a regression of the RTS genre.  It may have been fun for many, but to me, it was essentially the same game mechanics from 15 years ago.  In terms of D3 ... it looks like D2 to me and that's not good. 

Incremental changes would have been fin if D3 was released 1-2 years after D2, but this is 10+ years later.  I can't speak for others, but I personally expect more, especially from a company with the resources to build better games.  To me, blizzard is too concerned with the business aspects (i.e. maintaining margins) rather than building great games and it's unfortunately been like that for more than a few years now.

Originally posted by valkyrie6656

Originally posted by ArEf

So, I recently

Stopped reading right there. Go troll somewhere else.

DERP.

Why is it that whenever someone says something CONSTRUCTIVELY negative about a game, double digit IQ fanbois like this come out of the wordwork? Ooooh, someone said something bad about your precious ****ing game, boo hoo, get over it.

Back on topic: I was afraid that Blizzard would dumb down Diablo, given that this is kind of the trend with games lately. Yes, I know they're changing the formula, but change does not have to translate to "Stripping out everything you loved about the previous games and taking away choices so we can appeal to the CoD generation."  Making a game accessable does not mean you have to dumb it down, it's called an in-depth manual and a well written tutorial.

Looks like D3 is going to be a pass for me, I think I'll save my cash for Dark Souls.

Originally posted by HurricanePip

Originally posted by Twistingfate

This is really a prime example that shows sometimes endless money does Not equal quality. I honestly would have been happy if they took all the classes from Diablo 2. updated the graphics and set it in a new world.

This is what makes me sad about games as I get older.  Like Square and FF, it's good business to sell the same content over and over again, but it's not particlarly good for the game industry though.

I get that SC2 was successful, but it was really a regression of the RTS genre.  It may have been fun for many, but to me, it was essentially the same game mechanics from 15 years ago.  In terms of D3 ... it looks like D2 to me and that's not good. 

Incremental changes would have been fin if D3 was released 1-2 years after D2, but this is 10+ years later.  I can't speak for others, but I personally expect more, especially from a company with the resources to build better games.  To me, blizzard is too concerned with the business aspects (i.e. maintaining margins) rather than building great games and it's unfortunately been like that for more than a few years now.

SC2 a regression of the RTS Genre?  What are you talking about?  Sure it doesn't change the game machanices of easily the most susseciful RTS ever, but did you really expect them to make SC2 more like a unsesseciful RTS in the "huge" RTS market that is out there?  Of course not, SC2 did what they wanted it's just different enough from SC to be it's own game without turning away huge sections of their fan base. 

I expect the same from Diablo 3, a sightly improved verison of D2. Side not like other top-down action RPGs have really adanced the genre.   Torchlight was basicly Diablo 2 with guns and pets.  

That being said I am a bit worried about the skill system action RPGs are all about building your character with loot and skill points.  If that anit there...

Originally posted by rammur65

Just a little info of the day torchlight is headed by the orginal guys from the original diablo games matter fact they were in the process of making diablo 3 but because it didnt meet the expectations of vivendi they were let go where they ran off and created flagship games then they got canned because main guy left or something like that now they started up on runic games.

Just reminded me on this article

http://kotaku.com/5761172/this-is-what-diablo-iii-looked-like-a-long-time-ago/gallery/1

Article and couple of Screenshots of what could be Diablo 3 by, today's Runic games...

Originally posted by valkyrie6656

Originally posted by bigsmiff

Originally posted by FrodoFragins

Originally posted by ArEf

Originally posted by Adhesive33

Give Path of Exile a shot if you can grab a key somewhere, I'm finding it to be very addicting, and the skill system is exellent. 

Planning on doing so. Mainly can't wait until Torchlight 2 comes out. :(

LOL at Torchlight 2.

 

I prefer Torchlight over Diablo.

And some people prefer to sleep with 85 year old women than Scarlette Johansson.

Whatever floats YOUR boat bud.

Originally posted by dzoni87

Originally posted by rammur65

Just a little info of the day torchlight is headed by the orginal guys from the original diablo games matter fact they were in the process of making diablo 3 but because it didnt meet the expectations of vivendi they were let go where they ran off and created flagship games then they got canned because main guy left or something like that now they started up on runic games.

Just reminded me on this article

http://kotaku.com/5761172/this-is-what-diablo-iii-looked-like-a-long-time-ago/gallery/1

Article and couple of Screenshots of what could be Diablo 3 by, today's Runic games...

Ouch that's horrible.

Based on what the original Diablo developers have done since leaving Blizzard, I'm not so sure they were responsible for the polish and final product we ended up with in Diablo and D2.

Originally posted by dzoni87

Originally posted by rammur65

Just a little info of the day torchlight is headed by the orginal guys from the original diablo games matter fact they were in the process of making diablo 3 but because it didnt meet the expectations of vivendi they were let go where they ran off and created flagship games then they got canned because main guy left or something like that now they started up on runic games.

Just reminded me on this article

http://kotaku.com/5761172/this-is-what-diablo-iii-looked-like-a-long-time-ago/gallery/1

Article and couple of Screenshots of what could be Diablo 3 by, today's Runic games...

well i'm glad thats not the diablo III we're getting.. i'm no overly excited for it and if GW2 launches soon after i'll be playing that over D3 but i dont agree that barbarians and monks kill things faster then other classes... like i've had diablo III beta for almost a year now and i've taken each class upto level 13 or something in the past and by far, the fastest to level / kill things with was the wizard... the amount of AoE and damage that class pumps out against mobs is undeniably insane...

Originally posted by sicness277

Again, the beta is set on the easiet mode for testing purposes. Go into Hell or Inferno and you won't just hack and slash away and will require some actual strategy to what you're doing. You abilities and runes will matter, your health potions will matter, and yes even health orbs that drop will matter. Stop trying to criticize the gameplay when it's obviously effected by the difficulty level of the beta being set to so low for testing purposes.

It's so painfully obvious that the beta is setup to be easy for testing purposes that I don't understand how you can misinterpret that.

You do realise that that's not what we're talking about at all, right?

...Right?

All I can say really is what do you expect? Due to consoles games have been going down the tubes, devs are getting lazy lately and just don't seem to make decent games anymore. Look at Mass Effect 1, then compare it to 2 and 3 for example, eachone is even more simplified than the last. Once Blizz announced diablo 3 will be coming out for consoles I knew right then and there the game was gonna be crap due to the devs over simplifiying it for the cattle that are casual gamers. I usually pirate a game on pc before i'll buy it to try it out, but I haven't found a pc game that was by a known devoloper for years that'd I'd consider buying, though I have bought some indie titles. I guess I was right about D3 probally going to suck, oh well, i'll torrent it when it comes out,  Kinda sad really, alot of fans fo diablo are going to be really dissapointed, me included. The fact there is no skill builds almost was a major hint that the game was gonna be fail-tier.

WTB: the years back when games and mmo's were actually good. (whichw as like 2000 ish before wow). I want my decent games back kthx

Originally posted by Starpower

So basically

 

New = Bad

The same, but improved = Good

 

 

Gamers fear change

You didn't read what the OP posted whatsoever did you?

He never said anything about it being New making it bad.

He pointed out MULTIPLE issues that showed the game is not only NOT improved, but a backwards version & dumbed down Diablo 2. In other words, WORSE....not improved.

Gamers don't fear change. They fear companies with too much money with no direction trying to create an entirely different game from its predecessor that was one of the best dungeon crawlers EVER. All they had to do was improved upon Diablo 2 for Diablo 3. They, instead, decided to dumb the product down and make it worse.

Originally posted by Fly666monkey

Originally posted by valkyrie6656

Originally posted by ArEf

So, I recently

Stopped reading right there. Go troll somewhere else.

DERP.

Why is it that whenever someone says something CONSTRUCTIVELY negative about a game, double digit IQ fanbois like this come out of the wordwork? Ooooh, someone said something bad about your precious ****ing game, boo hoo, get over it.

Back on topic: I was afraid that Blizzard would dumb down Diablo, given that this is kind of the trend with games lately. Yes, I know they're changing the formula, but change does not have to translate to "Stripping out everything you loved about the previous games and taking away choices so we can appeal to the CoD generation."  Making a game accessable does not mean you have to dumb it down, it's called an in-depth manual and a well written tutorial.

Looks like D3 is going to be a pass for me, I think I'll save my cash for Dark Souls.

Oh ya, I hate those whiners, don't you, always whining incesintly to no end. If only they could just rise above all of the cynicism and act like they don't have a stick wedge up their butt!  /scarcasm off

Originally posted by ArEf

Originally posted by sicness277

Again, the beta is set on the easiet mode for testing purposes. Go into Hell or Inferno and you won't just hack and slash away and will require some actual strategy to what you're doing. You abilities and runes will matter, your health potions will matter, and yes even health orbs that drop will matter. Stop trying to criticize the gameplay when it's obviously effected by the difficulty level of the beta being set to so low for testing purposes.

It's so painfully obvious that the beta is setup to be easy for testing purposes that I don't understand how you can misinterpret that.

You do realise that that's not what we're talking about at all, right?

...Right?

One of yours and his primary complaints is the lack of customization as well as the dumbed down gameplay. Neither of which you can seriously criticize when you're in beta that no only has the game set to it's easiest level but also limits you to level 13. Therefor gameplay complaints as far as depth, customization and difficulty (which is half of what your originally post is about) are all negated by this because you have no real experience in how those aspects of the game will really be.

You yourself compared the gameplay to CoD levels, when it's hardly comparable to that at all when you look at the game as a whole. I mean even going to such lengths as criticizing the healing options on the easiest level is exactly what I mean. Yes the first 13 levels on easy mode may be equivalent, but that's not the entirity of the game, nor should it be criticized as though it is.

Originally posted by ArEf

Originally posted by k-damage

You lost me here. The rest seemed legit, but seeing this part just invalidated all. Diablo 3 could be flagged as graphically "good", or for the hardest critics even "correct", but calling the screenshots all over the net to be "horrible", you just don't know what you're talking about.

All those kids looking for a fracking Renaissance painting in every new game are really starting to annoy me.

Not really. Compare the models of characters to mobs to the environment. It's a mishmash. The environment is higher resolution than the mobs which, for whatever reason, look better than my character does. o.O

lol, that resolution looking glass again ... Come on, what is this recent trend of complaining because two objects are slightly not the same resolution ? It's not like if we were talking about 256x256 versus 4096x4096 .... And even if it was 512 vs 1024, with tex filtering, the only thing you'll notice at that camera distance would be a slight blur in the former compared to the latter. So what ? Unless they're putting a giant 512x512 texture on a whole ground surface, your job is not to inspect that rock in the bottom of your screen, your job as a gamer is to pay attention to how you play.

Hell, some screenshots are even actually looking like a Renaissance painting...

Originally posted by thekid1

Originally posted by k-damage

Originally posted by ArEf

Graphically, the game is horrible. (...) You could say it has a certain style to it, if you thought style could mean "looks like it's from early 21st century". 

You lost me here. The rest seemed legit, but seeing this part just invalidated all. Diablo 3 could be flagged as graphically "good", or for the hardest critics even "correct", but calling the screenshots all over the net to be "horrible", you just don't know what you're talking about.

All those kids looking for a fracking Renaissance painting in every new game are really starting to annoy me.

I wouldn't call the graphics horrible but I also wouldn't call them good. I don't even think they are decent for a 2012 AAA game. Even some indy games look better, check out Trine 2 for example.

Especially the characters and creatures stand out to me, I think they don't look "solid" enough, colours are to bland and they also are a bit low res it seems. Hard to explain. Compare it to Trine 2 or Bastion (another indy game) and you might know what I mean.

 

Edit.

I even think Guild Wars 2 has better character/creature graphics and that's a mmo!

It's totally fine for you not to call them "good" dude. But calling them "horrible" like the OP is clearly a sign of overdramatizing things, just to gather some attention.

Also, comparing a game like Diablo 3 to Trine and Bastion (which I love) is like comparing watching a documentary about virgin islands to a one week trip in Bora Bora. Trine and Bastion are indie games, with maybe 1/10th of Diablo 3 content. You can't require such a larger game to have as precise and detailed backgrounds than a 5 hours long game.

This is exactly what I call uneducated judgements, when people are being very serious in comparing stuff that are simply not comparable, without even trying to foremost ponder it.

P.S : I'm not even excited that much with Diablo 3 you know :-) I know I will be bored in the first half hour, but at least I'm trying to stay objective about everything. Graphics are not "the best graphics around in 2012" for sure, but calling them "horrible" is gross, and basically "binary thinking" (what is not white is black, what is not orange is apple, etc).

Originally posted by FrodoFragins

Originally posted by dzoni87

Originally posted by rammur65

Just a little info of the day torchlight is headed by the orginal guys from the original diablo games matter fact they were in the process of making diablo 3 but because it didnt meet the expectations of vivendi they were let go where they ran off and created flagship games then they got canned because main guy left or something like that now they started up on runic games.

Just reminded me on this article

http://kotaku.com/5761172/this-is-what-diablo-iii-looked-like-a-long-time-ago/gallery/1

Article and couple of Screenshots of what could be Diablo 3 by, today's Runic games...

Ouch that's horrible.

 

Based on what the original Diablo developers have done since leaving Blizzard, I'm not so sure they were responsible for the polish and final product we ended up with in Diablo and D2.

People, people, people .... sheesh ...... Article says :

Diablo III (2005)

1) Do you really think they would have let it stay like that for a 2012 release ?

2) Don't you tell yourself these are "maybe" prototype screenshots ... ?

Holy crap gents use your brain before you raise that judge hammer.

Originally posted by k-damage

lol, that resolution looking glass again ... Come on, what is this recent trend of complaining because two objects are slightly not the same resolution ? It's not like if we were talking about 256x256 versus 4096x4096 .... And even if it was 512 vs 1024, with tex filtering, the only thing you'll notice at that camera distance would be a slight blur in the former compared to the latter. So what ? Unless they're putting a giant 512x512 texture on a whole ground surface, your job is not to inspect that rock in the bottom of your screen, your job as a gamer is to pay attention to how you play.

Hell, some screenshots are even actually looking like a Renaissance painting...

Man, you have to see the characters close up to understand the difference.

The environments are good looking, the characters look like they're from Icewind Dale 2 or something, considering how low polygon they are. It distracts me from the game because MY CHARACTER IS UGLIER THAN EVERYTHING ELSE.

Originally posted by sicness277

One of yours and his primary complaints is the lack of customization as well as the dumbed down gameplay. Neither of which you can seriously criticize when you're in beta that no only has the game set to it's easiest level but also limits you to level 13. Therefor gameplay complaints as far as depth, customization and difficulty (which is half of what your originally post is about) are all negated by this because you have no real experience in how those aspects of the game will really be.

You yourself compared the gameplay to CoD levels, when it's hardly comparable to that at all when you look at the game as a whole. I mean even going to such lengths as criticizing the healing options on the easiest level is exactly what I mean. Yes the first 13 levels on easy mode may be equivalent, but that's not the entirity of the game, nor should it be criticized as though it is.

Which isn't about difficulty, it's about the game mechanics.

The lack of customisation ruins the game as every character of that class will only be differentiated by gear, which is very minimal unless gear is going to have some serious abilities stacked on it instead of just +1-3 magic damage. It's something I was wary of BEFORE I played the beta, and now I truly hate it.

Not being able to choose how many character is going to advance pissed me the fuck off. Every level, I'm meant to be getting an improvement to my skills, but it's arbitrarily chosen by Blizzard and 99% of the time it's absolutely useless.

Yes, I was comparing it to CoD because they pretty much use the exact same levelling scheme. You level up, you unlock a new ability (or, in CoD, gun or whatever which is pretty much a new ability), without any choice in how you want to progress.

The healing orb issue is something completely unrelated to the difficulty, as well. In fact, I'd say the healing orbs are going to get MORE useless when the game gets more difficult, as they always drop inside packs of mobs and no one is going to dive mobs on higher difficulties.

Originally posted by k-damage

It's totally fine for you not to call them "good" dude. But calling them "horrible" like the OP is clearly a sign of overdramatizing things, just to gather some attention.

Also, comparing a game like Diablo 3 to Trine and Bastion (which I love) is like comparing watching a documentary about virgin islands to a one week trip in Bora Bora. Trine and Bastion are indie games, with maybe 1/10th of Diablo 3 content. You can't require such a larger game to have as precise and detailed backgrounds than a 5 hours long game.

This is exactly what I call uneducated judgements, when people are being very serious in comparing stuff that are simply not comparable, without even trying to foremost ponder it.

P.S : I'm not even excited that much with Diablo 3 you know :-) I know I will be bored in the first half hour, but at least I'm trying to stay objective about everything. Graphics are not "the best graphics around in 2012" for sure, but calling them "horrible" is gross, and basically "binary thinking" (what is not white is black, what is not orange is apple, etc).

So, you're saying those budget indie games have better looking graphics than Diablo 3?

They are terrible. Outright.

Originally posted by ArEf

Man, you have to see the characters close up to understand the difference.

The environments are good looking, the characters look like they're from Icewind Dale 2 or something, considering how low polygon they are. It distracts me from the game because MY CHARACTER IS UGLIER THAN EVERYTHING ELSE.

Originally posted by k-damage

It's totally fine for you not to call them "good" dude. But calling them "horrible" like the OP is clearly a sign of overdramatizing things, just to gather some attention.

Also, comparing a game like Diablo 3 to Trine and Bastion (which I love) is like comparing watching a documentary about virgin islands to a one week trip in Bora Bora. Trine and Bastion are indie games, with maybe 1/10th of Diablo 3 content. You can't require such a larger game to have as precise and detailed backgrounds than a 5 hours long game.

This is exactly what I call uneducated judgements, when people are being very serious in comparing stuff that are simply not comparable, without even trying to foremost ponder it.

P.S : I'm not even excited that much with Diablo 3 you know :-) I know I will be bored in the first half hour, but at least I'm trying to stay objective about everything. Graphics are not "the best graphics around in 2012" for sure, but calling them "horrible" is gross, and basically "binary thinking" (what is not white is black, what is not orange is apple, etc).

So, you're saying those budget indie games have better looking graphics than Diablo 3?

They are terrible. Outright.

1) I wrote a whole rant about people putting their looking glass unnecessarly, and you're talking about close ups in a Diablo game ! xD

Why are you judging on close up for starters ? Diablo's camera view has always been from up above, at a long distance, never was it designed for close ups. And if there are close ups in game, they might be 1/100th of your total gametime. So why putting this detail as a serious deal breaker if  it's not what you're seeing most of the time ? Would be like if I said "WoW is ass, look at this Maraudon dungeon, it's seriously ugly !"

2) Are you really saying that Trine graphics are terrible ? Really ... ? You have some problems with your eyes dude, lol. Or maybe are you the reincarnation of Leonardo a Vinci, Michaelangello ? lol

Anyway, no offense, but trying to explain that Diablo 3 graphics are not "horrible" to someone who thinks that Trine is looking terrible .... There's absolutely no point to continue that discussion.

Originally posted by DAS1337

Graphically, the game is horrible. It reminds me of Icewind Dale 2 in terms of looks. You could say it has a certain style to it, if you thought style could mean "looks like it's from early 21st century". Low polygon models, ugly arse textures and a general bad colour scheme just makes the game seem faded and already aged. Compare it with, say, Diablo or Diablo 2 in modern resolutions and they don't look nearly as aged as this game.

I think most of the angry people really are Diablo fans  and are angry because they don't think the game feels like diablo...

Comparing itgraphically with 2 games that are over 10 years old (and weren't really famous for the graphics even when the first game came out in '97) isn't fair.

What you can compare is the art. I prefered the art from the first game compared to both D2 and D3, it felt darker and more fitting to the theme.

But I guess blizzard realized that a game that would be like the first Diablo today would attract few new players. The first Diablo were simple and really hard but a very elegant game anyways, loved it.

D2 never really worked for me. I think D3 will be a lot popular with Wow fans than Diablo fans from the old games and I can understand why Blizz made it that way, but I still wish they used another IP for it.

The first Diablo was really one of the few timeless classics a game developer makes once in a lifetime.

Originally posted by FrodoFragins

Ouch that's horrible.

Based on what the original Diablo developers have done since leaving Blizzard, I'm not so sure they were responsible for the polish and final product we ended up with in Diablo and D2.

The first Diablo was so good because it had Jeff Strain as lead designer.

He made 2 more PC games on the top PC game list since then: Warcraft 3 and Guildwars. He also coded the engine and made the basic features for GW2 and are now working on Class 4.

That is 3 of the best sold 20 PC games ever, how much more competent do you want a dev to be?

If you were thinking of Bill Roper he wrote the awesome story for Diablo (Go down all the way in the dungeon, kill the big@ss demon). If you remember from th time people played Diablo for the action and Baldurs gate for the story, I never met anyone who did things theother way around.

A good lead designer can pull off anything.