**OFFICIAL** Diablo 3 Thread

[Daverino]

My point would be that there has been a little innovation in the game industry in the decade since D2 was released. D2 clones are a dime-a-dozen. If D3 is a D2 clone with updated graphics, well, we've already played that in TQ and TL.

I think for D3 to be successful it needs to add to the formula, not just stick to it. Otherwise it's worth the $15 I paid for TQ and TL (combined) and not $59.99

 

[Texashiker]

WoW has like a billion subscribers, why arent all games like Wow? Your logic is terrible...

And you are being closed minded.

Why is D3 being developed like its 1999.

 

[VashHT]

And you are being closed minded.

Why is D3 being developed like its 1999.

Daggerfall and Diablo came out in the same year, and are two different games that were both successful. I'm not sure why you think Blizzard should scrap D3 now and make it like elder scrolls, Blizzard basically created a unique sub-genre with diablo there's no reason for them to try to make it like another unique sub-genre (the elder scrolls games).

 

[Texashiker]

Daggerfall and Diablo came out in the same year, and are two different games that were both successful. I'm not sure why you think Blizzard should scrap D3 now and make it like elder scrolls,

Maybe I am not making my point clear:

I do not want a FPS game like elder scrolls.

I would like diablo to be more "open", more areas to explore, larger maps, more side quest, more dungeons off the beaten path to explore,,, and so on.

D2 was a good game, but it could have been a great game. Almost no side quest, very few NPCs to interact with, maps filled with random demons,,,.

I see D3 as a stagnated game format. We have the technology, so why not use it.

 

[gorcorps]

You would not like an open world system with tons of side quest?

Plenty of folks, but that's what Skyrim is for. There are those who don't like Skyrim and that's what Diablo is for. Every game is not supposed to be the same... that's why we have different games.

 

[Texashiker]

Plenty of folks, but that's what Skyrim is for. There are those who don't like Skyrim and that's what Diablo is for. Every game is not supposed to be the same... that's why we have different games.

I think you are making excuses to justify the developers using outdated designs.

I seriously doubt D3 is going to be able to hang with other epic games on the market.

 

[chorb]

I think you are making excuses to justify the developers using outdated designs.

I seriously doubt D3 is going to be able to hang with other epic games on the market.

So you dont want D3 to follow its past lineage for the reason being "its outdated". But instead you'd rather see them copy games that are currently being sold, and somehow that's breaking the mold and creating a better game?

 

[VashHT]

Maybe I am not making my point clear:

I do not want a FPS game like elder scrolls.

I would like diablo to be more "open", more areas to explore, larger maps, more side quest, more dungeons off the beaten path to explore,,, and so on.

D2 was a good game, but it could have been a great game. Almost no side quest, very few NPCs to interact with, maps filled with random demons,,,.

I see D3 as a stagnated game format. We have the technology, so why not use it.

Yeah that was kind of my point, it's not an issue of technology. Blizzard could have easily made diablo 1 an open world game but that's not what they were going for.

 

[Texashiker]

So you dont want D3 to follow its past lineage for the reason being "its outdated". But instead you'd rather see them copy games that are currently being sold, and somehow that's breaking the mold and creating a better game?

I would like to see D3 use current game standards.

Would creating a top-down view of a game like skyrim and oblivion be copying? Considering skyrim and oblivian are FPS and 4th person, and D3 is top-down.

How many open world top-down games do you know of? Maybe Sacred, and that is all I can think of right now.

Blizzard could have easily made diablo 1 an open world game but that's not what they were going for.

Story plot in Diablo did not allow for open world, or even semi-open world.

But some extra side quest would have been nice.

Diablo was a perfect game at a perfect time in game evolution. It was one of the first RPGs with built in TCP/IP support, and integrated with battle.net. Diablo brought a lot of new stuff to the gaming community.

What is D3 bringing to the table that is new? A new way to trade? Oh boy, just what I was not looking for.

D2 brought new stuff to the RPG community - 8 player teams, progressive difficulty as more people joined, ladders, ranking, hardcore mode,,,. But D2 could have been so much better. The maps felt spliced together.

What new features is D3 bringing to the community? Linear levels, oh boy. Like linear levels has never been done before. Only 5 characters? Really? Like that has not been done before. Like with D2, more characters will probably be introduced with the expansion.

 

[gorcorps]

I think you are making excuses to justify the developers using outdated designs.

I seriously doubt D3 is going to be able to hang with other epic games on the market.

If you read the rest of my posts, you should understand that I'm not proud of the direction the game has taken thus far. I'm not giving them excuses. But the solution isn't "be more like skyrim". Skyrim and Diablo fans aren't mutually exclusive, but I think people like each for its own reasons. I played D2 like mad in order to max my characters stats and get the biggest, baddest stuff I could get as fast as I could. I play Skyrim for the sense of adventure, story, and freedom to do whatever I wanted.

The quests in D2 simply didn't matter to me. They were merely an obstacle that was required to be overcome in order to get to the next group of baddies. I would have been just as content walking through different locations with throngs of monsters with no goal, as long as the loot still dropped and bosses were still present. The quest of "go kill this boss because she did bad things" meant diddly squat because I'm already going to do that. I'm also going to go down into that cave and kill everything there too, regardless of if I have a quest for it.

They're completely different games for completely different experiences. Giving people playing Diablo more shit they have to do will just piss us off, especially if that thing to do didn't involve killing something massive. And if it DOES involve that, then you don't need a quest for it in the first place because I'M ALREADY GOING TO SMASH HIS FACE IN WITH MY FLYING HAMMERS OF DOOM! The greatest level in Diablo 2 was the cow level because it was pure unadulterated experience with no goal. You fight, and then you fight, and then fight some more. I don't need an entry in my journal that says "kill all the cows".

Do you get where I'm coming from? Quests make me feel like a child being led through the game when I could really do it all myself without help.

 

[VashHT]

Story plot in Diablo did not allow for open world, or even semi-open world.

But some extra side quest would have been nice.

Diablo was a perfect game at a perfect time in game evolution. It was one of the first RPGs with built in TCP/IP support, and integrated with battle.net. Diablo brought a lot of new stuff to the gaming community.

What is D3 bringing to the table that is new? A new way to trade? Oh boy, just what I was not looking for.

Yeah maybe a open world wouldn't have worked but they designed the game that way. My point was there were other open world games around at the time, Blizzard could have made Diablo that way if they wanted. Anyway what did Skyrim bring to the table over oblivion or morrowind? It's not like Skyrim is the 1st elder scrolls game and it's bringing something revolutionary and new to the table that all other devs should aspire to.

 

[Texashiker]

If you read the rest of my posts, you should understand that I'm not proud of the direction the game has taken thus far. I'm not giving them excuses. But the solution isn't "be more like skyrim". Skyrim and Diablo fans aren't mutually exclusive, but I think people like each for its own reasons.

I used skyrim as an example; when D3 hits the streets I am sure that a lot of people will be comparing D3 with other RPG games on the market.

A couple of years ago there was an article I read asking if a game with a top-down view (like D3) can compete against the more modern 4th person and FPS games.

Its going on 12 years since the release of Diablo II. In gaming time, that is a whole generation. Teenagers these days are used to games like halo, call of duty, skyrim, left 4 dead, counter-strike, team fortress 2. How are they going to look at D3?

My opinion, in order to achive epic status D3 is going to have to bring something massive to the table, some kind of new idea, something that is going to blow people away. After playing the beta, I just do not see it.

Do you get where I'm coming from?

Yes.

 

[Pantlegz]

I see D3 as a stagnated game format.

And you've determined this with an hour of beta content?

 

[SMOGZINN]

My opinion, in order to achive epic status D3 is going to have to bring something massive to the table, some kind of new idea, something that is going to blow people away. After playing the beta, I just do not see it.

They are bringing something massive to the table, real money Auction House. Love it or hate it, it has the potential to change the entire gaming market forever.

Besides that, they are trying out something else somewhat new, a system that has almost no permanent choices. Every choice after your character selection is malleable, you can respec skills almost on the fly. Runes can be socketed, removed, and re-socketed in new skills as often as you want. You don’t have to make almost any choice. You can experiment with them all.

They are reducing down the essence of RPG to its very minimum, right to it’s breaking point. It is awfully bold if you ask me, and might turn out to be very foolish.

 

[Texashiker]

They are bringing something massive to the table, real money Auction House. Love it or hate it, it has the potential to change the entire gaming market forever.

Besides that, they are trying out something else somewhat new, a system that has almost no permanent choices. Every choice after your character selection is malleable, you can respec skills almost on the fly. Runes can be socketed, removed, and re-socketed in new skills as often as you want. You don’t have to make almost any choice. You can experiment with them all.

Everything you listed, is not even worth mentioning.

 

[gorcorps]

They are bringing something massive to the table, real money Auction House. Love it or hate it, it has the potential to change the entire gaming market forever.

Besides that, they are trying out something else somewhat new, a system that has almost no permanent choices. Every choice after your character selection is malleable, you can respec skills almost on the fly. Runes can be socketed, removed, and re-socketed in new skills as often as you want. You don’t have to make almost any choice. You can experiment with them all.

They are reducing down the essence of RPG to its very minimum, right to it’s breaking point. It is awfully bold if you ask me, and might turn out to be very foolish.

IIRC Titan Quest let you respec as well for a price at a certain point. I know for a fact that Borderlands did, and the price wasn't that high at all because you're always swimming in money. Being able to respec in an RPG is not that new, it's just new to Diablo.

I still don't understand what's so special about what they're doing. The only thing I found interesting so far is the class with the 2 separate mana pools, and I'm still not convinced it plays any differently than if everything came out of one big pool. Just seems like they split them just for laughs.

 

[JSt0rm]

Maybe I am not making my point clear:

I do not want a FPS game like elder scrolls.

I would like diablo to be more "open", more areas to explore, larger maps, more side quest, more dungeons off the beaten path to explore,,, and so on.

D2 was a good game, but it could have been a great game. Almost no side quest, very few NPCs to interact with, maps filled with random demons,,,.

I see D3 as a stagnated game format. We have the technology, so why not use it.

You want sacred 2. HUGE game

 

[badb0y]

You would not like an open world system with tons of side quest?

I absolutely despise games like Skyrim but others seem to enjoy them.

Making Diablo 3 like Skyrim leaves all of us Diablo 2 fans out in the cold.

 

[JackSpadesSI]

I think there is a misconception here. Diablo games are not "linear RPGs" but, instead, they're "hack-n-slash dungeon-crawler loot-fests". Mass Effect is an example of a linear RPG. Elder Scrolls is an open-world RPG. There are many sub-genres of RPGs.

NO ONE does hack-n-slash dungeon-crawler loot-fests better than Blizzard with the Diablo games. No one!

(Edit for clarification: I love all three of those sub-genre examples. There is absolutely room in the marketplace for those games to co-exist. I'm finishing Skyrim this month while waiting for Mass Effect 3. When Diablo 3 comes out I'll be taking a week off work to play it non-stop. Just because one type of RPG is good does NOT mean that the others aren't!)

 

[darkewaffle]

Diablo 2's legacy and lasting power were a result of the loot system. As long as D3 has a sufficiently lightweight core to it, tons of loot combinations/colors/customizations, and a big red demon on the box it'll go gangbusters because that's all people want; shiny stuff and an unobtrusive way to get it.

 

[jsedlak]

I think there is a misconception here. Diablo games are not "linear RPGs" but, instead, they're "hack-n-slash dungeon-crawler loot-fests". Mass Effect is an example of a linear RPG. Elder Scrolls is an open-world RPG. There are many sub-genres of RPGs.

NO ONE does hack-n-slash dungeon-crawler loot-fests better than Blizzard with the Diablo games. No one!

(Edit for clarification: I love all three of those sub-genre examples. There is absolutely room in the marketplace for those games to co-exist. I'm finishing Skyrim this month while waiting for Mass Effect 3. When Diablo 3 comes out I'll be taking a week off work to play it non-stop. Just because one type of RPG is good does NOT mean that the others aren't!)

Agreed. I think they nailed the feeling with Diablo 3 - something that Torchlight did not capture. D2's skill and character system wasn't all that deep, and it didn't need to be. In Diablo, it is all about the loot. FWIW, I think Borderlands got this right while Torchlight did not (the maps & questing got in the way).

 

[Aikouka]

Borderlands definitely had a good sense of loot collection, and you could even get crazy enough to learn all the tricks behind their generation, which allowed you to spot an awesome shield without even mousing over it. It's really helpful if you don't cheat and you're running through the armory at the end of Knoxx (DLC3).

I don't think that Torchlight really did anything too wrong. The only problem that I ran into is that the gear wasn't that good by default, and you pretty much had to enchant it to make it up to par. The only problem is that enchanting can get really expensive, and has a higher chance to remove the stats from your item with each successive enchant. That's why the game plays a lot better when you can give yourself a bit more gold and remove the enchant wipe. I did the prior using a mod that removes all white drops and another that adjusts the sell prices of higher quality items (they're ridiculously low by default).

It's unfortunate, because the first mod can sometimes ruin the loot as it will provide epic or legendary quality items fairly often; however, most of the items are awful without spending hundreds of thousands of enchants anyway. I used to get destroyed by 2+ of those caster cat-like ladies, but then I made sure everything had a ridiculous number of enchants (each item costs 20k+ per enchant now) and I have between 1500-3000 per resist now. They can still kill me if I'm careless, but it isn't nearly as ridiculous now!

 

[gothamhunter]

I've come to the decision that Texashiker is just trolling this thread, and therefore I will no longer acknowledge his comments. Even trying to compare a series such as Diablo to TES and the desire to combine them is rediculous (yes, this is a very concise, short version of what you've been saying).

As long as Diablo stays Diablo, it will always be amazing.

 

[Texashiker]

Diablo 2's legacy and lasting power were a result of the loot system.

Loot system had very little to do with it. If you liked making Mephisto runs all day long, that is fine. But some of us liked playing the game.

I liked playing D2 because:

Random maps
Different character builds
Contracting maps - going from a desert to a jungle
Hard core mode
Wide range of characters to pick from

Diablo - linear, just go through the levels

Diablo 2 - opened up a little bit, you had open areas to explore

Diablo 3 - back to linear

It appears to me that they developers are taking a step backwards. Instead of opening the world up a little bit more, things are being compressed. I am going to guess the developers want to make D3 easy for casual and console gamers.

 

[CottonRabbit]

It appears to me that they developers are taking a step backwards. Instead of opening the world up a little bit more, things are being compressed. I am going to guess the developers want to make D3 easy for casual and console gamers.

That's exactly their design philosophy. 8 players -> 4, Named game browser -> matchmaking, normal difficulty turned into a tutorial ("real game starts in nightmare"), ect. The game is pretty much confirmed to be coming to consoles, so I wouldn't be surprised if several of their design decisions have been influenced by this.