Diablo 3

    Quote

    Kotaku: In that case do you think that this might work in your favour, that WoW players, for example might be persuaded to try Diablo III?Jay Wilson: Yeah, actually, I do think that. I think players like things that they are familiar with and I don’t think there’s anything wrong with them saying: “Oh, this class is like the warrior in WoW. Cool, I wanna play that!” Especially if it’s going to get them into the game. I think we gain as much as we could lose, people love to see something familiar and the reaction to Whirlwind was a great example.

    http://%7boption%7d

    And here we got DiaCraft 3 .

    Quote from Taylor

    I sometimes wonder if Kotaku's comments are auto-generated.

    My comments never show up anymore for some reason. I think I got banned.

    I think there's been sufficient backlash that Blizzard will look into revising their style somewhat. They do often listen, after all.

    I sure hope so! I signed that petition faster than a fat kid could eat a doughnut.

    And it's good to see you idiot heads are coming around to my view on this.

    No, it looks like WoW. Diablo isn't WoW. It looks like a freaking cartoon I'd love to know what they were smoking when the decided to make Diablo look like a cartoon!

    Quote

    ":2hzd6dlc]

    What do you mean? I would actually love that!

    I love oblivion, it's the best RPG's ive played so far... not that I've played many, but I just think the FPS scene works really well on RPG genre.

    oh and Dux, c'mon man, not everything should look like UE, get outta here...

    I'm saying that Blizzard knows how to take care of their fanbase and how to make proper sequels.

    Quote from insta

    This is a bit of a stretch, no?

    Not at all, we can all see what a gem of gameplay Hellgate London turned out to be.

    i am not talking about hellgate london. i am talking about guild wars, which for me was diablo 3. sure there were a lot of things done wrong, but it had (and still has) an incredible pvp system, an original graphic setting and a great story to start out on. i don't see what diablo 3 can do that guild wars 2 cannot do better.

    I think that's rather unfair. Guild Wars is a PvP focused game that purposely places little emphasis on gear to preserve balance, and has an underdeveloped PvE element. Diablo is a PvE focused game that places emphasis on a rapid cascade of level, skill and gear upgrades and has an underdeveloped PvP element. I don’t really think the two are comparable directly, because within the genre they head in opposite directions.

    If you like PvP, Guild Wars will certainly be the game to choose, regardless what Blizzard try to do with Diablo 3's PvP element. But that’s because the core features of Diablo 3 will be about hitting monsters in the dark (or light, so it seems) with your mates.

    Okay. I could be wrong. I'm hearing elsewhere that you can still pick up items you can't use, and that you're not necessarily going to find nothing but Barb gear when playing as a Barb.

    Still, I shudder to think of a Diablo game without the de-facto, all coveted, universal GFG uniques like Arkaine's Valor, Gladiator's Bane, the Veil of Steel, War Traveler boots, and so on (ignoring that most of them were later rendered useless by runewords.)

    I remember seeing a String of Ears drop once in a Baal run. I wanted it, whoever got it didn't even know what it was, or that it used to be one of the best belts in the game. I can agree that drops got hoarded by whoever had the most run/walk charms, or was a frenzy barb. Still, I almost grew to enjoy it as being integral to the gameplay. A Darwinian mad dash for phat l00ts.

    Quote from Pericolos0

    Honestly, diablo 2 had very bland art, I don't know why you would want it to look more like that. It's whiny stuff like this that makes most games look so generic in their color palette, art directors are afraid to make choices like blizzard does now. Your all gonna buy it anyway, and with some nicer colors, some people new to the franchise will be interested aswel =)

    Isn't this sort of a tired argument though? Ever since Gears came out there's been a huge backlash against games using any sort of colour filter or desaturation, the 'lolz brown games' was a valid statement for maybe 2 months. Adding a lot of colour to a game doesn't equal great art direction, which I'm sure you're aware of. But it seems unfair to just take a dump on games that want to stick to a strict colour palette or use it sparingly for certain effects.

    *cough* my avatar *cough*

    Quote from Taylor

    I think that's rather unfair. Guild Wars is a PvP focused game that purposely places little emphasis on gear to preserve balance, and has an underdeveloped PvE element. Diablo is a PvE focused game that places emphasis on a rapid cascade of level, skill and gear upgrades and has an underdeveloped PvP element. I don’t really think the two are comparable directly, because within the genre they head in opposite directions.If you like PvP, Guild Wars will certainly be the game to choose, regardless what Blizzard try to do with Diablo 3's PvP element. But that’s because the core features of Diablo 3 will be about hitting monsters in the dark (or light, so it seems) with your mates.

    no, i reckon it is completely fair to see a team break loose and then tell the story which ever way they want it. as i said, there are a lot of bad design choices in guild wars as you said with the pve and gear balance; however, having read upon the features in guild wars 2, and how the two sides will be more integral and expanded, i really do see it as a better game.

    diablo 3 has what... another diablo resurrection story? it might be because i really hate the way blizzard just takes a game and revamps the graphics and adds a few extra levels/units and calls it a sequel. i think it's bullshit in all honesty and it would never be a way for me to drive a company. however, like with the apple fanbase, you can't argue with a legion of rabid monkeys and their respective dollar bills.

    Well a lot of companies make sequels to their games, Sentura.

    And regardless, I've found that with each sequel to the core Blizzard franchises, each one is much more than just a graphical update. Each sequel adds a lot more in terms of gameplay, and in the case of Warcraft, even changes genre completely. Blizzard sequels do not bore, they are innovatively different and entertain each time.

    I meant GW2 and D3 wasn’t a fair comparison, for the reasons described. Of course it’s valid for people to split off from a company and do their own thing.

    I think you have some big and misconceptions about Blizzard. They’re known for working on games for years, finishing them and then working on them even longer through several deadlines to perfect them. They’re known for supporting products for years and years after they’re released, for free. They’re known for their little simple innovations that turn a genre on its head.

    Warcraft 3 was not a few extra levels and units on top of Warcraft 2. The mere introduction of hero units changed everything, as did the introduction of items, creeps, shops, marketplaces, mercenary camps and fountains. It removed all the existing units and introduced four races that acted uniquely even down to the way they gathered resources. It added an effective matchmaking service and online ladder. It added and supported effective editing tools for custom maps, etc.

    It's painful to see them labelled as a company that just knocks out the same game with a few bells as whistles because it knows it’ll be lapped up by a retarded player base.

    Quote from Taylor

    I meant GW2 and D3 wasn’t a fair comparison, for the reasons described. Of course it’s valid for people to split off from a company and do their own thing.I think you have some big and misconceptions about Blizzard. They’re known for working on games for years, finishing them and then working on them even longer through several deadlines to perfect them. They’re known for supporting products for years and years after they’re released, for free. They’re known for their little simple innovations that turn a genre on its head.

    Warcraft 3 was not a few extra levels and units on top of Warcraft 2. The mere introduction of hero units changed everything, as did the introduction of items, creeps, shops, marketplaces, mercenary camps and fountains. It removed all the existing units and introduced four races that acted uniquely even down to the way they gathered resources. It added an effective matchmaking service and online ladder. It added and supported effective editing tools for custom maps, etc.

    It's painful to see them labelled as a company that just knocks out the same game with a few bells as whistles because it knows it’ll be lapped up by a retarded player base.

    i dont want to be pedantic, but you did say GW and diablo 3, not GW2 and D3. i deliberately made that comparison because i believe that both will stay somewhat in genre with each other; where as GW and D3 have less in common (although i still consider them in the same genre). feel free to go look up what the differences between the first and second GW game will be.

    as for the company policy about patches, updates and so on, they're just as good as any company. i don't see why you are picking that out as if it was a special thing. look at valve and their products; when was half life 2 released? 2004. late 2007 they release a new build, long after the game's initial date has passed. maybe i take it for granted, but if you want your customers to stay, you keep them happy. and this is no doubt an effective way of doing it.

    admittedly warcraft 3 was a good product, and i know blizzard has had premium games in the past; i too was hooked on diablo 2 back in the day. however, the point i am trying to make here is that their newer products differ from their older lineup. everything they have announced post world of warcraft has not really sparked my interest, and they are not really interested in trying out something new; even though people with their skill would be able to create something greater than just franchise milking. you say it is painful to see a company being talked about like this; well, it saddens me that they don't use their obviously masterful skills to create something new, rather than redoing old stuff.

    from what i gather in your various posts, it seems like you defend the company for having had a good lineup in the past, and i am against this as much as i am against bias towards anything in general. i prefer to look at each and every game individually, regardless of developer, to see which deserves the highest praise. i don't think that just because you're a company which has had great titles in the past, that you are automatically entitled to a higher level of praise for your next product. i am a fan of COD4, but i am still looking with great skepticism on their next installment.

    you seem to think that i despise sequels just because they are sequels, which is not true. i thought the call of duty series were destined to be a mediocre cashcow series after i first heard the announcement that there would be a fourth installment. however, as i actually played through it in both SP and MP, i was genuinely impressed on how well their setting and atmospheres worked out for them, how the multiplayer player levels and proper deathmatch sans healthkits felt and especially how the story and dual protagonist narration felt; the scene right after the nuclear explosion was absolutely brilliant in terms of narration.

    i think i've said all that i could to prove my points as to why i do not like blizzard as a company; and in all honesty i do not believe we will agree on this topic, so i'll go ahead and say that i won't reply on top of this debate anymore. feel free to give me a last reply, though.

Participate now!

Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!

Register Yourself Login