›
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Diablo III

KieyKiey
edited June 2008 in Video Games
Blizzard has just announced the return of its storied Diablo series. I was a fan of the old ones, and this one looks like it could be a lot of fun. Especially if you can get some friends to play with. Aside from that it does look real pretty.
«134567…16

Comments

  • AprecheApreche
    Way back in the day I played Diablo 2 more than I should have. The reason was that it was one of the only games that worked online with my dial-up modem.

    If Diablo 3 is anything like 2, I recommend people stay far away. I would actually say that Diablo 2 is worse than World of Warcraft, but at least it has an ending. All you do in these games, literally, is point and click your mouse on the bad guys until they die. If you are about to die, you return to town to freshen up. Sometimes you do things in town to make your equipment better, and choose skills when you level up. However, no matter what skills you choose, you always have a "best move", so you just click that move on the bad guys until they die. Oh, you also click to pick up loots.

    If you like repeatedly clicking on monsters until they die, Diablo is a winner. If you want a game where you actually have to, uh, do something, steer clear.

    Still, it does remain to be seen how different Diablo 3 will be from Diablo 2. My guess is it will be very similar to WoW, only it will be a single player and co-op experience as opposed to an MMO experience. If it is, that will be slightly better, because at least the game will end and have no monthly fee.
  • cosmicenemacosmicenema
    I'm sad to say I still play Diablo 2 . . . for some reason we like to LAN while collectively clicking on monsters until they die. We do it in the same room though so there's a bit more of a social aspect. I predict that Diablo 3 will take over a solid 2-3 months of our weekly LAN whenever it comes out.
  • AprecheApreche
    We do it in the same room though so there's a bit more of a social aspect.
    If you're in the same room play a board game or tabletop RPG.
  • MitchyDMitchyD
    What difference does that make? Being in the same room means you shouldn't be playing videogames?

    Playing games on my couch with a friend is awesome. PixelJunk Monsters on the PS3 multiplayer has been one of my favorite things to do. It's super fun playing games with someone beside you.
  • SailSail
    Wait wait wait. This has to be a joke.
  • MankoonMankoon
    edited June 2008
    I'm not really a fan of the Diablo series but Blizzard can sure build nice atmosphere.
    Post edited by Mankoon on
  • RailithRailith
    I hope this Diablo has someway to reset your skills.
  • iruuliruul
    I am a big fan of the Diablo series, but I think I may have grown out of this type of gameplay. The new one doesnt seem as attractive as the first 2 were. Also, this genre of gaming has been heavily overdone since Diablo 2 and I dont think it will be as popular as the first 2 were. However, I am and will always be a Blizzard whore and will get it regardless.
  • ZeehatZeehat
    Neat site though.
  • SchnevetsSchnevets
    I'm excited. I didn't play Diablo II enough to look back on it as a "waste of time," and I've been looking for a game with co-op gameplay like WoW, but with less grinding/time demands.

    For everyone worried that this will be just like Diablo II, I have a gut feeling they're going to retool things. I'm sure Bliz realizes they can't just repackage the same game ten years later, especially when WoW borrowed so heavily from Diablo.
  • AprecheApreche
    For everyone worried that this will be just like Diablo II, I have a gut feeling they're going to retool things. I'm sure Bliz realizes they can't just repackage the same game ten years later, especially when WoW borrowed so heavily from Diablo.
    Yes, I'm sure they will put an extensive amount of polish on the game, as they have always done. Too bad the flaws in the game are in the core, not the surface. For it to be good they would have to make a game that is fundamentally different from past Diablo games.
  • RymRym
    edited June 2008
    The new one doesnt seem as attractive as the first 2 were
    As I recall, Diablo was grinding and clicking, grinding and clicking, and was utterly mindless and without merit. (Yes, I played it, and I hated it even then). Diablo II was no better. They were awful, awful, semi-fantasy isometric Whack-A-Mole with leveling.

    Diablo III is going to be WoW Lite at best.
    Post edited by Rym on
  • KieyKiey
    Looking at it it seems cool, but it doesn't seem like its actually a big enough improvement from Diablo II. I was disappointed to see that the hud is basically the same, and that it has the same camera angle. I guess I was hoping for more of an overhaul to the series since it's been so long.
  • AprecheApreche
    Diablo III is going to be WoW Lite at best.
    My guess is that it's going to be one uber-fancy WoW raid that you can play over and over on multiple "difficulty" levels.
  • JasonJason
    Diablo is an inventory control and statistics manipulation game. In that regard, I don't see it being any different than an airport simulation game :D
  • YoshoKatanaYoshoKatana
    edited June 2008
    Hm. I probably won't play it, but the weekly LAN might. They've all started playing some MMORPG, and are touting it as fantastic. One of their points is that "There isn't a lot of grind!" I really want some kind of persistent world Burning Wheel more and more.
    Post edited by YoshoKatana on
  • VentureJVentureJ
    They're using a hotkey system, and I really liked the gameplay video they showcased. It almost seems more like Gauntlet Legends with more character customization.
  • AprecheApreche
    Diablo is an inventory control and statistics manipulation game. In that regard, I don't see it being any different than an airport simulation game :D
    Statistics? Give me a break. It's basic min-maxing. It's obvious which equipment you have is the best, so that is the equipment you equip.

    Also, the key difference is that in an airport simulation game and Diablo is that in the airport game, you can set the values at any number you want. Your options aren't limited to which equipment happened to be dropped by monsters you killed, or happens to be available in the store. Also, it is non-obvious what the optimal settings are. In Diablo, more damage per unit time is better. In Aerobiz should you make fares on this route higher to attract more customers or lower to get more money? You're free to change those values every turn. Should you? If so, how?
  • RymRym
    Also, the key difference is that in an airport simulation game and Diablo is that in the airport game, you can set the values at any number you want.
    Well, there's also the fact that Airport Simulation Games were fun when I was in middle school, much as MMOs were when I was in high school. I'm past that now. ^_~
  • AprecheApreche
    Also, the key difference is that in an airport simulation game and Diablo is that in the airport game, you can set the values at any number you want.
    Well, there's also the fact that Airport Simulation Games were fun when I was in middle school, much as MMOs were when I was in high school. I'm past that now. ^_~
    I also hate Aerobiz, but it's definitely better than Diablo.
  • lackofcheeselackofcheese
    edited June 2008
    In Diablo, more damage per unit time is better. In Aerobiz should you make fares on this route higher to attract more customers or lower to get more money? You're free to change those values every turn. Should you? If so, how?
    I could just as well say "In Aerobiz, more profit per unit time is better".
    But I'm not really particularly eager to support either game ;)
    Post edited by lackofcheese on
  • AprecheApreche
    I could just as well say "In Aerobiz, more profit per unit time is better".
    But I'm not really particularly eager to support either game ;)
    This is true, but it is much more difficult, nay impossible, to figure out the best way to set the numbers for maximum profit per unit time. Figuring that out is what makes the game good. As soon as you figure it out, actually playing the game becomes work, and you don't need to play it anymore.
  • SchnevetsSchnevets
    The new one doesnt seem as attractive as the first 2 were
    As I recall, Diablo was grinding and clicking, grinding and clicking, and was utterly mindless and without merit. (Yes, I played it, and I hated it even then). Diablo II was no better. They were awful, awful, semi-fantasy isometric Whack-A-Mole with leveling.

    Diablo III is going to be WoW Lite at best.
    No one's going to argue that Diablo 2 was a simple game, but I feel like the mechanic would improve dramatically with a focus on multiplayer. Now that Blizzard can expect gamers to have headsets, broadband, and other current online play necessities, they can improve the basic formula and focus on cooperation and communication between the classes. The comparison to Gauntlet is perfect: if the game is done ideally, it could mimic arcade-y hack and slash local multiplayer better than any other online game...

    ...or maybe I'm being a stupid optimist about this game. All I know is, Blizzard is a high quality developer, and I'm confident they'll make it right. (And I'd be content with a less demanding version of WoW)


    As for the Aerobiz analogy, devoid of its (AI related) flaws, Aerobiz is a game where the maximum profit may be slightly different with each game, depending on both selected variables and a given situation (one game you may be stuck with domestic flights, the next time you may capitalize on an early opportunity). In Diablo, there is no opposing variable: there is one (or a few) optimal versions of each class. Once again, I feel like with some good co-op and gameplay improvements, people may need to consider how best to optimize their role in a group. (Please note that my opinions of Aerobiz are based on a few days of playing on a borrowed SNES and game following the episode of the show)
  • AprecheApreche
    I feel like with some good co-op and gameplay improvements, people may need to consider how best to optimize their role in a group.
    How so? If you're a healer, you do as much damage as you can, but heal when necessary. Also, cast your most powerful buff spells on the most appropriate person. If you are a fighter, just do as much damage as possible. What other job is there besides damage dealer or healer? Not much. It's fantasy whack-a-mole.
  • lackofcheeselackofcheese
    edited June 2008
    Well, another common role is "tank" (tank has high armour & resistances & HP and attempts to attract as much enemy fire as possible so that his allies don't get it).
    Then there's the distinction between single-target and AoE damage; Is it better if one person focuses on each, or everyone does a bit of both (The answer is almost always the former, of course)?
    Post edited by lackofcheese on
  • iruuliruul
    Diablo I and II were fun back when I was in middle school, I think I may have grown out of it by now though. At that time, the Genre of Diablo was still relatively new so it was very attractive for me on my 56k modem. To be fair though, so far all of the "flaws" mentioned are from the first two games, it wouldnt be hard for Blizzard to remedy this in the next one. They could make it so that a little bit of strategy would be required instead of mindless clicking. Also, instead of just having a "best" spell, there could be spells strategically useful in certain situation.
  • AprecheApreche
    edited June 2008
    Also, instead of just having a "best" spell, there could be spells strategically useful in certain situation.
    Some people seem to think that just because there are multiple choices of action that are better in different situations that that somehow means the game is strategic and tactical. What they need to realize is that just having multiple options doesn't make strategy. Using cold spells on the fire enemies or using slow spells on the fast enemies is not strategy, it's obvious. In terms of games, if a decision is obvious, it effectively doesn't even exist. To have strategy or tactics you need to present players with meaningful decisions that are non-obvious and non-arbitrary.
    Post edited by Apreche on
  • lackofcheeselackofcheese
    I would make a distinction between tactics and strategy here, Scott.
    I think these things may class as "tactics", though I agree the term "strategy" most certainly does not apply.
    For example, read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_tactics
  • RymRym
    I think these things may class as "tactics", though I agree the term "strategy" most certainly does not apply.
    If you honestly have to think about whether or not to cast the fire spell on the ice monster, as opposed to the ice spell, then these games are clearly up your alley. ;^)
  • TheWhaleSharkTheWhaleShark
    Y'know, honestly, while I liked the Diablo games, this trailer didn't excite me that much. It looks cool, sure, and every now and again I feel that need to play an old hack 'n slash, but it really seemed like just the same old stuff again.

    And this is coming from a WoW player.

    Seriously.
Sign In or Register to comment.