# Diablo III



## cornelius (Apr 14, 2011)

Is there anyone on here who's waiting for this as much as I am? 


BLIZZZZAAAAAARD *shakes fist*


----------



## biodroid (Apr 14, 2011)

I would love to play it but I only have a PS3 and my PC is 6 years behind the time so I won't be able to on that. Looks like a good game.

BLIZZZZAAAAAAARD go multiplatform!!!


----------



## cornelius (Apr 14, 2011)

biodroid said:


> I would love to play it but I only have a PS3 and my PC is 6 years behind the time so I won't be able to on that. Looks like a good game.
> 
> BLIZZZZAAAAAAARD go multiplatform!!!


 
Diablo III is rumoured to go multiplatform. Some sites say it's confirmed. But if Blizzard would be so kind as to give out the information..

BLLIZZZAAAARD UPDATE THE SITE!!


----------



## Fake Vencar (Apr 14, 2011)

Huge expectations for this game, I just hope it doesn't disappoint whenever it's finally released


----------



## Lemmy (Apr 14, 2011)

I had huge expectactions for Warcraft 3 and Starcraft 2, yet both was huge disappointments instead. I really want to think Diablo 3 will be great, but I'm skeptical.


----------



## biodroid (Apr 15, 2011)

I am not a fan of RTS games anyway Lemmy, too much happening for me and trying to do multiple things at once doen's make sense. As long as Diablo 3 is immersive with a good story and good graphics then I am sold.


----------



## cornelius (Apr 21, 2011)

I got the feeling that blizzard is putting up too much "new" stuff. I admit I like the sound of the new merchantsystem, and the fact that you can destroy items to get basic elements so you can construct new items (or free up inventory space, I'm a loot-hoarder) but too many changes will take away the diablo feel. And I hope my laptop will be able to run it, especially since Skyrim made me go "woah, no way I'll be able to play"


----------



## Lemmy (Apr 21, 2011)

biodroid said:


> I am not a fan of RTS games anyway Lemmy, too much happening for me and trying to do multiple things at once doen's make sense. As long as Diablo 3 is immersive with a good story and good graphics then I am sold.



I love great RTS-games, but sadly Starcraft 1 was the last, truly great RTS I've played. They ruined Command & Conquer in the third and more or less buried it in number four, so I guess the next game will be the criticl one. If it's good, I'll give C&C a try. If it's not, bye, bye C&C. Warcraft 1 and 2 was fun, but somehow WC3 felt wrong. It was too different than the rest. And Starcraft 2 wasn't worth the name. The actual game wasn't bad, but it didn't feel right at all. Or fun, for that matter.

I guess that's my biggest fear with Diablo 3. I'm with cornelius there. Diablo 1 was a fun experiment and Diablo 2 a classic, but Diablo 3 can go both ways. If it's a true "Diablo" game, I don't care about all the new stuff. As long as it's optional, it can be a great add-on or useless, optional add-on. Either way I'm fine with it. But if it doesn't have the Diablo _feeling_, it's doomed before I even try it.

Look at Sacred and Sacred 2. I played Sacred Gold long after it was outdated graphic-wise, and yet I still love it today. Sacred 2 was a third-person game full of bugs, and yet it was somehow even better. Even though it was a third-person thingy with all new classes, it was definitely a Sacred game, and that's what was important.


----------



## prdimitrov (Apr 25, 2011)

Go Witchdoctors! 

I just hope it's better than Diablo 2, which may not be that hard. Every time I reach Hell, it gets too slow and annoying.


----------



## cornelius (Apr 25, 2011)

The Hell mode was a bit too steep. I played druid caster/summoner, had a couple of runeword-items but still, progress was too slow compared to the fast paced action in normal and nightmare.


----------



## Lemmy (Apr 26, 2011)

Wasn't the Hell-difficulty meant for multiplayer?


----------



## Overread (Apr 26, 2011)

Lemmy I think that considering how strongly Starcraft 2 was like the original but refined that Blizzard will do the same with Diablo - sticking to the working Diablo 2 formula with refinments. To be honest I like this in games rather than always trying to be "innovative" or "different/new" since sometimes those improvements come without much real gain - just change for changes sake alone.


That said sometimes you do need to make some changes - I wish sacred would sort out their graphics engins - even with the original on a more than powerful enough computer, would slow down and get a bit stuttery when one got near an urban area (though the most annoying thing was the childish quest missions )


----------



## Lemmy (Apr 26, 2011)

The problem with Starcraft 2 is that you can't just update the graphics and automatically get a better game. It looked better, yes, but it had lost its soul. We had the exact same thing with Serious Sam, for that matter. Serious Sam: First Encounter was brilliant. Second Encounter was more of the same, but also quite brilliant. But then we got Serious Sam 2... It was in many ways more of the same, with a bigger budget. You would think it was the best one yet, but a bigger budget doesn't necessarily mean better game. It had lost something in the process, so it lacked the style, soul, finesse etc from the first two games.

That's what I fear about Diablo 3. It will look better, but it's a very different game. We have new areas, new classes and a whole new set of skills, so there aren't much left of Diablo or Diablo 2 anymore. True, none of the three classes from Diablo were in Diablo 2, but on the other hand we had the same classes, only expanded. (Barbarian instead of Warrior, Amazon instead of Thief, Sorceress instead of Wizard, plus Necromancer and Paladin.) If Diablo 3 are too different, it won't feel like a Diablo-game. If it's more of the same, it's, well, more of the same. They need to improve everything that was great with Diablo 2, keep some of the bad stuff (sounds crazy, but we need bad stuff to counter the good), and keep the _soul _of the Diablo 2. Diablo 2 could have been just another hack 'n slash, but it had a little something extra that made it Diablo 2. We need that little extra in Diablo 3. StarCraft definitely had a huge little extra, but it was missing in StarCraft 2.


----------



## Overread (Apr 26, 2011)

but but just updating the graphics was enough for me! 
though I think the biggest shortfall of Starcraft 2 is the fact that the story is broken up into 3 parts - so we are all waiting for that - plus skirmish/MP armies are a little on the frugle side in size as we wait for the 2 expansions and their added units.


----------



## cornelius (Apr 27, 2011)

I'll have to get used to the use of an actionbar and the new potion/health regain/mana regain system. A sash full of potions could keep you going for ages, sure you have these globedrops now but I'm not sure if that system will be balanced enough. I can't wait to start grinding on items though, the first couple of "levels" and the loot will be very crucial for my commitment to the game.


----------



## Lemmy (Apr 27, 2011)

Overread said:


> but but just updating the graphics was enough for me!
> though I think the biggest shortfall of Starcraft 2 is the fact that the  story is broken up into 3 parts - so we are all waiting for that - plus  skirmish/MP armies are a little on the frugle side in size as we wait  for the 2 expansions and their added units.



My biggest issue with the story is that it's so hard to find. Instead of going from level to level like in every other RTS (more or less), you are sent back to the bar or spaceship after a mission and have to talk to a lot of people and even explore different rooms to find the story. I mean you can of course simply go to the mission computer or whatever it was and choose the next mission, but you'll be missing out on new units and upgrades if you do, as well as story elements. Why couldn't they just stick to the storytelling from Starcraft 1? The story there was one of the reasons why I played through both SC1 and Brood War.



cornelius said:


> I'll have to get used to the use of an actionbar and the new potion/health regain/mana regain system. A sash full of potions could keep you going for ages, sure you have these globedrops now but I'm not sure if that system will be balanced enough. I can't wait to start grinding on items though, the first couple of "levels" and the loot will be very crucial for my commitment to the game.



The problem with Diablo 2 was that it was too easy. When you got to a boss fight, all you had to do was stand still, wack the boss with all you got and spam potions to heal yourself. Once you got low on potions, just jump through a town portal back to town, stock up on potions, go back through the portal and keep hitting the boss until he died. All you needed was money, and that could be grinded. Skill and gear were not requirements. In Diablo 3, I hope they focus more on player skill than potion spamming. I should be able to beat the boss if I'm good enough and the character has good enough gear and is high enough level. Kinda like in a MMORPG.


----------

