Diablo III Character classes: What do you think?

[Saitken]

Can't wait. Diablo is one of the few MMO's that got it right. I'd rather be fighting mobs and mobs of weak enemies earning reasonable amounts of gold and magic items than fighting one guy that can whip my ass if i press the wrong key and hoping that guy is the one big score i need.

 

[meatloaf231]

I will buy this game for the Wall of Zombies.

Seriously.

Best idea ever.

 

[Maet]

Can't wait. Diablo is one of the few MMO's that got it right. I'd rather be fighting mobs and mobs of weak enemies earning reasonable amounts of gold and magic items than fighting one guy that can whip my ass if i press the wrong key and hoping that guy is the one big score i need.

I don't think Diablo falls into the MMO category. There's nothing particularly massive about the multiplayer since it's only up to 8 people in any Diablo II game, and I think it's the same for Diablo III (or perhaps 16 players per game). I really haven't read much about it recently, which is odd because it's one of the few PC games I was ever addicted to.

I would like to see a Druid class that is actually useful, that's for sure. Aside from that, I don't know what I'd like to see. Everything about Diablo II was so... refined.

 

[Graustein]

I would like to see a Druid class that is actually useful, that's for sure. Aside from that, I don't know what I'd like to see. Everything about Diablo II was so... refined.

The Witch Doctor looks a bit like a cross between Druid and Necromancer, and very useful. Locust Swarm looks like a variation on Rabies, and those summons remind me of his wolves, while Horrify and Mass Confuse look an awful lot like curses to me.

 

[TaboriHK]

In fact it was explicitly shown that subscription would not be the case in 2 previous posts.

All of you are judging this game as if you've played it, clocked it and put it back on the shelf when none of you can actually TOUCH IT! You're complaining about a game solely on it's first demo. No matter what is released for it you're all going to just complain about that too because your expectations far exceed your will to pay games.

What's the phrase, welcome the new boss, same as the old boss? I've played D1 and D2. And unless this is DRASTICALLY different, it's going to be just as boring as it is pretty in less than a month. I'm hoping they've added more depth to the game. But it's on BLIZZARD to change my mind.

 

[Credge]

Those are some pretty freaking big changes!

Yes they are. You'll notice that the biggest issue is the art direction. Blizzard is happy with it, which is fine I guess. They're also happy with how WoW is, so take that how you will.

In my opinion, Blizzard went down hill majorly after they finished WC3. Instead of being one of the only PC development team that has multiple art styles and feelings for their games, they went the way that every single PC dev team goes: One art style for all games. Sadly, it's not a very appealing art style for many of the old Starcraft and Diablo fans. Even further, this art style isn't new, it's recycled. The colorful worlds they've created harken back to the days of The Lost Vikings.

I don't understand Blizzards collective brain. "We have 3 insanely popular franchises that are popular across the world. Just the announcement of us creating a sequel to a game makes the previous game trump all other game sales for the next month! Here's an idea. Lets completely change how the worlds of two of our franchises look so it looks like one of our other franchises!"

...? Could someone walk me through the logic there?

Both Starcraft and Diablo 2 sold insanely well. INSANELY WELL. Starcraft is >thethe< number one Action-RPG in the world. No other game is played like Diablo 2 is. That's it for Action-RPG.

Why on Earth would you change the look of either of these games? Yeah, they listened to fans with Starcraft but it's like they've had absolutely enough of that shit with Diablo 3 and are taking a collective dump on how the world has been presented to us.

If you're going to try something new and different with an art style, don't tack it on to a game that will >be popular already<. It's the absolute worst thing you can do to test the waters to see if people actually like an art style and connect to it.

It'd be like making Metal Gear Solid into a cell-shaded game. Why would you do that?

It ate the fucking Barbarian... It ATE the fucking Barbarian!!!
Thats it, Im sold, I think Im in love. Big strip of meat as it tore him in half!
I was going to say Im slightly disappointed that its another top down game however it lets you zoom in to see more detail, the script sucks but then its kinda a throw back to the first one. Very... retro ? In fact that is one thing I hope they work on. Also I want a nice in game beastiary with detailed pics, mebbe some artwork and a bio on all the creatures.
As long as it has a decent story then I will be in. Plus a wall of zombies, now thats cool.
And once again, IT ATE THE FUCKING BARBARIAN!!! XD

You do know that that was scripted and won't actually be in the game... right?

At least that's what Bashiok says.

 

[Graustein]

In fact it was explicitly shown that subscription would not be the case in 2 previous posts.

All of you are judging this game as if you've played it, clocked it and put it back on the shelf when none of you can actually TOUCH IT! You're complaining about a game solely on it's first demo. No matter what is released for it you're all going to just complain about that too because your expectations far exceed your will to pay games.

What's the phrase, welcome the new boss, same as the old boss? I've played D1 and D2. And unless this is DRASTICALLY different, it's going to be just as boring as it is pretty in less than a month. I'm hoping they've added more depth to the game. But it's on BLIZZARD to change my mind.

I actually found that Diablo2 had AMAZING depth story-wise, but the best bit was that the story was entirely optional and skippable. Gameplay-wise it has very little depth beyond planning out a build and basic ingame strategy but in terms of the story and flavour text, there's a massive amount. Looking at the site, Diablo3 promises just as much. It's been a decade since I've played Diablo1 so I can't comment

As for those whining about the art style, I personally don't care. I think it's a fresh change from the previous Diablo and I almost welcome it; I certainly don't condemn it.

 

[TaboriHK]

I actually found that Diablo2 had AMAZING depth story-wise, but the best bit was that the story was entirely optional and skippable. Gameplay-wise it has very little depth beyond planning out a build and basic ingame strategy but in terms of the story and flavour text, there's a massive amount. Looking at the site, Diablo3 promises just as much. It's been a decade since I've played Diablo1 so I can't comment

As for those whining about the art style, I personally don't care. I think it's a fresh change from the previous Diablo and I almost welcome it; I certainly don't condemn it.

I'm talking strictly gameplay.

 

[Graustein]

I actually found that Diablo2 had AMAZING depth story-wise, but the best bit was that the story was entirely optional and skippable. Gameplay-wise it has very little depth beyond planning out a build and basic ingame strategy but in terms of the story and flavour text, there's a massive amount. Looking at the site, Diablo3 promises just as much. It's been a decade since I've played Diablo1 so I can't comment

As for those whining about the art style, I personally don't care. I think it's a fresh change from the previous Diablo and I almost welcome it; I certainly don't condemn it.

I'm talking strictly gameplay.

In that case I'd have to agree; beyond the possibilities of all the different classes, the basic core boiled down to essentially the same. Which was still rather fun

 

[TsunamiWombat]

Believe what you want guys.

Thing is, Blizzard wants money now. Think about it.


My opinion: Epic fail.

As opposed to before when they lived in a soup kitchen and only wanted to make toys for all the good little boys and girls in the world who like to shoot zerglings in the face?

It's like your the opposite of a fanboy..a ...uh... hateboy.

 

[Credge]

The MMO that has 11 million paying customers, raking in 165 million per month?

Blizzard is retarded, indeed.

Considering they keep how many subscribers they have under lock and key... yeah totally 11 million.

Just some FYI: Wikipedia is really bad.

But yes, please explain to me how making all of their games have a similar appearance will increase revenue.

"Oh. Another Blizzard product that looks just like the rest of them."

"Oh. Another WW2 shooter that looks just like the rest of them."

Real great.

 

[Syntax Error]

Pay-for-items is a bit easier to swallow than Pay-to-play. At least that's what I think.

 

[Baby Tea]

Ok Look:

If you don't like the franchise, you don't like the franchise. Fine.
If you don't like the genre of game, you don't like it. Fine.

If you're a fan of the franchise, then be prepared for change. The game mechanic is essentially the same: Click to kill in the isometric view. Same as the last two. Massive changes happened from Diablo 1 to Diablo 2, changes will happen now. I'm sure people bitched about the changes from Diablo 1 (WHAT?? No warrior?? WHAT?? The Magic user is a chick?? WHAT?? Gem and runes? That STUPID! WHAT?? My fighting class can't learn wizard spells?? WHAT?? There is more then one town??). But Diablo 2 was still a great game (Coming from a guy who really enjoyed the first one, including the 'Hellfire' expansion).

You don't like the art direction? Well, Diablo 2 was lighter and WAY more colorful then Diablo 1. Why don't you ***** about that? Because you either didn't even PLAY the first one, or because it didn't matter, the game still kicked ass.

Blizzard would be royally stupid to make the game pay to play online, and I don't think they'll do it. That was the lure of Battle.net: The cost (I.E. nothing). Pay for items? Sure. Pay for Quests or areas or expansions? Why not? Pay for online? No. Even if they DO have it available, it'll be for a 'premium' server or some crap, but still offer a free version. But that's IF they have it, and I don't think they will.

And please, don't ***** about a company wanting your money. It's a business. That's the PURPOSE of the business...to make money. Most every movie and game are there to MAKE MONEY and they'll happily take yours. It's life, deal with it.

 

[Emperor Inferno]

Ok Look:

If you don't like the franchise, you don't like the franchise. Fine.
If you don't like the genre of game, you don't like it. Fine.

If you're a fan of the franchise, then be prepared for change. The game mechanic is essentially the same: Click to kill in the isometric view. Same as the last two. Massive changes happened from Diablo 1 to Diablo 2, changes will happen now. I'm sure people bitched about the changes from Diablo 1 (WHAT?? No warrior?? WHAT?? The Magic user is a chick?? WHAT?? Gem and runes? That STUPID! WHAT?? My fighting class can't learn wizard spells?? WHAT?? There is more then one town??). But Diablo 2 was still a great game (Coming from a guy who really enjoyed the first one, including the 'Hellfire' expansion).

You don't like the art direction? Well, Diablo 2 was lighter and WAY more colorful then Diablo 1. Why don't you ***** about that? Because you either didn't even PLAY the first one, or because it didn't matter, the game still kicked ass.

Blizzard would be royally stupid to make the game pay to play online, and I don't think they'll do it. That was the lure of Battle.net: The cost (I.E. nothing). Pay for items? Sure. Pay for Quests or areas or expansions? Why not? Pay for online? No. Even if they DO have it available, it'll be for a 'premium' server or some crap, but still offer a free version. But that's IF they have it, and I don't think they will.

And please, don't ***** about a company wanting your money. It's a business. That's the PURPOSE of the business...to make money. Most every movie and game are there to MAKE MONEY and they'll happily take yours. It's life, deal with it.

Warning: I'm about to say something that proves I'm ignorant.

Eh? Hellfire expansion?

Also, I figure that's what they'll do if there is subscription: free single play game, subscription on online play. Besides, use your frakking mind. How the hell are they gonna charge you monthly to play if you only do it by yourself, not online? They'd have no way of knowing if you're playing or not.

 

[Baby Tea]

Eh? Hellfire expansion?

Hellfire was an expansion made for the first Diablo, but it wasn't made by Blizzard. It was made by a third party, but was pretty darn good. It added a new class (Monk) that could swing a staff at a faster attack speed, and had a good enough amount of mana for spell-casting. He was like a warrior/wizard. Plus, his special ability kicked ass: He could light up objects on the ground (Which was released as a standard feature in Diablo 2 - ANOTHER big change).

 

[Baby Tea]

I haven't played Diablo III.

That's because it's not out yet.