I finally got to play some Diablo 3
- Thread starter Clive Howlitzer
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I would suggest this thread for all those who don't understand how the game is changing:
http://us.battle.net/d3/en/forum/topic/3988231384
I mean, I've played D2 for such a long time and I can tell you that the first levels of the game were not the pinnacle of customization. And for those who wish it to tank... way to go, a publisher that actually takes time to release a quality game and you bash them without any justification.
I get that some people will find the game boring it's their opinion. I also get that constant internet access is a dealbreaker for others. That doesn't mean that the game is bad and it should tank because the same company also makes World of Warcraft. Grow up!
P.S. Starcraft 2 campaign had a very mediocre story but I dare you to find such a varied amount of missions in one title even if they were only Terran.
EDITED for unintended rudeness
http://us.battle.net/d3/en/forum/topic/3988231384
I mean, I've played D2 for such a long time and I can tell you that the first levels of the game were not the pinnacle of customization. And for those who wish it to tank... way to go, a publisher that actually takes time to release a quality game and you bash them without any justification.
I get that some people will find the game boring it's their opinion. I also get that constant internet access is a dealbreaker for others. That doesn't mean that the game is bad and it should tank because the same company also makes World of Warcraft. Grow up!
P.S. Starcraft 2 campaign had a very mediocre story but I dare you to find such a varied amount of missions in one title even if they were only Terran.
EDITED for unintended rudeness
The variety is partially what I hated the most. I guess I'm old school, but I wanted to build bases and armies not have random limitations of time/resources/terrain issues like flooding fucking me over all the time. I would have appreciated if those were occasional, special levels like in the original.sobaka770 said:
I only played the first act and a bit of the second before my computer crashed for an unrelated reason and I didn't feel like starting over, but if you guys want to play something like Diablo 2 there's always titan quest. I picked up it and the expansion for 5 bucks on steam (there was a sale couple days ago and its pretty fun).
Okay, fine, I guess I'm not a big fan of nostalgia.Wolfram01 said:
Personally, after SC2 the first SC graphics give me creeps.I do believe you can kind of emulate simple base building mission in MP or vs AI? Anyway, the point was, that the presentation of the campaign and the quality of the game overall were triple A. And we are talking about the game with a clear multiplayer focus. The quality of the story is in the eye of the beholder.
Yeah, the MP is fine and all. I liked it in the beta, but honestly I wanted the game for the SP. I really enjoyed SC and BW campaigns and the story. I read those manuals over and over for the back stories, I played through the games multiple times... The SC2 campaign was pretty much all fluff. It left a bad taste in my mouth, so to speak.sobaka770 said:Okay, fine, I guess I'm not a big fan of nostalgia.Wolfram01 said:
I do believe you can kind of emulate simple base building mission in MP or vs AI? Anyway, the point was, that the presentation of the campaign and the quality of the game overall were triple A. And we are talking about the game with a clear multiplayer focus. The quality of the story is in the eye of the beholder.
I mean there's no doubt the game has a very high production value. Definitely. But they're not making games I'm that interested in anymore, not with some of the changes and tweaks they're doing. Granted, I am not (trying not to) make judgements on D3 until I play it myself, but it sounds like I might not enjoy it much either.
Bioware puts out more games. More chances for people to piss on them.Fappy said:I really can't quite understand why Bioware is taking so much flack lately when Blizzard has shown time and time again throughout the past 5 or so years that they honestly don't give a shit about their fans. Yes its a genius business model... doesn't mean its the right thing to do.Woodsey said:
I apologize for not quoting the exact posts that irked me. I think it's easy to spot them above.Hammeroj said:
The post that I linked to is not written by me. The fact that you haven't read the post fully though completely nullifies all your negative feedback. I did not link it so that you could bash on the first 2 sentences and ignore the dozen paragraphs that follow. Please either read the post fully and then disagree or don't post at all.
I don't know about everyone, but I personally know that the reason I want Diablo 3 to bomb is the completely bullshit online requirements for single player.sobaka770 said:
Any single player game that I can't play if there's a connection problem (on my end or Bizzard's), that has lag, that quits if I don't do anything for too long, and that I can't pause doesn't deserve to be successful.
There is no reason why Blizzard can't have separate versions of the single player game: one that's always online and I can use the same character for multiplayer and use the real money auction house, and one where I can't do that stuff, but I can play without an internet connection.
If Diablo 3 is successful (which, unfortunately, it probably will be), it will give other game developers and publishers the idea that this stuff is okay, and they will be more likely to have an always online system themselves. I, personally, do not want this to happen.
I don't get the part about two different levels.Hammeroj said:
I find it funny that people actually only want to discuss either pro- or anti- company threads depending on their perceptions (in general). Is it so hard to take a step back and take a more objective view, or at least read and ANALYZE stuff?
Let's see what the OP said:
a) No stat points or skill allocations. Not enough slots.
- The post I linked argues why the skill points were removed but in a nutshell it is because there was only one good way to allocate them to have a good build. After playing D2 just recently I can't say I disagree.
- D3 doesn't have the same philosophy behind skills. In early levels tested in beta the system is limiting, considering it's mostly a tutorial level we're playing through. Later on the idea is to replace point allocation by using runes to modify the existing spells. Nobody knows how it works exactly yet, but normally it has to get better/more varied.
- Diablo 2 had only 2 slots for abilities and 4 for potions. D3 has 6 slots for abilities for level 24. Personally I think D3 does it better. Once again, the idea is to be able to chose skills before battle, in a way so that builds can be swapped on the fly. The Beta doesn't last so long as to show that philosophy.
b) Lag.
- Yes there's lag. They have to work on it. Once again it is a beta, not a demo.
Overall, I think that some personal perceptions of the OP may be valid. Nevertheless, what he plays is a BETA and it is not representative of the final product. There's too much hype surrounding the game.
Many people want to participate in beta forgetting what beta-testing does mean. If there's lag, or performance issues they have to be reported. If the gameplay is limiting it is because the systems are being tested.
This is why I don't really understand people who judge a game, or simply wish it to fail if they only have played or have seen videos of beta test on Youtube. This is childish behaviour.
Imagine running the intro sequence of Skyrim calling it a Beta test. Wouldn't that be BORING? Certainly not representative of the final product? That's what you get approximately in D3 beta. Lower your expectations accordingly.
I ploughed through three or four pages of that thread. What load of mutual wank. Part of the cool thing about forums is getting interesting stimulating argument. Having 60 different people all spout the same riff, well it's like reading a People's Republic of China newspaper. But I guess if somebody is posting on a Blizzard Diablo board, they're gonna be Blizzard Diablo fanboys.sobaka770 said:
It is bizzare though how ubi's single player DRM ignites crusade levels of anger, but Blizzard gets almost a free pass. Full disclosure: I hated SC2, never played SC1, and couldnt get past level 10 in ftp WOW. But I'm not a Blizzard hater, just a Blizzard i-dont-give-a-rats-asser.
Except that, you know, all the items in the auction house are all player generated and thus can be acquired without spending a single dime of real life cash.Frost27 said:
And it's not like they're going to beat TF2 anyway. They lack hats.
You can earn it all without buying it, but since you don't have to, they know there is a very large percentage of the player base that will gladly pay top dollar to be bad ass for minimal effort. That's why micro transaction games do so well. People pay for convenience.Cowabungaa said:
That's why a gamer heavy country like South Korea having issues with the auction house brought the release schedule to a halt until they could find a way around their laws.
You should really learn about irony... calling everyone who doesnt agree with you ill-informed or (especially) biased is such beautifull ironysobaka770 said:
You have a right to your own opinion but everyone who has one that isn't yours is biased or ill informed... Well done man, well done
Well, after beating all of the Diablo 3 beta, I can now say it is pretty damn terrible. It is just so...boring. There is no gameplay at all, no challenge, nothing. I just can't even fathom a reason why anyone would play. As for my friend who initially described it as being a Gauntlet Legends type game, he finally played it and completely changed his tune. What he posted to me was as follows...(This is from a message window, so bear with the formatting)
"If that was the best they could come up with, after all that time then that is really the saddest fucking thing ever the difficutly was non-existent, the story was boring and derivative that mostly reused elements of the past 2 games, and the gameplay was incredibly lackluster, even for Diablo. All the traps and health globes and shit were mostly pointless, and I found no compelling reason to keep playing other than I knew we were almost at the end of the beta It's not even that I'm bothered by the lack of customization - I'm bothered by the fact that there was no challening gameplay, or even any gameplay at all that didn't involve more than hitting a few hotkeys seemingly at random
Now you could argue that the Diablo series has always been like that, but never has it been so devoid of challenge (even in Normal mode), so as to render the entire experience utterly meaningless And with an extremely disappointing aesthetic experience (music, graphics, atmosphere, etc), I see no reason to ever play the game over something like Titan's Quest, or even a true MMO like DDO
When both games do everything far better than Diablo 3 seems to present itself as"
So, I suppose that is it! My thoughts are about the same. A shame really. However, to anyone who is looking for an excuse to click their mouse without any challenge or point, pick up Diablo 3.
"If that was the best they could come up with, after all that time then that is really the saddest fucking thing ever the difficutly was non-existent, the story was boring and derivative that mostly reused elements of the past 2 games, and the gameplay was incredibly lackluster, even for Diablo. All the traps and health globes and shit were mostly pointless, and I found no compelling reason to keep playing other than I knew we were almost at the end of the beta It's not even that I'm bothered by the lack of customization - I'm bothered by the fact that there was no challening gameplay, or even any gameplay at all that didn't involve more than hitting a few hotkeys seemingly at random
Now you could argue that the Diablo series has always been like that, but never has it been so devoid of challenge (even in Normal mode), so as to render the entire experience utterly meaningless And with an extremely disappointing aesthetic experience (music, graphics, atmosphere, etc), I see no reason to ever play the game over something like Titan's Quest, or even a true MMO like DDO
When both games do everything far better than Diablo 3 seems to present itself as"
So, I suppose that is it! My thoughts are about the same. A shame really. However, to anyone who is looking for an excuse to click their mouse without any challenge or point, pick up Diablo 3.
I hear this all the time, so I must ask, why do you consider SC2s campaign to be crap?Wolfram01 said:
OT: I'm probably still going to buy it, I'm a big fan of blizz and I have yet to be disappointed yet
I know this was directed at the other poster but since I also had some issues with the Sc2 campaign I thought I'd answer. It was mostly for me that it butchered a lot of the lore and my favorite characters. Every mission also revolved around gimmicks and more action oriented content. There really wasn't any missions of building a base and going after the CPU, your standard RTS fare. Starcraft 2 basically plays more like a real time action game.Darkmantle said:
Now don't get me wrong, I still enjoyed the campaign enough to get every achievement in it so in many ways, the gameplay is way superior to the first game. That is just why I think a lot of people don't care for it.