I was one of the few privileged to play the D3 Blizzcon 2010 demo, and you can rest assured my friend, the game feels like Diablo, it plays pretty much like D2 with cautious progression and tons of monster bashing.
I'm not going to jump on the "flame wagon", I just wanted to give you my personal opinion on the subject that the "feeling" of the game, despite all the changes, is still being a Diablo spiritual successor.
Amen to that.
I feel the same. I have not been lucky enough to play it but a couple of my friends played D3 at PAX main last year and said the same thing. It is STILL Diablo and feels like Diablo.
For me, I am holding my judgement for when I can sit down and actually play it.
Not only are diable 2 and diablo 3 different games, they are different type of games. D3 will be leaning heavily towards an action game, somewhat like a hybrid of Monster Hunter,DOTA,WOW and Diablo
For me, I am holding my judgement for when I can sit down and actually play it.
The problem is that you won't be allowed to do that without spending $60, unless you happen to go to the right convention (in which case you will get to play it very briefly). So in the end you'll either be giving Blizzard $60 because the game is called "D3", or going by what you read/watch online.
So that's not a particularly rational position. I rather hope D3 has some kind of demo or trial version - SC2 did (well, I got a trial of SC2 with my graphics card), so it's possible.
At this point I'm personally in the "Not pre-ordering, will wait for reviews" boat myself. Which is funny, because a few weeks ago I was in the "Will pre-order as soon as the various editions are in the appropriate store!".
For me, I am holding my judgement for when I can sit down and actually play it.
The problem is that you won't be allowed to do that without spending $60, unless you happen to go to the right convention (in which case you will get to play it very briefly). So in the end you'll either be giving Blizzard $60 because the game is called "D3", or going by what you read/watch online.
So that's not a particularly rational position. I rather hope D3 has some kind of demo or trial version - SC2 did (well, I got a trial of SC2 with my graphics card), so it's possible.
At this point I'm personally in the "Not pre-ordering, will wait for reviews" boat myself. Which is funny, because a few weeks ago I was in the "Will pre-order as soon as the various editions are in the appropriate store!".
You can say that and it is definitely a valid argument in the current state of affairs around the game. I understand the hesitancy on forking over $60 to "see if you like" something, but in looking at the features and where this series is going and listening to people like Force and Sixen WHO HAVE PLAYED THE BETA, there's not really any doubt in my mind that D3 is going to be a terrible game, or not live up to it's expectations.
From all the articles I've read plus all the videos and interviews that have come about since August 1st, the overall Diablo feel is intact and being expanded upon. Plus I don't mind paying $60 for quality entertainment and this is going to be SOME DAMN GOOD entertainment.
A demo would be AWESOME and I hope they do that because then people who are on the fence can try it out and make sure they feel the $60 price tag is worth it. And knowing the current state of FTP and Freemium gaming, and looking at the SC2 Starter Edition, they just might do that. Fingers crossed.
I was hoping for a newer version and better graphics to DII/LOD but I just don't think that DIII is it.
It looks like to me that they went out of their way to NOT make the chrs like DII.
I hope I am wrong but the only thing I see that resembles DII is just how dark they can make the game.
That was the only thing I hated about DII and the only thing they kept.
I hope I am wrong and I will be buying it but it just looks like a new game with the Diablo name on it.
maybe they should call it wowablo.
Are you seriously saying that you just want to play D2 again with better graphics? I don't even know how to respond to that...
DII>DIII already because the new auction house is rubbish. youll have more gold farmers and dupers than ever unless they compensate with crappy game mechanics like soul binding and crap like that.
ill look forward to buying all the top end gears and then pwning your ass in pvp.
edit: lemme take a few steps back before ppl get the wrong idea. in terms of release, d2 sounded much better than d3 so far. also, if u thought spam and bots were bad in d2, enjoy servers filled with bots. and before you say that 'they cant get bots and hacks in d3!!' they can and will; whether bots or sweatshop gold farmers.
Doesn't sound like you ever even played Diablo 2 to me, personally. If you came to Diablo 3 for nothing more than PvP, you have chosen poorly. There's really no point in having a debate over that.
If you want to play D2/LOD with better graphics you should play Torchlight, honestly. I'm very excited for every Diablo 3 aspect that has been revealed so far.. a little nervous about some, but excited. You can't really expect some tremendous resemblance between the two games, their release dates are over 10 years apart and RPGs have changed.
If you want to play D2/LOD with better graphics you should play Torchlight, honestly. I'm very excited for every Diablo 3 aspect that has been revealed so far.. a little nervous about some, but excited. You can't really expect some tremendous resemblance between the two games, their release dates are over 10 years apart and RPGs have changed.
I think it's totally and utterly bizarre that someone with StarCraft in their name and logo is making this argument.
You should know better.
SC1 came out in 1998.
SC2 came out in 2010.
12 years. Yet SC2 is REMARKABLY similar to SC1! Some reviewers even openly criticised it for that! It's definitely the same visual style, the same audio style, the same sort of plot, and most importantly, the gameplay is virtually identical. There are no changes as big as removing skillpoints and stat points, or adding an RMAH.
Yet you are arguing that because D3 is coming out 11 years after it D2, it's totally unreasonable to expect it to be similar, and we're all big jerks who should go play Torchlight (which is actually more like Diablo 1 with no bugs and WoW-style graphics).
I mean what? 12 years is fine for SC, but 11 is too long for Diablo... And don't try and tell me it's because RTSes haven't changed. DoW1/2 and CoH totally changed RTSes forever in the period in-between SC1 and SC2. Whereas isometric ARPGs are still imitating D2.
If you want to play D2/LOD with better graphics you should play Torchlight, honestly. I'm very excited for every Diablo 3 aspect that has been revealed so far.. a little nervous about some, but excited. You can't really expect some tremendous resemblance between the two games, their release dates are over 10 years apart and RPGs have changed.
I think it's totally and utterly bizarre that someone with StarCraft in their name and logo is making this argument.
You should know better.
SC1 came out in 1998.
SC2 came out in 2010.
12 years. Yet SC2 is REMARKABLY similar to SC1! Some reviewers even openly criticised it for that! It's definitely the same visual style, the same audio style, the same sort of plot, and most importantly, the gameplay is virtually identical. There are no changes as big as removing skillpoints and stat points, or adding an RMAH.
Yet you are arguing that because D3 is coming out 11 years after it D2, it's totally unreasonable to expect it to be similar, and we're all big jerks who should go play Torchlight (which is actually more like Diablo 1 with no bugs and WoW-style graphics).
I mean what? 12 years is fine for SC, but 11 is too long for Diablo... And don't try and tell me it's because RTSes haven't changed. DoW1/2 and CoH totally changed RTSes forever in the period in-between SC1 and SC2. Whereas isometric ARPGs are still imitating D2.
I don't think the amount of time has anything to do with it really. Also, if you compare Diablo and Diablo 2, there were quite a number of large changes in the game systems between those games as well.
It's not unreasonable for people to expect Diablo 3 to be similar to Diablo 2, but it's also not unreasonable for them to make changes.
I don't think the amount of time has anything to do with it really. Also, if you compare Diablo and Diablo 2, there were quite a number of large changes in the game systems between those games as well.
It's not unreasonable for people to expect Diablo 3 to be similar to Diablo 2, but it's also not unreasonable for them to make changes.
I'm not the one arguing that, Zombie, it's HunterSCtv arguing that because it's ten years, it's unreasonable to expect D2 to be much like D3, even though he's playing SC2, which is amazingly similar to SC1, really a direct sequel despite the fact that it's been twelve years.
I don't think the amount of time has anything to do with it really. Also, if you compare Diablo and Diablo 2, there were quite a number of large changes in the game systems between those games as well.
It's not unreasonable for people to expect Diablo 3 to be similar to Diablo 2, but it's also not unreasonable for them to make changes.
I'm not the one arguing that, Zombie, it's HunterSCtv arguing that because it's ten years, it's unreasonable to expect D2 to be much like D3, even though he's playing SC2, which is amazingly similar to SC1, really a direct sequel despite the fact that it's been twelve years.
While I replied to your post, since it was directly related to what I was saying, the OP of the thread is making a statement that they wanted LOD with better graphics.
Edit: I didn't mean for it to seem like it was solely directed towards you.
The Devs have stated many, many times that they are trying to steer Diablo III away from becoming another Diablo II. I.E. it's NOT SUPPOSED to feel or look like Diablo II. Herp derp.
Yeah... Deja Vu.
This is what people also said back when Diablo 2 came out, that it didn't feel anything like the first game.
Well, I've got news for you. It's not supposed to feel like Diablo 2. That's the point, or else they shouldn't bother making the game. It's the successor to Diablo 2, not a remake. The game is supposed to feel different, like an evolved form of Diablo 2.
I was hoping for a newer version and better graphics to DII/LOD but I just don't think that DIII is it.
It looks like to me that they went out of their way to NOT make the chrs like DII.
I hope I am wrong but the only thing I see that resembles DII is just how dark they can make the game.
That was the only thing I hated about DII and the only thing they kept.
I hope I am wrong and I will be buying it but it just looks like a new game with the Diablo name on it.
maybe they should call it wowablo.
The problem here is that some people just want Diablo 2 with HD graphics, games evolve over time, I'm guessing we will have to wait for expansions for some of the old classes from Diablo 2, but so far I'm happy with the changes.
Is it just me or does it seem like people would rather buy from third party pieces of s*%: than from eachother?? Makes absolutely no sense.
Agreed, I'd rather pay safely and securely and not get jipped, but people seem to think its a bad think. And No skill points is Evolving, Now you can respec when ever you want plus its awesome they are already at maxed lvl. The only way to upgrade them now is by using runes which is fine to me, No AP is amazing i hated having the same cookie cutter build in D2 always enough str for gear then good Dex for block then pumped into Vit that's not customization thats shit. They are completely correct in doing this. They stated a perfect reason for no charms AT RELEASE I MIGHT ADD! They said they were lackluster and boring, They said they wanted to revam,p the system but won't have it out in time for release, which means they'll release it either in a patch or expansion which is fine with me because we are still getting it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Not even Death will save you from Diablo Bunny's Cuteness!
No charms despite already having a better system in place (talisman)
Legalised P2W
The game shouldn't be devolving at all.
No skill choice? I believe my signature is a good response.
No attribute choices: This has been justified by the fact that in Diablo 2 there was a simple system that everyone used them for. As Jay Wilson said:
Official Blizzard Quote:
If you want to know how to build pretty much any character in Diablo 2, you take as much Str as you need to wear the armor though you're targeting, and that's normally around 120 or 220 depending on what type of armor.
You take 75 Dex because that's the amount you generally need for good block percentages.
You take no energy at all, there's like one type of build you can make or a sorc that uses energy shield..
Then you put everything else into Vit.
That's a shitty customization system.. like, that's just not a good system.
No Charms: Charms add nothing to the game that gear can't add. They rather put the extra stats into gear that have you lug around charms no matter where you hold them. This has been said by Blizzard.
Currency Auction House: Blizzard won't be selling items, there will be level requirements to use the AH, and last and certainly not least, it would have happened through an unsafe, unjust, undeserving of the money third party vendor anyway. Blizzard's choice on this lets them put some kind of limitations onto it to make it work, rather than just letting thrid party sites farm and sell players over priced items. Not only that by the players form the economy, so if items are over priced and no one buys, than the price will come down. Economics 101.
“We act as though comfort and luxury were the chief requirements of life, when all that we need to make us happy is something to be enthusiastic about.” - Albert Einstein
I feel the same. I have not been lucky enough to play it but a couple of my friends played D3 at PAX main last year and said the same thing. It is STILL Diablo and feels like Diablo.
For me, I am holding my judgement for when I can sit down and actually play it.
The problem is that you won't be allowed to do that without spending $60, unless you happen to go to the right convention (in which case you will get to play it very briefly). So in the end you'll either be giving Blizzard $60 because the game is called "D3", or going by what you read/watch online.
So that's not a particularly rational position. I rather hope D3 has some kind of demo or trial version - SC2 did (well, I got a trial of SC2 with my graphics card), so it's possible.
At this point I'm personally in the "Not pre-ordering, will wait for reviews" boat myself. Which is funny, because a few weeks ago I was in the "Will pre-order as soon as the various editions are in the appropriate store!".
You can say that and it is definitely a valid argument in the current state of affairs around the game. I understand the hesitancy on forking over $60 to "see if you like" something, but in looking at the features and where this series is going and listening to people like Force and Sixen WHO HAVE PLAYED THE BETA, there's not really any doubt in my mind that D3 is going to be a terrible game, or not live up to it's expectations.
From all the articles I've read plus all the videos and interviews that have come about since August 1st, the overall Diablo feel is intact and being expanded upon. Plus I don't mind paying $60 for quality entertainment and this is going to be SOME DAMN GOOD entertainment.
A demo would be AWESOME and I hope they do that because then people who are on the fence can try it out and make sure they feel the $60 price tag is worth it. And knowing the current state of FTP and Freemium gaming, and looking at the SC2 Starter Edition, they just might do that. Fingers crossed.
Doesn't sound like you ever even played Diablo 2 to me, personally. If you came to Diablo 3 for nothing more than PvP, you have chosen poorly. There's really no point in having a debate over that.
http://huntersc.tv
I think it's totally and utterly bizarre that someone with StarCraft in their name and logo is making this argument.
You should know better.
SC1 came out in 1998.
SC2 came out in 2010.
12 years. Yet SC2 is REMARKABLY similar to SC1! Some reviewers even openly criticised it for that! It's definitely the same visual style, the same audio style, the same sort of plot, and most importantly, the gameplay is virtually identical. There are no changes as big as removing skillpoints and stat points, or adding an RMAH.
Yet you are arguing that because D3 is coming out 11 years after it D2, it's totally unreasonable to expect it to be similar, and we're all big jerks who should go play Torchlight (which is actually more like Diablo 1 with no bugs and WoW-style graphics).
I mean what? 12 years is fine for SC, but 11 is too long for Diablo... And don't try and tell me it's because RTSes haven't changed. DoW1/2 and CoH totally changed RTSes forever in the period in-between SC1 and SC2. Whereas isometric ARPGs are still imitating D2.
I don't think the amount of time has anything to do with it really. Also, if you compare Diablo and Diablo 2, there were quite a number of large changes in the game systems between those games as well.
It's not unreasonable for people to expect Diablo 3 to be similar to Diablo 2, but it's also not unreasonable for them to make changes.
I'm not the one arguing that, Zombie, it's HunterSCtv arguing that because it's ten years, it's unreasonable to expect D2 to be much like D3, even though he's playing SC2, which is amazingly similar to SC1, really a direct sequel despite the fact that it's been twelve years.
While I replied to your post, since it was directly related to what I was saying, the OP of the thread is making a statement that they wanted LOD with better graphics.
Edit: I didn't mean for it to seem like it was solely directed towards you.
This is what people also said back when Diablo 2 came out, that it didn't feel anything like the first game.
Well, I've got news for you. It's not supposed to feel like Diablo 2. That's the point, or else they shouldn't bother making the game. It's the successor to Diablo 2, not a remake. The game is supposed to feel different, like an evolved form of Diablo 2.
Devolving
The game shouldn't be devolving at all.
Agreed, I'd rather pay safely and securely and not get jipped, but people seem to think its a bad think. And No skill points is Evolving, Now you can respec when ever you want plus its awesome they are already at maxed lvl. The only way to upgrade them now is by using runes which is fine to me, No AP is amazing i hated having the same cookie cutter build in D2 always enough str for gear then good Dex for block then pumped into Vit that's not customization thats shit. They are completely correct in doing this. They stated a perfect reason for no charms AT RELEASE I MIGHT ADD! They said they were lackluster and boring, They said they wanted to revam,p the system but won't have it out in time for release, which means they'll release it either in a patch or expansion which is fine with me because we are still getting it.
No skill choice? I believe my signature is a good response.
No attribute choices: This has been justified by the fact that in Diablo 2 there was a simple system that everyone used them for. As Jay Wilson said:
Official Blizzard Quote:
If you want to know how to build pretty much any character in Diablo 2, you take as much Str as you need to wear the armor though you're targeting, and that's normally around 120 or 220 depending on what type of armor.
You take 75 Dex because that's the amount you generally need for good block percentages.
You take no energy at all, there's like one type of build you can make or a sorc that uses energy shield..
Then you put everything else into Vit.
That's a shitty customization system.. like, that's just not a good system.
No Charms: Charms add nothing to the game that gear can't add. They rather put the extra stats into gear that have you lug around charms no matter where you hold them. This has been said by Blizzard.
Currency Auction House: Blizzard won't be selling items, there will be level requirements to use the AH, and last and certainly not least, it would have happened through an unsafe, unjust, undeserving of the money third party vendor anyway. Blizzard's choice on this lets them put some kind of limitations onto it to make it work, rather than just letting thrid party sites farm and sell players over priced items. Not only that by the players form the economy, so if items are over priced and no one buys, than the price will come down. Economics 101.
Looks pretty similar to me >.>.