But there's no guarantee the game will be scary or challenging. It's going to at least be pretty, replayable (random) and customizable.
DI was somewhat scary. In a few parts. When you were little.
DII wasn't scary.
DI was mildly challenging but only in SP.
DII wasn't challenging. It was annoying at times if you had to hack at a mob 300 times to kill them while following a repetitive skill pattern and chugging potions. The only time it was challenging is when you used a purposefully fail build (thorns pally or something), and a few select specific battles like Duriel or immunes or some other random stuff. Which was all a joke if you played multiplayer anyway.
Being scary or challenging doesn't really say much about the game being success or failure. Firstly, they are both highly subjective. Most scary game I played was heXen and heXen II, most people I know do not find those games scary. Most games today I do not find scary, also, making everything black and brown and adding blood doesn't do much for me in the scare department.
Secondly, specifically the challenge thing is something you want to be very careful with, because there's a pretty big difference between challenging and annoying (which was what DII was most of the time). And then DII kept patching itself to adapt to the min maxers, which ruined the game for non-min maxers because we ended up dealing no damage to anything. DII scaled it's difficulty almost entirely via numbers. E.g., big monsters have a lot of health and damage. Which means the worse your build is, the more time you spend, but nothing else. DIII seems to be taking an approach where you may actually need to control your character better (something Nox specialized in 10 years ago), and so far it looks to me DIII will be a lot more challenging where it counts.
DI was challenging, in a few areas, such as the spitting dogs, and succubi, and a few other places. Mainly it was challenging because you couldn't, in SP, farm levels and equipment like crazy.
I dunno. I guess if they required you to pay for Battle.net. That would make me really, really mad. I already pay for XBL and my Zune pass, I don't want to pay $10 a month to play a game I've been waiting for since I was about 7 or 8 years old.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I hate the way you cling to ignorance and pass it off as innocence
@sef239_1122397
Since the values are subjective the game succeeding in them is a nonissue.
The game has no goal to satisfy fans or critics. As far as fans go, it's impossible, because fans are usually pretty dumb and often have trouble giving games a chance, I see it every time a Diablo fan tries a Hack&Slash that's not Diablo, they throw it away almost immediately (and honestly the only issue with other Hack&Slashes is they may lack polish and the companies making them are low on money, otherwise they are not any less decent games than those in other genres, sometimes more so). Critics are worthless excuses for human beings so I am not going to say much there.
Diablo III needs to be fun on the average level, so that a person who is not a crazy fan of Diablo II (such as me) or a person who never even played the previous games would enjoy it. I don't see how Diablo III can have any problem reaching that. They have previous experience. They have other Hack&Slashes to look at. So far in the development they have been making very good decisions for gameplay (health globes, one-item-per-slot inventory, no stats, varying levels on skills, I could go on). They have money and time. For them to fail to make this game fun for the general player would be pretty ridiculous and some kind of epic level of historical failure.
It also didn't happen to SCII. SCII is quite fine and its campaign is far superior to SCI's campaign. Multiplayer is still in development as it should be but as long as they stick to it it should be fine. Why if SCII was OK DIII should flop? I understand they are different teams and all but they're under the same roof which is responsible for such things.
If a game is not "great" for some populace it does not mean it failed, either. People feel Diablo II was great I don't. I felt Diablo I was great but that's not the expectation here. So even if Diablo III WILL be great(again, this is not necessary for success), most fans won't notice it, since they're all fans of DII, not DI, and we'll get a statistic of people deciding if something is great or not when those people don't know what "great" even is.
I also don't see much in the statement that most people see DII as the best game. Generally, DII is simply the only one anyone ever heard good things being said about. Not that many people play Hack&Slashes seriously to have much to say on the subject. Most don't even recognize the genre they just see Diablo and everything else as extensions of it (which is ironic with Nox being ridiculously different from Diablo). The Hack&Slash situation is skewed even more than the MMO situation is, there's a giant (Diablo), and when you have a giant in a new and underdeveloped genre people ignore the smaller and sometimes equally as interesting products (they also have less motivation to appear, because they tend to flop like TQ did due to having trouble making room in the middle of all the D fans). Which is why until Diablo dies, it will seem like DII is the best game.
There aren't that many Hack&Slash fans out there in general, and almost all of them stick to Diablo because it was one of the first and one of the biggest. DII's release overshadowed Nox why few people ever even got to play it, and after that it was really hard to catch up to Diablo II both due to its already established popularity and due to the fact that small German companies are not as rich as Blizzard and can't afford as much polish before they launch, and D fans don't seem to be able to play games that are not perfectly polished for some reason (funny thing is DII is not polished but people are so insane about it they pretend it is). But I'd much rather play Sacred II and Nox (Nox is 100% polished btw), which I both find superior to DII for various reasons, but unfortunately both of those companies are now dead (and I'm a Diablo I fan lol) so I'm stuck with Blizzard's bland-but-polished formula it's been using ever since SC came out.
The thing that would ruin it for me is If I have to be connected to the internet to play single player.
D1 had more of an eerie feeling due to the music and the atmosphere of the Cemetery and then the journey to the depths of Hell. I also liked the fact that in Single Player you could not farm anything and it all depended on what dropped and if anything good showed up in the shops. Hellfire Expansion changed that.
D2 did not have of that feeling for me. The thing I liked about D2 was building different builds for the different classes. I did not have a feeling in D2 that I was part of the story due to the lack of quests and not too challenging monsters that D1 had. In D1 Single Player you generally were cautious about entering new areas.
I hope D3 brings the best of both Diablos and also bring in new things as well. I will not pay too much attention to what is going on in the development since that may bring disappointment too me if something I liked was removed at the end. I will start to pay attention again when D3 release date is announced.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
On Strike and supporting Fallout 4 Mod Makers
Some fallout 4 mod makers have had their mods stolen and uploaded and downloaded on Bethesda's site for the Xbox One.
I myself don't see any problem connecting to Bliz server to be able to play the game even for SP, unless I don't have internet connection, which is rare and I think it could be sacrificed if it helps reducing pirating, in the end it would be a promise of a better game in future. I'm against DRMs though.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Diablo hates Jay Wilson.
Diablo thanks God for creating obesity and ugliness.
Looking at SCII you probably will be forced to connect... SCII doesn't even have achievements working without it and I don't know about you but I'm big on those. I'm not happy with it but w/e.
If the game has a horrible story I will probably be vary dissapointed. The story is what im in it for mostly although its gatta have good gameplay and good replayability. If the story is crap then I will be vary dissapointed.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
www.myspace.com/mpotatoes for all your Trans Siberian Orchestra listening pleasure
If you want to arrange it
This world you can change it
If we could somehow make this
Christmas thing last
By helping a neighbor
Or even a stranger
And to know who needs help
You need only just ask
Is it expensive to run a server? I mean we play D2 online for free but does it cost anything?
I am not sure. StarCraft was hosted on your (user's) "server". Which is why StarCraft depended on the latency of the host, where the host was, etc. DII functions a little differently I am not sure if the host is responsible for the room. If he is, they do not really cost anything.
But, SCII currently runs on Blizzard's servers. Which means Blizz is paying for them. I am going to assume Blizz will do the same for Diablo III, since it's simply more stable that way and you don't get into issues with lagging hosts. But nobody made SCII pay to play yet probably because the weight of SCII servers is probably nothing anywhere near that of those required for MMORPGs.
I would really like to see the in-game economy stand the test of time. If someone finds a dupe bug that doesn't get fixed and all of a sudden most people in public games that I play with are using godly items that are obviously not 'legit' then I would not be a happy camper.
Or some kind of bug that allows you to kill other players, even if they are in town, and steal *all* of their hard earned gear somehow.
That would probably cause me to have to go outside and calm down for a few minutes.
There's nothing they could do at this point that would ruin the game for me and make me not want to play it at all. However, I wouldn't like it if the game required a large group of people in order to get through the high-end content. It's the only reason I don't play WoW. Considering there's a relatively low player cap for each game in D3, I doubt that'll happen.
There's nothing they could do at this point that would ruin the game for me and make me not want to play it at all. However, I wouldn't like it if the game required a large group of people in order to get through the high-end content. It's the only reason I don't play WoW. Considering there's a relatively low player cap for each game in D3, I doubt that'll happen.
They've stated that you'll be able to solo the game. But if you play with one or two buddies, you don't want to venture out alone. The world becomes too hard to solo when there are others in game with you.
Pay to play would kill it for me, 4 player co op and there is 5 classes(i still don't agree with this to this day) and lastly diablo 3 needs more darker and creepier image.
I agree with everything besides the last the creepy dark stuff is half way and on prolly if not 3/4 of game being creepy and dark/gloomy
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
DII wasn't scary.
DI was mildly challenging but only in SP.
DII wasn't challenging. It was annoying at times if you had to hack at a mob 300 times to kill them while following a repetitive skill pattern and chugging potions. The only time it was challenging is when you used a purposefully fail build (thorns pally or something), and a few select specific battles like Duriel or immunes or some other random stuff. Which was all a joke if you played multiplayer anyway.
Being scary or challenging doesn't really say much about the game being success or failure. Firstly, they are both highly subjective. Most scary game I played was heXen and heXen II, most people I know do not find those games scary. Most games today I do not find scary, also, making everything black and brown and adding blood doesn't do much for me in the scare department.
Secondly, specifically the challenge thing is something you want to be very careful with, because there's a pretty big difference between challenging and annoying (which was what DII was most of the time). And then DII kept patching itself to adapt to the min maxers, which ruined the game for non-min maxers because we ended up dealing no damage to anything. DII scaled it's difficulty almost entirely via numbers. E.g., big monsters have a lot of health and damage. Which means the worse your build is, the more time you spend, but nothing else. DIII seems to be taking an approach where you may actually need to control your character better (something Nox specialized in 10 years ago), and so far it looks to me DIII will be a lot more challenging where it counts.
DI was challenging, in a few areas, such as the spitting dogs, and succubi, and a few other places. Mainly it was challenging because you couldn't, in SP, farm levels and equipment like crazy.
I dunno. I guess if they required you to pay for Battle.net. That would make me really, really mad. I already pay for XBL and my Zune pass, I don't want to pay $10 a month to play a game I've been waiting for since I was about 7 or 8 years old.
I hate the way you cling to ignorance and pass it off as innocence
Since the values are subjective the game succeeding in them is a nonissue.
The game has no goal to satisfy fans or critics. As far as fans go, it's impossible, because fans are usually pretty dumb and often have trouble giving games a chance, I see it every time a Diablo fan tries a Hack&Slash that's not Diablo, they throw it away almost immediately (and honestly the only issue with other Hack&Slashes is they may lack polish and the companies making them are low on money, otherwise they are not any less decent games than those in other genres, sometimes more so). Critics are worthless excuses for human beings so I am not going to say much there.
Diablo III needs to be fun on the average level, so that a person who is not a crazy fan of Diablo II (such as me) or a person who never even played the previous games would enjoy it. I don't see how Diablo III can have any problem reaching that. They have previous experience. They have other Hack&Slashes to look at. So far in the development they have been making very good decisions for gameplay (health globes, one-item-per-slot inventory, no stats, varying levels on skills, I could go on). They have money and time. For them to fail to make this game fun for the general player would be pretty ridiculous and some kind of epic level of historical failure.
It also didn't happen to SCII. SCII is quite fine and its campaign is far superior to SCI's campaign. Multiplayer is still in development as it should be but as long as they stick to it it should be fine. Why if SCII was OK DIII should flop? I understand they are different teams and all but they're under the same roof which is responsible for such things.
If a game is not "great" for some populace it does not mean it failed, either. People feel Diablo II was great I don't. I felt Diablo I was great but that's not the expectation here. So even if Diablo III WILL be great(again, this is not necessary for success), most fans won't notice it, since they're all fans of DII, not DI, and we'll get a statistic of people deciding if something is great or not when those people don't know what "great" even is.
I also don't see much in the statement that most people see DII as the best game. Generally, DII is simply the only one anyone ever heard good things being said about. Not that many people play Hack&Slashes seriously to have much to say on the subject. Most don't even recognize the genre they just see Diablo and everything else as extensions of it (which is ironic with Nox being ridiculously different from Diablo). The Hack&Slash situation is skewed even more than the MMO situation is, there's a giant (Diablo), and when you have a giant in a new and underdeveloped genre people ignore the smaller and sometimes equally as interesting products (they also have less motivation to appear, because they tend to flop like TQ did due to having trouble making room in the middle of all the D fans). Which is why until Diablo dies, it will seem like DII is the best game.
There aren't that many Hack&Slash fans out there in general, and almost all of them stick to Diablo because it was one of the first and one of the biggest. DII's release overshadowed Nox why few people ever even got to play it, and after that it was really hard to catch up to Diablo II both due to its already established popularity and due to the fact that small German companies are not as rich as Blizzard and can't afford as much polish before they launch, and D fans don't seem to be able to play games that are not perfectly polished for some reason (funny thing is DII is not polished but people are so insane about it they pretend it is). But I'd much rather play Sacred II and Nox (Nox is 100% polished btw), which I both find superior to DII for various reasons, but unfortunately both of those companies are now dead (and I'm a Diablo I fan lol) so I'm stuck with Blizzard's bland-but-polished formula it's been using ever since SC came out.
D1 had more of an eerie feeling due to the music and the atmosphere of the Cemetery and then the journey to the depths of Hell. I also liked the fact that in Single Player you could not farm anything and it all depended on what dropped and if anything good showed up in the shops. Hellfire Expansion changed that.
D2 did not have of that feeling for me. The thing I liked about D2 was building different builds for the different classes. I did not have a feeling in D2 that I was part of the story due to the lack of quests and not too challenging monsters that D1 had. In D1 Single Player you generally were cautious about entering new areas.
I hope D3 brings the best of both Diablos and also bring in new things as well. I will not pay too much attention to what is going on in the development since that may bring disappointment too me if something I liked was removed at the end. I will start to pay attention again when D3 release date is announced.
Diablo thanks God for creating obesity and ugliness.
Join the chat!
If you want to arrange it
This world you can change it
If we could somehow make this
Christmas thing last
By helping a neighbor
Or even a stranger
And to know who needs help
You need only just ask
I do not want to pay per month or on micro-transactions. I may buy the expansion pack(s) if they add many features.
Diablo thanks God for creating obesity and ugliness.
But, SCII currently runs on Blizzard's servers. Which means Blizz is paying for them. I am going to assume Blizz will do the same for Diablo III, since it's simply more stable that way and you don't get into issues with lagging hosts. But nobody made SCII pay to play yet probably because the weight of SCII servers is probably nothing anywhere near that of those required for MMORPGs.
Or some kind of bug that allows you to kill other players, even if they are in town, and steal *all* of their hard earned gear somehow.
That would probably cause me to have to go outside and calm down for a few minutes.
I agree with everything besides the last the creepy dark stuff is half way and on prolly if not 3/4 of game being creepy and dark/gloomy