Diablo III Beta Impressions

  • #185
    why do so many ppl have negative impressions of the beta... i have yet to see anyone obsessed with the game except this guy from progressived3.com
  • #186
    Quote from rozmata


    Ok, I say you could still like UFO Enemy Unknown more than any other similar game as you liked its mechanics (like I do (and Jagged Alliance, too)), but if somebody for example take Diablo mechanics and mix it with horrible kindergarten like graphics I wouldn't play that game. So I believe that people who never played Diablo but played TL may like TL2 even better (as they have commulated feelings towards TL and never disagree with its art style from the start) buy it should not be true for any Diablo fan who like Diablo because of its art and mood.

    Man, not to play a awesome game because of graphic is wrong. And am telling you that a lot of diablo players, even that they don't like the art style (including me) will play the game because of mechanic, and most important BECAUSE IT'S FUN. How many players did play WoW that played also diablo games? A lot, and it had really cartony and childish graphic. You are trying to say that diablo players won't play anything else if it has cartony grafic and is not the same as in diablo. Funny thing is that diablo 3 has different art style then original (you said it yourself), and looks cartony compered to old diablo, and people will still play it. Becose its fun.
    If your theory is true, no one from older players of diablo would ever play diablo 3.
  • #187
    Quote from TheDFO

    2. No stats/skill points

    Err, uh, what? You progress less randomly, because you don't have to worry about placing skill points/stats in a less than optimal position. Granted, people might sell and buy runes. What's your point? There's plenty of progression: 1-30, a skill almost every level, stats, improved skills, new items available.31-60 stats, improved skills, new items available. Which, compared to D2: 1-32, a new skill or two every 4-5 levels, stats, improved skills, new items available (if you placed stats correctly), 33-99, stats, improved skills, new items available (if you placed stats correctly). They look pretty much the same to me, with the only difference being you don't have to go and follow a guide off the internet to have a chance in Hell (sorry about the pun).

    Randomization is when you don't have full control of your character build. In D2 you had full control of your customization, in d3 you dont have. Customization in d3 is done with runes, that are items, that drop randomly, and becouse of it its more random then in d2.
    There is no lvl progression, because you don't improve skills nor do you improve stats, it's all done automatically, that's why leveling is not fun anymore.
    Removing of skill point doesn't make you use more skills. More skills will be used if they are more balanced, and not becose there are no skill points. If diablo 2 had no skill points, you would still use same skils because they were not balanced. With other words, if skills in d3 are not balanced, you will select 6 skils,and again you will use only 2 or 3 skills (like you use in beta), because you will not need to use others.
    The problem of diablo 2 are not skill point, but are unbalanced skils. Also, by removing skill points, and putting computer to do it automaticly, you remove some part of customization of diablo 3, that would be much bigger if there were skill points.
    Generally diablo 3 customization is mainly done only by items. Is it a bad thing? Depends what you like. But the main point is, no skill points in d3 less customization then with skill point.

    Quote from TheDFO

    Quote from Ragnar

    Here is the list of things that I don't like becose of online only:

    -Because of only online we dont have mods.
    -Because of only online you have limitations in game, like only 10 characters, smaller stash.
    -Because of only online you will have lag
    -Because of only online you cant play when you want where you want.
    -Because of only online you don't own diablo 3, if somthing happens to servers or blizzard, you can kiss your money and game goodbye (it is almost impossible to happen, but it can)

    What are the benefits of only online? Harder to hack. I would understand this if there is any competition in diablo 3 or lader,but the funny thing is, this is because of RMHA (that is also another problem).
    Okay, just to let you know, most of those cons are personal prefences.

    -I never bothered with mods, and I would guess most people didn't either.
    -I never had more than 10 characters, and no one I knew did either.
    -Isn't the stash bigger, what with being able to buy more room, stacking, and smaller items?
    -yes, it will have lag. But I was going to play online only. So it was going to have that anyway. I can't say what % has the same thought, though.
    -Again, see above.
    -Quite true, Blizz could do something to make me lose D3. A few weeks ago I would have said I strongly oppose this, but then I realized Steam's "offline" mode is more of a concept and a hope than a concrete thing. Now I'm not sure how much I actually care.

    Pros? Not having to worry about hacks, dupes, and bots WAY outweighs, IMO, those cons. At least how I see them.

    -Saying that there cannot be modes is not a positive thing, like it or not, it a negative thing, and a really big one for computer games. Mods are one of the strongest positive options for computer games. And you are wrong because most people use mods because they can improve graphic, implement new monsters, items, clases.
    -I had 15 character hardcore and normal, and I know a lot of people thet had the same
    -in last udpade, blizz said that stash will be smaler becose of only online. Less is never a good, even for you.

    Even if you don't care about things in my lists, it still is a negative list, and there is nothing positive about it.
    For haces you are corect. For bots you are not. Bots dont requere you to have all part of game on your computer. It requires that you have support for mouse, and that the grafic is done on your comp (on your GPU), Bots will be easy created as in diablo 2, there will be no difference (depend if you can create algoritam that workes good with controling you character in game). But there will be much more request for bots becouse of RMHA, but i think that they will not be downloadable for free, because they will be used by profesional farmers.
  • #188
    Torchlight's "cartoony" style does not bother me, nor does Deathspank for example. The difference is that those games are new games that have established themselves with that look. Torchlight 2 doesn't change the visual style from the 1st game, it enhances it. The second and third Deathspanks do the same thing. When playing Baldur's Gate 1 and 2, visually they are similar in style. God of War 1, 2, and 3 and the handhelds? Similar. Mass Effect 1 and 2? similar (and it looks as though 3 is going to be as well)

    Diablo III however is setting out to be more similar in style to other games, not it's own series. This is where I have an issue. It may have the same style of mechanics, but it is not the same thing, much like Team Fortress compared with Counterstrike.

    Consistency is key here, and Diablo III is not consistent with other games in its own lineup, visually. Diablo 1 and 2 were hugely different in mechanics (much like 2 and 3 are), and the games played similarly, but the reason people accepted D2 when it came out wasn't because of the mechanics. It was because visually they remained similar in character design, world design and overall thematic style. With Diablo III departing from that, it makes me worry that they are trying to cater more towards another market, and not those that followed the series in the first place. In my mind, if they wanted to create a new game with a new style and similar mechanics, they should have called it something completely different, like "Sanctuary" or something, rather than banking on the Diablo name.
  • #189
    Quote from Ragnar

    There is no lvl progression, because you don't improve skills nor do you improve stats, it's all done automatically, that's why leveling is not fun anymore.

    Read my sig

    Quote from Ragnar

    Bots will be easy created as in diablo 2, there will be no difference

    I saw complains now that beta testers feels like bots because social is null thanks to B.net 2.0
    Quote from Burzghash

    Regardless, there's no good reason for forcing permanence on people..
  • #190
    Quote from Ragnar

    There is no lvl progression, because you don't improve skills nor do you improve stats, it's all done automatically, that's why leveling is not fun anymore.

    some skills increase in power/duration each level, you learn new abilities all the way up to lvl 30 and for the entire game you find different kinds and levels of runes to put in your skills to test out and to increase in power.

    the ONLY thing thats changed is there are no attributes, which everyone agrees was a FAIL system. and the skill tree system was equally fail. your just blind and not thinking logically about it, you just think "oh nos no attribute allocation = auto leveling?!".
    "once the pretty hardcore gamers we had testing inferno found it fairly difficult, we then we doubled it" -trolololol jay wilson
  • #191
    Quote from GladHeHasBeta

    your just blind and not thinking logically about it, you just think "oh nos no attribute allocation = auto leveling?!".

    Read my sig
    Quote from Burzghash

    Regardless, there's no good reason for forcing permanence on people..
  • #192
    Quote from GladHeHasBeta

    Quote from Ragnar

    There is no lvl progression, because you don't improve skills nor do you improve stats, it's all done automatically, that's why leveling is not fun anymore.

    some skills increase in power/duration each level, you learn new abilities all the way up to lvl 30 and for the entire game you find different kinds and levels of runes to put in your skills to test out and to increase in power.

    the ONLY thing thats changed is there are no attributes, which everyone agrees was a FAIL system. and the skill tree system was equally fail. your just blind and not thinking logically about it, you just think "oh nos no attribute allocation = auto leveling?!".
    Runes are items, that don't have anything to do with you lvling.
    Skill system is not a failed system, and i wrote it why. Its sure is not logical lol. Skills balance are problem, not skill system.
  • #193
    Quote from GladHeHasBeta

    Quote from Ragnar

    There is no lvl progression, because you don't improve skills nor do you improve stats, it's all done automatically, that's why leveling is not fun anymore.

    some skills increase in power/duration each level, you learn new abilities all the way up to lvl 30 and for the entire game you find different kinds and levels of runes to put in your skills to test out and to increase in power.

    the ONLY thing thats changed is there are no attributes, which everyone agrees was a FAIL system. and the skill tree system was equally fail. your just blind and not thinking logically about it, you just think "oh nos no attribute allocation = auto leveling?!".

    You should really stop putting words in people's mouths. The attribute system is not a failed system in my book, nor is the skill tree system. They may have been poorly implemented, but considering they *are* using an attribute based system, it means that they find it fine. They are just changing how they operate, from being controlled by the player, to being controlled automatically. The same with the skills themselves. In my mind this is a step backwards, and I don't agree with their current implementation as I do not have as much customization with the characters. I believe they need to give players something to do upon level-ups, and hope to hear some news to that effect with their rebalancing of skills and such.
  • #194
    Quote from Lord_Jaroh

    Torchlight's "cartoony" style does not bother me, nor does Deathspank for example. The difference is that those games are new games that have established themselves with that look. Torchlight 2 doesn't change the visual style from the 1st game, it enhances it. The second and third Deathspanks do the same thing. When playing Baldur's Gate 1 and 2, visually they are similar in style. God of War 1, 2, and 3 and the handhelds? Similar. Mass Effect 1 and 2? similar (and it looks as though 3 is going to be as well)

    Diablo III however is setting out to be more similar in style to other games, not it's own series. This is where I have an issue. It may have the same style of mechanics, but it is not the same thing, much like Team Fortress compared with Counterstrike.

    Consistency is key here, and Diablo III is not consistent with other games in its own lineup, visually. Diablo 1 and 2 were hugely different in mechanics (much like 2 and 3 are), and the games played similarly, but the reason people accepted D2 when it came out wasn't because of the mechanics. It was because visually they remained similar in character design, world design and overall thematic style. With Diablo III departing from that, it makes me worry that they are trying to cater more towards another market, and not those that followed the series in the first place. In my mind, if they wanted to create a new game with a new style and similar mechanics, they should have called it something completely different, like "Sanctuary" or something, rather than banking on the Diablo name.

    This is because D3 is a WHOLE new game. All those games you listed were just sequels. Sequels using (most of them) the same engines, the very same style. D3 might as well be named New Diablo 1, because it's MEANT to be completely different.

    Also either you weren't around, or you're just forgetting, but people threw SHIT fits over D2! It was actually more whining then D3 is getting. People saw this strange outside style, and yelled they aren't being faithful to D1. People saw trailers where the hero was outside, in the sun! Omg lighting! The list goes on, on how vastly different D2 was to D1, and how people freaked out because they were afraid of change. D1 was an awesome game, how can you make an almost completely different game Blizzard?! Well, considering the majority of whiners on Dfans site D2 as their prime example of what a game should be, I would say D2 did very well.

    And just like they did with D2, after D3 hits it will be our standard for how the next Diablo game / anything close to it should be.
    https://www.youtube.com/channel/UChB2_IPc-HVXbi0jS1Riljg
    ^ YouTube.Com/IceBleuGaming ! It's a thing! Check it oooout!
  • #195
    Quote from Lord_Jaroh

    Quote from GladHeHasBeta

    Quote from Ragnar

    There is no lvl progression, because you don't improve skills nor do you improve stats, it's all done automatically, that's why leveling is not fun anymore.

    some skills increase in power/duration each level, you learn new abilities all the way up to lvl 30 and for the entire game you find different kinds and levels of runes to put in your skills to test out and to increase in power.

    the ONLY thing thats changed is there are no attributes, which everyone agrees was a FAIL system. and the skill tree system was equally fail. your just blind and not thinking logically about it, you just think "oh nos no attribute allocation = auto leveling?!".

    You should really stop putting words in people's mouths. The attribute system is not a failed system in my book, nor is the skill tree system. They may have been poorly implemented, but considering they *are* using an attribute based system, it means that they find it fine. They are just changing how they operate, from being controlled by the player, to being controlled automatically. The same with the skills themselves. In my mind this is a step backwards, and I don't agree with their current implementation as I do not have as much customization with the characters. I believe they need to give players something to do upon level-ups, and hope to hear some news to that effect with their rebalancing of skills and such.

    its like talking to a wall. you really dont get it and obviously never will. you have horse blinders on and cant see anything else outside your tiny realm of attributes and skill trees. its sad
    "once the pretty hardcore gamers we had testing inferno found it fairly difficult, we then we doubled it" -trolololol jay wilson
  • #196
    People don`t understand the difference between broken system and poorly implemented, blizzard are lazy and decided to remove stats control because they had to make it work the way it was intended. Vitality was way over powered over the other 3 stats that did not give same overall advantage.
    Quote from Burzghash

    Regardless, there's no good reason for forcing permanence on people..
  • #197
    Quote from Snaks42

    Quote from Lord_Jaroh

    Torchlight's "cartoony" style does not bother me, nor does Deathspank for example. The difference is that those games are new games that have established themselves with that look. Torchlight 2 doesn't change the visual style from the 1st game, it enhances it. The second and third Deathspanks do the same thing. When playing Baldur's Gate 1 and 2, visually they are similar in style. God of War 1, 2, and 3 and the handhelds? Similar. Mass Effect 1 and 2? similar (and it looks as though 3 is going to be as well)

    Diablo III however is setting out to be more similar in style to other games, not it's own series. This is where I have an issue. It may have the same style of mechanics, but it is not the same thing, much like Team Fortress compared with Counterstrike.

    Consistency is key here, and Diablo III is not consistent with other games in its own lineup, visually. Diablo 1 and 2 were hugely different in mechanics (much like 2 and 3 are), and the games played similarly, but the reason people accepted D2 when it came out wasn't because of the mechanics. It was because visually they remained similar in character design, world design and overall thematic style. With Diablo III departing from that, it makes me worry that they are trying to cater more towards another market, and not those that followed the series in the first place. In my mind, if they wanted to create a new game with a new style and similar mechanics, they should have called it something completely different, like "Sanctuary" or something, rather than banking on the Diablo name.

    This is because D3 is a WHOLE new game. All those games you listed were just sequels. Sequels using (most of them) the same engines, the very same style. D3 might as well be named New Diablo 1, because it's MEANT to be completely different.

    No, it's meant to cash in on the original's name, otherwise this NEW game as you put it would have been called something new! It is a sequel, thus the number 3 after the title!

    I was not around this site when D2 launched, no. But I can safely say that upon playing the D2 beta after playing D1 for many years is that they felt similar to me, despite the many mechanical changes. D3 does not retain that feeling.
  • #198
    Quote from Lord_Jaroh

    Quote from Snaks42

    Quote from Lord_Jaroh

    Torchlight's "cartoony" style does not bother me, nor does Deathspank for example. The difference is that those games are new games that have established themselves with that look. Torchlight 2 doesn't change the visual style from the 1st game, it enhances it. The second and third Deathspanks do the same thing. When playing Baldur's Gate 1 and 2, visually they are similar in style. God of War 1, 2, and 3 and the handhelds? Similar. Mass Effect 1 and 2? similar (and it looks as though 3 is going to be as well)

    Diablo III however is setting out to be more similar in style to other games, not it's own series. This is where I have an issue. It may have the same style of mechanics, but it is not the same thing, much like Team Fortress compared with Counterstrike.

    Consistency is key here, and Diablo III is not consistent with other games in its own lineup, visually. Diablo 1 and 2 were hugely different in mechanics (much like 2 and 3 are), and the games played similarly, but the reason people accepted D2 when it came out wasn't because of the mechanics. It was because visually they remained similar in character design, world design and overall thematic style. With Diablo III departing from that, it makes me worry that they are trying to cater more towards another market, and not those that followed the series in the first place. In my mind, if they wanted to create a new game with a new style and similar mechanics, they should have called it something completely different, like "Sanctuary" or something, rather than banking on the Diablo name.

    This is because D3 is a WHOLE new game. All those games you listed were just sequels. Sequels using (most of them) the same engines, the very same style. D3 might as well be named New Diablo 1, because it's MEANT to be completely different.

    No, it's meant to cash in on the original's name, otherwise this NEW game as you put it would have been called something new! It is a sequel, thus the number 3 after the title!

    I was not around this site when D2 launched, no. But I can safely say that upon playing the D2 beta after playing D1 for many years is that they felt similar to me, despite the many mechanical changes. D3 does not retain that feeling.

    You can't safely say that, because that's false. D2 retains almost no mechanical features from D1, if any. IF you had beta tested D2 after playing D1 for years, I'm almost positive you, like a huge part of the populace, would have raged at how different it was. Go play an hour of D1, then D2, then D3 (if you have beta). They might as well be three different games.

    It's a sequel only technically. since it's a continuation of the story. Past that, it's completely different. The ONLY things that are the same are as follows; Isometric view, storyline, the barbarian. My whole point being that D3 is so vastly different, it can't be compared to something like God of war 1,2,3 in an argument that it should remain the same.
    https://www.youtube.com/channel/UChB2_IPc-HVXbi0jS1Riljg
    ^ YouTube.Com/IceBleuGaming ! It's a thing! Check it oooout!
  • #199
    Quote from Snaks42

    Quote from Lord_Jaroh

    Quote from Snaks42

    Quote from Lord_Jaroh

    Torchlight's "cartoony" style does not bother me, nor does Deathspank for example. The difference is that those games are new games that have established themselves with that look. Torchlight 2 doesn't change the visual style from the 1st game, it enhances it. The second and third Deathspanks do the same thing. When playing Baldur's Gate 1 and 2, visually they are similar in style. God of War 1, 2, and 3 and the handhelds? Similar. Mass Effect 1 and 2? similar (and it looks as though 3 is going to be as well)

    Diablo III however is setting out to be more similar in style to other games, not it's own series. This is where I have an issue. It may have the same style of mechanics, but it is not the same thing, much like Team Fortress compared with Counterstrike.

    Consistency is key here, and Diablo III is not consistent with other games in its own lineup, visually. Diablo 1 and 2 were hugely different in mechanics (much like 2 and 3 are), and the games played similarly, but the reason people accepted D2 when it came out wasn't because of the mechanics. It was because visually they remained similar in character design, world design and overall thematic style. With Diablo III departing from that, it makes me worry that they are trying to cater more towards another market, and not those that followed the series in the first place. In my mind, if they wanted to create a new game with a new style and similar mechanics, they should have called it something completely different, like "Sanctuary" or something, rather than banking on the Diablo name.

    This is because D3 is a WHOLE new game. All those games you listed were just sequels. Sequels using (most of them) the same engines, the very same style. D3 might as well be named New Diablo 1, because it's MEANT to be completely different.

    No, it's meant to cash in on the original's name, otherwise this NEW game as you put it would have been called something new! It is a sequel, thus the number 3 after the title!

    I was not around this site when D2 launched, no. But I can safely say that upon playing the D2 beta after playing D1 for many years is that they felt similar to me, despite the many mechanical changes. D3 does not retain that feeling.

    You can't safely say that, because that's false. D2 retains almost no mechanical features from D1, if any. IF you had beta tested D2 after playing D1 for years, I'm almost positive you, like a huge part of the populace, would have raged at how different it was. Go play an hour of D1, then D2, then D3 (if you have beta). They might as well be three different games.

    It's a sequel only technically. since it's a continuation of the story. Past that, it's completely different. The ONLY things that are the same are as follows; Isometric view, storyline, the barbarian. My whole point being that D3 is so vastly different, it can't be compared to something like God of war 1,2,3 in an argument that it should remain the same.

    For me diablo game is not only the art style or lore or sound or atmosfer or gamplay or rpg elements in creating your character, and lvling him. Combination of all this elements maid the diablo game one of the games that I love. If you remove some part of that, you change the game, and that is the main reason that some people that played d2 are against the choices they made. I asure you, if this was some other title, people would love this game, and all would support it. But this is a sequel to diablo game, that doesn't look like diablo game. When making a sequel, the most important thing is to improve the components of all aspects of game, not to remove them, or change them drasticly.
  • #200
    It boils down to whether people want Diablo 2.5 or if they want Diablo 3. As others have said - D3 is a continuation of the story and similiar elements common to the Diablo franchise. But it is not an expansion or add on to what D2 was.

    Agree to disagree. Enjoy the new.
  • #201
    Quote from Ragnar

    Quote from Snaks42

    Quote from Lord_Jaroh

    Quote from Snaks42

    Quote from Lord_Jaroh

    Torchlight's "cartoony" style does not bother me, nor does Deathspank for example. The difference is that those games are new games that have established themselves with that look. Torchlight 2 doesn't change the visual style from the 1st game, it enhances it. The second and third Deathspanks do the same thing. When playing Baldur's Gate 1 and 2, visually they are similar in style. God of War 1, 2, and 3 and the handhelds? Similar. Mass Effect 1 and 2? similar (and it looks as though 3 is going to be as well)

    Diablo III however is setting out to be more similar in style to other games, not it's own series. This is where I have an issue. It may have the same style of mechanics, but it is not the same thing, much like Team Fortress compared with Counterstrike.

    Consistency is key here, and Diablo III is not consistent with other games in its own lineup, visually. Diablo 1 and 2 were hugely different in mechanics (much like 2 and 3 are), and the games played similarly, but the reason people accepted D2 when it came out wasn't because of the mechanics. It was because visually they remained similar in character design, world design and overall thematic style. With Diablo III departing from that, it makes me worry that they are trying to cater more towards another market, and not those that followed the series in the first place. In my mind, if they wanted to create a new game with a new style and similar mechanics, they should have called it something completely different, like "Sanctuary" or something, rather than banking on the Diablo name.

    This is because D3 is a WHOLE new game. All those games you listed were just sequels. Sequels using (most of them) the same engines, the very same style. D3 might as well be named New Diablo 1, because it's MEANT to be completely different.

    No, it's meant to cash in on the original's name, otherwise this NEW game as you put it would have been called something new! It is a sequel, thus the number 3 after the title!

    I was not around this site when D2 launched, no. But I can safely say that upon playing the D2 beta after playing D1 for many years is that they felt similar to me, despite the many mechanical changes. D3 does not retain that feeling.

    You can't safely say that, because that's false. D2 retains almost no mechanical features from D1, if any. IF you had beta tested D2 after playing D1 for years, I'm almost positive you, like a huge part of the populace, would have raged at how different it was. Go play an hour of D1, then D2, then D3 (if you have beta). They might as well be three different games.

    It's a sequel only technically. since it's a continuation of the story. Past that, it's completely different. The ONLY things that are the same are as follows; Isometric view, storyline, the barbarian. My whole point being that D3 is so vastly different, it can't be compared to something like God of war 1,2,3 in an argument that it should remain the same.

    For me diablo game is not only the art style or lore or sound or atmosfer or gamplay or rpg elements in creating your character, and lvling him. Combination of all this elements maid the diablo game one of the games that I love. If you remove some part of that, you change the game, and that is the main reason that some people that played d2 are against the choices they made. I asure you, if this was some other title, people would love this game, and all would support it. But this is a sequel to diablo game, that doesn't look like diablo game. When making a sequel, the most important thing is to improve the components of all aspects of game, not to remove them, or change them drasticly.

    Please re-read my posts as to why this isn't a sequel in the traditional sense, it's a brand new game. If you want to play D2 then go play D2. This isn't D2.5 as have been said, it's D3. It's completely different from the ground up, because it's a *new* game, not an expansion pack.
    https://www.youtube.com/channel/UChB2_IPc-HVXbi0jS1Riljg
    ^ YouTube.Com/IceBleuGaming ! It's a thing! Check it oooout!
  • #202
    Quote from Polrayne

    It boils down to whether people want Diablo 2.5 or if they want Diablo 3. As others have said - D3 is a continuation of the story and similiar elements common to the Diablo franchise. But it is not an expansion or add on to what D2 was.

    Agree to disagree. Enjoy the new.

    They took the Diablo 2.5 too serious now it doesn`t look like Diablo sequel at all removing core elements of the game, might just rename it.
    Quote from Burzghash

    Regardless, there's no good reason for forcing permanence on people..
  • #203
    Seriously...

    As someone else said, just agree ot disagree already. None of this matters anyway. Blizzard will make the game they want to make and those of us that like the new will enjoy it, and those of us that don't will go back to the old.

    Look at Smash Bros as a similar argument. Brawl recieved mixed reviews and many people (including myself) still play Melee instead; because we prefer the mechanics of it.

    If you like the mechanics of the old game more, the old game is still there for you to play. Not like D2 is going anywhere.

    I don't even love every change myself, but most changes at least make sense; but like I said, Blizz will release the game they want to release and none of this will matter as you will all buy the game anyway, and if you don't, well go enjoy whatever other games you prefer to play as there are no shortage of awesome games to play at the moment.

    You just lost

    THE GAME!!!
  • #204
    Quote from Snaks42

    Quote from Ragnar

    Quote from Snaks42

    Quote from Lord_Jaroh

    Quote from Snaks42

    Quote from Lord_Jaroh

    Torchlight's "cartoony" style does not bother me, nor does Deathspank for example. The difference is that those games are new games that have established themselves with that look. Torchlight 2 doesn't change the visual style from the 1st game, it enhances it. The second and third Deathspanks do the same thing. When playing Baldur's Gate 1 and 2, visually they are similar in style. God of War 1, 2, and 3 and the handhelds? Similar. Mass Effect 1 and 2? similar (and it looks as though 3 is going to be as well)

    Diablo III however is setting out to be more similar in style to other games, not it's own series. This is where I have an issue. It may have the same style of mechanics, but it is not the same thing, much like Team Fortress compared with Counterstrike.

    Consistency is key here, and Diablo III is not consistent with other games in its own lineup, visually. Diablo 1 and 2 were hugely different in mechanics (much like 2 and 3 are), and the games played similarly, but the reason people accepted D2 when it came out wasn't because of the mechanics. It was because visually they remained similar in character design, world design and overall thematic style. With Diablo III departing from that, it makes me worry that they are trying to cater more towards another market, and not those that followed the series in the first place. In my mind, if they wanted to create a new game with a new style and similar mechanics, they should have called it something completely different, like "Sanctuary" or something, rather than banking on the Diablo name.

    This is because D3 is a WHOLE new game. All those games you listed were just sequels. Sequels using (most of them) the same engines, the very same style. D3 might as well be named New Diablo 1, because it's MEANT to be completely different.

    No, it's meant to cash in on the original's name, otherwise this NEW game as you put it would have been called something new! It is a sequel, thus the number 3 after the title!

    I was not around this site when D2 launched, no. But I can safely say that upon playing the D2 beta after playing D1 for many years is that they felt similar to me, despite the many mechanical changes. D3 does not retain that feeling.

    You can't safely say that, because that's false. D2 retains almost no mechanical features from D1, if any. IF you had beta tested D2 after playing D1 for years, I'm almost positive you, like a huge part of the populace, would have raged at how different it was. Go play an hour of D1, then D2, then D3 (if you have beta). They might as well be three different games.

    It's a sequel only technically. since it's a continuation of the story. Past that, it's completely different. The ONLY things that are the same are as follows; Isometric view, storyline, the barbarian. My whole point being that D3 is so vastly different, it can't be compared to something like God of war 1,2,3 in an argument that it should remain the same.

    For me diablo game is not only the art style or lore or sound or atmosfer or gamplay or rpg elements in creating your character, and lvling him. Combination of all this elements maid the diablo game one of the games that I love. If you remove some part of that, you change the game, and that is the main reason that some people that played d2 are against the choices they made. I asure you, if this was some other title, people would love this game, and all would support it. But this is a sequel to diablo game, that doesn't look like diablo game. When making a sequel, the most important thing is to improve the components of all aspects of game, not to remove them, or change them drasticly.

    Please re-read my posts as to why this isn't a sequel in the traditional sense, it's a brand new game. If you want to play D2 then go play D2. This isn't D2.5 as have been said, it's D3. It's completely different from the ground up, because it's a *new* game, not an expansion pack.

    I read it. You just say they are different, and I don't agree. Diablo 2 and 1 are more similar then diablo 3 and diablo 2.
    But your right about diablo 3, it is a new game, and that is a problem. its a new game, that has diablo name. They should've named it different, so we can get a real sequel to diablo series. They even change the lore of diablo 1 for it.
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.
Posts Quoted:
Reply
Clear All Quotes