That is news to me.. As far as i know, they started out doing ports for other companies, until they launched warcraft: orcs and humans, for PC, and blackthorne, which was both pc and consol.
Some of their first games;
Lost viking. SNES, Genesis, GBA, PC, Amiga
Rock N' Roll Racing. SNES, Genesis, GBA
Blackthorne. SNES, PC, Sega 32X, Mac, GBA
Those are part of their very first games, and they started on console and PC.
IIRC, Diablo 2 was first released in PS2, then in PC. I could be wrong, I just have a vague memory of that.
However, it doesn't matter, what matters is that Diablo 3 is limited, because every single feature they add in the future, has to have a compatibility with consoles. That is if they are not making 2 different versions of the game, one dumbed down, and one for PC.
As opposed to streamlining to make it less cumbersome? I disagree with this statement almost completely, because so many of the things that people claim are limited for consoles either doesn't make sense, or only makes sense if you assume that the only people who buy games on consoles are low brow morons who can't handle more than two buttons.
Some things:
1) Look at Skyrim's inventory/skills/map UI. That's what a UI made for consoles looks like. Lists, generally not square box that you have to sort through in 2 dimensions.
2) 4 players - cause consoles haven't been able to play multiplayer games with more than 4 players since 2001. If it was for one console, then they'd just say "only 4 people in local multiplayer" like same games limit local to two, but online multi to more. Heck, some don't even ALLOW local. Also, I think the reason that more than 4 would be just insane visually (since everything is very effects heavy).
3) Skyrim had perks (instead of skills) that totally had a tree structure, just like D2. FO3 had a list of perks that you could pick. Both of these worked totally fine on console. They could have kept Diablo 2's style skill tree for consoles very easily, they just didn't want to, cause they were try to fix the various flaws in that concept (it's debatable how succesful they were, I will grant you).
4) There are plenty of non-linear games on console, and there are plenty of linear games on PC. When we look at other games that tried to create completely random environments, we see that they sacrifices things visually. In my limited time with PoE, everything was just bland browns and grey, and the edges of the maps were boring things like "a wall" or "the surf." Compare that to Diablo 3 where you look down in the valley behind the Highlands and can see the cathedral. Further, there are many areas in D3 that are nearly as random as anything in D2. Generally, the exception is that the entrance and exit are in similiar locations, as opposed to D2, where they could be anywhere (and I will grant you, IMO they should have had several different entrance/exit tiles so they could have made that more varied). Anyway, my point is there is little to no evidence that the less randomness in D3 has anything to do with consoles, aside from general prejudice against consoles (Oh! It's simple! Therefore, it MUST have been made for consoles! No way at all they were trying to improve a clunky system where many many people cheated or abused items to avoid).
There is a fact that no one cant deny, everything that is going to be implemented in the PC version, has to work in the console version as well. And that, is a limitation per se.
And, it is true, that the console games are more casual friendly than the PC games, despite the interface limitation.
There is a fact that no one cant deny, everything that is going to be implemented in the PC version, has to work in the console version as well. And that, is a limitation per se.
And, it is true, that the console games are more casual friendly than the PC games, despite the interface limitation.
The new UI additions make the implementation so far look very good. Are you having objections?
Hmm....where the hell is the WD's mana orb in the PS version?
I'd say it's the blue bar (looks like they would use the space for others players. You might be able to squeeze in 4 players healths/button/resource icons there.
Hot damn, totally missed that. Thanks. Thanks to TheDFO as well.
Btw, TheDFO, regarding your #4: sure, those D3 places where you can look down and see valleys and things, they look great......the first few times you see them. After you run those areas 1000000 times, you don't care. Well, at least I know I don't, and I'm sure there's plenty of people that also don't care. That's why I think there's some truth in what some people are saying. A lot of things in the game seem to be built under the assumption that you'll use them 10, 20, 30 (whatever) times, and not the 498324739847 times that is the staple of hardcore grinding ARPG's, namely D2. Like the graphic features you mentioned. Things like that are great in games that you play through a handful of times, but become almost meaningless (in my opinion, of course) when you grind those areas to no end. At the same time, things that might seem 'clunky', 'cumbersome' or 'not streamlined' when you play through the game a few times actually add to the longevity of the game, because they end up adding complexity to the game (and yes, maybe some complication as well, but that comes with the territory).
All this is my opinion.
Yeah, after seeing it hundreds of times it gets boring. BUT, at least IMHO, I'd rather have that first few times of "that's awesome" than 1000 times of "boy, I sure am lost cause this level is completely random." Basically, I don't think the randomness brings all that much in an ARPG, because the "platforming" doesn't mean much. If it were a game like Prince of Persia, good randomness would be AMAZING! In an ARPG, I'd much rather have environments that work well. And while streamlining may not have improved the game when you take a long view of playing, my point was there's no evidence that they did that SOLELY for consoles, which is what people are implying. They were trying to fix a problem. Whether or not it was a problem, or how successful they were, seems to depend on the person.
There is a fact that no one cant deny, everything that is going to be implemented in the PC version, has to work in the console version as well. And that, is a limitation per se.
And, it is true, that the console games are more casual friendly than the PC games, despite the interface limitation.
I can deny that. You haven't presented any facts that I've seen, just conjecture, mostly based on the idea that if it is simple, it was designed for consoles, because simple is only on consoles. You haven;t said anything (at least that I've seen) to the idea that many of the skills will not work, as is, on the console (area target skills, like Blizzard). Nor have you said anything to why consoles are necessarily limited to four players now, what with every shooter under the sun doing more than that online. You also haven't shown how the inventory, or even picking up items, will work on the console.
Wow the amount of fear mongering in here is staggering.
I don't know how many people here were old enough to have played Diablo on console... Sure it wasn't a big blockbuster hit, but it literally changed nothing with the PC version of the game, and it was actually some decent fun especially if you could get a friend to play 2player.
As for UI changes and such (IE the skyrym fear), it's an action RPG, not some bloody MMO. There isn't really any huge feature you can add that absolutely demands a mouse and keyboard, and you'd think you could at least give them the credit to not do something stupid with the other systems which all work fine.
Take it easy people... If you are reading this here, the game is not for you and won't affect you.
I hear torchlight was a hit on XBLA. Somehow console players managed with 10 skills and zero respecs just fine. ARPG is not some immensely complicated genre in the first place, D2 would have worked just as well.
There is a fact that no one cant deny, everything that is going to be implemented in the PC version, has to work in the console version as well. And that, is a limitation per se.
That is (kind of) my point, +1. Once they have the game out on two different platforms, and both are a success (or the PS version is even more successful than the PC version), I'm afraid that they don't implement features that "only" work on the PC. That is, every feature that absolutely require a mouse as input device. To some extent, this is what I was expressing in this post.
HOWEVER, this is just my fear of the future of Diablo 3. But this thread's title suggest such design decisions were already made with consoles in mind in the past, something which I really don't see. No one so far could explain to me or answer my post about all the design decisions that clearly center around the mouse as main input device and simply don't work with a game pad right now.
There is a fact that no one cant deny, everything that is going to be implemented in the PC version, has to work in the console version as well. And that, is a limitation per se.
It's factually-true in the most literal of interpretations. But you're choosing to see it as only a negative thing and rarely does any one decision have only negative consequences. The world is a complex place, and people are complex beings. The fact that they have to make considerations for "how to make the game work on a console" may actually work in the OPPOSITE way in that we see some minor changes here and there that actually improve the PC version.
I realize that, on the internet, the hip thing is to be an eternal pessimist, but there is a real chance that we can see positive things coming from the fact that they're broadening their horizons. It's not a one-way street so why should we fall victim to faulty logic from angry people on the internet? The community has yet to realize that it's so blinded by its faux outrage that it can't reasonable assess the whole situation in an objective and fair manner.
D3 does not exist in a vacuum. One day we'll stop pretending it does and stop evaluating every little development in said vacuum.
If from 100 ideas that can be implemented in the PC version, I have to choose 70 because the rest couldn't be implemented in console, or they could but in a clunky way, then it is a limitation.
A lot of players proposed endless dungeons, in PC? -> possible, in console?, maybe not. Or, maybe it is possible but it would take a PS3 a 25 seconds loading time from level to level.
This kind of things are the things that I'm afraid of.
Basically sums it up, this game is an embarassment. It's a slap in the face to every fan, blizzard how far you have fallen.
Yeah the first point make sense. After that you could just as easily and logically, or illogically I should say point to the RMAH for every other reason just has everyone has before the announcement.
Damn the game has it's flaws but lets correctly establish what they are. RMAH, or now the new popular scapegoat (console games) have little to do with things. Sure you can easily make the connection OH 4 player games DUH consoles. What will this falls scapegoat be? Starcraft II: Legacy of the Void? No wonder everyone on the forums complains they don't even know whats wrong with the game. Just blindly listen to what popular youtube bloggers and posters say.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Some of their first games;
Lost viking. SNES, Genesis, GBA, PC, Amiga
Rock N' Roll Racing. SNES, Genesis, GBA
Blackthorne. SNES, PC, Sega 32X, Mac, GBA
Those are part of their very first games, and they started on console and PC.
Some things:
1) Look at Skyrim's inventory/skills/map UI. That's what a UI made for consoles looks like. Lists, generally not square box that you have to sort through in 2 dimensions.
2) 4 players - cause consoles haven't been able to play multiplayer games with more than 4 players since 2001. If it was for one console, then they'd just say "only 4 people in local multiplayer" like same games limit local to two, but online multi to more. Heck, some don't even ALLOW local. Also, I think the reason that more than 4 would be just insane visually (since everything is very effects heavy).
3) Skyrim had perks (instead of skills) that totally had a tree structure, just like D2. FO3 had a list of perks that you could pick. Both of these worked totally fine on console. They could have kept Diablo 2's style skill tree for consoles very easily, they just didn't want to, cause they were try to fix the various flaws in that concept (it's debatable how succesful they were, I will grant you).
4) There are plenty of non-linear games on console, and there are plenty of linear games on PC. When we look at other games that tried to create completely random environments, we see that they sacrifices things visually. In my limited time with PoE, everything was just bland browns and grey, and the edges of the maps were boring things like "a wall" or "the surf." Compare that to Diablo 3 where you look down in the valley behind the Highlands and can see the cathedral. Further, there are many areas in D3 that are nearly as random as anything in D2. Generally, the exception is that the entrance and exit are in similiar locations, as opposed to D2, where they could be anywhere (and I will grant you, IMO they should have had several different entrance/exit tiles so they could have made that more varied). Anyway, my point is there is little to no evidence that the less randomness in D3 has anything to do with consoles, aside from general prejudice against consoles (Oh! It's simple! Therefore, it MUST have been made for consoles! No way at all they were trying to improve a clunky system where many many people cheated or abused items to avoid).
I think it's that blue bar. Not sure why they'd change it.
And, it is true, that the console games are more casual friendly than the PC games, despite the interface limitation.
The new UI additions make the implementation so far look very good. Are you having objections?
Ha. Bagstone.
I can deny that. You haven't presented any facts that I've seen, just conjecture, mostly based on the idea that if it is simple, it was designed for consoles, because simple is only on consoles. You haven;t said anything (at least that I've seen) to the idea that many of the skills will not work, as is, on the console (area target skills, like Blizzard). Nor have you said anything to why consoles are necessarily limited to four players now, what with every shooter under the sun doing more than that online. You also haven't shown how the inventory, or even picking up items, will work on the console.
bump
I don't know how many people here were old enough to have played Diablo on console... Sure it wasn't a big blockbuster hit, but it literally changed nothing with the PC version of the game, and it was actually some decent fun especially if you could get a friend to play 2player.
As for UI changes and such (IE the skyrym fear), it's an action RPG, not some bloody MMO. There isn't really any huge feature you can add that absolutely demands a mouse and keyboard, and you'd think you could at least give them the credit to not do something stupid with the other systems which all work fine.
Take it easy people... If you are reading this here, the game is not for you and won't affect you.
That is (kind of) my point, +1. Once they have the game out on two different platforms, and both are a success (or the PS version is even more successful than the PC version), I'm afraid that they don't implement features that "only" work on the PC. That is, every feature that absolutely require a mouse as input device. To some extent, this is what I was expressing in this post.
HOWEVER, this is just my fear of the future of Diablo 3. But this thread's title suggest such design decisions were already made with consoles in mind in the past, something which I really don't see. No one so far could explain to me or answer my post about all the design decisions that clearly center around the mouse as main input device and simply don't work with a game pad right now.
No, nothing has been said about that.
Ha. Bagstone.
It's factually-true in the most literal of interpretations. But you're choosing to see it as only a negative thing and rarely does any one decision have only negative consequences. The world is a complex place, and people are complex beings. The fact that they have to make considerations for "how to make the game work on a console" may actually work in the OPPOSITE way in that we see some minor changes here and there that actually improve the PC version.
I realize that, on the internet, the hip thing is to be an eternal pessimist, but there is a real chance that we can see positive things coming from the fact that they're broadening their horizons. It's not a one-way street so why should we fall victim to faulty logic from angry people on the internet? The community has yet to realize that it's so blinded by its faux outrage that it can't reasonable assess the whole situation in an objective and fair manner.
D3 does not exist in a vacuum. One day we'll stop pretending it does and stop evaluating every little development in said vacuum.
A lot of players proposed endless dungeons, in PC? -> possible, in console?, maybe not. Or, maybe it is possible but it would take a PS3 a 25 seconds loading time from level to level.
This kind of things are the things that I'm afraid of.
Yeah the first point make sense. After that you could just as easily and logically, or illogically I should say point to the RMAH for every other reason just has everyone has before the announcement.
Damn the game has it's flaws but lets correctly establish what they are. RMAH, or now the new popular scapegoat (console games) have little to do with things. Sure you can easily make the connection OH 4 player games DUH consoles. What will this falls scapegoat be? Starcraft II: Legacy of the Void? No wonder everyone on the forums complains they don't even know whats wrong with the game. Just blindly listen to what popular youtube bloggers and posters say.