DiabloFans

Conservative - if the term is in the context of change relative to the status quo. Diablo II is arguably the definitive ARPG and one of the best games of all time.

Do I want a bunch of changes to the formula? No, not really. It seemed to work well.

Changes to the graphics, new story, player chars (so long as they fit in the universe - wink, wink), technology, and feature adds are great! Just don't change the core elements that made Diablo great from the start.

Go get some ubuntu - you can try it without even touching your hard drive:
http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu/download

There are plenty of how tos on the web for it. I am writing this post using a fresh install of ubuntu 9.04. It lets me pick what type of desktop I want to use (not a theme like windows, but really windows 3.1-ish, MacOSX-ish, WinXP-ish, or use the super cool effects: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKEcz_OTTBk&feature=related).

You can't play games on it though, that's why i dual boot into windows to play.

They should have put in a "Lecture" power. He could just go on and on about who knows what until, unable to take it anymore, monsters begin killing themselves in great and violent ways! It would be the ultimate power.

Reminds me of college...

Pity it's an April Fool's joke - i actually like the idea. At least he'd kick the WD's tooshie.

That's quite an assumption on the org announcements we heard a while back on Brian Morrisroe, but I do agree with the dynamic nature of art direction.

A good portion (not all, granted) of the issues mentioned can be texture-manipulated.

Yeah, let's keep it in perspective. I know flame wars are basically counterproductive insult sessions, but Roper's comments may have inadvertantly re-opened a good issue.

You know the Blizzard guys read these forums from time to time. It's good to get the opinions of your best market targets, and you can't always get a straight answer out of people. Sometimes it's good to get real ideas via opposition and contrasting opinions. That way they can get an unbiased look at what kind of progress they've made since the last Art debate. I remember there was an emphasis on dark screenshots shortly after some of the original art wars.

I'm not saying Roper did that on purpose or was influenced to do so, but it is a good opportunity to let Blizzard know how we feel.

One of the gems on this particular discussion has been defining that it's not the "Darkness" (as in gamma or level of light), but the "Darkness" (as in grittyness, western-european gothic feel, obscured lines, affects of time\disrepair\general neglect on dungeon areas, pro photo-realsim vs. exaggerated visuals) hardcore fans are lacking from the perceived experience so far.

Look, argumentation aside, Roper's statements really vindicate my continuing thoughts on the art style. What we've seen of DIII to date just is not gothic fantasy.

It's not that it's not dark enough, it's not that there's too much color, and it's not that it's bad. It's just not the same gritty gothic art style. I still think it looks great, and I will still buy it. It's just that it feels like switching from listening to Tool to hearing Weezer. I truly love both bands, but in completely different ways.

Frankly, for all those who thought folks in my camp were completely insane, it's nice to have a somewhat authoritative source with the same opinion.

I think it's hilarious, and I was one of the petition signers!

If you are going to be vocal enough to sound your opinion, you should be able to take a little shot back, especially one so funny.

You should always be able to laugh at yourself.

No thanks, no need to debate. My proof is what I see. No need to prove it to you, I'm happy with what I see.

As for the original thread - Yes! D3 is dark enough for me!

Please...
Of course it looks darker/creepier now. Just look at some of the original... oh, nevermind. if you don't see the change by now, your head is so far up the blizzsphincter you would never admit anything was changed.

For those of us who are happy with the way things have progressed, the quiet smug satisfaction of helping the game progress is reward enough.

Thanks for listening to your mad fanbase; great work Blizzard!

Quote from "Siaynoq" »

Priests of Rathma are just straight up Necromancers. Necromancers are just what outsiders call them.

Yeah, I know that - that's why I used the name, heh. Just trying to keep up with the "MUST have everything NEW" vibe from Blizzard, while having my old familiar, fun gameplay. I guess I figure D2 was pretty good, and can't help but hope D3 will be too.

We should see a new character this week anyway...

I wouldn't put it past them to add this idea or one like it to the Arena theory going around. sort of known "hostile zones" where you can set up matches.

This would add a great gambling side to it.

-Mephisto's Lament-
Genius! Really?
Of course it is, so is clicking a mouse a million times to swing a sword over and over again at random pixelated monsters. The question is, would it be fun?

My thing is, I don't want to miss out on fun, storied characters, just in the name of novelty.

I have to say, with the advent of the Orb system, almost all of the old character ideas would have to be rebalanced or re-thought. Can you imagine how unbalanced some of the old characters would've been cutting through swaths of enemies with free health lying all over the place? That's what may really limit the summoning in the game, and admittedly it is probably a good thing from a balance perspective.

Quote from "mahamoti" »

Sounds like the D2 necro to me.

BTW, Love the Pre-Duel Ante system in your sig - I'm for it!

Ok, i know I'm going to get flamed for this, but here me out (before laughing). Think of it as entertainment.


How about a Rathmian or Priest of Rathma class? This would be as they are in the books, not like the D2 Necro.

In the books, Mendeln, Zayl or Kara are more buff\spellcasters and stealth than the D2 necro. True, they summon, but not like an army. Most of their spells revolve around non-elemental magic by enchanting their bone daggers. They also do a good deal more fighting than the fairly fragile D2 necro.

Sooo....

- Dark, non-elemental caster. Think buffs, curses, and different variations on returning\redirecting magic damage. Non-direct damage. Teeth and Bone spear are only mentioned sparingly in the books and mostly as last resorts.
- Stealth with enchanted dagger, not just poison. I'm thinking stealthy assassin style 1 hit kills, sacrificing defense and health until sneaking through the mob and knocking of the big guys - then desperately building health off smaller kills via the new "orb" system.
- Blood\Summoning - (before you go all "there's no bodies" and the "WD does the summoning" on me - this would not be mass summoning like D2 - maybe 2 to 3 max per skill) I'm thinking again of the dagger as in the books. Blood is required. Upon a kill, the dagger inflicts a number of effects to a target. Shades, ghosts, skeletons, zombies, all the way up to full corporeal revives can be used, depending on the spell. some would be good fighters, some would be basically useful for reconnaisance, some would be utterly weak but release magic damage on death.

Ok, commence flaming: I like to provide something fun to laugh at...

Necromancer MAY return? Kind of like Master Chief MAY have been in Halo, Gordon Freeman MAY have been in Half-Life, or Batman MAY be in the Dark Knight...

Has Blizzard even read their own books? The Barb (Bul-Kathos) and the Necros (Rathma) are pretty darned integral to the story.

It's like they called a meeting to see how far they can push the game away from the Diablo feel. Newsflash, D1 and D2 didn't suck. Might be a good formula to base your game on.

I have reluctantly agreed to a lot of the changes but I have to say, this should've been in the initial release. Glad to hear we MAY get the Necro in an expansion, then we MAY have a worthy D3.