If Diablo 3 comes out as Diablo 3 it shouldnt be compared with WoW cause it will be a different kind of game. Lets not start with "which one will be better, Diablo 3 or WoW". Its all a matter of what u like more...
And even if a diablo game comes as a MMO i'm pretty sure it will be WAY different than WoW so it'll get more people that play other games and not just the regular WoW players.
This isn't saying I wouldn't love a Diablo 3, but there's no way it will even compare to WoW.
Pure speculation. I don't see any evidence of your claims either, besides things based on your opinion.
If its made by blizzard, you should know that it will be just as good or better then WoW, if its not, blizzard wont release it
I don't think more true words have ever been spoken on this forum. Every game made by Blizzard has been an outright success.
No, it wouldn't compare, because al the best staff are develpoing patches and expasions for WoW.
That doesn't mean anything. Hell, if I knew how to write code, I bet I could make a patch or an expansion for WoW that would completely ruin it. And I'm sure there are other people who are even more capable of doing so.
I agree with you there, FingolfinGR. On another note, just to contribute to the discussion, there are quite a few features in WoW, as well as ones that are coming out, that are derived from D2.
I don't think more true words have ever been spoken on this forum. Every game made by Blizzard has been an outright success.
So, then why did you agree with a guy earlier today in saying Ghost tanked? Hardly sounds like an outright success.
And there -is- no way it can compare to WoW. They're two different games. That's like saying Super Smash Bros sucks compared to Super Mario Bros: Two different games, one publisher.
EDIT: To clarify, unless D3 is an MMO, it won't be nearly as successful, which is generally how one derives a game as being good, though not in every case.
So, then why did you agree with a guy earlier today in saying Ghost tanked? Hardly sounds like an outright success.
First of all, it was never released, so there wasn't a chance for it to be a success if there are no sales. It's stupid to say otherwise. Not to mention that you've taken what I have said out of context. You're saying it like I thought that it was bound to be a failure. In fact, I was looking forward to the release of that game.
Also, I agreed with some guy about SC:Ghost "tanking" because it was indefinitely postponed. Which is virtually a cancel. Either that or they are not going to work on it for a long time. They've given up on the project for the time being.
Quote from "C-700" »
And there -is- no way it can compare to WoW. They're two different games. That's like saying Super Smash Bros sucks compared to Super Mario Bros: Two different games, one publisher.
SSBM and SSB are almost exactly the same. There are next to no differences between them aside from graphics and other extras like that trophy dispenser and things like that. I can compare those easily. Especially since they're a series.
SSBM and SSB are almost exactly the same. There are next to no differences between them aside from graphics and other extras like that trophy dispenser and things like that. I can compare those easily. Especially since they're a series.
Read my post, I said Super Smash Brothers and Super Mario brothers.
EDIT: To clarify, unless D3 is an MMO, it won't be nearly as successful, which is generally how one derives a game as being good, though not in every case.
So you're saying that D3 can't be successful unless it's an MMO...that's a statement bound to piss a lot of people off.
yes it is lol
thanks mutton... i read that and started to get a little upset untill you typed in what i was going to say... but ill say this:
yes wc has sold more games, 25 million
compated to diablos 17 million... but wait wc has had 6 games including wow compared to diablos 3 games diablo has sold nearly 5.66 million copies per game... wc, 4.16 million
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you ever meet a hafling and a hungry dragon you dont have to outrun the dragon, you only have to outrun the hafling.
Is this thread about WC? Oh wait...the thread is about WoW. Although it was a nice try. But even if it was about the entire series, you have to take into account the monthly fees paid each month. Now, WoW was released on November of 2004. It has had less time to make those sales and only undersold D2 by a million. WoW made Blizzard sell over 3 million copies a year, compared to D2's 1.17 million copies a year. WoW hasn't made an expansion yet, so I'm not counting LoD yet, although I don't know if that number is included in the D2 sales final number.
You also have to recognize the fact that there are far more video gamers nowadays then there were over 6 years ago. And considering that, D2 sold 1 million in 2 weeks. Which was a record-breaker back then.
Good point. But even considering that, D2 was never a consumer's game, like that shit EA Games cranks out all the time, so sales wouldn't be super-high to begin with.
WoW is pretty easily accesible, and non-gamers play it all the time.
Good point. But even considering that, D2 was never a consumer's game, like that shit EA Games cranks out all the time, so sales wouldn't be super-high to begin with.
WoW is pretty easily accesible, and non-gamers play it all the time.
Diablo 2 was considered a casual gamers, game. In fact, Blizzard was considered a casual gamer's company.
I'm a hardcore gamers, and D2 wasn't extremely casual.
The RTS games they were known for hardly are for casul gamers.
To you. You have no idea what you're talking about, do you? Have you even owned a copy of either of those games? They are hardly time-demanding games. I used to play them all the time and still made time for sports and homework, and all that other stuff.
Technically speaking, no games are time demanding. But, take into account the addiciton level of the games, and there's your casual to hardcore change.
And yes, I've owned a copy of Starcraft and played D2 pretty extensively.
Oh really? I had no idea you owned Starcraft and Diablo 2 " in a large extent, range, or amount".
Demanding meaning addicting. Obviously a game cannot demand that you play it for a certain amount of time (at least the ones that we have now). In which case, demanding is the equivalent of addicting. Can't step to my semantics.
That's not saying Diablo would be bad. Just saying it wouldn't compare.
And even if a diablo game comes as a MMO i'm pretty sure it will be WAY different than WoW so it'll get more people that play other games and not just the regular WoW players.
Pure speculation. I don't see any evidence of your claims either, besides things based on your opinion.
I don't think more true words have ever been spoken on this forum. Every game made by Blizzard has been an outright success.
That doesn't mean anything. Hell, if I knew how to write code, I bet I could make a patch or an expansion for WoW that would completely ruin it. And I'm sure there are other people who are even more capable of doing so.
I agree with you there, FingolfinGR. On another note, just to contribute to the discussion, there are quite a few features in WoW, as well as ones that are coming out, that are derived from D2.
And there -is- no way it can compare to WoW. They're two different games. That's like saying Super Smash Bros sucks compared to Super Mario Bros: Two different games, one publisher.
EDIT: To clarify, unless D3 is an MMO, it won't be nearly as successful, which is generally how one derives a game as being good, though not in every case.
Also, I agreed with some guy about SC:Ghost "tanking" because it was indefinitely postponed. Which is virtually a cancel. Either that or they are not going to work on it for a long time. They've given up on the project for the time being.
SSBM and SSB are almost exactly the same. There are next to no differences between them aside from graphics and other extras like that trophy dispenser and things like that. I can compare those easily. Especially since they're a series.
Read my post, I said Super Smash Brothers and Super Mario brothers.
To address your edit:
So you're saying that D3 can't be successful unless it's an MMO...that's a statement bound to piss a lot of people off.
thanks mutton... i read that and started to get a little upset untill you typed in what i was going to say... but ill say this:
yes wc has sold more games, 25 million
compated to diablos 17 million... but wait wc has had 6 games including wow compared to diablos 3 games diablo has sold nearly 5.66 million copies per game... wc, 4.16 million
WoW is pretty easily accesible, and non-gamers play it all the time.
Diablo 2 was considered a casual gamers, game. In fact, Blizzard was considered a casual gamer's company.
The RTS games they were known for hardly are for casul gamers.
To you. You have no idea what you're talking about, do you? Have you even owned a copy of either of those games? They are hardly time-demanding games. I used to play them all the time and still made time for sports and homework, and all that other stuff.
And yes, I've owned a copy of Starcraft and played D2 pretty extensively.
Demanding meaning addicting. Obviously a game cannot demand that you play it for a certain amount of time (at least the ones that we have now). In which case, demanding is the equivalent of addicting. Can't step to my semantics.