I don't want this game to be WoW. I don't want to see a game world that is constantly changing. I don't want a million patches that keep "rebalancing" character classes to only, in the end, fail. I want a fairly static world that has a expansion or two then let it wind down and start making diablo 4. The only way I would accept a monthly fee was if it was the one and ONLY way to keep hackers under control. And even then anything over 10 a month would be out of the question.
My thoughts exactly - we shouldn't have to spend half an hour downloading patches every time we log on.
I am sorry for you, you don't realize that this world is composed of people that can have drastically different opinions.
I don't like dark games. I never liked dark games. I hate how DII looks and I would not buy DIII if it resembles DII at all. I am beings serios here. I won't buy it. The whole drained color and murky darkness and that idiotic light-radius-hero-is-a-torch thing makes my eyes hurt and I don't want DIII to be like DII, I want it to be like DI, colorful and claustraphobic. Not a game that looks like someone handled the graphical palete incorrectly. I am sure most DII fans like how DII looks but OF COURSE because they ARE DII fans. And you are one of them. I am not. I like my DI. I like color in games. I want game to relax me. I play my intelligent games where I concentrate, and I play my simple games like Diablo where I can relax. Black and grey and brown is annoying.
I like Diablo I too but if anything I find it more dark than Diablo 2 - look at Tristram in Diablo I - very gloomy and the monastary was even more so. Granted when I first played Diablo I I was about 6, but I was never as scared playing Diablo II as Diablo, it's just a far darker game in every sense.
Notice the withered trees and the damaged roof - blue is the main colour used:
Diablo II seems to have put colour back into the World - again we have an outdoor environment. The trees and bushes outside the play area are overgrown and contorted, spilling over the wall as if to attack the player:
Diablo III can do no wrong in my opinion, but the daemons seem somewhat out of place in a less that diabolical environment. We still have withered here and there and overgrown ruins, but I'm getting more of a God of War vibe.
Now, have a look what difference the weather makes - where before we had happy land + daemons now we have a suitable dreary daemon invested forest. Perhaps the first time you visit an area it could be devoid of daemons and sunny, but when you return it has been infested and is dreary. Which reminds me:
- I'd like to see daemons attack a town you're in and you have to defend it
But I digress, here's the rain:
Interesting, goatmen fighting skeletons... Do enemies fight eachother, can Witchdoctors summon skeletons or is the Necromancer still in the game?
As for the colour, I don't really mind that much - I'd probably like to see it a bit grimer but that's just my preference and I'm not going to inflict it on anybody else. The important thing is that when I first saw the gameplay trailer I was thinking "Wow! That's so awesome" and "that's a bit out of synch" but not "the colour is wrong".
Don't forget the plebs, the working class - we don't want scrubboes and poor university students playing on our servers. They're so uncouth. My daddy says I shouldn't talk to poor people, I might catch something nasty. Seulement les gens aisés doivent avoir le droit de jouer Diablo 3.
Just thought it would be interesting since Blizzard are going in a slightly different direction with their characters. Apparently most people are happy with this new approach (the characters having their own personalities in Diablo3).
The only problem I can see is players don't inhabit/own their character as much - they're less archetypes and more actual people, which is not nessecarily a good thing in a multiplayer game.
For example, if Prince of Persia was multiplayer and you could only choose to be the Prince or Farah, the suspension of disbelief would be broken by the large number of princes and farahs running around. On the other hand if you can be a generic arabian-acrobat-come-swordfighter or a generic anorexic-archer-chick-come-contortionist the game would make a bit more sense.
It didn't matter in Diablo 2 that all Necromancer/Barbarians/whatever had the same sort of voice because we knew where these guys came from, how they were trained and so on - they were similar but not the same person. If the Barbarian in Diablo 3 is a specific, well defined Barbarian with a strong character and a backstory, will it not make games with several Barbarians seem a little stupid?
As times change so do games. Today’s gaming benchmark for Diablo 3 is quite high. This isnt 2001 or 1997. Your making it sound like we should all go back to playing minesweeper 3d or something. Besides for every single player Diablo is a different type of experience, your 'killing demons' theory is great, but other people play the game for different reasons. Ie you have collectors, guild creators, people who play with hacks, people who Pk. its not just about killing demons, and it most certainly is about admiring scenery. This is not Prince of Persia!!! for Christ sake.
Exactly, Diablo is NOT about admiring scenery - I'm so glad we agree. Please take the time to read my message, I read your's and it was much longer than mine
If somebody released minesweeper 73 or something I would expect it to respect the original's core gameplay - otherwise it's not minesweeper, it's something else.
It's snobbish to say the creators of, say, Doom95 had lower production values because the game has no plot, no choice and no NPCs: that game is a masterpiece even by today's standards. The ONLY thing that should be important in a game is the GAMEPLAY because this is the only thing that is unique to games. Story can be found in books and visuals can be found in movies.
Diablo is indeed about item collection as well as bloody murder, but Player Killing (PK) has always been consentual: this is a cooperative game at heart. Making rape legal (as long as you yell "suprise!" of course) would ruin the game
I want new stuff as much as the next guy, but any new additions should respect the following Diablo principals:
- Unambivalently evil antagonists (so you have no qualms about killing them)
- Linear story (so as not to distract you from killing the evil dudes)
- Emphasis on killing stuff above all else (duh)
- Phat lewt (to help you in your killing of evil dudes)
- Cooperative play (because the more of you killing evil dudes, the merrier)
You can still make a lot of changes within these guidelines - I'm certainly not saying that this should just be a graphics update for Diablo 2! Diablo 3 should improve it's cooperative play, it's phat lewt, it's emphasis on killing stuff and so on but not add things that belong in another game.
Make sure you vote - I don't really have an opinion to tell the truth: it's less wierd having 3 generic Barbarians in a game than 3 of the same person but at the same time I loved Kratos in God of War. He makes the Barbarian sound like a big softie
Protagonists in games are split between those with no voice or personality (Jak, Mario, GTA3 guy, Gordon Freeman, Crash Bandicoot, Doom guy, etc), meaning the player can imprint their own personality on the character, and those with a clearly defined personality that drives the story (Ratchet, Spiro, Kratos, CJ, the new Prince of Persia, etc).
Diablo was until recently a series where the characters were more or less devoid of personality, letting the player "be" the character rather than just "control" the character. In Diablo 3 the characters are being given a greater degree of personality: no longer do we control "a" Barbarian but "the" Barbarian. Characters will now catch up with old friends and enemies and participate in conversations rather than just expressing their opinions on rare occaisions.
Is this a good idea in a game so based around playing with your friends, or is it cleverly adding depth to the game's story to the series? Discuss!
Dynaverse: All these game you refer to are great, but not Diablo - if you like Guild Wars, play Guild Wars, it's a good game, but it's not Diablo: Saying a game is good doesn't mean another good game's sequel should be a clone of it. Diablo is about killing stuff, plain and simple - there's this unambivalently evil dude and his chums and you have to go brutally murder them all.
Sprawling towns would require you to take time out of your busy killing schedule to explore them: if more than a minute goes by without you having killed a dude, you're not playing Diablo properly. As for travelling, Diablo I had short-cuts, Diablo II had the waypoint and both had town portals: all these things work fine, why change them? This is not a game where you ride around on your horse admiring the scenery, this is a game where you murder your way through tons of evil dudes. The same thing with dressing up in nice clothes or building more than simple items (Horadric cube): these things distract you from killing, and killing is what this game is about.
I worry about games taking themselves too seriously. Doom95 is fantastic fun, and all you ever do is shoot daemons. If you like you can bring your buddies along too and shoot daemons together. Diablo 3 should stick to its roots: it's a game about killing daemons with your friends, not making difficult choices or admiring scenery or engaging in politics.
Tyrael's the archangel so I doubt heaven just "sold" him. He's on the angiris council too, stated in the book.
He's AN archangel: so was Izual and well all know what happen to him. He turned BLUE! Anyway, We'll see... I'd reallly like to see Tyrael fight in-game, that'd be awesome.
As for the Servant Of Swine (let's call him SOS - a name that fits him pretty well I think) I don't think a second smart-ass is needed really: we already have Cain to tell us everything we need to know, though there may be a quest to recover his journal and bring it back to Cain for clues.
But how many of those are viable in Hell? Really not that many. To be an efficient killer, you almost need to follow the cookie cutter builds. More so if you're talking about pvp.
When a game gets so hard/competitive that there's only one way of winning I don't think it's worth playing anymore. I rarely play past nightmare myself. Player creativity, not conformity, should be encouraged. I would make a suggestion how, but I'm not the one being paid to come up with solutions - that's Blizzard's job.
- I think the Barbarian should get Shapeshifting skills rather than weapon masteries since these were a bit boring. This would mean that you can have all the Druid's coolness in a different character (because apart from shapeshifting he was more or less a Sorceress and a Necromancer combined).
- It's good that the Witchdoctor can summon anywhere since fighting Diablo with skeletons was next to impossible (they died and you couldn't summon them back). I'd like to see some more summonings though, big ones
- I want to see a ranged character specialising in throwing weapons, who can move around quickly by jumping and dodging - sort of like the barbarian's leap only not as agressively. This character could be a sort of ninja assassin type thing, good at hit and run attacks and dancing around the enemy throwing sharp objects at them.
Abd = African/Arabic: Slave/Servant of
Al = Arabic: The/Of/From
Hazir = Hebrew: Swine
So unless I've translated it badly (which I probably have) he's "The servant of swine" or "Servant of the swine" or something - not sure that really fits his personality - they probably just thought it sounded cool
I'm pretty sure that rescuing NPCs will be a major part of the game:
1. Rescue Cain (sort of) from the Tristram Cathedral where he's so busy reading stuff that he's oblivious to the monster infestation.
2. Rescue Abd al-Hazir from cultists/don't get there in time and see him possessed/eaten/sacrificed
3. Rescue Tyrael from Hell because Heaven, annoyed by his disobendience, has sold him to Diablo
4. Rescue Diablo, and several billion daemons, from life
0
0
I like Diablo I too but if anything I find it more dark than Diablo 2 - look at Tristram in Diablo I - very gloomy and the monastary was even more so. Granted when I first played Diablo I I was about 6, but I was never as scared playing Diablo II as Diablo, it's just a far darker game in every sense.
Notice the withered trees and the damaged roof - blue is the main colour used:
Diablo II seems to have put colour back into the World - again we have an outdoor environment. The trees and bushes outside the play area are overgrown and contorted, spilling over the wall as if to attack the player:
Diablo III can do no wrong in my opinion, but the daemons seem somewhat out of place in a less that diabolical environment. We still have withered here and there and overgrown ruins, but I'm getting more of a God of War vibe.
Now, have a look what difference the weather makes - where before we had happy land + daemons now we have a suitable dreary daemon invested forest. Perhaps the first time you visit an area it could be devoid of daemons and sunny, but when you return it has been infested and is dreary. Which reminds me:
- I'd like to see daemons attack a town you're in and you have to defend it
But I digress, here's the rain:
Interesting, goatmen fighting skeletons... Do enemies fight eachother, can Witchdoctors summon skeletons or is the Necromancer still in the game?
As for the colour, I don't really mind that much - I'd probably like to see it a bit grimer but that's just my preference and I'm not going to inflict it on anybody else. The important thing is that when I first saw the gameplay trailer I was thinking "Wow! That's so awesome" and "that's a bit out of synch" but not "the colour is wrong".
0
0
Don't forget the plebs, the working class - we don't want scrubboes and poor university students playing on our servers. They're so uncouth. My daddy says I shouldn't talk to poor people, I might catch something nasty. Seulement les gens aisés doivent avoir le droit de jouer Diablo 3.
0
The only problem I can see is players don't inhabit/own their character as much - they're less archetypes and more actual people, which is not nessecarily a good thing in a multiplayer game.
For example, if Prince of Persia was multiplayer and you could only choose to be the Prince or Farah, the suspension of disbelief would be broken by the large number of princes and farahs running around. On the other hand if you can be a generic arabian-acrobat-come-swordfighter or a generic anorexic-archer-chick-come-contortionist the game would make a bit more sense.
It didn't matter in Diablo 2 that all Necromancer/Barbarians/whatever had the same sort of voice because we knew where these guys came from, how they were trained and so on - they were similar but not the same person. If the Barbarian in Diablo 3 is a specific, well defined Barbarian with a strong character and a backstory, will it not make games with several Barbarians seem a little stupid?
0
If somebody released minesweeper 73 or something I would expect it to respect the original's core gameplay - otherwise it's not minesweeper, it's something else.
It's snobbish to say the creators of, say, Doom95 had lower production values because the game has no plot, no choice and no NPCs: that game is a masterpiece even by today's standards. The ONLY thing that should be important in a game is the GAMEPLAY because this is the only thing that is unique to games. Story can be found in books and visuals can be found in movies.
Diablo is indeed about item collection as well as bloody murder, but Player Killing (PK) has always been consentual: this is a cooperative game at heart. Making rape legal (as long as you yell "suprise!" of course) would ruin the game
I want new stuff as much as the next guy, but any new additions should respect the following Diablo principals:
- Unambivalently evil antagonists (so you have no qualms about killing them)
- Linear story (so as not to distract you from killing the evil dudes)
- Emphasis on killing stuff above all else (duh)
- Phat lewt (to help you in your killing of evil dudes)
- Cooperative play (because the more of you killing evil dudes, the merrier)
You can still make a lot of changes within these guidelines - I'm certainly not saying that this should just be a graphics update for Diablo 2! Diablo 3 should improve it's cooperative play, it's phat lewt, it's emphasis on killing stuff and so on but not add things that belong in another game.
0
0
Diablo was until recently a series where the characters were more or less devoid of personality, letting the player "be" the character rather than just "control" the character. In Diablo 3 the characters are being given a greater degree of personality: no longer do we control "a" Barbarian but "the" Barbarian. Characters will now catch up with old friends and enemies and participate in conversations rather than just expressing their opinions on rare occaisions.
Is this a good idea in a game so based around playing with your friends, or is it cleverly adding depth to the game's story to the series? Discuss!
0
Sprawling towns would require you to take time out of your busy killing schedule to explore them: if more than a minute goes by without you having killed a dude, you're not playing Diablo properly. As for travelling, Diablo I had short-cuts, Diablo II had the waypoint and both had town portals: all these things work fine, why change them? This is not a game where you ride around on your horse admiring the scenery, this is a game where you murder your way through tons of evil dudes. The same thing with dressing up in nice clothes or building more than simple items (Horadric cube): these things distract you from killing, and killing is what this game is about.
I worry about games taking themselves too seriously. Doom95 is fantastic fun, and all you ever do is shoot daemons. If you like you can bring your buddies along too and shoot daemons together. Diablo 3 should stick to its roots: it's a game about killing daemons with your friends, not making difficult choices or admiring scenery or engaging in politics.
0
As for the Servant Of Swine (let's call him SOS - a name that fits him pretty well I think) I don't think a second smart-ass is needed really: we already have Cain to tell us everything we need to know, though there may be a quest to recover his journal and bring it back to Cain for clues.
0
When a game gets so hard/competitive that there's only one way of winning I don't think it's worth playing anymore. I rarely play past nightmare myself. Player creativity, not conformity, should be encouraged. I would make a suggestion how, but I'm not the one being paid to come up with solutions - that's Blizzard's job.
0
- It's good that the Witchdoctor can summon anywhere since fighting Diablo with skeletons was next to impossible (they died and you couldn't summon them back). I'd like to see some more summonings though, big ones
- I want to see a ranged character specialising in throwing weapons, who can move around quickly by jumping and dodging - sort of like the barbarian's leap only not as agressively. This character could be a sort of ninja assassin type thing, good at hit and run attacks and dancing around the enemy throwing sharp objects at them.
0
Al = Arabic: The/Of/From
Hazir = Hebrew: Swine
So unless I've translated it badly (which I probably have) he's "The servant of swine" or "Servant of the swine" or something - not sure that really fits his personality - they probably just thought it sounded cool
0
0
1. Rescue Cain (sort of) from the Tristram Cathedral where he's so busy reading stuff that he's oblivious to the monster infestation.
2. Rescue Abd al-Hazir from cultists/don't get there in time and see him possessed/eaten/sacrificed
3. Rescue Tyrael from Hell because Heaven, annoyed by his disobendience, has sold him to Diablo
4. Rescue Diablo, and several billion daemons, from life