DiabloFans

Quote from umtwademel

Are you seriously saying that you just want to play D2 again with better graphics? I don't even know how to respond to that...

This kind of bullshit exists in the Starcraft community and it's even worse. (In relation to Starcraft: Brood War fans who think that SC2 is too radically different from SC1 despite being one of the most conservative sequels to an RTS game of all time).

Blizzard game fans tend to be absolutely obnoxious and unforgiving about change. Many of them latch onto insignificant details such as specific economic game systems, or the exact ways that the controls for a game work, or changes in the graphical style. They then parade around the interwebz claiming that Feature X, Y, and Z are responsible for the greatness of past Blizzard games.

I find it disturbing the complete lack of trust that Blizzard's fans exhibit. It's like the Diablo community is trying to demoralize the developers and just make them stop wanting to develop the game. Blizzard always pulls through with a superior product in the end, and yet they never gain the trust of most gamers. It's a sad day when the Call of Duty series has a more loyal fanbase than the Diablo and Starcraft series do...

I fully expect that a few years after Diablo 3's release, it will be as loved and well respected by Blizzard fans as their other games are. I would personally bet on it.

"By facilitating the use of real world currency and thus facilitating the azn farmers your are then directly reducing the enjoyment people will get from actually playing the game."

This sentiment is so whiny and ridiculous. The only people whose enjoyment will be "reduced" are the people who play in a manner that is inconsistent with their goals. Everybody is acting like the only way they will be able to gear up their character is by purchasing items using real money. Want to play legit? Then fucking stop bitching and play legit. Why is that so hard to understand?

As for not supporting e-sports, Blizzard has already mentioned several times that the game will not be balanced for PVP, and the game will not be supported for eSports. The only people who see this as an issue are the people who haven't paid attention to any fucking thing that has been going on the past couple years.

It's mind-boggling to me that people are raging hard about the PvP announcements so far. If we use Diablo 2 as the bar for PvP so far, it still sounds completely to me like Diablo 3 will be better in every way.

Was Diablo 2 balanced for PvP? No
Did Diablo 2 have a ladder system? No
Did Diablo 2 have any stat tracking for PvP? No
Was there a convienent way to duel in PvP in Diablo 2? No

Why are people acting like Blizzard is ruining something which was never good in the first place? From the sound of things, PvP in Diablo 3 will be quite similar to PvP in Diablo 2 except there will actually be a level of support outside of needing to duel people outside of the town, worrying about monsters and shit getting in the way.

Quote from Crypto137

Quote from AlexanderZero

People are ignoring the fact that you can't cash out the money in real life. D3 won't turn into a business because there is no business incentive. In fact the RMAH may be an effective tool in limiting the number of people who attempt to play the game solely for the purpose of farming stuff and selling it for real money.

Proof? If you won't be able to cash out the money, than what's the point? It will be the same as buying some gold.

Hmm there are actually conflicting bits of information here. In the recap video they say you can't cash out, but in the FAQ it says you can cash out. Now I'm just confused.

EDIT: And to all the people whining about being surpassed by people who spend real money. Is your e-peen big enough yet?

People are ignoring the fact that you can't cash out the money in real life. D3 won't turn into a business because there is no business incentive. In fact the RMAH may be an effective tool in limiting the number of people who attempt to play the game solely for the purpose of farming stuff and selling it for real money.

I think people are really overreacting about the real money auction house. You don't HAVE to spend real money to do well in the game. The RMAH will potentially earn more money for Blizzard which means that Diablo 3 will have a means of supporting itself and paying for the cost of running the servers. Would you rather have this or paid subscription? Battle.net 2.0 is not a cheap system to operate. WoW has monthly subscription and SC2 has e-sports money.

Why would you get offended by the idea of someone who paid for their items being further than you? That same thing was rampant in Diablo 2. Besides, if you spend time farming and selling your wares on the RMAH, you can use the e-currency to buy the items you need.

I remember hearing Blizzard say in the past that they were interested in making a version of Diablo 3 for consoles, but they said that they would have to re-do a lot of things, so in essence it would be a similar, but different game on the consoles.

I don't know if that means new/different content for the consoles, but I don't really see the Diablo 3 team being able to produce content for two unique Diablo 3 experiences. The most likely choice in my opinion is that Blizzard will try to make as direct of a port as possible, but will still have to redo a lot of skills to be more controller friendly and the control scheme as well.

I really hope that any console venture won't be too difficult or distracting for the Diablo 3 team to handle. I also hope that console sales won't be so big in comparison to PC sales that Blizzard would begin to prioritize consoles first for the Diablo series.

To be honest, I think they should just stay away from consoles. The only possible effect that this is going to have is to make PC development of Diablo 3 and it's expansions slower, which is a really big minus.

Sometimes I just can't help but feel that people who make such a big stink about realistic graphics haven't been gaming for very long. Graphical realism has been constantly improving since video games were invented. A game with awesome graphics today probably won't be turning any heads for the way it looks a few years from now. It just doesn't seem very important to me for a video game to have really cutting-edge graphics. Any development studio can shit out a project with flashy particle effects and bump mapping and whatever other fancy effects.

I would much rather have a game that is definitive and artistic in style. Some of my favorite video game graphics are from games that are several years old, like Roller Coaster Tycoon or Ultima Online.

That being said, graphics overall (whether photorealistic, or more artistic) just aren't that important. Gameplay has always been, and always will be the most important part of a video game. I would probably get bored with Crysis 2 in five minutes, but I've spent days playing roguelike RPGs.

Sadly the US is not a free country and never has been. :/

Anti-meteor: Target monster flies into space.

Hopefully they won't be too hard to get because at some point I want to make a character that is completely decked out, and that means having full sockets with highest quality gems in them!

It will be impossible to know until beta begins. My guess is no just because, what happens if you run to the edge of a map? I doubt the artists are going to model the environment far enough out that it could display a whole monitors worth of stuff outside of the boundaries. I think its not supported in SC2 to avoid giving an unfair advantage, since in that game only being able to see one screen of stuff increases the difficulty.

Why would Blizzard be working on Halo? Halo is published by Microsoft, they probably wouldn't give IP rights to their popular franchise to Activision-Blizzard.

Hmm I guess he didn't explicitly say that it was his job to give them ideas for content, I just got that weird impression for some reason. I'm gonna edit my original post, not trying to do a ninja edit or anything but I dont want this whole thread to get derailed by the chaos that statement would otherwise cause

I realize that they hire testers to look for bugs, but this guy is making the claim that they're hiring testers to work on content with them.