Blizzard Announce Diablo 3
- Thread starter Bob The Skutter
- Start date
You know.. i'd take a well programmed, balanced and fun game by Blizzard over any overhyped, buggy and way too soon released game that's gonna break the gaming world in half.
Blizzard may not reinvent the gaming world with their games but they sure make them fun and improve them enough to occupy gamers for insane (and sometimes unhealthy) amounts of time.
^
One thing I've really got to give Blizzard credit for is that they seem to have really good quality assurance in place. Over the past few years, I haven't seen a single one of their games released prematurely. They make sure the games are at a point where you as a gamer (if you like the genre etc.) can actually play and enjoy them.
I also admire the fact that after all the hype and reports they never released SC: Ghost. It obviously didn't meet their standards and the preferred pulling the game rather than releasing a 'bad' game that would taint their reputation.
One thing I've really got to give Blizzard credit for is that they seem to have really good quality assurance in place. Over the past few years, I haven't seen a single one of their games released prematurely. They make sure the games are at a point where you as a gamer (if you like the genre etc.) can actually play and enjoy them.
I also admire the fact that after all the hype and reports they never released SC: Ghost. It obviously didn't meet their standards and the preferred pulling the game rather than releasing a 'bad' game that would taint their reputation.
Maybe I'm just thinking more about SC2, since that's the only Blizzard game that I'm interested in. I was hoping they'd respond to Relic, especially since Relic has declared themselves the best RTS developer in the industry. It just feels like EALA and Blizzard has totally dropped the ball on pushing RTSes forward.
Hellgate's failure does kind of show that Blizzard may be on to something I suppose. Then again, I guess it's because they don't have any competitors in the ARPG or, really, the MMO space.
if relic declared themselves to be the best rts developer, that's fine. people can claim whatever they like. if they want to say their game is like a good steak and fine wine, that is fine too.
i think the blizzard's response will be to release a solid game and let the gamers decide.
as for pushing things forward... it's hard to claim sc2 hasnt pushed anything forward when one hasn't played it yet. and if this article is to be believed http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=18326 perhaps some advances weren't the best choices.
Just because Relic did something different with their RTS's doesn't mean that's the only way to push the genre forward. I thought CoH was great when I finally got around to playing it a few months ago, but it's a totally different sort of RTS from something like Starcraft... and there's room for both.
I don't know. I just think the core mechanic of having an economy tied to progress in the battlefield more interesting than one based on how many workers you can get on the field. That alone is a huge difference that just makes CoH faster than the major RTS franchises and forces people to engage as quickly as possible. There were other games that tried the same mechanic, but it just works in CoH.
I don't want to get into a SC vs CoH thing, but I don't understand this "it looks and works like crap, so it plays better" arguement from that Gamasutra article. It's like people who insist on Counter Strike 1.6 with all the graphical settings turned down. Yeah, maybe "high level players" like that... meanwhile, I'll play CoD4 or other games that both look and play great.
And you know, you can totally micro in CoH. In fact, it's encouraged to micro because armor in the game reflects the weaknesses of real world armor. High level CoH play is probably as "micro-ey" as high level SC play with the right players.
But this thread is supposed to be about Diablo.
I think I'm just stating my general disappointment in Blizzard as a whole, but of course, they are in the unique position where they can simply be iterative and succeed.
I don't want to get into a SC vs CoH thing, but I don't understand this "it looks and works like crap, so it plays better" arguement from that Gamasutra article. It's like people who insist on Counter Strike 1.6 with all the graphical settings turned down. Yeah, maybe "high level players" like that... meanwhile, I'll play CoD4 or other games that both look and play great.
And you know, you can totally micro in CoH. In fact, it's encouraged to micro because armor in the game reflects the weaknesses of real world armor. High level CoH play is probably as "micro-ey" as high level SC play with the right players.
But this thread is supposed to be about Diablo.
I think I'm just stating my general disappointment in Blizzard as a whole, but of course, they are in the unique position where they can simply be iterative and succeed.
I'm not too bothered where the thread goes.I don't know. I just think the core mechanic of having an economy tied to progress in the battlefield more interesting than one based on how many workers you can get on the field. That alone is a huge difference that just makes CoH faster than the major RTS franchises and forces people to engage as quickly as possible. There were other games that tried the same mechanic, but it just works in CoH.
I don't want to get into a SC vs CoH thing, but I don't understand this "it looks and works like crap, so it plays better" arguement from that Gamasutra article. It's like people who insist on Counter Strike 1.6 with all the graphical settings turned down. Yeah, maybe "high level players" like that... meanwhile, I'll play CoD4 or other games that both look and play great.
And you know, you can totally micro in CoH. In fact, it's encouraged to micro because armor in the game reflects the weaknesses of real world armor. High level CoH play is probably as "micro-ey" as high level SC play with the right players.
But this thread is supposed to be about Diablo.
I think I'm just stating my general disappointment in Blizzard as a whole, but of course, they are in the unique position where they can simply be iterative and succeed.
I started playing Diablo 2 again yesterday, and I was playing for a couple of hours. But it sort of struck me that basically a large part of it is a big part of why I don't like MMOs, you spent half your time going around killing things, getting no where, just to get enough XP, money, weapons or whatever to face the next challenge. Rather than just naturally flowing along, you're forced to go off and spend an hour click click clicking.
Diablo was by definition grinding and aiming for the loot. I think the only reason why people were invested was because of "hardcore" mode, where you could lose everything if you died.
I must admit, there's something interesting in that concept. It's almost Rogue-like, but I guess you have to be in that mindset to find that type of gameplay interesting.
I must admit, there's something interesting in that concept. It's almost Rogue-like, but I guess you have to be in that mindset to find that type of gameplay interesting.
I've never played any of the Diablo games, I've wanted to try them out, but never got around to it. As an ex-wow player, I'm a huge fan of blizzard. I've never played Starcraft, but I've never been much of an RTS guy.
The gameplay trailer looked good, looks like a lot of fun, seems now might be the time I finally try out Diablo 2
The gameplay trailer looked good, looks like a lot of fun, seems now might be the time I finally try out Diablo 2
I enjoyed both Diablo games (although I never did get around to finishing II) so may well shell out for the third instalment - heck I may even upgrade my PC so it'll run it......
I watched the gameplay videos with interest, but quickly found myself bored after the barbarian killed his 10,000th consecutive creature. D3 looks okay graphics wise, but I think it will leave much to be desired in terms of its gameplay.
the diablo battlechest has all the games...
Graphics wise, i've not been exactly happy with course Blizzard has been going, so here is a hope that this one will revise that.
As a complete newbie to Diablo, I bought the battlechest when it was on sale a year or so ago. Played through the first one, haven't gotten to the second yet. Wasn't expecting a third one quite so soon, but it's good to hear. Gives me a good reason to pop the second one in.
Of course, with the rate that Blizzard puts out games, I think I can take my time.
And that's not a complaint, really. I love the uniquely anal-retentive perfectionist position that Blizzard has put itself in. Makes for a hell of a batting record qualitywise.
Of course, with the rate that Blizzard puts out games, I think I can take my time.
And that's not a complaint, really. I love the uniquely anal-retentive perfectionist position that Blizzard has put itself in. Makes for a hell of a batting record qualitywise.
Love the Diablo games. I'm a big WoW (World of Warcraft) fan as well.
Diablo pretty much IS hack and slash. It's basically an updated version of the old 1980s game "Gauntlet". WoW is more about crafting an online persona.
I think I actually prefer the frenetic button-smashing action of a game like Diablo to the more sedentary pace of WoW so I'm very much looking forward to this.
Diablo pretty much IS hack and slash. It's basically an updated version of the old 1980s game "Gauntlet". WoW is more about crafting an online persona.
I think I actually prefer the frenetic button-smashing action of a game like Diablo to the more sedentary pace of WoW so I'm very much looking forward to this.