• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

So...Diablo 3?

clint g

Admiral
Admiral
Kinda surprised no one has made a Diablo 3 thread yet. I decided to give the game a whirl on account of the fact that everyone seems to love Diablo 1, 2, Starcraft, and everything else that Blizzard makes. Imagine my surprise when the fucking thing won't even work because the servers are down.

Anyways, anyone else pick it up yet/ get it to work?
 
I was waiting to buy it, after I heard about the server issues. But I did beta test it, and it was fun - I actually enjoyed it more than I enjoyed the first part of Starcraft II.
 
I was actually able to get it to work and did some solo play. So far it's pretty damn addicting though I don't get the insane level of gushing thrown upon the game. I'll give the multi-player a whirl tomorrow when I get off of work.
 
It is a fun game when it actually works. The key word here is "when".
I bought it online yesterday, had no trouble to connect to the servers, to create a character and to actually play for half an hour, but when I tried to enter the game again today, I get "The game connection has been lost; your client has been disconnected from the server" error and can't play no matter how many times I try to re-connect. The game is unplayable for me.
 
I'm playing it since the 15th.
I had To find the way to install it on Linux but it wasn't that complicated. I had some troubles to connect on the server on the 15th but since it's working perfectly for me.
I like it a lot butr I'm not sure that I'm very good at it. At least I have fun :)
 
The constantly being connected to a server turned me off from the game. It lagged in a few places, and I had to clear the entire area in front of the Cathedral again because I got DC'd. The fact that we're going to have to deal with server restarts and shut downs in the single player game is just inexcusable. I don't play like that.

I don't like the idea of a non-mmo game's longevity being determined by some server that's left turned on. I want to be able to play the game I bought any time, not when they say I can.
 
I'm having a lot of fun so far. In the first third of act two on Nightmare, currently.

Btw, did you know that the Templar is voiced by Dominic Keating from Enterprise?
He did an amazing job there. It's a joy listening to this guy.

On the other hand, the male Demonhunter is voiced by the guy who played Byron on Babylon 5, so...
 
I played tons of Diablo2 back in the day and loved it. When I got into the Diablo 3 beta back in december I played for about an hour. It bored me to tears. I had a hard time telling that it was a sequel and not just a re-install of Diablo 2. I never bothered to play it again,
 
I played tons of Diablo2 back in the day and loved it. When I got into the Diablo 3 beta back in december I played for about an hour. It bored me to tears. I had a hard time telling that it was a sequel and not just a re-install of Diablo 2. I never bothered to play it again,

I am surprised by that. The sound, graphics and CGI cut scenes are far, far more impressive than Diablo 2.
 
I am surprised by that. The sound, graphics and CGI cut scenes are far, far more impressive than Diablo 2.

Yeah. A sequel to a game that was published in 2000 will certainly look better in all departments. Sadly after playing and beating Torchwood, Diablo III isn't much of an improvement over that one, cutscenes or not.
 
I played tons of Diablo2 back in the day and loved it. When I got into the Diablo 3 beta back in december I played for about an hour. It bored me to tears. I had a hard time telling that it was a sequel and not just a re-install of Diablo 2. I never bothered to play it again,

I am surprised by that. The sound, graphics and CGI cut scenes are far, far more impressive than Diablo 2.

Yes, the graphics were higher res, but everything else was identical. Hell they even used the same exact sounds for everything.
 
The constant-connection thing massively turned me off to it.
Why?

I don't like the idea of my game's performance being constantly tied to the reliability of somebody else's server/computer/what have you. I like OnLive because it has a lot of sales, but if the titles I bought on there were available for comparable prices elsewhere I'd get a physical or Steam copy. Plus, I dislike the principle that a single player game with multiplayer options still requires a constant Internet connection to play, regardless of whether or not you intend to play multiplayer. Also, a player who doesn't have Internet or loses their connection for whatever reason is SOL as far as Blizzard is concerned.
 
I played tons of Diablo2 back in the day and loved it. When I got into the Diablo 3 beta back in december I played for about an hour. It bored me to tears. I had a hard time telling that it was a sequel and not just a re-install of Diablo 2. I never bothered to play it again,

I am surprised by that. The sound, graphics and CGI cut scenes are far, far more impressive than Diablo 2.

Yes, the graphics were higher res, but everything else was identical. Hell they even used the same exact sounds for everything.
No they didn't. The sound is noticeably higher quality
 
The online requirement was a no-go for me. I'd like to play offline when I prefer. I can't get over the weird idea that if the server is down, if my internet isn't working etc then I can't play it. It's ridiculous to have such a disadvantage, especially since the whole thing stinks of copy protection (which may not even be a secret).

I played it a bit at a friend's house. It is great, but Diablo II is still worthy of play. I picked up the Battle Chest at Best Buy for $20 and I'm going through LoD for the first time. What an incredible improvement! Lots of gems :D

Anyway, this whole move towards "only online" play will never sway me. I don't care how great a game is... if the publishers want to force me to play on their server... no sale.

The constant-connection thing massively turned me off to it.
Why?

I don't like the idea of my game's performance being constantly tied to the reliability of somebody else's server/computer/what have you. I like OnLive because it has a lot of sales, but if the titles I bought on there were available for comparable prices elsewhere I'd get a physical or Steam copy. Plus, I dislike the principle that a single player game with multiplayer options still requires a constant Internet connection to play, regardless of whether or not you intend to play multiplayer. Also, a player who doesn't have Internet or loses their connection for whatever reason is SOL as far as Blizzard is concerned.

A sentiment I agree with... and I think this bothers older games because younger gamers don't seem to care, they play a lot of online and are used to it.

Let me put it this way... you can blow the dust off a 8-bit Nintendo cart and play Super Mario Bros 1. at any time you like, so long as the hardware still works.

Can you do the same thing with a game like the now-defunct Star Wars Galaxies? Nope. They yanked the plug on the server, killing the game forever.

There's a real value in revisiting old games, if only even for the nostalgic value. People change and games don't so there is an experience worth revisiting an old game. I once heard it compared to revisiting an old playground, or the home/school you once were attached to.

Without that layer of future retro reflection, I just can't enjoy that game. Maybe I'm a head case but that's how it is. But I'll be hacking my way through Lord of Destruction's dungeons on an airplane or somewhere without wi-fi and very happy to do so.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top