nextgeneration
Member
Wow, I never knew it came out on n64. Just did a youtube of it. Wow, just wow. How in the hell can you even control that? lol
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Blizzard CEO comments on Diablo III for consoles
- Thread starter Pooya
- Start date
Draft said:
The graphics portion I can maybe agree on since it's blizzard we're talking about and visuals are certainly not their forte (though I'd love to see how "well" they'd do with the PS3 hardware heh). Poorly controlled though is, well odd, since especially on PS3 it would boil down to what you would use: Controller, KB/M, Move.
bigdaddygamebot
Member
Majine said:
Yeah...that's GOT to be the reason right? : /
If they want it to happen...it'll happen.
BloodySinner
Banned
Draft said:
Why any sane human being do that? Some would rather rush out and buy that $399.99+ console, along with that $59.99+ game and accessories instead of just buying a simple sub-$150 video card for their desktops.
evil solrac v3.0
Member
J-Rzez said:
and what console gamer do you know that is going to go out and buy a mouse and keyboard for one game?
J-Rzez said:
Except that if it came out for PS3 it would certainly also be controller compatible. In order to make it controller compatible they would have slow things down in general and change any number of spells that used to rely on precision placement. So even if you played with move or kb/m you'd still be playing a necessarily dumbed down console version.
krypt0nian
Banned
Tobor said:
It is your destiny!
They are delaying Torchlight II because of this port.soultron said:
http://www.giantbomb.com/news/torchlight-xbla-pushes-torchlight-ii-to-july/2913/
Minsc
Gold Member
Zzoram said:
Right now that means spending $1200 to play StarCraft 2 on medium/high settings at a non-native resolution at under 60 fps I believe (for sure if you don't run bootcamp), low-end iMac comes with a 4670, might be smarter to just buy a $500 or $600 laptop if you have any use for one, or hope it comes on a console like this thread suggests.
Would love to see it happen.
For the PC crowd that is concerned, I doubt there is anything to worry about. First off this is not a complicated game to begin with that would even need to be dumbed down for the console crowd, unless they are adding significant complexity beyond Diablo 2. Blizzard knows who their main audience is, and they are probably going to make the game first and foremost for that crowd. I bet if they do a console version, they will either start working on it after the PC version is finished and potentially released, or it will be just a small side team focused on porting it.
Concerning how it would translate to a controller, it just takes a little imagination. Outside of specific on the fly item and potion management I do not really see anything that would need to be streamlined, and I think from what I have heard about the game they have streamlined that anyway for the PC already. You just map an attack button, and the majority of the other buttons on the controllers would work like hotkeys where you assign spells and skills to them. If you need more you add a radial menu for additional customization. Left stick moves and right stick aims the selected spell almost like a twin stick shooter. If you need to do something more precise, you hold down a trigger/ bumper a cursor comes up and you move it over to your target and fire.
Of course it is not going to be as good of controls as a mouse and keyboard, but it is not nearly as complex or convoluted as trying to map a complex RTS to a controller, and that has been done passably by much less competent people then Blizzard. One thing you could do that I do not believe you could do with Diablo 2 is kite enemies while still firing which could make up for some of the balance issues with the slower less precise input. No more locking your character down to keep them from accidentally rushing into a mob with a faulty click.
For the PC crowd that is concerned, I doubt there is anything to worry about. First off this is not a complicated game to begin with that would even need to be dumbed down for the console crowd, unless they are adding significant complexity beyond Diablo 2. Blizzard knows who their main audience is, and they are probably going to make the game first and foremost for that crowd. I bet if they do a console version, they will either start working on it after the PC version is finished and potentially released, or it will be just a small side team focused on porting it.
Concerning how it would translate to a controller, it just takes a little imagination. Outside of specific on the fly item and potion management I do not really see anything that would need to be streamlined, and I think from what I have heard about the game they have streamlined that anyway for the PC already. You just map an attack button, and the majority of the other buttons on the controllers would work like hotkeys where you assign spells and skills to them. If you need more you add a radial menu for additional customization. Left stick moves and right stick aims the selected spell almost like a twin stick shooter. If you need to do something more precise, you hold down a trigger/ bumper a cursor comes up and you move it over to your target and fire.
Of course it is not going to be as good of controls as a mouse and keyboard, but it is not nearly as complex or convoluted as trying to map a complex RTS to a controller, and that has been done passably by much less competent people then Blizzard. One thing you could do that I do not believe you could do with Diablo 2 is kite enemies while still firing which could make up for some of the balance issues with the slower less precise input. No more locking your character down to keep them from accidentally rushing into a mob with a faulty click.
evil solrac v3.0
Member
Tobor said:
dollars to donuts it will play better in the laptop.
It's not a twin stick shooter. A LOT of the spells required precise targeting to be effective. You can't place hydras where you want just by aiming in a direction with the right stick. Similarly you'd have a hard time setting distance for moves like leap and firewall. Maybe they could make you hold a button and push a distance bar out with the RS but it would take way longer than clicking and diablo is a super fast paced game where a seconds delay means death.C4Lukins said:
Remember, diablo 2 was so fast paced you had to hit monsters faster than they could hit you to not die as a melee character. A moments break in your attack due to sluggish controls and you stop life draining and die. Maybe that's what te health orbs are for, but I think the lifesteal emphasis of melee in diablo 2 was more interesting. It encouraged extreme aggression.
Zzoram said:
And again it would not be perfect, but there is a huge audience out there for it and for us console only gamers I think most people would eat it up. This is a franchise that I would bet would sell at least a few million on consoles, and potentially even much higher. Whatever the financial cost of a port would be, I cannot imagine that it is anything but a winning proposition for ActaBlizzion in the end.
bigdaddygamebot
Member
Zzoram said:
I suppose it's a good thing you're not developing it then.
I have more faith in Blizzard however.
I also have faith in the fact that Activision might very well be applying some pressure to Blizzard.
I also have faith in the fact that putting it on PC and consoles will cause more copies to be sold and I tend to believe Blizzard would like it if more are sold.
For the controlls I think the most logical would be to use this setup:
Left analogue: move/look
Right analogue: click in and use for belt. each direction would be it's own slot. (press up for 1, down for 2, etc)
Left trigger: attack
Right trigger: magic
Control pad: inv, stats etc. use right analogue to select and left analogue to move while in different screens.
Face buttons: hotkeys
I never played DiabloII but based off of DiabloI controls this is what I would use.
Left analogue: move/look
Right analogue: click in and use for belt. each direction would be it's own slot. (press up for 1, down for 2, etc)
Left trigger: attack
Right trigger: magic
Control pad: inv, stats etc. use right analogue to select and left analogue to move while in different screens.
Face buttons: hotkeys
I never played DiabloII but based off of DiabloI controls this is what I would use.
Diablo 2 is only as 'deep' as the player wanted it to be. You could do just fine spamming one ability and your normal attack (if melee) over and over again. I'd wager that a majority of the players didn't bind anything and switch between spells. I remember friends playing the sorceress and just spamming frozen orb.
If you take in consideration these players, which are the majority of players, a controller setup would work just fine.
If you take in consideration these players, which are the majority of players, a controller setup would work just fine.
bigdaddygamebot
Member
Zzoram said:
Diablo 3 will work on consoles, it just won't play the same as on PC.
You're part of the problem.
evil solrac v3.0
Member
Kalnos said:
frozen orb was great until you got to hell.....
Pai Pai Master
Banned
Why are people saying graphics aren't Blizzard's strong point? SC2 is one of the most visually appealing games I've played.
Pai Pai Master said:
Blizzard has an art style, and the people complaining are looking for high tech requirements that will push the limits. Honestly, Blizzard's style is very intelligent, it allows for them to deploy on as many systems as possible while also allowing the game to look good.
The only thing that bothers me about their art style is that everything as of late seems heavily influenced by WoW, but that isn't really a surprise either.
evil solrac v3.0 said:
Frozen orb works fine in hell (you can always just pair it with fireball or nova to get around immunes). It's another spell, though, that requires precise aiming. You have to be able to land the orb so that all the shards pop on the single mob.
Kalnos said:
That works fine if you're just playing through normal or nightmare. But it's not like gear matters at those levels, either. Diablo 2 only really gets deep once you hit hell and end game gear grinding.
Kalnos said:
Exactly, and you could get through all three difficulties that way with the right build. I never used more then a half dozen hotkeys, minus the belt with the multiple classes I played the game with. I am not talking spamming just one spell or skill either, I was using all six or so of those abilities and I think a controller can handle that on the fly without even a radial menu. I mean there is 18 potential buttons on the 360 and PS3 controller, minus select/start which I would imagine would be used for inventory/ map management. Only 4 or 5 of those I can imagine being used for necessary actions, which leaves 13 potential hotkeys on the controller. In the end it does not sound like anything all that complicated to translate.
If I'm remembering correctly, you could use the infinity runeword with a polearm and a merc in act two to reduce mob immunity to resistance, also.
Besides, Diablo 3 will not be nearly as convoluted and complex as Diablo 2 (which wasn't really that complicated) because Blizzard will trying to appeal to as many players of as many different 'skill levels' as possible. The development of the game on consoles would work fine, the real question is would it reduce the games quality vs if it had been an exclusive.
Besides, Diablo 3 will not be nearly as convoluted and complex as Diablo 2 (which wasn't really that complicated) because Blizzard will trying to appeal to as many players of as many different 'skill levels' as possible. The development of the game on consoles would work fine, the real question is would it reduce the games quality vs if it had been an exclusive.
C4Lukins said:
Hotkeys are the least important part of Diablo 2, though. Hardly anyone uses more than a couple moves. It's targeting your movement and attacks quickly that isn't really possible on a controller.
The whole point of the game is to get gear so you can do magic find runs quickly to get more gear. You're always building towards faster and faster runs.
evil solrac v3.0 said:
There would be some, just like some have Move, and of course, there'd still be the controller people. Fact is, the options are there actually. It's scary to think this, but Move may actually work for this. Maybe for Move and KB/M they can do a "hardcore" mode, where it's like the PC mode.
Pai Pai Master said:
Because their games are never bleeding edge. They rely on clever art direction mainly to make their games look acceptable, but they never and never will be used to be a "Cyrsis factor".
Draft said:
You PC master race guys are something else at times. And yes, since it's a Blizzard game, my current, but dated gaming rig I'm typing this on will run it in Ultra most likely just fine, as blizzards games are made to run on as wide of a range of machines as possible. Still would like to see them add a real ultra mode in that pushes hardware. Nice to see you can't dispute what I said though.
Boonoo said:
Movement is a weak argument because instead of just clicking away from the monsters or trying to bob and weave through enemies by super fast clicking each step, you can just maneuver your character straight up where they want to go, and potentially fire at your enemies while doing so on a console controller. I agree that targeting your attacks would be slower in the case of picking out a single enemy in the distance, but with the right analogue stick you are going to have quicker results when you are spamming spells then having to click in a particular direction to do so.
And maybe for the most die hard Diablo fans it is about speedrunning the thing, but for those of us who simply enjoy it for what it is and trying different builds and looting for awesome gear, speed is not much of an issue. I can understand how after so many years there is a need to try and find new things to do with the game, but that is not why your average gamer played Diablo in the first place.
Combat controls are the least of the issues with porting it to consoles. The only major thing you would have to worry about is area cast spells, which I imagine the easiest way to solve would be to have them cast in the direction you are pointing at a given distance or making certain AoEs cone shaped.
Which is certainly a downgrade in controls, but not all that major.
The real control issue will be inventory management. How do you take a game where you can easily spend 15-20% of your time managing items, enchantments, gems, etc, and implement it on an interface where everything takes at least 3x as long(which is a conservative estimate based on the console RPGs i've played)?
Also how do you manage to show all the stats for all the gear in a way that remains legible from the typically console playing distance without making the tooltips the size of the screen?
Even if the game's combat was unaffected by the port, the game will end up being a boring pile of shit just on interface issues alone.
Which is certainly a downgrade in controls, but not all that major.
The real control issue will be inventory management. How do you take a game where you can easily spend 15-20% of your time managing items, enchantments, gems, etc, and implement it on an interface where everything takes at least 3x as long(which is a conservative estimate based on the console RPGs i've played)?
Also how do you manage to show all the stats for all the gear in a way that remains legible from the typically console playing distance without making the tooltips the size of the screen?
Even if the game's combat was unaffected by the port, the game will end up being a boring pile of shit just on interface issues alone.
C4Lukins said:
I'll admit that my notion of movement might be skewed because I always played a sorc that ended up using teleport for all movement (it was nice; you never let go of right click. Just blind teleport through levels and swap teleport for an attack when necessary.).
It's not so much about speed running as it is about magic finding efficiently. No one wants to spend 15 minutes a run farming runes from countess or doing pit runs.
If we're just talking about the average gamer than the majority of Diablo 2 isn't even necessary. You could get rid of Hell and runes and a good chunk of the gear and most people wouldn't notice. But all of that is why Diablo is what it is.
Boonoo said:
I think there's a lot of people who maybe played through DII once(or even just looked at screens and think they know how the game plays) who drastically underestimate some of the stuff people do at high level. I dunno how the hell you would control my frenzy barb on a game pad, running through 4 or 5 screens every second. Just too fast.
iamblades said:
This is just silly. Larger text answers half of your questions here. The other half can be answered with, yes it would be slower, but it would not destroy the game. The Champions games and the Baldur's Diablo clones prove that navigating a grid of items and moving them around is not a deal breaker. Hell they could probably just write a simple algorithim to make your equipment shuffle automatically into the best possible position. Or maybe this is just a joke post that I have fallen into.