Support NeoGAF

[charlequin]

I'm inclined to believe Blizzard would tie each retail copy of their product to a Blizzard gamer ID required to run the game, thus completely eliminating the used market.

I guarantee you that this absolutely, positively, 100% will not happen on a console release of any title with a single-player mode, even a Blizzard game.

Portal and Half Life 2.

I think it's pretty indicative that of all Valve's games, only the single-player ones qualify as an answer here.

 

[Zoe]

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?

As if that's stopped any other developer this generation.

>:|

 

[iamblades]

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.

Come on are you seriously arguing the Dark Alliance games are a POSTIVE example of inventories in games?

That game's inventory system is hideous, plus the item drops in that game don't come at nearly the volume of Diablo.

 

[C4Lukins]

Come on are you seriously arguing the Dark Alliance games are a POSTIVE example of inventories in games?

That game's inventory system is hideous, plus the item drops in that game don't come at nearly the volume of Diablo.

No I would not call it good inventory management, but I would not give super props to Diablo 2 on this matter either. It is like solving a puzzle to get as much shit on that grid as you can, and having a mouse does not really make it three times faster either. In any event this is a giant stretch when considering the problems of a console port.

 

[LCGeek]

Diablo was all over consoles so it would seem logical.

Although i seriously hope they dont mod the PC interface cause they are prepping for consoles. The game seems to have a ton of depth according to the blizzcons.

It was on PSX that it's. This was the first diablo too and comparing UI interface of diablo to diablo 2 along with the how genre is progress is a joke considering most newer stuff since makes these games feel different. I can't imagine wanna playing higher difficulties in these games at all with a controller and the only way to do so is simplify the game to make it possible. One way or the the other doing a console port will get dicey for blizzard at a certain port in it's design be it graphics, controls, or ui.

 

[iamblades]

No I would not call it good inventory management, but I would not give super props to Diablo 2 on this matter either. It is like solving a puzzle to get as much shit on that grid as you can, and having a mouse does not really make it three times faster either. In any event this is a giant stretch when considering the problems of a console port.

Why do you seem to think fitting stuff in is what I mean by inventory management?

That like the least important part of an inventory, because you can always just make the damn thing bigger.

I'm talking about being able to quickly locate an item, see how it fares in comparison to currently equipped items, swap it in or out, sell it or drop it.

Say you have a full set of magic find items you want to equip for a farming run, in Diablo II you can eq them all in like 2 seconds, as opposed to a game like Dark Alliance where you have to scroll through a list of each item type individually to find the item you need, it's basically a pain in the ass.

 

[C4Lukins]

Why do you seem to think fitting stuff in is what I mean by inventory management?

That like the least important part of an inventory, because you can always just make the damn thing bigger.

I'm talking about being able to quickly locate an item, see how it fares in comparison to currently equipped items, swap it in or out, sell it or drop it.

Say you have a full set of magic find items you want to equip for a farming run, in Diablo II you can eq them all in like 2 seconds, as opposed to a game like Dark Alliance where you have to scroll through a list of each item type individually to find the item you need, it's basically a pain in the ass.

Honestly I cannot remember the Dark Alliance inventory system. The Champions games I do remember though, and they were quite similar to Diablo 2. Again though it is irrelevant to the discussion. I never picked up an item mid battle, identified it, and then compared its stats to my current weapons in a two second time period and then switched them out to continue battling. If anything I would pick up the item, portal out back to town, and then do analysis on whether or not it was worth keeping, or wait until the end of the battle to do so. Again none of this is relevant to whether or not Diablo would translate well to a console.

 

[iamblades]

Again none of this is relevant to whether or not Diablo would translate well to a console.

You don't see how taking quite a bit more time to swap out gear could be a negative in a game where that is a sizable portion of the game?

Extra time wasted in sub menus looking through a list of rings to find the ring you want to equip is time not spent playing the game. Whereas in diablo, you bring up the inventory, you click the item, you close the inventory. None of this 'open inventory, find jewelry submenu, scroll down to the 10th item, equip' or 'open inventory, tab over 15 times to get to the item you want, equip'. That shit sucks all the fun out of a loot game IMO.

 

[StuBurns]

Phantasy Star Online is one of the most beloved console games ever. Since then I would say there hasn't been a single great Diablo clone on consoles.

It'd be a different experience on consoles, but I think it could be wildly popular. Things like menu usage being slower isn't going to negatively effect the experience enough that it wouldn't still be the best of it's kind to ever grace a console.

 

[Durante]

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.

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.

These posts are good to see. Usually these threads are filled only with people saying that Diablo would work very well with a controller. Those people have obviously never played a high-level sorceress.

The best thing about Diablo 2, and what still puts it above all the pretenders, is the level of tactics and skill required to play efficiently at a high level. And for some classes at least, that ability is directly bound to precise and fast movement and aiming. And that is why I personally don't even want them to think about a console version, since having a controller control scheme in mind could affect spell and skill design to require less precise controls. And that, for me, would make Diablo 3 just another (probably good) Diablo clone instead of the true successor to Diablo 2.

 

[Scrow]

It's not happening for one reason:

Battle.net.

someone really needs to make an eat crow thread where quotes like this are copy and pasted, referenced with a link, and then at the end of the year the entire list is reviewed with who is and isn't eating crow.

for quotes that aren't resolved at the end of the year (since D3 will probably be out in 2012), they simply go on hold and are transferred to the new thread for that year.

i might make that thread....

 

[Raide]

Since I have another year or so to wait, I can have a nice PC ready for D3. It will be cool if they make a console version but I still think I will be getting it on PC. I might double dip, depending on how they death with updates, controls etc.

 

[Woo-Fu]

Put it on the next PSP. Portability will give me a reason to play Diablo 3 on something other than a desktop PC.

 

[Minsc]

I guarantee you that this absolutely, positively, 100% will not happen on a console release of any title with a single-player mode, even a Blizzard game.

I think it is a possibility that Diablo 3 will not have an offline mode. Single player in SC2 requires you to be online (once every month), and registered on battle.net, iirc.

I don't see them giving console players the ability to sell their game and play totally offline, and requiring PC player to have an internet connection for offline play and no re-sale.

If they allow for used games, they'll still require keys for accessing the game I believe, it'll cost money if you don't buy it new is my guess.

 

[Zerokku]

I think it is a possibility that Diablo 3 will not have an offline mode. Single player in SC2 requires you to be online (once every month), and registered on battle.net, iirc.

At least once for activating the game. Besides that you can play the game just fine offline with no issues. The only things you lose out on if playing offline are achievements (and various obvious online only stuff like multiplayer, cross game chat etc.). Dont know what you're talking about with the once a month online. I hadn't logged into SC2 since august before last night, and went on with no issues.

 

[Zzoram]

No I would not call it good inventory management, but I would not give super props to Diablo 2 on this matter either. It is like solving a puzzle to get as much shit on that grid as you can, and having a mouse does not really make it three times faster either. In any event this is a giant stretch when considering the problems of a console port.

that's half the fun, it's like a mini-game

 

[Pai Pai Master]

Put it on the next PSP. Portability will give me a reason to play Diablo 3 on something other than a desktop PC.

That would be so much better than a PS360 version.

And it would actually be fun to play.

 

[Zzoram]

These posts are good to see. Usually these threads are filled only with people saying that Diablo would work very well with a controller. Those people have obviously never played a high-level sorceress.

The best thing about Diablo 2, and what still puts it above all the pretenders, is the level of tactics and skill required to play efficiently at a high level. And for some classes at least, that ability is directly bound to precise and fast movement and aiming. And that is why I personally don't even want them to think about a console version, since having a controller control scheme in mind could affect spell and skill design to require less precise controls. And that, for me, would make Diablo 3 just another (probably good) Diablo clone instead of the true successor to Diablo 2.

that would be the consolization dumbing down effect that's always a concern

 

[The Lamonster]

that would be the consolization dumbing down effect that's always a concern

Exactly. I don't know why Blizzard is even considering this.

 

[Minsc]

At least once for activating the game. Besides that you can play the game just fine offline with no issues. The only things you lose out on if playing offline are achievements (and various obvious online only stuff like multiplayer, cross game chat etc.). Dont know what you're talking about with the once a month online. I hadn't logged into SC2 since august before last night, and went on with no issues.

This official Blizzard post disagrees. Maybe you're right, but recent discussions on their forums (from a few weeks ago) do say you need to login once a month for offline play.

 

[Eliciel]

The controls in Diablo III for the PS3 need to be done on the move. I don't really know if the kinect is equally capable of "hyper"precision .

 

[bill0527]

Been hearing this same line for various Blizzard games for 10 years now.

"Yeah we think it'd be cool to put our games on consoles where it makes sense".

Blowing smoke up our asses again.

 

[AllIsOneIsNone]

I'll be getting this for pc, but d3 seems like a game that could be fine on consoles. Just change up the inventory screens a bit and blam. You people worry too much.

Edit: and while the inventory may be "dumbed down" for consoles, who knows, a controller may actually make the combat a little more fun...god forbid consoles actually do something better.

 

[charlequin]

I think it is a possibility that Diablo 3 will not have an offline mode.

It is possible that the PC release of Diablo 3 will not have an offline mode, yes, like Starcraft 2.

It is not possible that Diablo 3 will receive a retail console release and that console release will not have an offline mode. Not "implausible," downright impossible. Neither Sony nor Microsoft has an infrastructure built around such a thing and neither will allow it.

If not being allowed to implement such a thing is an absolute sticking point for Blizzard, then all that means is that there won't be a console Diablo 3 after all.

 

[Minsc]

It is possible that the PC release of Diablo 3 will not have an offline mode, yes, like Starcraft 2.

It is not possible that Diablo 3 will receive a retail console release and that console release will not have an offline mode. Not "implausible," downright impossible. Neither Sony nor Microsoft has an infrastructure built around such a thing and neither will allow it.

If not being allowed to implement such a thing is an absolute sticking point for Blizzard, then all that means is that there won't be a console Diablo 3 after all.

Yea, I can agree with that. What are your thoughts about MS/Sony allowing Blizzard to require a battle.net account to play the game (probably required for there to be cross-platform support), and also requiring the game to be registered on battle.net before giving access to play the game permanently offline, the same? They could always require registration if they allow it via their website perhaps?

I wonder if Blizzard's game will carry their own friend list through battle.net separate from your main list on the PS3 or if they'd have to go through Sony, same for achievements, etc.

Edit: I just think it is extremely unlikely they will publish a disc that lets you put it in the console and play the game, no questions asked to sum it up. Who knows though, but if they do, I think it will be a reduced-feature version compared to the PC, if they allow you to just play like that.

 

[Woo-Fu]

Neither Sony nor Microsoft has an infrastructure built around such a thing and neither will allow it.

So how do you explain FF:XI on 360?

How about Warhawk on PS3?

Both online only, both with retail releases.

 

[charlequin]

So how do you explain FF:XI on 360?

How about Warhawk on PS3?

Both online only, both with retail releases.

Errr, they're both multiplayer-only, which is why my first post specified "with a single-player mode." Both console manufacturers are fine with one-time codes for online mode, and they're both fine with games that only have an online mode, but they're not going to allow a game that has a one-time code for its single-player.

 

[charlequin]

Yea, I can agree with that. What are your thoughts about MS/Sony allowing Blizzard to require a battle.net account to play the game (probably required for there to be cross-platform support), and also requiring the game to be registered on battle.net before giving access to play the game permanently offline, the same?

Entirely inconceivable. If this were even remotely plausible it would have already happened with big single-player titles on the consoles.

Edit: I just think it is extremely unlikely they will publish a disc that lets you put it in the console and play the game, no questions asked to sum it up.

Like I said, that's an argument against a port more than it's an argument that there'll be a console port with such a system in place.

 

[StuBurns]

Errr, they're both multiplayer-only, which is why my first post specified "with a single-player mode." Both console manufacturers are fine with one-time codes for online mode, and they're both fine with games that only have an online mode, but they're not going to allow a game that has a one-time code for its single-player.

I think you're reaching if you think that will at all prevent Diablo on consoles, one if not both would fold instantly to get it on their system.

 

[FLEABttn]

Entirely inconceivable. If this were even remotely plausible it would have already happened with big single-player titles on the consoles.

Think on this logic for a minute and why it's flawed.

Something can't happen, because if it could happen, it already would have happened.

 

[Vaporak]

It is possible that the PC release of Diablo 3 will not have an offline mode, yes, like Starcraft 2.

Huh, Starcraft 2 can be played offline just fine.

 

[SublimeO12]

These posts are good to see. Usually these threads are filled only with people saying that Diablo would work very well with a controller. Those people have obviously never played a high-level sorceress.

The best thing about Diablo 2, and what still puts it above all the pretenders, is the level of tactics and skill required to play efficiently at a high level. And for some classes at least, that ability is directly bound to precise and fast movement and aiming. And that is why I personally don't even want them to think about a console version, since having a controller control scheme in mind could affect spell and skill design to require less precise controls. And that, for me, would make Diablo 3 just another (probably good) Diablo clone instead of the true successor to Diablo 2.

Can you elaborate a little bit? I never played Diablo 2, but I have played torchlight, titan quest and some other clones. What classes/abilities specifically require that much precision, aiming and skill?

 

[Negator]

You now realize that Diablo 3 is being delayed because of the console version and will be consolified and watered down. PC gaming master race will inevitably suffer.

 

[Minsc]

Huh, Starcraft 2 can be played offline just fine.

See post 320. It can be played offline just fine, so long as you are online with an internet connection every month. If you actually are truly offline and don't authenticate it monthly, it will stop working, according to Blizzard staff.

 

[Kalnos]

Huh, Starcraft 2 can be played offline just fine.

After you verify online once per 30 days, as already noted on this very page.

 

[Xyphie]

I can totally see D3 having only the equivalent of D2's "Closed Battle.net" with characters stored server-side and you can't play without an Internet connection, in fact I find it very likely.

 

[charlequin]

Think on this logic for a minute and why it's flawed.

Something can't happen, because if it could happen, it already would have happened.

Literally every large publisher wants very badly to do this with their single-player games because it would instantly remove the used market as a going concern. (Put aside that this is a short-sighted desire; it still nonetheless exists.) If this were something that Sony and Microsoft were allowing publishers to do, we wouldn't see Blizzard debuting it in 2012, we'd already see EA or 2K releasing games today with this in place and every other smaller publisher lining up to get behind them. It's not like this is something nobody ever thought of before; it's something that's come up a lot, and which the platform-holders have (wisely) disallowed because they know what a mess it'd be.

We are not going to see any retail console games this generation that require a one-time-use code to play offline single-player. This is absolutely certain. (Next gen, well, who knows about that.) If that's a problem for Blizzard releasing a console port of Diablo 3, then Diablo 3 won't come to consoles.

 

[Kafel]

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/289613/diablo-3-for-consoles-is-on/

Diablo 3 for consoles looks closer to reality than ever after Blizzard's posted a job ad looking for a senior producer to catapult the series from the PC.

http://jobs.gamasutra.com/jobseekerx/viewjobrss.asp?cjid=25316&accountno=48212

Senior Producer, Console Diablo III

 

[StuBurns]

There was a thread about it yesterday, it was always going to be looked into if not happen.

 

[Narag]

That position has been there since November iirc.