Support NeoGAF

[Talon]

Jesus Christ, I just realized that Diablo II came out in 2000 and LoD was out in 2011. And we won't see Diablo III until 2012.

Same 12 year gap for Starcraft II as well. Hope we see a WarCraft IV before 2014.

Who am I kidding? The WarCraft RTS is dead. Long live the DK/crypt lord rush.

 

[Fallout-NL]

As someone that spent too much time in middle school playing Diablo II, I totally think a touch interface would work - at least as well as a controller. Obviously it wouldn't match a keyboard with hotkeys mattering so much.

Touch for all left click actions (movement/attack).
Two fingers for right click skill - swipe to scroll through skills.
Three finger and four finger swipes as hot key alternates.

Plus go-to hot keys on the bottom of the screen. It wouldn't be ideal - honestly, put me in the camp of someone that won't be happy unless I have a keyboard in front of me, but it would work.

Yeah? What about movement (and forcing attack with the shift key)? Or tactile feedback and a 100% accurate response every time you provide input? Or the fact that your fucking hands are all over the goddamn screen?

I don't mean to bite your head off here. But touch screens and videogames, at least traditional games (i.e. any game worth a damn), need to stay as far apart from each other as possible.

 

[Dennis]

the latter looks dreadful. completely dreadful. like a deviant art kid who just discovered photoshop desaturation and over-exposure.

Completely wrong. The fan made screen is much better.

Why is it so hard to admit that Blizzard isn't perfect, and that Diablo 3 looks too much like WoW and isn't dark and broody enough?

 

[Zeliard]

Yeah? What about movement? Or tactile feedback and a 100% accurate response every time you provide input? Or the fact that your fucking hands are all over the goddamn screen?

I don't mean to bite your head off here. But touch screens and videogames, at least traditional games (i.e. any game worth a damn), need to stay as far apart from each other as possible.

There are already Diablo-style games on iPhone that function well enough. And that's a tiny ass screen.

I'd never want to play Diablo with anything but kb/m and on a larger screen, but it's feasible enough to put a (perhaps more limited) port of that sort of game on an iPad. I'd never play it, but hey.

 

[Mik2121]

Yeah? What about movement (and forcing attack with the shift key)? Or tactile feedback and a 100% accurate response every time you provide input? Or the fact that your fucking hands are all over the goddamn screen?

I don't mean to bite your head off here. But touch screens and videogames, at least traditional games (i.e. any game worth a damn), need to stay as far apart from each other as possible.

You don't have much imagination now, do you?

Touch can work. It just depends on how well implemented it is.

 

[Lothars]

Completely wrong. The fan made screen is much better.

Why is it so hard to admit that Blizzard isn't perfect, and that Diablo 3 looks too much like WoW and isn't dark and broody enough?

I disagree with you Because it's not better and Diablo 3 looks fantastic also we haven't seen all of Diablo 3 or even a majority to make a claim that it doesn't look dark enough.

 

[Funky Papa]

Completely wrong. The fan made screen is much better.

Why is it so hard to admit that Blizzard isn't perfect, and that Diablo 3 looks too much like WoW and isn't dark and broody enough?

One of the people behind the "before and after" pictures is an actual artist. He also made a video highligting the differences. While I think that his take doesn't look as cohesive as Blizzard's style (you can only do so much with colour correction over rendered assets), when it works, it really works.

Blizzard Irvine could have made a dark and creepy Diablo, but I'm afraid the company does not really like or understands the old style of Blizzard North.

 

[LiquidMetal14]

Why does it feel like we've been down this road.

Completely wrong. The fan made screen is much better.

Why is it so hard to admit that Blizzard isn't perfect, and that Diablo 3 looks too much like WoW and isn't dark and broody enough?

I agree with this. Blizzard aren't the best at all times. They're not really ever the best in truth

 

[Lothars]

Why does it feel like we've been down this road.


I agree with this. Blizzard aren't the best at all times. They're not really ever the best in truth

Because we are and there are two sides to this that just are not gonna stop until the game is out and even than it probably will keep going.

Blizzard may not be the best at all times but they are amazing more often than not.

 

[I_D]

Does Diablo 3 have any type of light radius? It doesn't appear to be.
That's one of the key differences in the look, IMO.

In Diablo 1 and 2, areas around you were covered in shadows due to the light radius mechanic. Without this mechanic, everything visible is equally lit, giving the impression that it's not as dark as the first games.

 

[peakish]

Im talking about visuals as well. The violence and dreariness are there even now without the music.

I love this, but I hope they'll give us permanent corpses/gore as an option at least.

Man now an image of whirlwinds going through a ton of corpses and throwing them all around the screen is stuck in my mind.

 

[Leatherface]

I'm on the "later is better" GAF crew as well. The darker pallet suits Diablo MUCH better than the bright, seemingly over-saturated look of the blizzard released screens. In the end though, just give us the damn game. I hate you Blizzard for announcing this so long ago and stringing us all along!! >:|

 

[Funky Papa]

I love this, but I hope they'll give us permanent corpses/gore as an option at least.

Man now an image of whirlwinds going through a ton of corpses and throwing them all around the screen is stuck in my mind.

I'd be cool with that.

 

[Talon]

Yeah? What about movement (and forcing attack with the shift key)? Or tactile feedback and a 100% accurate response every time you provide input? Or the fact that your fucking hands are all over the goddamn screen?

I don't mean to bite your head off here. But touch screens and videogames, at least traditional games (i.e. any game worth a damn), need to stay as far apart from each other as possible.

Movement would be handled by just dragging directional and holding it there or tapping towards.

The shift attack is a more valid question for ranged attacks. I can imagine a held key (a la shift) for this for your multi shot/FOrb fetish.

I never said it'd be ideal; I just said it could work.

 

[Fallout-NL]

There are already Diablo-style games on iPhone that function well enough. And that's a tiny ass screen.

I'd never want to play Diablo with anything but kb/m and on a larger screen, but it's feasible enough to put a (perhaps more limited) port of that sort of game on an iPad. I'd never play it, but hey.

Movement would be handled by just dragging directional and holding it there or tapping towards.

The shift attack is a more valid question for ranged attacks. I can imagine a held key (a la shift) for this for your multi shot/FOrb fetish.

I never said it'd be ideal; I just said it could work.

You don't have much imagination now, do you?

Touch can work. It just depends on how well implemented it is.

No imagination? You base this on the fact that I disapprove of traditional games with touch screen controls? Right.

Your imagination should be able to conjure up an image of trying to play Diablo with a touch screen. Maybe it would 'work', like those shitty iPhone aRPGs illustrate. But is that a world you want to live in? Why take steps backwards? Are you one of those guys that looks forward to playing Forza 4 with a kinect? In that case I would say the problem doesn't lie with imagination, but a lack of common sense. These developments don't serve anyone except the people that didn't give a damn about our hobby in the first place and seemed to have moved on long since.

 

[charlequin]

Really?...

I don't think it looks bad, but it's a bit too gritty.

The problem with all the "fan-modified" Diablo 3 shots is that they're done by people with basically no visual design sense at all -- so they might take the game away from the current style and towards what they think would be a preferable one, but they also look awful.

I think there's the hint of a good idea there -- darkening the bridge and increasing the contrast of its textures causes its small details to "pop" more, which makes it look more decrepit and also emphasizes the stylistic difference between this game and WC/SC (which tend to smooth out those kind of details) but overall the effect is overdone and unsubtle.

So the stat system was only half-broken before they started balancing the game and adding new content with patches/expansions? The clusterfuck of synergies and how stats affected different ratings has been a never-ending battle to balance and without a great deal of success.

This is why I basically always dislike stat allocation systems in all games. Because the results of stat boosts basically always boil down to pure math (with no playstyle or intuitively-learnable effects) utilizing such systems correctly generally involves working through (or, in the vast majority of cases) looking up the maze of interactions and second-order effects and picking the optimized build -- which in turn encourages any hints of imbalance in the system since everyone's just reading up on the right way to stat things anyway.

Skill/trait systems can devolve to "best build" too, but IMO they tend to be more flexible based on playstyle (even if build X is the "best," someone might pick Y or Z because that's the way they enjoy playing) and more approachable in-game (so people can figure out what skills they want by playing, not by looking it up or filling out a spreadsheet.) Also, a skill/trait system that includes passives can trivially roll in all the meaningful decision points of a stat-allocation system through stat-boosting skills, while (this is vital) actually being balanceable post-launch.

From the start you are not distributing stats for how you want to play now, but distributing stats for how you want to play in 70-80 levels.

Also a problem with stat systems in general, in my experience.

Go with 'After 15%' and leave it there...

I like the "after 15%" shot better than any of the others, actually. A bit more contrast causes the detail to pop and the world to adopt more visual depth, but without the excesses of the other shots.

I'm not sure if that is your particular case, but I noticed that many (most?) of the people favouring the new visuals are also WoW players, so for them the changes are seamless. For those who dislike "WoW aesthetics", Diablo 3's looks are kind of unpleasant.

I was a Diablo player long before WoW was a twinkle in Mike Morhaime's eye. It's just that -- to be frank -- Blizzard North was dramatically less skilled at executing visually than their SoCal cousins and their games had significant visual problems that I, and pretty much everyone I played Diablo with at the time, disliked even then.

In many ways I'd prefer a Diablo III that took its stylistic cue more directly from the previous games but actually addressed those problems (something like the leaked BN shots of heaven as a starting point, but tweaked and moved more into the direction of the current game for the earthly world) but I'd still take Diablo 3 (referentially off but good-looking on its own merits) over another hot mess like D1/2, personally.

 

[Durante]

After looking at all the D3 screenshots posted on the last page, IMHO one problem is that -- regardless of whether or not you enjoy the change in art style -- the graphics are just technically extremely weak. The lighting is flat, the textures are blurry and the polygonal detail is laughable. It's what I would expect (and be happy with) something made on the budget of Torchlight to look like, but not the sequel to one of the best selling PC games of all time.

I realize it's early still for the title, but compared to its current state I find e.g. Sacred 2 infinitely more technically accomplished, and that game was released 2 years ago on what was likely a much smaller budget.

 

[Neki]

Can someone actually give a source for the stuff World of Starcraft had to remove besides the name? People keep bringing it up.

 

[Fugu]

This is why I basically always dislike stat allocation systems in all games. Because the results of stat boosts basically always boil down to pure math (with no playstyle or intuitively-learnable effects) utilizing such systems correctly generally involves working through (or, in the vast majority of cases) looking up the maze of interactions and second-order effects and picking the optimized build -- which in turn encourages any hints of imbalance in the system since everyone's just reading up on the right way to stat things anyway.

Skill/trait systems can devolve to "best build" too, but IMO they tend to be more flexible based on playstyle (even if build X is the "best," someone might pick Y or Z because that's the way they enjoy playing) and more approachable in-game (so people can figure out what skills they want by playing, not by looking it up or filling out a spreadsheet.) Also, a skill/trait system that includes passives can trivially roll in all the meaningful decision points of a stat-allocation system through stat-boosting skills, while (this is vital) actually being balanceable post-launch.

I'm just going to roll my response to you and John B. into one.

Stat systems boil down to pure math, sure, but much like a skill system, the particular numbers that you pursue can vary by playstyle if the game is designed correctly. In the game's original form, high dex builds were distinguished from high strength builds (of characters that didn't use ITD skills) by their greater survivability and ability to kill bosses faster, whereas high strength builds could use more weapons and would deal more damage to larger groups of monster. The problem isn't that stat systems boil down to pure math, the problem is that in Diablo 2's current state, there's little reason not to pick any of the alternatives; Blizzard could have balanced the game for multiple stat distributions (as they once did) and the argument that you're making about skill systems would have been just as aptly applied to stats.

In my experience, I find people consult flowcharts far more with the skill system in Diablo 2 than they do with the stat system and for good reason, simply because of how punishing a bad skill choice is (not only does one not make you better, in the long-term it also makes you worse). The synergy system also completely killed experimentation considering the game now tells you where you have to put your skill points in order to be viable; the only character that can really afford to experiment in the current game is the sorceress and that's because her damage will be off the wall no matter what skill she specializes in.
Based on that, I can ascertain that Diablo 3 will go in one of three directions.
1. Every character will be like the sorceress and the game will be stupid easy no matter how you distribute your points (really, I've made a firewall/frost nova sorceress).
2. Every character will be like the necromancer and bad skill choices will result in useless characters.
3. The game will fall somewhere in between and people will invariably grind out skill choices to such a degree that variance is artificial (just like Diablo 2!).

The point I'm trying to make here is that any system developed in an RPG will produce a limited number of most effective builds no matter how Blizzard designs that system, and that that has been true at one time of both the stat and the skill system. Blizzard's time is much better used in creating as many viable stat-skill combinations as possible than trying to eliminate a problem that has existed in every RPG ever.

 

[Gravijah]

I never really liked the stat system in D2 because it basically boiled down to this:

Str: Enough to wear gear

Dex: Depending on class, enough for max block or pump it for damage if you're say a bowazon

Vit: Rest of stat points

Eng: Do not touch


With the recent respec system it's not so bad because you can just redo your skill points, but in the old days you had to plan your gear out way ahead of time so you don't waste your points.

 

[Fugu]

I never really liked the stat system in D2 because it basically boiled down to this:

Str: Enough to wear gear

Dex: Depending on class, enough for max block or pump it for damage if you're say a bowazon

Vit: Rest of stat points

Eng: Do not touch


With the recent respec system it's not so bad because you can just redo your skill points, but in the old days you had to plan your gear out way ahead of time so you don't waste your points.

As I've posted previously in this thread, Diablo 2's stat system was once balanced (about ten years ago) but was never updated to accomodate the changes made to virtually every other area of the game.

 

[Gravijah]

As I've posted previously in this thread, Diablo 2's stat system was once balanced (about ten years ago) but was never updated to accomodate the changes made to virtually every other area of the game.

Ah yeah, classic Diablo 2. What a beautiful time.

 

[arts&crafts]

You could tell me that was Torchlight 2 and I'd believe it.

Yea it looks ALOT like torchlight style, but I am still pumped as Diablo 2 is one of my favorite games and I enjoy torchlight aswell.

 

[charlequin]

In the game's original form, high dex builds were distinguished from high strength builds (of characters that didn't use ITD skills) by their greater survivability and ability to kill bosses faster, whereas high strength builds could use more weapons and would deal more damage to larger groups of monster.

Sure, but what you're looking at in this context is a small number of distinguished builds: do you max strength or dex? Do you balance energy or ignore it? You can certainly have a system in which different overall choices are possible, but they're going to boil down to either maximal strategies (throw everything in strength) or threshold strategies (make sure dex is at X% based on your level THEN max strength.) This increases the necessity of theorycrafting just to get the player "in the door": if they want to have the fun of choosing between viable strategies, they need either a huge (untenable) amount of exploration to find them or they need to turn to others to explain what their choices are.

Stat-assignment systems grow out of TTRPGs, where stat allocations are both linked to character (e.g., you have an inherent reason to buy only stats that are supportable in the fiction) and are a hedge against unpredictable variance (you can't just make every character with Charisma 3 because you never know when your party will need to talk their way out of a situation -- the possible game events covers the full spectrum of human imagination.) In D&D, it's viable to have a melee character with Strength 15 and Wisdom 12 even though maximally they'd have those same points allocated STR 18 WIS 9 and that's rarely true in even the best and deepest stat-allocation systems in CRPGs.

In my experience, I find people consult flowcharts far more with the skill system in Diablo 2 than they do with the stat system and for good reason, simply because of how punishing a bad skill choice is (not only does one not make you better, in the long-term it also makes you worse).

That's a result of permanent skill choices, though. Diablo 3 has respecs so that problem is essentially eliminated: you can play with a skill distribution and then replace it with something better suited to your intended playstyle and/or more maximally efficient.

3. The game will fall somewhere in between and people will invariably grind out skill choices to such a degree that variance is artificial (just like Diablo 2!).

On a metagame level, any game is going to have people work out the best builds if there's interest in the results and/or advantage to be gained from doing so; to me the important design factor is to make the game as playable as possible without those resources.

The point I'm trying to make here is that any system developed in an RPG will produce a limited number of most effective builds no matter how Blizzard designs that system

I agree, and that is really the crux of why I'm not fond of stat systems: they bring no innate additional complexity (any set of choices encapsulated in stat systems can also be expressed through skill systems) but they more thoroughly disguise the choice points, which in turn reduces the value of exploration and increases the value of external resources.

 

[Fugu]

Sure, but what you're looking at in this context is a small number of distinguished builds: do you max strength or dex? Do you balance energy or ignore it? You can certainly have a system in which different overall choices are possible, but they're going to boil down to either maximal strategies (throw everything in strength) or threshold strategies (make sure dex is at X% based on your level THEN max strength.)

Not necessarily, particularly if Blizzard is smart enough to introduce multiple avenues of gear at high-level play. If Blizzard introduces enough options that certain options express themselves as more viable than others in certain circumstances the stat choices won't necessarily devolve into min/maxing; certainly a player COULD still distribute their stats in that manner but as long as that isn't the most advantageous in every scenario that the player expects that they will encounter (again, this comes back to content) the decision will not be so clear-cut that every end-game viable character will have to make it by necessity.

This increases the necessity of theorycrafting just to get the player "in the door": if they want to have the fun of choosing between viable strategies, they need either a huge (untenable) amount of exploration to find them or they need to turn to others to explain what their choices are.

But you're assuming that you need to pick the best possible combination of stats to get in the door; the system being complicated at its most scrutinized can certainly be detached from the system being simplified at its least scrutinized. Besides, why shouldn't a player get some benefit out of doing a little research?

Stat-assignment systems grow out of TTRPGs, where stat allocations are both linked to character (e.g., you have an inherent reason to buy only stats that are supportable in the fiction) and are a hedge against unpredictable variance (you can't just make every character with Charisma 3 because you never know when your party will need to talk their way out of a situation -- the possible game events covers the full spectrum of human imagination.) In D&D, it's viable to have a melee character with Strength 15 and Wisdom 12 even though maximally they'd have those same points allocated STR 18 WIS 9 and that's rarely true in even the best and deepest stat-allocation systems in CRPGs.

My DM wouldn't let me play with 3 charisma. =/

That's a result of permanent skill choices, though. Diablo 3 has respecs so that problem is essentially eliminated: you can play with a skill distribution and then replace it with something better suited to your intended playstyle and/or more maximally efficient.

Diablo 2 has respecs (has had respecs since 1.13 was released) and that has solved the problem of people picking totally stupid skill builds and having to create a new character to fix them but it certainly hasn't mitigated the fact that arbitrarily assigning skill points isn't going to get you much closer to the knowledge required to create an optimal skill build (it'll certainly help you create a functional skill build, but functional and optimal are very far apart). I don't see that as a problem, however.

On a metagame level, any game is going to have people work out the best builds if there's interest in the results and/or advantage to be gained from doing so; to me the important design factor is to make the game as playable as possible without those resources.

If you do that, you run the risk of making a seriously large percentage of the content (if not all of the content) redundant for those who have done the research/googling to exploit whatever system you've put in place. Anything less than that and it doesn't really work and you have to implement skill respecs as a way of letting the player know that skill systems are hard and that they have to try harder next time (which, again, usually results in googling).

I agree, and that is really the crux of why I'm not fond of stat systems: they bring no innate additional complexity (any set of choices encapsulated in stat systems can also be expressed through skill systems) but they more thoroughly disguise the choice points, which in turn reduces the value of exploration and increases the value of external resources.

There's nothing fundamentally about a stat system that says that it can't tell you what each stat point does (Diablo 2 sort of does this -- the stat screen is formatted such that the stats are on the left side and what those stats affect are lined up beside them).

Merging the stat and skill system directly pits damage-dealing against survivability; how is this not accomplished by, say, making energy function like strength? The added benefit of keeping them separate is that combinations such as a glass cannon set of skills and a health-oriented stat build are possible.

 

[Quixzlizx]

My problem with the bridge screenshot is it looks like it could've been taken out of a Shrek-type environment. The enemies are also low-poly and don't really look menacing at all.

Maybe its just that I can't get past the lower detail of middling quality 3D that's required for a 3D game to work on most computers.

 

[gregor7777]

Yup. The lack of permanent corpses in D3 makes me weep. Also, D1/D2 enemies were colourful because they had to be, given the lack of a proper lighting engine.

This may be called Diablo 3... but it barely deserves its name.

Warcraft. How anyone can deny that shot....

 

[FoxSpirit]

Warcraft. How anyone can deny that shot....

They tweaked stuff a bit, this is one of the first shots ever released.

 

[jim-jam bongs]

I think that a lot of people here are confusing technique with style. Although it's undeniable that Diablo 3 uses similar graphics techniques and an evolution of the WoW engine the actual style of the character and environment design is distinctly Diablo. People are putting way too much emphasis on things like the fact that the game uses hand-painted textures and low-poly models. Those things aren't the exclusive domain of Warcraft, and they're mostly just a side-effect of moving to 3D but still trying to keep system-requirements low.

The test would be to take the characters and put them in a WoW environment. Most if not all of the characters and mobs would stick out like dog's balls.

Warcraft. How anyone can deny that shot....

I'm pretty sure that shot has been floating around for a few years now and isn't really representative of the current state of the game. And even then, if you transferred that barb as is to a major city in WoW, they would not look like they belonged there. The armour is definitely similar but the face and significantly toned down exaggerations of body-mass are pretty distinct from the current Warcraft look.

 

[BruceLeeRoy]

Jesus Christ, I just realized that Diablo II came out in 2000 and LoD was out in 2011. And we won't see Diablo III until 2012.

Same 12 year gap for Starcraft II as well. Hope we see a WarCraft IV before 2014.

Who am I kidding? The WarCraft RTS is dead. Long live the DK/crypt lord rush.

What! How dare you the Demon Slayer will rise again!

 

[Funky Papa]

They tweaked stuff a bit, this is one of the first shots ever released.

This is one of the latest screenshots.

Hammy barbarian with big ass boots, sparkles, colours up the wazoo.

 

[Raide]

With the jump from 2d to 3d, there will always be that problem where people say it does not look the same. 800 x 600 2D Diablo 2 just ain't cutting it. I can understand people upset about the apparent shift in tone but to be brutally honest, I don't care about the darkness and overall malice of the game. After a first story run, I will be mindlessly hacking through the levels, murdering demons with flashy spells and stealing their loot. Then I will restart it and go again, and again, and again. I think too many people are focusing on looks and forgetting what Diablo is all about. Killing stuff for loot.

Making a 2D Isometric game is pretty crazy, add a game as massively popular as Diablo, and making it 2D is even more crazy. Blizzard don't push tech, they try and make games work on a wide variety of systems. WoW is a very beautiful game and full of interesting ideas which Blizzard have been tweaking for many years. Its logical that they would use some of that as a basis for a new Diablo.

 

[Funky Papa]

With the jump from 2d to 3d, there will always be that problem where people say it does not look the same. 800 x 600 2D Diablo 2 just ain't cutting it. I can understand people upset about the apparent shift in tone but to be brutally honest, I don't care about the darkness and overall malice of the game. After a first story run, I will be mindlessly hacking through the levels, murdering demons with flashy spells and stealing their loot. Then I will restart it and go again, and again, and again. I think too many people are focusing on looks and forgetting what Diablo is all about. Killing stuff for loot.

Making a 2D Isometric game is pretty crazy, add a game as massively popular as Diablo, and making it 2D is even more crazy. Blizzard don't push tech, they try and make games work on a wide variety of systems. WoW is a very beautiful game and full of interesting ideas which Blizzard have been tweaking for many years. Its logical that they would use some of that as a basis for a new Diablo.

Beauty is subjetive. WoW is venom to my eyes. I loathe its washed out, chunky look.

 

[Dresden]

With the jump from 2d to 3d, there will always be that problem where people say it does not look the same. 800 x 600 2D Diablo 2 just ain't cutting it. I can understand people upset about the apparent shift in tone but to be brutally honest, I don't care about the darkness and overall malice of the game. After a first story run, I will be mindlessly hacking through the levels, murdering demons with flashy spells and stealing their loot. Then I will restart it and go again, and again, and again. I think too many people are focusing on looks and forgetting what Diablo is all about. Killing stuff for loot.

Making a 2D Isometric game is pretty crazy, add a game as massively popular as Diablo, and making it 2D is even more crazy. Blizzard don't push tech, they try and make games work on a wide variety of systems. WoW is a very beautiful game and full of interesting ideas which Blizzard have been tweaking for many years. Its logical that they would use some of that as a basis for a new Diablo.

Diablo 2 with a multi-res mod still looks damn good. Its design is timeless stuff.

 

[Gaylord Sweetwood]

Dated graphics aside old D3's aesthetic looks much better than new D3's aesthetic in my opinion. I couldn't care less if Diablo 3 consisted of you riding around on unicorns shooting rainbows, but that architecture and setting completely blows away anything they've shown so far of the current D3 build.

I agree with these sentiments. Obviously the graphics are not nearly as polished, but the setting of that castle in the sky is way cooler than anything I have seen yet from Diablo III.

 

[AdventureRacing]

Yeah? What about movement (and forcing attack with the shift key)? Or tactile feedback and a 100% accurate response every time you provide input? Or the fact that your fucking hands are all over the goddamn screen?

I don't mean to bite your head off here. But touch screens and videogames, at least traditional games (i.e. any game worth a damn), need to stay as far apart from each other as possible.

Well i think it could work quite well. I'm not sure why you're getting so up in arms about it. This would only be an option for people who want it and it wouldn't effect you in anyway.

I'm also happy they got rid of the stat system, i didn't enjoy its implementation at all in D2. Hopefully they have added more customisation in other areas.

 

[SnakeswithLasers]

This is one of the latest screenshots.

http://us.blizzard.com/diablo3/_images/screenshots/ss149-hires.jpg

Hammy barbarian with big ass boots, sparkles, colours up the wazoo.

Sparkles were Inner Sight in D2, if I remember correctly.
I'm assuming the green is poison damage, which is D2 as well.

I agree that it does look like something out of Blackrock Mountain in WoW, but sparkles and bright green (blue for cold damage) aren't new to the series. In motion that will probably look a lot less offensive, but the highlight of all the colors in a still shot is a bit jarring.

This is making me want to play D2. =(

Does Titan Quest really stack up? Can you mash through hordes in a similar way as you could with whirlwind (classic lances and River of Flame, baby) or static field + frozen orb?

 

[Fugu]

Does Titan Quest really stack up? Can you mash through hordes in a similar way as you could with whirlwind (classic lances and River of Flame, baby) or static field + frozen orb?

I found it passable but very dull. I did not enjoy playing it single-player, although multiplayer was a very fun time.

 

[TheExodu5]

The first act of Titan Quest isn't amazing, but the game gets better as it goes on. The expansion is downright fantastic. Based on pure mechanics, it's also a superior game to D2. The loot is also the closest any game has gotten to D2. The only downside to the loot is that there's a little too much of it, and the good stuff isn't quite distinctive enough. Still a very good effort, though.

 

[Zeliard]

The first act of Titan Quest isn't amazing, but the game gets better as it goes on. The expansion is downright fantastic. Based on pure mechanics, it's also a superior game to D2. The loot is also the closest any game has gotten to D2. The only downside to the loot is that there's a little too much of it, and the good stuff isn't quite distinctive enough. Still a very good effort, though.

The environments are visually fantastic as well. Each act is highly distinct.

 

[Fugu]

Based on pure mechanics, it's also a superior game to D2.

In what way? The class system is definitely a step up but that's the only place that I felt that there was an improvement.

 

[Gravijah]

Are there any other games that use a loot system similar to Diablo 2?

 

[TheExodu5]

In what way? The class system is definitely a step up but that's the only place that I felt that there was an improvement.

The class system is all it takes. D2 is extremely simplistic and feels non dynamic in comparison. TQ allows for a ton of viable builds.

My only real gripe with TQ was the fact that the battle controls didn't work like D2. I like being able to select my usable skill with hotkeys, rather than needing to cast specific skills with hotkeys.

Are there any other games that use a loot system similar to Diablo 2?

Other than TQ, there's Torchlight...but the loot system in the game is not all that great. Too many instances where uniques just don't stack up whatsoever.

 

[Gravijah]

Other than TQ, there's Torchlight...but the loot system in the game is not all that great. Too many instances where uniques just don't stack up whatsoever.

I should have been more specific, I mean the "lottery" type system Diablo 2 has, where everything up to a certain point can drop from monsters. I don't think Torchlight has that, but I didn't put a whole bunch of time into it.

 

[Fugu]

The class system is all it takes. D2 is extremely simplistic and feels non dynamic in comparison. TQ allows for a ton of viable builds.

My only real gripe with TQ was the fact that the battle controls didn't work like D2. I like being able to select my usable skill with hotkeys, rather than needing to cast specific skills with hotkeys.

There aren't too many viable builds, which is the problem. There are a few ridiculously powerful DPS combinations and the rest are kind of useless outside of the first two playthroughs; some second-rate combinations can clear the game but the combinations with no synergy are essentially worthless. The game was also quite lacking in other areas that Diablo 2 wasn't and the class system wasn't brilliant enough to compensate.

 

[bigboss370]

i want darkness back in my diablo. the horror, the evil. i want "ahh fresh meat" moments that scare the shit out of you, the corpses skewered on spears in the dungeons. dungeons so dark you can only see by the light of your aura. D3 is missing these things

 

[Keikaku]

What the hell is going on in this thread? We're back to the terri-bad fan shopped screenshots?

This whole thread is like that part in Paper Mario with the otaku chameleon: "Do you go on internet forums and complain about games you've never played?"

Maybe the game is too happy looking for some of you; to me it feels fine. I haven't played it so I can't really pass judgement. Some of the stuff I've seen in trailers and dev diaries or whatever leads me to believe it'll be fun and that the looks will work.


EDIT: Case in point, the post right above. What do you mean "D3 is missing these things"? It's not even out yet! You've haven't played it; you don't know what it is or is not missing! ARRRRRRGH

 

[bigboss370]

What the hell is going on in this thread? We're back to the terri-bad fan shopped screenshots?

This whole thread is like that part in Paper Mario with the otaku chameleon: "Do you go on internet forums and complain about games you've never played?"

Maybe the game is too happy looking for some of you; to me it feels fine. I haven't played it so I can't really pass judgement. Some of the stuff I've seen in trailers and dev diaries or whatever leads me to believe it'll be fun and that the looks will work.


EDIT: Case in point, the post right above. What do you mean "D3 is missing these things"? It's not even out yet! You've haven't played it; you don't know what it is or is not missing! ARRRRRRGH

i'm pretty sure we've all seen enough the be able to pass judgment on the artsyle and graphics of the game. i'm sure gameplay will be fun as hell..but from what i've seen, the mood and atmosphere of previous diablo games is just not there, especially diablo 1. if you haven't played diablo 1 you wouldn't understand.

 

[Gravijah]

Even Diablo 2 wasn't like Diablo 2 atmosphere wise, sadly.

 

[Lothars]

i'm pretty sure we've all seen enough the be able to pass judgment on the artsyle and graphics of the game. i'm sure gameplay will be fun as hell..but from what i've seen, the mood and atmosphere of previous diablo games is just not there, especially diablo 1. if you haven't played diablo 1 you wouldn't understand.

I disagree I don't thnk we have seen enough of the game to get the atmosphere but Diablo 2 had plenty of atmosphere, it was just different than Diablo 1.