Diablo® III

If you're talking about graphics it's a shame for you. You have to look more inside than graphics. And its Breverik dude... You should admire him.

no, i'm talking about general idea it's self, comic heroes + dungeonsmasher + mmo

sounds, and looks HORRIBLE, sorry dude if you admire breverik, but i just don't belive in him as you do, don't get me wrong, diablo1 and diablo2 are legendary.

04/09/2012 10:10Posted by Tudi

no way Jose think what u are saying ,a indie game blowing away a top companies game i dont think so
...

Let's not forget all big companies started as small ones. They became big because they did something good at some point. Maybe it's time for another company to rise

true verry verry true and i hope they grow as big as they can get i didnt say they dont deserve it but there is a long road ahead of them

If you're talking about graphics it's a shame for you. You have to look more inside than graphics. And its Brevik dude... You should admire him.

no, i'm talking about general idea it's self, comic heroes + dungeonsmasher + mmo

sounds, and looks HORRIBLE, sorry dude if you admire brevik, but i just don't belive in him as you do, don't get me wrong, diablo1 and diablo2 are legendary.

Well as he told, characters has their own story not like other Mmo's imho. Also i love comics, and Diablo 2 (i'm just 22 so never played d1 but search a lot about that.) So that's why i believe this game; better backround story and dev. team.

Also there's a Hellgate London - Bill Roper failure. ( Bill was Vice President at Blizz. North) But i do believe Brevik, hope you break you prejudgement and give it a try.

Any non Blizzard game that tries to copy a Blizzard game always fails because the long term support of Blizzard is simply not there.

Just a few examples: ANY Fantasy medieval MMO out there that was worth the money and time ?

Of course not, they are all gone as a subscription based MMO in massive numbers of players after 6 months.

Any RTS games that still get played massively after 1 year ? Nope.

SC2 BattleNet support is always there to ensure many people will play SC2 for years to come.

The same goes for future copies of Diablo 3.

Blizzard ensures your game is worthwhile playing it for years on end since they support it into oblivion with on line add ons, patches, competitions etc ...

---- > And all those EX Blizzard people ... they simply LACK the huge organisation of the Blizzard support and - of course - that incredible resource support for making it happen.

TL2 doesn't even have destructable content. Go figure ... how lame that is in 2012...

no, i'm talking about general idea it's self, comic heroes + dungeonsmasher + mmo

sounds, and looks HORRIBLE, sorry dude if you admire brevik, but i just don't belive in him as you do, don't get me wrong, diablo1 and diablo2 are legendary.

Well as he told, characters has their own story not like other Mmo's imho. Also i love comics, and Diablo 2 (i'm just 22 so never played d1 but search a lot about that.) So that's why i believe this game; better backround story and dev. team.

Also there's a Hellgate London - Bill Roper failure. ( Bill was Vice President at Blizz. North) But i do believe Brevik, hope you break you prejudgement and give it a try.

Brevik was the lead producer of Hellgate btw.

As I said above these few people that left Blizzard ages ago simply ... lack that HUGE support organisation Blizzard is known for. Blizzard games have (almost) unlimited resources in production, maintenance and ... continued infrastructure.

-----

Blizzard games are supported for a decade. Other games are fire and forget rockets.... without the resources behind them.

Blizzard introduced a NEW concept in video games: long term playing and support. That was something only boardgames had. Well Blizzard was the first to introduce that concept into PC gaming.

All the others are fire and forget things on a yearly (or even monthly) basis.

If YOU want to hop in on a monthly basis from game to game: great, have fun, but the only real fulfilment is that you can play and rejoin a game for a decade or more with masses of players around you.

Polished into oblivion.

No TY, my life and quality standards let me play the Blizzard long term philosophy instead of losing time in surrogates made with 5% of the resources needed.

@BenBoske: Blizzard has long-term support and the resources to back it up, we get it. It's only natural for the company who made the most successful MMO game in history. What you're missing is that it's never enough on it's own to carry a game for the years to come.

Starcraft 1 and Diablo 2 were played by huge fanbases for many years, because they had nailed the fundamentals of their respective genres. Plus, if you make an enjoyable game and make it mod-friendly (TL2 even comes with dev tools) then chances are, it will live longer in the end.

I just don't see this happening with Diablo 3 unless they make some radical changes to the game, which is unlikely.

I still hope than, some day, Blizzard will fix current D3 loot system as it's the real big fail.
I mean, what's the point in having gear for mages with +200 strength or enchantress token with +200 dex?
Also 99,99% of the yellows go straight to vendor and, because of this, the whole farming process is boring and frustrating. I don't even like to have to manually identify all the yellow crap as I know it will be crap.
As many said maybe AH ruined the game from start. You get the idea that you progress only with money (real or virtual) or with endless no real life time spending. Maybe some people like it, and I don't judge them. But in 2012 I was really expecting much more from the successor of Diablo 2.
I even preordered the CE with 6 months in advance and, even if I think the game has also positive points, if I could travel back in time, I would have bought a normal box (and I'm not even sure of that). :/

Still I deeply admire Blizzard for its Mac support, not many other companies do that.

04/09/2012 14:57Posted by NemoJr

I just don't see this happening with Diablo 3 unless they make some radical changes to the game, which is unlikely.

they are already making chances based on the fan's feedback, and this is why no other game will beat blizzard's game, they evolve if demanded, no other game does that.

if you haven't noticed they have already made HUGE chances to diablo3.

1. inferno is very easy and acceptable for casuals, this is because it was on huge demand, even when programmers said they are not going to nerf it and it won't be possible for casuals to beat it.

2. paragon levels

3. huge chances in itemization all the time.

4. class chances.

edit : i seriously doubt that if in torchlight 2 will be huge imbalance issues in classes, rotten core mechanic or anything else, it won't be fixed, only some major bugs will be fixed in patches, the game doesn't evolve to satisfy customers.

they are already making chances based on the fan's feedback, and this is why no other game will beat blizzard's game, they evolve if demanded, no other game does that.

if you haven't noticed they have already made HUGE chances to diablo3.

I was talking about radical changes, like, off the top of my head, the complete removal of AH (or a no-AH mode, like we're discussing in another thread), a complete overhaul of itemization (interesting and useful affixes instead of just +10 dmg or +30 protection), and things like making the game less gear-dependent and more character-dependent.

Right now, the highlight of my game experience is comparing a 200dex 900dps bow to a 100dex 1000dps bow on the AH, which is the same as pre-1.0.4. And I don't call it good ARPG.

...And you're saying only the mighty Blizzard's games evolve and improve in time? That's a pretty big assumption... I'll get back to that.

1. inferno is very easy and acceptable for casuals, this is because it was on huge demand, even when programmers said they are not going to nerf it and it won't be possible for casuals to beat it.

2. paragon levels

3. huge chances in itemization all the time.

4. class chances.

1. Inferno was a flawed concept to begin with. Because saying "omg you guys, it's so hard, we made it so hard, you know, and then doubled it and stuff, it's so super hard that 95% of the people who buy this game won't even be able to finish it lol!" is never the mark of a good designer. It would be feasible as an additional difficulty, as an extra challenge, if it didn't have additional content (higher ilvl items), but not as the way it launched. It was essentially the "next thing" after Hell, so people obviously wanted to see the end of it (and get access to the best items).

And after all the nerfs and patches and whatnot, most people still need items from inferno, to play inferno. Go figure.

2. plvls are a cheap (but genius) way of stopping people from overleveling (and avoiding the gear-checks), but at the same time, stopping their complaints about the lvl cap. Give people a few stat points and a little MF and they'll keep happily grinding xp and sorting through all the junk to find one decent item, or so they thought.

3. HUGE changes for the worse, minor tweaks for the better.

4. Whenever they find a build/skill/stat that is too effective, or even too fun for their standards, they nerf it, and buff the useless skills to be slightly less useless. But hey, it's for the sake of build diversity, right?

05/09/2012 10:30Posted by Juomari

edit : i seriously doubt that if in torchlight 2 will be huge imbalance issues in classes, rotten core mechanic or anything else, it won't be fixed, only some major bugs will be fixed in patches, the game doesn't evolve to satisfy customers.

Okay, back to the point in the beginning.

I think you're underestimating moddability and crowd-sourcing big time. What you say about Diablo 3 and Blizzard is like saying "its competitors will never catch up to Internet Explorer because it has F***ING MICROSOFT behind it." You see what I mean?

Also, if a bug-ridden game with deep systems like Fallout 2 can be patched almost to perfection by the fans, or a military simulator like ArmA II can be converted to a S.T.A.L.K.E.R.-like survival game with a mod (DayZ), I'd say anything is possible as long as the game allows it.

Diablo 3 is neither a perfect game, nor open to improvement by the community (directly), so I think it'll share the same fate as IE in the end...

P.S. Sorry for the long post, I was in the mood. ^^

@ nemojr

we'll see.... we'll see, when it comes to online game, i don't think anything can beat blizzard, you just make your self sound like all the people who claims "omg, this "X" mmo will bring down wow, because it's so good".

i know there is lots of good singleplayer games, actually i know MANY games that is better than any blizzard games, but they are totally different genre than what blizzard is making, you can't compare singleplayer game vs online game ( and yes, that's what diablo has been all about since diablo1, online ARP, wich can be played solo the whole time ), and when game is online, players can't modify it in anyways or else it will become incredibly bad game ( and by this i mean online part of the game.).

and i say this again, there will be no game that will bring down blizzard's games, this has been seen and proven many times before.

and you can't deny that they haven't made huge chances to the game since release.... just because those decisions don't please YOU, doesn't mean they are bad, or irrelevant. And patch 1.0.4 just proves my words, lots of people are already liking it, saying game is going for right direction and they'll keep improving the game.

@ nemojr

we'll see.... we'll see, when it comes to online game, i don't think anything can beat blizzard, you just make your self sound like all the people who claims "omg, this "X" mmo will bring down wow, because it's so good".

i know there is lots of good singleplayer games, actually i know MANY games that is better than any blizzard games, but they are totally different genre than what blizzard is making, you can't compare singleplayer game vs online game ( and yes, that's what diablo has been all about since diablo1, online ARP, wich can be played solo the whole time ), and when game is online, players can't modify it in anyways or else it will become incredibly bad game ( and by this i mean online part of the game.).

and i say this again, there will be no game that will bring down blizzard's games, this has been seen and proven many times before.

and you can't deny that they haven't made huge chances to the game since release.... just because those decisions don't please YOU, doesn't mean they are bad, or irrelevant. And patch 1.0.4 just proves my words, lots of people are already liking it, saying game is going for right direction and they'll keep improving the game.

I'm desperately trying to avoid the word "fanboy" but you're holding Blizzard in such high regard it's unbelievable. And comparing D1 to WoW is just adding insult to injury, I mean, seriously? Even D2 was first and foremost a single-player oriented game, with additions such as co-op and PvP.

Blizzard made WoW and it was immensely successful. Maybe it still is. Then they made a sequel to a game which was made by another team; a game that belongs to a genre that is obviously alien to the current team. They failed to grasp the fundamentals of that genre, things like what made it work and what made it fun.

So they dropped the ball. I'm not blaming them for trying, but with better alternatives on the way, they'll be hard-pressed to keep their game (and the whole franchise, if they care about that) "alive." That's all I'm saying.

Oh and btw, if anything, 1.0.4 proved my point: For everything they fix, they brake something else, something even more enjoyable and fundamental about the game. In this case, they fixed the legendary items (made them legendary), but made the drop rates even worse all across the board.

A quick look at the "General Discussion" forum will show you that I'm not the only one who feels that way, like you suggested.

Edit: Sorry to OP for going off-topic, but I guess the Diablo comparison was inevitable. I just didn't see the WoW comparison coming...

05/09/2012 15:14Posted by NemoJr

Blizzard made WoW and it was immensely successful. Maybe it still is. Then they made a sequel to a game which was made by another team; a game that belongs to a genre that is obviously alien to the current team. They failed to grasp the fundamentals of that genre, things like what made it work and what made it fun.

and this is exacly one of the things they are fixing, don't get me wrong, i think diablo3 is not anywhere near as good as it "should been" and i think it lacks so much, there just isn't anything innovating in this game... there is nothing new and all the old mechanic's have been removed without replacing them with anything new, this is just basic hack n' slash with only new skill / rune system and nothing else is new.

but clearly certain observation to make here is that they are making huge chances to the game...

i'm not a fanboi, i'm just not so naive to think that 3rd party game could take down the giant, ever.

better game does not quarentee succes, giant player base, better online game. Like i said, there is so many games better than any of blizzard's game, yet blizzard offers games for everyone, this makes it good in what they do, their games evolve so it pleases as many players as possible, and this is why no other game can beat blizzards games, because blizzard wants to please masses and they are ready to make whatever chance to their games to please the masses, this is also why i find so many games better than blizzards games, but blizzard games always have the decent quality and huge community where i feel safe to return.

I'm not saying that being a fan of a franchise, or even a company, is a bad thing per se. I'm just saying it clouds your judgement. And your posts are a prime example of this.

You can admit the game has flaws, and was a big disappointment at launch (it still is), but you can not admit that 2 potentially great games that target the same audience that launch only 2 weeks from now can even have a chance of surpassing "the king."

06/09/2012 11:16Posted by Juomari

better game does not quarentee succes, giant player base, better online game.

You're still thinking about World of Warcraft and comparing it to different genres than its own. One stroke of genius (or luck) doesn't magically make all their other games just as good or successful.

In single-player oriented games, giant player base doesn't guarantee success, either. And no, always-online DRM and co-op does not make a game "online," at least not on par with MMOGs. Apples and oranges.

06/09/2012 14:59Posted by NemoJr

You're still thinking about World of Warcraft and comparing it to different genres than its own.

actually i'm not... i was talking about in general ALL blizzard's games.

diablo 2 is great game, no other dungeonsmasher has ever WITHIN 10years ever beaten this game in it's player base.

Yet there is so many better dungeonsmasher or equal in quality of game, yet these games never surpassed diablo2, because of so many different online factor's that these games didn't have.

that was my point, and even when diablo3 is flawed game, it still has huge number of players that will not likely decrease, because it offers huge ammount of other players to play with, items in this game actually has value ( because players can't mod the game, and this makes it very intresting to play for many ppl ), also because there is no modding, it's same game for everyone. Also because of huge ammount of players, it's fun to standoff from crowd if you have some special item for example, there is general chat to chat while you play etc, online part of diablo 2 and 3 is so easy to grasp and you don't need to go thru lan options etc to play it.

i know i don't know how to explain this, it's hard because english is not my language, i don't even know why i'm trying to explain this to you, mayby because i'm bored here at work.