Diablo 3 Discussion

[tripleRRR]

back in the day when i tried it, i found counterstrike hard, but not crushingly so, i was not usually the worst player on the server, though certainly never the best.

 

multiplayer competitive shooters just aren't my cup of tea. except maybe battlefield 2, that game was really fun.

 

 

BF2 was alot of fun, until you went up against someone who was very good in a jet. Then it just became so damn annoying getting killed at every single contested point.

[Drowsy Emperor]

What do you people think about the 5 classes. They seem very run of the mill from where I'm standing.

[entrerix]

im excited about the witch doctor most. (i would have preferred a return of the necromancer, but i am still totally down with the witch doctor)

 

after that, it depends on a few things: my favorite classes in diablo 2 were the amazon (javelin type), werewolf druid, and the assassin. So im hoping that the demon huntress, barbarian, and monk, will be roughly comparable in style.

 

but as for flavor of the new classes, the only ones interesting to me are the witch doctor and demon huntress. the other ones are maybe a little on the boring side.

 

if there is no class that feels like the javazon (ie powerful one-on-one melee, can use a shield, yet still has a few very very good options for ranged attacks+crowd control you can put on your right click) then i will be greatly disappointed.

[Purkake]

I'm more interested in the runes augmenting skills deal, sounds like it has a lot of potential.

[entrerix]

definitely, i think that the way the runes change how skills work will make for a TON of replay value. i can think of several skills from diablo 2 that would have greatly benefited from being able to slightly alter their hit properties/ranges etc etc

[Purkake]

Hopefully they'll fix the power creep and keep the lower lever powers useful to the end. My Shield Bash Paladin, Unarmed Barbarian, Magic Arrow Amazon...

[entrerix]

i think they will, i read some interviews where they talked a lot about balancing that sort of stuff. the new system they are using, if i recall correctly, has you pick your skills, and instead of putting more points in them, they level up as you do. so they should all be viable throughout the game (in theory).

[Drowsy Emperor]

As for classes I'm interested in the Witchdoctor and not much else, the rest I've sort of seen before in various games.

[Purkake]

I don't think Blizzard was aiming to create unique characters. D2's cast didn't exactly scream originality either.

[entrerix]

i dunno, i remember when i first booted up diablo 2 and had FIVE characters to choose from, they all looked cool and I couldn't decide which one to pick.

 

i definitely wasn't playing any games at the time that let me be an amazon or necromancer. (not counting a wizard in baldurs gate who took spells from the lousy necromancy school of magic)

[Purkake]

My point was that the characters are window dressing, created to match the overall style of the setting and the skills/roles that Blizzard wants in D3. You don't play D3 to be a barbarian or a demon hunter, you play it to mash monsters with whirlwind and tank or to shoot at monsters with sweet crossbows and debuff(or whatever the DH does) in an exceedingly polished and satisfying way.

[Drowsy Emperor]

Funny, I find the idea of doing that all over again incredibly boring.

[Purkake]

You can't please everyone.

[entrerix]

i think the design is hugely important to how fun the game is. but we had this debate a while back about bioshock, and if i remember right, it ended with both of us feeling exactly the same as we did before the debate.

 

for me, things like atmosphere, art design, character design etc etc are a big part of what makes a game "good". diablo 1 had 100% amazing art design and atmosphere, diablo 2 took a step down, was still good (for the time) but was definitely not on par with the world diablo had created (music i think was a big part of this too). diablo 3 has what looks on par with diablo 2 to me, a few of the classes look interesting flavor wise, and some of the art looks really cool, but some of it just looks a little much (character abilities lookin like a fireworks show), though im definitely going to play with an open mind.

 

 

all that said, i do agree that the gameplay is still the most important thing, and diablo gameplay is very much about killing millions of monsters in a satisfying and polished way, while levelling up and sculpting your character and abilities to be able to kill more monsters in the way that is most fun for you. and no that doesnt sound boring at all, boo is alone.

[Purkake]

I agree that the atmosphere and character design is important, I was just saying that it is basically interchangeable. Blizzard probably went through dozens of designs for all the characters before they settled on what they have now. The barbarian might as well be a viking warrior or a mongol warlord, Blizzard would have changed the aesthetics for the character/skills and it would be still be of the same quality the barbarian is now. Whether you would have preferred a viking warrior instead of a barbarian is a personal preference.

Edited August 19, 2011 by Purkake

[entrerix]

sort of, in the case of the barbarian or viking, probably.

 

but for the witch doctor, some of his skills have a distinctly "witch doctor" flavor, that wouldn't be interchangeable with the skills that would be more flavor appropriate for a necromancer.

 

though i suppose mechanically they might have ended up identical, sometimes flavor influences mechanics when a game is being built

[Purkake]

If gameplay is the priority you get the best experience if you divorce the mechanics from the flavor.

 

Going back to Drowsy Boo's post, you won't get original characters, you'll get original skills/powers/gameplay.

[Drowsy Emperor]

Yeah like the Demon Hunter's Fan of Knives.

 

Good thing that Warden hero from WCIII didn't have that same ability. You know the one that looks the same, functions the same, has the same name...

[Purkake]

You'll need to find an alternate reality if you want everything to be original.

 

Plus, you'll be able to modify it with skill runes.

[Drowsy Emperor]

Dude, they copy/pasted a skill from another one of their games, that's not unoriginal, that's plain lazy. That's the kind of laziness only Blizzard will not be slammed for.

[Purkake]

They also brought over multiple skills from D1/2, the audacity!

[Drowsy Emperor]

They also brought over multiple skills from D1/2, the audacity!

 

That has a sort of sense, but cannibalizing their other titles in an entirely different genre is hilarious. Or would be if it failed spectacularly. Since its going to sell in droves I find that equal parts depressing and awesome. Depressing because no one is going to point out that they're varying at most a dozen ideas for the last decade, and awesome because it takes mad skillz to do that over and over again and still sell games by the millon.

 

Diablo 3 so far looks, and most likely will be essentially a remake of Diablo 2. It will even share its flaw of having graphics half a decade behind the times (seriously, Titan's Quest looks better or at least the same).

Edited August 19, 2011 by Drowsy Emperor

[entrerix]

uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

 

if you think titans quest looks the same or better you need to get your eyes checked.

 

i mean, these don't look omg so amazing, but titans quest? really? that game looked bad 5 years ago, and certainly didn't get better with age.

 

just saying.

[Oner]

Re: Witch Doctor: Lol @ the zombietotemthingcollapsingonyou skill.

[Purkake]

D3 is as much a remake of D2 as SC2 is a remake of SC1. That's how Blizzard rolls, you don't have to like it.