TR Forums

I played the open beta on both the monk and the witch doctor, and I am really feeling a lot of what people are saying. D3 feels like a few rehashed ideas and some borrowed ideas.

So, they say its 5 classes with 1 old one returning from D2. But what I see is:

Barbarian = Barbarian
Wizard= Sorceress
Witch doctor=Necromancer
Monk= Martial arts assassin/Paladin support skills
Demon Hunter=Amazon bow/Assassin traps.

So its not so much new as remixed, although one could argue that there isnt a whole lot of varity you can make on the typical hack and slash concepts anyways. The skill system is nearly copied and pasted from Guild Wars "many skills but only a few equipped at a time" concept.

I think it's disgusting that there is STILL NO CHARACTER CUSTOMIZATION in a hack and slash game coming out in 2012. I do understand that the customization is supposed to come through different weapons/armor, but it still annoys me. The lack of LAN and offline single player annoys me too, but 3rd parties will solve those problems. As for the

As for the gameplay itself, its really standard hack and slash fare, hardly any different from diablos many clones that have appeared throughout the years. Not necessarly a bad thing as it is a winning formula, and gaming has not had a large amount of good, long, co-op hack and slash adventures. I do a lot of gaming with my girlfriend, and she loves games like that. Good hack and slash games often end up getting 2 purchases from me, one for each of our Xbox 360s/PCs, so that we can play together.

ALL these complains aside? My GF played the beta too, like it alot, so yeah....I'm probably going to pick it up. It's not a bad game...but not something that should have taken Blizz 11 years to create.

How is lack of RPG disappointing? D1 and D2 were not any different.

Also I don't think Blizzard was working for 11 years on the project, it's good to space games out why burn all of your IP at once?

Diablo 2 was also released 12 years ago, when that was more acceptable. Diablo 3 is a modern, large budget, hack and slash game with features reminiscent of an MMO (Auction House, online only, cash shop {player controlled}) with zero character customization beyond equipped gear.

Wiki says they started D3 development in 2001 and have "taken breaks." So meh.

Yuh, what the above said. For the amount of time they spent on this game and the size of their budget, it doesn't pan out. I played the Beta and it wasn't nearly as good as they make it out to be. It's your typical sequel that could've been spun out by any other company in about a 2-3 year time frame. Blizzard most definitely isn't living up to their name or hype. Essentially it's what SC2 is to SC1. I'll play through the campaign for the story, but that's no different then what I do with a lot of other games.

I'll keep my hope alive for GW2. Until then there are a lot of other RPGs out there that are more fun to play and a better usage of my time.

Seems like there is more disappointment than rejoice about D3. They might have had a better reaction if they just took D2 and "updated" it (updated graphics, new skills/skill tree, maybe a new character class, and of course the story that continues, plus a couple of new elements - almost like a big expansion). And that could probably have been released 5 years ago as well...

I played the beta, thought it was fun, and will probably buy it sometime.

This is what Blizzard thinks it's fitting diablo universe. I had problems at first but I must say if you play with this long enough, it doesn't really makes a deal:
http://i.imgur.com/2DHF0.jpg


Until one sees this ofcourse. Sorry art dept, this is Diablo not yours.. The difference is like day&night. It's not even a mod, it's just darken&Sharpen filters of Dx...
http://i.imgur.com/WFCic.jpg

SS taken from login screen because of open beta ended recently and the servers are not back online after as they promised.
I wouldn't be this much worried nor care if it was some other game. But this is diablo and it deserves more respect than it gets from it's new developers.

The change of lighting for the login did NOT make that big of difference between the 2 images.

My roommates and friends played it. I hear roughly the same thing from all of them: it's good but not great. I've even heard from a few hardcore blizz fans that they probably won't buy it (they will, but that's not encouraging). All in all, from the beta it sounds like the only reason most of my friends will play it is because... they expect everyone else to. Who knows, maybe the issues most of them have will be fixed in the final polish.

Meh, I still haven't beat Starcraft II.

The Blizzard devs have said a few times that people need to remember that what they have played in the beta is just a very small portion of the game. I think that the game is not going to be revolutionary, it will be a rehash of the basic diablo premise and gameplay, it's a bit prettier and more accessible and that's about it. That's all I really expect from it and I think it will be fun even if that's all it is. I think from a "depth" point of view WoW was already a better game anyway. And who knows, maybe there will be a few nice surprises in there somewhere.

Might I humbly suggest Torchlight II for those of you that won't be purchasing? If you pre-order on steam ($20) you get the first for free.. I had a blast with the first.

First off, if you want a dark gritty and worthy successor to Diablo 2, the title is Path of Exile. I cannot say good enough things about this title. Check it out or not believe me, its up to you, i'm not some marketing peon.

Second, anyone saying that D3 is "deep" has been under a rock far too long.

Third, I fear the D3 will be purposely made to have a limited shelf life, will be far easier than they claim, and will have frequent patching that effects balance and item stats solely for the purpose of keeping the RMAH active. Seeing as how it was announced they are taking 15% of every sale...and that they specifically stated months ago when they debuted the RMAH "That paid items are final sales, and we reserve the right to change the stats of items at any time" ... and you know...that whole cashgrab that has become WoW. (i mean pokemon, REALLY?)

Fourth, Oh god the marketing. The marketing. They were quoted as saying to the effect of: "You don't expect anyone to clear Inferno until months after release". If there was ANY company that would know that making a statement like that is -never- true, it would be Blizzard. Unless they made it statistically impossible to beat Inferno, then it will be done, in days. To this, I say that they purposely put out the statement as an obvious "hey no really, its a tough game, try and beat the challllennnngeee" as if it were some 80's commercial. Yes, every blue comment and statement made by the devs is a canned response.

Finally, yes, I will be buying the title. I just don't see myself playing it more than 6 months after release.

/endrant

To this, I say that they purposely put out the statement as an obvious "hey no really, its a tough game, try and beat the challllennnngeee" as if it were some 80's commercial.

Yup. And a huge number of people will react to it, exactly as expected. Hey, it's like the marketing guys know their audience or something.

Imagine that.....marketing toward your audience who'd a thunk it?

Blizzard knows what its doing. You may not have to like it but there will be others that do. While I dont like with how Blizzard has turned and I firmly think its all because of Activision I will give the game a chance. Because what it comes down to is I am a gamer and I play video games. Everyone has their opinions and you know what they say about that.........

tfp wrote:

The change of lighting for the login did NOT make that big of difference between the 2 images.

Are you serious ? Or you are just someone who is involved in D3 development ?
The different is like day&night. You can even notice the difference on texts; The "Diablo" text is blurry with default settings and crystal clear after darken&sharpen effects. The change of the atmosphere is more obvious in game and strikingly getting closer to Diablo I experience when effects applied. I just cant get in game and take more SS because Blizz allowed masses in beta during weekend and took the servers down afterwards to feed hamsters

I can't say I care as much about graphics, maybe in game images would show more and it would be more appealing. But this isn't something that is ground breaking like moving from 800x600 to 1080P or say removing the blockly graphics that they had on D2.

Nether image you posted makes me want to buy the game more or less. I expect that to be the same for in game images. Game play has always been more important to me. I missed some stuff about D1 but years ago I did go back and try to replay it and vs D2 it is missing a number of enhancements that just made the game annoying no matter the atmosphere that the darker evn in D1 gave it.

Making the world darker isn't going to make me go out and buy the game any sooner, think it will be more fun to play, convince me that the game should cost more, or make me spend more hours playing it because it looks better.

As for not being happy about the servers on the Beta, that was the point of the beta to stress the servers and fix issues before launch. It was really annoying but I'd rather have stuff like this now vs after the game launches.

The different is like day&night.

That just tells me you've never compared day & night.

SPOOFE wrote:

The different is like day&night.

That just tells me you've never compared day & night.

not even in "so to speak" way ? As an expression ? no ? what about night&twilight ?

My point is, diablo never had best graphics. But it always had an atmosphere that made the player feel whats going on and give the dark, hopeless feeling of a world that went terribly wrong and evil. There was a Prime Evil in the basement of a Cathedral ! Hell, was coming down to rip the flesh off of the humans and feast on them ! The first 2 games were not revolutionary graphics pushers like crysis but they did god damn good job reflecting the gothic athmosphere of the story.


I'm not asking for intense physics chain reactions, Directx 11 effects, Realistic Corpse Explosions or whatever eye candy you can think of. I'm asking for dark, gloomy, war thorn, evil infested world feeling that the story describes.

I dont understand, How much of the beta DID you play? The game IS dark and gloomy. Beta levels were full of dread, half corpses and monsters crawling from the brush to kill you as you walked buy, Hoards of zombies/ monsters trying to kill you.


I dont think you even played an ounce of Beta by the comments you have made. DIII is more dreadful than torchlight.

Tanker is right especially on that last point. Torchlight is cartoony and borderline silly. Diablo III has a much darker mood.

Just play the game with your sunglasses on, problem solved.

derFunkenstein wrote:

Tanker is right especially on that last point. Torchlight is cartoony and borderline silly. Diablo III has a much darker mood.

No argument here; It's also a good looking and very fun game. I liked that int he first, my pet could take my "trash" back to town and sell it for me. In another 10 seconds he'd be back fighting with/for me. I like a lot of the little things about it. Now that multiplayer is in for the second, I'm pretty excited.

My point is, diablo never had best graphics. But it always had an atmosphere that made the player feel whats going on and give the dark, hopeless feeling of a world that went terribly wrong and evil.

It also consistently did so with plenty of flash, color, and spectacle; it was never Doom 3. Diablo II's color palette was rich and diverse, from lush greens of Act 3, bright warm environments in Act 2... heck, even the frozen wastes and icy tunnels of Act 5 had plenty of color. Pretty much only Act 4 was as you described, and that was in Hell.

However the main menu screens on Diablo 1 and 2 are very dark.

I love playing main menu screens.

EDIT: Read the words I'm responding to - " it always had an atmosphere that" yadda yadda yadda. Well... no, it didn't. It also regularly contrasted the End Of The World Doom with color and life. Really, only the first game was consistently dark... but in the first game you also couldn't run.

I just think it's absolutely silly to get so caught up on the main menu screen.

tanker27 wrote:

I dont understand, How much of the beta DID you play? The game IS dark and gloomy. Beta levels were full of dread, half corpses and monsters crawling from the brush to kill you as you walked buy, Hoards of zombies/ monsters trying to kill you.


I dont think you even played an ounce of Beta by the comments you have made. DIII is more dreadful than torchlight.

If this is directed to me, it will just make me smile as I was in closed beta the day they start letting peoples in. I'm not talking after 2-3 hours of experience over a weekend. Or I'm not ranting after watching some pixellated low quality on youtube. I actually defending same point in different forums, in different languages. I avoided commenting on youtube videos and screenshots BEFORE I experienced it myself ingame (1920x1200, full effects+physx turned on).
What did I do in closed beta ? I have played with all chars leveled them to 12-13 (exception,witch doctor. that thing is too shady), crafted with them to the max, went out of the world open in beta, just to experience atmosphere, after locating some champ bosses, I went to them to see if they manage to hurt me like butcher in D1 or rakinishu in D2 did (didn't happen).
Besides the fact I had much chance to get more gaming experience in D3 compared many of the commenters, I'm still semi-active with 2 chars (excluding mules) in the new ladder in Diablo II. I was active in previous ladders too. That makes me about 12 years veteran in Diablo II. I know the game bit by bit, pixel by pixel. I can still visualize most of the FCR and FBR tables of paladin in my head. Not nearly proud of it but I put a large amount of time in D2 and still putting. I'm saying that to make you understand I have clues what I'm talking about and just ranting after 2-3 hours of open beta of D3 and finishing normal game with 1 char in Diablo 2.

SPOOFE wrote:

My point is, diablo never had best graphics. But it always had an atmosphere that made the player feel whats going on and give the dark, hopeless feeling of a world that went terribly wrong and evil.

It also consistently did so with plenty of flash, color, and spectacle; it was never Doom 3. Diablo II's color palette was rich and diverse, from lush greens of Act 3, bright warm environments in Act 2... heck, even the frozen wastes and icy tunnels of Act 5 had plenty of color. Pretty much only Act 4 was as you described, and that was in Hell.

So ? I never said vibrant colors ruins the atmosphere. Act 1 also green with grass, trees. HOWEVER, it doesn't fail at giving the emotion to me like "oh my, what happened here". You guys are getting wrong what I'm trying to say. D3, it just looks like Warcraft. I'm not expecting demons but orc and blood elves to attack me. That's how Diablo 3 makes me feel. Darken&Sharpen filter "helps" old players like me to at least get some of that feeling back. Darken filter doesn't filter out bright magnetas, just makes them look like a bit rusty and worn to fit a demon infested world.
I'm after the feeling that makes Diablo franchise unique. There are many other gothic games with violence but none of them could replace Diablo. The reason behind it the unique feeling gamers felt in previous Diablo games.

To clarify more, I'm not saying graphics are **** for a 2012 hack&slash RPG game. I'm saying graphics are **** just because it fails to give the unique feeling of the franchise. That's it.
Lastly, to funny guy with sun glasses joke; I didn't know sun glasses can also do sharpen effect to make low quality textures sharper.

Addendum: As I told before, can't get in game because the server are still recovering from last open beta pounding. Meanwhile you can check The thread in Official D3 forums for seeing what darken&sharpen really does in game.

You guys are getting wrong what I'm trying to say.

Earlier, it seemed like you were suggesting that there's something amiss with Diablo III's main menu, and now there's questions as to how significant an observation that is.

EDIT:

That's how Diablo 3 makes me feel. Darken&Sharpen filter "helps" old players like me to at least get some of that feeling back. Darken filter doesn't filter out bright magnetas, just makes them look like a bit rusty and worn to fit a demon infested world.

It seems like you're talking about saturation. Colors lose their vibrancy under gloomy, overcast skies, for instance (like DII Act I).

allreadydead wrote:

So ? I never said vibrant colors ruins the atmosphere. Act 1 also green with grass, trees. HOWEVER, it doesn't fail at giving the emotion to me like "oh my, what happened here". You guys are getting wrong what I'm trying to say. D3, it just looks like Warcraft. I'm not expecting demons but orc and blood elves to attack me. That's how Diablo 3 makes me feel. Darken&Sharpen filter "helps" old players like me to at least get some of that feeling back. Darken filter doesn't filter out bright magnetas, just makes them look like a bit rusty and worn to fit a demon infested world.
I'm after the feeling that makes Diablo franchise unique. There are many other gothic games with violence but none of them could replace Diablo. The reason behind it the unique feeling gamers felt in previous Diablo games.

To be fair, you've been primed since you've clearly played WC3 and/or WoW.

I've played neither and I certainly did think (during Open Beta) "what happened here" and never expected "orcs and blood elves" to attack me.

I've always wonder why more games didn't incorporate some form of level randomization. It made me forgive a lot of faults even back with the first game.