Diablo 3 Review

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

Next up:
the Prime Evils have been defeated!
BUT without leaders the demon hords are still making trouble!
Only now, there is no good way to follow one head-villain to the next, is there?
Blizzard presents:
Diablo 4 - Asymmetrical Warfare !!!!

Hammeroj:
Okay, define "dismissing" an art style.

I derived it from his abrasive attitude towards stylism, using words like 'cartoonish' in a negative manner, while using 'realistic' as the positive example.

...And why the fuck should he be thinking about how this appeals to other people when he's criticizing this as a consumer?

Because he sought to establish himself as an authority figure on the matter as a 'graphics designer'.
As such, his credentials as a graphics designer gets called into question.

Denamic:

Hammeroj:
Okay, define "dismissing" an art style.

I derived it from his abrasive attitude towards stylism, using words like 'cartoonish' in a negative manner, while using 'realistic' as the positive example.

For the fourth time now, context. He was comparing the game to a previous installment of the franchise.

And you didn't define anything.

Because he sought to establish himself as an authority figure on the matter as a 'graphics designer'.
As such, his credentials as a graphics designer gets called into question.

No, all he said is he takes art styles seriously. I'm not particularly fond of people throwing their profession around either, but you're reading too much into it.

Hammeroj:
-snip-

This is getting ridiculous.
It's just arguing for the sake of arguing now.
Let's drop this shit and move on.

"Blizzard has said that this will not be the last we see of the setting."

Oh boy...

Seriously, if I hear the words "Diablo" and "MMO" togther I will probably induce vomit. It's not Diablo I have a concern with, but the standard mmo formulas of the day have a way of mucking up and simplifying even the most prestigous IP and turning it into fetch-quests garbage.

Just my 10 cents. I would be happier than anyone else if I was proven wrong on this, though unfortunately that doesnt seem to be the case.

Excludos:
The thing thats making me a bit sad is that I don't think the reviewer played through the game either, considering in the video there are about 5 seconds of footage from the very very beginning of act 2, and the rest of it is act 1. Sure you can blame it on blizz for not handing out early review copies, but in the end I'd still wait for a proper, completed review than having it 2 days early.

Its sort of like reviewing a final fantasy game upon its first 5 hours.. Kind of disappointed.

No offence, but I never get this argument with "oh but you canīt judge a game/wont really find the game fun until X hours in" talk folks bring up in a game defence, the sole reason I buy a game is to enjoy and have fun, and often I pay good money for one, I think Iīm in a position where I can fairly judge a game from the instant I boot up the start menu, not say 5 hours in.

remmus:

Excludos:
The thing thats making me a bit sad is that I don't think the reviewer played through the game either, considering in the video there are about 5 seconds of footage from the very very beginning of act 2, and the rest of it is act 1. Sure you can blame it on blizz for not handing out early review copies, but in the end I'd still wait for a proper, completed review than having it 2 days early.

Its sort of like reviewing a final fantasy game upon its first 5 hours.. Kind of disappointed.

No offence, but I never get this argument with "oh but you canīt judge a game/wont really find the game fun until X hours in" talk folks bring up in a game defence, the sole reason I buy a game is to enjoy and have fun, and often I pay good money for one, I think Iīm in a position where I can fairly judge a game from the instant I boot up the start menu, not say 5 hours in.

Then that would be a preview, or a "first look", not a review. A review is about the whole game, start, middle, end. Not just the start. Of course, nothings stopping you from saying "the game is slow in the first few hours before it picks up". But you should not skip the last half of the game just to get the review out early.

Venatio:
"Blizzard has said that this will not be the last we see of the setting."

Oh boy...

Seriously, if I hear the words "Diablo" and "MMO" togther I will probably induce vomit. It's not Diablo I have a concern with, but the standard mmo formulas of the day have a way of mucking up and simplifying even the most prestigous IP and turning it into fetch-quests garbage.

Just my 10 cents. I would be happier than anyone else if I was proven wrong on this, though unfortunately that doesnt seem to be the case.

"Coming in 2020: World of Diablo! It's... basically the same damn thing, except now the dungeons are huge and account for dozens of players at the same time!"

Yeah, that can't be good.

Venatio:
"Blizzard has said that this will not be the last we see of the setting."

Oh boy...

Seriously, if I hear the words "Diablo" and "MMO" togther I will probably induce vomit. It's not Diablo I have a concern with, but the standard mmo formulas of the day have a way of mucking up and simplifying even the most prestigous IP and turning it into fetch-quests garbage.

Just my 10 cents. I would be happier than anyone else if I was proven wrong on this, though unfortunately that doesnt seem to be the case.

Take a good, hard look at most of the changes they made in Diablo 3. Notice anything?

If not, let me fill you in: Diablo 3 contains several deliberate design changes between it and D2, which were make in order to make it better resemble MMOs. WoW specifically. The streamlining of attributes, the new skill system, the armor/weapon systems, the adjusted quest system and the GIANT exclamation points hovering over people's heads when they have a quest....hell, the forced online play? It really looks a lot like they were trying to make an MMO, here. It even features art and animation designed from folks that they pulled off of the WoW development team (the original team has mostly left and went on to make games like Torchlight) that are meant to make the game look similar to WoW. It's a good thing that the bright color scheme originally planned was thrown out, since if it had been kept, the similarities between its art style and WoW's would be even more obvious. It's safe to say that the design team probably would have made Diablo 3 an MMO if it were up to them, because so much of the design screams "please, PLEASE, let me be an MMO! I want to be an MMO so badly!". This isn't accidental, IMO, this is Blizzard testing the waters.

So when the dev team says "this won't be the last of this setting", that's all but announcing that there's going to be a Diablo MMO. I'd be very, very surprised if this didn't happen at some point in the future. I'd like to be proven paranoid and wrong....but it's hard for me to be optimistic about the future of gaming any more. :p

CriticKitten:

Venatio:
"Blizzard has said that this will not be the last we see of the setting."

Oh boy...

Seriously, if I hear the words "Diablo" and "MMO" togther I will probably induce vomit. It's not Diablo I have a concern with, but the standard mmo formulas of the day have a way of mucking up and simplifying even the most prestigous IP and turning it into fetch-quests garbage.

Just my 10 cents. I would be happier than anyone else if I was proven wrong on this, though unfortunately that doesnt seem to be the case.

Take a good, hard look at most of the changes they made in Diablo 3. Notice anything?

If not, let me fill you in: Diablo 3 contains several deliberate design changes between it and D2, which were make in order to make it better resemble MMOs. WoW specifically. The streamlining of attributes, the new skill system, the armor/weapon systems, the adjusted quest system and the GIANT exclamation points hovering over people's heads when they have a quest....it really looks a lot like they were trying to make an MMO, here. It even features art and animation designed from folks that they pulled off of the WoW development team (the original team has mostly left and went on to make games like Torchlight) that are meant to make the game look similar to WoW. It's a good thing that the bright color scheme originally planned was thrown out, since if it had been kept, the similarities between its art style and WoW's would be even more obvious. It's safe to say that the design team probably would have made Diablo 3 an MMO if it were up to them, because so much of the design screams "please, PLEASE, let me be an MMO! I want to be an MMO so badly!". This isn't accidental, IMO, this is Blizzard testing the waters.

So when the dev team says "this won't be the last of this setting", that's all but announcing that there's going to be a Diablo MMO. I'd be very, very surprised if this didn't happen at some point in the future. I'd like to be proven paranoid and wrong....but it's hard for me to be optimistic about the future of gaming any more. :p

They're already working on an MMO that has nothing to do with Diablo, starcraft or warcraft, codenamed "Titan". Why would they make another one so soon after?

Excludos:
They're already working on an MMO that has nothing to do with Diablo, starcraft or warcraft, codenamed "Titan". Why would they make another one so soon after?

Because as everyone knows, a major developer (especially ones as rich as Blizzard) can only have exactly one MMO at any given time and no more. *nod* It's like the Rule of Two in Star Wars, except with only one.

Here, ask yourself a much better question: what exactly is stopping them from making more than one functional MMO?

Money? Nope, got plenty of that.
Staff? They have the money to hire as many as they like.
Servers? Seems unlikely.

Then consider the fact that the Blizzard team has said they intend to keep WoW running even after Titan is released (though for how long is unclear). And that they're still developing new expansion packs for WoW even as they work on Titan, which already seemingly contradicts your argument.

What specifically would keep them from owning multiple MMOs? There are publishers out there which own their own veritable fleet of MMOs....why exactly is Blizzard limited to one?

CriticKitten:

Excludos:
They're already working on an MMO that has nothing to do with Diablo, starcraft or warcraft, codenamed "Titan". Why would they make another one so soon after?

Because as everyone knows, a major developer (especially ones as rich as Blizzard) can only have exactly one MMO at any given time and no more. *nod* It's like the Rule of Two in Star Wars, except with only one.

Here, ask yourself a much better question: what exactly is stopping them from making more than one functional MMO?

Money? Nope, got plenty of that.
Staff? They have the money to hire as many as they like.
Servers? Seems unlikely.

Then consider the fact that the Blizzard team has said they intend to keep WoW running even after Titan is released (though for how long is unclear). And that they're still developing new expansion packs for WoW even as they work on Titan, which already seemingly contradicts your argument.

What specifically would keep them from owning multiple MMOs? There are publishers out there which own their own veritable fleet of MMOs....why exactly is Blizzard limited to one?

I see no reason why Blizzard is going to take time and resources to make a completely new mmo to compete with another completely new mmo which hasn't even been released yet. Besides, "not done with the setting" could mean an expansion pack, or a console game (which blizzard has been trying to get into for a long time now). I see no reason to read that as a Diablo MMO.

Excludos:
I see no reason why Blizzard is going to take time and resources to make a completely new mmo to compete with another completely new mmo which hasn't even been released yet.

Okay, you might want to go back and read that sentence again, because it sounds exactly like what they're doing right now with Titan.

WoW is still king of the hill, so why would Blizzard "waste time and resources" to make Titan since it might end up competing with their already reigning champion?

The obvious answer, of course, is because Blizzard likes money an awful lot, and if they're not going to get you to buy into WoW, they'll want you buying into their next MMO, or perhaps the one after that.

Again, you seem to be existing in this preconception that if Blizzard puts out more than one MMO, this is inherently bad and it somehow hurts them in the long run. Yet there are any number of smaller publishers who run a small fleet of MMOs all at the same time, none of which are really "competing" with each other and ALL of which are making them tons and tons of money. This isn't the problem you're pretending it is. In fact, it's generally GOOD for the company so long as they can afford the upkeep on multiple games, and Blizzard most certainly can.

Let's consider something for a moment: when Warcraft hit its third game, similar such promises were made that "we aren't done with this setting". Next year, WoW hit shelves. Now Diablo has hit its trilogy-ending game, and the devs are saying "we aren't done with this setting". It's hard to look at history and the potential profits they could rake in from a Diablo MMO and say "oh yeah, there's no way they'd do that".

Besides, "not done with the setting" could mean an expansion pack, or a console game (which blizzard has been trying to get into for a long time now). I see no reason to read that as a Diablo MMO.

Blizzard does love its expansions, but that wouldn't really be "not done with the setting" so much as "not done with this game specifically". They specifically said "setting", which is usually a clue dropped by developers who are keen on exploring the universe with other new games but not continuing that specific thread. This sort of statement tends to hint towards a new game, not an expansion of an existing one.

They're still playing footsie with the idea of making a console version of Diablo 3, but again, that's not really "not done with the setting" so much as "revamping an existing title for console play".

I don't disagree that it could mean something else, but I see no reason to presume that "Diablo MMO" is entirely off the table either. It's just as likely, if not moreso, than the options you've presented.

Li Mu:
As expected. No matter where you stand on the 'always online' crap or the graphics, you know that this will be a game which will make your mouse buttons cry.

As a WD you click very little, just hold shift and hold your attack button.

Your mouse will do just dandy ;).

WhiteTigerShiro:
Well, whether you'll acknowledge it, Diablo 2 existed outside of the personal bubble of you and your friends. But in any case, those unique builds still exist, and if anything I would argue that D3 encourages them. What happens when it turns out that the throwing build just doesn't work for the Barbarian? You basically lost all the time you spent leveling him when you have to delete him. Or, as in D3, you just take a few seconds to swap-out some abilities for another build. You no longer have to build a character specifically for solo play, only to feel gimped when you hop into a game with other people, because you can just swap-out to another build. I guess that if you hate being able to just play the game, then yeah, D3's system is bad. Personally though? I like playing the game, so I like not having to constantly re-roll or run into town to pay for a respec. A build isn't working? *Click click click* Alright, let's see how this works.

We can call this one a matter of taste. I like the choices I make to be binding, but that's just my preference. It isn't really a choice if I can flip out of it at anytime. The strength of Diablo 2's gameplay was building a "skeleton" of skills, and then having equipment be the "skin" that you can swap out at will. By having everything be swappable, it's less like you're crafting a character, and more like you're just test driving cars. I certainly won't say it empirically makes the game worse, but it does legitimately strike me as a step backwards. I'm sure many many people prefer being able to change on the fly, but I'm psychotically odd/oldschool. I like decisions that matter. It makes you think about them more.

Says the guy who insists on using the term "cartoonish" to describe anything that isn't gray/brown with heavy bloom. I don't know if you've looked outside the window, recently, but there are more colors in this world than gray and brown.

I'm not going to call you a liar here, but allow me to be succinct. Do not put words in my mouth. I'm not opposed to COLOR. I never said that & I never inferred it. I am opposed to a game series that is historically based on realistic aesthetics (lighting, shadow, color) and a dark atmosphere suddenly jumping into WoW Land with glowing green rocks. There is a time and a place for cartoonish stylings (Torchlight, Castle Crashers, Rayman Origins) and a time and a place for realism. I would kindly ask that you fully read what I say before attempting to speak for me.

Color for color's sake is NOT smart design. Diablo could have used green grass, blue skies, and maybe a few purple sunsets in a manner that would have been 100% in keeping with the Diablo series. But they implemented color in a cartoonish way, which absolutely does not fit into the history of the series. Libraries have random blue or pink glowing walls, rocks exude blue light. You can like it; I'm not out to destroy that. But don't try to patronize me by attempting to boil down my argument into a disdain for color.

See, and that's all the more reason why I find it hard to believe that you take graphics seriously. You want to know why every single cookie-cutter Modern Warfare wannabe uses washed-out gray/brown colors for all their games (aside from the fact that it's the scheme used by the game they're copying)? Because THAT is what's "easy to make". The more color you put into your game, the more you have to make sure that the colors all work together. If everything is a dull gray and brown, you don't have to do much coordinating because everything is the same color.

Just stop. Please see the statement above about not putting words in my mouth. Have we ever had a chat about my favorite games? Did I tell you who my favorite game designers are? I'm pretty sure I never have. And if I haven't, how can you possibly judge how committed I am to the art of taking graphics seriously?

I didn't mention gray or brown once. I have never stated here, not even remotely, that I want a washed out gray brown game. Also - and this is a separate discussion - the extensive use of gray/brown in games has nothing to do with how easy it is. Companies want the GoW/MW $$$.

When I say this was "easy" for Blizzard to make, I mean that they can pull their assets directly from WoW and more or less port them into D3. Textures, color palettes... the works. It takes far less effort to modify or reuse existing artstyles than it does to reinvent a new style from scratch and ask your artists to work outside their comfort zone (WoW).

And I have to call your bluff here. Balancing colors is NOTHING compared to making something look realistic. Much higher polygon count, the lighting has to be PERFECT (green glows won't cut it), your shadows have to be TIGHT. You're looking at longer render times, larger file sizes, a need for better optimization across the board. Basically, it takes a CRAP TON more work to do things realistically than it does to stylize.

So if you want to have a real discussion that doesn't involve you making wild accusations and assumptions of what I've said and feel, I'm up for it. From your patronizing attitude and extensive stuffing-of-words-into-my-mouthiness, I am guessing you're not, so this will probably be the last I have to say on the matter.

This review hits the nail on the head for me. Good stuff :)

Denamic:

Hammeroj:
Okay, define "dismissing" an art style.

I derived it from his abrasive attitude towards stylism, using words like 'cartoonish' in a negative manner, while using 'realistic' as the positive example.

...And why the fuck should he be thinking about how this appeals to other people when he's criticizing this as a consumer?

Because he sought to establish himself as an authority figure on the matter as a 'graphics designer'.
As such, his credentials as a graphics designer gets called into question.

HAHAHHAHA, whaaaat?

I didn't realize I was on trial. This is awesome! Can I call a witness to the stand?

How about Bill Roper, one of the original Diablo dudes?

Mr. Roper, there is a lot of discussion here about the difference between Diablo 3 & Wow. Mr. The Bard - myself - claims that WoW & D3 share a lot in common visually, to the latter's detriment. What is your take on the separation of Diablo & WoW?

"One of the things I always enjoyed about that separation between Blizzard and Blizzard North was that the Diablo games had a very distinct art style. They had different art directors, they had different people working on it, they had a different sensibility about them. Diablo was I think grittier and darker and a little more leaning towards the photo realistic. Whereas the Craft games that were being built down in Irvine were bigger and broader in scope, brighter colours, just different pallets and different presentation. Both of those were very strong from that visual standpoint, for example."

So then, Mr. Roper, you're not saying color is BAD, just that the brighter colors and lighter visual themes don't fit into the Diablo series?

"I think that one of the things that we always tried to get across was that Diablo was Gothic fantasy and I think there was just a need that was put in there from the visuals that I didn't necessarily get. I got it from the architecture and to a degree from the character design but not the feeling of the world. I can't say that I dislike it. I didn't look at it and go, oh my God that's horrible. But I looked at it and went, it's not really... to me as a player it just didn't really ring with Diablo."

So you are saying that although you harbor no ill will towards stylized graphics, you just don't think they fit into the Diablo universe?

Are you saying that realistic AND stylized cartoony games can coexist, side by side? I'm sorry, Mr. Roper, this is video games. You're not allowed to like more than one thing. Which is it, Mr. Roper. Do you like cartoons or do you like bromances? Could you answer me, Mr. Roper?

...

BANG!! BANG!!

Let the jury note that I have slapped Mr. Roper in the head with a giant shovel. He had the nerve to like both styles. And that just isn't allowed on my internet.
.
..
...
....
.....

... what? This makes about as much sense as coming to the conclusion that I hate stylized graphics based on saying it doesn't fit in with D3!

Look, man, it went down like this. The first dude said D3 looked nothing like WoW. I was all, "NUH UH!" and gave him examples and "micro sized" screenshots (Do micro size screenshots go through time and space, distorting what the eye sees??) Then this other dude was like "WAAAAAH!!! YOO A DOODY HEAD!" And I'm all, "Yo dude, I takez my graphics FO REALZ." And then everyone is all "Bard hates color! Bard loves modern warfare! Bard likes to sleep in Sailor Moon pajamas!" All I've heard in reply is a bunch of assumptions, a lot of grief, and NOTHING even close to a solid, intellectual retort. If I knew how little you people actually wanted to DISCUSS the topic, I would have never mentioned my profession.

I have done nothing but use logic. I was HOPING that mentioning mah jobz would cut off the "YOU JUST DON'T LIKE COLOR!!!" whinery and elevate the discussion. sigh. I shoulda known better.

Hammeroj:
Okay, define "dismissing" an art style.
No, all he said is he takes art styles seriously. I'm not particularly fond of people throwing their profession around either, but you're reading too much into it.

Seriously. I really didn't intend to throw around my profession, I was honestly just trying to show that it's something I'm passionately keen on. I know a sound guy who stops watching movies if the sound design isn't up to par... sometimes knowing what you do gives context for why you put so much emphasis on something.

If nothing else, you'd think these people would see that I have Grim Frakking Fandango as my avatar. Grim Frakking Fandango, people!!!!

Thank you for giving me faith that I'm not speaking yiddish without realizing it.

Hammeroj:

Denamic:

Hammeroj:
People are allowed to have preferences. Even graphic designers.

No.
Not liking a style is one thing.
To dismiss it is another thing entirely.
Were you competent, you'd appreciate the values of styles you do not personally enjoy.

...Why? Why should you possibly tolerate every art style in order to not be considered a shit graphic designer?

For instance, let's say H.R. Giger fucking hates anime. Does that make his art shit(-ier, if you don't already like it), in your eyes?

WhiteTigerShiro:

I'm a graphic designer by trade, and I take aesthetics and art design in the games I buy VERY seriously.

Says the guy who insists on using the term "cartoonish" to describe anything that isn't gray/brown with heavy bloom. I don't know if you've looked outside the window, recently, but there are more colors in this world than gray and brown.

I don't know if you're using hyperbole in that first sentence or not, but it's not about colors. It's never been about colors in and of themselves. If you think that, you don't know what you're talking about.

Without even looking at anything else, the texturing - in its entirety - is done in WoW's painted on style. This alone is enough to make your comments about the games looking nothing alike so absurd that if absurdity were strawberries, we'd all be having strawberry milkshakes right now. The lighting does indeed also resemble WoW heavily. And the weird proportions, exaggerated animations and an insane reliance on 2D to create their world certainly add to the "cartoony" aspect of D3. You don't get to go "NUH UH!", dismiss everything the guy said and given examples of and then call into question his profession.

And I'm not saying you can't do it, but you have to have good reasons for that.

I sadly have to plead guilty. I've been playing LA Noire in Black & White mode. I DO have it out for color.

8'(

I... I never realized it until now. Also, I should go on the record as hating art. I hate it all. I probably should have mentioned that earlier.

No, I'm just kidding. It's all good guys. But seriously, look at how dumb Diablo 3 is:

image

Torchlight looks about 100x better. Maybe 20. Diablo 3 is the worst thing ever.

I honestly just appreciate the fact that Blizzard actually seemed to do their best to END the Diablo story with this one. Blizzard writing an actual ending to one of their story arcs is the real news here.

Yeah, yeah, certain evil people didn't receive their comeuppance in the end, but I really don't see this being a hook for a sequel so much as a quick expansion and a segue into a different universe entirely. This was made to be The Diablo to End All Diablos because there's nothing in the Diablo framework you can do that can't be done better in either WoW, StarCraft 2 (hey, you could re-skin the guys in Use Map Settings!) or even Warcraft 3.

The core gameplay never needed changing, the only thing you're really paying for is all that independent voice acting and story organizing and graphical animation of a whole bunch of totally sweet death effects that offer a better reflection of your character's power(such as when a monk's deathblow sends a zombie flying into the air Team Rocket-style or blasted into gibs which fly with balletic verve<channeling Yahtzee here.>)

vengerofthelight:

Mmm. I love Baldur's Gate ...

However, I'm pretty sure games like that are why Bioware has to make crap like TOR these days.

What do you mean -- Baldur's did extremely well. And the remakes are looking really good so far. They won't blow minds with their graphics but, the story and gameplay (more important) will be awesome.

Besides, without all the strobing, flashing, exploding, every-single-motion-needs-a-corresponding-lightning-storm-animation-to-go-with-it eyesore approach to graphics that blizzard takes, it will be pleasant to immerse oneself in. That's beamdog, not bioware doing the remade editions though.

CriticKitten:
If not, let me fill you in: Diablo 3 contains several deliberate design changes between it and D2, which were make in order to make it better resemble MMOs. WoW specifically. The streamlining of attributes, the new skill system, the armor/weapon systems, the adjusted quest system and the GIANT exclamation points hovering over people's heads when they have a quest....hell, the forced online play?

No. Just no.
DA:O had way more similarities to WoW gameplay-wise (tank-DPS-healer/buffer roles? tons of buttons? warrior stances? taunts?); does that make it a semi-MMO?
And golden question marks... Seriously? THAT denotes an MMO? Please, it's just what people currently expect to see as a quest marker.

The.Bard:

No, I'm just kidding. It's all good guys. But seriously, look at how dumb Diablo 3 is:

image

Torchlight looks about 100x better. Maybe 20. Diablo 3 is the worst thing ever.

To start off my bit... I've spent the last couple of days playing D3. That picture... is NOT Diablo. Note the triggers buttons in it, and the lack of a skill bar. If I'd venture a guess, I'd guess that's Torchlight, though don't quote me on that. (Image name is tlbig.jpg)

As far as the art style goes. Diablo 3 is definitely dark themed, but the areas that are 'bright' aren't very common. A couple outdoor sections in Act 1 (yes, including a rainbow that's underneath a bridge you cross over after a boss), and parts of act 4, which generally have some pretty blatant corruption and/or battles.

The act 2 desert areas are also pretty bright, yes... like they were D2. The thing to consider is the art, including the color pallet used, fit the game. When you're playing, you generally don't even notice it, that rainbow not withstanding, which comes in a bit of a lull after a mini boss fight. Then there is the issue of the secret area, with it's rainbow, ponies, teddy bears, and flowers. Personally, I find it hilarious, especially the knowledge that it is, in effect essentially a big 'fuck you' to all the people bitching about the art design. It's especially amazing if you see somebody in it... and realize that they look very ridiculously out of place there.

In general, my thought is that most of the people bitching have no interest in the game itself whatsoever. They dislike it on principle, including things like always needing to be on battle.net, the art, whatever. Very few of these people have never actually PLAYED the game itself. I'm not talking about the beta, either... The beta stopped way to early for people to to get a look and feel that goes any deeper then the surface.

This game does on the surface borrow a lot of lessons learned from WoW... but then again... something people are forgetting, is that WoW has borrowed a lot from Diablo as well.

For me, the biggest thing I'd consider to be a legitimate complaint somebody would be making is the prevalence of the early day 'Error 37' occurrences. Those have pretty much passed, and you can get in without frustration now.

People need to realize that yes... this IS a Diablo game. Most of what made the games great in the past has been improved upon. A lot of the frustrating things about it have been done away with. You may not need to devote as much time or energy to try a new build as you used to, that doesn't mean there's not depth there. As somebody who's got a level 59 Monk, that's nearly finished with Act 3 in Hell, that depth IS there.

As far as the single player goes, one of the advantages of how they did things was that somebody who primarily plays by themselves CAN use the AH. Spending time in game trying to find that one item can be really frustrating, as the times that you'll find an item that's any good at all are fairly few, and the times that the item is actually good for the current character is even slimmer. It's not so big an issue in Normal... it becomes more... obnoxious in Nightmare... and it can become rather insane come Hell.. with the champion packs that can have rather brutal sets of mods. Fire Chains/Jailor/Arcane enchanted being an example I can think off the top of my head that is... ouch.

In short, the majority of people bashing the game have preconceptions that are telling them that they should hate it. A lot of people are forgetting that the between D2:LoD and D3... is 12 YEARS. A lot changes in that time. Blizzard took it in the direction they choose to take it, and they did a good job of it (server issues at launch notwithstanding). Another thing that kind of branches off of where Diablo went is Torchlight, which has a different feel to it altogether. That being said... the people bitching about the palette choice in Diablo pointing to Torchlight as the alternative are... well... nuts, frankly. I haven't done anything in the TL2 beta... but I HAVE played the first one. Believe me... Diablo looks photo-realistic when compared to Torchlight. I'll grant... the player models for Diablo wouldn't look horribly out of place compared to WoW... but they'd be probably 3-4 generations later then wow... where the player models of the primary races at launch have basically stayed static in 8 years. It's Blizzards art style, and they DO do Dark well, if more highly polished then most.

The.Bard:
So if you want to have a real discussion that doesn't involve you making wild accusations and assumptions of what I've said and feel, I'm up for it. From your patronizing attitude and extensive stuffing-of-words-into-my-mouthiness, I am guessing you're not, so this will probably be the last I have to say on the matter.

You claim to want a serious discussion, yet you pack all of your replies with bitter sarcasm and make completely ridiculous comparisons by claiming that Diablo 3's graphics are in any way comparable to Castle Crashers. You're either blatantly trolling, or don't know what a serious discussion is.

As for the whole "cartoony graphics" thing, Blizzard already devoted an entire level to making fun of your argument and proving it wrong. So... yeah. I think we're done here.

Atros81:

The.Bard:

No, I'm just kidding. It's all good guys. But seriously, look at how dumb Diablo 3 is:

image

Torchlight looks about 100x better. Maybe 20. Diablo 3 is the worst thing ever.

To start off my bit... I've spent the last couple of days playing D3. That picture... is NOT Diablo. Note the triggers buttons in it, and the lack of a skill bar. If I'd venture a guess, I'd guess that's Torchlight, though don't quote me on that. (Image name is tlbig.jpg)

Wow, good eye! I actually didn't even look at the picture (not that closely, anyway). But now that I look at it, that IS Torchlight's UI (and judging by the button icons, the 360 version). So the question is whether this is further evidence of Bard just being a troll, or if he majorly screwed-up on which picture he wanted to post.

Viruzzo:

CriticKitten:
If not, let me fill you in: Diablo 3 contains several deliberate design changes between it and D2, which were make in order to make it better resemble MMOs. WoW specifically. The streamlining of attributes, the new skill system, the armor/weapon systems, the adjusted quest system and the GIANT exclamation points hovering over people's heads when they have a quest....hell, the forced online play?

No. Just no.
DA:O had way more similarities to WoW gameplay-wise (tank-DPS-healer/buffer roles? tons of buttons? warrior stances? taunts?); does that make it a semi-MMO?
And golden question marks... Seriously? THAT denotes an MMO? Please, it's just what people currently expect to see as a quest marker.

Could you set up that straw-man just a little bit faster? No one's talking about Diablo 3 being an MMO, I very clearly said that the game features design changes intended to make it resemble one. Either you didn't read the post you just quoted, or you did but are choosing to set up a straw-man anyways. Neither of which is really acceptable. If you're going to interject your opinion into someone else's discussion, at least try to read it first.

WhiteTigerShiro:
As for the whole "cartoony graphics" thing, Blizzard already devoted an entire level to making fun of your argument and proving it wrong. So... yeah. I think we're done here.

Um.

Making fun of it, yes.

Proving it wrong? Eh. It's an opinion, you can't really "prove" an opinion wrong. It really does deviate in coloration from its predecessors, and it looks like the game's animation and art was originally intended to model that of WoW (or maybe they were trying to model Torchlight....hard to be sure), a relationship which would probably be more noticeable if players hadn't complained about its brighter color scheme back in the early screenshots. It's not really "wrong" to say that yes, this game's not designed to look similar to its predecessors. But it's not really bad art, either. *shrug*

WhiteTigerShiro:

The.Bard:
So if you want to have a real discussion that doesn't involve you making wild accusations and assumptions of what I've said and feel, I'm up for it. From your patronizing attitude and extensive stuffing-of-words-into-my-mouthiness, I am guessing you're not, so this will probably be the last I have to say on the matter.

You claim to want a serious discussion, yet you pack all of your replies with bitter sarcasm and make completely ridiculous comparisons by claiming that Diablo 3's graphics are in any way comparable to Castle Crashers. You're either blatantly trolling, or don't know what a serious discussion is.

As for the whole "cartoony graphics" thing, Blizzard already devoted an entire level to making fun of your argument and proving it wrong. So... yeah. I think we're done here.

SIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGH

At this point I can only assume you are misrepresenting my words on purpose. I said nothing within 500 miles of Castle Crashers looking like D3. I have gone out of my way to NOT be sarcastic, even as you keep misrepresenting my words and putting complete and utter lies into my mouth. If one of us is a troll, I'm fairly confident it's not me.

Your one major contribution to this "conversation" is that "proof" equates to Blizzard making a level devoted entirely to mocking the people who think they took the series in a bad direction.

You've shown your quality, sir. Good day.

Atros81:

The.Bard:

No, I'm just kidding. It's all good guys. But seriously, look at how dumb Diablo 3 is:

image

Torchlight looks about 100x better. Maybe 20. Diablo 3 is the worst thing ever.

To start off my bit... I've spent the last couple of days playing D3. That picture... is NOT Diablo. Note the triggers buttons in it, and the lack of a skill bar. If I'd venture a guess, I'd guess that's Torchlight, though don't quote me on that. (Image name is tlbig.jpg)

In short, the majority of people bashing the game have preconceptions that are telling them that they should hate it. A lot of people are forgetting that the between D2:LoD and D3... is 12 YEARS. A lot changes in that time. Blizzard took it in the direction they choose to take it, and they did a good job of it (server issues at launch notwithstanding). Another thing that kind of branches off of where Diablo went is Torchlight, which has a different feel to it altogether. That being said... the people bitching about the palette choice in Diablo pointing to Torchlight as the alternative are... well... nuts, frankly. I haven't done anything in the TL2 beta... but I HAVE played the first one. Believe me... Diablo looks photo-realistic when compared to Torchlight. I'll grant... the player models for Diablo wouldn't look horribly out of place compared to WoW... but they'd be probably 3-4 generations later then wow... where the player models of the primary races at launch have basically stayed static in 8 years. It's Blizzards art style, and they DO do Dark well, if more highly polished then most.

I was trying to be funny. I thought the line "Torchlight looks about 100x better. Maybe 20." was a dead giveaway.

image
Mama always told me not to become a comedian. She was right.

I DO, however, appreciate that you are willing to talk about the art style respectfully. Not having played the game makes it very difficult for me to really see if they made it work despite the WoW-Factor.

In general, my thought is that most of the people bitching have no interest in the game itself whatsoever. They dislike it on principle, including things like always needing to be on battle.net, the art, whatever. Very few of these people have never actually PLAYED the game itself. I'm not talking about the beta, either... The beta stopped way to early for people to to get a look and feel that goes any deeper then the surface.

Ah, see, that's the reason I'm here. I loved Diablo 1. I loved Diablo 2. I don't WANT to hate D3. It just keeps pushing me away. The combination of always-on drm (I play pc a lot when traveling), combined with the off putting art style, are the dealbreakers for me. I am VERY interested in what the game has to offer. I just won't be able to play it until my friend lets me jump on it. He's refusing to open it until the servers have had a few weeks to settle in, so the only option I have to learn about the frakking thing is youtube, reviews, and forums.

My main concern with the aesthetics in D3 (as far as I can tell never having played it) is that the narrative seems to be dark and serious. The cg trailers they released before the game came out are dark and serious. And then you play it and there are... self-illuminating green bookshelves and very toony aesthetics all around. People seem to think I hate colors or stylized art, and that's not it. It's just that the cartoon style doesn't seem to fit the narrative mood Diablo is supposed to evoke. Again, I say this never having played it. It's quite possible they somehow made it all come together once you're clicking away. It just seems like they veered too far towards WoW.

Good to know the gameplay still gives some depth. I guess, for me, having a skill tree that was bound to the character gave the character some personalization. In light of the fact that you can never change your appearance, the skill tree gave some personality. "Oh, that's Quasimoda, my fire sorceress. Or maybe I feel like going with Simba, the ranged barbarian." I liked being able to have 3 or 4 distinct barbarians, each with a special skillset, not one morpher who can become antyhing at anytime. As you mentioned, though, the system does have a lot of upside to it, and I'd like to see it in action... someday.

Thank you again for your insight.

CriticKitten:
]Could you set up that straw-man just a little bit faster? No one's talking about Diablo 3 being an MMO, I very clearly said that the game features design changes intended to make it resemble one. Either you didn't read the post you just quoted, or you did but are choosing to set up a straw-man anyways. Neither of which is really acceptable. If you're going to interject your opinion into someone else's discussion, at least try to read it first.

And where did I say that you meant it being an MMO, as opposed to resembling one? And where is even the line drawn?
It's obvious that D3 is not an MMO (not in the WoW/SWtOR sense, at least); it also seems to me that in no particular way the things you pointed out imply it moving towards WoW. One by one:

- "the streamlining of attributes": not only they did not remove it as much as they moved it to the items, in its current state it is still not particularly similar to WoW, where you only choose secondary stats, and even then usually stack 1-2 of them (3 only for a few specs); the attribute system as it is now in D3 is the same as D2, but instead of getting attribute points you get attribute stats in the items, and they did this not for some obscure "WoW-ification" but to keep in line with the "no need to respec" design concept of D3 (as you don't place fixed points for skills, you don't place them for attributes)

- "the armor/weapon systems": how is that similar to WoW more than to D2? The only thing they DID get from WoW is having a single governing "DPS stat" and designing all abilites by scaling off it (a change that was brought in WoW only in Wrath); it still is different from WoW in that you can improve in many ways, whereas in WoW it can only be improved linearly (by having a better ilvl weapon and better primary stat again by getting better ilvl armor). The level of customization you can get in D3 is astronomically higher than in WoW.

- "the new skill system": and again, how is that similar to WoW? WoW's talent trees are just like D2's (except that talents are 5-point at most); in WoW you have a gazillion abilites and unlimited space for them, and you are supposed to use them all. If anything D3 is similar (as has already been pointed out) to Guild Wars, not WoW.

- "the adjusted quest system": I have no idea what you mean, it's exactly the same as D2 and nothing like WoW.

- "the GIANT exclamation points": a dumb argument, as I said, since it's got nothing to do with MMOs; while it has been introduced in WoW, this concept has currently become a trend that many games adopt because anyone nowadays immediately gets its meaning.

The.Bard:

I'm not particularly fond of people throwing their profession around either, but you're reading too much into it.

Seriously. I really didn't intend to throw around my profession, I was honestly just trying to show that it's something I'm passionately keen on. I know a sound guy who stops watching movies if the sound design isn't up to par... sometimes knowing what you do gives context for why you put so much emphasis on something.

If nothing else, you'd think these people would see that I have Grim Frakking Fandango as my avatar. Grim Frakking Fandango, people!!!!

Thank you for giving me faith that I'm not speaking yiddish without realizing it.

I wasn't trying to take a stab at you. All I meant was that me being in favor of people using their profession as some sort of a crutch for their argument wasn't the reason for me replying to the person. The fact that him taking offense to your statement didn't logically follow was[1].

[1] Fustercluck of a sentence, I know, but fuck it.

Excludos:

Slycne:
Which is precisely my issue, you don't get a choice. Put a 1000 hours into Diablo 2 or never even touched an aRPG before and you both start on what's essentially easy mode.

Still haven't tried Hardcore Nightmare mode I gather? Do that for a bit, then come back to me and complain about the game being easy. There are difficulity modes, they just aren't unlocked from the start. It was the exact same thing in diablo 2. Tbh I think diablo 3 is a bit more challenging than its predecessor.

Not sure how much more clear I can make it that the issue was never that the game doesn't get harder but that everyone is required to start at easy. I shouldn't have to drop 20 hours of boredom or speed run through in order for the game to become interesting. This is the same problem with the "oh FX13 gets great 20 hours in" argument.

Hammeroj:

The.Bard:

I'm not particularly fond of people throwing their profession around either, but you're reading too much into it.

Seriously. I really didn't intend to throw around my profession, I was honestly just trying to show that it's something I'm passionately keen on. I know a sound guy who stops watching movies if the sound design isn't up to par... sometimes knowing what you do gives context for why you put so much emphasis on something.

If nothing else, you'd think these people would see that I have Grim Frakking Fandango as my avatar. Grim Frakking Fandango, people!!!!

Thank you for giving me faith that I'm not speaking yiddish without realizing it.

I wasn't trying to take a stab at you. All I meant was that me being in favor of people using their profession as some sort of a crutch for their argument wasn't the reason for me replying to the person. The fact that him taking offense to your statement didn't logically follow was[1].

No worries. I appreciate you going to bat in support of literacy. Oh, and one more thing...

image

Tell those two Diablos, White Tiger Shiro & Denamic... you were right about me. You were... right!

*HURK*

[1] Fustercluck of a sentence, I know, but fuck it.

Viruzzo:
And where did I say that you meant it being an MMO, as opposed to resembling one? And where is even the line drawn?
It's obvious that D3 is not an MMO (not in the WoW/SWtOR sense, at least); it also seems to me that in no particular way the things you pointed out imply it moving towards WoW. One by one:

Once again you're picking and choosing which portions of the quotes you want to read. The original quote is "Diablo 3 contains several deliberate design changes between it and D2, which were make in order to make it better resemble MMOs. WoW specifically.". First you took this to read "Diablo 3 is an MMO because it has MMO-esque features", and then proceeded into a rant no one cares about in which you pointed out that DA:O has "MMO features" and is thus an MMO by my logic. Too bad I never made that argument in the first place.

But okay, now you're backpedaling and admitting you were wrong about that, and I accept your apology. So now you're trying to say that I'm suggesting that Diablo 3 is being built to look like WoW, when the original quote clearly says "in order to make it better resemble MMOs" as a genre, with WoW being the specific example because, in fact, the game does feature a couple of choices that are similar to WoW. However, I was speaking as a whole. Again, you're arguing a point no one has made. I didn't say Diablo 3 is an MMO and I didn't say that Diablo 3 is WoW, either.

I'll be waiting for your second apology in your next post, and hopefully by attempt #3 you'll have managed to actually read the entire statement you are quoting and will be capable of comprehending it. In the meantime, let's address what else you've said.

- "the streamlining of attributes": not only they did not remove it as much as they moved it to the items, in its current state it is still not particularly similar to WoW, where you only choose secondary stats, and even then usually stack 1-2 of them (3 only for a few specs); the attribute system as it is now in D3 is the same as D2, but instead of getting attribute points you get attribute stats in the items, and they did this not for some obscure "WoW-ification" but to keep in line with the "no need to respec" design concept of D3 (as you don't place fixed points for skills, you don't place them for attributes)

Okay, let's start by pointing out that WoW actually does use a system of auto-attributes that is similar to those in D3, even if the exact attributes are not identical and not everything is perfectly matched up to a tee. The general idea is clearly inspired from that source. But even getting away from that for a moment, let's break down precisely why this is designed to more resemble an MMO:

Diablo 3 allows a player to reroll their attributes at will in order to respec. This is a feature predominantly used in MMOs to allow their players greater character longevity rather than being forced to spend months pumping up a specific-spec character and then starting over to run the same class in another spec. This is not inherently a bad idea, in fact it's a good one because it means no one gets screwed with "noob" builds and it's less wasted time for everyone. But it does, indeed, come from MMOs in general, as most other RPGs don't provide that sort of attribute flexibility or do so very sparingly (as seen in D2). So to argue that it's not in any way similar to an MMO structure of respec-at-whim is just false.

- "the armor/weapon systems": how is that similar to WoW more than to D2? The only thing they DID get from WoW is having a single governing "DPS stat" and designing all abilites by scaling off it (a change that was brought in WoW only in Wrath); it still is different from WoW in that you can improve in many ways, whereas in WoW it can only be improved linearly (by having a better ilvl weapon and better primary stat again by getting better ilvl armor). The level of customization you can get in D3 is astronomically higher than in WoW.

You're splitting hairs where you needn't bother. The game is built to revolve around the magical "DPS" stat to the point which it offers players an option to let the game pick which gear they should wear FOR THEM based on this stat. Regardless of how much customization is available, this is a structure designed to cater to MMO players, who are used to a focus on overall DPS and worth as opposed to comparing several individual categories to the point of tedium ala Diablo 2. And like the last one, this isn't a bad change either, it's a decent one in some respects. But it IS designed for an MMO crowd. It's an attempt to streamline the system to make it easier for the MMO players that they're trying to draw into this game.

- "the new skill system": and again, how is that similar to WoW? WoW's talent trees are just like D2's (except that talents are 5-point at most); in WoW you have a gazillion abilites and unlimited space for them, and you are supposed to use them all. If anything D3 is similar (as has already been pointed out) to Guild Wars, not WoW.

I assume you mean GW1 since the skill system's pretty significantly different from GW2's skill system (which has almost nothing to do with levels whatsoever, save for unlocking utility slots). Though even that is sort of an incorrect analogy since you don't gain skills in GW1 by leveling, you have to purchase them or complete specific quests that unlock them, whereas D3 skills unlock by level. So yeah, first off, wrong analogy.

Second, I should point out that some of WoW's skills are unlocked by purchasing them (so long as you're high enough in level), which is similar to the way GW1 does it.

Diablo 3's automatically gaining skills by level is something that it shares with other games, among them a number of MMOs. It's just part of the process of streamlining the game experience, which is both hit and miss in my personal opinion.

- "the adjusted quest system": I have no idea what you mean, it's exactly the same as D2 and nothing like WoW.

WoW is this wrong. (c wut i did thar ;D) Even Diablo 3's developers would argue that I'm more correct than you are, by virtue of at least acknowledging that the quest system in D3 is not the same as D2.

Diablo 2 questing was very much a scripted experience. There are a grand total of six quests total, you bash through them all to finish the act, game over end of story. You didn't get

Diablo 3 questing does indeed have the same main story structure. But, in the words of one of the game's developers, questing outside of the story (which pretty much didn't exist in D2) is now possible. The devs believe they have dramatically improved the questing system, and when asked how, they had this to say:

Kevin Martens, April 2011:
I think we've added way more quests, more variety of quests. We've randomized the quests, and have these sort of quests that are self contained. For example, if you enter a dungeon in Diablo III, there might be somebody standing at the entrance, like a treasure hunter, saying, "Hey, I heard stories about The Idol of Rygnar is hidden somewhere in this dungeon. Help me find it and you can share in the reward." Then you go through the dungeon and protect this guy. Then you'll find the idol and you'll get the reward.

This structure is considered more organic in that smaller quests will "pop up randomly" in the world and you can complete them for special rewards.

Does this idea of randomly appearing quests that just "show up" in the world sound familiar to you at all?

Now to be fair, that's hardly the first or the only example of a game that features such a system. And indeed, not all of them are MMOs, even (there's Skyrim, for example). But the questing system of Diablo 3 is very much intended to model a more dynamic system as based upon several MMOs and other such games that made such a thing popular in the first place.

- "the GIANT exclamation points": a dumb argument, as I said, since it's got nothing to do with MMOs; while it has been introduced in WoW, this concept has currently become a trend that many games adopt because anyone nowadays immediately gets its meaning.

No, what you just said, THAT is a dumb argument. "Everyone uses it therefore it's not from MMOs originally". Wait, what? Those are two different things. The concept of a quest system that revolves around finding the dudes with the big glowing exclamation points does indeed originate from MMOs, to say otherwise is just lying to oneself. Just because it's used by a lot of other games now doesn't mean that the core idea is no longer from MMOs originally. You don't just kick dirt over history and forget about it because someone else starts using the same idea.

And of course there are a number of other smaller things as well, like the art work in general (but especially on skill icons), the general wording of things in the game uses a more WoW-esque "tongue", and the devs admitted to adding purple items to D3 mostly as a nod to WoW. These are all small things and none of them really bother me, heck, most of these changes don't bother me. I'm simply pointing out that anyone claiming that Diablo 3 doesn't take a few pages from major MMOs (WoW included) is simply not paying much attention.

While you're in game, the art style definitely does not seem cartoony. Slick and polished? Yes. Cartoony? No. I think I'm going to go in and try to get a screen shot of some of the spiders you fight in game for comparison purposes.

I can understand the frustration in the always on DRM, so to speak. I personally feel that Blizzard has added enough value to that to make it worthwhile, but I know it won't be enough for everybody. Your friend has a good call as far as letting things settle in before diving in. Most of those issues have calmed down now, as far as the game goes, but they were definitely there.

Some screenshots I took real quick:

Not sure what the noise about the art style is. D3 looks nothing like WoW. It also looks nothing like D2. It is a very different style and anyone that has played the game and isn't blind can tell you that.

I'd say Torchlight 1 and 2 look a lot more like WoW than D3, which is one of the reasons why I couldn't play Torchlight 1 past the first 3 dungeon tile sets.

Obviously the d-bag claiming to be a graphic designer cherry-picked an image of ghosts casting abilities that have color to them just to skew his argument but it doesn't add any validity.

Again, no one is claiming that D3 looks like D2, people are just clarifying that D3 does not look like WoW. Hell, if WoW could ever look like D3 then I might actually go back to playing it after 3 years of inactivity. It would give me something nice to look at.

Good, but unoriginal

Gee, sounds like every sequel ever.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here