Diablo III is Running on Consoles at Blizzard

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

theultimateend:

RJ 17:

The Forces of Chaos:
Why do I feel like Spoony in the Betrayal Song now ? Well now I guess only starcraft series is the last product that blizzard makes me feel intrested in. Hopefully they dont kill it off with any retarded ideas.

Like splitting the sequel into three games rather than releasing a multi-disc game? :P

I still don't quite get this.

The first Starcraft 2 is as big as Starcraft 1.

They just specialized the single player campaign into a big Terran mission.

then they'll expand into Zerg for the second one which will likely be larger than brood wars.

A decade since their last game and they'll only have been adding a single extra expansion pack.

What other company with a popular product has that kind of restraint?

From what I've been told of SC II, a lot of Wings of Liberty could have been cut out, that the game drags itself along as though it's TRYING to make itself as big as the original game by padding it with a bunch of fluff.. No one asked for a mega single-race campaign game, and as such I refuse to see them splitting it into three games as anything other than "People have been waiting a decade for this sequel...let's make them pay for it three times." I could be wrong, since I've never played SC II I can't determine whether or not a lot of it's story is padding and fluff, but we all have our biases.

Hammeroj:

Fluffythepoo:
Dont think ill be digging through 2 year old forum posts to relive waiting for diablo 3, but i still remember the jay wilson quote "7 buttons was too many" xD(thats very funny btw) But lets assume i lied, the 6 buttons was arbitrary and they didnt do any testing to see if other numbers would work. Are you saying they made a fundamental game mechanic choice in a game thats almost entirely dependent upon good game mechanics for the purpose of maybe one day porting to console?

Wait, so do you think his "7 buttons was too many" quote is funny or do you think he had a point?

There's no need to assume you lied, all I want is for you to make the case for limiting the number to 6. Quotes aren't necessary for that.

I'm not saying that. I'm saying it's possible, and I'm saying it does indeed lend itself better to a console port, whatever the intention.

It has 1 button because they moved away from the pot system, because its a boring mechanic that didnt actually add anything. Pots are a way to compensate for a poorly implemented resource/health system, Blizzards solution was to make their system good enough to not need it. Poe moving to make pots a fundamental mechanic isnt an improvement if the potion system is a bad system for the arpg genre.

I want to know where you get off saying that pots are a bad system for ARPGs before we get anywhere else on that.

You said the inventory system was fixed to make life easier on consoles, then i said it was fixed because it was a bad system (if you think the old item scaling system was a good one then we'll just smile and nod at eachother) And the reason itd be worse on console is a giant blocky gui system like this one are incredibly tedious to navigate with a gamepad. Its not impossible by any means, its just worse.

I said the fact that it was changed in this way makes it more approachable by a gamepad. I said it can mean that Blizzard made those changes for that reason. I didn't say that that's necessarily the reason, I can certainly think of at least one other big one.

See, you said it fixed a broken system. I want to hear an explanation instead of "just mah opinion".

What's worse than what on consoles? Because if you mean the old inventory UI compared to the new one, I concur.

D3s system does lend itself to consoles, but saying blizzard sacrificed game mechanics because they secretly always planned on making a console version is bullshit. And saying it was obvious from the start is even smellier bullshit.

The game is much console friendlier than a certain predecessor it should, ideally, build on. The devs were blowing their wads about the console port since before the game even released. What I said was, seeing all these sly "well, maybe we're going to make a console port" every few months coupled with the fact that the game did indeed turn out to be really console friendly made it obvious that the game's going to see a console version. You have to seriously have some sort of issues connecting dots not to see that.

Now as for how much of the simplification there is with the goal of a console in mind, I don't know. But that's only because I think with this game they were aiming at the lowest possible common denominator.

and im just not going defend the critically acclaimed starcraft 2 campaign, if you didnt like it, thats your burden

Defend it from what, the fact that barely enough relevant plot points happen to cover a single campaign in either War3 or the original Starcraft?

Its a joke youd have to have wasted years on diablo forums to appreciate, but its funny, i assure you.
And the case for 6 was goddamn balancing issues. Everyone knows what balancing issues are and it doesnt need elaboration.

Pots demean and/or reduce action. Diablo 3 would be a pretty fantastic of example of this: healing actually takes a degree of skill and alot more action than hitting the heal button (they still give you an o shit button, but severely limit its use). Torchlight 2 copied the diablo 2 potion chugging system and what happened? People just chug pots and ignore the action because fuck it i have pots. Pots are boring, add nothing to the game, and an incredibly lazy way for a developer to balance its combat system.

You played diablo 2 and know what im talking about regarding inventory, it doesnt need an explanation.

Im assuming the predecessor was diablo2. Cause ive played diablo2 with a gamepad, it was ridiculously console friendly (i might even go so far as to say i prefer diablo 2 with a gamepad).. nobody said diablo 2 was made for consoles despite the fact that it -like every arpg ever made- would have run beautifully on them.

And the dots i connected are: there was enormous demand from the diablo community for a console port since d3 was announced in 2008 and blizzard said maybe. The persistence of people asking for a console version led blizzard to slowly start working on a console version. People outside the community got little snippets in news articles about a possible console version around blizzcon 2010 when the issue was brought up there. These people then assumed that blizz had been planning a console port from the start. Then when a console port seems like a sure thing people noticed that diablo 3 -like every arpg ever made- has simple controls and take this as proof that diablo was made for consoles the whole time.

RJ 17:

theultimateend:

RJ 17:
Like splitting the sequel into three games rather than releasing a multi-disc game? :P

I still don't quite get this.

The first Starcraft 2 is as big as Starcraft 1.

They just specialized the single player campaign into a big Terran mission.

then they'll expand into Zerg for the second one which will likely be larger than brood wars.

A decade since their last game and they'll only have been adding a single extra expansion pack.

What other company with a popular product has that kind of restraint?

From what I've been told of SC II, a lot of Wings of Liberty could have been cut out, that the game drags itself along as though it's TRYING to make itself as big as the original game by padding it with a bunch of fluff.. No one asked for a mega single-race campaign game, and as such I refuse to see them splitting it into three games as anything other than "People have been waiting a decade for this sequel...let's make them pay for it three times." I could be wrong, since I've never played SC II I can't determine whether or not a lot of it's story is padding and fluff, but we all have our biases.

You're not wrong at all. Added to that the story was utter utter shit. God damn it was bad.

Anywho, Diablo 3 for consoles? whatever, enjoy the crap game, because that's what it is.

I think I'm now done talking about Blizzard for a while. They really make me sad.

...to shamelessly quote Yahtzee:

"...I wouldn't hold your breath for a console port. It would lose a lot of the atmosphere of the original, since you wouldn't be able to hear your mouse button clicking about fifty times a second."
"You click around town, click your way into some quests, click down to the dungeons, click all the enemies to death, and then click back home again. There's more clicks than a school for dolphin telegraph operators."

RJ 17:
From what I've been told of SC II, a lot of Wings of Liberty could have been cut out, that the game drags itself along as though it's TRYING to make itself as big as the original game by padding it with a bunch of fluff.. No one asked for a mega single-race campaign game, and as such I refuse to see them splitting it into three games as anything other than "People have been waiting a decade for this sequel...let's make them pay for it three times." I could be wrong, since I've never played SC II I can't determine whether or not a lot of it's story is padding and fluff, but we all have our biases.

Many of the side missions could have been cut out, so could the ability to research upgrades for your units and structures and the ability to travel to different parts of your capital ship and converse with the different NPC's. While much of it may not have added to the ultimate goal of the finale, the non-story missions are fun and cover a multitude of different situations. I don't understand why people would complain that the side missions are fluff and how they don't contribute anything to the overall story. They may not contribute much of anything storywise but they're still fun. The one thing they do contribute is you earn a new unit on specific missions, skipping those missions means you will not have access to those units on the final 3 missions. It is possible to beat the game without the non-storyline enabled units but it does give a nice handicap for those who want to try. I'll admit that a lot of the side stories are fluff, but complaining about the story is nit-picking while all the available missions is more than enough content for the price of the game... this of course being if you enjoy SC.

Kheapathic:
Snip

The complaint about fluff missions is perfectly valid when you look at the core issue of mmy complaint. Why not cut out all the fluff and, I don't know, make it so that you can play the Terran AND Zerg campaign in the same game? Cut out the fluff that's going to be in the Zerg game and *gasp* you might just have enough room to fit the Protoss campaign in there too! All of a sudden we're back to a single streamlined game that they could make into a multi-discer if necessary and everyone gets the sequel they've been waiting over a decade for all in one nice, neat package.

That's why there's reason to complain about the fluff. If the biggest argument for splitting the game is "Well there's just so much we want to do with it!" but a lot of that is completely unnecessary...then why have it in there in the first place? Again, keeping the unnecessary stuff in the game really makes it seem like they were TRYING to fill up the space. That they were TRYING to make the game as big as the first so that they could justify breaking the sequel into three parts. Which leads us back to my hypothesis about them just wanting to suck as much money as they could out of a sequel that people have been waiting over a decade for.

Sounds kinda fun. It'll be interesting to see how we work the Hot Key panels but still. Fun.

Hammeroj:
Yes, it could. I don't know why this is even remotely a question, and I don't know who could be even remotely surprised by this. It was clear since the very first hints from Blizzard's side and seeing how they developed D3.

hmmmm, yess, yessssss, feed me your rage. Hts ts ts ts ts ts ts ts ts.

Fluffythepoo:
Its a joke youd have to have wasted years on diablo forums to appreciate, but its funny, i assure you.
And the case for 6 was goddamn balancing issues. Everyone knows what balancing issues are and it doesnt need elaboration.

Right, so you're just parroting what someone who I think works for a company that's completely full of shit said, you can't even paraphrase what they said, and you expect me to just go with it? No.

"Balance issues" is a pretty vapid and meaningless fucking term on its own. It says nothing to me, and it's not a point on its own by any stretch of the imagination.

Pots demean and/or reduce action. Diablo 3 would be a pretty fantastic of example of this: healing actually takes a degree of skill and alot more action than hitting the heal button (they still give you an o shit button, but severely limit its use). Torchlight 2 copied the diablo 2 potion chugging system and what happened? People just chug pots and ignore the action because fuck it i have pots. Pots are boring, add nothing to the game, and an incredibly lazy way for a developer to balance its combat system.

What do you mean by ignore action, exactly? If anything, potions let the player be engaged in combat more because they don't need to wait for that bloody health orb to drop. The only real difference there is that health orbs are less reliable and more luck based.

And there we go again with the "they add nothing to the game" shtick. Did you not read the article I linked? What PoE has is kilometers deeper and allows for incredibly varied approaches as opposed to D3's pick up shit from the ground that will maybe drop after you kill an enemy. Even the idea that you must kill enemies for the flasks to refill does the exact same thing as health globes in terms of the approach to healing, except it gives players more choice.

You played diablo 2 and know what im talking about regarding inventory, it doesnt need an explanation.

No, I seriously don't know what you're talking about. You compared two things you didn't bother describing, and I have no clue as to what they are.

Im assuming the predecessor was diablo2. Cause ive played diablo2 with a gamepad, it was ridiculously console friendly (i might even go so far as to say i prefer diablo 2 with a gamepad).. nobody said diablo 2 was made for consoles despite the fact that it -like every arpg ever made- would have run beautifully on them.

Diablo 2 is also archaic as all hell with only 2 active skills at any given time and other such relics of the past. When I say Diablo 3 should have built upon it, I don't think you understand what I meant with this derailment into "b-but it works well on consoles too!". It's something I disagree with too, to some extent, but that's irrelevant.

[to the bolded part] Mkay. Do you want me to stop replying?

Jay Wilson:
image

RJ 17:

Kheapathic:
Snip

The complaint about fluff missions is perfectly valid when you look at the core issue of mmy complaint. Why not cut out all the fluff and, I don't know, make it so that you can play the Terran AND Zerg campaign in the same game? Cut out the fluff that's going to be in the Zerg game and *gasp* you might just have enough room to fit the Protoss campaign in there too! All of a sudden we're back to a single streamlined game that they could make into a multi-discer if necessary and everyone gets the sequel they've been waiting over a decade for all in one nice, neat package.

That's why there's reason to complain about the fluff. If the biggest argument for splitting the game is "Well there's just so much we want to do with it!" but a lot of that is completely unnecessary...then why have it in there in the first place? Again, keeping the unnecessary stuff in the game really makes it seem like they were TRYING to fill up the space. That they were TRYING to make the game as big as the first so that they could justify breaking the sequel into three parts. Which leads us back to my hypothesis about them just wanting to suck as much money as they could out of a sequel that people have been waiting over a decade for.

Seeing how you admit to have never played the game before you have quite an opinion. Your hypothesis is completely unfouncded and on second-hand information. I'm sure there are people who feel the same as you, but you haven't played it and seem annoyed that Blizz didn't simply release all three campaigns. The amount of content they gave for the release is well worth the cost, while it may not wrap up the entire storyline it gives plenty to do in the meantime. Given that this is the day of DLC and locked content, I welcome everything they put in Wings of Liberty; meanwhile I'm still miffed about not getting to play the Protoss campaign. If you honestly think they're just adding fluff so they can charge more, you have yourself fooled.

Kheapathic:
The amount of content they gave for the release is well worth the cost, while it may not wrap up the entire storyline it gives plenty to do in the meantime. If you honestly think they're just adding fluff so they can charge more, you have yourself fooled.

Actually I'm saying they were adding fluff to pad out the game, thus making it obstensibly contain as much content as the original. Remove the fluff, the padding, all the irrelevent crap and you're left with a game that has less content than the original.

This is what I meant when I said it seems as though they were trying to stretch the games out. All that extra stuff is just filler so they could justify saying "Well this game has as much content as the original, so we need to break it into three games." How much of that "just as much content" is unnecessary? According to a lot of people I've spoken with (a number of them in this very thread), quite a bit. Thus my hypothesis remains feasible despite the fact that I haven't even played the game: a number of people that HAVE played the game validate my opinions on the matter by agreeing with them through their own experience with the game.

But the truth of the matter is I've hated Blizzard ever since they canceled SC Ghost because they couldn't be bothered to make the game themselves and decided that they didn't like the game that was made by the company they outsourced the project to. Next came my disillusionment with WoW. SC II being split into three games was the last nail in the coffin. In my book, when it comes to greed, Blizzard will always be worse than even EA.

Fluffythepoo:
snip

Is there a point you're trying to make?

Kheapathic:
Seeing how you admit to have never played the game before you have quite an opinion. Your hypothesis is completely unfouncded and on second-hand information. I'm sure there are people who feel the same as you, but you haven't played it and seem annoyed that Blizz didn't simply release all three campaigns. The amount of content they gave for the release is well worth the cost, while it may not wrap up the entire storyline it gives plenty to do in the meantime. Given that this is the day of DLC and locked content, I welcome everything they put in Wings of Liberty; meanwhile I'm still miffed about not getting to play the Protoss campaign. If you honestly think they're just adding fluff so they can charge more, you have yourself fooled.

First off, you're wrong about the completely unfounded thing. As long as the guy's opinion is based on facts, it doesn't matter that the facts were presented to him by someone else.

Second, I think you might be missing a point here. The time for this "you just want three campaigns" nonsense is about two and a half years past. We're not talking about the kneejerk reaction (which I disagree with to a great extent, by the way) people had when they first heard WoL will only have one campaign. We've already seen the game and we can hold Blizzard to their bullshit.

The reason they said they wanted to split the game into three parts is because they want to tell a huge story. They didn't. The quality of the storytelling itself aside[1], half of the missions in the game were even remotely relevant, and most of those barely progressed the story at all. When you have Blizzard saying "the story is why we did this" and then barely anything happens in it, that's complete and utter bullshit. And the statement that they're just adding fluff so they can charge more becomes true by default. They give bullshit reasons to create extra games, therefore the actual reasons do not sound as good for PR (e.g. making more money off your asses).

Now, I'm not saying you have to feel like you didn't get your money's worth out of the game. I got tired of the gimmicky missions about 15 in, but I can definitely see the appeal. I'm not even saying you have to hate the storyline; some people - you included, I imagine - may not give much of a crap about that. However, it's seriously annoying to see people defending Blizzard on what is essentially a complete crock of shit. If you like it - or even love it - good, but don't try to portray bullshit as anything more than it is.

[1] Because "we want to tell a huge story" sounds doubly dubious when the story they have is shit.

Fluffythepoo:

Jay Wilson:
image

Those memes made me laugh far too hard, because so true...

I just don't like how it needs to be online to play, when it is a single player game!

Point is: this has become silly, and its time for diablo memes

[1] Because "we want to tell a huge story" sounds doubly dubious when the story they have is shit.

BigTuk:
Going for the consoles. A very cheap grab by Blizzard They're getting desperate. Maybe they hop that console gamers will have lower standards and not mind their grindfest. That or they're realizing that alienating a significant chunk of their market off the bat was a bad idea and are trying to make up for it.

Or perhaps since a considerable chunk of the PC playerbase has gotten bored and moved on to other games they can tap the console game market hping that the console gamers haven't heard of any of the problems and annoyances of the game.

Honestly though, I hope blizzard learns from their mistakes. They need to make *GAMES* Not manufacture Revenue Streams.
I played D1.. and D2:LOD I've been a fan of the series for a while now but that Always on Requirement...kinda a game breaker. COme on, D2 was always a game I played when I was tired of online. And while you can play solo... net connection can be a little sketchy.

If they keep losing player base though, they may have to kill that requiremen, but we all know why. THe RMAH. See they know if left offline people would simple find ways to hack items into their inventory and ba, no need for RMAH.

I love Diablo and I'm mainly a console gamer. I've heard the bad things about Diablo 3 but will at least try it myself.
I can also tell you that being a console gamer doesn't instantly mean I have 'low' standards.

I agree that SC2's story was rubbish (though not as bad as D3's) and many of its campaign missions were so gimmicky that I actually don't know a single person who has replayed it after getting the achievements (the most crushing disappointment for me was the final mission... you do not make the final mission of an "epic" campaign a tower defense, look at "Omega", Brood War's final mission, THIS is how you do it). However, I don't think their main intention of splitting the game in 3 parts was to sell it 3 times, I believe the main reason is they want a constant multi-year presence so they can remain relevant, tweak the game and "win e-sports", which is where the REAL money comes from. Of course, in the meanwhile they got crushed by Riot. So now the whole "3 games" thing feels a bit...awkward.

 Pages PREV 1 2

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