'Adventures' in Diablo 3

[Volourn]

"Actually making Diablo something more than just a multiplayer hack'n'slash wouldn't hurt.
There is nothing bad in making the game more intelligent while keeping the same dynamic gameplay. Especially today - when everyone dumb down their games - Blizz actually tries to make their Diablo more intelligent. Like giving NPCs actual dialogues and characters and working more on storyline according to Leo."

*yawn* Ireelevant. It's spitting on the very successful, and popualr Diablo system,a nd leagcy.

This is the same crying that FO fnaboys make about Bethesda's FO - even thsoe who say it'll be a 'good game but no FO'. Well.. these changes may make D3 a good game; but it won't be Diablo. L0L

This is more proof that the crybabies just bullshit to bullshit.

Everyone here would jackoff big time if D3 played exactly like FO1; D's legacy be damned. Let's just be honest.

Cowardly morons.

 

[Kraszu]

"Actually making Diablo something more than just a multiplayer hack'n'slash wouldn't hurt.
There is nothing bad in making the game more intelligent while keeping the same dynamic gameplay. Especially today - when everyone dumb down their games - Blizz actually tries to make their Diablo more intelligent. Like giving NPCs actual dialogues and characters and working more on storyline according to Leo."

*yawn* Ireelevant. It's spitting on the very successful, and popualr Diablo system,a nd leagcy.

This is the same crying that FO fnaboys make about Bethesda's FO - even thsoe who say it'll be a 'good game but no FO'. Well.. these changes may make D3 a good game; but it won't be Diablo. L0L

Not really, having conversations instead on monologues don't brake the Diablo gameplay it will play about the same, and most likely you will just be able to skip dialogues and read summaries like in D2 if you just want to hack&slash. It will be optional from what they say so how does it brake diablo legacy? Does books about diablo also brake legancy of diablo game whit not so much text?

Somehow you can't see teh hardcore D2 players crying that there will be more optional story in D3.

 

[Athiska]

You mean a hardcore player actually listened to the dialogues in his or her first playthrough?

 

[Kraszu]

You mean a hardcore player actually listened to the dialogues in his or her first playthrough?

I mean that if somebody is only for hack&slash then optional text/story does not brake his gameplay so they don't care. By hardcore I meant somebody that played allot/fanbase that would be both those that had listen to dialogues and those that did not.

 

[MetalCraze]

People mostly complain about WoW looks. Now that colourful gayness is indeed a piss on the dark and gritty franchise.

 

[Comrade Hamster]

People mostly complain about WoW looks. Now that colourful gayness is indeed a piss on the dark and gritty franchise.

The WarCraft franchise lost any semblance of dark and gritty quite a long time ago. And as for World of WarCraft, if it weren't for the talent of their artists, it would look a hell of a lot worse.

 

[J1M]

People mostly complain about WoW looks. Now that colourful gayness is indeed a piss on the dark and gritty franchise.

The WarCraft franchise lost any semblance of dark and gritty quite a long time ago. And as for World of WarCraft, if it weren't for the talent of their artists, it would look a hell of a lot worse.

I think he's referring to the tards that think they are using the WoW art style for Diablo 3.

Yes, D3 has more color than the last game, but it is not WoW style. They are clearly going for something that looks almost like a painting, similar to how they have evolved the visual effects for their cinematics. Personally, I trust that there will be plenty of locale diversity and frankly I don't want to run around a pitch black screen so I like the change.

 

[kingcomrade]

People mostly complain about WoW looks. Now that colourful gayness is indeed a piss on the dark and gritty franchise.

Warcraft was dark and gritty? lol
ARG! Stop poking me! Tee hee hee!

 

[AzraelCC]

I think they're going for the Boris Vallejo style of art. I still think it's gritty, but in a more primal, barbaric fantasy than a Gothic one. Perhaps this style was adopted to represent a 'post-apocalyptic fantasy' world? The supposed destruction of the Prime evils in D2 at the cost of the world stone's destruction suggests that the world was somehow reduced to a primitive state. We can also see this through the initial characters presented: the barbarian and the witch doctor. It's very Conan-esque at this point, but with a smattering of powerful ancient civilizations in ruins (unlike in Conan where it is a purely primitive world). If this were the atmosphere of the world, then the art style fits D3. It is very, very far from the cartoony look of WoW.

A lot of Blizzard fanboys think that the early games were perfect, when in fact, you could say that starcraft and diablo had cartoony looks at some point. But in an interview a few years back, a Blizzard art director admits that the cartoony look--or at least the exaggerated features--were integral in the art design philosophy of Blizzard. Since most of their games then didn't have zoom, or were played in an overhead view ideally, avatars/units had to be distinguishable from other units/avatars clearly.

 

[kingcomrade]

Starcraft IS cartoony. Diablo wasn't so much.
I think color is great, screw the whiny Blizztards. Oh gosh the game isn't grey, oh gosh you can select multiple buildings. If Starcraft 2 was going to be a first person adventure puzzle game, I could agree with the complaints.

 

[MetalCraze]

People mostly complain about WoW looks. Now that colourful gayness is indeed a piss on the dark and gritty franchise.

Warcraft was dark and gritty? lol
ARG! Stop poking me! Tee hee hee!

Hey I didn't know I was talking about Warcraft in reply to comment about Diablo 3 in the topic about Diablo 3. Thanks for telling me.

 

[Comrade Hamster]

People mostly complain about WoW looks. Now that colourful gayness is indeed a piss on the dark and gritty franchise.

Warcraft was dark and gritty? lol
ARG! Stop poking me! Tee hee hee!

Hey I didn't know I was talking about Warcraft in reply to comment about Diablo 3 in the topic about Diablo 3. Thanks for telling me.

You were being vague. When you used the in reference to a "dark and gritty" franchise, we assumed since you were talking about WoW, you would be talking about the WarCraft franchise, since the Diablo franchise is unrelated.

 

[MetalCraze]

No I was talking about D3 having WoW's looks. And it does. It looks like a cartoon.

 

[fastpunk]

I'm not much of a Diablo fan but after reading and seeing some of it I'd like to play it. When it comes out of course. The random encounters and class-specific quests sound like a solid idea. I'm curious to see how all these ideas will blend together but there's a potentially fun game to be had here.

 

[Kz3r0]

It's very Conan-esque at this point, but with a smattering of powerful ancient civilizations in ruins (unlike in Conan where it is a purely primitive world).

You shoul read the R.E.Howard novels, if you already done it, read'em more thoroughly.

 

[SpaceKungFuMan]

*yawn* Ireelevant. It's spitting on the very successful, and popualr Diablo system,a nd leagcy.

This is the same crying that FO fnaboys make about Bethesda's FO - even thsoe who say it'll be a 'good game but no FO'. Well.. these changes may make D3 a good game; but it won't be Diablo. L0L

This is more proof that the crybabies just bullshit to bullshit.

Everyone here would jackoff big time if D3 played exactly like FO1; D's legacy be damned. Let's just be honest.

Cowardly morons.

The game play is the same. At worst, people who skip the story will have slightly more story to skip. We all know eventually everyone skips the story because they're playing for the 30th time. But for that first play through, the story has a chance at being better. Also, people lived for the small number of random encounters in Diablo 1, so adding more just makes the game even more enjoyable by the 30th playthrough. I fail to see how this is spitting on the legacy of the game.

 

[Chimera]

Chiming in on the issue of color, I would just like to inquire if anyone here actually took the time to look over the proposed changes the supposed "Blizztards" are requesting?

From my point of view, they are hardly demanding too much by way of change. It is not a censure of color, merely a shift from the highly-saturated look of the Warcraft titles to that of the darker Diablos. Take a look at the images they provided for some comparison shots:
http://i32.tinypic.com/2zqr9yx.jpg
http://i27.tinypic.com/2jexp1x.jpg
http://i27.tinypic.com/vep6ix.jpg
http://img110.imageshack.us/img110/1681 ... wu5oq6.jpg
As you can plainly see, the vibrancy of color is rarely affected, merely masked behind a blue/gray filter with more emphasis on shadows and lighting. In all, it acts to enhance the additional color, rather than blending it together into some amalgamation of varied hues, wherein you end up with green-tinged rock floors (see image three) and the like.

For that matter, I cannot see any conceivable reason for Blizzard to refrain from complying with their wishes. Correct me if I am mistaken, but I believe the developers of Gothic 4 (I forget the name of the studio) are shipping their game with alternate palettes, a more colorful one for NA and a darker version for Europe. Why should Blizzard fail to take the hint? They could package both, with an option to toggle between the palettes as desired.
Sounds like a win-win situation to me...

 

[Micmu]

They could package both in the same, with an option to toggle between the palettes. Sounds like a win-win situation to me...

Hmm... Doesn't Far Cry have that option? To select between different schemes/filters.

 

[Hümmelgümpf]

I heard Uncharted had a bonus feature called "next-gen filter" that made all textures brown and added insane amounts of bloom. Lawl.

 

[RGE]

As you can plainly see, the vibrancy of the colors is rarely affected, merely masked behind a blue/gray filter with more emphasis on shadows and lighting.

Yeah, those suggestions actually make the game look good. And while those "adventures" sound interesting, Blizzard has a boring tendency to herd all highlevel characters to the endzones and stick them there, and that just seems like a waste of 75% of the game. Not that I'm in the market for another Diablo game, but if I were, I'd want something that takes full advantage of the procedural content, and doesn't end up putting all the endgame stuff in the last areas of the highest difficulty when it could instead be spread out over all the areas in the highest difficulty.

 

[elander_]

Adventures are essential to Diablo, at least for me. I could never endure level after level of mindless dungeon hacking (even if the combat was interesting) without the occasional random adventures. Not only that but also the random events that happen to town when the hero returns to sell loot and reequip. The world in Diablo was very dynamic.

Adding dialogs to it (instead of Diablo monologs) is great but only if there is a reason to add those dialogs and dialog choices are important, otherwise i prefer the monologues.

 

[Annonchinil]

I hope they go to the more occult feel of Diablo 1.

 

[The_Pope]

*yawn* Ireelevant. It's spitting on the very successful, and popualr Diablo system,a nd leagcy.

This is the same crying that FO fnaboys make about Bethesda's FO - even thsoe who say it'll be a 'good game but no FO'. Well.. these changes may make D3 a good game; but it won't be Diablo. L0L

This is more proof that the crybabies just bullshit to bullshit.

Everyone here would jackoff big time if D3 played exactly like FO1; D's legacy be damned. Let's just be honest.

Cowardly morons.

The hooks for more dialogue were there in diablo, and they don't require removing any of the base mechanics. You could talk to people, it's just that the game didn't provide an option to choose what to say. A better comparison would be if bethesda upgraded the turn based combat from fallouts rather shitty system to the magnificence of X-com. The games both had [feature], but it was implemented in a half assed way and most people just wanted to click past it ASAP. Take something from the original + make it better = what a sequel should do.

 

[Comrade Hamster]

Chiming in on the issue of color, I would just like to inquire if anyone here actually took the time to look over the proposed changes the supposed "Blizztards" are requesting?
From my point of view, they are hardly demanding too much in the way of change. It is not a censor of color, merely a shift from the more highly-saturated look of the Warcraft titles to that of the subdued/gritty Diablos. Take a look at the images they provided for some comparison shots:
http://i32.tinypic.com/2zqr9yx.jpg
http://i27.tinypic.com/2jexp1x.jpg
http://i27.tinypic.com/vep6ix.jpg
http://img110.imageshack.us/img110/1681 ... wu5oq6.jpg
As you can plainly see, the vibrancy of the colors is rarely affected, merely masked behind a blue/gray filter with more emphasis on shadows and lighting. In all, it acts to enhance the additional color, rather than blending it all together into some amalgamation of varied hues, wherein you end up with green-tinged rock floors (see image three) and the like.
For that matter, I cannot see any conceivable reason for Blizzard to refrain from complying with their wishes. Correct me if I am mistaken, but I believe the developers of Gothic 4 (I forget the name of the studio) are shipping their game with alternate palettes, a more colorful one for NA and a darker version for Europe. Why should Blizzard fail to take the hint? They could package both in the same, with an option to toggle between the palettes. Sounds like a win-win situation to me...

Well, Blizzard did end up bowing to demands to change how they handled StarCraft II's colors, so I have some hope for Diablo III.