Preview Diablo III Hands-On Impressions

[CraigCWB]

It was bashed as the ONLY reason for it being bad in all gaming magazines that I used to read then. Low res and bad graphics.

Diablo 2, being bashed by the game magazines? In what country? Certainly not in the US.

And what is this crap about "low-res"? Everyone was using 14 inch CRTs back then and D2 ran in the same resolutions every other game did.

 

[Mrowak]

being in rather ehm impressionable age of 16 I was pretty much blizzard's fanboy at that time. Furthemore, I replayed D1 repeatedly in single and multi till now. .

The same happened with D2 (in multi), albeit much less often. I think that as far as objectivity is concerned I'm doing fine, thank you. Much better than you, apparently..

Objective fanboys, is it? :D

Reading comprehension phail...

I will help you and highlight the parts you (oh, so conveniently) skipped.

Long story short I finished D1 in 2001 - only a month before D2 was released. I played both one after another, hence nostalgia factor in evaluation of both games is, I daresay, minimal. For me the drop in quality was substantial - mind you after Warcraft2, Starcraft and Diablo 1 and being in rather ehm impressionable age of 16 I was pretty much blizzard's fanboy at that time. Furthemore, I replayed D1 repeatedly in single and multi till now. The same happened with D2 (in multi), albeit much less often. I think that as far as objectivity is concerned I'm doing fine, thank you. Much better than you, apparently.

In other words I meant something like this: "Despite being a 16 year old fanboy of blizzard's games I was able to notice Diablo 2's shortcomings. At this point I ceased to be their fan and started to apply more criticism to their subsequent products. As a result I'm far from an average sheeple, or at least I think I am. Add to that, the fact that my experience with Diablo franchise is not clouded by nostalgia since I played both installments one after another with relatively small interval between the playthroughs. Moreover, I played both games repeatedly over the years so my memories of them are not biased. Therefore, I can confidently say that my assessment of both games is more objective than yours."

I hoped for a decent discussion with such a Diablo 2 veteran as yourself with strong arguments abound on both sides. Needless to say I am very disappointed. You and your person strike me at this moment as full of shit - quoting things out of context is the worst attempt of trolling that brings you closer to Volorun than anyone else. At this point you've proved that by and large D2 community consists of hopeless morons unable to lead a decent level of discourse for an amount of time longer than the attention span of a gnat. Good luck with trolling someone else.

 

[Mrowak]

Very much subjective. What 'world'? It was one dungeon. The village was lame, NPCs soulless quest and item dispensers. Graphics were dark, sometimes too dark to actually see anything, I dont count that as atmospheric. D1 did have some truly good places and enemies (Butcher for example) but so did D2 (Harem or Duriel). It depends on what You like. I enjoyed a change of pace coming from more open areas...

Malakal cannot into impliedsetting and atmosphere.



Also if 'open areas' essentially mean 'large flat plains of nothing' then it is not an improvement. And change of pace mostly came from player being able to effortlessly steamroll generic baddies right from the start, which was the final nail in the atmosphere's coffin.

This.

The single question: how in the name of the Lord were the open areas significantly different from dungeons, other than - enemies can attack you from everywhere, and the locations are ultra flat and boring? - will remain a mystery forever.

 

[CraigCWB]

Reading comprehension fail? You're all over the place, and contradicting yourself at the same time. I'm just highlighting some of your miscellaneous bullshit by quoting your own previous comments back at you.

You still regularly play a game that came out 15 years ago, and you feel you feel you are objective about it. More objective than me, a guy who played it and enjoyed it for a month or two and then put it on the shelf in the garage where it still sits. I think that speaks for itself, and I'm not going to bother trying to discuss the pros and cons of the game with somebody who obviously has a strong emotional attachment to it. Been there, and done that. Too many times to get sucked in again.

 

[DraQ]

The single question: how in the name of the Lord were the open areas significantly different from dungeons, other than - enemies can attack you from everywhere, and the locations are ultra flat and boring? - will remain a mystery forever.

Well, cosmetic differences like different tileset aside, they only differed in that they consisted of very few, very spacious rooms or corridors, meaning that unlike about all the other dungeons, they barely had any structure to enrich gameplay. Cosmetic considerations included, they were pretty jarring with their mostly out of place mobs.

Amusingly enough, ActV exteriors were more interesting and distinct, the problem being that ActV was even less Diablo-like than anything from previous acts, possibly save for the dreaded jungle.

I confess that to me LoD was still a net incline, but only because of runes, the ability to play as a furry and the fact that the base game was devoid of proper atmosphere anyway, so all the damage has been done already.

 

[hiver]

You know what guys?

Fuck Diablo I & II.

It works like this: each skill in your spellbook has one slot to which you can add a Skill Rune. The Rune then modifies how the skill works. It's somewhat similar to gem sockets in items. There are five different colors of runes, and each color will modify the skill in a different way. Runes have seven ranks, which modify how powerful the effect is. One example they talked about was the Wizard skill Magic Missile. Unaltered, it's just what it sounds like — launching an arcane projectile at a monster. With a rank 1 Indigo rune, the skill shoots an extra missile. With a rank 7 Indigo rune, it shoots seven extra missiles.

/

The skill I chose when I hit level 10 was Firebats. It functions similarly to the Inferno spell in Diablo 2, only instead of projecting a cone of flame in front of me, it projected a cone of flaming bats. The first Skill Rune I looked at extended the spell's range, trading off damage to do so. That was a bit underwhelming, since I already had ranged attacks, so I went with a different rune that turned the cone into a whirlwind of flaming bats that surrounded me. Another rune added a life-drain effect. It was tempting, but the whirlwind looked too cool to pass up. Finally, the skill that sold me on the Skill Rune system was Zombie Charger, a spell that summoned a zombie, who would shamble a few steps forward and then spray poison in the immediate vicinity. It was a solid, short-range attack. Fortunately, I lucked into a rune that modified the spell to summon a group of zombie bears that charged forward and trampled whatever was in their path. The buddy I was playing with happened to get a rune at the same time that made his Wizard's basic lightning spell change into a massive, conical spray of electricity, and we couldn't help but laugh as we used our new-found power to demolish groups of monsters.

mkay?

 

[Mrowak]

Reading comprehension fail? You're all over the place, and contradicting yourself at the same time. I'm just highlighting some of your miscellaneous bullshit by quoting your own previous comments back at you.

... Dude, what planet do you come from? And when did I say that D2 was a bad game that can't be enjoyed by anyone... It IS a very bad single player game. It is good in multiplayer from nightmare level onwards. Diablo 1 is better than D2 in terms of atmosphere and polish - this is what I said. Prove me wrong - where did I contradict it?

Pro tip: quoting thingd out of context does not prove you right. It sooner indicates you suffer from some sort of ADD.

You still regularly play a game that came out 15 years ago, and you feel you feel you are objective about it. More objective than me, a guy who played it and enjoyed it for a month or two and then put it on the shelf in the garage where it still sits. I think that speaks for itself, and I'm not going to bother trying to discuss the pros and cons of the game with somebody who obviously has a strong emotional attachment to it. Been there, and done that. Too many times to get sucked in again.

I don't play D games on a freaking daily, monthly or even yearly basis. Where did I say sth like that? I'm far from a hopeless drooling fanboy clicking the shit out of his life. A LAN party with a few friends once in a while playing either D1 or D2 (with D2 always staying unfinished - for a reason I think) allows me to have much clearer view than you - who are repeating like mantra - "D2 is awesome and in every way better than 1. No way D1 is in anything better. Holy Blizzard said that so it must be true you heretic." Admittedly, you did not say anything like this but you do act like that.

Moreover, I played both games over the years, not just D2 like you. And my opinion on them stands unchanged and unchallenged (I don't consider whailing "u r rong" to be a challenge).

You come here with no argumentation besides "because I say so". You do not address any point any of D2's detractors has made with real argument - just meaningless fluff lacking any original thought backed up by nothing. You think yourself too important to support your opinions but not modest enough not to express them.

Disclaimer: I can respect a person with a different opinion than my own, no problem. Difference in views does not mean hard feelings by default and honestly I was really hoping for a decent debate with you, with both sides showing a degree of respect to each other. Unfortunately, this did not happen and I do not consider myself to be at fault with this. I repeatedly asked you to provide some concrete arguments, examples, something I could respond with to your assertions. You failed that preferring to question my objectivity by attributing features I (and many others) enumerated to figments of my (and in this way their as well) imagination. I will not suffer that and neither would you in my position.

Either you become serious or admit to trolling, K thx bai.

 

[CraigCWB]

Mrowak, you use insulting and derogatory language to belittle anyone who doesn't agree with you about your favorite games and then claim the other person is in the wrong and you actually "respect" alternate views as long as they are legitimate, which means as long as they conform to the discussion you want to have.

That's typical fanboy behavior *shrug*

I pointed out the key areas I thought D2 was an improvement in one of my first comments. The addition of a storyline (no matter what you thought of it) as a framework and a reduction in the amount of content that was randomly generated. That's just in overall design philosophy, and doesn't include any of the many features D2 had that D1 did not. However, you chose to dismiss this out of hand and then accuse me of not having any "valid" arguments.

You've repeatedly asked me to engage in a discussion with you, but only if I have something "valid" to say. And you've been abusive while at the same time saying you "hoped" I wouldn't back down.

You've got a lot of stuff going on in that head of yours, and I want no part of any of it. You're entitled to your opinions, but you are not entitled to be an asshole and then expect other people to participate in your asshole-ary.

Isn't there some blizzard game forum you should be policing instead of the codex?

 

[ZbojLamignat]

Diablo 2, being bashed by the game magazines? In what country? Certainly not in the US.

And what is this crap about "low-res"? Everyone was using 14 inch CRTs back then and D2 ran in the same resolutions every other game did.

Wow, so in 2000 everyone in US had a 14inch monitor and all the games were running in 640x480? Talk about being a third-world shithole

 

[hiver]

Disclaimer: I can respect a person with a different opinion than my own, no problem. Difference in views does not mean hard feelings by default and honestly I was really hoping for a decent debate with you, with both sides showing a degree of respect to each other.

You should shut the fuck up.

 

[CraigCWB]

Wow, so in 2000 everyone in US had a 14inch monitor...:

Anal-retentive much?

I had a 17" CRT in 2000 but I was a working programmer and spent all day every day in front of my computer. Most people had whatever generic monitor Dell shipped with the computer when they bought it, which was a 14" CRT in the late 1990s.

.. and all the games were running in 640x480?

Most were, yeah. I think Baldur's Gate II really started something with the switch to 800x600! And even blizzard supported that new ULTRA-HIGH resolution with their D2 expansion!

Now get all anal on me and list a shitload of games nobody ever heard of that ran in higher resolutions back then, eh? :p

Talk about being a third-world shithole

Nobody else even made computer games at all, because Americans were the only ones who could afford computers until Al Gore invented the cheap computers for people who sleep in the dirt and have never been to school, and had Jimmy Carter hand deliver them.

Now get all anal on me and explain how there was this one guy in Greece who built his own computer from parts he got mail-order.

 

[ZbojLamignat]

Oh wow You obviously have to be joking, but I'll bite - list a few semi-known titles released in 2000 that had 640x480 as a max resolution.

 

[CraigCWB]

Oh wow You obviously have to be joking, but I'll bite - list a few semi-known titles released in 2000 that had 640x480 as a max resolution.

Are you a wikipedia expert, by any chance? :D

 

[Mrowak]

Mrowak, you use insulting and derogatory language to belittle anyone who doesn't agree with you about your favorite games and then claim the other person is in the wrong and you actually "respect" alternate views as long as they are legitimate, which means as long as they conform to the discussion you want to have.

That's typical fanboy behavior *shrug*

I pointed out the key areas I thought D2 was an improvement in one of my first comments. The addition of a storyline (no matter what you thought of it) as a framework and a reduction in the amount of content that was randomly generated. That's just in overall design philosophy, and doesn't include any of the many features D2 had that D1 did not. However, you chose to dismiss this out of hand and then accuse me of not having any "valid" arguments.

You've repeatedly asked me to engage in a discussion with you, but only if I have something "valid" to say. And you've been abusive while at the same time saying you "hoped" I wouldn't back down.

You've got a lot of stuff going on in that head of yours, and I want no part of any of it. You're entitled to your opinions, but you are not entitled to be an asshole and then expect other people to participate in your asshole-ary.

Isn't there some blizzard game forum you should be policing instead of the codex?

Ok, it seems we can't hope for any kind of debate here with both sides being prejudiced against one another. I don't see a way I became abusive towards your person in any other way than employing good natured Codex - exclusive jibes and memes - before you went all :nerdrage: I don't remember a single instance when I exhibited any kind of assholery you claim I have committed.

I did not dismiss anything you ever wrote here as worthless. I did, however, ask you for clarification as I found your points insufficient for anyone to answer them to.

In the same way I don't understand sentence: " (you) then claim the other person is in the wrong and you actually "respect" alternate views as long as they are legitimate, which means as long as they conform to the discussion you want to have." How, will you kindly explain to me, can "the views conform to discussion I want to have"? Views conforming with discussion? How is it even possible? So what - you claim that your arguments simply do not fit into the framework of a debate? If so, that should mean they are no arguments, at all!

If you didn't want to partake in any form of a discussion then what is the point of coming to a internet gaming forum? Even if you simply did not want that only with regards to my person then not replying to my post or refusing to address my queries in a polite response without unnecessary patronising my views, or worse my objectivity would be sufficient.

And how exactly I am fit to be policing blizzard's forums will stay a question forever unaswered I guess - especially that in everything I said I did not express any kind of positive sentiment towards this developer - here or anywhere else on this forums. In fact I was repeatedly critical of their policies and direction their products are going.

One last thing. This is the Codex CraigCWB - a place when an degree of thick-skin and a good anti-troll armour is required and desired thing. Part of the charm of the place and a survival trait you might say - and The reason I hang around here. If I was a true codex arsehole I would go all "rofl, noob" and "butthurt detected on you". Because I'm not I will say this: Let us just agree to disagree and end our pointless rants before the whole thing gets out of control.

 

[fizzelopeguss]

I had a 17" CRT in 2000 but I was a working programmer and spent all day every day in front of my computer. Most people had whatever generic monitor Dell shipped with the computer when they bought it, which was a 14" CRT in the late 1990s.

.. and all the games were running in 640x480?

Most were, yeah. I think Baldur's Gate II really started something with the switch to 800x600! And even blizzard supported that new ULTRA-HIGH resolution with their D2 expansion!

Who's alt are you, this is just too fucking stupid.

 

[Mrowak]

Most were, yeah. I think Baldur's Gate II really started something with the switch to 800x600! And even blizzard supported that new ULTRA-HIGH resolution with their D2 expansion!

:shock:

And I thought I lived in second worldia.

Even here the gaming press - then still largely free from the corruption it suffers from now - universally criticised D2 for small resolution and underwhelming graphics. :inner - grafix whore:

 

[Chefe]

My computer wasn't able to do 800x600 in 2000. My video card was fucked up so I could only use 640x480 or 1024x756. I remember this bugged me because most games ran best in 800x600.

Oh wait, that was actually around 1997-1998.

 

[Topher]

I had a 17" CRT in 2000 but I was a working programmer and spent all day every day in front of my computer. Most people had whatever generic monitor Dell shipped with the computer when they bought it, which was a 14" CRT in the late 1990s.

.. and all the games were running in 640x480?

Most were, yeah. I think Baldur's Gate II really started something with the switch to 800x600! And even blizzard supported that new ULTRA-HIGH resolution with their D2 expansion!

Who's alt are you, this is just too fucking stupid.

Pretty much.

 

[Malakal]

Most were, yeah. I think Baldur's Gate II really started something with the switch to 800x600! And even blizzard supported that new ULTRA-HIGH resolution with their D2 expansion!

:shock:

And I thought I lived in second worldia.

Even here the gaming press - then still largely free from the corruption it suffers from now - universally criticised D2 for small resolution and underwhelming graphics. :inner - grafix whore:

Exactly what I was talking about. Yes, media jizzed over the gameplay and stuff (cause its rather good for h&s), but graphics were criticized. Still got 9-10/10 but problem has been noticed.

 

[Mrowak]

Most were, yeah. I think Baldur's Gate II really started something with the switch to 800x600! And even blizzard supported that new ULTRA-HIGH resolution with their D2 expansion!

:shock:

And I thought I lived in second worldia.

Even here the gaming press - then still largely free from the corruption it suffers from now - universally criticised D2 for small resolution and underwhelming graphics. :inner - grafix whore:

Exactly what I was talking about. Yes, media jizzed over the gameplay and stuff (cause its rather good for h&s), but graphics were criticized. Still got 9-10/10 but problem has been noticed.

Perhaps the first sign of sloppiness that invaded later products?

Although still a good game to me D2 marks the start of Blizzard's slow decline.

 

[Ekkoe]

Haters be hatin'.

What's wrong with Blizzard making an action game? I don't see anyone hating on CoD for not being an indy rpg...

Blizzard knows their place. They're were quite aware that no one played Diablo 1 for its fantastic storyline and made Diablo 2 all about mechanics (imho too many mechanics), so Diablo 3 will probably have learned its lessons from Diablo 2. We'll see. All I know is that at least it doesn't pretend to be a deep, interesting RPG like Oblivion did, nor does it raise expectations by pretending to be "the spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate" like each of Bioware's RPG seem to be announced as.

Let it slide. Personally, I'm just glad they're not abusing previous titles (Fallout 3, BG, etc.) or are making false promises.

 

[Mrowak]

Haters be hatin'.

What's wrong with Blizzard making an action game? I don't see anyone hating on CoD for not being an indy rpg...

Blizzard knows their place. They're were quite aware that no one played Diablo 1 for its fantastic storyline and made Diablo 2 all about mechanics (imho too many mechanics), so Diablo 3 will probably have learned its lessons from Diablo 2. We'll see. All I know is that at least it doesn't pretend to be a deep, interesting RPG like Oblivion did, nor does it raise expectations by pretending to be "the spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate" like each of Bioware's RPG seem to be announced as.

Let it slide. Personally, I'm just glad they're not abusing previous titles (Fallout 3, BG, etc.) or are making false promises.

Sorry, dude I was one of the few who actually played D1 for sth else than clickfest - that is excellent atmosphere, a tingle up my spine, a shiver of fear. At D1's release the fate of the series was undecided and in 2001, before D2 was published in my worst nightmares I could not foresee such an abortion as D3 is shaping up to be. Who of the original D1 players could?

But I'll agree with you on one thing: judging from the trailers such as this one Blizzard indeed knows now what people want i.e. brainless bullshit popamole every soccer mum might enjoy without subjecting themselves to anything other than standard soap-opera crap. It looks like not only Activision-Blizzard has managed the impossible - actually dumbed down already simplistic game mechanics no one in their right mind could find complex or complicated or confusing, by removing important gameplay aspects e.g. potions, non-class specific equipment, stats etc. It seems, even from the trailer I linked to above, they actually succeeded in shallowing already simple as hell game-setting with humongous amounts of cheese. It is paradox of the entire series that the installment with the simplest possible plot structure (evil one under the village - kill it) has 3 times more atmosphere, polish and consistency than its sequel and apparently 10 times more of these than part three.

Congrats Blizz - achievement unlocked - the title Ultimate Retarderator is all yours.

 

[Xor]

 

[Micmu]

RETARDS GUNNA RETARD OMG 4LOL 4LOL XD

 

[DraQ]

Haters be hatin'.

What's wrong with Blizzard making an action game? I don't see anyone hating on CoD for not being an indy rpg...

Blizzard knows their place. They're were quite aware that no one played Diablo 1 for its fantastic storyline and made Diablo 2 all about mechanics (imho too many mechanics), so Diablo 3 will probably have learned its lessons from Diablo 2. We'll see. All I know is that at least it doesn't pretend to be a deep, interesting RPG like Oblivion did, nor does it raise expectations by pretending to be "the spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate" like each of Bioware's RPG seem to be announced as.

Let it slide. Personally, I'm just glad they're not abusing previous titles (Fallout 3, BG, etc.) or are making false promises.

Sorry, dude I was one of the few who actually played D1 for sth else than clickfest - that is excellent atmosphere

This, but not only. Diablo also had much more randomness than it's sequel. In Diablo II you run a lot around vast open spaces that can't be randomized in a way that would actually benefit gameplay. The prevalence of premade locations also kills a lot of replayability. The prequel also had random quests, randomized enemies, and was less saturated with loot, which meant that sometimes an awesome random drop could derail your character development effectively randomizing it, especially given that it was persistent, disallowing boss farming unless you restarted the whole game and given that character development wasn't entirely based on predefined skill trees.

As for the atmosphere, the music in DII is shit, in D1 - *THE* shit.

 

[Mrowak]

As for the atmosphere, the music in DII is shit, in D1 - *THE* shit.

:tearofapatriot: