EPTD3 Opening Cinematic Released - Page 6
| Forum Index > Diablo 3 |
|
Medrea
10003 Posts
| ||
|
11cc
Finland561 Posts
On December 13 2011 15:51 Medrea wrote: Diablo 1 isnt even supported anymore. Which is fine because everyone cheated at that game since characters were stored clientside (lol). Diablo 2 was a hype machine beyond all belief and Blizzard delivered. LOD brought only 1 extra act which people were underwhelmed about, but in later patches brought in a LOT of content that even modern games cant match. Lord of Destruction is still the best action RPG on the market and regularly retails along with D2 vanilla for 40 dollars. You can't say that about any other game from 10 years ago inside the same genre except for some point and click adventure games. Is this a response to my post? I'm confused... | ||
|
Malkavian183
Turkey227 Posts
On December 13 2011 15:28 SpectralFremen wrote: You are all so cynical. The game will be awesome. Blizzard have never made a bad game. Definately agree. Only people who won't have fun are the ones who will want exactly diablo 1 and diablo 2 fused into one single game | ||
|
Daymor
New Zealand151 Posts
On December 13 2011 15:43 11cc wrote: From metacritic: Diablo 94 Diablo II 88 Diablo II:LOD 87 I don't think that those ratings are any good barometer at all to be honest. I think you would find it incredibly difficult to find many games, movies, TV Shows or any sequels in general which out-perform originals which aren't complete trash. Simply by virtue of the fact that a good original sets your expectations significantly higher making it harder to live up to those expectations (my opinion anyway). Just for a quick comparison, here are the Metacritic reviews for Call of Duty (PC Ratings); Call of Duty - 91 Call of Duty 2 - 86 Call of Duty 3 - 80 CoD: World at War - 83 CoD: Black Ops - 81 CoD: Modern Warfare - 92 CoD: Modern Warfare 2 - 86 CoD: Modern Warfare 3 - 80 I chose Call of Duty simply due to the massive reception that CoD: MW3 has received and the insane sales it has managed to pump out, but as you can see on the Metacritic reviews it doesn't live up to either of it's two predecessors. Edit: Anyway on topic. I really enjoyed the Cinematic, Diablo 3 is easily the game I am most looking forward to in the not too distant future. | ||
|
11cc
Finland561 Posts
On December 13 2011 19:34 Daymor wrote: I don't think that those ratings are any good barometer at all to be honest. I think you would find it incredibly difficult to find many games, movies, TV Shows or any sequels in general which out-perform originals which aren't complete trash. Simply by virtue of the fact that a good original sets your expectations significantly higher making it harder to live up to those expectations (my opinion anyway). Just for a quick comparison, here are the Metacritic reviews for Call of Duty (PC Ratings); Call of Duty - 91 Call of Duty 2 - 86 Call of Duty 3 - 80 CoD: World at War - 83 CoD: Black Ops - 81 CoD: Modern Warfare - 92 CoD: Modern Warfare 2 - 86 CoD: Modern Warfare 3 - 80 I chose Call of Duty simply due to the massive reception that CoD: MW3 has received and the insane sales it has managed to pump out, but as you can see on the Metacritic reviews it doesn't live up to either of it's two predecessors. Edit: Anyway on topic. I really enjoyed the Cinematic, Diablo 3 is easily the game I am most looking forward to in the not too distant future. There are other factors, like marketing, that effect sales. The whole purpose of the critics is to evaluate the quality of the game so I don't see what better barometer could there be. I didn't even want to make an argument that the original Diablo is better than the sequel. I actually enjoyed DII more. I just thought that "yet each successive game kicks the shit out of the previous ones in terms of fun" is a debatable statement and as such wasn't a good response to the previous post. | ||
|
Daymor
New Zealand151 Posts
On December 13 2011 21:11 11cc wrote: There are other factors, like marketing, that effect sales. The whole purpose of the critics is to evaluate the quality of the game so I don't see what better barometer could there be. I didn't even want to make an argument that the original Diablo is better than the sequel. I actually enjoyed DII more. I just thought that "yet each successive game kicks the shit out of the previous ones in terms of fun" is a debatable statement and as such wasn't a good response to the previous post. Yeah I don't disagree with you either. The statement is just an opinion. Everyone is entitled to their opinions and in most cases they are going to be different. I personally haven't ever played the original game, but I played Diablo II quite a lot and I really enjoyed the game. I guess my main point is everyone's mileage will vary based on what they want/desire from the game. Trying to convince people your opinion is 'right' is usually an effort in futility. | ||
|
Toadvine
Poland2234 Posts
On December 13 2011 15:51 Medrea wrote: Diablo 1 isnt even supported anymore. Which is fine because everyone cheated at that game since characters were stored clientside (lol). Diablo 2 was a hype machine beyond all belief and Blizzard delivered. LOD brought only 1 extra act which people were underwhelmed about, but in later patches brought in a LOT of content that even modern games cant match. Lord of Destruction is still the best action RPG on the market and regularly retails along with D2 vanilla for 40 dollars. You can't say that about any other game from 10 years ago inside the same genre except for some point and click adventure games. You are absolutely correct, Diablo 2 is a much better MMO than Diablo 1 was. In any case, I do agree that overall D2 is much better in terms of gameplay mechanics compared to D1. However, for a lot of people D2 was a disappointment, in that it did away with a lot of things that made D1 what it was, including the atmosphere, the original lore, the roguelike mechanics, etc. D1 was actually very much a simplified roguelike in real-time with great music and art design. In terms of more recent games, it was much more like Dark Souls thematically, than like D2. If you could have a game with D2's mechanics and D1's atmosphere and focus, I'd be all for it. But I don't think D3 is that game. | ||
|
Assault_1
Canada1950 Posts
On December 13 2011 15:43 11cc wrote: From metacritic: Diablo 94 Diablo II 88 Diablo II:LOD 87 oh ok, GTA4 got 10/10 on gamespot so it must be the most fun jees why'd I play d2 for 5 years when I could've been playing that? | ||
|
Murlox
France1699 Posts
| ||
|
Sek-Kuar
Czech Republic593 Posts
Diablo 1 was average game with one absolutely outstanding feature, battle.net - which was responsible for 99% of game succes in times where nothing like that existed. Diablo 2 came later where battle.net wasnt such a big deal and it turned out to be one of the most amazing games ever created. And there was competition for Diablo 2. But Diablo 1 was pretty much not competing at all, because it was the only game of "including-gaming-platform-genre". If you like D1 atmosphere, then go listen to EMO songs. However more D3 have in common with D2 the better it will be. About intro cinematics, D2 had better, at least with better music. D3 intro isnt so much epic, they could definitelly add some action and choose music better. EDIT: I also loved that LoD "african shaman song" for Tyrael destroying WS (dunno how to describe it ^^) they added something like that at the very end of this intro but not so much, could have been more. Not saying intro was bad, just that it could have been a lot better. | ||
|
NeonFlare
Finland1307 Posts
| ||
|
Toadvine
Poland2234 Posts
On December 14 2011 04:56 Sek-Kuar wrote: Why are people still complaining about different atmospere in Diablo games? Diablo 1 was average game with one absolutely outstanding feature, battle.net - which was responsible for 99% of game succes in times where nothing like that existed. Diablo 2 came later where battle.net wasnt such a big deal and it turned out to be one of the most amazing games ever created. And there was competition for Diablo 2. But Diablo 1 was pretty much not competing at all, because it was the only game of "including-gaming-platform-genre". If you like D1 atmosphere, then go listen to EMO songs. However more D3 have in common with D2 the better it will be. About intro cinematics, D2 had better, at least with better music. D3 intro isnt so much epic, they could definitelly add some action and choose music better. EDIT: I also loved that LoD "african shaman song" for Tyrael destroying WS (dunno how to describe it ^^) they added something like that at the very end of this intro but not so much, could have been more. Not saying intro was bad, just that it could have been a lot better. You should look into WoW, I think it's exactly what you need. Actually, now that I think about it, LoD started the trend of making everything as retarded and cliche-ridden as possible. Including turning Baal into a drag queen for whatever reason. And WoW has tons of that, so you'll definitely love it. | ||
|
TheRealPaciFist
United States1049 Posts
On December 12 2011 03:18 Odoakar wrote: And just to put things into perspective, this is how a real Diablo opening scene looks like: D3 opening looks too cartony and has no atmosphere. But that's what you get from a game that has giant leaping green frogs as a skill. I really want this game to be good, but I'm starting to hate it oh so much Hey, don't diss ma rain of frogs! But yeah... D2 cinematics had a spot on dark, atmospheric feel to them. I'm hoping this one isn't actually the first cinematic of the game. I like the beginning artwork, but I get more of a teaser trailer kind of impression from it. What did you think of the Black Soulstone cinematic though? I thought that was pretty good, with the spooky skeletons and then the demonic Azmodan and his legion at the end, with Leah sniffling... and the only thing I didn't like is Leah's voice doesn't seem to fit at all every other time she speaks (also applicable to this cinematic). They probably chose Leah because she's more relatable to than the guy in D2, but she better grow up fast (and I'm sure she will, she lives in Sanctuary!) | ||
|
Ada
Germany150 Posts
On December 14 2011 04:56 Sek-Kuar wrote: However more D3 have in common with D2 the better it will be. As far as I can see D3 has not much in common with D2 and that's good in my opinion. | ||
|
driftme
United States360 Posts
On December 13 2011 15:43 11cc wrote: From metacritic: Diablo 94 Diablo II 88 Diablo II:LOD 87 this really doesnt mean anything. Metacritic was originally released (live) in 2001. Diablo was released in 1996. The only people who are going on metacritic and reviewing a game thats been out for 5+ years are die hard fans. metacritic point figures are flawed anyway, its almost just a percent of how many fans reviewed it. hardly anyone rates anything other than a 10 or a 0. | ||
|
11cc
Finland561 Posts
On December 14 2011 03:30 Assault_1 wrote: oh ok, GTA4 got 10/10 on gamespot so it must be the most fun jees why'd I play d2 for 5 years when I could've been playing that? Because you're not gamespot and you like D2 more? I don't know man. Why ask me, I don't care what you play. On December 14 2011 06:56 driftme wrote: this really doesnt mean anything. Metacritic was originally released (live) in 2001. Diablo was released in 1996. The only people who are going on metacritic and reviewing a game thats been out for 5+ years are die hard fans. metacritic point figures are flawed anyway, its almost just a percent of how many fans reviewed it. hardly anyone rates anything other than a 10 or a 0. Those are scores based on critic reviews, not user reviews. I agree they don't mean that much but I think it still means more than 1 random guys opinion. Except for that 1 random guy of course. | ||
alffla
Hong Kong20321 Posts
| ||
|
Kwanny
Germany222 Posts
| ||
|
Perseverance
Japan2800 Posts
On December 19 2011 01:03 Kwanny wrote: Leah's kinda cute I'd hit it | ||
|
Mephiztopheles1
1124 Posts
Puberty's cute  | ||
| ||
