Diablo 3 on Playstation 3/4

On February 21 2013 10:25 Infernal_dream wrote:
Because launching it on another system > fixing how shitty of a game it is. Console players will buy it just like PC players did. They will play a month then never play it again.

On February 21 2013 13:31 m00nchile wrote:
I have just one question. How are you supposed to play a WW/CM wizard on a controller?

On February 21 2013 11:42 Zelniq wrote:
Suddenly, it all makes sense. Blizzard just entered a whole new level of selling out. Now gee I wonder if Titan, their upcoming MMOFPS, will be made for consoles too. Well your answer is in the question, does Blizzard like money?

Should have seen it coming, like this guy did 8 months ago:

On February 21 2013 18:10 Teddyman wrote:
So the game was designed for consoles... but they redesigned everything for the actual console release anyway? Oh wait, logic is probably not welcome here. Was SC1 ruined too since it got a console port?

On February 21 2013 18:10 Teddyman wrote:
So the game was designed for consoles... but they redesigned everything for the actual console release anyway? Oh wait, logic is probably not welcome here. Was SC1 ruined too since it got a console port?

On February 21 2013 18:20 WolfintheSheep wrote:

Sc1 was never announced as a planned Console game from the start. They just ported the PC game over as is, with a different control scheme.

D3 was announced as an upcoming console game long before release day.

On February 21 2013 18:22 Teddyman wrote:

It was announced as an upcoming console game today.

On February 21 2013 18:29 WolfintheSheep wrote:

But we knew about it a long time ago.

http://www.blizzplanet.com/blog/comments/gamescom-2011-diablo-iii-console-now-serious

August 2011.

On February 21 2013 19:21 pivor wrote:
So this only means that D3 is a failure and blizz need to expand to recover.

On February 21 2013 18:45 Teddyman wrote:

Yeah they started recruiting console developers in 2011, when the game was on year 6 of the 7 year development cycle. So you are saying that they spent that last year (more like 9 months) just making the PC version worse?

On February 21 2013 19:08 Zaqwert wrote:
Seriously, everyone check out Path of Exile, I'm obsessed with it now, 19 random guys from New Zealand totally pwned big bad Blizzard at their own game (in terms of a quality game that is)

On February 21 2013 21:22 Nausea wrote:


Could not agree more. I tried the game for a couple of hours and I'm addicted to it now. This should be the real D3.

On February 21 2013 19:03 Zaqwert wrote:
It's 100% clear the quality of Diablo 3 suffered due to Blizzard wanting to make it console friendly.

They intentionally compromised the integrity of the game in order to port it easier to consoles and that's just very disappointing.

Rather than make an epicly awesome PC game, which would have made a ton of money, they instead chose to make a mediocre PC game which they could port to a mediocre console game, in order to just squeeze out a few more sales.

On February 21 2013 21:15 fearus wrote:


Yes that is exactly what we are saying - the game got ripped to shreds in the last year or so. Just look at what they were talking about 12 month before release to what the actual game shipped with.

It all makes sense why the game got dumbed down so much.

On February 21 2013 22:17 Psychobabas wrote:
Does this mean that it will have an offline mode??? Cant imagine people would buy this if it requires an internet connection.

If it does it may be the only reason I would buy it.

On February 21 2013 22:37 Flummie wrote:
Imagine Blizzard advertising the offline mode for consoles as a Unique selling point of the game!

That would be... a joke

On February 21 2013 20:58 Silahsor wrote:
We had no idea how terrible the game was (still is) once we purchased it a year ago. I cannot think of a reasonable console player willing to spend money on this unworthy sequel of an epic game.

Well, on a second thought, "reasonable" and "console player" seemed to be two irrelevant words. People are paying money to the same game over and over every year (COD etc.)

In the meantime, I cannot agree more about how good Path of Exile is. Much more fun to play with tons of strategic decisions involved - both in terms of character development and game play.

On February 21 2013 18:23 Aruno wrote:
Just be glad SC2 is too complicated to be played on a console, or the same console designers would of fucked up even more of SC2 than they already have.

Diablo 3 was fucked from day 1 from the greedy of the console need

On February 22 2013 00:47 KillingVector wrote:


You say this despite the fact that the Skill Gem System and Passive Tree of PoE are clearly borrowed from two console titles.



Depends on whether this guy is actually legit:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=399318

On February 22 2013 02:01 Enki wrote:
I would be amazed if it actually sold well after all the shitstorm the PC version created. Explains why it was so fucking bad though. I can't believe they would really think this will sell....if it does then I give up on gaming, holy shit.

On February 22 2013 02:08 Zelniq wrote:

You assume that the average market for D3 on consoles would know about PC d3 players' gripes. Oh it'll sell, you can count on it. They have been. Why do you think we've been playing on a console version of d3 all along?

I feel like this thread so effectively explains what this news feels like for PC players:
http://www.reddit.com/r/Diablo/comments/18xsam/confidence_and_optimism_in_diablo_3_gone/

Me, I suppose already lost confidence and optimism for d3 long ago.

On February 22 2013 02:56 nihlon wrote:
The UI changes in the beta gave it away. I'm sort of glad that Blizzard at least had a reason (even if they are bad ones) for making those changes. It's one small step up from being incompetent.

On February 22 2013 03:54 AnomalySC2 wrote:


One small step up from incompetence, and a giant ladder into the realm of shady assholes.

On February 21 2013 23:54 bonifaceviii wrote:
I see now that I didn't pay close enough attention to the development of D3, otherwise this would have been obvious to me.

Dammit. Fool me once...

On February 22 2013 01:59 Zelniq wrote:

http://www.reddit.com/r/Diablo/comments/18yhdt/diablo_3_offline_play_on_playstation_3_4/

Wow blizzard.. Just wow.
Give us PC users BS reasons for why d3 had to be online only, then pull this on us.

On February 22 2013 05:20 Assault_1 wrote:

lol aren't you thankful?

On February 22 2013 01:26 Sapphire.lux wrote:
This explains a lot actually. D3 is a bad joke compared to D2, and now we know it's not just because of bad game designers, but because of the targeted audience and console.

On February 22 2013 06:22 crms wrote:
so if the ps 4 is getting an offline mode does that mean the entire drop scaling will change? From what I recall the reason drop rates of high quality gear and the entire itemization process (the huge randomness of it) was because of the AH and to 'avoid' market saturation etc.

will you actually be able to play d3 similar to d2 by finding great gear all on your lonesome without a 1:258,920,000,000 chance?

Itemization itself would need a full overhaul for offline mode.

On February 22 2013 06:26 Sn0_Man wrote:



I would assume not. The reason they can allow offline mode on the PS3/4 is that they are less concerned about item hacks and stuff in on consoles. On PC's they are too afraid of client-side item generation and drop tables that they can't secure well enough for a RMAH system to work.

PS: Nice dota game the other day

On February 22 2013 06:26 Sn0_Man wrote:



I would assume not. The reason they can allow offline mode on the PS3/4 is that they are less concerned about item hacks and stuff in on consoles. On PC's they are too afraid of client-side item generation and drop tables that they can't secure well enough for a RMAH system to work.

On February 21 2013 19:08 Zaqwert wrote:
Seriously, everyone check out Path of Exile, I'm obsessed with it now, 19 random guys from New Zealand totally pwned big bad Blizzard at their own game (in terms of a quality game that is)

On February 22 2013 04:32 serum321 wrote:
The amount of people crying in this thread amazes me, you act like you are entitled to everything, no one put a gun to your head and forced you to purchase d3.

I don't care, but if it'll allow me to use a controller on pc version(don't know if it will) that would be awesome.

On February 22 2013 07:14 emythrel wrote:
well you can already have a total of 6 spells active, thats the 4 main buttons plus shoulder buttons and directional controls, boom done. There was a reason they simplified the controls and available active skills, this was probably it. D3 is very much like Baldur's gate: dark alliance in controls and that was my favourite console game ever.

On February 21 2013 11:38 PR4Y wrote:
LOL oh god this is too much....


Blizzard finally trying to break into the console world... It's just unfortunate they have completely ruined a franchise while doing so.


I played THE SHIT out of Diablo 3 (1200+ hours on 3 characters) and finally realized that the game is just bad. It's a very serious addiction that is hard to overcome, but in the end I realized that it's just a money grabbing waste of time.


I'd be interested in seeing how the (RM)AH plays on these platforms...

On February 22 2013 15:45 killa_robot wrote:


You really can't be upset at a game if you played it that long. For the amount you played, 1200+ hours was definitely a good deal.

On February 22 2013 16:10 PR4Y wrote:




No offense, but I'm SERIOUSLY tired of hearing this from people. I'm the type of gamer where if a game is good and has a decent endgame, I can play it for 20,000 hours and not get bored. I played D2/LOD for 7+ years of my life... and I played it MORE per day on average then I ever played D3. I still go back to D2 on occasion to mess around and keep my characters active.


What you are saying is basically that all games that are released have a direct relationship with Entertainment Value per Dollar? At what point would it be acceptable to hold my opinion that D3 was a complete waste of time? 500 hours? 200 hours?


You're trying to tell me that a $60 sequel to one of THE most popular online games with seemingly endless fun, has a finite amount of entertainment value? Should D3's box have a warning label saying that if you play for XXX amount of hours, your opinion on the value of the game is no longer valid?


I'm sorry, but I don't buy it for one second. If I play a game for 300 hours because it took me that long to reach endgame, and I've been LED TO BELIEVE that it has the same amount of re-playability as THE PREVIOUS VERSION, and suddenly discover this is not the case... I'm not entitled to voice my opinion about how the game has let me down?



The whole "OH well you played for 1000 hours so you can't complain, you got your money's worth" statement really tickles me in a way that is hard to express.



D3 is NOT a worthy sequel to D2/LOD... period.



LET ME BE CLEAR:


I don't think D3 is a bad game at all. The combat is smooth and fluid. The gameplay mechanics are fast-paced and functional with VERY minimal bugs. Basically, the CORE of the game is actually quite impressive.

However, the most important step in keeping players interested in your game is depth. The itemization is completely uninspired when compared to the previous game. Social features are pretty much non-existant, leading to a depressingly anti-social atmosphere which is CLEARLY visible in the general chat. From my experience on D3, there is no sense of community. D2/LOD always made me feel like I was actually part of the community. On D3 I just feel like a pawn in their sick plot to milk money from gamers by slapping a DIABLO sticker on the box.




BLAHHH I'll stop ranting because I'm sure you've heard it all before... I'm just so deeply saddened by what Blizzard has become over the years. I don't even care that it's being ported to console in all honesty... but KNOWING that the game was toned down JUST so that a console version could be made possible? That's a slap in my face that is going to leave a stinging sensation that isn't going to go away any time soon.


Also I completely agree with all the other people giving their recommendation of PoE... I've been playing since November and it is an AWESOME game. I could give you 1000 reasons why to play PoE and give up on D3... but in reality you just have to try it for yourself. It's slow at first, and YES the combat ISN'T NEARLY as smooth as in Diablo... but once you get past the surface you'll realize it's a MUCH better game.

On February 21 2013 21:22 Nausea wrote:


Could not agree more. I tried the game for a couple of hours and I'm addicted to it now. This should be the real D3.

On February 22 2013 16:24 killa_robot wrote:


You're bitching that the game isn't meeting your expectations, when a game doesn't HAVE to do that at all. A game has to entertain you in order to be a successful game. Just like a movie doesn't need depth or a great plot or anything like that to be a good movie, it just needs to be entertaining.

You're saying the game is a money grab waste of time and bad, WHILE YOU'RE SAYING IT'S FUN. It's not a money grab waste of time, it just didn't meet your expectations. Not meeting your expectations doesn't make it BAD.

Keep in mind, I'm someone who didn't buy the game, because I played the free beta weekend and from that determined it wouldn't be fun. Not only did you buy the game, but you played it for countless hours, AND you found it to be fun. You have a very warped definition of a waste of money if you consider your purchase of D3 to be one.

On February 22 2013 01:59 Zelniq wrote:

http://www.reddit.com/r/Diablo/comments/18yhdt/diablo_3_offline_play_on_playstation_3_4/

Wow blizzard.. Just wow.
Give us PC users BS reasons for why d3 had to be online only, then pull this on us.

On February 22 2013 16:10 PR4Y wrote:




No offense, but I'm SERIOUSLY tired of hearing this from people. I'm the type of gamer where if a game is good and has a decent endgame, I can play it for 20,000 hours and not get bored. I played D2/LOD for 7+ years of my life... and I played it MORE per day on average then I ever played D3. I still go back to D2 on occasion to mess around and keep my characters active.

On February 22 2013 13:38 achan1058 wrote:

More like 12. Up/down/left/right are often binded to spells/actions nowadays instead of being used for movement, and there are 4 shoulder keys. People are quick to scrape goat things, like RMAH, even when said things have nothing to do with the problem itself. Itemization has nothing to with with console games, neither do having Chris Metzen being in charge of the story. B.net 0.2 might have to do with console gaming (from what I heard the guy was in charge of xbox 360 before), but that's hardly a problem only with D3.

On February 21 2013 10:05 marttorn wrote:
I could honestly think of 3-4 different diseases i'd rather catch, than try this on console :/

On February 22 2013 18:45 FiWiFaKi wrote:


Im addicted. I hate to say it, but I play this game a lot, I don't enjoy it, I'm just addicted to it, and I want to play it. That's how the game is designed, and I hate it. I spend hundreds of dollars on this game, regret it after, but what can I do.

Ill try and stop, but ugh, I dunno, I don't think it's a good game, it's just designed well for is purpose, just my 2 cents though.

On February 22 2013 07:14 emythrel wrote:
well you can already have a total of 6 spells active, thats the 4 main buttons plus shoulder buttons and directional controls, boom done. There was a reason they simplified the controls and available active skills, this was probably it. D3 is very much like Baldur's gate: dark alliance in controls and that was my favourite console game ever.

On February 22 2013 23:59 oneofthem wrote:
having 6 active skill slots isn't hte only aspect of the game people focus on though. stuff like 4 member party size, nonopen world, lack of custom games and other social aspects of bnet etc

On February 22 2013 23:59 oneofthem wrote:
having 6 active skill slots isn't hte only aspect of the game people focus on though. stuff like 4 member party size, nonopen world, lack of custom games and other social aspects of bnet etc

On February 23 2013 00:28 paralleluniverse wrote:

Having 4 party members was to reduce plasma soup. Having a nonopen world was a really bad design choice. The quest lobby, which puts the game on a railway track is also a needlessly restrictive and bad design choice. But I don't see how you can blame consoles for it. Related to that is not being able to name games (is this what you mean by no custom games?), this isn't necessarily bad, e.g. in WC3 the only information people conveyed in the title is game mode, which is automatic in SC2, so it's OK. But in D2 people tagged their games for farming, trading, PvP, etc, that's not possible in D3, so it's bad that this feature is missing. On B.net having terrible social features, I agree with you. We can blame that on Xbox Live and B.net 2.0 lead designer, Greg Canessa. That's probably the only thing out of the list that can be directly blamed on consoles.

On February 23 2013 01:10 AnomalySC2 wrote:


PoE does just fine with more than 4 party members, so does D2. Not to mention, grouping was completely discouraged with the original vision for the game. Even after they nerfed the difficulty and changed the penalities for grouping, there still isn't really a good reason to group. I guess ubers is the only one?

In any case, I think the game wouldn't have really benefited from having larger groups anyways. The gameplay was clearly not developed with grouping in mind, it's a very isolated and lonely experience.

On February 23 2013 01:30 paralleluniverse wrote:

D2 has major problems with plasma soup, especially in 8 player Baal runs. I can't speak for PoE, I don't know how flashy their spell animations are. I played that game for 2 hours and it was the most mind-numbing, monotonous, ugly, and boring game I've ever played. I'm completely serious when I say that PoE is literally the worse game I have ever played, I've never ever played a worse game. But given how flashy animations are for D3, there is no hope that any more players in a game would be viable without the screen exploding in a firework of flashy colors and unreadable gameplay.

On February 23 2013 03:08 esprsjsalvz wrote:
Man. I don't understand this. I thought blizzard was one of the company's out there who were faithful to the fans. This is cheap and an insult to Diablo. (More so than D3 already was.)

Games brought to PC = Praise the Developer.

Diablo to Consoles = Fucking greedy assholes.

On February 23 2013 04:04 Teddyman wrote:
Best post from the reddit thread:

On February 23 2013 04:17 LuisFrost wrote:


No. The outrage is over how it's obvious now they based all their gameplay decisions in this plan, eliminating stuff like 8 players at the same time while not being honest with the fans who spent money on the game. Le witty frases don't help, as usual.

On February 23 2013 04:27 Teddyman wrote:

What makes it so obvious? Are TL2 and PoE also designed for consoles since they don't support 8 players? How long would it take to make a separate version with 6 player limit for PC? 1 week?

On February 23 2013 04:48 Teddyman wrote:
Let's say you are a designer in a company that has a huge following of PC gamers. You are planning to make a PC game and release a console port a year or two later. You haven't released anything for consoles in over 10 years, and the genre of the game you are making is not well established there. That means the PC version is going to vastly outsell the console version, probably at least 3:1. Would you design the PC version with console limitations in mind? Wouldn't it be easier to make the PC version as normal, then change the console version in the areas where it needs to be different?

On February 23 2013 05:47 Zaqwert wrote:
D3 will sell like absolute shit on consoles for two reasons.

1. Everybody who was interested has already bought it.
2. The game has a bad reputation and bad word of mouth. It sold initially due to being "Diablo" but that grace period has passed and the game must stand on it's own, not the prior games.
3. Let's face it, the PC version is bad, the console version is going to be even worse, just in terms of control and UI.

Blizzard wanting to get into the console market is smart. Them destroying one of their important franchises and pissing off their most loyal customers to do so was stupid.

They should have developed a complely new game or franchise on consoles only.

On February 23 2013 05:51 Teddyman wrote:

See the worth of bad word of mouth here.

On February 23 2013 05:53 Infernal_dream wrote:


Apparently not worth anything if "Aliens: Colonial Marines" is the top of that chart.

On February 23 2013 05:35 Teddyman wrote:
OK here are the extremely simple refutations to the 4chan post.

4 players: very simple to make a 6 player game and then just limit it to 4 on console

No open world to keep people on the same screen: they have to solve the (non-)problem of people walking off screen anyway. Just make it jump back to splitscreen if people are not close. Lego LOTR does the same.

No skill points or number crunching: plenty of console games have skill points. D1/D2 never had any complicated number crunching.

"4-5 skills on your bar at once": it's not 4-5, it's 6. Either way you could make a normal skill system and just have option to bind 6 of them. I think Mass Effect 2 on console did the same. D1 was based on this, unlimited skills but bind only 4. Wait, 4 is less than 6??

No runes/"complicated shit": not seeing how the fun or lack thereof is platform dependent in any way.

Can't make game name: standard bnet2 lack-of-feature.

Achievements: every game has them.

Passive skills: D2 had them.

No VOIP: Nobody uses their VOIP in any of the other titles.

On February 23 2013 19:06 fearus wrote:


- 4 Players games - Performance on PS3 may be limited to around 4 players given the graphics and physics engine of D3.
Remember how Diablo 2 had 8 players? There is no reason why this game is limited to 4 players besides performance and we all know a PC can handle the extra players.

- Why waste time making the game jump to 4 player split screens when you can just make a linear map. This relates to the 4 player cap. Can you imagine the pain of waiting for everyone to be on your screen in a 8 player game like D2.

- "D1/D2 never had any complicated number crunching" - Based on that statement alone your statement is completely wrong.

- 6 skills is perfect for a console controller.

- Bnet 2.0 was designed with console in mind

- Achievements - mostly console games have them. I drop a tear when I think about what could have been, if they had taken the time to make all these useless achievements with pretty graphics and spent it on improving the items... *tear*

On February 23 2013 16:39 screamingpalm wrote:
I have a feeling that the xbox/Skyrim holiday bundle sold well. I'm betting this is going to be a PS exclusive (strategic partnership). Sony and Blizzard are feeling the market pressure from MS and Bethesda. TESO is probably also scaring the shit out of Blizz right now.

The game would actually probably be more fun on a console, but it sounds like PoE is considering PS4 as well anyway.

On February 23 2013 00:28 paralleluniverse wrote:

Having 4 party members was to reduce plasma soup. Having a nonopen world was a really bad design choice. The quest lobby, which puts the game on a railway track is also a needlessly restrictive and bad design choice. But I don't see how you can blame consoles for it. Related to that is not being able to name games (is this what you mean by no custom games?), this isn't necessarily bad, e.g. in WC3 the only information people conveyed in the title is game mode, which is automatic in SC2, so it's OK. But in D2 people tagged their games for farming, trading, PvP, etc, that's not possible in D3, so it's bad that this feature is missing. On B.net having terrible social features, I agree with you. We can blame that on Xbox Live and B.net 2.0 lead designer, Greg Canessa. That's probably the only thing out of the list that can be directly blamed on consoles.

On February 24 2013 05:18 TriO wrote:
Seriously who plays consoles? After my ps3 and xbox elite broke after buying it within a year I just gave up in general as a consumer. It's really sad that my NES still works compared to these.

On February 24 2013 05:18 TriO wrote:
Seriously who plays consoles? After my ps3 and xbox elite broke after buying it within a year I just gave up in general as a consumer. It's really sad that my NES still works compared to these.

On February 23 2013 16:39 screamingpalm wrote:
I have a feeling that the xbox/Skyrim holiday bundle sold well. I'm betting this is going to be a PS exclusive (strategic partnership). Sony and Blizzard are feeling the market pressure from MS and Bethesda. TESO is probably also scaring the shit out of Blizz right now.

The game would actually probably be more fun on a console, but it sounds like PoE is considering PS4 as well anyway.

On February 24 2013 16:42 Mysticesper wrote:

Like any other MMO that blizzard was supposed to be scared of, nothing happened. TES is going to be no different.

On February 25 2013 03:48 AnomalySC2 wrote:


It depends on if Bethesda has realized players want something other than just another WoW clone in a different setting. I'm hoping it's good because I love TES games, and the prospect of visiting Morrowind again with modern graphics has me very interested.

On February 25 2013 06:15 Deadlyhazard wrote:
I lost faith in Blizzard on StarCraft 2's release because the singleplayer campaign was really underwhelming compared to WC3 or even BW, and the multiplayer was lacking so many functions. The game should push the way forward, NOT go backwards or trying to settle with the basic amount of features the first one had. The units were boring, I didn't feel it was a balanced game, etc....

Diablo 3 was just nail in the coffin for me. I haven't enjoyed a Blizzard game that much since TBC of WoW. The glory days are over and now they're really just another average to below average dev IMO.

On February 25 2013 07:43 Warri wrote:

But thats the thing. Players dont want something different than WoW. They will try it and say it doesnt feel like WoW and go back to WoW because they're used to that and thus like it more. But they also dont want it to be like WoW because they will try it and say it feels like WoW so i might just as well go back to WoW.
You will always have the few thousand gamers that stick to the new one but you wont get a good portion of the WoW gamers to convert. Its just too old, has too much content and (if youre already playing WoW) all your friends that you think care about your achievements. Until it _slowly_ dies by itself and blizzard decides to stop putting content out it wont be killed by other mmos.

On February 25 2013 07:44 SheaR619 wrote:


Honestly i though the single player campaign was more engaging and gave me fun choices but the story was lacking.

On February 25 2013 17:48 kleetzor wrote:

Sure, especially the missions where you were granted a new unit. "Oh you found THE VIKING, if you don't make 1000 vikings this next mission, you can't beat it." FUN CHOICES OH YES.

On February 25 2013 11:17 AnomalySC2 wrote:


If someone makes an mmo that is different and GOOD enough from WoW, then it will be successful. Not that that means it will kill WoW.....I don't think anything can kill WoW lol.

On February 21 2013 09:59 StasisTV wrote:
Breaking News!

Just announced at Sony Press Conference 2013...



Diablo 3 will now be featured on the Playstation 3 and upcoming Playstation 4!

Mind = Blown

I feel like this is a huge marketing move..

Do you think it will cross platform play?
- Possibly coming to Playstation portable devices?

How do you think the graphics will compare?
- Porting graphics over from pc

All information seems to be up in the air right now..

What do you think?

On February 25 2013 19:25 Brett wrote:

I didn't feel that the introduction of a unit forced me into using it at all... Not sure what campaign you were playing.

On February 26 2013 04:11 kleetzor wrote:

Ok, go beat the train mission without diamondbacks. This is just an example and came pretty quickly to mind even if it was almost 3 years ago since I touched SC2 single player.

On February 26 2013 04:51 ddrddrddrddr wrote:

I think I beat that one with mass tanks...

On February 26 2013 04:11 kleetzor wrote:

Ok, go beat the train mission without diamondbacks. This is just an example and came pretty quickly to mind even if it was almost 3 years ago since I touched SC2 single player.

On February 26 2013 04:11 kleetzor wrote:

Ok, go beat the train mission without diamondbacks. This is just an example and came pretty quickly to mind even if it was almost 3 years ago since I touched SC2 single player.

On February 26 2013 04:11 kleetzor wrote:

Ok, go beat the train mission without diamondbacks. This is just an example and came pretty quickly to mind even if it was almost 3 years ago since I touched SC2 single player.

On February 26 2013 04:59 SheaR619 wrote:




I also beat that one with mass tanks lol. Honestly I never touch the diamond back. Just seige tanks on the train it not that hard. I never feel obligated to use any of the unit they introduce at all. I was able to go mech+vessels for all the campaign. I am sure it was easily possible to go bio.

On February 26 2013 10:38 Wuster wrote:


Lol, ya that's what I did. The Diamonback was actually really bad in that mission from what I remember (cuz it sucked fighting everything other than the trains).

Part of the fun of the campaign was you could beat most missions in a variety of ways. I had a lot of fun doing the gas harvesting one with mass goliaths after doing the standard m&m spam (yes I think that's the mission that introduced the goliath, but I still beat it w/o goliaths).

The mission that introduced Wraiths was a mission that Wraiths sucked pretty hard on too imo.

Edit: I started off going tank-marine until I got science vessels and mech healing. Then I also went mass mech after that. Totally worked (although I didn't beat the last mission on brutal, but I chalk that up to my own lack of skill and not choosing a crap composition).

On February 26 2013 11:23 Wuster wrote:
What is there to really say about D3 to playstation though?

Everyone here has played D3 on PC... news of a port 1 year later isn't all that meaningful to us.

Kinda makes me wonder how many new players they hope to get with this port now that I think about it.

On February 28 2013 00:19 nihlon wrote:

Offline mode, 4 player local support, most likely no auction house.... I'm switching to console. -_-

On March 01 2013 02:06 megid wrote:
Guess what, now we have offline mode. Thx blizz guys.

On March 01 2013 06:41 Big-t wrote:
It suxs that you cannot play with pc together

On March 02 2013 05:21 scDeluX wrote:


1. Is this confirmed somewhere?

2. I guess no AH make sense since you can hack anything and everything with offline mode.

3. I still hold my opinion that no ladder killed D3. If they would reset ladder next week there would be 1000x more ppl playing the game.

On March 02 2013 05:21 scDeluX wrote:


1. Is this confirmed somewhere?

2. I guess no AH make sense since you can hack anything and everything with offline mode.

3. I still hold my opinion that no ladder killed D3. If they would reset ladder next week there would be 1000x more ppl playing the game.

On February 21 2013 10:25 Infernal_dream wrote:
Because launching it on another system > fixing how shitty of a game it is. Console players will buy it just like PC players did. They will play a month then never play it again.

Making a ladder in D3 would be utterly pointless, because building a character is non-existent. Going from Level 1-60 was okay the first time around, because it was a new experience. Doing it on multiple characters was absolutely mind-numbing...and the only thing worse is being told you have to do it all over again.

And what about the people that spent a bunch of real cash on the AH? That's the real reason they can't do that. Not to mention it takes centuries of hardcore grinding to hit paragon 100. Like, even with a 24/7 bot it takes an insanely long time.

On March 05 2013 07:11 Wuster wrote:
I doubt it, plenty of people bought D2 items for real money after all.

I think the length of the grind (too short to lvl 60, too long to plvl 100) and different player expectations are the real reason (my hunch is players today wouldn't care for re-leveling every few months, but I could be wrong).

On March 06 2013 03:47 AimlessAmoeba wrote:
Ugh. Do not want. Diablo PSX edition wasn't especially fun to play.

On March 06 2013 01:45 scDeluX wrote:


Leveling (1-60 + a few paragon + inferno clear) is done in a few days. Ladder reset is about giving the economy another go. #1 reason lots of people don't play this game anymore is that econ is shit and will stay that way forever. Finding uniques and set is pointless unless they are 99%+ perfect. If ladder would reset RMAH prices would skyrocket, who doesn't want that?






They can still enjoy their character and items in non-ladder. That is how it works. It's the only thing that Jay Wilson should have doubled. There would be a realm for non-ladder and one for ladder with separate ah and rmah.



See above. If people wanna keep going with their char on non-ladder nothing stops them. Also If they would add a small leaderboard for leveling race (visible in-game for once) imagine the hype that would bring. It's so damn simple and anything with some competition always brings more attention.

I think PoE really nailed it with ladder. They call them race and give prizes (items in-game, cosmetics and such). They range from a couple hours, to weeks and month. This is what d3 should have done.

On March 08 2013 22:50 zbedlam wrote:
Out of all the ways to break into the console market, why try and do it with the worst game they have made to date? Doesn't make sense from any long term perspective as its just going to leave a sour taste in everyones mouth.

This makes no sense at all, I doubt even the console market's hilariously low standards will take this reaming with a smile.

On February 21 2013 10:05 marttorn wrote:
I could honestly think of 3-4 different diseases i'd rather catch, than try this on console :/

On March 06 2013 05:06 Wuster wrote:
I never laddered in D2; I didn't see the point.* Sure it was good for some people to compete, but I remember RusBarb having a team of like 20 people who would power clear Chaos Sanctuary so whichever person was awake could play RusBarb and pop in and kill Diablo, jump to the next pre-cleared Chaos Sanctuary, ect, ect, literally non-stop for a week (or however long it took).