|
On August 09 2011 03:45 cz wrote:
I'll say this now: Blizzard has never made a less than "great" game before, or at least not with it's major titles since like 1997. I think Diablo III is going to break that - it's going to be a dumbed down game with cartoonish graphics. Worst of all, it won't even have the depth of Diablo II, a game that came out on 3 CD-ROMS in 2001.
And what gives you such foresight to say this? Back up your claims or shut the fuck up.
|
On August 09 2011 03:45 cz wrote:
I'll say this now: Blizzard has never made a less than "great" game before, or at least not with it's major titles since like 1997. I think Diablo III is going to break that - it's going to be a dumbed down game with cartoonish graphics. Worst of all, it won't even have the depth of Diablo II, a game that came out on 3 CD-ROMS in 2001.
guiz guiz i tink dat monk is gonna be SOOOOOOOOO OP guiz.
based on screenshots and information i read on the internets, monk is gonna be SOOOO OP 
blizzard U BETTER FIX OR I NO BUY UR GAME Q_Q
|
On August 09 2011 03:45 cz wrote:
I'll say this now: Blizzard has never made a less than "great" game before, or at least not with it's major titles since like 1997. I think Diablo III is going to break that - it's going to be a dumbed down game with cartoonish graphics. Worst of all, it won't even have the depth of Diablo II, a game that came out on 3 CD-ROMS in 2001.
Sadly agreed
|
On August 09 2011 03:45 cz wrote:
I'll say this now: Blizzard has never made a less than "great" game before, or at least not with it's major titles since like 1997. I think Diablo III is going to break that - it's going to be a dumbed down game with cartoonish graphics. Worst of all, it won't even have the depth of Diablo II, a game that came out on 3 CD-ROMS in 2001.
From anecdotal evidence of having play it at Blizzcon 2010, with many a year of Diablo and Diablo 2 under my belt, I think you're absolutely, 100% dead wrong.
|
On August 09 2011 03:43 STS17 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2011 03:23 jimmyjingle wrote:On August 09 2011 03:13 Overpowered wrote:On August 09 2011 03:09 Pufftrees wrote:On August 09 2011 02:54 papaz wrote:
RMAH gets too much attention compared to the recent news about PvP.
More than removing the ladder and making it all cuddly and all Jay Wilson's unprofessional "over my dead body" and "shut up PvP" statements which surely implies we can all forget about competitive PvP of some sort for the whole remainder of Diablo 3's life.
Good, balancing a pve game around pvp is what ruined wow... making everything "arena friendly" and removing big class definining yet "imbalanced in arena" moves. I sincerely hope they don't give into the whiners and start balancing everything around pvp like the arena kiddies made wow. Essentially making every class have the same type of moves, nothing too strong etc etc. PvP should be random fun and not e-sporty at all. 100% agree, Diablo is about PvE not to diverge too much but WotLK was an amazing expansion for balance of pvp and pve. it's basically a textbook example of what to do RIGHT in an rpg. simply put, pve encounters were incredibly accessible to players of all skill levels, challenging and super competetive to the top tier, (and before 3.2 the ambience, art styles and atmosphere were all really good.) as for PVP, barring some comp imbalances towards the beginning, arena and BGs had not been more fun. the new [breakneck] pace of PvP was exciting and interesting. If by accessible to all skill levels you mean the encounters were trivial as long as you had the correct gear and a brain stem then yes. PvP only had an illusion of greatness. If you really looked at it, most of the abilities across most of the classes were the same but had a different name and some different art. Arenas and BGs were fun but they were never balanced in the sense that any composition was viable (BGs to a lesser extent than arenas).
i'm simply saying that WotLK was an excellent progression from the pvp and pve system before it [BC.]
the problem that existed within "tier-skipping" and redundancy of content would not be a problem in D3, though, which is neat.
|
On August 09 2011 03:45 cz wrote:
I'll say this now: Blizzard has never made a less than "great" game before, or at least not with it's major titles since like 1997. I think Diablo III is going to break that - it's going to be a dumbed down game with cartoonish graphics. Worst of all, it won't even have the depth of Diablo II, a game that came out on 3 CD-ROMS in 2001.
Wait, you think cartoony graphics and being dumbed down will make a game bad, but you consider WOW in the "great" list?
|
lol @ cz
Regarding PvE/PvP aspect.
The "competitive" aspect of Diablo is not dead. Players still can make toruneys if they want, its all up to the community. Blizzard just won't support it, doesn't mean it can't exist.
Hey, remember SC2, which changed from "races balanced" to "P OP" to "Z OP" to "balanced" to "T OP" without balance patches?
Better yet, remember WC3:TFT which went from "NE OP" to "Undead OP" to "Orc OP" with hardly any patches?
What about SC:BW, which had its last patch, idk, in 2004? I really don't know, yet I find recent reports on the race "balance" changing over the last few years.
Do you know what this is? The proof that balance patches aren't needed to determine game balance(except on serious cases), which leads to A good competitive scene does not need the developer's support to exist.
Maybe Shaman will be UP and Monk will be OP, maybe not, but the thing is, Blizzard won't balance towards PvP, but that doesn't mean they will try to break it.
Basically, D3 PvP will get the same treatment as SC2 Single player. That doesn't mean tourneys can't exist, and that doesn't mean D3 can't be an spectator sport - that just means you can't expect Blizzard to change PvP if that means breaking PvE.
Stop complaining.
|
On August 09 2011 03:45 cz wrote:
I'll say this now: Blizzard has never made a less than "great" game before, or at least not with it's major titles since like 1997. I think Diablo III is going to break that - it's going to be a dumbed down game with cartoonish graphics. Worst of all, it won't even have the depth of Diablo II, a game that came out on 3 CD-ROMS in 2001.
Must continue to quote this post....
Also, why 1997? No love for WC2 or D1? Also, I feel like they may be making the game more complicated than D2. One problem with D2 was that after a while, everyone knew every nuance in the game that it was basically completely dumbed down, except for one thing - trading. The market and economy in that game was so well developed that people did trade for actual money. My friends could literally spend a day just trading and making deals on D2JSP or through the games. In my opinion, this is what made diablo 2 live for so much longer than it did, even if i never really partook in it. Also, the people that I was impressed with in D2 were not the people that had good gear. It was the people that had 15 mules stacked with items, which won't happen if you only buy items. Wanna know why? because no ones gonna buy 40 dolalrs worth of items just to fill out your inventory in order to show how wealthy (in game terms) they are. The best players will still have considerable wealth over those who just buy their items. And when these people start trading in for money or just for gold, they'll be able to cash out lots of money and show that off.
EDIT: COOOOOOOMBO B-B-B-BREAKER (from the guy above me)
|
On August 09 2011 03:45 cz wrote:
I'll say this now: Blizzard has never made a less than "great" game before, or at least not with it's major titles since like 1997. I think Diablo III is going to break that - it's going to be a dumbed down game with cartoonish graphics. Worst of all, it won't even have the depth of Diablo II, a game that came out on 3 CD-ROMS in 2001.
epic troll
|
On August 09 2011 03:13 Overpowered wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2011 03:09 Pufftrees wrote:On August 09 2011 02:54 papaz wrote:
RMAH gets too much attention compared to the recent news about PvP.
More than removing the ladder and making it all cuddly and all Jay Wilson's unprofessional "over my dead body" and "shut up PvP" statements which surely implies we can all forget about competitive PvP of some sort for the whole remainder of Diablo 3's life.
Good, balancing a pve game around pvp is what ruined wow... making everything "arena friendly" and removing big class definining yet "imbalanced in arena" moves. I sincerely hope they don't give into the whiners and start balancing everything around pvp like the arena kiddies made wow. Essentially making every class have the same type of moves, nothing too strong etc etc. PvP should be random fun and not e-sporty at all. 100% agree, Diablo is about PvE
I agree to an extent. For me, PvP and trading was what made the experience, but I also can't deny that we hardcore PvPers were the minority and that the game wasn't developed for us, but was just accommodating enough that it could work, and it happened to work well by coincidence rather than by design.
|
On August 09 2011 03:57 jimmyjingle wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2011 03:43 STS17 wrote:On August 09 2011 03:23 jimmyjingle wrote:On August 09 2011 03:13 Overpowered wrote:On August 09 2011 03:09 Pufftrees wrote:On August 09 2011 02:54 papaz wrote:
RMAH gets too much attention compared to the recent news about PvP.
More than removing the ladder and making it all cuddly and all Jay Wilson's unprofessional "over my dead body" and "shut up PvP" statements which surely implies we can all forget about competitive PvP of some sort for the whole remainder of Diablo 3's life.
Good, balancing a pve game around pvp is what ruined wow... making everything "arena friendly" and removing big class definining yet "imbalanced in arena" moves. I sincerely hope they don't give into the whiners and start balancing everything around pvp like the arena kiddies made wow. Essentially making every class have the same type of moves, nothing too strong etc etc. PvP should be random fun and not e-sporty at all. 100% agree, Diablo is about PvE not to diverge too much but WotLK was an amazing expansion for balance of pvp and pve. it's basically a textbook example of what to do RIGHT in an rpg. simply put, pve encounters were incredibly accessible to players of all skill levels, challenging and super competetive to the top tier, (and before 3.2 the ambience, art styles and atmosphere were all really good.) as for PVP, barring some comp imbalances towards the beginning, arena and BGs had not been more fun. the new [breakneck] pace of PvP was exciting and interesting. If by accessible to all skill levels you mean the encounters were trivial as long as you had the correct gear and a brain stem then yes. PvP only had an illusion of greatness. If you really looked at it, most of the abilities across most of the classes were the same but had a different name and some different art. Arenas and BGs were fun but they were never balanced in the sense that any composition was viable (BGs to a lesser extent than arenas). i'm simply saying that WotLK was an excellent progression from the pvp and pve system before it [BC.] the problem that existed within "tier-skipping" and redundancy of content would not be a problem in D3, though, which is neat.
I don't know how you can say that when WotLK's release introduced us to a system that included a horrid burstfest of PvP and we were all farming Naxxramas in Sunwell gear. Tier-skipping and redundancy was INTRODUCED with WotLK. They took a good 6 months to fix it, then 3 months later, broke it all over again.
|
I dont think beta will come in august, since EU-players havent gotten their systemcheck upgraded yet, and since they couldnt give a date in the last visit from the media ^_^
|
On August 09 2011 04:01 Zephirdd wrote:
lol @ cz
Regarding PvE/PvP aspect.
The "competitive" aspect of Diablo is not dead. Players still can make toruneys if they want, its all up to the community. Blizzard just won't support it, doesn't mean it can't exist.
Hey, remember SC2, which changed from "races balanced" to "P OP" to "Z OP" to "balanced" to "T OP" without balance patches?
Better yet, remember WC3:TFT which went from "NE OP" to "Undead OP" to "Orc OP" with hardly any patches?
What about SC:BW, which had its last patch, idk, in 2004? I really don't know, yet I find recent reports on the race "balance" changing over the last few years.
Do you know what this is? The proof that balance patches aren't needed to determine game balance(except on serious cases), which leads to A good competitive scene does not need the developer's support to exist.
Maybe Shaman will be UP and Monk will be OP, maybe not, but the thing is, Blizzard won't balance towards PvP, but that doesn't mean they will try to break it.
Basically, D3 PvP will get the same treatment as SC2 Single player. That doesn't mean tourneys can't exist, and that doesn't mean D3 can't be an spectator sport - that just means you can't expect Blizzard to change PvP if that means breaking PvE.
Stop complaining.
How do you think the community will organize competitive PvP?
I would love if there was some kind of "PvP organization". Else it is gonna get boring sooooo fast if it is only "press to join skirmish PvP".
Also I'm sad the PvP part won't even be in beta.
|
On August 09 2011 04:11 SpurvL wrote:
I dont think beta will come in august, since EU-players havent gotten their systemcheck upgraded yet, and since they couldnt give a date in the last visit from the media ^_^
Yes we have?
I have made it and now they also know my bandwith which is one of the differences.
|
On August 09 2011 04:11 SpurvL wrote:
I dont think beta will come in august, since EU-players havent gotten their systemcheck upgraded yet, and since they couldnt give a date in the last visit from the media ^_^
I can't remember if it was for this game or not, but i recall hearing somewhere that the beta will be released first in NA, then elsewhere as they slowly bring more people in. Sorry fellas in EU .
|
On August 09 2011 04:13 [Agony]x90 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2011 04:11 SpurvL wrote:
I dont think beta will come in august, since EU-players havent gotten their systemcheck upgraded yet, and since they couldnt give a date in the last visit from the media ^_^ I can't remember if it was for this game or not, but i recall hearing somewhere that the beta will be released first in NA, then elsewhere as they slowly bring more people in. Sorry fellas in EU .
Not entirely correct. Beta servers will be online in NA first, so players elsewhere will experience latency if they get into the beta due to the distance, and then in time they will be switched over to the appropriate region servers. It's not that the beta will only be available to people in NA at first.
|
|
|
Russian Federation6 Posts
|
Looks fake-ilicious to me. Obligatory, I can tell from some of the pixels, and from having seen quite a few shops in my time. No, really, the font and the colouring look way off.
|
not much reason for someone to try to make a fake. still, the icon appears shaky and unfinished, so who knows.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
