Diablo III - Page 24
| Forum Index > General Games |
|
nexitustl1
156 Posts
| ||
|
dartoo
India2889 Posts
Are they doing something something stupid like locking the number of characters you can create? | ||
|
Skoe420
United States44 Posts
On June 28 2008 23:36 Jibba wrote: Maybe you're not familiar with the Diablo franchise. Diablo 1/2 are awful, user unfriendly linear games with a community full of scammers, cheaters and assholes, and the entire thing combines to be incredibly fun and addictive. This is like complaining that there's not enough wholesome/kid-friendly stuff to do at a dog racing track. Quit trolling you know nothing about d1 or 2 i can tell they were awesome and d3 is going to be the shit the only reason d2 started getting full of scammers and dumb bots is because they would rather waste time on making 414830498 WoW games instead of doing something worth while WoW has always been stupid and always will be its just their cash cow that people for some reason pay to play. | ||
|
frontline
United States57 Posts
| ||
|
fellcrow
United States288 Posts
| ||
|
Eppa!
Sweden4641 Posts
On April 23 2011 20:18 Skoe420 wrote: Quit trolling you know nothing about d1 or 2 i can tell they were awesome and d3 is going to be the shit the only reason d2 started getting full of scammers and dumb bots is because they would rather waste time on making 414830498 WoW games instead of doing something worth while WoW has always been stupid and always will be its just their cash cow that people for some reason pay to play. He said diablo 1 and 2 are very fun. Sort of like oblivion, terrible game that I "wasted" 15< hours playing. | ||
|
Skoe420
United States44 Posts
On April 23 2011 22:01 Eppa! wrote: He said diablo 1 and 2 are very fun. Sort of like oblivion, terrible game that I "wasted" 15< hours playing. ummm no he didnt he said they were awful i played them all the time when i was a lot younger i mean you have to put into account how old the games are now diablo 1 was released in 96 diablo 2 was released in 2000 dont remember if that was the x pac or not. Warhammer 40k was released in like 2005 i think that was the first one so who ever said Diablo was a rip off it WAY off....And you cant try to compare something that was a board game to a real game thats like saying boulders gate was a rip off of DnD thats just bull because its all lore elves and dwarfs and all that crap. | ||
|
Mavkar
Germany592 Posts
Note that I'm not supporting the rip-off argument, just wanted to get the facts strait. Edit: Damn your ninja edit , still your point is kinda invalid. | ||
|
Arathore
104 Posts
| ||
|
Mavkar
Germany592 Posts
I kow its a long way down the road but I hope with expansions there are more classes introduced. Kindo poor choices now it feels, very generic. | ||
|
zJayy962
1363 Posts
Diablo 1/2 are awful, user unfriendly linear games with a community full of scammers, cheaters and assholes, and the entire thing combines to be incredibly fun and addictive. On April 23 2011 20:18 Skoe420 wrote: Quit trolling you know nothing about d1 or 2 i can tell they were awesome and d3 is going to be the shit the only reason d2 started getting full of scammers and dumb bots is because they would rather waste time on making 414830498 WoW games instead of doing something worth while WoW has always been stupid and always will be its just their cash cow that people for some reason pay to play. Its like you are blind or something. HE SAID IT WAS FUN AND ADDICTIVE. The D3 universe looks extremely small compared to the D2 universe. D2 acts I, II, IV, and V were all quite large. All the instances I've seen of D3 are all "hallway like". I don't really like this new design but I hope it doesn't take away from game play. | ||
|
Denzil
United Kingdom4193 Posts
| ||
|
Jerax
Canada189 Posts
On April 24 2011 06:43 zJayy962 wrote: Its like you are blind or something. HE SAID IT WAS FUN AND ADDICTIVE. The D3 universe looks extremely small compared to the D2 universe. D2 acts I, II, IV, and V were all quite large. All the instances I've seen of D3 are all "hallway like". I don't really like this new design but I hope it doesn't take away from game play. lol what are you talking about? D3 universe looks small from..the extremely limited footage we've seen so far? Diablo has always had a "dungeon" like feel to it, frankly I don't know what game you were playing. On another note, I'm pretty sure I saw a group of players in a boss fight on open plains. From what we've seen so far it looks like we'll be seeing a lot of dungeons, catacombs etc. just like D1 and D2. | ||
|
e4e5nf3
Canada599 Posts
On April 24 2011 06:43 zJayy962 wrote: The D3 universe looks extremely small compared to the D2 universe. D2 acts I, II, IV, and V were all quite large. All the instances I've seen of D3 are all "hallway like". I don't really like this new design but I hope it doesn't take away from game play. I was never a big fan of the openess of D2. D1 had a claustrophobic feel to it that matched its atmosphere. You basically were underground all by yourself going deeper and deeper into hell. | ||
|
Flowne
Netherlands71 Posts
User was warned for this post | ||
|
AeroGear
Canada652 Posts
On April 24 2011 07:20 e4e5nf3 wrote: I was never a big fan of the openess of D2. D1 had a claustrophobic feel to it that matched its atmosphere. You basically were underground all by yourself going deeper and deeper into hell. Spot on. My main dislike about D2 is the lack of large scale dungeon other than say, the forgotten tower or the catacombs in A1. D1 felt like a descent into hell, but the gameplay was a bit limited. D2 improved upon that by bringing skilltrees, runewords, socketing, item procs and a very wide array of weapons and mods. etc. D3 will be another step forward. People expecting a massive overhaul of the game are naive, just like those expecting the exact same game. They will improve on what was lacking (give area of effect spells and abilities to all classes), avoid novelty or nearly useless skills that are only there for sake of filler, provide incentives to explore (quests) rather than run through ASAP since the best stuff is in the high level areas or bugged chests. There's only so much you can improve on a basic hack and slash, it seems to me like they are doing a good job of making combat interesting and interactive rather than point and click. My only fear is that the game will be diluted and too easy to please the crappy gamers of today (99% of the wow players). | ||
|
SeanShepard
United States48 Posts
On April 24 2011 07:39 AeroGear wrote: Spot on. My main dislike about D2 is the lack of large scale dungeon other than say, the forgotten tower or the catacombs in A1. D1 felt like a descent into hell, but the gameplay was a bit limited. D2 improved upon that by bringing skilltrees, runewords, socketing, item procs and a very wide array of weapons and mods. etc. D3 will be another step forward. People expecting a massive overhaul of the game are naive, just like those expecting the exact same game. They will improve on what was lacking (give area of effect spells and abilities to all classes), avoid novelty or nearly useless skills that are only there for sake of filler, provide incentives to explore (quests) rather than run through ASAP since the best stuff is in the high level areas or bugged chests. There's only so much you can improve on a basic hack and slash, it seems to me like they are doing a good job of making combat interesting and interactive rather than point and click. My only fear is that the game will be diluted and too easy to please the crappy gamers of today (99% of the wow players). I'm sorry but you're fear that the game will be "diluted and too easy" is quite silly. Diablo 1 and Diablo 2 were quite easy to play - there was in fact no real way to fail. Making Diablo 3 not easy to play would be a massive change to the series and that's extremely unlikely. tldr: Diablo 3 will be EASY and it has nothing to do with World of Warcraft. | ||
|
UltraVires
United States241 Posts
On April 24 2011 08:09 SeanShepard wrote: I'm sorry but you're fear that the game will be "diluted and too easy" is quite silly. Diablo 1 and Diablo 2 were quite easy to play - there was in fact no real way to fail. Making Diablo 3 not easy to play would be a massive change to the series and that's extremely unlikely. tldr: Diablo 3 will be EASY and it has nothing to do with World of Warcraft. If you don't want easy, play hardcore. | ||
|
AeroGear
Canada652 Posts
The point I'm making with the WoW playerbase, is that they expect everything to go their way, instances and raids have been consistently nerfed due to the average player being too bad to tackle them. The same playerbase will migrate or at least buy D3 so they might have the same impact upon the design of encounters. The design team has caved many times to douse the complaints. | ||
|
mprs
Canada2933 Posts
On April 24 2011 08:27 AeroGear wrote: Hardcore is just as easy altough the builds tend to be a bit weaker due to being forced to gear up for survival rather than 100% offense. AI is too limited in D1 and D2 to pose any threat. You can still die to a stair trap or an unlucky encounter with an extra fast/extra strong/fana aura boss pack or something similar. They can only have improved the AI in D3, and I think they made it so monsters team up or seek nearby allies when they get outmatched. The point I'm making with the WoW playerbase, is that they expect everything to go their way, instances and raids have been consistently nerfed due to the average player being too bad to tackle them. The same playerbase will migrate or at least buy D3 so they might have the same impact upon the design of encounters. The design team has caved many times to douse the complaints. Yeah except nothing is stopping you from doing it the hard way. Top guilds went for hard modes and achievements that were harder than the regular play through. In D2, people played hardcore. I'm not saying this applies to you, but a lot of people played hardcore in D2 and then complained it was too easy. Ironically, they all used map hacks and exit bots to make sure they never die. I'm not even sure if irony is the proper word here, but I don't even care because its ironic. | ||
| ||
, still your point is kinda invalid.