|
On August 07 2009 03:31 Assault_1 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2009 10:30 garmule2 wrote:
Diablo 3 looks like it'll be horrible, purely from the ridiculous problems seen in trailer footage. Not game problems, i'm talking design and attitude problems. A bright and cheery world where heroes do insane WHOOSH and BAM physics-defying NEON FIRE attacks like some sort of cocaine-tripping children's anime is not at all a sequel to two games that were grim, gothic, and mundane-for-the-most-part. Like in d1 and d2, heroes swung weapons, shot arrows, and cast spells. In d3 it's more like they shout move names and do all sorts of cool s**t just to impress kids. Like ULTRA BARBARIAN CHOP!!!!!!!! *small leap, sudden kinetic change straight down, NEON BLUE FIRE!!!!!!!!!!!!* lol.. it's not really like that. People have made reviews when they played it at blizzcon 2008, and said despite the brighter colours etc it has the same dark feel like the first one. that reminds me.. I haven't played the first one, maybe I should beat its campaign. Someone else made a good point about sc2 not being pure competitive. sc2 has endless options with fun custom games and such, which I almost forgot about.
Judging from the pictures, I'd say the leap was far greater between D1 and D2, than it is between D2 and D3 in terms of atmosphere and darkness. I would even say that D3 seems truer to the original game's atmosphere. If anything, D2 is a pastel colored adventure.
Edit: fixed problem with nested quote
|
On August 21 2009 17:44 Appendix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2009 03:31 Assault_1 wrote:On August 05 2009 10:30 garmule2 wrote:
Diablo 3 looks like it'll be horrible, purely from the ridiculous problems seen in trailer footage. Not game problems, i'm talking design and attitude problems. A bright and cheery world where heroes do insane WHOOSH and BAM physics-defying NEON FIRE attacks like some sort of cocaine-tripping children's anime is not at all a sequel to two games that were grim, gothic, and mundane-for-the-most-part. Like in d1 and d2, heroes swung weapons, shot arrows, and cast spells. In d3 it's more like they shout move names and do all sorts of cool s**t just to impress kids. Like ULTRA BARBARIAN CHOP!!!!!!!! *small leap, sudden kinetic change straight down, NEON BLUE FIRE!!!!!!!!!!!!* lol.. it's not really like that. People have made reviews when they played it at blizzcon 2008, and said despite the brighter colours etc it has the same dark feel like the first one. that reminds me.. I haven't played the first one, maybe I should beat its campaign. Someone else made a good point about sc2 not being pure competitive. sc2 has endless options with fun custom games and such, which I almost forgot about. Judging from the pictures, I'd say the leap was far greater between D1 and D2, than it is between D2 and D3 in terms of atmosphere and darkness. I would even say that D3 seems truer to the original game's atmosphere. If anything, D2 is a pastel colored adventure. Edit: fixed problem with nested quote
diablo 1 was awesome. But the game would have been 3 times better if you could RUN in the game. And yeah, d2 was super bright compared to the awesomely gothic diablo 1. From screenshots diablo 3 looks like its inbetween d1 and d2.
|
there aint no VS SC2 > D3
but D3 will be good too
|
On August 21 2009 18:12 stroggos wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2009 17:44 Appendix wrote:On August 07 2009 03:31 Assault_1 wrote:On August 05 2009 10:30 garmule2 wrote:
Diablo 3 looks like it'll be horrible, purely from the ridiculous problems seen in trailer footage. Not game problems, i'm talking design and attitude problems. A bright and cheery world where heroes do insane WHOOSH and BAM physics-defying NEON FIRE attacks like some sort of cocaine-tripping children's anime is not at all a sequel to two games that were grim, gothic, and mundane-for-the-most-part. Like in d1 and d2, heroes swung weapons, shot arrows, and cast spells. In d3 it's more like they shout move names and do all sorts of cool s**t just to impress kids. Like ULTRA BARBARIAN CHOP!!!!!!!! *small leap, sudden kinetic change straight down, NEON BLUE FIRE!!!!!!!!!!!!* lol.. it's not really like that. People have made reviews when they played it at blizzcon 2008, and said despite the brighter colours etc it has the same dark feel like the first one. that reminds me.. I haven't played the first one, maybe I should beat its campaign. Someone else made a good point about sc2 not being pure competitive. sc2 has endless options with fun custom games and such, which I almost forgot about. Judging from the pictures, I'd say the leap was far greater between D1 and D2, than it is between D2 and D3 in terms of atmosphere and darkness. I would even say that D3 seems truer to the original game's atmosphere. If anything, D2 is a pastel colored adventure. Edit: fixed problem with nested quote diablo 1 was awesome. But the game would have been 3 times better if you could RUN in the game. And yeah, d2 was super bright compared to the awesomely gothic diablo 1. From screenshots diablo 3 looks like its inbetween d1 and d2.
Thank god we had teleport so it was only a problem in town  But I agree, the setting, music and atmosphere in diablo 1 was far better than that in diablo 2. That being said diablo 2 was still one of my favorite games to date.
|
Gotta say, diablo 3. SC2 looks pretty good to me but d3 looks very, very good. Perfect sequel.
|
If they release a cool ranger/marksman class for D3 ill buy it, if not then screw it.
Im more hyped for SC2 then D3
|
Hate to say it, but I'm way more excited for Diablo 3.. It's just more of a thing to play with my buddies..
|
Diablo is gonna be such a cool game, but SCII ofc! That shit is getting reeeeal close.
|
As a game, I'm way more excited for D3. When talking about impact and significance for 'ESPORTS' and progaming exposure outside of Korea, I'm more psyched about SC2.
|
if SC2 has half of the ums/custom maps that wc3 has, it would own d3 so hard. Bang for buck wise you would be getting sc2 single player campaign + competitive multiplayer + sc2 dota/sheeptag/towerdefense/RPGs/ and much much more.
|
34% on a Starcraft forum. That has to say something about Diablo III
|
I don't understand how someone in their right mind could choose D3 over SC2, unless you've lost your "competetive spirit"
|
On August 21 2009 17:44 Appendix wrote:
Judging from the pictures, I'd say the leap was far greater between D1 and D2, than it is between D2 and D3 in terms of atmosphere and darkness. I would even say that D3 seems truer to the original game's atmosphere. If anything, D2 is a pastel colored adventure.
On August 21 2009 18:12 stroggos wrote:
d2 was super bright compared to the awesomely gothic diablo 1. From screenshots diablo 3 looks like its inbetween d1 and d2.
+1 to both statements.
|
Diablo 3, I'm older than I was when I enjoyed competitive starcraft. I've got responsibilities and obligations, I don't have time to sit and practice for hours and take games/competition seriously. Diablo 3 is just going to be a pleasant distraction and a fun way to kill time, starcraft 2 is going to be a life-consuming pursuit to be the best.
Of course, assuming I had all the time in the world, starcraft 2 all the way.
|
diablo series are just great, a must buy..... havent played sc, but may, especially if nothing else is available strategy-wise online.
|
I can confidently say that SC2 will consume the vast majority of my time, given the choice. Considering that you can play CO-OP single player missions, 2v2, 3v3, 4v4 etc... AND have awesome UMS games when you feel like taking a break I just don't see Diablo getting much of my time unless all of my friends feel like taking a break. Probably I'm going to play Diablo for a few weeks and then burn out like usual unless they release new content. Even then, it's going to be on the back burner for sure.
|
On August 29 2009 08:27 dupsky wrote:
diablo series are just great, a must buy..... havent played sc, but may, especially if nothing else is available strategy-wise online.
Just wanted to let you know this is a starcraft forum.
Anyhow, if anyone can honestly find Diablo more appealing than StarCraft right now I'm shocked. Not only will star2 have the whole competitive 1v1 factour, but 2v2,3v3, and 4v4 both random and arranged team adds a ton of value. Then...the custom maps which from what we've seen so far....make your own diablo in sc2, I mean its just too complete of a game, casual, competitive and literally everything in between. If star2 only had 1v1 I could be convinced otherwise, but its just not the case.
|
Diablo haves the best lore I've ever seen and played lol
|
Diablo 3 for me as well. I enjoy watching Starcraft but don't enjoy playing it as much as the Diablo games. I'm not really that competitive. I like playing games where I can relax and Starcraft is just too tense. Watching it is another thing, though, since the pros do all the work.
I just think the APM requirements of Starcraft 2 are too high to make it that enjoyable to me. I'll still play it but I won't play it as much as Diablo. Even Warcraft 3, which is much easier mechanics-wise, I ended watching more replays than playing. For Starcraft, it's not even close. I think I've watched more than 5 times as many pro games as I've played actual games.
|
OMG, WIZARD!
My life will be dedicated to D3 as soon as it comes out for sure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
