So a few of my friends are getting Diablo 3(lame). So I guess I'll end up buying it also, because I'm sure even my lack of giving a f*ck for loot games can be overlooked due to broop.
Was wondering who else is getting it besides mexiworth?
I'll be trying it out but if I ever do buy it, it's going to be when it's $20 or lower.tagyhag
Lmao. Funny joke. Diablo 2 only hit 20 dollars a few years ago.
Just ordered it. I was on the fence (was going to hold out for Torchlight 2 and see how that worked out), but some buddies are picking it up and I don't really have anything else on my gaming plate until the fall, so I figured what the hell. If nothing else, the witch doctor should be entertaining.
I pre-ordered it for same reason as champ, though maybe i'm a bit more spiteful, not hyped for it in any way because I never understood the big circle jerk surrounding well any blizzard games really, but enough friends are getting it that it should be worth it.Â
My battletag is Midou#1930Â
I never understood the big circle jerk surrounding well any blizzard games really110million
Aside from the fact that they manage to make complex games everybody can enjoy, support them for a whole decade, and regularly tweak their games to the point that they become better as a result? Anybody who has played WoW, D2, and even SC2 can attest to the fact that the games when they were released are not the same games today, and are better for it. Diablo 2, for example, got new endgame content and major mechanic changes in 2010. Lets think about this; a game released in 2000 with no subscription fee got extra endgame content in 2010.
Buying a Blizzard games mean investing in an evolving product for a decade.
[QUOTE="110million"]I never understood the big circle jerk surrounding well any blizzard games reallyRedmoonxl2
Aside from the fact that they manage to make complex games everybody can enjoy, support them for a whole decade, and regularly tweak their games to the point that they become better as a result? Anybody who has played WoW, D2, and even SC2 can attest to the fact that the games when they were released are not the same games today, and are better for it. Diablo 2, for example, got new endgame content and major mechanic changes in 2010. Lets think about this; a game released in 2000 with no subscription fee got extra endgame content in 2010.
Buying a Blizzard games mean investing in an evolving product for a decade.
After the turn of the millenium and until Starcraft 2, they were barely even releasing a game per decade. :roll:Â
[QUOTE="Redmoonxl2"][QUOTE="110million"]I never understood the big circle jerk surrounding well any blizzard games really110million
Aside from the fact that they manage to make complex games everybody can enjoy, support them for a whole decade, and regularly tweak their games to the point that they become better as a result? Anybody who has played WoW, D2, and even SC2 can attest to the fact that the games when they were released are not the same games today, and are better for it. Diablo 2, for example, got new endgame content and major mechanic changes in 2010. Lets think about this; a game released in 2000 with no subscription fee got extra endgame content in 2010.
Buying a Blizzard games mean investing in an evolving product for a decade.
After the turn of the millenium and until Starcraft 2, they were barely even releasing a game per decade. :roll:Â
Âlol, 110million just layed down the smackdownÂ
[QUOTE="Redmoonxl2"][QUOTE="110million"]I never understood the big circle jerk surrounding well any blizzard games really110million
Aside from the fact that they manage to make complex games everybody can enjoy, support them for a whole decade, and regularly tweak their games to the point that they become better as a result? Anybody who has played WoW, D2, and even SC2 can attest to the fact that the games when they were released are not the same games today, and are better for it. Diablo 2, for example, got new endgame content and major mechanic changes in 2010. Lets think about this; a game released in 2000 with no subscription fee got extra endgame content in 2010.
Buying a Blizzard games mean investing in an evolving product for a decade.
After the turn of the millenium and until Starcraft 2, they were barely even releasing a game per decade. :roll:
Diablo 2 - 2000
Diablo 2: LoD - 2001
Warcraft 3 - 2002
Warcraft 3: TFT - 2003
WoW - 2004
TBC, WoTLK, CATA - 2007, 2008, 2010
SC2 - 2010
Four big name titles with 5 expansions and lord knows how many content patches between 2000-2010.
Bad troll is bad.
[QUOTE="110million"][QUOTE="Redmoonxl2"]
[QUOTE="110million"]I never understood the big circle jerk surrounding well any blizzard games reallyRedmoonxl2
Aside from the fact that they manage to make complex games everybody can enjoy, support them for a whole decade, and regularly tweak their games to the point that they become better as a result? Anybody who has played WoW, D2, and even SC2 can attest to the fact that the games when they were released are not the same games today, and are better for it. Diablo 2, for example, got new endgame content and major mechanic changes in 2010. Lets think about this; a game released in 2000 with no subscription fee got extra endgame content in 2010.
Buying a Blizzard games mean investing in an evolving product for a decade.
After the turn of the millenium and until Starcraft 2, they were barely even releasing a game per decade. :roll:
Diablo 2 - 2000
Diablo 2: LoD - 2001
Warcraft 3 - 2002
Warcraft 3: TFT - 2003
WoW - 2004
TBC, WoTLK, CATA - 2007, 2008, 2010
SC2 - 2010
Four big name titles with 5 expansions and lord knows how many content patches between 2000-2010.
Bad troll is bad.
4 games in the past 10 years....Â
[QUOTE="110million"][QUOTE="Redmoonxl2"]Aside from the fact that they manage to make complex games everybody can enjoy, support them for a whole decade, and regularly tweak their games to the point that they become better as a result? Anybody who has played WoW, D2, and even SC2 can attest to the fact that the games when they were released are not the same games today, and are better for it. Diablo 2, for example, got new endgame content and major mechanic changes in 2010. Lets think about this; a game released in 2000 with no subscription fee got extra endgame content in 2010.
Buying a Blizzard games mean investing in an evolving product for a decade.
SevenzFlow
After the turn of the millenium and until Starcraft 2, they were barely even releasing a game per decade. :roll:
lol, 110million just layed down the smackdown
Factless conjecture counts as laying down the smackdown these days?
[QUOTE="SevenzFlow"][QUOTE="110million"][QUOTE="Redmoonxl2"]
Aside from the fact that they manage to make complex games everybody can enjoy, support them for a whole decade, and regularly tweak their games to the point that they become better as a result? Anybody who has played WoW, D2, and even SC2 can attest to the fact that the games when they were released are not the same games today, and are better for it. Diablo 2, for example, got new endgame content and major mechanic changes in 2010. Lets think about this; a game released in 2000 with no subscription fee got extra endgame content in 2010.
Buying a Blizzard games mean investing in an evolving product for a decade.
jechtshot78
After the turn of the millenium and until Starcraft 2, they were barely even releasing a game per decade. :roll:
lol, 110million just layed down the smackdown
Factless conjecture counts as laying down the smackdown these days?
Y u mad though?Â
4 games in the past 10 years....
SevenzFlow
We are in an agreement that 4 is much larger than 1, correct?
[QUOTE="SevenzFlow"]
4 games in the past 10 years....
Redmoonxl2
We are in an agreement that 4 is much larger than 1, correct?
Blizzard not making a lot games, Correct?
[QUOTE="SevenzFlow"]
Blizzard not making a lot games, Correct?
Redmoonxl2
This guy right here, folks.:roll:
hahaha, you get annoyed easily :PÂ
[QUOTE="Redmoonxl2"][QUOTE="SevenzFlow"]
4 games in the past 10 years....
SevenzFlow
We are in an agreement that 4 is much larger than 1, correct?
Blizzard not making a lot games, Correct?
They should totally just release lots of subpar games instead of 4 supurb games.
Thats like saying micheal bay is a better director than stanley kubrick because he can churn out a film faster.
[QUOTE="SevenzFlow"][QUOTE="Redmoonxl2"]
[QUOTE="SevenzFlow"]
4 games in the past 10 years....
jechtshot78
We are in an agreement that 4 is much larger than 1, correct?
Blizzard not making a lot games, Correct?
They should totally just release lots of subpar games instead of 4 supurb games.
Â
Thats like saying micheal bay is a better director than stanley kubrick because he can churn out a film faster.
What about Transformers?Â
Diablo 2 - 2000
Diablo 2: LoD - 2001
Warcraft 3 - 2002
Warcraft 3: TFT - 2003
WoW - 2004
TBC, WoTLK, CATA - 2007, 2008, 2010
SC2 - 2010
Four big name titles with 5 expansions and lord knows how many content patches between 2000-2010.
Bad troll is bad.
Redmoonxl2
That is an 11 year period, first of all, so whether you go 2000-2009 or 2001-2010, its still 3 games, 1 of which is an MMO. My main point is after WoW came out, Blizzard went into "who gives a ****" mode and just pumped out expansions for over half a decade. When you make so much dough from subscriptions though, I don't blame them in terms of finances, but that doesn't mean I have to have respect for them for putting in a bit of effort into keeping their non-MMO fanbase by upgrading their older titles.
While Starcraft 2 is an obvious improvement in a number of ways, it still didn't feel as major of a sequel as Blizzard's previous ones, especially with all the time they had. Plus the whole splitting it up into multiple games thing was always kind of meh, even if they are 'full' campaigns each.
Wow. Amazing how a topic on Diablo turned into commentary orgy on Blizzard as a company. I must be back in GUFU or something.
Well, I'll play, too. About Blizzard... I mean... what do you want here, guys? An annual crap shoot ala Ubisoft or infrequent classics? It's up to you, but I've never played a Blizzard game that wasn't rock solid. They don't innovate. And they've openly admitted to that decision as well. Perfect execution trumps innovation every time, especially if you want software that's fun to play.
As for the game? Maybe they dicked it up. Maybe its causalized and dumbed down, etc. but I doubt it. In fact, that's hardly the point. Diablo is a game that forged an entire sub-genre and helped define the action RPG genre. If you can throw $60 at the next Assassins Creed game (you know, the third one in a row) then surely you can do the same here. If not to enjoy yourself then to at least find out what terrible, awful things Blizzard did with it's series. :roll:
An annual crap shoot ala Ubisoft or infrequent classics? It's up to you, but I've never played a Blizzard game that wasn't rock solid. They don't innovate. And they've openly admitted to that decision as well. Perfect execution trumps innovation every time, especially if you want software that's fun to play.
NAPK1NS
Main titles(obviously **** because they didn't take 10+ years): Â
Warcraft - 1994
Warcraft 2 - 1996
Diablo - 1996 Â
Starcraft - 1998
Diablo II - 2000
Warcraft 3 - 2002Â
World of Warcraft - 2004Â
*myserious gap*:
Starcraft 2 - 2010
But you guys are right, Blizzard just takes a really long time to make all their games to fill them with quality, you can tell the 12 years they put into Starcraft 2 make it what it is.Â
Â
Â
World of Warcraft - 2004
*myserious gap*:
Starcraft 2 - 2010
But you guys are right, Blizzard just takes a really long time to make all their games to fill them with quality, you can tell the 12 years they put into Starcraft 2 make it what it is.110million
First point, between 2004 and 2010, they were seriously developing both Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3, as in they were actually building the damn thing and not theorycrafting what it will look like. Also keep in mind that around the same time, Blizzard North was shut down and merged with Blizzard itself. Lets not forget the illfated Starcraft: Ghost that was being developed, then was finally canceled.
That highlighted and underlined part at the end of your post is my initial point to your asking of "why the circlejerk for Blizzard games?" Even with all those years in development, no matter how complete the game seemed, Blizzard continued to work on the game until we got the SC2 we have today. Seriously, look at promatches of SC2 fresh out of retail and SC2 as it is played today. They are practically two different games.
That is a fair point about the blizzard north merger and starcraft: ghost, I do remember the thing about the merger now. It's just blizzard never did super high end technical graphics, so I'm not sure why something like D2->D3 would be much harder or take so much longer than D1->D2, especially with more static character development and the likes.
I bought SC2 at launch, haven't really touched it since then though, I am fine to admit, I will check it out at some point again though. Let me correct my statement a bit more I guess, I know Starcraft has always had a big scene in connection to it, with korea and everything, so maybe I should have said I don't see the big circle jerk surrounding Diablo as opposed to all of Blizzard. Everything I've heard seemed quite a bit more... casualized than the previous one, even D2-bro-friends of mine said something to that extent, so there is another reason I don't understand the longer development time. There seems to be less stuff to.. balance.
I have a couple of friends and see many people online always touting it as like best game of all time but everything I played from it didn't seem so insanely awesome. It's an isometric loot game, a well made one, and genre defining at the time or whatnot, but I will never understand the love people had for D2.
Diablo 2, for a lack of a better word, was a clusterf*ck. It was also the very best the genre has seen in terms of handling an environment that allowed people to make any character they want due to stat point allocation and the skill tree. The problem with that "freedom" is how stats and skills interacted with items, as well as how the skill tree system limited abilities down to two active spells. Since every item required a pretty flat stat requirement, all people needed to do was get enough strength to wear anything, get enough dex for 75% block, then put the rest on vitality for HP. Energy was useless. The skill tree was even worse, especially with how the synergy system worked. You would basically spent enough points to get the most power spell in that tree, say meteor, max it at 20 points, get anything else that added dmg to that spell, be it fire mastery or fireball, and spam meteor all day long. Again, items come into play when abilities get + skill with items, especially with runewords, rendering the whole suffix-affix/unique/set item system worthless outside of amulets and rings. Suddenly a game that attempts to promote freedom does the exact opposite since every mechanic collapses onto itself.
For more info, check out David Sirlin's articleon D2 vs D3, as well as the Jay Wilson interview stating why stat allocation was taken out completely.
Imagine coming into Diablo 3, seeing these faults with Diablo 2 and what it turned into, and attempting to fix a problem that stretched beyond just one area. You wonder why it took so long to develop Diablo 3? There is your answer. They basically tore down and recreated Diablo from the ground up.
Oh, and as for why Diablo is so fun, it is the combined "freedom" of the characters you make playing off other player unique characters in a coop setting.
For more info, check out David Sirlin's articleon D2 vs D3, as well as the Jay Wilson interview stating why stat allocation was taken out completely.
Imagine coming into Diablo 3, seeing these faults with Diablo 2 and what it turned into, and attempting to fix a problem that stretched beyond just one area. You wonder why it took so long to develop Diablo 3? There is your answer. They basically tore down and recreated Diablo from the ground up.
Redmoonxl2
This makes sense, I read about Diablo 3 on occassion but I would lose interest pretty quickly. The rune stuff sounds cool, the ability slots remind me of Guild Wars. I read skill lists and stuff but never too much into any of the systems.Â
You have to remember that Blizzard really only has one development team. The team that worked on StarCraft II was shifted over to WoW multiple times to work on the expansions, which is why the game took so damn long. Which really makes me want to play StarCraft II again. Time to reinstall.That is a fair point about the blizzard north merger and starcraft: ghost, I do remember the thing about the merger now. It's just blizzard never did super high end technical graphics, so I'm not sure why something like D2->D3 would be much harder or take so much longer than D1->D2, especially with more static character development and the likes.
I bought SC2 at launch, haven't really touched it since then though, I am fine to admit, I will check it out at some point again though. Let me correct my statement a bit more I guess, I know Starcraft has always had a big scene in connection to it, with korea and everything, so maybe I should have said I don't see the big circle jerk surrounding Diablo as opposed to all of Blizzard. Everything I've heard seemed quite a bit more... casualized than the previous one, even D2-bro-friends of mine said something to that extent, so there is another reason I don't understand the longer development time. There seems to be less stuff to.. balance.
I have a couple of friends and see many people online always touting it as like best game of all time but everything I played from it didn't seem so insanely awesome. It's an isometric loot game, a well made one, and genre defining at the time or whatnot, but I will never understand the love people had for D2.
110million
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment