I feel like Diablo 3 already came out and the world moved on.

Got an invite to the D3 beta last week. It really feels like a polished and updated version of D2X.....which is more or less exactly what I wanted - so I'll be buying it at launch as I expected. I'll pick up Torchlight 2 too. In the meantime, I've reinstalled D2X and TL1 to tide me over. It's amazing to me how well the gameplay holds up in D2X once you get over the decade-old graphics and choice of resolutions being stuck to 640x480 or 800x600.

scottydoesntknow: DamnYankees: scottydoesntknow: With the screw job they put on Dragon Age 2, I'm hesitant about DA3. But BioWare did come forward and say that, while they do think it's a good game, they do acknowledge the problems with it. They said DA3 will be a combination of the best aspects/mechanics of DA:O & 2.

I really liked DA2. It had its problems, but was still a great game IMO.

It would have been a great game had it not been a sequel to Origins. I still consider DA2 a faux-RPG on rails. My biggest issue was the lack of actual choices.

"No Anders, I won't help you. Wait you were able to find all the ingredients anyway and still blow up the church?!"

"Yes Orsino, I believe in the mage's cause (even though every mage you meet is a dick). Wait, why are you still using blood magic and changing into a hellspawn?!"

"Yes Meredith, you were right, the mages are dicks and the templars need help. Wait...why are you still going crazy and trying to kill everyone?!"

I will say combat was a definite improvement from the "set-it-and-forget-it" type combat from Origins.

/Of course IMO too

Honestly, if your choices had more of an impact, and they had used more than four or so environments, DA2 wouldn't have been bad at all.

And really, calling it Dragon Age TWO didn't help things, because it draws a direct comparison between it and DA:O, and Origins is pretty clearly the superior game.

Diablo III's look and feel are different that the rest of the series. D III is more cartoonish to fall in line with more recent successes in the industry. They are counting on tons of casual game fans to try and buy their product knowing that a large number of original fans are getting older and playing less games. They will release the game whenever they want because they really do not care if the original fans give up and go away, they know most will not and they will add many new players.

D3 is still having DRM-issues. I can't get it to run right given my crappy internet connection.

netweavr: D3 is still having DRM-issues. I can't get it to run right given my crappy internet connection.

I have a big issue with the DRM surrounding D3. I typically install my more immersive games on my laptop, so I can just pull them out and put some time in when I find myself on a flight, on a four hour train ride, stuck in some hotel on business, etc.

Heck I'm looking forward to my upcoming trip to China because it means I pull out the laptop and get some serious playtime in (a rarity at home with the wife and kids). So the D3 require of needing TCP/IP for even single player is just not going to work. It will be interesting to see if it costs them a noticeable amount of sales.

What? I thought Diablo 3 has been out for like 6 years already....

Kornchex: Do you guys think you will have needed to play 1 and 2 to enjoy 3?

Not really. They are not that kind of game.

Delays and Blizzard Games go together like urine and water parks.

They probably got news from their accounting department that WoW can be profitable for a few more months. Ive always kind of felt like they were holding Diablo 3 until they thought the WoW money train slowed down a bit.

thurstonxhowell: Delays and Blizzard Games go together like urine and water parks.

I prefer delays to day 0 patches for crippling bugs. Don't know if I'll be buying this anyway, though.

It'll be so awesome, it'll have you on your sha-na-na-na-na-na-knees, knees.

This is Marius' fault, isn't it?

scottydoesntknow: DamnYankees: Baldur's Gate 3
Dragon Age 3
Diablo 3

Those are my rankings of "part 3 of an RPG series I really want to see". Granted, my #1 choice will never happen, but still.

With the screw job they put on Dragon Age 2, I'm hesitant about DA3. But BioWare did come forward and say that, while they do think it's a good game, they do acknowledge the problems with it. They said DA3 will be a combination of the best aspects/mechanics of DA:O & 2.

The only "part 3" I'm really looking forward to (and basically the only game I'm lookin forward to so far this year) invades in less than a month!

[sillegamer.com image 614x345]

These Doctor Who episodes are starting to get repetitive.

I heard it was delayed because some nut job named Deckard Cain kept harassing developers to stay a while and listen to him talk instead of finishing the game.

I'm going to bypass this. Cartoony graphics in a Diablo game? No, thank you.

Plus, I can't play anything with DRM requiring an internet connection. If I have internet and free time, I Fark. If I have free time and no internet, I play games.

you have pee hands: I prefer delays to day 0 patches for crippling bugs. Don't know if I'll be buying this anyway, though.

Years ago Blizzard released a World of Warcraft patch that corrupted installs because somebody made a typo in the credits.txt file but didn't generate a new checksum for it. The result was that the patch would download and install, but all the patches after it would generate an incorrect checksum and call the game "corrupted" requiring a severely time-consuming reinstall.

If you think Blizzard is capable of releasing anything without it including crippling bugs, I have a bridge to sell you. I have no idea why their QA is such absolute shiat, but it is to the point that it's generally a good idea to just go ahead and pretend anything they release doesn't exist until at least the day after launch.

I'd say that goes double for a game that requires always-on connection to one of their servers, because if there's one thing they're worse at than clean coding, it's maintaining their network. Although it's often hard to tell whether their rampant network issues are their fault or AT&Ts....

Not buying it.

Between looking like Gauntlet Legends (a twelve year old arcade game) and the constant connection requirement (server shut-off date = Diablo 4 release date or 3 years, whichever comes first). I'll let my wallet do the talking for me.

Happy to buy TL2 though.

oh, and combat in DA2 sucked. It might be prettier, but they removed the very idea of tactics and battleground positioning. It is just a clickfest now, since every combat involves being surrounded at the beginning or surrounded AGAIN when the second wave arrives. And watching 7' long swords and axes spinning around like lightsabers completely blew the medieval fantasy immersion.

Splinshints: Years ago Blizzard released a World of Warcraft patch that corrupted installs because somebody made a typo in the credits.txt file but didn't generate a new checksum for it. The result was that the patch would download and install, but all the patches after it would generate an incorrect checksum and call the game "corrupted" requiring a severely time-consuming reinstall.

If you think Blizzard is capable of releasing anything without it including crippling bugs, I have a bridge to sell you. I have no idea why their QA is such absolute shiat, but it is to the point that it's generally a good idea to just go ahead and pretend anything they release doesn't exist until at least the day after launch.

I'm not excusing that horrible bug, but one example years ago = Blizzard can't release anything without horrible bugs? I'm not sure I follow. I don't recall any serious bugs in SC2.

SkittlesAreYum: I'm not excusing that horrible bug, but one example years ago = Blizzard can't release anything without horrible bugs? I'm not sure I follow. I don't recall any serious bugs in SC2.

Besides being 1/3 of a game?

bemis23: Got an invite to the D3 beta last week. It really feels like a polished and updated version of D2X.....which is more or less exactly what I wanted - so I'll be buying it at launch as I expected. I'll pick up Torchlight 2 too. In the meantime, I've reinstalled D2X and TL1 to tide me over. It's amazing to me how well the gameplay holds up in D2X once you get over the decade-old graphics and choice of resolutions being stuck to 640x480 or 800x600.

Couldn't agree more. I couldn't get Eastern Sun to work(some issue with the new Daemon tools), so I went back to just playing online. Been hella fun when I needed a break from Skyrim. For now, they can delay it as much as they need to, I wont have time to play it anyways. In the meantime, here's some gameplay footage of nightmare+ difficulties. Link (new window)

SkittlesAreYum: I'm not excusing that horrible bug, but one example years ago = Blizzard can't release anything without horrible bugs? I'm not sure I follow. I don't recall any serious bugs in SC2.

I'd call the Zerg some pretty serious bugs.

/me. all week. here.

Funzo:
I'd call the Zerg some pretty serious bugs.

/me. all week. here.



The what now?

J. Frank Parnell: I feel like Diablo 3 already came out and the world moved on.

Pretty much. With Starcraft II basically being in my opinion a flop I am not planning on buying D3. By flop I mean that the original starcraft still has more replay value to the point where I am not interested in purchasing the next "expansion" of SC2.

SkittlesAreYum: I'm not excusing that horrible bug, but one example years ago = Blizzard can't release anything without horrible bugs? I'm not sure I follow. I don't recall any serious bugs in SC2.

I take it you're not terribly familiar with WoW then?

I can't speak to SC2 as I never played it, maybe they turned over a new leaf, but my experience with them the entire time I played WoW was that they had absolute shiat quality control and you could actually see it when you played. Virtually every significant patch results in multiple server restarts and additional hot patches and most of the large content patches (e.g. to prepare for upcoming expansions) were pretty much a death knell for the game until the devs could resurrect it with server side and small client patches, sometimes for days. The best, however, was when they accidentally released a half-assed tools patch a day early that actually prevented people who installed it from playing the game because it required some of the patches scheduled for the next day.

These things rarely affected everybody all at once, but in one particularly bad instance that caught me I was out of the game for a week with a few thousand other people because of a patch that prevented us from connecting to the datacenter our server was housed in. The patch's supposed changes? Mostly to fix a bug that was preventing some other people from entering Dalaran...

For all the fun I had with WoW and for all I used to like Blizzard, the one infuriating constant with them was the guarantee that even the smallest and simplest of patches was a crap shoot that could potentially be the bullet that took you out of the game for days. Which was sort of galling considering I could probably add up on my fingers all of the times I've been prevented from playing all the other MMOs I've played smoothly.

I always figured it was a good thing Blizzard was a game maker and not, say, a hospital. It's annoying, but I can deal with not being able to play a game for a day or two. If they were a hospital, though, I'd invest in the nearest undertaker.

I've been too busy playing Skyrim to worry about a D3 delay.

/Diablo fan since '97.

Splinshints: Years ago Blizzard released a World of Warcraft patch that corrupted installs because somebody made a typo in the credits.txt file but didn't generate a new checksum for it. The result was that the patch would download and install, but all the patches after it would generate an incorrect checksum and call the game "corrupted" requiring a severely time-consuming reinstall.

If you think Blizzard is capable of releasing anything without it including crippling bugs, I have a bridge to sell you. I have no idea why their QA is such absolute shiat, but it is to the point that it's generally a good idea to just go ahead and pretend anything they release doesn't exist until at least the day after launch.

I don't play MMOs but I thought they all had a ton of bugs and downtime. It's worth noting that WoW at its peak had 10x as many subscribers as any MMO before it.

Generally speaking Blizzard's quality control and support is quite good, though that may be more an indictment of the gaming industry than anything else.

netweavr: D3 is still having DRM-issues. I can't get it to run right given my crappy internet connection.

ha-ha-guy: I have a big issue with the DRM surrounding D3. I typically install my more immersive games on my laptop, so I can just pull them out and put some time in when I find myself on a flight, on a four hour train ride, stuck in some hotel on business, etc.

Heck I'm looking forward to my upcoming trip to China because it means I pull out the laptop and get some serious playtime in (a rarity at home with the wife and kids). So the D3 require of needing TCP/IP for even single player is just not going to work. It will be interesting to see if it costs them a noticeable amount of sales.

madgonad: Not buying it.

Between looking like Gauntlet Legends (a twelve year old arcade game) and the constant connection requirement (server shut-off date = Diablo 4 release date or 3 years, whichever comes first). I'll let my wallet do the talking for me.

Yeah, that. Constant internet connection required for a single player game = fark no. And the apparent decision that 'we can't stop gold sellers, so we're just going to do it ourselves' leaves a *really* bad taste in my mouth. That company has really gone downhill.

It's really a pity, too, because it looks like the actual 'game' parts of their products are still good. Both SC2 and D3 look like they'd be fun to play. But they've just been wrapping their good games up in so much bullshiat that, even as someone who owns and played (and *still* plays) the everloving hell out of D1/D2/SC1 and was *very* much looking forward to SC2/D3 back before they were announced, they've completely lost me as a customer. I blame activision.

You guys claiming the Diablo 3 graphics are cartoony crack me up.

ZOMG the game is using a full color pallet rather than just blacks and greys!!!

When did all you guys go emo?


I have been playing the beta and loving it. It's Diablo 2 with better graphics. It's not cartoony at all.

Splinshints: I have no idea why their QA is such absolute shiat, but it is to the point that it's generally a good idea to just go ahead and pretend anything they release doesn't exist until at least the day after launch.

I can sort of answer that. Since they made WoW, Bliz has been gradually becoming more and more like other production houses in its hiring practices; high turnover rates, keeping most of the staff on part-time employment while stringing them along with the promise of full time if they just keep working endless hours sans overtime. Staff fatigue is a big issue with MMOs, and it hit WoW particularly hard as the sheer number of weird bugs and retcon issues present in the game, as well as Bliz's endless employment drive since release, attest. The result of this is a non-persistent programming staff which means that, even with good documentation, nobody really knows exactly what's going on with the code; something that you'd think is extremely pivotal to a persistent game with yearly updates. Someone at some point likely knew about the problem and either left or got fired before they had a chance to get it fixed. The possibility that an inexperienced code-monkey, grinding out yet another 14-16 hour day trying to land a stable job, accidentally made this error, didn't realize it, and then was let go before problems cropped up so that no one knew exactly where the issue was can't be ruled out either.

I played the D3 beta for about 10 minutes...just not my type of game.

Mike_LowELL: BolloxReader: I'm going to bypass this. Cartoony graphics in a Diablo game? No, thank you.

The Internet Hates Diablo III

There are far, far, far more interesting reasons to stay away from Diablo III.

madgonad: Besides being 1/3 of a game?

Why are we still on the "StarCraft II is an incomplete game" narrative? The game is worse than StarCraft, Warcraft III, and Warcraft II because the game engine and movement pathing (combined with a lack of unit abilities designed to control territory) has resulted in a stunted real-time strategy game where players meet with their 200-supply armies in the middle, jockey for position, and conclude the game with a gigantic melee of confusing unit destruction. It has nothing to do with being "one-third of a game".

What's wrong with the pathing? Always seemed fine to. As to the lack of area control, I think that's more a deliberate design choice; SCII is even more geared towards offense and expansion than SCI was. Macro is streamlined, fast, precise micro can have a huge effect on fights, and exact positioning/unit composition is key. It isn't my cup of tea -I prefer games like Total Annihilation where defense and offense are more balanced- but I'd say it does a good job of building on SCI, and I've never had an issue with my units running down some absolutely bizarre path to reach where I've ordered them to go like I frequently did with Brood War.

I have two major complaints with the game; one with its auto-formation system, the other with unit cost&time to benefit ratios (which, given that I play Protoss, isn't terribly surprising). During movement, your expensive ranged units have an alarming tendency to either rush ahead or get "pushed" forward by reinforcements, putting them on the front-lines where you don't want them, and where they die stupidly as a result. This really shouldn't be happening; Microsoft had auto-formation down pat back in 99 with Age of Empires 2, so their inability or refusal to design a competent system for this is pretty frustrating.

As to unit ratios, many of the higher tier units, particularly the Protoss ones, are too fragile and slow to justify their astronomical costs. Protoss Colossus, something that costs hundreds of minerals and gas, takes up a ton of supply, and takes forever to build, is hard countered by zerglings, for Christ sakes. Carriers are even worse, which is why no one actually builds them in ladder games and Bliz plans to remove them in Heart of the Swarm. The other teams have similar issues with certain units, but I think it hits the Protoss the hardest given how strict their production trees are and how specialized each unit is.

Its sad but I'm likely passing on D3, smells too much like Activision and seeing what they did with SC2 I'm really not looking forward to how they're going to 'improve' this title anymore.

Put me in the 'always on Internet connection required' and 'real money auction house is shady as balls' deal breaker camps.

I could deal with the net connection if and only if companies had not proven they are more than willing to pull the plug on 'thriving' games to force people to buy this years rehash.

But the rmah has no excuse. It's transparent.

J. Frank Parnell: I feel like Diablo 3 already came out and the world moved on.

Same here. I was huge into Diablo and Star Craft back in the day. Now I just have no interest in either title. I want to like them, but I just can't. Frankly, I'd rather they just redid the originals with updated graphics and resolution.

SkittlesAreYum:
I'm not excusing that horrible bug, but one example years ago = Blizzard can't release anything without horrible bugs? I'm not sure I follow. I don't recall any serious bugs in SC2.


you don't remember 5rax TvZ (new window)or how powerful VRs used to be?