Who wants to play diablo 3 anyways?

[PacoQuerak]

I wish they would just make it another expansion that works with LOD
...

[mince pies]

Me

(ten chars)

[Merick]

I've done everything in D2, twice over. An expansion a'int gonna cut it.
It would be a terrible business move anyway.

[Dacar92]

Diablo 2 is finished. I am really surprised it has hung on as long as it has. It could hang on for another few years, too. But D3 is the logical progression of the franchise.

[Stevinator]

every so often you gotta create a new schmancier game engine to keep people's attention.

[CombatShrine]

I would really like to learn perl so I could just fix diablo2 myself.
At the very least make the single player experience better.

And yeah, after seeing how badly they mismanaged diablo2, they had better have something amazing for diablo3.
The hackers pretty much have ruined diablo2, and you cant even go on the realms without being spammed by those damn adbots to buy their hacked itams.
I really don't know if I could buy diablo3 after that. And how they basically lied about the features that the expansion set would bring.
It took what, 3 YEARS after the game came out before we got new runewords? You know, runewords that actually used ALL the runes? :/

[mince pies]

Even with all the mismanagement of DII you have to admit that it's done pretty well to be this popular after so long

[Zeek]

Pretty much barring some terrible reviews I think I'll buy D3 the day it gets released. In Blizzard I trust.

They really haven't released a bad game in recent history.

[Kryyn]

I want to play, but I hope it remains the same dark, gloomy style of D2. Top-down view too.

[pieita]

I'd like to play it a lot.

If it runs good with a decent PC. "Decent", not a I-was-made-for-running-Vista-and-Crysis PC.
Lag is enough... I don't need FPS issues.
No other Ifs are needed; they know how to make a funny game from the gameplay PoV.

[Klapios]

I'd like to play it a lot.

If it runs good with a decent PC. "Decent", not a I-was-made-for-running-Vista-and-Crysis PC.
Lag is enough... I don't need FPS issues.
No other Ifs are needed; they know how to make a funny game from the gameplay PoV.

Diablo II was made 8 years ago, its time to get a new pc.

[SHINOBIPANDA]

Diablo II was made 8 years ago, its time to get a new pc.

dang its been 8 years since i started.time flew by FAST

[TuMoC]

I would for sure go for Diablo III _ however 3D is not my cup of tea. I actually still like the gameplay the way it is, maybe some graphical enhancements would be good.

And obviously all improvements suggested over thes forums for the past few years! But hey lets get it announced first :)

[Merick]

I would for sure go for Diablo III _ however 3D is not my cup of tea. I actually still like the gameplay the way it is, maybe some graphical enhancements would be good.

And obviously all improvements suggested over thes forums for the past few years! But hey lets get it announced first :)

I've seen a lot of people bemoan 3D here. The kind of people who are still going to the forums of an 8 year old game are not the kind of people who are concerned with having the best and shiniest thing. However, among the general population, 2D is hopelessly obsolete for a new computer game.

[trashX]

why is 2D worse than 3D?

[jasonmazzy]

I also wish they would do an upgraded grafix engine and put out another expansion. allowing you to keep playng free way. then in one year put out diablo3 pay to play. this way you had a choice and a tie in to the the 3rd.

[jesterlolz]

I'd be fine with 3D, so long as it doesn't run slow as sin. Most important to me is to maintain the same system of moving. I like the point->click style of movement, as opposed to WoW's dumb arrow key thing.

It just wouldn't be diablo without that point of view where the "camera" is above the character.

[LifePincher]

Count me in!
As long as it's not an MMO! I don't care if they charge a fee or not :censored:

Just give me D3 with the look and feel of D2, but with updated graphics and gameplay, resolution, etc.

[Klapios]

Count me in!
As long as it's not an MMO! I don't care if they charge a fee or not :censored:

Just give me D3 with the look and feel of D2, but with updated graphics and gameplay, resolution, etc.

You should just continue to play diablo 2 then.

[Turtleism]

how about the diablo 2 point and click style with a 3d enviroment?

can get slightly annoying at times but will allow for a new perspective of the game not to mention a great increase in the graphics.

plus id look cool having a barb ww away when a hammerdin is flying right at u

[jesterlolz]

If they put it in the WoW point of view, PvP will not be the same, diablo will not be the same, the speed would not be the same. The fast pace of diablo + pseudo-first person point of view = not very good. The pfppov dictates a slow style game, which is fine. WoW does fine. However, they would just kill diablo to do that.

[In the name of Zod]

It will be interesting to see if they come up with a way to integrate 3D with randomizers for mapping. There are some tools out there I've heard of that do it but it would look worse. That's a hard job imo.

[Merick]

It will be interesting to see if they come up with a way to integrate 3D with randomizers for mapping. There are some tools out there I've heard of that do it but it would look worse. That's a hard job imo.

D2's maps aren't randomly generated, there's a number of pre-set maps for each area and one is chosen at random, with random shrines and enemies thrown in. There's plenty of console RPGs, and I imagine some PC games I'm not familiar with that have actual 3D randomized dungeons.

[In the name of Zod]

D2's maps aren't randomly generated, there's a number of pre-set maps for each area and one is chosen at random,
As in map seeds?

[Friends Call Me Butch]

There's plenty of console RPGs, and I imagine some PC games I'm not familiar with that have actual 3D randomized dungeons.

Really? Name a few, please.

[ohnoyellowdinosaur]

i'm sorry you guys, but why not 3D? I love the game's point and click style way over the WoW movement and the fast paced fighting over the wait and cast/click and autoattack WoW stuff, but what I lvoe about the WORLD of warcraft is the WORLD.

It's absolutely lovely when there is always a little place to explore, alot of little tidbits and easter eggs and all sorts of stuff. Climbing a mountain that you actually CLIMB, not just take a few runs through fields of ice that don't actually ever take you through a higher level but somehow lead you up to the summit. Diablo III has to be top-down view, but at the same time it has to be an honestly immersive world. The DnD xbox/ps2 games are a good example of what I mean; in style of movement anyways. It's a top down view, but you can sort of turn the camera around and you can actually jump on things. To attack, you just set your skill on the appropriate button and you press that attack button.

With that sort of camera system/combat system combined with the World that the world of warcraft takes place in with a Diablo Lore theme instead of a warcraft theme.

What my honest opinion on what diii will be is an mmo like dungeon siege or (what I mean is better described by the next game) Guild wars. An "mmo", but instead of being supplied by monthly fees, it will be constant expansions that fuel the game.

[Merick]

Really? Name a few, please.

A preliminary Google search reveals

Final Fantasy Fables: Chocobo's Dungeon
Hellgate: London
Dungeon Explorer: Warriors of Ancient Arts
Shin Megami Tensei: Persona 3
Grandia Xtreme
Baroque
Dark Cloud 1 and 2 (I think, I haven't played them for a while)
Wild Arms 3

[In the name of Zod]

Has anyone considered that the reason Blizz keep releasing patches for their old games like D2 and Starcraft is to keep us playing it? So if we are playing their games then boxes of games produced by Blizzards competitors are not moving off the shelf.

[Friends Call Me Butch]

A preliminary Google search reveals


Not bad. Any ones excluding "Hellgate" that aren't obscure Japanese pieces of garbage?

[Low Key]

Not bad. Any ones excluding "Hellgate" that aren't obscure Japanese pieces of garbage?

Do I get points for naming a game older than Diablo 1? :grin:

The Elder Scrolls 2: Daggerfall had first person randomized dungeons with a 3D engine. Of course by todays standards the engine is rather outdated, but still. The game was quite good and groundbreaking it its day.

[Merick]

Not bad. Any ones excluding "Hellgate" that aren't obscure Japanese pieces of garbage?

All were decent releases, sold in the U.S. at any place that sells computer/video games. There's a lot more jRPGs than American in general.

[Mcwhopper]

me Me Me ME! ME!!

There hasn't been a single entertaining PC rpg since nwn2.
And not a single good hack-n-slash rpg since d2:lod.
A lot tried to copy d2 and failed miserably.

[Shadowbrand]

every so often you gotta create a new schmancier game engine to keep people's attention.

As pathetic as that sounds, he is definitely on target, people stupidly waste their money and literately lives just for better graphics, despite how crappy the game may or may not be. People simply care about eye-candy too much, it's overemphasized and quite honestly, overrated. I can think of several games that can come to mind, but of course, none are of the Blizzard franchise.

[MuffinMan]

Well, I problably would play it... But that would mean me having to buy a new/fast computer as well. Dang! No D3 for me then

[Mcwhopper]

Graphics *can* be a huge asset , it can immerse people into a gaming world.

It just never should be the case that graphics become the games main selling point, the graphics should support the gameplay never the other way around. Blizzard really understood that, as their previous games shown (all could be played by relatively sloppy pcs at the time of their release.)

[Me2NiK]

The game could be released with Diablo 2 graphics for all I care. The combination of artwork and music contribute more to atmosphere than pixel count (see: the original Diablo). The fact is Diablo 2's fundamental gameplay (point-and-click in an isometric universe) as proven VERY enduring. If they change that, the sequel simply will not be a Diablo game.
I would play Diablo 3. I think I'm obligated to, considering the amount of time I put into Diablo 2. But I'll only continue to play it if it's as well-designed as Diablo 2 was when it came out.

[Friends Call Me Butch]

The combination of artwork and music contribute more to atmosphere than pixel count (see: the original Diablo)..If they change that, the sequel simply will not be a Diablo game...I'll only continue to play it if it's as well-designed as Diablo 2 was when it came out.

With all of the background art guys, art leads and music guy gone (and every single person from Blizzard North that worked on the original gone), I do worry that if they are making a sequel, it will be a good-to-great game, but lacking in the atmosphere that make the originals classics. This is especially true with the Disney-esque direction World of Warcraft seems to be going on.

But it isn't like it won't be worth the money and a few weeks of play even if it is nowhere near the year+ of replayability the originals had.

[Me2NiK]

Well, consider that WoW has a very different atmosphere than Diablo; the Warcraft Universe is very much a beautiful place and that's what it's supposed to be, in perpetual and stark contrast to the wars that have attempted to tear it up. I think Blizzard did a great job with WoW's graphics and I don't think they'd have a hard time capturing Diablo's dark and deadly mood if they tried.

[Friends Call Me Butch]

I don't think they'd have a hard time capturing Diablo's dark and deadly mood if they tried.

From what I know from my source, there was a constant pushback from Irvine when Blizzard North tried to make the game more gory, creepy, etc. I think that dynamic was part of what made the games great (and the Flagship guys sure could have used the Blizzard testing team).

Also, don't forget that World of Warcraft has made what was really still a market focussed on young males primarily in America into one with more women, broader ages, and a need to get past German and Chinese censors. That, combined with the Orange County urge to make everything Disney-esque means that I'm not betting on anything to come out of Blizzard in the future to be as remotely creepy as the original games made by Blizzard North (or even anything as creepy as the "culling" sequence in Warcraft 3).

And, speaking of World of Warcraft, many of the original art guys who made the look of the game (including the director Petras) went to Red 5, but that's another story.

[Blackwolf]

I-was-made-for-playing-diabloiii :thumbsup:

hehe yeah I would not forgo Diablo III

however 3D is not my cup of tea. but graphical improvements will be fin :wink3:

I know i'm one of the people that likes new computer games but keeps going back 2 some hopelessly obsolete 2D game for its gameplay :) yeah yeah i know:rolleyes:

*Blackdaevil

[Lord_Jaroh]

From what I know from my source, there was a constant pushback from Irvine when Blizzard North tried to make the game more gory, creepy, etc. I think that dynamic was part of what made the games great (and the Flagship guys sure could have used the Blizzard testing team).

Also, don't forget that World of Warcraft has made what was really still a market focussed on young males primarily in America into one with more women, broader ages, and a need to get past German and Chinese censors. That, combined with the Orange County urge to make everything Disney-esque means that I'm not betting on anything to come out of Blizzard in the future to be as remotely creepy as the original games made by Blizzard North (or even anything as creepy as the "culling" sequence in Warcraft 3).

And, speaking of World of Warcraft, many of the original art guys who made the look of the game (including the director Petras) went to Red 5, but that's another story.

I know that if the go with the art direction of Warcraft, I will be by-passing the game. Diablo and Diablo II were both rated mature, and for good reason. Diablo III should be as well, and with that mature level comes everything that the original Diablos brought to the table (ie. the gore, blood, evil and hellish look that, you know, a game about a demon should have). If they go with the Alien vs. Predator idea to make it appeal to the masses and take out the adult-oriented nature of the game, it will not be Diablo, and I will not support Blizzard's decision to make it that way.

[raishi]

WoW acctaully followed the art pattern of the Warcraft series...granted they took out the blood...but other then that there are few differences...

Doesn't really make sense to name a game Diablo without having it demonic in nature...both in look and feel...anything else would just be a rip off...sacred is a good example of a diablo rip off...i've seen lego's that flow better then that game...

[Mestre Crjspim]

... all would be well if the Diablo III world stick to the gothic, misterious, death surround aura of the original Diablo game. However, like many of you hav pinpointed, I fear that this very essence of the game can be negleted due to the market approach... in the end money has a louder voice than any ther argument in these situations... maybe (just a really speculative maybe) one of he main reasons that keeps delaying a DIII game is this situation...

"should we go for the big sales in every market we can and disappoint the really faithfull fans that still enjoy DII or should we go for the classical Diablo look and atmosphere that will keep those fans "glued" to the game for many years in the cost of much more sales/income?".

The market approach could mean the end of the power that "Diablo" has and what is associated with it. It could bring a large income in a near future, "killing" the hype of the series in the long term, whatsoever, just because of the huge disappointment it would bring on us all. On the other side, if they stick to the "violent" essence of Diablo, all of us would be radiant to buy and play it, but they could not aspire to "attack" some really lucrative markets.

Hey, if it depedend on my opinion, it would just be gothic Diablo "to the bone". Rockstar has GTA with the ultimate extreme violence and is still going for it... why Blizzard can't do the same? (And I am not comparing the violence in GTA with Diablo...)

[joesterinc]

I think 1.12 is going to be the last patch, and its going to make way for DIII.

[stillman]

Why is it that they keep D2 fans in the dark? Wouldn't they end up selling more D3games in the future if they just told us they're working on it's production? It's just logic. If they made an announcement, all of us would do the advertising for them since it would be all we'd talk about.

[Dorfoumous]

Why is it that they keep D2 fans in the dark? Wouldn't they end up selling more D3games in the future if they just told us they're working on it's production? It's just logic. If they made an announcement, all of us would do the advertising for them since it would be all we'd talk about.

Out of frusteration I agree with you, however, thats not good logic.

It more logically to have people spread rumors, and to hint ambigously at things, because if it doesn't get finished or get scraped they can just say it is a rumor.

I mean look how they fumbled SC Ghost. They annoucned it, EVEN HAD A RELEASED DATE, and we are still waiting for it?

While, inturn, any little thing about a RPG that is comming out in the next year will have D3 attached to it, and we'll talk about more.

Granted, stuff like this has been floating since LOD came out.

But, I agree, they should just tell us, YES we plan on doing SOMETHING that is diablo related, or NO.

Not this, well maybe and hint at it.

[aishilee]

i dont mind an expansion expanding the expansion.

[Mythic]

D3, if it happens, will use a 3d engine, but 3d engine != first person or over-the-shoulder game.

I've seen a lot of people bemoan 3D here. The kind of people who are still going to the forums of an 8 year old game are not the kind of people who are concerned with having the best and shiniest thing. However, among the general population, 2D is hopelessly obsolete for a new computer game.

The same could have been said in 2000 when D2 was released. I used to play a game called SubSpace. I'm sure some of the guys that I played that with back in high school are still playing it, and this argument was made on our forums, but plenty of us were playing the latest games as well. We just didn't think that particular game needed to be 3d.

Do I get points for naming a game older than Diablo 1? :grin:

The Elder Scrolls 2: Daggerfall had first person randomized dungeons with a 3D engine. Of course by todays standards the engine is rather outdated, but still. The game was quite good and groundbreaking it its day.

The dungeons in Daggerfall were not random. There were something like 12 dungeons, and it would pick one and throw it at you when you went into one. They were just so big, and the game was so badly coded, that it would take you a long time to find that out on your own. There were also a few quest dungeons that were non-random.

Of course, that's about as random as many of the D2 dungeons are, so hey.

[CombatShrine]

3D is just fine, as long as its still isometric view.
kinda like that game Sacred.

I really hope they don't make it all cartoony like WoW. Diablo really needs to return to its horror-RPG roots.

[Beamer]

DIABLO IS TAROT IN MOTION - where the person reaps the richs or may challenge the reading to harvest another outcome.TAROT is allways THE WORLD OF ACCIDENTS . DABLO allows TAROT to BE PLAYED. DON"T expect it to be wiped out and forgotten in a hurry.
In an age of random generation-up to avatars and occurance/incident, "card shuffling" has never been more rampant up to a billion packs of cards shuffled - but only one numerical set of normal cards to play with- now thats a 'FREAKIN PORTAL TO CHILL YOUR SPINE- UNLESS YOU GO BACK AND CUT THAT METAPHYSICAL SUGGESTION UP?!?- GO terrified on a digital tarot reading OR PLAY TO COMMAND YOUR METAPHORICAL FATE?! - Dirty bastards- thats 100% addictive gaming.(And I haven't even seen dablo II or III yet- I just copped a copy next to the gold coin donation video store posters,)

[Jaydenz]

Ill tell you one thing. The whole reason why i got into World of Warcraft is because i loved diablo 2 so much. I knew blizzard was capable of making awesome role playing games so i bought WoW, and it was my first MMO. I had no clue what an MMO was, or how they differed from a game like diablo 2, but it was an entirely different game, with wayyy different game mechanics. I recently quit playing WoW for personal reasons, however, to all those who want d3 to be d2 but w/ minor updates, please... keep playing d2. I gaurentee with their 3d enviroment they have planned for D3, and all the cool and new features they have planned for it, you will be drooling the first time you see it. Better yet, you will wonder why they took their sweet time creating the game, and when you get it, you will go, "oh yeah, this is why...... all blizzard games are frickin awesome!" So please have faith in the company that brought you the best (imo) action RPG of all time.

[Wurmer]

I certainly would play DIII but probably not as much as I played DII. That's a personnel thing but I figure it's indecent to sink so many hours playing a computer game. I still play mind you but it's far from some of the spree I went through playing like 50 hours a week.

Anyways, I agree with some of the previous posts, some of the basics need to remain. The dark gloomy side ought to along with the heavy atmosphere. This is what makes Diablo Diablo. I would also like the PoV to remain but transposed to a 3D envrionnement. With the horse power that new GPU have, it would be foolish not to take advantage of it and make the Diablo world even more gloomy and dark.

[Feonn]

I'm not as hardcore as much people are, but I'd like to see a new Diablo :D