The Ex-Blizzard North Perspective

[ColtFourFive]

READ THIS FIRST: Please don't turn this into a flame-fest like 90% of the other threads. This is meant for clarity, understanding, and constructive criticism on a few simple points people have been arguing about.

READ THIS SECOND: Sorry, its kinda a long read. I hope its helpful to you.

Anyways, I just wanted to remind you of a little bit of history and give you some perspective on what is going on right now in the forums and at Blizzard.



Diablo 3 is NOT the first highly anticipated game by die hard Diablo fans...

http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/pc/hellgatelondon

(Metacritic is just a good sampling site, if you want to go to gamereviews.com or IGN or whatever they all say the same thing)

In case you forgot (I'm not surprised, I put it out of my mind as well) Hellgate: London was made by Bill Roper and all of the Blizzard North team. I believe it was IGN who called Diablo a "spiritual predecessor" to Hellgate, in style and in concept. I mean the game is about Hell on Earth in addition to being made by virtually all of Blizzard North (Flagship Studios (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagship_Studios)) crew. Basically what I'm telling you is that if you wanted a true Diablo sequel from the original makers, Hellgate: London was your chance.

Sidenote: The PC Gamer Review was an 89 only because Hellgate was their "exclusive preview" cover story and they wanted to make it seem good. (They reviewed it nearly two months before release....aka its bogus)

Lets go further...

For those of you who never played it, it was a massive disappointment and failure (at least to me and most D2ers). It had more bugs than the everglades, and was not at ALL like Diablo 2. No party emphasis, FPS/3rd person play style, hardly any trading capabilities, and horribly repetitive. Sure, it had demons and town portals and random mobs/levels/item generation, but it was not a sufficient Diablo 3. Hellgate was rushed into release, and the game, simply put, was not that fun. I personally was a huge Hellgate fanboy pre-release, and played the game for quite a while after buying it the day it came out. I, however, got burned out on it after I beat it in Normal. Users rated it at a 6.2, I rate it at about a 6.

So for those of you who:
1. Are concerned that Bilzzard is not using the original developers,

2. Are concerned that Blizzard is not using exclusively D2 fans/players to make D3

Please remember that Diablo 2 is not a 100% perfect golden game, and expect Diablo 3 to be very different. We should be thankful that they are keeping so many similarities.

The reason I made this thread, is because I want people to have some perspective on the way Blizzard is making this game. Diablo 3 is being made by the company that made WoW, WC3, and SC, not the company that made Diablo 2. Once again, let me remind you that we D2 fans should be excited about the similarities we see, not bash the differences. I'm very happy with what I've seen so far.

And let me also say that constructive criticism is a good thing. Blizzard certainly needs it seeing as the people currently working on Diablo have probably never made a Diablo game before. Input from the players is exactly what Blizzard wants, just please please please don't go on a huge rant about how angry you are at X aspect of the game.

If you think something should be changed, and/or you want your opinion to be heard on a particular topic, thats fine. If you want to get pissy at Blizzard for something that isn't even set in stone yet, go to the Blizzard suggestions forum or something.

The dii forums have always been a very mature and intelligent read to me, and almost always enjoyable. Don't turn them into something they aren't.


Love,
Colt 45

[Dorfoumous]

100% agree

[slovek]

I can't find any way to flame that.

Good post.

[Baaja]

I can't believe that you dude only have 14 posts :) After I read it I was thinking that some dude has been writing a whole lot before I saw your post count! But I have one thing to say too you :) *clap* Very nice...*clap clap* Very nice indeed! :)

[Flux]

Interestingly, I'm currently in correspondence with a number of ex bliz north guys, and we'll soon be posting some interviews that detail exactly how they feel about D3. Well, as "exactly" as they can be while still working in the industry, not wanting to burn any bridges or insult old friends, etc.

Also, see this thread (http://diablo.incgamers.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6570151) from last week in which I asked why HGL didn't succeed more than it did.

For those who don't know, I ran our HGL site for a year and a half, played the game several times pre-release, and had higher hopes for it than most anyone, both personally and professionally.

[ColtFourFive]

I responded to your post Flux. And I will be very interested in hearing what Roper and those guys have to say about D3.

And ty for the compliments fellas. I do more lurking than posting :)

[Baranor]

Well, we can be sure of one thing: Itwill not be rushed, and it will be polished untill Blizzard feels it is about right to be released to the public. With the enormous amount of succes D2 had, D3 must be excellent and perfected into the extreme. If not, Blizzard shoots itself in the foot.

[mibir]

Well, as "exactly" as they can be while still working in the industry, not wanting to burn any bridges or insult old friends, etc.


So I take it they aren't very big fans of what they've seen of Diablo 3?

[Flux]

no one has said anything bad about d3 to me, and in fact they've been quite complimentary. However, the reality of working in the gaming industry is that everyone knows everyone, so no one is going to burn any bridges or insult old friends, or mutual friends, etc. the hard part is extracting some interesting, illuminating replies, and not just getting PR speak: "we've moved on with new projects and wish blizzard and d3 only the best." which is, unfortunately, all I think we're likely to hear on any official level from anyone now at Flagship.

[sbn]

Quite frankly I am still puzzled to this day why everyone, well not everyone, thought or expected Hellgate to be the next Diablo. There was absolutely no similarities. Just because some people that worked on Diablo did this it automatically became the next D3? Never could understand that logic.

Yes D3 will be different, but it has NOTHING to do with the developers, but more so the time period. It will be maybe close to 10 years, you should expect the game to be different. Also, why would Blizzard release D3 as a D2 clone? All things evolve. Closest and best example would be Heroes of Might and Magic. Version 5 is far removed from version 1, but it is still a HoMM game.

So D3 will be different, good. Why would I pay money to have a D2 clone when I already own D2?

[Ghosted]

A very good post.

I don't want to say that I am glad that the original D1 & D2 developers are not developing D3. Imagine if they were still with Blizzard and tried to make D3 like Hellgate london? What if they turned D3 into a FPS? Would you guys be happy with that?

I would like to give the new developers a chance at D3 when the game is finished, aside from all the differences and colors, I'm sure D3 will be fun to play!

[ColtFourFive]

Quite frankly I am still puzzled to this day why everyone, well not everyone, thought or expected Hellgate to be the next Diablo. There was absolutely no similarities. Just because some people that worked on Diablo did this it automatically became the next D3? Never could understand that logic.

Yes D3 will be different, but it has NOTHING to do with the developers, but more so the time period.

Well, to be honest, Hellgate had quite a few similarities to D2 if you looked beyond the gameplay. (Hell on Earth/Demons, town portals, gothic style, crafting, jewels/sockets, look at the cover of the game...)

But that isn't the point I was trying to make. I'm just pointing out that the heart and soul behind our beloved Diablo series produced and created HGL. They weren't trying to make a Diablo 3, but they certainly were hoping that the Diablo fanbase would hop on board and support them.

And I disagree with you on your developers standpoint. Obviously time plays a role here but the developers are the people who actually create the game. If Blizzard/Valve/Bungie was making a "Watch the Grass Grow 2: Revenge of the Boredom" people would raise eyebrows, but I gurantee you people would still buy it. I would certainly have doubts about Diablo 3 if it was made by anyone other than Blizzard.

So D3 will be different, good. Why would I pay money to have a D2 clone when I already own D2?

I completely agree. Some people are nervous that Blizzard will change the game they adore, and I have fears myself, but I am excited to see what happens as well.

[slovek]

1. Are concerned that Bilzzard is not using the original developers?

Not at all. There are no huge obsticles to overcome. D2 didn't have the sacred key on character balance or item generation etc. It's all pretty simple stuff. If they listen to customer feedback it should be a great 3rd game.

2. Are concerned that Blizzard is not using exclusively D2 fans/players to make D3?

No. I don't want it to be an MMO, but fresh blood makes things better. If you want to play diablo 2 then load it up. It's right there. I want diablo 3 to be different. I think that having a mixed design team not only improves on out-dated ideas, it invites new ones. That X factor that can turn an average game into a great one.

My only concern at this point is cost. I really really really don't want it to be p2p. If it is, I'll just stick to d2.

[Angel_of_Wrath]

IIRC, only 8 people from Blizz North went to Flagship, with Brevik, Roper, the Schaefers, Shenk, and Glenn being the main ones I remember. That's by no means the whole company. Others went on to form 3 or 4 other game companies.

I like Hellgate, I like the idea behind it and.. like Flux, followed it from early on with high high hopes. Did it disappoint? Hell yeah. About a 6.2 out of 10 on release in my books, but it's up to about a 7.5 now. It still missed out on story and cinematics, though most of the bugs are squashed. IMO, it has some of the nicest weapon and armor designs, graphically, of any arpg ever. But, if anything, it helped me realize I dont want a diablo influenced hybrid mmo divided community available subscription arpg.

The only concerns I have are TOO much WoW influence and not enough gothic horror DIABLO influence. I dont think the artwork is that much of an issue when going from developer to developer right... it is what it is. I would think it is harder to develop the randomization engines for items and worlds in a masterful way. I think Hellgate failed mostly where Blizzard can succeed: the backend engines, the story, music and cinematics, due to the available devs and $s.

[Bad Ash]

Angel you said almost all of what I was going to.

8 people out of a team of over 50 people dont generate a game directly, but those guys obviously had a very large influence on Diablo 2. I think when they left, they didnt have the money, resources, or name to get the best team put together to truely get the ideas they had into a game like they wanted.

Example: If you are the next up and coming great chef of the world, do you go to a respected restaurant? Or try to join a brand new one hoping it will be successful...Sometimes it works out that they will gamble and other times not and I am willing to bet that flagship just didnt get the devs they would have needed to make HGL the best it could be.

I think you will all be very surprised at how much D3 is related to D2. But in terms of its "WoW"-ness, does anyone think it looks more like God of War than it does WoW? I dont think its a bad thing if it does and they talk about that game having influence on D3, but I personally think the Barb looks like Kratos...not something from WoW.

Also, Blizzard has the ultimate template in Diablo 2. So with not the same team there, they can still pour tons and tons of money to get it the way they want without ruining the IP.

I wonder how HGL would have turned out if the guys had unlimited resources...

[Zarniwoop]

People leave all the time and start their new companies.

But, it's blizzard that continuously produces gold time and time again.

That is because success starts at the top. If you don't have someone making the decisions with the ability to do what's best for your dev house, you'll just be another dev house, even if you're above average.

Look at all the companies out there that do what is right for the game first, and you will see all the great game dev companies.

[moranor]

Blizzards hiring process is extremely meticulous
They don't hire untalented people. That sure helps too

[Flux]

IIRC, only 8 people from Blizz North went to Flagship, with Brevik, Roper, the Schaefers, Shenk, and Glenn being the main ones I remember. That's by no means the whole company. Others went on to form 3 or 4 other game companies.

Of the 9 Flagship founders, 8 left bliz north to form FSS, and all 9 were instrumental in the D1 and D2 games, and the big 3 (dave brevik, erich/max schaefer) were the creators of D1 and the whole concept). They were soon joined by at least another 10-15 bliz north guys, and at its high point flagship employed about 25 ex-bliz north employees, almost all of whom had worked on d2 or were working on the early version of D3 (which was almost entirely churned and restarted at bliz irvine in 2005, as I wrote on the d3 wiki page while pretending to be speculating about what i knew for certain fact *cough*).

HGL was made by the people who made d1/d2/d2x, and they included a lot of stuff in it that was very familiar to diablo players, and they frequently called it "the spiritual successor to d2." Don't let the superficial differences in FPS view and setting throw you off; it's basically a 3d version of D2 with some minor changes and additions (most of which seemed to not help things, so much).

[kontankarite]

Honestly, I don't understand why people are thinking that D1&2 fans want a clone of D2.

Not true. First off, I would like to clarify that old school diablo die hards aren't looking for another 2-D game.

As a fan of the past games and expect not only the best from the past, but expect excellence regardless, I would like to say that 3-D is the correct way to go. Everyone's had a hard on for a 3-D diablo experience for the longest time. We're also not looking for a characture of environments. Amber sunlight isn't as convincing as a slight amber sunlight filtered through white clouds and blue sky. I think we're saying that the lighting and texturising of the game isn't delivering. As up to so far as we can tell.

We're not looking for a black and white game, but we're not looking for strange light usage. For example, blue and green ambient light for no good reason does not make something moody or dark. Diablo darkness as compared to WoW darkness isn't the same.

WoW is very color oriented, that's fine. It conveys darkness with shades of deep blues, purples, and greens within the lighting.

Diablo doesn't need that to be a good game. When I think of Diablo, I know there's sunlight and possible rainbows and such. But pure sunlight is not pure amber either, unless of course it's late evening or early morning.

I don't even think people mind colored lighting, so long as there's a purpose for it.

Best thing I can come up with is the old schoolers would prefer Ox-Blood red while the new schoolers would prefer a flat crayon red.

Also, the old schoolers just want a SLIGHT dash of grit. Just a little bit. We're not talking about making it pixelated, we're talking about making stones appear dirty, ragged, and rough if they're meant to be. We would prefer our sandstone bricks to look like the rough texture that it is instead of patches of the color of sandstone on a clean, rounded modeling of a brick.

Honestly, I'm on the anti-art direction side of the camp. But that's because they're SO SO SO close to what D3 should look like. They're so close to capturing the look of D3 perfectly. We feel that just saying a reduction in the vibrance or maybe uping the contrast just a little bit, that soon you could totally see a complete divorce artistically from an influence of WoW art.

The fact that the devs didn't want it to look WoWish either almost indicates that the artists behind the game are also having to deal with a force of habit when it comes to graphics. They're used to making WoW graphics and this is a big challenge for them I think.

You'd think as a 3-D game, they'd try to go for a more low poly D-2 cinematic look. Which would be mind blowing.

[CombatShrine]

i remember back when the gaming magazines were saying hellgate london was going to be a diablo clone.
but then i saw the screenshots, and it looked like an fps shooter. i was like... "wtf...?"
people could only have been convinced of that statement if the magazine had been written in braille.

[Drandimere]

I have to admit that I got suckered into the Hellgate London hype. I even upgraded my PC and bought the latest/greatest gfx card the same day that I bought the game... Played it for most of they first weekend and within two weeks I had lost interest... very disappointing.

I don't play WoW, but given its incredible success combined with the fact that many of the WarCraft developers are now likely on D3, do you think that those developers are "going with what they know" and thus, they are making D3 interface features similar to what they have been using?

[Vertigo X]

Honestly, I don't understand why people are thinking that D1&2 fans want a clone of D2.

Not true. First off, I would like to clarify that old school diablo die hards aren't looking for another 2-D game.

As a fan of the past games and expect not only the best from the past, but expect excellence regardless, I would like to say that 3-D is the correct way to go. Everyone's had a hard on for a 3-D diablo experience for the longest time. We're also not looking for a characture of environments. Amber sunlight isn't as convincing as a slight amber sunlight filtered through white clouds and blue sky. I think we're saying that the lighting and texturising of the game isn't delivering. As up to so far as we can tell.

We're not looking for a black and white game, but we're not looking for strange light usage. For example, blue and green ambient light for no good reason does not make something moody or dark. Diablo darkness as compared to WoW darkness isn't the same.

WoW is very color oriented, that's fine. It conveys darkness with shades of deep blues, purples, and greens within the lighting.

Diablo doesn't need that to be a good game. When I think of Diablo, I know there's sunlight and possible rainbows and such. But pure sunlight is not pure amber either, unless of course it's late evening or early morning.

I don't even think people mind colored lighting, so long as there's a purpose for it.

Best thing I can come up with is the old schoolers would prefer Ox-Blood red while the new schoolers would prefer a flat crayon red.

Also, the old schoolers just want a SLIGHT dash of grit. Just a little bit. We're not talking about making it pixelated, we're talking about making stones appear dirty, ragged, and rough if they're meant to be. We would prefer our sandstone bricks to look like the rough texture that it is instead of patches of the color of sandstone on a clean, rounded modeling of a brick.

Honestly, I'm on the anti-art direction side of the camp. But that's because they're SO SO SO close to what D3 should look like. They're so close to capturing the look of D3 perfectly. We feel that just saying a reduction in the vibrance or maybe uping the contrast just a little bit, that soon you could totally see a complete divorce artistically from an influence of WoW art.

The fact that the devs didn't want it to look WoWish either almost indicates that the artists behind the game are also having to deal with a force of habit when it comes to graphics. They're used to making WoW graphics and this is a big challenge for them I think.

You'd think as a 3-D game, they'd try to go for a more low poly D-2 cinematic look. Which would be mind blowing.
If there's one complaint I have, it's the use of ambient lighting where, previously, there was none. You've hit the nail on the head kontan! This is what I fully agree with!

[Spinemuncher]

I don't see wow in D3. I see God of war. The animations the gore. the atmosphere is very similar in some cases. But it feels like the next logical step in the diablo franchise as well. I mean seriously if the game didn't have a larger world then the previous one I would have been extremely disappointed.

There is one amazing scene in that gameplay video where the Ghouls crawl up the side of the path to attack the barbarian. How many games do you see have that in them? The art direction for D3 is perfect. I pray they don't listen to the D2 Fanaholics.

I want the game designed by Blizzard. Not designed by Fans.

I gotta say Flux how you kept your mouth shut while knowing all this extremely impressive! Kudo's to you!

[Vertigo X]

I don't see wow in D3.
So, the green/blue ambient lighting, with no visible sources mind you, don't remind you the least bit of WoW? Not even a little bit?

Because that's the main problem I have with the current build shown. The previous two Diablos have both had (more or less) realistic lighting: that means no blue/green ambients!

It's not a show-stopping issue, mind you, I'll still buy it most likely. Regardless, are you expecting people not to offer any criticisms? Not even constructive criticism? That's incredibly closed-minded! :crazy:

[raveharu]

Since when did Diablo have guns in the game? And events taking place in London, hawhaw :scratchchin:

http://www.gamespot.com/

Diablo3 is the most highly anticipated game NOW, who cares about history.

So for those of you who:
1. Are concerned that Bilzzard is not using the original developers,

2. Are concerned that Blizzard is not using exclusively D2 fans/players to make D3

Please remember that Diablo 2 is not a 100% perfect golden game, and expect Diablo 3 to be very different. We should be thankful that they are keeping so many similarities.


1.I have seen what they have done, and I am impressed.Enough said.

2.Obviously, they would probably take some points into consideration.But somehow I feel the current D3 is "Diablo" enough.

I have yet to find games which is the "100% perfect golden game"

[Galtrovan]

1. Are concerned that Bilzzard is not using the original developers?

Not at all. There are no huge obsticles to overcome. D2 didn't have the sacred key on character balance or item generation etc. It's all pretty simple stuff. If they listen to customer feedback it should be a great 3rd game.

2. Are concerned that Blizzard is not using exclusively D2 fans/players to make D3?

No. I don't want it to be an MMO, but fresh blood makes things better. If you want to play diablo 2 then load it up. It's right there. I want diablo 3 to be different. I think that having a mixed design team not only improves on out-dated ideas, it invites new ones. That X factor that can turn an average game into a great one.

My only concern at this point is cost. I really really really don't want it to be p2p. If it is, I'll just stick to d2.

I'm looking forward to the new classes and re-implementations of the classic ones. I liked what I saw of the Barbarian. Familiar, leaps and whirlwinds, yet different, ground stomps and charges.

[Angel_of_Wrath]

Of the 9 Flagship founders, 8 left bliz north to form FSS, and all 9 were instrumental in the D1 and D2 games, and the big 3 (dave brevik, erich/max schaefer) were the creators of D1 and the whole concept). They were soon joined by at least another 10-15 bliz north guys, and at its high point flagship employed about 25 ex-bliz north employees, almost all of whom had worked on d2 or were working on the early version of D3 (which was almost entirely churned and restarted at bliz irvine in 2005, as I wrote on the d3 wiki page while pretending to be speculating about what i knew for certain fact *cough*).

HGL was made by the people who made d1/d2/d2x, and they included a lot of stuff in it that was very familiar to diablo players, and they frequently called it "the spiritual successor to d2." Don't let the superficial differences in FPS view and setting throw you off; it's basically a 3d version of D2 with some minor changes and additions (most of which seemed to not help things, so much).


Hmm, I didn't know the part about the other 10-15 guys. I knew about the founders and such going.. interesting. I wonder if they left after launch and are applying for D3 jobs now.

It's a shame really. I remember reading your coverage of the trip to Flagship and I was really really stoked for it. I got the beta and was like... ohhhhh... uh oh. I had faith, but it didn't work out. I think Flagship just wanted to do too much at once and didn't really focus on the core points and a solid 'freshman' performance. The game mode model and subscription model really flailed in N.America. America is greedy, we don't like micro transactions or split tiers.

I feel the essence of diablo in hellgate, I do, but there's no soul. It saddens me to see how the community (what there is of it) is attacking it constantly... i've never seen another game where haters hang around for so long. FWIW, I will check out any future (non-MMO) Flagship products on a trial basis without popping for the founders. I will probably continue to play their 'quarterly' updates because I enjoy the fast action. I applaud them for keeping at it and working to improve it.

Perhaps that's why there's some apprehension about getting burned by D3. I didn't like Warcraft 3 at all, which turned me off WoW... so Blizz are not gods in my eyes that can do no wrong. I guess that the one thing they need to do right... is get it right the first time. At least I have faith Blizzard isn't scared to tell everyone to **** off while they keep polishing it. D2 was delayed, what, almost a year?

[Mythor]

Honestly, I don't understand why people are thinking that D1&2 fans want a clone of D2.Because that's what a very vocal minority are asking for. As evidence, see the threads (or your own post) about the graphics/art for the game, or threads saying PK'ing must be in because it was in D2, or... People are saying that it isn't like this aspect of Diablo, or that aspect of Diablo, all while forgetting this is a new game. If things don't change between games then the formula gets stale and you may as well just stick with the latest version you bought and wait for a later sequel where they actually add something interesting or make an interesting graphical advance/change, etc.

Celebrate the new stuff. New stuff is good. It's been a while since we've had any really new Diablo stuff.

Re: Hellgate, I got into the Alpha and it was fairly fun and addictive for a while.
And then what was in the Alpha was pretty much what they shipped. Which was... disappointing. Particularly in light of all the talk about how what us plebes in the "beta" were playing was weeks behind the internal build.
I doubt Diablo 3 will be as disappointing, since it will at least be a finished game on release. :)

[Shaelin]

Just want to say first that I'm so pumped they are releasing D3. I've been waiting forever, I saw the pop up ad on the WoW website and was so excited.

I played hellgate:london. I had doubts it would really be a spiritual d2 successor because of the fps aspects of it. I gave in and bought it and hated it. It sort of felt like d2 but it was off. I have no doubts that the guys at blizz will not produce an amazing game. I don't care if it's not the original team, blizz will not put out a game they aren't satisfied with and they've proven that time and again.

I also remember reading that they tried working on a d3 a long time ago but blizz shot it down because not enough had changed to make it stand out as a new game. I want something new, sure I want it to the have the same addictive and enjoyable qualities of D2 but i'm also open to change and excited to see what will be new.

As far as the graphics debate. I thought the game looked amazing, not once did I think 'man this looks like wow, those basterds!' I was impressed with the graphics and the setting and I really liked the art video. We've only seen one small portion of the game and i'm sure there will be plenty of aspects of it that are dark and diablosh. (oh, i did check out some of the modified screenshots and i did like some of the changes people had made but I still say we see more of the game before we say they need to overhaul everything.)

The only thing im sad about is the fact that not all the classes will be back. I think they could upgrade the old ones and still add new ones. Either way i'm pumped and this post has gotten too long heh.

[Flux]

I think it's still fair to call hgl "spiritual successor." Clearly it wasn't a successful product, on its own merits or by fan opinion, but that's about the execution and polishing, not the theme or base concepts, eh?

[5zigen]

I think it's still fair to call hgl "spiritual successor." Clearly it wasn't a successful product, on its own merits or by fan opinion, but that's about the execution and polishing, not the theme or base concepts, eh?

I'm nor sure you can still call it the spiritual successor. Well you can but I'm not sure the title is deserved. It aspired to be the spiritual successor to D2, but in many ways it fell short of not only fan expectations but of diablo 2.

In HGL the environments were bland and boring, and despite 'dark' didnt carry the fear of lurking monsters you cant see except in the stupid black levels that you cant see anything. Instead they used monsters that pop out of the ground when you're standing on them, which is infinitely more annoying.

I don't think HGL failed in the theme or polish alone is what I'm saying. It didnt carry the "spirit" of D2. Aspired successor would be a better term for the game I think.

[ColtFourFive]

Diablo3 is the most highly anticipated game NOW, who cares about history.

For those of us who have followed the game for nearly a decade, history is actually quite interesting and important. The thread was made because I'm seeing a lot of ignorant posters complaining/flaming when they don't know enough about the game. There has been a huge D3 coverage ever since D2 first came out, and D3 rumors and forums have been around here forever. 90% of the questions asked in threads have already been answered, and people are making opinion based, invalid points due to lack of information. (I've seen so many people complain that they aren't using the original developers, it looks too much like WoW, etc..)

So hopefully people will read up and understand what is going on. There is a lot more to it than simply "omg Blizzard made wow this looks liek wow gaygay". There is a history behind it all. And HGL needed some attention anyways, because in my eyes it was pretty much a direct sequel to D2.

I'm just afraid that people are turning a fun and mature forum into a flame/complaint fest. Keep the criticism constructive! :yes:

[ThulRasha]

I think it's still fair to call hgl "spiritual successor." Clearly it wasn't a successful product, on its own merits or by fan opinion, but that's about the execution and polishing, not the theme or base concepts, eh?

For me it was the theme.
Even while HGL was still in development I wasn't to excited about it, and that was mostly because of the setting. Fighting demons with hi-tech weapons in London just didn't appeal to me.

Of course there are lots of elements in the game the same as in Diablo, so you could call it a "spiritual successor".
On the other hand, even with lots of shared elements, it turned out to be a completely different game.