View Full Version : Disintegrate not new
Anyone played Baldurs gate:Dark Alliance because I recentely replayed it and noticed one of the skills is near Identical to it except it only hits one at a time but it moves round like Disintegrate.
Il2jjaIKh8Q
go to 1.21(I just quickly went through it so there maybe more examples)even though the boss is using it your character gets this skill too.
http://diablo.incgamers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=714994
Funkopotamus
07-08-2009, 19:30
It's chain lightning in a straight line.
If your just now realizing that lasers were not invented by blizzard specifically for Diablo 3...
jacobgold
07-08-2009, 20:13
Lol wut?
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v309/GamerXR72/hero-showdown-kirk-vs-solo-20080312.jpg
Hi!
WOW HAS BLINK! TELEPORT = BLINK! NOT LIEK WOW!
Seriously...
No,not everyone has played games with a skill like that or it maybe the case they have and dont remember or never chose a skill like it the point is people its a sample for curiosity sake theres no need to get all clever and sarcastic.
By the way if anyone wishes to post other Youtube examples(other games beside BGDA) and compare they are welcome to do so.
Hi!
http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Disintegrate
D&D has teh spell already too so i guess the games that run with D&D system have it also. Use seems to be a bit different tho. 1 target and leaves the gear unharmed. Kinda OP if you ask me, but hey, it's nice that you don't have to think if the gear gets blown avay when you hit the megaball of fire or something.
accelerator
09-08-2009, 23:27
I heard they stole a white pixel from Pong
This is a loot hunting game... Almost every game I am aware of that had attacks resulting in loss of loot resulted in almost nobody actually using those attacks.
jacobgold
10-08-2009, 19:25
I'll agree with Konfeta on that.
Skill based loot loss in a loot based game makes that skill virtually worthless.
knightmawko
11-08-2009, 02:48
no one really cares
Diablo III has a TON of inspiration from D&D. Disintegrate is just one, Magic Missile another classic. Read through the skills we've finished so far, and you'll see more than one relating to D&D :)
melianor
25-08-2009, 10:34
Indeed that is no new news. Alot of skills look a bit like D&D stuff that we have seen in games like Baldurs Gate or have even the same names like D&D skills. The leaning towards that direction is becoming more and more apparent.
The concept of a magical hurty-beam isn't exactly a new thing in fantasy games, in general.
Actually Sacred 2 has a version of it,it tends to lock on enemies though but anything walking through the beam gets hit,to make it rotate like D3 would require the range to be cut as it has massive range(too long because enemies dont retaliate beyond a certain distance).Archimedes Beam its called.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_sxA_LJoA4
One thing I didn't like about Disintegrate was that it reminded me why Inferno or Arctic Blast sucked in Diablo 2: you had to sit in a spot for a long time to deal damage while monsters dangerously closed the distance and approoached you. Unless it deals some viable damage even in late game... it seems weak.
What would be really nice was if the Wizard could run while casting this spell. Advance casting, retreat casting, walk sideways to avoid projectiles, that stuff.
One thing I didn't like about Disintegrate was that it reminded me why Inferno or Arctic Blast sucked in Diablo 2: ...
isn't Inferno and Arctic Blast bugged ?
Inferno only does 1/2 the damage its supposed to
http://forums.battle.net/thread.html?topicId=18680004230&sid=3000
if they fix it in the 1.13 patch, maybe it'll be worth it
DavidJewer
28-09-2009, 06:03
I think Diamond Weapon in FF7 blasts a disintegration beam into the Northern Crater.
Grumpy Old Wizard
28-09-2009, 13:42
Disintegrate would be nice for certain areas like corridors and tight tunnels where the monsters have to stay in the beam. and you have a tank in front of you or they are slow moving creatures.
I hope arctic blast and inferno are fixed. They would be nice for such areas.
Sir Mister
01-10-2009, 04:50
You guys don't get it. Not at all. It's not that there is a magical hurty beam, it's that there is a beam attack which affects the material composition of the things it hits, thus doing exceptional damage to objects, named disintegrate.
It's not that there is a shooty ball of pain, it's that there is a spell which as it increases in ranks increases in the number of projectiles fired, named magic missile. It's not that there is an illusion spell which confuses the enemies, it's that there is a spell called mirror image which creates a total of 5 duplicates. It's not that there is a defense boosting spell, it's that there is a spell called stoneskin which directly absorbs some of the initial oncoming damage, granting the equivalent of "damage reduction".
The Concept, the Name, the Effect all being DIRECTLY TAKEN seems like copyright infringement to me. And if I were WotC, yeah, I WOULD care. The fact Blizzard isn't currently being sued implies to me that they already PAID WotC for use of their spell names and effects. And for what it's worth, for those who seem to be implying D&D didn't come up with those spells or concepts, they have somehow just "always been there", no, they haven't. And yeah, actually, they DID come up with them. Just like Tolkien DID come up with the standard mix of folklore accepted as modern fantasy, and Games Workshop DID come up with the concept of Orcs being green (because, in their game, they grow from spores like plants). Everyone steals from everyone? Perhaps, but that doesn't change the fact that things are still someone's Intellectual Property, and a direct, 100% rip off is copyright infringement.
If you want to claim that Fantasy Books have had those types of spells forever, look at who makes the books. TSR? D&D. Dragonlance? D&D. Forgotten Realms? D&D. Greyhawk? D&D. OF COURSE the vast majority of "fantasy books" use those types of spells, because the vast majority of those books are from D&D playsettings! They and the resources from which those spells originate BELONG TO THE SAME COMPANY! Just because They have used their own products for ages does NOT give another company the right to do so! That would be like saying "well, since Adobe has been using Acrobat for years without paying anyone, surely it's ok for me to do so as well!"
For those of you who still don't get it: Someone sees Transformers, and is inspired by it. Making a world in which Cyborg bad guys can disguise themselves so they don't always look like Robots? Acceptable. Making a world in which Robot bad guys disguise themselves as Vehicles, and call themselves the Decepticons? That's copyright infringement. And that's the point at which Several of the Wizard spells are currently sitting. The "Blizzard had BETTER be paying royalties or they can Count on being sued" point.
Sorry for the caps and the hostility. I don't mean it. I have no hate, nothing but love. It's just that for people, even in their ignorance, to be so casual about something so blatant... I have to Assume it's ignorance, at least, because if they understand fully what's going on, and are ok with it? Not just any artist or developer of a creative property would find a world ok with stuff like that abhorrent, but anyone who has respect for what it is artists and developers of creative properties DO should find that abhorrent as well.
If Blizzard is paying WotC for the use of their work, I have no qualms. If they are not, I expect significant retooling prior to release or lawsuits. I see no other resolution. And I hate lawsuits.
Grumpy Old Wizard
01-10-2009, 06:51
There were people talking (and writing) about magic, elves, faeries, ghosts, knights, wizards, ect before dungeons and dragons.
Oh, and the concept (and name) of dragon as being a giant fire breathing lizard was around before DnD. For that matter, dungeons were too. So I guess the name "Dungeons and Dragons" should be illegal.
Oh, "wizards" and "coasts" were around before WOTC also so that should be illegal as well.
"Magic missile," "Mirror image," and "Disintegrate" could be considered generic terms. Now if WOTC had named a spell "Billy Bob's Amazing Wondrous Magic Missile of Impending Doom" and Blizzard had used that name there might be a problem.
Sir Mister
01-10-2009, 20:39
There were people talking (and writing) about magic, elves, faeries, ghosts, knights, wizards, ect before dungeons and dragons.
Oh, and the concept (and name) of dragon as being a giant fire breathing lizard was around before DnD. For that matter, dungeons were too.
Yes, these are all true and valid points, and No, Dragons are not created by WotC, and are not part of their intellectual property (neither for that matter are dungeons), except for the fact that we aren't talking about dragons... are we? Does D3 have dragons in it? For that matter, does it have elves or faeries? Were those even brought up at any point? Here I thought we were talking about the Wizard spells... :scratchchin:
So I guess the name "Dungeons and Dragons" should be illegal.
Oh, "wizards" and "coasts" were around before WOTC also so that should be illegal as well.
"Magic missile," "Mirror image," and "Disintegrate" could be considered generic terms. Now if WOTC had named a spell "Billy Bob's Amazing Wondrous Magic Missile of Impending Doom" and Blizzard had used that name there might be a problem.
See, there is something you miss in that statement. I can call something in a game or movie a transformer. Heck, it's even the name of an electrical part in everyday use. But a raygun which turns people into rabbits being called a transformer would be fine. The name alone is fine. And yeah, if they had a spell that shoots an arrow at someone with magical speed, and called it magic missile, the name alone would not be enough to be copyright infringement.
If I call a robot that transforms into cars a Transformer, that is copyright infringement. Flat out. Magic missile in D&D shoots magical projectiles, and the higher level you get it, the greater the spread of missiles (to a max of 5). Heck, even the color is kept the same. Disintegrate is ranged touch attack with a ray (think Disintegrate), and though it's great against living creatures, one of the best uses of it is against objects, because it hurts them just as much. Hmmm. I can go on. If it were just named the same, it would be fine. A blatant, 100% rip off is not.
(By the way, your argument about names not being able to be used if they came from anywhere before is asinine- Blizzard can be named after a weather effect, that's fine. Another software company, or especially a PC Game software development company calling themselves Blizzard? That's not. Which is in line with the rest of my points. If such a company arose, don't you think Blizzard would file lawsuit against them for copyright infringement?)
kikidmonkey
01-10-2009, 21:52
there is a slight problem in your argument.
From what I was taught about copyrights (which was only a crash course i admit), is that when you copyright something two things happen:
1, the term cannot be too generic, so for example you probably cant copyright the spell Fireball, as a spell hurling a ball of fire can be called only so many things.
2, when you copyright something it only applies for that particular thing you copyright it for, so if DnD copyrighted the term "Magic Missile" that term is only copyrighted for pen and paper RPGs, not video games, not books, not movies, etc, you would have to copyright it for each media, and even then you still have to have it approved, and again the term can be considered too generic to copyright.
Now, seeing as I doubt that a bunch of chimps run the blizzard legal department and since Diablo is under no competition with dungeons and dragons, I'm sure either the term is NOT under copyright, or they have legal permission to use it.
Grumpy Old Wizard
02-10-2009, 00:12
Magic Missile differs from the DnD Magic Missile spell. The D3 version has you invest skill points in the spell and it is not memorized (like a DnD wizard does.) Additionally the skill is affected by other passive skills.
The same could be said for disintegrate. The DnD disintegrate spell is a single target spell. You cast it and if the target fails its save it is disintegrated. Otherwise it takes a certain amount of damage. The D3 version is a ray attack that damages everything in the path.
Why is this thread still alive? No, seriously?
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/disintegrate.htm
1. Different spells that only share a name and being a killy beam. Other than that, the spells are completely different.
2. Disintegrate doesn't actually fall under Product Identity label in the Open Game License even if you do decide that homage by one of the most popular game companies to the most popular pen and paper game is somehow "legal theft."
3. Copyrighting "Disintegrate" makes about as much sense as copyrighting lasers by calling them "Destroy," "Vaporize." "Ray Gun" and hosts of other incredibly generic names.
(By the way, your argument about names not being able to be used if they came from anywhere before is asinine- Blizzard can be named after a weather effect, that's fine. Another software company, or especially a PC Game software development company calling themselves Blizzard? That's not. Which is in line with the rest of my points. If such a company arose, don't you think Blizzard would file lawsuit against them for copyright infringement?)
Find me the legally binding patent or trademark where Wizards of the Coast claim exclusive rights to use "Magic Missile" or "Disintegrate" or "Stone Skin" or "Fireball" or "Lightning Bolt" or "Teleport" or a host of hundreds generic spell names to go along with generic spell effects. Go on. I'll wait.
:coffee:
In case you still don't comprehend, the Transformers example works only because it is trademarked. Anything that doesn't fall under PI tag in the OLG is not. It would be legal theft for Blizzard to use Beholders, or DnD Gods, or anything else specifically under that tag.
If your fantastic "logic" held up anywhere close to the world we live in, Blizzard would have been sued out of existence back in Warcraft 2 when they had Death Knights. Wizards of the Coast are very, very strict when it comes to protecting their intellectual property rights. Yet they somehow ignored the most successful PC game designer's multiple "infringements" such as Liches and, *gasp* Fireballs. They must have been blessed by a shining star to have a cunning detective-lawyer superhero hybrid such as you to defend their God granted rights to cockblock anyone who even remotely says "Hey, let's give our character class some DnD flavor." Yawn.
The only way you could conceivably have a case with anything approaching sanity is if the Wizard's mana system was revealed to be a carbon copy of the Vancian spellcasting system and had "Bigby's Crushing Hand" or "Mordekain's Disjunction" dumped into her spell list.
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.