Diablo 3, how does it fit?

[Grug]

When I first saw the video of the Barbarian and Witch Doctor, my first idea coming to mind was: "DIABLO 3!!!!!!!!!!

My second idea was: "DIABLO 3!!!!"

That's awesome!

Anyways, guess what, naysayers? Blizzard has said that they've changed a LOT of stuff and they'll be releasing a new vid in a month or two to show it off.

Also: Next class is being announced March 31st at midnight, Pacific time.

[Ouroboros]

Grug .. you lie!!

[Demetrium]

When Diablo 1 was released, before the player even entered tristram cathedral, the gothic theme of the game was more than apparent. It was a style that had yet been touched upon by previous games, and it immediately defined what the Diablo world was.

I have to agree with the idea that D1 established atmosphere almost immediately, and it was great.

Then Diablo 2 was released. The game was like a giant ellaboration on the first, in terms of art direction, music, story, and gameplay. It fit perfectly in conjunction with Diablo 1 as it picked up essentially where the last left off. Re-affirming that we were once again in the world of Diablo. The story was congruent, and it provided the glue to the world in which the player delved, whether on battle.net or single player.

I disagree. I don't think it elaborated much in terms of art. While the graphics in D1 are inferior, I think the art and atmosphere are definitely better. The cathedral, catacombs, and to a lesser extent caves all had a genuinely cryptic feel to them. D1 just seemed much more...serious. You never fight giant beetles, birds, scarabs, mosquito, etc. I don't feel very immersed in D2 when going through the jungle in A3 or tundra in A5. The story I don't have much opinion on --- I think it was fine in both D1/D2.

While the music in D2 is great, I honestly think I like D1's better. The music in Tristram is so simple, yet conveys the mood/state of the town so well you almost become depressed listening to it.

However many years and development team changes later; the announcement of Diablo 3. And right off the bat, something didn't seem right. Although the title read "Diablo 3", it was made by Blizzard, and the Barbarian was a returning class, it looked nothing like the "Diablo" that we had been given and cherished before. And everyone knew it. Starting with the art controversy, something seemed wrong. Nothing about this new game seemed to show that it belonged to the same world as the previous Diablos. It even was announced to be taking place an awkward 20 years after the destruction of the world stone, as if to create more of a distance between itself and the previous games.

No, I don't think everyone knew it. I honestly think it's a minority of people who feel it "looks nothing like Diablo" and have issues with the art or graphics. You and people like you just keep repeating the same beaten, tired, very baseless opinions. Why does it not belong? Why is it awkward that they decided to not immediately follow D2 in a chronological fashion?

I have no problem with change. I have no problem with a completely different way of seeing things, capcom did it with resident evil 4 and now 5 and it was amazing. But my question is, if Blizzard truly plans on claiming that this game is just as much a "Diablo" game as the previous two, where is the proof? How is Blizzard really going to recapture the true essence of the "Diablo" world in this ambiguously themed new game?

But you clearly do have a problem with change. If you didn't, you would have actually listed reasons why the changes disappoint you instead of just listing them without any elaboration. That's the difference between people like you and people who aren't flipping out about changes in an unfinished game. The thing that's so frustrating is if Blizzard went ahead and re-released D2 with an upgraded graphics engine (as D3), you would be pissing and moaning about how unoriginal they were. You're impossible to please.

I can guarantee you that if you follow up with this thread (which you probably won't), you'll have difficulty citing actual reasons why you're unhappy with the game. The reasons that you do actually struggle to come up with will be, I'm sure, very minor and unconvincing.

[Bladewind]

There are better things to rant about than the story and graphics etc etc.

I want to see how stats are balanced, I want to see how PvP can be made fair. Whether pvp can be competitive in leagues like DoTA. How classes are balanced. How uber are items ? Magic find drop rates. Area running and boss running etc etc

Bleh the rest were unnecessary.

D1 absorbed me not because of the story, but because it scare the hell out of me. It was so dark that sometimes I get ambushed without knowing it. I wish D3 to be like that. Leave bright areas bright, but dark areas so dark that even your char can't see his own fingers in front of him.

Yes having served the army, there are places as dark as those, I want those back in D3. Oh wait that is a rant on graphics right ?

[ThulRasha]

I understand that this argument is almost an iteration of the art controversy, and most of you are and are probably going to hate on me for writing this as well. But its a topic that I'm wondering if anyone else agrees with me on.

When Diablo 1 was released, before the player even entered tristram cathedral, the gothic theme of the game was more than apparent. It was a style that had yet been touched upon by previous games, and it immediately defined what the Diablo world was.

Then Diablo 2 was released. The game was like a giant ellaboration on the first, in terms of art direction, music, story, and gameplay. It fit perfectly in conjunction with Diablo 1 as it picked up essentially where the last left off. Re-affirming that we were once again in the world of Diablo. The story was congruent, and it provided the glue to the world in which the player delved, whether on battle.net or single player.

Hate on you? Of course not, I simply don't agree with you on this.

When you first enter Diablo 2 in the rogue camp and the grass lands outside of that. It does not at all feel like Diablo 1.

The later areas of Diablo 2 do (except the desert in act 2) go back a bit more to the Diablo 1 style, but for all you know the same thing will happen with Diablo 3. Since there we also have only seen the first bits.

And if you are honestly comparing only the first of Diablo 3 to the first of Diablo 2, then you can not say that Diablo 2 is more in line with Diablo 1.
I would even say that Diablo 3 does a better job at that.

Everyone who judges the Diablo 3 art direction does this based upon a memory of Diablo 2 as a whole to a very nostalgic memory of Diablo 1 as a whole, while having seen only the first 5% of Diablo 3.

[Turnip]

Well its not really nostalgia as I still play d2 today. Anyways d2 only had a few areas that were bright and they were bright because it was a desert.. I mean I can forgive brightness in areas that are supposed to be bright, but not brightness in dungeons and stuff.

[Mizantrop]

Nothing about this new game seemed to show that it belonged to the same world as the previous Diablos. It even was announced to be taking place an awkward 20 years after the destruction of the world stone, as if to create more of a distance between itself and the previous games.

Think about the 20 years between D2 and D3 as the 20 years between WW I and WW II. I can call those years a lot of things but awkward wouldn't be one of them.
Everyone rememeber WW II only because the festering wound left by the 1st (Arreat Crater if you wish) used as breeding ground for all the sickness and the evil that was unleashed by force in the time of the 2nd.
I wouldn't be suprised if D3 developers had this info in mind while deciding on the timeline between D2 and 3 (on in their Unconscious).

I have no problem with change. I have no problem with a completely different way of seeing things, capcom did it with resident evil 4 and now 5 and it was amazing. But my question is, if Blizzard truly plans on claiming that this game is just as much a "Diablo" game as the previous two, where is the proof? How is Blizzard really going to recapture of the "Diablo" world in this ambiguously themed new game?

If you look for "proof" go to the official site and listen to all the theme music that's there. Look at all the screenshots released so far. Read all of Abd al-Hazir horrendous diery enteries.

Personally I read "ambiguous" as a very positive word for video games most of the time. It's the negative of monotonous and therefore boring. You can say that Fallout 2 (see my Avatar) is one of the most ambiguous games ever made, and that's why it's one of my favorites.

[KillaMike]

I understand the idea of the topic, but I need to watch the complete Diablo3 game before talk about it.

When I first saw the video of the Barbarian and Witch Doctor, my first idea coming to mind was: "DIABLO 3!!!!!!!!!!

My second idea was: "DIABLO 3!!!!"

Minutes later, I started to watch better, and my 100th idea was like "OMFG, this is like WOW, this is not Diablo3, this is not fun... with these life globes, these colours, these monsters...."

Then, I relaxed, and then I think... I don't like at all the colours, but it's a video. It's only a part of the game, and it's in development.

AND, this is DIABLO 3!!!!!! Many years waiting... I assume every of us wants a perfect game. And each of us got different visions, and wants a different perfect game. I think it's impossible to satisfy every particular player. Then, I will live with Diablo 3.

Anyway, the main thing is: "We will have Diablo 3"

Dif between me and you is that after 1000000000 times watching over i was like: GIVE ME TO PLAY IT!!!! NOW!!! I SAID IT, NOW!!!!!!!!!

any ways, i hope you all understand why i am saying it, because i could care any less about how WoWish it is, such as i like warcraft hate WoW, love diablo, Looking forward for D3


Mike

[ThulRasha]

Grug .. you lie!!

No he doesn't. I'm pretty sure Blizzard will release an april fools class for D3.

[Leord]

Personally, I think D3 art style and setting seems much more in tuned with Diablo 1 than Diablo 2 ever did.