i think this is a question os value. is the value there? hell no
it feels like a game that should cost 20-30 dollars MAX, i dont see what would cost the devs much to make this game in this day and age. wheread i can get a diffrent game with the same qualities minus maybe a bit of graphics. and it will cost me less
its a little like getting a burger. you guys would go to a fancy restuant and pay 15 bucks for a burger while i go to burger king and get a slightly uglier burger for a few bucks. they would be about the same, except one came with a higher price tag thanks to the name.
and is that really worth it? i honestly dont think so
Diablo 2 was always the most hardcore of the hardcore design philosophies. It was a game that was was focused 100% on artificially difficult enemies that you overcame by grinding gear endlessly.
Never felt that way. I highly doubt DII had that philosophy. I'm quite certain Diablo II was actually a freak accident that resulted in a bunch of unintentional stuff which made it successful. Some of it was a combination of good game design and bad game design.
Quite a few non-hardcore folk who do not play multiplayer, do not trade, or rush, or w/e, enjoy Diablo II and still play it. I can assure you it's not due to artificial difficulty or even possibly the gambling formula. It's specifically because of the gameplay format.
Most modern Hack&Slashes screw up the gameplay format (with the exception of Nox from 2000). They have clunky combat that doesn't satisfy, often with clunky skills. While Diablo II was horribly balanced (please do not confuse this bad game design example with a "hardcore design philosophy", lol), it wasn't clunky. Skills were interesting, skills felt good, combat felt good, there was a lot of feedback between you and the game and it made sense. Diablo III recreated that, which is why it will succeed again, and why everything else (Sacred, TQ, PoE, DS, etc.) will continue to be subpar. If you can't get the combat to not feel clunky, get out of the Hack&Slash genre.
I can't speak for sure, but if you are the type who bought Diablo 3 without any intention of playing the hardest difficulties to grind for loot, you are not really the niche Diablo has filled for the last decade.
Diablo I was not a loot game in any way, shape, or form. Diablo I was specifically a "kill Diablo" game that put what was typically a turn-based RPG into a real time RPG. And people played the hardest difficulties for the purpose of challenge. The gear grind is a strictly Diablo II phenomenon which is continued in Diablo III, but that doesn't at all remove the idea of beating the game at higher and higher difficulties, which is what some other titles like Demons' Souls thrive at, as well. You are overestimating the amount of people for whome Diablo is just a gambling simulator.
Because the design focus was never on your type of casual player
Diablo III is most certainly aimed at casual players... lol You're just making the mistake of assuming that casual players don't want to clear Inferno or collect gear. All of us playing DI back in the day were just casual players messing around, and we beat Diablo in Hell. And that's what DII was to us, as well. DII getting popular as a gambling simulator only came later after it was already recognized as a decent Diablo game.
"Hardcore" players won't play DIII because they don't have much to show off their epeen with with the removal of attributes and skill points, and because some richer people can buy gear.
I agree with you on all three points Irus. For me the gameplay in Diablo 3 feels incredible slick. I was playing Torchlight this weekend to get the back in the hack & slash feel of these games, but playin as a Rogue, the main thing that bothered me was the shooting. I was pressing shift all the time to stand still, otherwise it was a gamble if I would run towards the enemy or shoot at it. Diablo 3 does this better, at least that's how I experience it. I haven't had much trouble with that problem yet. Combat has this polished feel to it, what entices me to play the game more (if the goddamn servers allow me too that is).
On the topic, I don't consider myself a "hardcore gamer", because I can't associate with all that arrogance, self-entitled expertise and general hatred for nearly every game that does something different from ten years ago. But I've been playing games for the better of twenty years now. If you just follow the "path" and don't explore much, then I guess you can finish normal mode pretty quick. The same can be said for Diablo 2 and Titan Quest. I'm around 5 hours in now on my Wizard, reached level 14 and haven't finished Act 1 yet. I'm already pissed off, because I rushed through the game. I found out that I was missing Leah's Journal 2 till 6, which pisses me off. There is a lot to discover, a lot of conversations that enrichen the world. I suppose I could rush on to get to the end of normal as fast as possible, but I rather enjoy the world crafted by Blizzard a bit more.
Lastly, because I have no bloody idea how the qouting system works on the MMORPG forums, Irus said something about Diablo 1 in post #69 in this thread. He nailed it there what (for me at least) made Diablo 1 "scary", namely that you as a player could get clusterfucked by a pack of rabid monsters, while you were severly limited in your ability to combat them as well as your ability to escape from them. Diablo 2 and Diablo 3 both give the player a lot more tools to handle difficult situations, hence the reduced "scariness". If you look around you in Diablo 3, even in the beginning, the game is literally littered with mutilated corpses and other scenes of gore. Diablo 3 is still a pretty grim game, despite the whole comicy angels and demons backdrop.
i think this is a question os value. is the value there? hell no
it feels like a game that should cost 20-30 dollars MAX, i dont see what would cost the devs much to make this game in this day and age. wheread i can get a diffrent game with the same qualities minus maybe a bit of graphics. and it will cost me less
its a little like getting a burger. you guys would go to a fancy restuant and pay 15 bucks for a burger while i go to burger king and get a slightly uglier burger for a few bucks. they would be about the same, except one came with a higher price tag thanks to the name.
and is that really worth it? i honestly dont think so
I had same doubts.
And I even had to but the damn thing for 60 euro (80$)
Now I am glad i did.
If you like Hack&Slash genre. This game simply tops it by wide mile.
When you play torchlight 2 (20$) which is great game , and than compare it to D3 - you emidiately see the difference those 40$ made...
i think this is a question os value. is the value there? hell no
it feels like a game that should cost 20-30 dollars MAX, i dont see what would cost the devs much to make this game in this day and age. wheread i can get a diffrent game with the same qualities minus maybe a bit of graphics. and it will cost me less
its a little like getting a burger. you guys would go to a fancy restuant and pay 15 bucks for a burger while i go to burger king and get a slightly uglier burger for a few bucks. they would be about the same, except one came with a higher price tag thanks to the name.
and is that really worth it? i honestly dont think so
I had same doubts.
And I even had to but the damn thing for 60 euro (80$)
Now I am glad i did.
If you like Hack&Slash genre. This game simply tops it by wide mile.
When you play torchlight 2 (20$) which is great game , and than compare it to D3 - you emidiately see the difference those 40$ made...
played the beta, for D3. i dont see where the money went at all. played torchlight 1, got jsut as much enjoyment out of it. values just not there, and i can see your all just paying for the brand.
Diablo 2 was always the most hardcore of the hardcore design philosophies. It was a game that was was focused 100% on artificially difficult enemies that you overcame by grinding gear endlessly. It flourished as an all time classic because the sheer variety of loot and item customization available tickled a specific hardcore bone in the gaming population.
The people who play through the single player once in 12-24 hours and think it lacks content are not the target audience for the game at all, for those people Blizzard thanks you for your $60 and is going to take it all the way to the bank while laughing. The Real Money Auction House is designed in place of DLC to provide Blizzard with long term income if a strong community springs up like it did around Diablo 2. To that end the focus will be on making the hardest difficulties as mind numbingly difficult as possible and have the most grind worthy loot available. That is why Inferno has as many loot tiers as the rest of the difficulty levels combined.
I can't speak for sure, but if you are the type who bought Diablo 3 without any intention of playing the hardest difficulties to grind for loot, you are not really the niche Diablo has filled for the last decade. Play through it once, complain that you "wasted" 60 dollars on such a short game, and then just shelf it. Because the design focus was never on your type of casual player, they have their eyes on the prize with the money they can make from RMAH off hardcore players. Especially since they have no subscription so they have no reason to fight to retain you if you are a casual player.
Phew, Diablo 1 was a lot harder than Diablo 2 even though loot played less part there than it did in D2.
There will always be some people prefering one of these games. I myself prefered D1 because it was most challenging. Others like stuff from D2 or D3 and prefering either game is fine. In my book do the first game win slightly in quality due to the bonus points it gets for inventing the series, but it did have the worst story of them all.
I don´t think many people beat D1 in 12-24 hours, but it wasn´t because it had more content, it was just more difficult even at "normal". I think when you make a game easier to beat you should add more content to compensate for it somewhat at least.
As I see it should Blizzard just have cut out the easiest difficulty, it would have solved the problem.
played the beta, for D3. i dont see where the money went at all. played torchlight 1, got jsut as much enjoyment out of it. values just not there, and i can see your all just paying for the brand.
I agree on beta ...
I also came out with not so good impressions from D3 beta , and great impressions from T2 beta
I made a topic about it in game impresion section.
D3 beta -> D3 launch differences are huge
It leaves T2 coughing in the dust... its simply not in the same league , nothing is
i think this is a question os value. is the value there? hell no
it feels like a game that should cost 20-30 dollars MAX, i dont see what would cost the devs much to make this game in this day and age. wheread i can get a diffrent game with the same qualities minus maybe a bit of graphics. and it will cost me less
its a little like getting a burger. you guys would go to a fancy restuant and pay 15 bucks for a burger while i go to burger king and get a slightly uglier burger for a few bucks. they would be about the same, except one came with a higher price tag thanks to the name.
and is that really worth it? i honestly dont think so
I had same doubts.
And I even had to but the damn thing for 60 euro (80$)
Now I am glad i did.
If you like Hack&Slash genre. This game simply tops it by wide mile.
When you play torchlight 2 (20$) which is great game , and than compare it to D3 - you emidiately see the difference those 40$ made...
played the beta, for D3. i dont see where the money went at all. played torchlight 1, got jsut as much enjoyment out of it. values just not there, and i can see your all just paying for the brand.
I can say the same, that all Torchlight fans are paying for that game because "supporting indie companies is the hip thing to do". It sounds just as silly as "paying for the brand". I played Torchlight for some 5-10 hours this weekend and got somewhat bored with it. It's not a bad game, it just can't hold my attention. I find myself saving up skill points, because I don't know what will be good later on. Stat points are even worse. 2 in str, rest in magic or dex, depending on what I play. The warrior/barbarian was 3 in str and 2 in def. I'm sure that it's fun to do for a lot of people, I find it pretty boring. I had little to no problems playing on hard and the main story couldn't hold my attention. Lastly, the game looks bland, but it's a few years old.
So no, value is for every person different. I paid € 47,50 for the digital version of Diablo 3 and I believe it's worth it.
played the beta, for D3. i dont see where the money went at all. played torchlight 1, got jsut as much enjoyment out of it. values just not there, and i can see your all just paying for the brand.
I agree.
I also came out with not so good impressions from D3 beta , and great impressions from T2 beta
I made a topic about it in game impresion section.
D3 beta -> D3 launch differences are huge
You're saying the D3 BETA didn't do it justice when it came to depth, gameplay mechanics and overall polish?
But then, when you were able to play it live for a little while, you really got to see how great the game was?
I'm seriously still considering buying it even with all this royal stupidity from the devs - if for no other reason than harcore mode. I love roguelikes and hardcore mode in Diablo 3 sounds like it could give me my rogulike fix - except with other players.
played the beta, for D3. i dont see where the money went at all. played torchlight 1, got jsut as much enjoyment out of it. values just not there, and i can see your all just paying for the brand.
I agree.
I also came out with not so good impressions from D3 beta , and great impressions from T2 beta
I made a topic about it in game impresion section.
D3 beta -> D3 launch differences are huge
You're saying the D3 BETA didn't do it justice when it came to depth, gameplay mechanics and overall polish?
But then, when you were able to play it live for a little while, you really got to see how great the game was?
I'm seriously still considering buying it even with all this royal stupidity from the devs - if for no other reason than harcore mode. I love roguelikes and hardcore mode in Diablo 3 sounds like it could give me my rogulike fix - except with other players.
Diablo 3 beta gave a good impression, but what made me sit on the top of my chair, was when I encountered a group of elite bulls, with the Jailer ability. They rooted me as they were charging me. Three at once. I was pretty dead hehe. I won't say the game is super hard, but it still has these fun encounters I got in Diablo 2 and the original. I read some stories from people who rushed through normal and now got their asses handed to them on nightmare
The logging in problems were pretty annoying nonetheless. But in a week, if not sooner, they'll be gone. I'm not sure if I'm ready myself for hardcore mode. I'm tempted, but dying on normal in Act 1 would be embarrasing
Diablo 2 was always the most hardcore of the hardcore design philosophies. It was a game that was was focused 100% on artificially difficult enemies that you overcame by grinding gear endlessly.
Never felt that way. I highly doubt DII had that philosophy. I'm quite certain Diablo II was actually a freak accident that resulted in a bunch of unintentional stuff which made it successful. Some of it was a combination of good game design and bad game design.
"Hardcore" players won't play DIII because they don't have much to show off their epeen with with the removal of attributes and skill points, and because some richer people can buy gear.
Diablo 2 was Diablo 1 with skill trees, no accident, im sorry, IF the "other crowd" will get their gameplay is yet to see, skill variability is not something we know what it will look like later in the game, but it has nothing to do with the length of gameplay of the normal difficulty, in d2 you would be 24/30 ending normal, it could be done, without rushing, in one day, so i see no difference there.
Not every hardcore player is a arena wow pvp junkie or hardcore raider (they are actually in the minority, cause they in most cases worship "skill"), "epeen" in a broader sense will be the gold/money gained in the ah or rare drops (the devs promised more random and more specific/powerful drops than in d2), much like d2 without ah, "hardcore" people would design characters specifically for the purpose of grinding bosses for drops they already posess/bought, funny, isnt it?
Everything is yet to be seen.
Sometimes i feel like in a twilight zone, mmorpg players crying about the games taking too long and being too hard and with too many decisions and action rpg players cry about the games being too short and too simple...
played the beta, for D3. i dont see where the money went at all. played torchlight 1, got jsut as much enjoyment out of it. values just not there, and i can see your all just paying for the brand.
I agree.
I also came out with not so good impressions from D3 beta , and great impressions from T2 beta
I made a topic about it in game impresion section.
D3 beta -> D3 launch differences are huge
You're saying the D3 BETA didn't do it justice when it came to depth, gameplay mechanics and overall polish?
But then, when you were able to play it live for a little while, you really got to see how great the game was?
I'm seriously still considering buying it even with all this royal stupidity from the devs - if for no other reason than harcore mode. I love roguelikes and hardcore mode in Diablo 3 sounds like it could give me my rogulike fix - except with other players.
Yes , it is what i am saying
With all the bulshit - high price , DRM , RMAH , Online , server crap
If you like roguelikes ( I am huge fan ) and what came after (hack and slash)
I can say the same, that all Torchlight fans are paying for that game because "supporting indie companies is the hip thing to do". It sounds just as silly as "paying for the brand".
Who are you quoting with those quoatation marks? I have never heard any one who follows indie gaming say that...
I like looking at indie games because usually they are a fertile grass roots breeding ground for new ideas. That dosen't mean I like every indie game, but it means I at least check them out.
You have missed the point it seems why more and more are heading in that direction... it's because mainstream gaming is struggling to deliver for a lot of gamers in terms of creativity and gameplay. It has nothing to do with being 'hip'.
Is that as 'bad' as buying something based on brand alone?
Of course not.
You need to have a think.
I think it's incredibly telling about D3 that T2 is even considered in the same sentence, given all the natural advantages D3 has had. It shouldn't even be competition, yet it is. Lets not even talk about Path of Exile... This is a huge statement on corperate game development in general.
(I personally enjoyed Lara Croft & The Guardian of Light more then D3, but that's just me)
D3 is an excellent game. the combat system is super fun, and having just started Act II, i tell you it gets pretty challenging. and this is on normal. im having a blast. still wishing i was playing GW2 instead =(
It should also be noted that even Blizzard internal testing team could not complete inferno difficulty, they could get to level 60 but could not get through inferno.
Having everyone replay the same content on different difficulties seems like a cheap way to artificially make a small game feel bigger.
I mean there are plenty of great games that last only 12 hours, but they're advertised that way. They don't pretend to be bigger than they are. "Hey, I beat the game. It only took me 12 hours." "Yeah, but did you beat it THREE TIMES? If you do, there's at least 36 hours of content!"
Totally agree, and this is what killed WoW aswell - and the reason I'm not bothering to play diablo.
Today youngsters seems to play games for the difficulty (epeen, anyone?) and not for the experience. That something is hard, requires physical skills such at being fast om your fingers, seems to make gamers happy.
Games have no depth anymore, and Blizzard is to pretty much to blame. They have created a generation of gamers that only care about 2 things: graphics and the possibility to show off their skills. What happened to experiencing something non-graphical? What happened to having to develop complex strategies and work in teams?
Todays games are boring, and from what I can read in different posts, Diablo is yet another game in which stats, skills and depth in character development is only there for shows.
But well, as long as people have fun, there's little point complaining. I just wish that they'd make games with more depth and tactics and I think that people are not demanding enough from the developers these years.
Fortunately, i guess it's a matter of time. At some point, even the current WoW-population will probably demand some depth.
For £40 I got World of Warcraft, which gave me so much content for those 30days, I stayed for 3 months to see much more of it. So people can complete Diablo 3 in under 12 hours for £45? Why is Diablo so small, if it's going to compete with Guild Wars 2 as a AAA free to play game, why so small? At least Guild Wars 1 was HUGE, and no doubt Guild Wars 2 will be.
Sorry tho, but if you race straight to the end, then practically every single player game from the last couple years can be finished under 12 hours! This included Mass Effect games, Elder Scrolls games (Skyrim included) and thus also Diablo III !
I managed to play over 5 hours yesterday and just finished killing the Skeleton King!
I just took a normal pace, explored every inch from the map, explored every available dungeon (crypt) in the first zone, collect as much blue gear as I could to break apart for crafting mats and craft some nice gear for myself.
All this already gave me over 5 hours enjoyment and I haven't even finished Act 1 yet!
Just like with Skyrim having hundreds of hours of content, but ofcourse you can all ignore that, just focus on the main storyline and race straight to the end and beat this game within 12 hours.
Having everyone replay the same content on different difficulties seems like a cheap way to artificially make a small game feel bigger.
I mean there are plenty of great games that last only 12 hours, but they're advertised that way. They don't pretend to be bigger than they are. "Hey, I beat the game. It only took me 12 hours." "Yeah, but did you beat it THREE TIMES? If you do, there's at least 36 hours of content!"
Totally agree, and this is what killed WoW aswell - and the reason I'm not bothering to play diablo.
Today youngsters seems to play games for the difficulty (epeen, anyone?) and not for the experience. That something is hard, requires physical skills such at being fast om your fingers, seems to make gamers happy.
Games have no depth anymore, and Blizzard is to pretty much to blame. They have created a generation of gamers that only care about 2 things: graphics and the possibility to show off their skills. What happened to experiencing something non-graphical? What happened to having to develop complex strategies and work in teams?
Todays games are boring, and from what I can read in different posts, Diablo is yet another game in which stats, skills and depth in character development is only there for shows.
But well, as long as people have fun, there's little point complaining. I just wish that they'd make games with more depth and tactics and I think that people are not demanding enough from the developers these years.
Fortunately, i guess it's a matter of time. At some point, even the current WoW-population will probably demand some depth.
Isn't that kinda the same thing though? What's wrong with simplicity as long as the game is still fun to play and provides a good story? I would think that a game forcing players to work as a team and to develop complex strategies would be more difficult than a game that would not, and seeing as you want a game like that, you also might have a bit of an e-peen.
I've never played games for difficulty. I play them to socialize, for the graphics, for the sound, for the story, and for the ability to perform crazy feats and to possess god-like powers that would never have in real life. Video games, to me, are a form of escapism, and a sense of pride or personal accomplishment rarely enters the equation.
That's not to say I never feel pride in my gaming accomplishments, for example when I down a raid boss or when I beat a 70 hour RPG. I'm human, and whether we like it or not, we all tend to pat ourselves on the back as soon as we get the chance. I just never go into said games seeking accomplishment or validation.
I can say the same, that all Torchlight fans are paying for that game because "supporting indie companies is the hip thing to do". It sounds just as silly as "paying for the brand".
Who are you quoting with those quoatation marks? I have never heard any one who follows indie gaming say that...
I like looking at indie games because usually they are a fertile grass roots breeding ground for new ideas. That dosen't mean I like every indie game, but it means I at least check them out.
You have missed the point it seems why more and more are heading in that direction... it's because mainstream gaming is struggling to deliver for a lot of gamers in terms of creativity and gameplay. It has nothing to do with being 'hip'.
Is that as 'bad' as buying something based on brand alone?
Of course not.
You need to have a think.
I think it's incredibly telling about D3 that T2 is even considered in the same sentence, given all the natural advantages D3 has had. It shouldn't even be competition, yet it is. Lets not even talk about Path of Exile... This is a huge statement on corperate game development in general.
(I personally enjoyed Lara Croft & The Guardian of Light more then D3, but that's just me)
Perhaps I approach your post wrongly. The thing that struck me the wrong way, was the fact that, in this case, a Blizzard product would be bought just because it's a Blizzard product. That is just retarded on it's own, one should never buy products blindly because of the brand. That's also what I meant with the indie part. I reading it more and more, that indie games should be bought, because they're indie games and they try to do innovative or good things in general. A game should be bought because it's a good game. Not because it's from a certain developer and not because it's indie or mainstream.
It's not weird though that Torchlight, Titan Quest, Path of Exile and Grim Dawn are all familar names to fans of the hack & slash genre. They all share the same core gameplay. So it's only natural that they get compared a lot. In particular by people who find Diablo 3 too much "dumb downed" and "cartoonish", but I won't bore you with that argument again. But in the way of competition I'm afraid that Diablo 3 is just too big to properly compete with. But we will see.
By the way, if you still enjoy Tomb Raider in these days, there must be something wrong with you then
For a good free game, try Dwarf Fortress. I've heard the term roguelike drop a few times. The adventure mode in Dwarf Fortress is a roguelike IIRC.
It should also be noted that even Blizzard internal testing team could not complete inferno difficulty, they could get to level 60 but could not get through inferno.
Not enough potions. Just as in Diablo 2 you need alot of potions.
But 24h to complete all content is rather, not a good buisness.
Repeat same content in 4 diferent dificulties is kindoff not new content.
Guess if i want something Diablo style i should get Torchlight 2 or PoE.
What you guys think?
Torchlight 2 won't be out yet. They'll wait for the hype of D3 to die away so they'll actually MAKE sales.
On the plus side, $20 US for Torchlight 2 when it does hit.
MMO's played: Ragnarok Online (For years), WoW (for a few weeks only), Guild Wars, Lineage 2, Eve, Allods, Shattered Galaxy, 9 Dragons, City of Heroes, City of Villains, Star Trek Online (Got someone ELSE to pay for it), Champions Online (Someone else paid), Dofus, Dragonica, LOTRO, DDO and more... A LOT more. I've played good AND bad. The bad didn't last long. :P
Comments
i think this is a question os value. is the value there? hell no
it feels like a game that should cost 20-30 dollars MAX, i dont see what would cost the devs much to make this game in this day and age. wheread i can get a diffrent game with the same qualities minus maybe a bit of graphics. and it will cost me less
its a little like getting a burger. you guys would go to a fancy restuant and pay 15 bucks for a burger while i go to burger king and get a slightly uglier burger for a few bucks. they would be about the same, except one came with a higher price tag thanks to the name.
and is that really worth it? i honestly dont think so
I agree with you on all three points Irus. For me the gameplay in Diablo 3 feels incredible slick. I was playing Torchlight this weekend to get the back in the hack & slash feel of these games, but playin as a Rogue, the main thing that bothered me was the shooting. I was pressing shift all the time to stand still, otherwise it was a gamble if I would run towards the enemy or shoot at it. Diablo 3 does this better, at least that's how I experience it. I haven't had much trouble with that problem yet. Combat has this polished feel to it, what entices me to play the game more (if the goddamn servers allow me too that is).
On the topic, I don't consider myself a "hardcore gamer", because I can't associate with all that arrogance, self-entitled expertise and general hatred for nearly every game that does something different from ten years ago. But I've been playing games for the better of twenty years now. If you just follow the "path" and don't explore much, then I guess you can finish normal mode pretty quick. The same can be said for Diablo 2 and Titan Quest. I'm around 5 hours in now on my Wizard, reached level 14 and haven't finished Act 1 yet. I'm already pissed off, because I rushed through the game. I found out that I was missing Leah's Journal 2 till 6, which pisses me off. There is a lot to discover, a lot of conversations that enrichen the world. I suppose I could rush on to get to the end of normal as fast as possible, but I rather enjoy the world crafted by Blizzard a bit more.
Lastly, because I have no bloody idea how the qouting system works on the MMORPG forums, Irus said something about Diablo 1 in post #69 in this thread. He nailed it there what (for me at least) made Diablo 1 "scary", namely that you as a player could get clusterfucked by a pack of rabid monsters, while you were severly limited in your ability to combat them as well as your ability to escape from them. Diablo 2 and Diablo 3 both give the player a lot more tools to handle difficult situations, hence the reduced "scariness". If you look around you in Diablo 3, even in the beginning, the game is literally littered with mutilated corpses and other scenes of gore. Diablo 3 is still a pretty grim game, despite the whole comicy angels and demons backdrop.
I had same doubts.
And I even had to but the damn thing for 60 euro (80$)
Now I am glad i did.
If you like Hack&Slash genre. This game simply tops it by wide mile.
When you play torchlight 2 (20$) which is great game , and than compare it to D3 - you emidiately see the difference those 40$ made...
played the beta, for D3. i dont see where the money went at all. played torchlight 1, got jsut as much enjoyment out of it. values just not there, and i can see your all just paying for the brand.
Phew, Diablo 1 was a lot harder than Diablo 2 even though loot played less part there than it did in D2.
There will always be some people prefering one of these games. I myself prefered D1 because it was most challenging. Others like stuff from D2 or D3 and prefering either game is fine. In my book do the first game win slightly in quality due to the bonus points it gets for inventing the series, but it did have the worst story of them all.
I don´t think many people beat D1 in 12-24 hours, but it wasn´t because it had more content, it was just more difficult even at "normal". I think when you make a game easier to beat you should add more content to compensate for it somewhat at least.
As I see it should Blizzard just have cut out the easiest difficulty, it would have solved the problem.
I agree on beta ...
I also came out with not so good impressions from D3 beta , and great impressions from T2 beta
I made a topic about it in game impresion section.
D3 beta -> D3 launch differences are huge
It leaves T2 coughing in the dust... its simply not in the same league , nothing is
I can say the same, that all Torchlight fans are paying for that game because "supporting indie companies is the hip thing to do". It sounds just as silly as "paying for the brand". I played Torchlight for some 5-10 hours this weekend and got somewhat bored with it. It's not a bad game, it just can't hold my attention. I find myself saving up skill points, because I don't know what will be good later on. Stat points are even worse. 2 in str, rest in magic or dex, depending on what I play. The warrior/barbarian was 3 in str and 2 in def. I'm sure that it's fun to do for a lot of people, I find it pretty boring. I had little to no problems playing on hard and the main story couldn't hold my attention. Lastly, the game looks bland, but it's a few years old.
So no, value is for every person different. I paid € 47,50 for the digital version of Diablo 3 and I believe it's worth it.
You're saying the D3 BETA didn't do it justice when it came to depth, gameplay mechanics and overall polish?
But then, when you were able to play it live for a little while, you really got to see how great the game was?
I'm seriously still considering buying it even with all this royal stupidity from the devs - if for no other reason than harcore mode. I love roguelikes and hardcore mode in Diablo 3 sounds like it could give me my rogulike fix - except with other players.
you sir.....are a real gamer......glad to see some people actually playing a game for fun instead of being the first on server "L33t" guy.
Diablo 3 beta gave a good impression, but what made me sit on the top of my chair, was when I encountered a group of elite bulls, with the Jailer ability. They rooted me as they were charging me. Three at once. I was pretty dead hehe. I won't say the game is super hard, but it still has these fun encounters I got in Diablo 2 and the original. I read some stories from people who rushed through normal and now got their asses handed to them on nightmare
The logging in problems were pretty annoying nonetheless. But in a week, if not sooner, they'll be gone. I'm not sure if I'm ready myself for hardcore mode. I'm tempted, but dying on normal in Act 1 would be embarrasing
Diablo 2 was Diablo 1 with skill trees, no accident, im sorry, IF the "other crowd" will get their gameplay is yet to see, skill variability is not something we know what it will look like later in the game, but it has nothing to do with the length of gameplay of the normal difficulty, in d2 you would be 24/30 ending normal, it could be done, without rushing, in one day, so i see no difference there.
Not every hardcore player is a arena wow pvp junkie or hardcore raider (they are actually in the minority, cause they in most cases worship "skill"), "epeen" in a broader sense will be the gold/money gained in the ah or rare drops (the devs promised more random and more specific/powerful drops than in d2), much like d2 without ah, "hardcore" people would design characters specifically for the purpose of grinding bosses for drops they already posess/bought, funny, isnt it?
Everything is yet to be seen.
Sometimes i feel like in a twilight zone, mmorpg players crying about the games taking too long and being too hard and with too many decisions and action rpg players cry about the games being too short and too simple...
Flame on!
Yes , it is what i am saying
With all the bulshit - high price , DRM , RMAH , Online , server crap
If you like roguelikes ( I am huge fan ) and what came after (hack and slash)
D3 leaves everything else in the dust.
Who are you quoting with those quoatation marks? I have never heard any one who follows indie gaming say that...
I like looking at indie games because usually they are a fertile grass roots breeding ground for new ideas. That dosen't mean I like every indie game, but it means I at least check them out.
You have missed the point it seems why more and more are heading in that direction... it's because mainstream gaming is struggling to deliver for a lot of gamers in terms of creativity and gameplay. It has nothing to do with being 'hip'.
Is that as 'bad' as buying something based on brand alone?
Of course not.
You need to have a think.
I think it's incredibly telling about D3 that T2 is even considered in the same sentence, given all the natural advantages D3 has had. It shouldn't even be competition, yet it is. Lets not even talk about Path of Exile... This is a huge statement on corperate game development in general.
(I personally enjoyed Lara Croft & The Guardian of Light more then D3, but that's just me)
D3 is an excellent game. the combat system is super fun, and having just started Act II, i tell you it gets pretty challenging. and this is on normal. im having a blast. still wishing i was playing GW2 instead =(
The game starts at Nightmare
.
That said, Ive heard Blizzard state somewhere that 70% of the items wont start showing up till AFTER Normal.
It should also be noted that even Blizzard internal testing team could not complete inferno difficulty, they could get to level 60 but could not get through inferno.
Totally agree, and this is what killed WoW aswell - and the reason I'm not bothering to play diablo.
Today youngsters seems to play games for the difficulty (epeen, anyone?) and not for the experience. That something is hard, requires physical skills such at being fast om your fingers, seems to make gamers happy.
Games have no depth anymore, and Blizzard is to pretty much to blame. They have created a generation of gamers that only care about 2 things: graphics and the possibility to show off their skills. What happened to experiencing something non-graphical? What happened to having to develop complex strategies and work in teams?
Todays games are boring, and from what I can read in different posts, Diablo is yet another game in which stats, skills and depth in character development is only there for shows.
But well, as long as people have fun, there's little point complaining. I just wish that they'd make games with more depth and tactics and I think that people are not demanding enough from the developers these years.
Fortunately, i guess it's a matter of time. At some point, even the current WoW-population will probably demand some depth.
For £40 I got World of Warcraft, which gave me so much content for those 30days, I stayed for 3 months to see much more of it. So people can complete Diablo 3 in under 12 hours for £45? Why is Diablo so small, if it's going to compete with Guild Wars 2 as a AAA free to play game, why so small? At least Guild Wars 1 was HUGE, and no doubt Guild Wars 2 will be.
Sorry tho, but if you race straight to the end, then practically every single player game from the last couple years can be finished under 12 hours! This included Mass Effect games, Elder Scrolls games (Skyrim included) and thus also Diablo III !
I managed to play over 5 hours yesterday and just finished killing the Skeleton King!
I just took a normal pace, explored every inch from the map, explored every available dungeon (crypt) in the first zone, collect as much blue gear as I could to break apart for crafting mats and craft some nice gear for myself.
All this already gave me over 5 hours enjoyment and I haven't even finished Act 1 yet!
Just like with Skyrim having hundreds of hours of content, but ofcourse you can all ignore that, just focus on the main storyline and race straight to the end and beat this game within 12 hours.
Each to their own I guess.
Isn't that kinda the same thing though? What's wrong with simplicity as long as the game is still fun to play and provides a good story? I would think that a game forcing players to work as a team and to develop complex strategies would be more difficult than a game that would not, and seeing as you want a game like that, you also might have a bit of an e-peen.
I've never played games for difficulty. I play them to socialize, for the graphics, for the sound, for the story, and for the ability to perform crazy feats and to possess god-like powers that would never have in real life. Video games, to me, are a form of escapism, and a sense of pride or personal accomplishment rarely enters the equation.
That's not to say I never feel pride in my gaming accomplishments, for example when I down a raid boss or when I beat a 70 hour RPG. I'm human, and whether we like it or not, we all tend to pat ourselves on the back as soon as we get the chance. I just never go into said games seeking accomplishment or validation.
Perhaps I approach your post wrongly. The thing that struck me the wrong way, was the fact that, in this case, a Blizzard product would be bought just because it's a Blizzard product. That is just retarded on it's own, one should never buy products blindly because of the brand. That's also what I meant with the indie part. I reading it more and more, that indie games should be bought, because they're indie games and they try to do innovative or good things in general. A game should be bought because it's a good game. Not because it's from a certain developer and not because it's indie or mainstream.
It's not weird though that Torchlight, Titan Quest, Path of Exile and Grim Dawn are all familar names to fans of the hack & slash genre. They all share the same core gameplay. So it's only natural that they get compared a lot. In particular by people who find Diablo 3 too much "dumb downed" and "cartoonish", but I won't bore you with that argument again. But in the way of competition I'm afraid that Diablo 3 is just too big to properly compete with. But we will see.
By the way, if you still enjoy Tomb Raider in these days, there must be something wrong with you then
For a good free game, try Dwarf Fortress. I've heard the term roguelike drop a few times. The adventure mode in Dwarf Fortress is a roguelike IIRC.
Diablo has a few gamemodes to go through, you only played the easiest one. Now try the harder gamemodes.
Not enough potions. Just as in Diablo 2 you need alot of potions.
I still am thinking on purchasing this game.
But 24h to complete all content is rather, not a good buisness.
Repeat same content in 4 diferent dificulties is kindoff not new content.
Guess if i want something Diablo style i should get Torchlight 2 or PoE.
What you guys think?
Torchlight 2 won't be out yet. They'll wait for the hype of D3 to die away so they'll actually MAKE sales.
On the plus side, $20 US for Torchlight 2 when it does hit.
MMO's played: Ragnarok Online (For years), WoW (for a few weeks only), Guild Wars, Lineage 2, Eve, Allods, Shattered Galaxy, 9 Dragons, City of Heroes, City of Villains, Star Trek Online (Got someone ELSE to pay for it), Champions Online (Someone else paid), Dofus, Dragonica, LOTRO, DDO and more... A LOT more. I've played good AND bad. The bad didn't last long. :P