Just out of curiosity, did any of you guys playing get a rare drop NOT from a skeleton king ? I got one, in about 10-12h of playtime. And quality of the drops is another thing worrying me a little. I know it's hard to judge based just one beta content, yet what you can get from mobs is inferior comparing to what you can craft (excluding SK). In D2 you could get rares easily as soon as from corpsefire, while in the portion of D3 we've seen already when one reaches lvl 10 and crafts some gear, all drops from that category of equipment become junk. It's hard to maintain feeling of "reward" coming from looting if the loot is worthless (or serves just for crafting purposes).
Hell is not frozen yet! (Diablo 3)
- Thread starter Makenshi
- Start date
aenemic
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
Xellos said:
isn't this also too early to tell? but rares should be rare, right? I didn't expect to see a rare drop at all in the few hours I put into the game. and relying on crafted gear to customize your character feels a lot better to me than hoping for good drops. while I'm certain the rares and uniques you can get from bosses will be even better than what you can craft, so the people who want to spend hours on boss runs will probably get their moneys worth.
So you were one of the people hogging all the servers ...Xellos said:
Seriously, I had a connection for like 15 minutes. I didn't want to sit there for hours staring at the login screen.I had fun during these 15 minutes, though. I'm looking forward to playing the full game.
Edmond Dantès
It Wandered In From the Wastes
I only got rares from the SK, and the first time through, with my monk, only one to boot. For some reason I'm starting to think my first playthrough was cursed or something. I didn't get anything fun in that run. No loot-goblins, no jar of souls, not even a single random encounter outside of the story-line; just some elites every once in a while.
Second playthrough, got a jar of souls, two or three of those looting goblins that drop cash while attempting to flee, and a scripted random encounter with some old mage that was leafing through some tomes he wanted to keep. Of course I snatched them away from him, after which we fought and he died. I also got four rares that time through. Really weird how one game can just screw you over whereas another one showers you with gifts.
It didn't bother me though that I only got rares from the boss. Crafting is a really nice new element, giving new use to all the previously useless blue items. It also makes gold a lot more valuable. In D2 I only used it for gambling. It also seems that repairs, which you'll get when you die on higher difficulties, are quite expensive, so there's another sink. And then there's the shared storage which you'll want to expand fully, of course. Thank god for it being a shared storage by the way.
Second playthrough, got a jar of souls, two or three of those looting goblins that drop cash while attempting to flee, and a scripted random encounter with some old mage that was leafing through some tomes he wanted to keep. Of course I snatched them away from him, after which we fought and he died. I also got four rares that time through. Really weird how one game can just screw you over whereas another one showers you with gifts.
It didn't bother me though that I only got rares from the boss. Crafting is a really nice new element, giving new use to all the previously useless blue items. It also makes gold a lot more valuable. In D2 I only used it for gambling. It also seems that repairs, which you'll get when you die on higher difficulties, are quite expensive, so there's another sink. And then there's the shared storage which you'll want to expand fully, of course. Thank god for it being a shared storage by the way.
Walpknut
This ghoul has seen it all
I started downloading the beta on Sunday night, figured I would play a couple of the last hors, the thing took until 1 am to get done, so I was left with a beta I couldn't play.... serves me right I guess...
I have never played a Diablo game before, a friend hates them, but I always try things by myself.
I have never played a Diablo game before, a friend hates them, but I always try things by myself.
maximaz
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
I have to agree with the point regarding the needles changes to the lore. At least to me, one major thing about the first game was the feel of exploring the unknown. The game had the atmosphere where you were a wanderer who had no idea what was happening, which made it interesting, mysterious and even scary, and now to suddenly make the guy a prince or a son of the skeleton king is definitely stretching it.
It isn't a huge deal but it does mess with the first game a bit and one just has to ask why the fuck would you want to do that. It's just not necessary but it being Blizzard, they probably don't even remember or care what went on in D1.
It isn't a huge deal but it does mess with the first game a bit and one just has to ask why the fuck would you want to do that. It's just not necessary but it being Blizzard, they probably don't even remember or care what went on in D1.
maximaz said:
They didn't even build the game, Condor made the game and was bought by Blizzards parent company - Davidson & Associates.
*Condor was purchased and renamed by Blizzard about six months before the release of their hit PC game, Diablo, in 1996*
The original was going to have turn based combat.
Yep. The adventurers in D1 were just that, adventurers. Not princes, half-demons, or anything like that.clercqer said:
In D2, the Rogue and the Sorcerer from D1 ended up corrupted, becoming Raven and whatever-the-mage-in-the-Arcane-Sanctum-was-called.
In D3, now alluva sudden the D1 Warrior was the Prince's son? It's not inconceivable, certainly, but it doesn't really add up from the known lore and certainly wasn't the intention of the original team. But meh, it's not Condor/Blizzard North anymore, so messing with stuff is to be expected.
I hope it doesn't turn out total crap as far as the lore/world goes, I mean they have Leonard Boyarsky after all. But, he is just one man and can't really do much if the leadership is pushing for some stupid "epic" tale involving fate and royalty and blah blah blah.
T
TorontoReign
Guest
Kyuu said:
Maybe it's just me but Diablo has consistently added upon the original tale in a pretty decent manner. It isn't like the original warrior had a fleshed out backstory to begin with. It makes it a little more interesting by making the tale more relevant to the other games. A prince going on adventures isn't unheard of either, so I don't understand why that is so far fetched. Is it just the clumsy way they tied it together that is unappealing or what? I am honestly curious and not trying to step on toes.
I wouldn't so much call it a "clumsy" way of tying it together as it is a complete negation of story-elements that were actually expressed and established in the first game. I'm not inventing that the warrior just didn't have a backstory or was possibly the king's son. The townspeople are actually talking to you, the pc, as being just one of many adventurers that has been drawn to Tristram.
As to the theory of a long-lost prince that didn't know about his royal blood himself; notwithstanding the lameness of that plot device, I would at least expect blizzard to flesh out that plot a lot more, like they did when they shoehorned stuff in World of Warcraft by means of comics or novels. If they had done it like that, I'd have said: ok, it's a pretty lame way to change your lore, but at least they put in the effort.
Right now, it's just contradictory with the first game.
Also, want to state that I know this a tiny gripe and doesn't matter THAT much - unless this is one example of many. So nobody is stepping on my toes by disagreeing.
As to the theory of a long-lost prince that didn't know about his royal blood himself; notwithstanding the lameness of that plot device, I would at least expect blizzard to flesh out that plot a lot more, like they did when they shoehorned stuff in World of Warcraft by means of comics or novels. If they had done it like that, I'd have said: ok, it's a pretty lame way to change your lore, but at least they put in the effort.
Right now, it's just contradictory with the first game.
Also, want to state that I know this a tiny gripe and doesn't matter THAT much - unless this is one example of many. So nobody is stepping on my toes by disagreeing.
T
TorontoReign
Guest
sea said:
A little harsh? I mean we haven't even played the finished product yet right? Diablo has always been about loot hasn't it? Not solely of course, but that is one of the key things I recall about the series, when it comes down to it. You kill a lot of shit and find a lot of loot. I think the extra time they put into it just makes it that more polished in the end. I would like to see someone crank out a game similar to Diablo 3 in a year and a half! Dude really!?
Blizzard is now part of a big publisher, so most of that time was spent in strategy brainstorm meetings
maximaz
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
.Pixote. said:
Didn't know that but it shouldn't in any way excuse them from taking the lore of the first game seriously when making a sequel. They just seem not to give a shit.
aenemic
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
.Pixote. said:
Condor was renamed to Blizzard North. the team that made Diablo and Diablo II. so yes, Blizzard built the game.
aenemic said:
Because Blizzard own Diablo, doesn't mean Blizzard made Diablo. Condor built 9/10ths of the game, but Blizzard got the glory. As for D2, well that's Blizzard.
Ilosar
Vault Fossil
I don't think game design works that way. No matter how much money or people you throw at it, making a polished game takes time. I doubt Blizzard games have that much more of a budget than many other similar AAA games (albeit length of developpement of course leads to more costs). That being said, it does seem strange that the game looks virtually unchanged from the first trailer. I guess they spent that time actually making the rest of the game and setting up the ruleset (they changed the gameplay quite a few times, as I understand, runes were supposed to be items for one).
Then again, haters gonna hate, I find that Blizzard makes quality games, much better than the indusry average (yes yes average is low I know), and if they must take their time and graft that sort of feature (read, auction house) then so be it. I know I'm gonna play with friends, and they won't spend a penny on that stuff. I foresee many, many fun moments supporting them as the team's designated witch-doc. And that's what these games are all about. Blizz as always been about reaching to as wide an audence as possible, that hasn't changed at all.
I am not worried about Bliz. I am worried about the influence from Activision. Since I cant say that I really like some of the comments by them.
But I think you are right. Bliz has always made quite good mainstream games.
And damn. They have some of the fucking best artists out there.
But I think you are right. Bliz has always made quite good mainstream games.
And damn. They have some of the fucking best artists out there.
I respect Blizzard, they won't release shit - they'll kill off a project if they consider it will damage their reputation...having deep pockets is a luxury not every publisher/developer has. That's why they make super sexy games.
aenemic
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
.Pixote. said:Because Blizzard own Diablo, doesn't mean Blizzard made Diablo. Condor built 9/10ths of the game, but Blizzard got the glory. As for D2, well that's Blizzard.
but it was the same studio ultimately, and Blizzard North did get the credit. don't really see how it's a problem. it's not like they bought up the studio, took over the game, kicked some people off and continued developement on their own. besides, I doubt they did any huge changes in the game over the six months before release. I doubt it would have looked much different if Condor kept their original name. on the contrary, without the support of Blizzard the game likely wouldn't have had as much success.
and Blizzard North is credited as developers for Diablo 2, and LoD.
sorry, but it's just a very odd thing to complain about in my opinion.
T
TorontoReign
Guest
aenemic said:.Pixote. said:Because Blizzard own Diablo, doesn't mean Blizzard made Diablo. Condor built 9/10ths of the game, but Blizzard got the glory. As for D2, well that's Blizzard.
but it was the same studio ultimately, and Blizzard North did get the credit. don't really see how it's a problem. it's not like they bought up the studio, took over the game, kicked some people off and continued developement on their own. besides, I doubt they did any huge changes in the game over the six months before release. I doubt it would have looked much different if Condor kept their original name. on the contrary, without the support of Blizzard the game likely wouldn't have had as much success.
and Blizzard North is credited as developers for Diablo 2, and LoD.
sorry, but it's just a very odd thing to complain about in my opinion.
I agree.
Could you imagine Diablo being turn based? The game would be completely different. Probably wouldn't be nearly as many enemies to kill at once.