Hell is not frozen yet! (Diablo 3)

Discussion in 'General Gaming and Hardware Forum' started by Makenshi, Jun 25, 2008.

  1. Xellos

    Xellos Where'd That 6th Toe Come From?

    454
    Feb 10, 2006
    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).
     
  2. aenemic

    aenemic Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!

    Jun 4, 2008
    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.
     
  3. Buxbaum666

    Buxbaum666 Heterostructured Nanorod oTO Orderite

    Dec 5, 2003
    So you were one of the people hogging all the servers ... :twisted: 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.
     
  4. Edmond Dantès

    Edmond Dantès It Wandered In From the Wastes

    174
    Jul 15, 2008
    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.
     
  5. Walpknut

    Walpknut This ghoul has seen it all

    Dec 30, 2010
    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.
     
  6. maximaz

    maximaz Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!

    Apr 2, 2006
    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.
     
  7. .Pixote.

    .Pixote. Carbon Dated and Proud
    Modder

    Sep 14, 2009
    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.

     
  8. Kyuu

    Kyuu Insert Awesome Title Here

    Jul 19, 2007
    Yep. The adventurers in D1 were just that, adventurers. Not princes, half-demons, or anything like that.

    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.
     
  9. TorontoReign

    TorontoReign Precious Fluids of The Order Staff Member Moderator Orderite

    Apr 1, 2005

    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.
     
  10. clercqer

    clercqer Senator oTO Orderite

    Feb 14, 2005
    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. :)
     
  11. sea

    sea Vault Senior Citizen

    Oct 5, 2009
    Considering Blizzard have turned what was basically a simplified but highly atmospheric roguelike into a soulless loot grind complete with design elements specifically set up to encourage the use of virtual cash shops, as well as forced online play and the complete removal of all character development beyond equipment, I find it very hard to believe they give two shits about the lore at all. It's not like they give a flying fuck about the gameplay, so why should the story matter?

    I just don't get it, either. Diablo III has been in development... how long? Like eight goddamn years? Go back to the trailers from around 2007, and the game doesn't even look that different! Sure, the visuals have changed, but so many of the gameplay elements have stayed the same. What the hell have they been fucking doing this whole time? Just endless playtesting and rebalancing? Redrawing the graphics?

    It's pathetic how Blizzard are able to waste so much time and money making a game that any other studio could crank out in a year and a half. I mean, this isn't some huge, artful epic with a great story, a huge open world, hundreds of quests... it's a game where you bash monsters over the head and pick up randomly generated loot. If Blizzard aren't outright lazy, they must just be extremely poorly managed. Combined with all the competition (Torchlight 2, Path of Exile, etc.), Diablo III isn't just looking mediocre, it's looking like a complete failure in everything but sales. Of course the hilarious thing is they could have slapped the Diablo name on just about any piece of shit and it would have sold just as well, so why even bother with years and years of development?
     
  12. TorontoReign

    TorontoReign Precious Fluids of The Order Staff Member Moderator Orderite

    Apr 1, 2005

    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!?
     
  13. sea

    sea Vault Senior Citizen

    Oct 5, 2009
    A developer with Blizzard's resources (i.e. tons of money and manpower) should have no trouble cranking out what is for all intents and purposes a fairly small game. From all we've seen, Torchlight 2 is a bigger game than Diablo III, with a fraction of the budget and a smaller team behind it, and that game has a two year cycle. I don't think a year and a half for Blizzard's next money machine is a big stretch when you consider that.

    At this moment it seems like more thought and effort has gone into setting up the online infrastructure and the real money auction house, as well as into strategically tuning the game mechanics and systems to revolve entirely around those (transition from replayable and character-building focused gameplay to consequence-free loot treadmill for cash $$$!).

    And no, for the record, I'm not saying Diablo III isn't fun or entertaining or well made or whatever. It's just so obviously geared towards milking people via the real money auction house, to the detriment of its overall mechanics and game design, that it's very hard for me to ignore. It feels crass, exploitative and manipulative.
     
  14. Sam Ecorners

    Sam Ecorners Vault Senior Citizen
    Orderite

    Jan 23, 2007
    Blizzard is now part of a big publisher, so most of that time was spent in strategy brainstorm meetings
     
  15. maximaz

    maximaz Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!

    Apr 2, 2006
    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.
     
  16. aenemic

    aenemic Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!

    Jun 4, 2008
    Condor was renamed to Blizzard North. the team that made Diablo and Diablo II. so yes, Blizzard built the game.
     
  17. .Pixote.

    .Pixote. Carbon Dated and Proud
    Modder

    Sep 14, 2009
    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. :roll:
     
  18. Ilosar

    Ilosar Vault Fossil

    Apr 20, 2010
    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.
     
  19. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    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.
     
  20. .Pixote.

    .Pixote. Carbon Dated and Proud
    Modder

    Sep 14, 2009
    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.