Diablo III is for real

[Malakar]

It looks interesting... mostly because it's new, has pretty graphics, and it's a throwback to Diablo nostalgia.

The gameplay looks unfortunately too much like D2: too much AoE and mowing through non-threatening mobs. I found it somewhat amusing how the narrator of the gameplay video would talk about certain mobs dishing out tons of damage, yet as he fought them, his health never dropped below 80%. I can deal with AoE centric fights as long as there's some danger... hopefully they just nerfed mob damage for the demo video to avoid any embarrassing deaths.

Let's hope there's some cool music similar to D1's Tristram music.

[roguebanshee]

I found it somewhat amusing how the narrator of the gameplay video would talk about certain mobs dishing out tons of damage, yet as he fought them, his health never dropped below 80%. I can deal with AoE centric fights as long as there's some danger... hopefully they just nerfed mob damage for the demo video to avoid any embarrassing deaths.

I expect they used a (couple of) hacked up character(s) to show off the various skills/enemies/areas/etc, instead of something you would find once the game is released.

[NiteFox]

I expect they used a (couple of) hacked up character(s) to show off the various skills/enemies/areas/etc, instead of something you would find once the game is released.

Reminds me of an official gameplay movie for Guild Wars: Eye of the North that clearly showed the player inputting a dev code to raise his toon to nigh-on unkillable. It really didn't matter how spectacular the following seemed to be, all one could think about was "well, it's not really gameplay footage now is it? He's cheating."

[nobbie]

They have just shown two character models yet, the barbarian and the witch doctor, and they look just awesome! Not a young, muscle-packed Conan, but an older strong veteran with thousands of battles under his belt, and the witch doctor looks anything but human - that's why I love Blizzard games:)

[Phyloxerra]

All I can say is WOW. That was impressive. Once again their cinematics are gorgeous, almost brought chills to my spine.

[[wcip]Angel]

My previous post was perhaps a bit to judgmental, but even though I stand by my reservations, I'm still immensely psyched about a new Diablo-game. I can't wait to see the other classes. I'm looking forward to learning more about unique monsters (especially big and scary ones). I do hope they bring a lot of the mythology back from the D1-manual. There are many great stories there that could be incorporated into the game.

Most of all, I'm looking forward to facing The three brothers again. Also, any speculations as to what happened after Tyrael did his sword 'o Worldstone 'thang' at the end of LoD? Heaven and hell colliding? The Great Conflict/Sin War all over again?

[LennyLen]

I expect they used a (couple of) hacked up character(s) to show off the various skills/enemies/areas/etc, instead of something you would find once the game is released.

The narrator actually said that they did.

[Faragon]

It is all very beautiful, but like or not it's a significant departure from Diablo. They call it a "hand-painted, epic" look instead of cartoon, but whatever it is, it doesn't communicate terror to me.

You want terror?



:lol:

[[wcip]Angel]

There's a panel discussion on lore and art. They delve into the discussion from this thread:
http://www.gamespot.com/video/0/6193147/videoplayerpop?

[Assur]

Besides, did you see the projected release date? Neither did I;)

--Pete

German release date is reported to be 2010, so it should be the same in the states.

[Quark]

German release date is reported to be 2010, so it should be the same in the states.

According to who?

If it doesn't come from Blizzard, don't believe it. And one of the interviews specifically ended with "and since we're Blizzard, it's coming out when it's finished."

[the Langolier]

I think the gameplay of Diablo III looks like it will be a blast. I'm guessing that there will be more of a focus on providing everyone with effective AoE skills than there was in Diablo II. Things like leap attack and charge were designed with AoE effects in mind rather than just single target effects, as in D2. In addition, at the start of the trailer the Barbarian seemed to be using an attack that was hitting multiple monsters in an arc in front of him. That sort of addition to the arsenal will certainly promise a fast-paced action game that looked like a blast to play.

Mobs, mobs, mobs, what is this obsession over mobs?! zomg, your character can't take on a mob, it's teh suxx0r!!!!1 Instead of forcing players to learn sound strategy like, you know, retreating, they simply give them skills that will attack every enemy of the mob at once. Oh yeah, did we mention how you sap life back from everyone of them too? Epic fail. You mean to tell me a barbarian is going to hit 10 things at once with a one-handed axe, give me a break.

This is exactly what distinguished Diablo 2 from the original and yet what makes Diablo 1 the superior game. There are two important differences in how these games deal with mobs and multiple target skills. I'd like to focus on melee and ranged physical damage since, admittedly, there is little difference in spell casting. For one, Diablo 1 is limited to 'normal attack' for all melee/arrows whereas Diablo 2 has AoE spells and multi-target attacks for every class in the game. Secondly, Diablo 1 relies on dungeon layout and terrain to control mobs, whereas Diablo 2 relies more on a couple skills (not many useful ones native to melee characters, and rarely relied upon anyways). In Diablo 1 characters would retreat behind walls, around corners, hide behind skewered bodies in order to funnel enemies, thin out mobs, and avoid ranged attacks. There is rarely anything in the terrain in Diablo 2 to use to your advantage, escaping a mob usually means running really far away until they forget about you - of course it is still grouped up waiting for you to come back. You may argue that doorways are useful, but in my experience they tend to work more against players than anything, leaving some stuck behind unable to attack anything, and some up front being swarmed by everything. Despite what crowd control tactics and skills may be available and how useful they may be, however, experience shows they are usually not that critical to gameplay for standard characters. These two things yield completely different results in the flow of each of these games.

Diablo 2 is basically about stealing life at a greater rate than you are losing it (again, focusing on melee/physical ranged). Characters are always taking damage from everything on screen practically. This is why absorbs, DR% and magic damage reduction items are so useful. Defense rating, blocking - these really aren't tactically advantageous to combat so much as they are about taking less damage over time. With such big groups of enemies it's even difficult to tell when you block and which enemies are even missing you. Then of course you have mutli-target skills like zeal, whirlwind, multi-shot, strafe, fury, etc which let you hit large portions of big mobs very quickly. These characters simply do not work without life and mana steal. The idea is to run into a crowd and hit hard and fast enough to steal life faster than you are losing it. About the most strategy you will need to employ is that it is OK to run into a group of all those grotesque worms, but not into that group of frenzytaurs. Of course once you get the best of gear there's really nothing you just can't charge into head first until you are surveying the loot. For those REAL tough enemies like in uber tristram you may even need to break out those lifetap proc gloves *gasps*.

Diablo 1 is much different, it's more about avoiding damage entirely, not only from melee, but also ranged and magical attacks. For one, life and mana steal or more of a novelty than anything albiet useful in some situations. Simply put, if you run into a group of monsters and get surrounded, especially by a mix of attack types, no amount of life steal will spare you from death. The combined effect of blocking and AC is very important to combat as it keeps you on the offense instead of getting stunned, swarmed, or even stun locked. Just as important is how you use the dungeon layout to control how many you face simultaneously. Retreating just a few steps at a time will thin out melee groups and let you face only a couple at a time, allowing you to kill an enemy just as one takes it's place. You can stand along a wall, corner or other obstacle to limit the number that can reach you at once. For example, if a warrior is battling two enemies in melee, he can usually be attacking one enough to keep it stunned w/o attacking until it dies. Say while standing his ground, three more enemies are approaching. That's too many enemies to just sit there and tank, so the player can either decide that he can kill the two enemies he is facing just in time for the remaining three to arrive, or he must retreat a few steps to avoid getting swarmed. His AC and blocking allow him to be relatively safe from an enemy or two, allowing him to be completely offensive on a third enemy he is keeping in stun lock. If he is forced to block, he may not be able to attack fast enough in time to avoid needed to block again, or even getting hit and stunned. With more enemies a characters ability to retreat, attack, block, or cast spells without interruption is just overwhelmed.

With ranged attackers resistances are helpful, but really in Diablo 1 survival is about avoiding getting hit by them altogether. Dodging is obviously effective, but it can be difficult when melee enemies are around that will either force you to stand your ground or hit and stun you, making you an easy target. Defense from ranged involves using the dungeon terrain heavily to block incoming fire. You can retreat around a corner just to sneak up and ambush the ranged attackers as they try to follow. You can hide behind spikes and bodies and obstacles that will block their shots. You can sit near a corner that will block their shots, keeping them occupied, as you face melee attacks. Of course you may need to retreat from the melee enemies to prevent them from swarming you but that means giving up your strategic position. Do you take the chance you can tank an extra enemy, or do you make a run for it and expose yourself to fire? You constantly have to be paying attention to how the enemies are moving and where you can move, how best to retreat, and just how many enemies you are willing to chance facing at once. Then of course you have to factor in the spells at your disposal. Do you have just enough time to retreat a couple steps and cast heal before that incoming blood star takes away the last of your health? Will you finish the spell casting animation in time before those blood knights advance on you and interrupt it? Do you have enough time to kill that ranged attacker if you teleport next to it before those lava maws pin you down in melee attacks? The depth of strategy in using your spells at the correct times, managing monster types and mobs, and using dungeon layouts to your advantage is enough to keep you involved and interested. It can make from some tense moments and harrowing near deaths as well.

It is worth noting that the original Diablo's dungeons were grid style, making it easy to judge monster dimensions. There was really no question as to where a monster was able to move or not or if it was withing melee range. With D2 and D3 it is hard to judge just how many enemies of what size will be able to get within striking distance of your character.

I was getting excited as the general tone of this thread has been that the gameplay looks promising - and then I saw the barbarian swarmed by thirty something enemies right from the get go:( A little arc-slash to the left, hit that half. A little arc-slash to the right, hit that half. Oh look another mob coming from that bridge, let me jump right into the middle of them all. Rinse and repeat. There is no choke point. No where to thin the group out. If they were ranged, no corners to duck behind, they'd simply have shot over the void. He really has nothing to do, in fact, then just mindlessly spam his AoE skills until they are dead. The rest was more of the same. At one point the narrator explained the barb was going to have to kill a high priority target that was behind the front lines. All the barb really had to do though was run up through all the enemies and kill them. In Diablo 1 when faced with a mix of melee and ranged attackers, you would often want to kill the ranged first otherwise they would kill you while you were pinned down tackling the melee enemies. First you had to retreat and find good position to be able to keep the melee group from pinning you down and drawing the ranged a bit closer into explored territory. This would make sure that when you got up in the ranged attackers' faces you didn't activate even more enemies deeper in unexplored territory, getting yourself in a mess. Then you could forget about running past the melee to get to the ranged - they would tear you up, stun you, and otherwise prevent your advance. You could teleport over to the ranged and work on them, but in the meantime the melee crowd would close in on your new position and you may have to break off the attack, retreat, and get a new angle until all the ranged attackers were dead. Once they were taken care of, you could finish off the melee attackers as your character could handle. "Retreating" didn't mean running halfway across the level from where you came, either. A few steps at a time was all it took, oftentimes between 2 or 3 strategic points on the same screen, and rarely more than 2 screens. I say that because if you have never played, it isn't as if you were completely disengaging combat, but rather just moving well and getting good positioning in order to keep from having to face more than 3 or so enemies at once (depending on gear give or take an enemy). One on one versus any foe was pretty easy even for characters with sub par gear, but surrounded by 8 enemies is a dangerous situation for even characters with the best of gear. It didn't take 8 different skills, it just took some sound strategy and quick decision making. If you played poorly and woke up half the room going after the ranged attackers, you died. If you tried to just tank while getting barraged with ranged attacks, you died. It wasn't just OK because even though every enemy on the screen was hitting you, you were doing enough damage and stealing enough life to keep up.

I'm sure Diablo 3 will be interesting, but I don't think anyone can expect the gameplay to be anything similiar to Diablo 1.

As far as the environments, it does look very pastel. The first screenshot Foxbat linked to looked half like a painting, honestly. For me, Diablo got it's tense atmosphere more from the close-quarters perspective on the character than from the graphics.

[--Pete]

Hi,

. . . what makes Diablo 1 the superior game.

Skill, shmill. It's the leet loot, dummy!

Sarcasm aside, nice analysis. But there's about a billion casual players who just want to gun and run for every one that wants to think. Blizzard knows that, that's who they're targeting -- and succeeding pretty darn well. Remember, Diablo was not a Blizzard product. It was pretty well along when Blizzard bought Condor. That's why, when I really feel like a challenge, I still crank up CD (as recently as two weeks ago). When I want to goof off with a beer and nuts game, it's D2. And, I'm ashamed to admit, I play more D2 than CD. Just like, on my PDA, I play a lot more Sudoku than chess. Laziness is addictive.

--Pete

[Bob the Beholder]

Hi,
Skill, shmill. It's the leet loot, dummy!

Sarcasm aside, nice analysis. But there's about a billion casual players who just want to gun and run for every one that wants to think. Blizzard knows that, that's who they're targeting -- and succeeding pretty darn well. Remember, Diablo was not a Blizzard product. It was pretty well along when Blizzard bought Condor. That's why, when I really feel like a challenge, I still crank up CD (as recently as two weeks ago). When I want to goof off with a beer and nuts game, it's D2. And, I'm ashamed to admit, I play more D2 than CD. Just like, on my PDA, I play a lot more Sudoku than chess. Laziness is addictive.

--Pete

Noting that I agree with a lot of what Langolier said, in that D1 is a very strategic game and that D2 simply doesn't share that to the same degree.

But all the same I play Diablo 2 and haven't installed the first Diablo in a while. Why? Because it's fun. And unless you wanna play a geared out whirlwind barbarian, or never leave normal difficulty, then it's just not the mindless strategy-less click-fest that Langolier seems to think it is. It does not have the depth of the first game, but saying that all the game is is 'charge or do not charge' is just silly, or said by someone who is attached at the hip with an ADD-riddled 14 year old powergamer and thinks that's all that can be done with the game.

Honestly, this being the same community that spawned so many D1 variants to make the game harder, why is it that D2 can only be considered from the perspective of a powergamer?

... my de-railing finished, I'd like to say that I'm really looking forward to D3. The sorts of skill synergies and monster combinations seen in the trailer sort of allows for seeing some very interesting encounters.

I talked with a friend of mine about it, and he said that the screenshots posted look a lot like Titan Quest. And I really agree. Of course, Titan Quest looked a lot like d2, but shinier and newer, so that's really not saying much.

[TheDragoon]

I would really like to see them remove all of the leech effects from the game and balance accordingly. As you note, for melee classes D2 often turns into a game where you're just trying to leech more health than you're taking damage and more mana than you're using for skills. If they cut down on the leeching effects, I imagine you'd probably bring back some of the care that must be taken in D1 to avoid getting splatted.

Note that casters in D2 don't really have leech skills, so they actually do try to avoid taking damage, similar to D1. However, they often have much larger sorts of skills that allow you to mow down things as they come. That said, I certainly use landscape to my advantage in D2 just like in D1. Perhaps it is not necessary as it was in D1, but it is certainly helpful. I expect that trend will continue in D3.

[FoxBat]

Honestly, this being the same community that spawned so many D1 variants to make the game harder, why is it that D2 can only be considered from the perspective of a powergamer?

Nah, it was always about powergaming. The difference is that the D1 warrior can't powergame their way out of needing some tactics, no amount of gear will save you from a room full of angry death knights/succubuss. Of course, the "true" powergamer would pick the sorcerer, who actually could do that.

Find whatever ways to make D2 harder via variants, mods, or simply not spending days farming the good gear, and there's enough interesting things to mine there. I'm always tempted to spread my points widly just because it's fun to leap around stunning enemies until I can get a grim ward up, whirl through the seperated crowd hoping it doesn't penetrate my weak armor, then tanking a group with battle cry and concentrate to get my subpar manaleech going. No it doesn't have the measured positioning of D1, but waiting for enemies to march through a doorway one at a time in Ironman/The Dark is kindof dull too.:P

[Chesspiece_face]

Noting that I agree with a lot of what Langolier said, in that D1 is a very strategic game and that D2 simply doesn't share that to the same degree.

But all the same I play Diablo 2 and haven't installed the first Diablo in a while. Why? Because it's fun. And unless you wanna play a geared out whirlwind barbarian, or never leave normal difficulty, then it's just not the mindless strategy-less click-fest that Langolier seems to think it is. It does not have the depth of the first game, but saying that all the game is is 'charge or do not charge' is just silly, or said by someone who is attached at the hip with an ADD-riddled 14 year old powergamer and thinks that's all that can be done with the game.

Honestly, this being the same community that spawned so many D1 variants to make the game harder, why is it that D2 can only be considered from the perspective of a powergamer?

... my de-railing finished, I'd like to say that I'm really looking forward to D3. The sorts of skill synergies and monster combinations seen in the trailer sort of allows for seeing some very interesting encounters.

I talked with a friend of mine about it, and he said that the screenshots posted look a lot like Titan Quest. And I really agree. Of course, Titan Quest looked a lot like d2, but shinier and newer, so that's really not saying much.

Much of the game design in Diablo I that people are speaking so highly about was based on the limited technology of the time. The claustrophobic atmosphere, grid dungeon layout, etc. were all choices made to maximize the limits of the tech of that day. As technology advances you have two choices, either you evolve your game design to maximize the new technology or you keep using the old game design and just layer it over new tech. One of these choices will lead to failure in time.

Lets take another franchise as example: Resident Evil. Many of the game design choices they used in the first game created and enhanced the feel of tension in that game. False 3d movement, unresponsive controls, etc. but these choices were made to maximize the limited tech of the PS1. In RE's case though the developers chose to map those designs over the new tech that came along and you ended up with a floundering franchise with game designs 10 years past their prime. It wasn't until RE4 that they started breaking down those design choices and coming up with new ones for the new tech. And viola! Resident Evil is again a viable franchise.

You could remake Diablo I exactly as it was only using the technology of today and i'm willing to bet that even the most ardent DI fanboy would find it frustrating and limited based solely on the fact that we as gamers are just accustomed to how newer games work.

It's also not a very good idea to compare strategy depth between a 10+ year old game and a limited demo of a game where they admit that the character they are showing is buffed up so that it offers an interesting visual narrative.

[--Pete]

Hi,

It's also not a very good idea to compare strategy depth between a 10+ year old game and a limited demo of a game where they admit that the character they are showing is buffed up so that it offers an interesting visual narrative.

Quite true, which is why the comparison was between D1 and D2 with the question of which one D3 will be most like.

--Pete

[Hammerskjold]

Hi,
Quite true, which is why the comparison was between D1 and D2 with the question of which one D3 will be most like.

--Pete

My guess would be both, and neither. I don't mean that to sound like a non-answer, but that is the overall impression I get from bliz. They usually don't repeat old mistakes. They try to make brand new ones.

So my bet, D3 will probably not satisfy all the Diablo fans. Some will say it will be too dark, not dark enough, too complex, too simple. And it will probably make millions in the first week in sales.

[Chesspiece_face]

Hi,
Quite true, which is why the comparison was between D1 and D2 with the question of which one D3 will be most like.

--Pete

And my point was that D3 can't succeed in the ways that D1 or be like D1 in the ways that people want because many of the successful areas of D1 were built based on technology limitations.

The biggest example of this is character speed in D1. much of the tension and strategy mentioned in relation to D1 is a direct effect of the slow character movement. While the slow character movement was created because if the character moved faster than that the engine and the computers of the time wouldn't be able to load the graphics and lighting fast enough for the game.

When the technology advanced the character speed was able to increase. But with this change the tensions and strategies that D1 was based on were no longer viable. Thus the choice was keep the character speed artificially slow to maintain the old ways, or try to create new strategies and tensions. They could have kept the character slower but that would have created stagnant design. Their response to the altering strategy needs while trying to maintain tension etc was to add in more mobile enemies IE Leapers, and to add in more enemies to the battles so that the strategy became utilizing your characters new mobility to counter the npc's mobility. If you want to get a D1 feel out of D2 just set your character to walk and don't turn on run. For the most part, however, gamers of today wouldn't put up with the slow movement of the character in D1. Most of the time i fire up D1 again i don't make it past the interminable walk just to get to the dungeon.