Diablo III is for real

[Maitre]

I was a huge fan of Diablo 1 and Diablo 2. From the little I have seen of Diablo 3 I feel its a natural evolution of the graphics. I felt a shiver when I saw all of those monsters climbing and swarming over the landscape to the barbarian. To me it was creepy as hell and very close to the jumps I would get in Diablo 1.

Actually, when I watched the game-play movie, I thought 'Gee, it looks like they've tried to graft Diablo onto the graphic engine from Titan Quest,' and it seemed that the landscapes were a natural graphics evolution from that game, instead of DII. The perspective scroll, and stair climbing especially, made me feel like I was looking at an adaptation of the TQ graphics rather than Diablo. With regard to cartoonish feel, I agree that the barb shoulders, not to mention the girth of some of those monsters, are ridiculous. In this case I'm reminded of the differences from Westwood's C&C:Red Alert to C&C:Red Alert 2. C&C:RA2 was clearly a game with cartoonish graphics, cinematics, and plotlines: it had none of the 'realism' that C&C:RA had (sound effects, unit types, etc), but as an RTS title, it was still a lot of fun to play.

I think the biggest problem DIII has at this point is the title: it includes the word Diablo, and it's made by Blizzard. Had this game-play video come been released by some other developer, and been called "generic adventurers fight demonic evil" we would be discussing why blizzard couldn't make a game this good and call it DIII. Instead we're concerning ourselves with how this title doesn't live up to the franchise. I'll make my purchase decision when it's finally on shelves (6-8 months after the third postponement, when reports surface about people buying the game, and waiting for 20 minutes to download the 1.3 patch upon installation). Until then, naught but eye candy.

[FoxBat]

STSI IMO :P

[--Pete]

Hi,

Thank you, Pete.

You're welcome. We aim to please. Sometimes, we even *hit* the target:)

--Pete

[Assur]

I think the biggest problem DIII has at this point is the title: it includes the word Diablo, and it's made by Blizzard. Had this game-play video come been released by some other developer, and been called "generic adventurers fight demonic evil" we would be discussing why blizzard couldn't make a game this good and call it DIII. Instead we're concerning ourselves with how this title doesn't live up to the franchise. I'll make my purchase decision when it's finally on shelves (6-8 months after the third postponement, when reports surface about people buying the game, and waiting for 20 minutes to download the 1.3 patch upon installation). Until then, naught but eye candy.

Personally I'm very happy that it's been finally been announced and I'll preorder D3. As regards the not so gloomy graphics, they make sense. In-game Sanctuary has been peaceful and prosperous for the last 20 years so its not going to look like Barad-Dur just after the destruction of the Ring. The switch from a sunny countryside to a dark and scary dungeon also IMHO works much better than a relentlessly gloomy emo setting through the whole game.

http://www.gucomics.com/comic/?cdate=20080702

[KingOfPain]

STSI IMO :P

Chuck Norris has nothing on us ;)

KoP

[Occhidiangela]

Chuck Norris has nothing on us ;)

KoP

She's not naked, so she's a wimp, right? ;)

For those not familiar with what I am referring to, the King

-- crowd shouts at the top of its lungs--

Hail King of Pain, long live the King!

-crowd mysteriously disappears

has decreed that

Items are for Wimps![size=3]

He is right, of course, since he's King.

It's great to be the King. :lol: (King of the Varients, that is.)

Grand Vizier Charis has not been heard from, yet, but watch this space! We'll smoke him out, yes we will.

Occhi

[Fragbait]

Hi,


I am on the side of those who wish for a darker, more sinister atmosphere without all the blue/green (even signed the petition that is linked to at the AB forums - the fan enhancements/changes to the screen-shots are fascinating).

Still, even though I have moved closer to Starcraft / Broodwar during the last year or so, I will probably buy a new comp for it when it comes out anyway. The addiction to the theme and my love for its predecessors is to big. Any wild guesses what the requirements could look like?

Maybe there's a character class that doesn't rely on AoE to survive...
I also think that making the third installment a prequel would have been nice...


Greetings, Fragbait

[nobbie]

Guess it's time for Blizzard to start working on HSV sliders for the game to satisfy everyone, maybe a film grain filter, too :lol:

[Kylearan]

Hi,

Grand Vizier Charis has not been heard from, yet, but watch this space! We'll smoke him out, yes we will.

That'll be awesome! I miss his enthusiasm and creativity. CIV didn't manage to bring him back, maybe D3 will... :D

Although, for him it might be better if it won't... :whistling:

-Kylearan

[the Langolier]

D1's character movement speed is a direct correlation to the speed at which computers of that time could move through the load-hit-store cycle. If it takes (insert cycle amount) processor cycles to write a lighting value for a tile to the cache and the game is trying to read that value before it's done writing you've got a broken game. And in D1's case we are looking at computer speeds back in 1996.

You can run just fine in the Dungeons in the Dark Mod just fine. It can cause very minor problems on some systems (newer systems, ironically), but that is more a function of it being a modified feature and not due to processing.

The actual doesn't really matter much as does the relative speed to the rest of the game. Monsters are just as fast as players and the dungeons are much smaller. You could walk through every level in D1 *much* faster than it would take you to run through every act in D2. And as Nystul has already mentioned the player can control the pace of his own game quit easily. Either way, walking speed or how many times you can cast teleport on a level is really not the point.

Frankly, the general atmosphere of this thread that "Diablo 1 is old and games have evolved" sounds like a cop out to me. I'm not saying if they don't remake Diablo 1 with new graphics it will be terrible. But it could be something really great. "Oh, but it looks like so much fun," they say, as if it were some sort of excuse. Are you kidding me? Are we really going to settle for the lowest common denominator which defines a game? I've played hundreds of games that were fun, whether they sell for $50 on retail shelves or if it's a short flash game I stumble upon on the internet. For the games that are just fun, I'll be amused for awhile but eventually I'll move as they are nothing special.

Diablo 2 is fun, as I am sure Diablo 3 will be, but Diablo 1 is great. Don't forget that when it came out, Blizzard was a relatively unheard of producer and it became one of the most popular games that year. They produced a game with in-depth, strategic gameplay. It did not have such an obvious predecessor. This is significant because that means Diablo 3 can be a great game with solid gameplay without being a Diablo 1 clone. Since it is a series, however, I don't think it is out of line to make a comparison of the previous installments. I don't know how to make a game with such involved strategy, but that isn't my job. The point of my original post was to simply to look at what made Diablo 1's gameplay so much better. IMO it is that much more important for Diablo 3 to really shine as it IS based on such strong games and they have clear models to compare and improve upon, much as you would expect a 3rd generation cell phone, car, or computer to really outclass the first generation. Diablo 1 did not have that luxury. So far, however, I am just not seeing it.

[the Langolier]

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.

The first thing that comes to my mind when thinking about limited of technology are items. D1 has far fewer items than D2. Quite honestly though I think this is unintentionally one of it's strengths over D2. The ratio of useful items to total possible items is much greater than it is in D2 and so it feels as if there is a larger item pool. Because of the fewer item types and affix combinations available, it was easier in D1 to actually improve your items. Yet somehow the really good items still took some effort and time to collect and the best of items remained sufficiently rare. How far do you get in D2 before you stop bothering to even pick up blue items? How often to you actually find a specific item (say... gloves) that are actually better than what you have, or if technically better, actually makes a difference? How many items from Act 5 in normal mode do you still wear in Act 5 nightmare?

A gird-like layout is definitely a thing of the past, but it did allow for clear cut distinctions between element dimensions. That information really helped players to judge what was in melee range, exactly how effective a choke point was (since they know how many monsters can fit around them), and just where to stand so incoming missiles will be blocked. With some experience, there was no guessing. Those are all important things to know when trying to play strategically. Unfortunately "more advanced" graphics including the 3D stuff really muddles it all. I can't think of all the times I've played D2 and been amazed at how some of the things were hitting me from their position, or exactly why spells weren't shooting through the doorway, hitting the wall ("I'm aiming straight at the door wtf"). I don't know how to compromise between the two.

[nobbie]

Here you go:

‘Diablo III’ Producer Justifies Controversial Art Direction: ‘Color Is Your Friend’

http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/2008/07/02/...-art-direction/

[Merlinios]

Though the issue of speed has been brought up, no one has yet touched upon the speed ratio of players to monsters. There were very few, if any, monsters in Diablo II that could not be simply outrun, long before one's Stamina was exhausted. By contrast, nearly everything in Diablo was able to move as fast as the player, although a lot of them paused or took divergent paths when approaching the player. This phenomenon contributed both tactically and atmospherically to why many (myself included) feel the original was the superior game. It is quite difficult to get yourself beyond the point of no return in enemy territory in Diablo II, but as anyone who has not yet figured out how to stair-trap The Butcher knows, he moves just as fast as you do, relentlessly, until you leave the stage or find an unblocked door, and you'd damn well better be prepared before you open his playpen.

One other point that no one has touched upon, perhaps because it is now so far outside the realm of possibility, is friendly fire, which I felt made co-op Diablo a much deeper game. Junior had far too much AoE to make it viable on any meaningful level (Frozen Orb much?), and the third seems to be following this trend.

I realize that as a money-making corporation, Blizzard needs to develop for the masses, but can we at least have our dignity here? Monsters were an absolute joke in Diablo II (late Lord of Destruction patches...I've lost most of my memory of the early patches of Classic, but from what I do remember, at least there was some credible threat there), and appear to be so from what (admittedly very little) we've seen of part three. Factors such as damage, cooldown, and area of effect should diminish as the others go up, not increase simultaneously until it's possible to right click and wipe out the screen.

And one final, and relatively minor, nit: whatever happened to items with drawbacks? Without getting into the outright useless-aside-from-variant-play Useless Bow of the Pit style items, what happened to the Constricting Rings and Gotterdamnit'sdarks? Situational power contributes to tactical decisions. If nothing else, they at least force some equip thoughts instead of "Yep, the new one is better than the old one in every way...I wonder how much Griswold will offer for this POS I no longer need?"


If the AoE-fest continues as it appears to be planned, I'm not sure this one is on my buy list. I suppose if enough old friends do it, I will too, simply to have another medium with which to hang out, but that can and has been as simple as terrible muted TV shows ripe for dubbing, or random excerpts from newspapers.

--me

[Merlinios]

Yeah, I still get a lump in my throat when I need to go up against some mini-boss extra strong with sparklies. Or, how about in the swamp as a melee char when fetishes with thorns swarm you? Or, the first time you took on Andariel solo when she was spewing poison clouds about you? D2 has its moment of terror.

I think these are two separate types of terror. Diablo original always inspired more of the "I wish someone else was home", "I wish it wasn't past midnight", or perhaps even "I wish I had some clean pants" varieties.

Diablo II was generally more like "Ahh! I think I might die... <Wusscore>to my mild frustration.</Wusscore> <Hardcore>DAMNIT!</Hardcore>"

Diablo II fear is not visceral. It is fear of future frustration or annoyance by breaking up the slaughterfest, perhaps minor experience loss, or undoing days or weeks of work; this is fear that ones' character will die.

Ten years after I started playing Diablo, I reinstalled it, booted it up, and STILL jumped when I heard a horned demon bellow, followed by the blur charging straight at my poor under-equipped character. "My god," I said to myself "I thought I was going to die for a moment there."

--me

[Occhidiangela]

Hi,
That'll be awesome! I miss his enthusiasm and creativity. CIV didn't manage to bring him back, maybe D3 will... :D

Although, for him it might be better if it won't... :whistling:

-Kylearan

He now has children, so my enthusiasm might be groundless.

We can try a Summon Charis spell, but he does have a set item: Wedding Ring of Gaming Resistance equipped. Other items in the Gamer's Doom set include Blessed Pictures of Kids in Wallet, which when equipped together with the Ring sets up triple resistance to the summoning spell tree. :blink: If you add the third and fourth set pieces, Helm of Youth Sports League Parent, and Dance Studio Slave Shackles, it puts the resistance in the 95% range.

A tough nut to crack.

We might burn the mana and not get the desired effect.

Occhi

[roguebanshee]

I think these are two separate types of terror. Diablo original always inspired more of the "I wish someone else was home", "I wish it wasn't past midnight", or perhaps even "I wish I had some clean pants" varieties.

I can't think of a single moment (other than meeting the Butcher, until I figured out how that scenario worked) that felt close to that in CD. Even then it was closer to gross out than horror and definately never terror. I just don't think of the Diablo series as any more scary than the Sonic or Mario series.

Different atmosphere, yes. Different scare level, no.

[Cryptic]

Well, I think the game is going to be great. A truly dark and gothic Diablo game hasn’t been released in over a decade; the series graduated to a wider-reaching, multi-environment horror panorama in DII. For me, the “dark” atmosphere of Diablo wasn’t graphical at all. It was visceral, but psychological … a combination of sound design, desolate environments away from civilization, animations and the sheer number of enemies.

Stumbling into Andariel’s lair for the first time with headphones on was still pretty chilling IMO. But familiarity leads to indifference; doing Baal or CD cathedral runs for the umpteenth time drains away any lurking sense of dread. After awhile, the horror is much more about the lore than it is about the graphics. And even then it’s a pretty mild sensation. Perhaps I’m jaded, but the Butcher can only take your virginity once.
:lol:

Give me a pretty, fast-running game with a very busy screen and lots of tactical options; my mind will fill in the details.

[Kevin]

Here you go:

‘Diablo III’ Producer Justifies Controversial Art Direction: ‘Color Is Your Friend’

http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/2008/07/02/...-art-direction/

And I don't have a problem with bright in the outside world. Having stuff to contrast with does help. The issue is that even the "dark" dungeons aren't because they are too smooth. I'm coming around on this, even watching the gameplay video, the transition from the dungeon to the outside didn't really feel like much of a transition.

Some of the fan mock-ups on stuff show that it wouldn't be hard to make the dungeons better. I agree that stuff is too clean. Even for the outside world. http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/7807/itshouldrh5.jpg the bottom set of images. All I'm asking for is to make the stone look more like what the fan did. I'd let them leave the rest of the environment alone. But you make the stones look like what the fan did and then you are actually using the contrast they claim they want.

http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l318/fro...ke/Diablo31.jpg is another great one. The interview claimed they wanted the detials to be clearer. While this fan mock up is a bit too dark, the foot on the bridge and cobbles on the bridge pop at me way more than in the original. Yes you lose some of the detail on the side but a lot of that comes from the fact the whole image got a mask and the whole image didn't need it. The spell effects should be just as bright as in the original and they could make them that way in the engine.

http://img110.imageshack.us/img110/1681/12...22122wu5oq6.jpg is again another easy example. The whole image has the mask on it, but I would just want it on the stones. I'd be fine with the zombies looking like they did in the original but you make the stone look more like stone and I'm way happier and I think Blizzard will be closer to what they claim they want with contrast too.

There is nothing wrong with color, but the over stylized and EVERYTHING being clean doesn't really give you any contrast. I'm even fine, like I said in earlier posts, with some "dungeon" levels having the current clean look, because they should and it would make the big blood stain on the floor have more effect.

Right now Blizzard is trying to do all the contrast with blue/green/orange vs grey it seems. Not much there especially when it's all smoothed out and has the same texture feel. It doesn't have to be that way and I think the game is better if it isn't. I can live with the slighly chunkier, out of proportion stuff but it's the texturing that is getting me the more I look at it.

Oh well.


As other have mentioned the sound and gameplay changes between classic and II had more to do with the lost feel and they are adopting more of that because it reaches a bigger audience.

People like shopping in D2 more than they liked having to try and position themselve so that their friends weren't shooting them in D1. Of course the fact that one persons system reported one set of player positions and ther others a different set is what hurt multiplayer the most in D1. When I look at my wifes screen and we are both in different spots than on my screen and we are playing on a LAN and machines way faster than what D1 needed it hurt stuff.

Blizzard is correct in that the D2 model of just smash it all up while shopping, will sell better than the D1 style of think before you go around that corner, but it doesn't mean I can't pine for that. It also doesn't mean, that like Pete said, that I don't want the D2 style some days either. But since I've been playing a fair bit of WoW which still has way more to do with what gear you have than how well you use it (though TBC helped some with this) I'm not sure how much D3 will appeal other than playing with friends because I'm getting a little tired of the whole shopping for virtual items by killing mobs that are mostly a non threat or that are a threat but you need to deal with 24 other people, only 8 or 9 of whom you really like or know, model. D3 looks like it will get rid of the you have to have 24 other people, but it won't get rid of the shopping.


Oddly enough I've been playing a fair bit of M.U.L.E on my C64 emulator lately because it's still got fun gameplay and I'm getting more satisfaction from it than from some more modern games. :)

[CelticHound]

A couple people have mentioned that the artwork so far makes it look like the world of D3 is "too clean". Wasn't that a selling point of Star Wars that the universe wasn't all new and shiny? Maybe the D3 team is going to leap-frog over Lucas?

About the recurring "Blizzard knows what they’re doing" comments I saw on the link nobbie provided, how many of the people who successfully created the first two Diablos are still at Blizzard?

-- CH

[Nystul]

About the recurring "Blizzard knows what they’re doing" comments I saw on the link nobbie provided, how many of the people who successfully created the first two Diablos are still at Blizzard?

Most of the people involved in making Diablo are long gone. It is fairly evident that Blizzard does indeed know what they are doing when it comes to making playable and successful video games, as they have a track record that is second to none covering virtually every title they've ever released. I'm sure that Diablo III will be a very fun game with an intuitive interface and surprising lack of Arghs. But it is not likely to fulfill the dark desires of those still looking for the spiritual successor to Diablo. Perhaps it could just as well be Warcraft: Hack and Slash Edition.