Diablo 3, coming May 15th. I'm torn, Kaz, will you rescue me?

  • Thread starter Lambob
  • 278 comments
  • 17,656 views
I got to lvl 14 last night, almost 15. Was playing with some other friends for a good 4 hours, before ones internet went down... We later decided to sleep haha.

Here's what I'm trying to figure out. I'm assuming there is a single player version and an online version. I'm trying to figure out whether to play through it for a month offline first before going online... or if I should just play online the whole time.
 
What didn't you like about the demo? Yeah, except for the world environment gets much better IMO. Right after you defeat the Skeleton King the world starts to get more interesting along with the mobs. In a game play sense, doesn't really change but its really the same as the older Diablo games.

Well... It seemed very Neverwinter Nights to me. This is a good thing in that I really enjoyed the NWN series. This was years ago, and even back then it had better graphics. I hate being so hung up on graphics, but come on...the year is 2013, not 1993. I will probably still get the game and I will probably still enjoy it, it's just frustrating that the graphics aren't up to standard with what PC's have the potential to render. If their motives were to make it cross platform for iPad's, and other tablets as well as PC and Mac, that would have been epic, but this is not the case. PC and Mac only right?

Just my thoughts and....since I will still get it, I am hoping the real game will be better or at least that the game play will be so good that I forget about the top/down static imagery.
 
Right after I install the game battle.net goes down, nice.

I've never been locked out of playing a game before after buying and installing it, this is weak. I wish there was an offline mode i could tool around in while they get their **** together.
 
I am surprised none of you have posted any screenshots yet.

I'll take some screen caps later on if y'all want. Got to wait for servers to come back up though.

Here's what I'm trying to figure out. I'm assuming there is a single player version and an online version. I'm trying to figure out whether to play through it for a month offline first before going online... or if I should just play online the whole time.

There is no 'offline' mode. But you aren't required to play with other people, but people can join you whenever. I love the loot system they have, its not like WoW where you have to constantly compete.. everyone has there own loot.

Well... It seemed very Neverwinter Nights to me. This is a good thing in that I really enjoyed the NWN series. This was years ago, and even back then it had better graphics. I hate being so hung up on graphics, but come on...the year is 2013, not 1993. I will probably still get the game and I will probably still enjoy it, it's just frustrating that the graphics aren't up to standard with what PC's have the potential to render. If their motives were to make it cross platform for iPad's, and other tablets as well as PC and Mac, that would have been epic, but this is not the case. PC and Mac only right?

Just my thoughts and....since I will still get it, I am hoping the real game will be better or at least that the game play will be so good that I forget about the top/down static imagery.

Well where do you think NWN go there influence from? ;) I think Diablo 3 looks great, very smooth and the special effects are awesome. None of the zones really show anything off in the Beta. Once you get past the Skeleton King the game opens up a little more. I absolutely love the morbid dungeons with all the fire/lava racks, torturing devices. Boss fights and events get increasingly more fun and require some some strategy.

I doubt tablets have the processing power to run something as large as D3, at least no efficiently. But yeah, I doubt you will see D3 expand beyond PC/Mac.

The one thing I want to commend Blizzard on, is the cut scenes. The story, the animations, the voice acting has all been done to perfection. I'd love to see a full length movie of Diablo or Warcraft in similar fashion.

Currently lvl 16 on my Barbarian and just finished the first Act.
 
I was merely asking whether the evolution from D2 to D3 was similar to StarCraft 1 to StarCraft 2 which is "More of the same" as it has been commonly voiced by most games reviewers or whether there was an actual difference between both games to set themselves apart sufficiently from one another.

If you played a lot of D2 it's really quite similiar, I'd say the SC1>SC2 comparison is apt.

This is my original question. Casio seems to imply that it is more of the same as it follows the game's story onwards from D2 (which I have no idea what it is).

I was never into the Diablo lore too much, but yeah most of the D2 characters and settings are in D3.

And screenshots cause someone asked.

6RjKp.jpg

9I85m.jpg


And yeah, as above, the CGI cutscenes are some of the best CGI I have ever seen. Movies included. It's amazing.
 
They indeed do not. My roommate has had the BETA for quite a while now and was watching him playing. The game looks fantastic and so much fun!
 
Wow, the effects are jaw dropping. Looks like total submersion. :D

Ok, just kidding...., but yeah...I can totally get sucked into these without all the glitter, but it would have been nice if they could have added a little 2010 sparkle to it. Maybe DIV in the year 2024 will expand past the linear top/down grid format. We will have to wait and see....

Thanks for the screen shots, by the way. :cheers:
 
Wow, the effects are jaw dropping. Looks like total submersion. :D

Ok, just kidding...., but yeah...I can totally get sucked into these without all the glitter, but it would have been nice if they could have added a little 2010 sparkle to it. Maybe DIV in the year 2024 will expand past the linear top/down grid format. We will have to wait and see....

Thanks for the screen shots, by the way. :cheers:

There is a lot of cool particle/physics/lighting effects which are hard to convey with screen shots. Not ground breaking graphics but nicely detailed.

I can run 1440P full graphics with ease which is nice too...
 
So what's the deal with Diablo? It looks like a mix of the original Guild Wars and Alien Swarm. I never played the original or the sequel, so why should I bother with this one?

Given all the hype which appeared to surround Diablo 3 I was curious as someone who knew very little about the series other then it had a die-hard fanbase seemingly, as someone who isn't a PC gamer I thought is this something I would really be missing out on?

So I went on to the Youtubes and I can't believe this is what all the fuss is about, I've always hated this sort of gaming but I understand the appeal. This seems like just another old school PC game, very much love or hate. There's clearly an audience for this but I was totally underwhelmed, this doesn't really seem to deserve the hype it gets (and every Youtube ad I've got :lol:).
 
Last edited:
Given all the hype which appeared to surround Diablo 3 I was curious as someone who knew very little about the series other then it had a die-hard fanbase seemingly, as someone who isn't a PC gamer I thought is this something I would really be missing out on?

So I went on to the Youtubes and I can't believe this is what all the fuss is about, I've always hated this sort of gaming but I understand the appeal. This seems like just another old school PC game, very much love or hate. There's clearly an audience for this but I was totally underwhelmed, this doesn't really seem to deserve the hype it gets (and every Youtube ad I've got :lol:).

Cool story bro.
 
Cool story bro.

Quality contribution there 👍, I'm just presenting my viewpoint for any others out there who are uneducated on the title like myself. I didn't even say it was a bad game and you've decided for the usual method of douchebaggery which is totally unneccessary.

Anyway, what I'm saying is this game has an air about it which suggests it's something unique judging by the way alot of people lovingly speak of the previous titles in the series. The reality is on the surface that there is nothing particularly special about this game, though it may be very well executed. Anyone is very welcome to counter that and I'm genuinely interested to see why people have such an affinity for the series over 10 years since the last release(?), does it have unique elements or gameplay mechanics that really change the game? Does it not but is very well executed and balanced (thereby appealing only to the 'usual' audience you'd expect)?
 
To keep things short, D3 isn't for your typical console gamer. Much loike StarCraft. The typical console-only gamer, these days, seems to me like he's got the attention span of a fly and is best served with a big, flasy game like CoD.

I'm a console gamer, myself, but that's what I've been experiencing with friends and relatives. Diablo III doesn't fit that audience. At all. It's deeper than that - and in that regard, it's much like StarCraft. Much unlike games on consoles, the game won't just look awesome in a YT video or start a huge firework in the first level to capture your attention for an hour or two.

It's about longevity. And it is what you're making out of it - much unlike most console games which will take you by the hand and guide you through their fifteen hours of gameplay.
 
Does anyone think Diablo's time has passed?

I've never played the previous versions (despite being an avid gamer, consistently for 30 years and building my own PC for 20) I don't know why really. I think Ultima Underworld killed anything but first person RPGs for me in '92.

With the simplification of classes and skills etc, Diablo 3 is looking like a PSN or iPad game isn't it? Roll on Skyrim DLC.
 
To keep things short, D3 isn't for your typical console gamer. Much loike StarCraft. The typical console-only gamer, these days, seems to me like he's got the attention span of a fly and is best served with a big, flasy game like CoD.

I'm a console gamer, myself, but that's what I've been experiencing with friends and relatives. Diablo III doesn't fit that audience. At all. It's deeper than that - and in that regard, it's much like StarCraft. Much unlike games on consoles, the game won't just look awesome in a YT video or start a huge firework in the first level to capture your attention for an hour or two.

It's about longevity. And it is what you're making out of it - much unlike most console games which will take you by the hand and guide you through their fifteen hours of gameplay.

I would hesitate to generalize so broadly, as it's not console gamers in general who have short attention spans (cause and effect, I play console but it doesn't mean I fit that category). I would say it's the more modern gaming generation in general, which for one grows ever younger and is more used to hollywood visuals and such. The fact those people can't really afford or effectively use and set up a PC, as well as ease of use, is why those people are on console but there's a good proportion of serious gamers causing the success of games like Skyrim or Dark Souls on the console and similarly there's a proportion of casual gamers on PC playing COD to death. I feel it's more appropriate to split by casual/hardcore gamer instead of generalize an entire platform worth of gamers though it may be majority one type over another.

Personally this genre doesn't fit me because there's a detachment between my actions and my player, it feels like I'm commanding the player character instead of becoming immersed so 'I am the character' as you may find in either of the aforementioned RPGs both of which I've played 100s of hours. In other words, it doesn't feel like I have much skill if I hit the hotkey to deal a tonne of damage, hit block to block compared to having full control over movement and executing complex or risky dodges. Therefore I feel no satisfaction in defeating my enemy, it feels more like I put in enough time to get the right levels and equipment to beat said enemy instead of I use my skill and executed my attacks/dodge/blocks well in that fight and won because of it (Skyrim melee holds no reward for the same reason for me, but I can use archery to feel in total control).

That being said, I know this genre isn't for me so my opinion doesn't hold alot of weight to say this particular one is better than another. However I would still like to know, for my own benefit and others, why people would choose Diablo 3 over another similar title.
 
I would hesitate to generalize so broadly, as it's not console gamers in general who have short attention spans (cause and effect, I play console but it doesn't mean I fit that category). I would say it's the more modern gaming generation in general, which for one grows ever younger and is more used to hollywood visuals and such. The fact those people can't really afford or effectively use and set up a PC, as well as ease of use, is why those people are on console but there's a good proportion of serious gamers causing the success of games like Skyrim or Dark Souls on the console and similarly there's a proportion of casual gamers on PC playing COD to death. I feel it's more appropriate to split by casual/hardcore gamer instead of generalize an entire platform worth of gamers though it may be majority one type over another.

Personally this genre doesn't fit me because there's a detachment between my actions and my player, it feels like I'm commanding the player character instead of becoming immersed so 'I am the character' as you may find in either of the aforementioned RPGs both of which I've played 100s of hours. In other words, it doesn't feel like I have much skill if I hit the hotkey to deal a tonne of damage, hit block to block compared to having full control over movement and executing complex or risky dodges. Therefore I feel no satisfaction in defeating my enemy, it feels more like I put in enough time to get the right levels and equipment to beat said enemy instead of I use my skill and executed my attacks/dodge/blocks well in that fight and won because of it (Skyrim melee holds no reward for the same reason for me, but I can use archery to feel in total control).

That being said, I know this genre isn't for me so my opinion doesn't hold alot of weight to say this particular one is better than another. However I would still like to know, for my own benefit and others, why people would choose Diablo 3 over another similar title.

I get what you're saying. It looks like they spent some time on the community side of things from being able to learn crafting skills and a global trade network. Not actually playing the game, these are just some tidbits of info I am guessing on. Someone please confirm. In any case, I am currently spending my time on Starwars: The Old Republic. It is another hack and slash, but with a bit more depth and strategy. And like Diablo, the graphics are not stellar, but the game play makes up for it. I will say SWTOR is being to be a bit of a grid and it may hit the shelf soon which would open up some time for D3. Still not overly impressed but I do see there could be some entertainment value. And like Casio pointed above, the graphics in motion are a lot better than what a still shot conveys.
 
I'm kind of shocked for a game series that would be in the 'Game HoF' there is a lot of ignorance. I've never had the problem of being detached from action, and its not 'press to attack' 'press to block'. There is infinitely more complexity then that.

In the end its about the story, its about exploring the world that Blizzard put a ton of time into and it really shows. There are tons of minoot details that most games don't have.

In my first SS inside that court room kind of thing with bodies on the ground. It looks flat and dull. But it was dark with some light... With flashes of vibrant lightning giving a classic horror movie feel.

I don't think the graphics are bad, they are how they should be. Everything is smooth and nice looking, kind like WoW has come to be. You put BF3 graphics in WoW and no gaming computer in the world would be able to handle it.. NONE. Don't judge any RPG or MMO on graphics. I think graphics often times takes away from a lot of games. BF3 looks amazing but it has a bazillion things wrong with it.

D3 is popular for similar reasons WoW was originally popular. It has an immense story that puts all other games and most movies. Honestly, I'd put it up there with LOTR story line. Its really captivating and grabs you by your ankles and pulls down into Diablos depths.
 
Thanks for the pics. They actually remind me a lot of Gauntlet Dark Legacy. If I was still PC gaming I would buy this for sure. I love these type of hack and slash games. The original gauntlet Dark Legacy is still my favortie hack and slash type game. Played it for years on the PS2 and on the xbox. Actually played a little better on the xbox. I am surprised this didnt make it to the consoles.
 
That being said, I know this genre isn't for me so my opinion doesn't hold alot of weight to say this particular one is better than another. However I would still like to know, for my own benefit and others, why people would choose Diablo 3 over another similar title.

Because, in typical Blizzard style, they've mastered the genre and perfected making it enjoyable.

Same reason StarCraft is the most played RTS, same reason WoW is the most played MMORPG basically. Blizzard knows how to make games excellent with solid fit and finish.

Blizzard practically defined the genre that Diablo is, and any game similar to it afterwards has been aiming to duplicate the effect. Just how it is.

Quality contribution there 👍, I'm just presenting my viewpoint for any others out there who are uneducated on the title like myself. I didn't even say it was a bad game and you've decided for the usual method of douchebaggery which is totally unneccessary.

As for douchebaggery, you more or less came in here and stated "well, I don't get this, it looks quite silly so what is all the fuss about?" You could go read about it, perhaps, which is what you've ended up doing by reading posts in this thread.

I cool story'd you because you're attitude was just crap to start with, moderately mocking, and entirely negative.

Also, Skyrim is not a serious gamer's game in my opinion. I know plenty of very not-gamer types that more or less only play Skyrim as a video game.
 
Last edited:
Personally this genre doesn't fit me because there's a detachment between my actions and my player, it feels like I'm commanding the player character instead of becoming immersed so 'I am the character' as you may find in either of the aforementioned RPGs both of which I've played 100s of hours. In other words, it doesn't feel like I have much skill if I hit the hotkey to deal a tonne of damage, hit block to block compared to having full control over movement and executing complex or risky dodges. Therefore I feel no satisfaction in defeating my enemy, it feels more like I put in enough time to get the right levels and equipment to beat said enemy instead of I use my skill and executed my attacks/dodge/blocks well in that fight and won because of it (Skyrim melee holds no reward for the same reason for me, but I can use archery to feel in total control).

I'm playing as a Wizard and I'm find their is actually more strategy involved (so far) in D3 than D2. Particularly playing Solo, I'm finding I have to prioritise which enemies to kill first, keeping my distance away, guiding enemies into choke points to maximise my AOE damage, etc.

I haven't played the other classes yet so I don't know how it compares, but when I enter a room with 30 guys and manage to defeat them all using a specific combination of spells then I really get that sense of satisfaction, cause it's actually quite difficult. At this stage if I just spam spells with no thought I will just die, and die quite quickly.

It's definately lots more fun playing in a party though, it is where the game truely shines. I think I've played 12 or so hours now, 10 of which in a party with mates and had a complete blast. It allows you to create a synergy between players really well. I've been playing with another Wizard and a Barb, and without even consulting each other, we ended up in this game style where the barb goes up front and tanks damage, the other wizard issues freeze spells and tries to take out the hard guys, and I issue AOE spells and knock backs to stop everyone from dieing if things get rough.

One other thing I'm actually growing into the skill system, I really disliked it at first as I thought it would impeded personallisation. But again, the other wizards I play with are all around the same level as me, but all of them play the class differently with different go-to skills and different equipment loadouts, based on how we each like to play. Perhaps later on their will be a specific 'best' or 'easiest' way to play each class, but so far the apparent variation is very pleasing to me.

The game is also incredibly polished. Other than the login issues (Which I actually haven't encountered once), I haven't had one missed frame or glitched area. My game has never crashed. All the voice acting is beautifully done. NPCs aren't going around talking into walls. All quests have worked 100%, etc. It really is commendable on Blizzards part.
 
The typical console-only gamer, these days, seems to me like he's got the attention span of a fly and is best served with a big, flasy game like CoD.
That's because the likes of CoD have dumbed-down gaming in general with the focus on multiplayer modes, rengerating health, cover-based gameplay and respawns.

I myself would prefer we go back to the days of HALF-LIFE and COUNTER-STRIKE, where there were actual stakes to play for. If you got shot, you were out until the next round.
 
I'm probably going to pick this game up soon. A guy I work with is selling a copy unopened for 60 bucks, so I'll probably buy it from him and skip the sales tax. The only hurdle is I need to upgrade to OS X 10.6 which is a pretty simple process but costs 30 bucks. Oh well. It looks great to me, I've never played Diablo 1 or 2, but I've never played a Blizzard game I didn't love.

Also, Skyrim is not a serious gamer's game in my opinion. I know plenty of very not-gamer types that more or less only play Skyrim as a video game.

As an aside, I agree. My girlfriend's gaming collection includes LittleBigPlanet 1 and 2, the Sims, and Skyrim. She's definitely a very not-gamer type.
 
I have Arkham City, Uncharted 3, Mortal Kombat, MW3, BF3, starcraft 2, skyrim, demon souls, and AC: Revelations. Diablo 3 is my favorite. By far.
 
I myself would prefer we go back to the days of HALF-LIFE and COUNTER-STRIKE, where there were actual stakes to play for. If you got shot, you were out until the next round.

Half-life more or less standardized quick save and load in FPS games. And its multiplayer was just standard Team Death Match.

CoD has a team mode much like bomb maps in CS - respawn once the round is finished, etc. Plus, CS had a large element of cover use in it as well.

I don't really get your point about multiplayer-modes being a focus and then mentioning Half-Life and Counter-Strike, which are very different games that use the same engine.
 
Well guys, I want to buy Diablo 3 but my PC can't run it. What's the cheapest PC build I could get so that I can run Diablo, keeping in mind my other uses will be Internet browsing and other PC games (such as Skyrim, Battlefield). I don't want to run it on high settings, just medium.
 
Half-life more or less standardized quick save and load in FPS games.
Pretty sure Doom 2 had Quick Save?

Though I'm not sure I understand the debate about the 'seriousness' of multiplayer modes. Multiplayer is always only as serious as you want it to be.

Well guys, I want to buy Diablo 3 but my PC can't run it. What's the cheapest PC build I could get so that I can run Diablo, keeping in mind my other uses will be Internet browsing and other PC games (such as Skyrim, Battlefield). I don't want to run it on high settings, just medium.

What are you running now? Diablo 3 runs on a toaster.
 
The game is an extremely well done example of the genre, infact by far the best its ever done. Personally I think its a much better game than D2 ever was, even taking account for 10 + years apart, best played with friends and when doing so is one of the most enjoyable and rewarding games i've played in a long time.



But if you don't like dungeon crawling hack n slash rpg's then you wont like it.
 
Plenty of good information.

Just thought I'd clarify I don't think these games are easy, not by any stretch, it's just the way in which you complete your task which will always be an obstacle for me.

@Azuremen That post by Casio is an example why I choose to make a post on GTP which may be against the grain instead of read from an external source I may not necessarily trust or know. If it came across as mockery, I apologize, but I don't think anyone else found any offence in it as I tried to make it clear that I don't assume Diablo to be a bad game it just seems like something which has alot of good hype surrounding it when it didn't appear to have any special features (you can't always tell from reviews and opinions found on most public resources, we know this from COD games if nothing else). The reality appears to be exactly that, it doesn't appear to have a particular area which makes it stand out instead it does everything well which makes it rise above the rest in this genre. Tried and tested, but perfected. Though once again, anyone can feel free to give me, or anyone else here who doesn't know much about the game, a reason to think otherwise.
 
Back on-topic, I'm considering getting DIABLO III. I need something to keep me entertained, and I'm looking for games that I can just pick up and play, even if it is for only twenty minutes at a time. But I think my computer might be a little too old for it - it couldn't handle F1 2011, even on the lowest detail settings.
 
Back