# Diablo III



## Olgar Shiverstone (Jun 28, 2008)

I see previews of Diablo III are up.  Any comments?

I didn't play the original Diablos, so I know nothing about the gameplay, but the graphics & gameplay on this look neat.  Anyone know if it's actually a CRPG, or just a click & slash fest?


----------



## Elephant (Jun 28, 2008)

Well, if it's anything like D1 and 2, it's probably a click'n'slash-fest.

A fun, addictive click'n'slash-fest


----------



## drothgery (Jun 28, 2008)

Elephant said:


> Well, if it's anything like D1 and 2, it's probably a click'n'slash-fest.
> 
> A fun, addictive click'n'slash-fest




Yeah. Probably the only PC game I might actually buy. If Blizzard keeps the habbit of fairly modest system requirements, or there's enough lead time from the announcement to release that I can replace my vintage late 2006 laptop with a vintage late 2009 laptop, anyway. Or they do something completely un-Blizzardlike and release an Xbox 360 version.


----------



## Wisdom Penalty (Jun 28, 2008)

D3 will be the game that forces me to buy a new computer. Been putting it off for some time.

D1 and D2 were great. I expect more of the same with D3.

Wis


----------



## fba827 (Jun 28, 2008)

in case anyone didn't see the link

http://www.blizzard.com/diablo3/


----------



## Flash_Plasma (Jun 28, 2008)

sneaky crap, I lazily entered 2001 as my birthdate, now I cant watch the vids

on another note, I can't see what I'm typing in the text box very well


----------



## xmanii (Jun 29, 2008)

Clear your cache, it should allow to choose again.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jun 29, 2008)

I'm just glad it looks to be keeping the same formula.

Part of me was a bit worried they'd go full on MMO with it.


----------



## Cat Moon (Jun 29, 2008)

The first Diablo was awesome, I've beat it six times before I got bored with it, and that was with the official expansion pack.

Two was okay, but I found it to be lacking in places. I grew bored with it relatively quickly. I hope three goes back to the games roots.


----------



## Verdande (Jun 29, 2008)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:


> Part of me was a bit worried they'd go full on MMO with it.




I doubt that blizzard would create World of Diablocraft, since they currently own the MMO market with World of Warcraft.

That said, I'm excited for Diablo 2. I have many a memory of staying up way, way later than I should have to grind with a buddy or two over LAN. Hack and slash clickfests are the best things for late-night gaming.

Also, Necromancer ftw.


----------



## Flash_Plasma (Jun 29, 2008)

Verdande said:


> I doubt that blizzard would create World of Diablocraft, since they currently own the MMO market with World of Warcraft.
> 
> That said, I'm excited for Diablo 2. I have many a memory of staying up way, way later than I should have to grind with a buddy or two over LAN. Hack and slash clickfests are the best things for late-night gaming.
> 
> Also, Necromancer ftw.




hells yes


----------



## Kaodi (Jun 29, 2008)

I never had Diablo 1 or 2, but 3 looks good enough that I think I will have to get it at some point...

I really need to start a physically list of the games I want to play, hehehe...


----------



## LightPhoenix (Jun 29, 2008)

The trailer looked beautiful, that's for sure.  I liked Diablo II, and I've played through it several times.  The one thing that has me concerned is their "party" buzzword.  I don't want to have to get friends to play (er... ) just to be able to beat the game I own.  This is what made me stop playing D2, after the patches made some of the later fights flat out impossible solo.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jun 29, 2008)

Flash_Plasma said:


> sneaky crap, I lazily entered 2001 as my birthdate, now I cant watch the vids
> 
> on another note, I can't see what I'm typing in the text box very well





Well, there is simulated violence and language, yes, it's got simulated language.


Obviously not suitable for a 7 year old.


----------



## EricNoah (Jun 29, 2008)

Looks good.  This and Fallout 3 are the only things on my gaming radar at the moment now...


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jun 29, 2008)

I never actually played Diabo 1/2, but I played Titan Quest and enjoyed it. Never did finish, but bought it as much to try out the new computer (new then, not now...) as to have a new game to play.

The trailer was great, but the gameplay video bored me and I stopped halfway through. I realize the game will be more fun to play than watch, but my excitement level is just "anticipating" rather than "slavering".


----------



## Thanee (Jun 29, 2008)

Hopefully they manage to bring back the fun from D1... D2 was nice, but somehow missing something...

Bye
Thanee


----------



## fba827 (Jun 29, 2008)

Vocenoctum said:


> I never actually played Diabo 1/2, but I played Titan Quest and enjoyed it. Never did finish, but bought it as much to try out the new computer (new then, not now...) as to have a new game to play.
> 
> The trailer was great, but the gameplay video bored me and I stopped halfway through. I realize the game will be more fun to play than watch, but my excitement level is just "anticipating" rather than "slavering".




Exactly my thoughts... I never played diablo 1/2 either.  The trailer for 3 does look exciting but I couldn't sit through the entire game play video (maybe I just have no attention span?  ) but, yeah, obviously would be more fun to play than watch.


I'd consider buying it if it will work on my current computer (whatever computer i have at the time of it's release) but it isn't something for which I'm going to go out of my way to upgrade my computer just to play ...


----------



## Thanee (Jun 29, 2008)

Doesn't look like it will be straining the tech resources too much. By the time it gets released (whenever that is), it will surely run on a moderate PC. Blizzard very well knows how important that is to sell lots more copies. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Angel Tarragon (Jun 30, 2008)

I never played the second, but I have played the first countless times until it started giving me nightmares. I haven't played it since.


----------



## bento (Jun 30, 2008)

The sound effects for the barbarian's feats were so sickening that my wife left the room!

Won't be playing that with the kids around!


----------



## Gladius Legis (Jun 30, 2008)

Can ANYBODY tell me what the appeal is supposed to be behind the Diablo series? Because I just don't see it.

It's mindless point and click ad nauseam.


----------



## fba827 (Jun 30, 2008)

Gladius Legis said:


> Can ANYBODY tell me what the appeal is supposed to be behind the Diablo series? Because I just don't see it.
> 
> It's mindless point and click ad nauseam.




It is mindless point and click, and sometimes that is entertainment enough when you're brain is dulled from working all day and you just want to veg.

There is also the multi-player aspect of it if you want to do something with your friends but can't get together.

And (I am not completely sure of this since I haven't actually played any of the series before) but I believe you build up your character (leveling up) and can choose which skills to improve on, thus making it somewhat "your character" rather than just completely predetermined path of skill increases.


But, really, yeah, it is mindless point and click -- you aren't missing any hidden feature.  I do enjoy mindless games now and then (but, yeah, it's not always my cup of tea either).

Edit: though, i reemphasize that i've never actually played any version of diablo, just basing this post off of what i've read and know from friend's that play/played it.


----------



## Banshee16 (Jun 30, 2008)

Thanee said:


> Hopefully they manage to bring back the fun from D1... D2 was nice, but somehow missing something...
> 
> Bye
> Thanee




Personally, I liked D2 better than D1.  D1 was original, but it was basically just a dungeon crawl.  There was very little variety to the environments.  I enjoyed the outdoors parts of D2 as added "spice" to the dungeons.  Played that game to death..

To each his/her own, I guess.

Banshee


----------



## Hand of Evil (Jun 30, 2008)

Visually the graphics look like Dungeon Siege.  The game play looks kick ass.


----------



## Elephant (Jun 30, 2008)

Banshee16 said:


> Personally, I liked D2 better than D1.  D1 was original, but it was basically just a dungeon crawl.  There was very little variety to the environments.  I enjoyed the outdoors parts of D2 as added "spice" to the dungeons.  Played that game to death..
> 
> To each his/her own, I guess.
> 
> Banshee




IMO, the atmosphere in D1 was superior - it had this creepy horror aspect that D2 lacked.  OTOH, the interface for D2 was so much improved (running...) that it was really hard to go back to D1 after playing D2.

I'll agree that the outdoors areas in D2 were a nice addition to the dungeons though.


----------



## Kaodi (Jun 30, 2008)

I will be interested to see how much the environmental effects really make a difference in the final version. When the barbarian hit the wall and it fell down in pieces, squooshing the... things, it was pretty cool. His own violent death was awesome too.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jun 30, 2008)

Gladius Legis said:


> Can ANYBODY tell me what the appeal is supposed to be behind the Diablo series? Because I just don't see it.
> 
> It's mindless point and click ad nauseam.




You never played Gauntlet? Same idea.

(I used to have Gauntlet for the Genesis that also let you build up a character.)

It shouldn't be taken too seriously, IMO, and it's basically point and click with a plot. It's like a roleplaying game in that you build up your character with skills and powers.

(This aside from the obvious thing that a LOT of video games could be reduced to "point and click".)


----------



## Shade (Jun 30, 2008)

Gladius Legis said:


> Can ANYBODY tell me what the appeal is supposed to be behind the Diablo series? Because I just don't see it.
> 
> It's mindless point and click ad nauseam.




Kill things and take their stuff.

There's always the carrot dangling in front of you of what to improve at the next level.

The thrill of exploration.

Essentially, the same stuff as D&D.


----------



## Thanee (Jun 30, 2008)

Banshee16 said:


> Personally, I liked D2 better than D1.  D1 was original, but it was basically just a dungeon crawl.  There was very little variety to the environments.  I enjoyed the outdoors parts of D2 as added "spice" to the dungeons.




Of course, D2 was an improvement over D1 in many aspects. No question. The diversity with the different levels was nice, even though, as the talking Elephant () said, the atmosphere was not as intense as it was in D1. It was a lot more arcade. I still played it a lot, so it wasn't half-bad, it just wasn't as good as it should have been. 

D1 was simply the better game overall (when you compare it on a fair level, not directly, but with what was possible at that time in mind).

In D1 you actually needed tactics, in D2 you just needed better stuff, do more damage, etc. The difficulty scaled by how much more damage the monsters did, and not much else. That's an exaggeration, of course, but hopefully you know what I mean.

In D1 you could do some absolutely ridiculous stuff... like kill Diablo in Hell at level 30 (solo, including getting there; I still have a screenshot from that, heh), which wasn't nearly as tough as what some guys did... a party of four warriors with ZERO magic (no spells, no magic items, nothing; just healing potions and white equipment) made it through Hell and defeated Diablo (this took *veeeeery* long). Stuff like that is completely impossible in D2.

But the worst thing about D2 was... it ruined the fun in D1, because you wanted all the improvements with the style of the old game. 

Now, if they manage to put the best of these two together, that would be awesome! 

The gameplay vid definitely looks interesting (and the little subtleties, like the breaking furniture and the bodies flung off the bridge, or the goons climbing the walls in Moria-Orc style are very nice), even though Barbarian isn't exactly my favorite character there, and I didn't watch the other one (Witch Doctor).

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Steel_Wind (Jun 30, 2008)

This game is about 18-24 months way from release.

The gameplay trailer was long, seamless and astounding in quality.  For every other developer - that's a video of a finished game product.

For Blizzard? That's a game where the polish and revision is just getting started.

Blizzard makes the best games. Period. There is nobody else in their league. The success of their games is not an accident. It is the product of excellence at every level of design, production and implementation.

I cannot wait for the game's release.


----------



## frankthedm (Jun 30, 2008)

Random dungeons were one of D1's best features. You could never know which was the right way until you explored.

Acid beasts were troublsome, though manageable with caution. Though the Stun Locking from bolt demons did go overboard.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Jul 1, 2008)

Three of the things I am most intrigued about is them talking about "more roleplaying/storytelling", character customization (we know there will at the very least be able to change sex), and those "random dungeon events".

I am most looking forward to the first, since while Diablo has never really tried to delve much into the plot and the world, I always liked the universe and hopefully Diablo III will allow more exploration/storytelling in it.

And as will always be the case with Diablo it has my favourite style of angels EVER.


----------



## Testament (Jul 1, 2008)

I echo Fallen Seraph on how kickin' the Diablo Angels are in style.  With Diablo III being about the full-blown Apocalypse, hopefully we'll get to see more of them.

My only concern is that they've mentioned Five character classes, and from the preview, the Witch Doctor seems to have killed my beloved Necromancer and taken his stuff.  Damn.

Blizzard really are in a league of their own.  They've got something THAT polished when they're doing the announcement, and as I am given to say about Blizzard release dates, "Blizzard Time".  Starcraft was insanely late and is still regarded as one of the greatest RTS games ever made.  WoW was in development of ages and DOMINATES the MMORPG scene to a horrific level.  They aren't great innovators, but they know how to make amazing games, and they do it right.  And as for their technical quality, WoW is the only Blizzard game I've ever had crash on me, and I've played them all.

BRING.  IT.  ON.  I don't care if they have to delay WotLK and Starcraft 2 for this, I want Diablo III as soon as possible.  Kill a zillion monsters, take their stuff, and do it all over battle.net.  Awwwww yeah.


----------



## Kaodi (Jul 2, 2008)

I have a feeling that Tyriel may be a villain in Diablo III... Though I could be wrong, since there are supposed to be Seven Lords of Hell. But, you know, he did destroy the corrupted World Stone, and his face is always covered, and he features rather, prominently, on the Diablo III website front page.


----------



## Pyrex (Jul 2, 2008)

*knows he should resist, but is getting a powerful itch to go find his discs and reinstall D2 when he gets home*

I wonder if there's anything Diablo-esque out on the Wii...


----------



## EricNoah (Jul 2, 2008)

Pyrex said:


> *knows he should resist, but is getting a powerful itch to go find his discs and reinstall D2 when he gets home*




I had the exact same urge.  Fortunately (?) it appears one of my install disks is damaged, so no D2 for me.


----------



## Felon (Jul 3, 2008)

Gladius Legis said:


> Can ANYBODY tell me what the appeal is supposed to be behind the Diablo series? Because I just don't see it.
> 
> It's mindless point and click ad nauseam.



My recollections of Diablo is thus: Made up a warrior, killed one glowing red skeleton after another, eventually encountered a boss called "The Butcher", couldn't beat him as he did way too much damage with his meat cleaver. Asked friend who loaned me the game how he did it, he explained the trick was to play a ranged attacker and kite The Butcher between barriers of hanging chains that The Butcher wasn't smart enough to move around. Was pretty much done with the game after that. Very shallow and repetitive IMO.



EricNoah said:


> Looks good.  This and Fallout 3 are the only things on my gaming radar at the moment now...



I almost wish I had that problem. Civ Rev, Fable 2, Far Cry 2, Mercenaries 2, Saints Row 2, Too Human, Spore, and Fallout 3 all dominate my gaming radar. Too much money!


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Jul 3, 2008)

Reveille said:


> I never played the second, but I have played the first countless times until it started giving me nightmares. I haven't played it since.




That's the sign you've been playing something too often.

I distinctly remember hacking through D2 skeletons in my dreams for a week, though I can't really count that as a nightmare.  I mean, heck, they were only skeletons.

Brad (who also had Dynasty Warriors-esque life bars start popping up in his dreams...)


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jul 3, 2008)

cignus_pfaccari said:


> That's the sign you've been playing something too often.
> 
> I distinctly remember hacking through D2 skeletons in my dreams for a week, though I can't really count that as a nightmare.  I mean, heck, they were only skeletons.
> 
> Brad (who also had Dynasty Warriors-esque life bars start popping up in his dreams...)



 How about seeing a plant pushing its way out of the soil, and immediately thinking 'Nirnroot!' 

The Auld Grump, yes, I'm afraid that I really did think that - not that I thought that it was, but that upon seeing it it made me think 'Nirnroot!' because I had been watching for the silly things for over a week in the game....


----------



## Rackhir (Jul 3, 2008)

EricNoah said:


> I had the exact same urge.  Fortunately (?) it appears one of my install disks is damaged, so no D2 for me.





Actually, they have or are going to have a new service on their servers where all you need is the registration code and you can download the software from there and play without needing the disks. They're going to be doing this for all their older games IIRC.

Besides it could be worse. I literally had my D2:LoD disk explode in my computer's CD-rom drive. That was a mess picking out the pieces.


----------



## Krug (Jul 4, 2008)

Rackhir said:


> Besides it could be worse. I literally had my D2:LoD disk explode in my computer's CD-rom drive. That was a mess picking out the pieces.




Holy cow it takes destruction seriously!


----------



## Flash_Plasma (Jul 4, 2008)

Blizzard is going to own me for years. First starcraft 2, now D3.

I can't wait to get my hands on a witch doctor


----------



## Ranger REG (Jul 5, 2008)

I hope _Diablo 3_ is like the previous _Diablo_ ... that is, free-2-play online.

Then again, it would be foolish of Blizzard to pass up such an opportunity for increased revenue and profit.


----------



## Kaodi (Jul 5, 2008)

I have a feeling that if they tried to charge for playing the game online, since it is not a MMORPG... the community support for Diablo III would evaporate.


----------



## Rackhir (Jul 5, 2008)

Ranger REG said:


> I hope _Diablo 3_ is like the previous _Diablo_ ... that is, free-2-play online.
> 
> Then again, it would be foolish of Blizzard to pass up such an opportunity for increased revenue and profit.




I seriously doubt they're going to charge for online play with either Diablo III or Starcraft II. With the money they're raking in from WoW, they don't need to and while the online play is one of the best aspects of the older games, it's not the sort of thing people will pay for. Since it doesn't offer anything new or the kind of expansive world that most MMORGs offer.


----------



## timbuktu (Jul 5, 2008)

Wait..what? I heard that Diablo 3 was probably close to being announced but I totally missed this.

Cool, I just hope Blizzard keeps to its heritage and makes the game so it will run on aging machines. My PC now that Im an old married man is looong overdue for an upgrade.

But its good to see D3 coming


----------



## drothgery (Jul 5, 2008)

EricNoah said:


> I had the exact same urge.  Fortunately (?) it appears one of my install disks is damaged, so no D2 for me.




Did, then remembered why I uninstalled it the first time I tried. No widescreen support...


----------



## Thanee (Jul 5, 2008)

timbuktu said:


> I just hope Blizzard keeps to its heritage and makes the game so it will run on aging machines.




Pretty sure they will.

It has always been part of Blizzard policy to make games that run on an average computer, and also a strong selling point for them.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Roland55 (Jul 5, 2008)

It's really not 'my thing,' but my son (20) loved D1 and D2 and has already gathered the funds for D3.

Given his powerful internet/computer gaming addiction and his incredibly high level of sophistication, that says a lot.


----------



## Flash_Plasma (Jul 6, 2008)

The only thing that could make D3 better than the previews is an unarmed attacking class (read: MONK)


----------



## Cat Moon (Jul 7, 2008)

Thanee said:


> Hopefully they manage to bring back the fun from D1... D2 was nice, but somehow missing something...
> 
> Bye
> Thanee




Looks like I'm not the only one that thought so.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jul 7, 2008)

Rackhir said:


> I seriously doubt they're going to charge for online play with either Diablo III or Starcraft II. With the money they're raking in from WoW, they don't need to and while the online play is one of the best aspects of the older games, it's not the sort of thing people will pay for. Since it doesn't offer anything new or the kind of expansive world that most MMORGs offer.



For that I thank the _wonderfully_ rich chronically-paying customers of _WoW_ for keeping _Diablo_ online play-4-FREE franchise alive.


----------



## Baumi (Jul 7, 2008)

This game includes a f***ing WALL OF ZOMBIES! I have never been sold to any game more than this!


----------



## Felon (Jul 7, 2008)

Flash_Plasma said:


> The only thing that could make D3 better than the previews is an unarmed attacking class (read: MONK)





Baumi said:


> This game includes a f***ing WALL OF ZOMBIES! I have never been sold to any game more than this!



???
Do you guys get a kick out of sitting around feeding junk email into a paper shredder for hours on end?  

This thread made me curious enough to follow the link to the preview. I saw a little blob (which the commentator explained was a barbarian with two axes) endlessly hacking through hundreds of smaller blue blobs that don't actually seem capable of mounting an offense, but rather prefer just to hurl themselves into the spinning blades and dying a lemming-like death without affecting the player in the least. That was the first minute or so of the demo. Looks about as cool as playing "Virtual Wood Chipper" or "Lawn Mower: The Game". 

The commentator keeps talking about how all the enemies pose different types of threats, but as he does so the barbarian just rips through everything without breaking stride. Maybe I'm missing something, but it looks less like a battle and more like slaughter.

Actually, it's very much like one of those XBox Live Arcade games that can be downloaded for $10 and inevitably get bad reviews for their so-called repetitive gameplay.


----------



## Eridanis (Jul 7, 2008)

drothgery said:


> Did, then remembered why I uninstalled it the first time I tried. No widescreen support...




Have you given this widescreen-support mod a try?

http://www.gibberlings3.net/widescreen/


----------



## Kaodi (Jul 7, 2008)

Some of the contention between people who liked D1 more than D2 reminds me of a qualm I have between Dungeon Siege and its expansions/sequels (I have yet to play Broken World, though from what I hear I am not missing much). Back to the point, I kind of missed the more traditinal looking environments of the original Dungeon Siege, because the art style after that could perhaps use that old 3e buzz word, dungeonpunk. Not that I dislike the art style of the later games, but I find myself curiously drawn to playing through the 1st game for the old art, and the more traditionally looking weapons and armour. 

Sequels in all art mediums are a tricky business, that is for sure.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Jul 8, 2008)

Felon said:


> ???
> Do you guys get a kick out of sitting around feeding junk email into a paper shredder for hours on end?




It's surprisingly entertaining.



> The commentator keeps talking about how all the enemies pose different types of threats, but as he does so the barbarian just rips through everything without breaking stride. Maybe I'm missing something, but it looks less like a battle and more like slaughter.




Yes, yes it is.

But there are two aspects you're missing.

First, there are a (BLEEP)load of enemies to kill.  Killing enemies is fun, but often the numbers are an obstacle in and of themselves.  Also, they cooperate.

As an example, consider the skeletons with the shields.  If the barbarian player didn't know to use the thunderclap to knock away the shields, he'd be slowed down, and meat for the archers.

Second, there are many different sorts of enemies to fight, which have different abilities and threats.  From D2 act 3, I *still* shudder at the pygmies, which start out with knives and then graduate to blowguns, sometimes seeming to volley fire.  Or in D2X's Act 5, the orcs that would blow themselves up next to you, those were nasty.

The third aspect, which I didn't mention, is the ambiance.  Much of the game is genuinely creepy, especially as you go further and further in.



> Actually, it's very much like one of those XBox Live Arcade games that can be downloaded for $10 and inevitably get bad reviews for their so-called repetitive gameplay.




It does get a bit repetitive.  However, one of the nicer things about D2 was that the warp points (whatever they're called, I forget) were very good play session goals.  You could go and get one of those, and then go back to town or go forward to the next one.

Brad


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Jul 8, 2008)

Pyrex said:
			
		

> *knows he should resist, but is getting a powerful itch to go find his discs and reinstall D2 when he gets home*





EricNoah said:


> I had the exact same urge. Fortunately (?) it appears one of my install disks is damaged, so no D2 for me.



Had the exact same urge.  All my discs were scratched up (memo to self - stop loaning your games to the boys, that's what an allowance is for) and had to hit "retry" after error messages a dozen times but it worked.  Been playing for a week and might even get past Act II which I never did before...


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jul 8, 2008)

Felon said:


> ???
> The commentator keeps talking about how all the enemies pose different types of threats, but as he does so the barbarian just rips through everything without breaking stride. Maybe I'm missing something, but it looks less like a battle and more like slaughter.




Well:
1) Gameplay difficulty is not represented well in demo-reels. If the character keeps dying, it's hard to showcase the product. (He also mentions how they tweaked the chest for loot and such.)
2) If you remove the plot from this game, then you may as well remove it from all the games. Oblivion really is just wandering around killing things...


----------



## Mercule (Jul 9, 2008)

cignus_pfaccari said:


> From D2 act 3, I *still* shudder at the pygmies, which start out with knives and then graduate to blowguns, sometimes seeming to volley fire.



Aww, crap.  Now I'm gonna have bad dreams.  Mainly 'cause I must now re-install the thing.


----------



## Dirigible (Jul 9, 2008)

> The commentator keeps talking about how all the enemies pose different types of threats, but as he does so the barbarian just rips through everything without breaking stride. Maybe I'm missing something, but it looks less like a battle and more like slaughter.




Perhaps, sir, you missed the part where he leaped into the midst of a horde of ghouls, knocking some of them off a narrow bridge and into the abyss.

I call the moment that happened 'Awesome O'Clock'. It is now the basis for AST - Awesome Standard Time. AST is regulated by the vibration of an atom of Awesomium, which is acquired by take a ghoul and cutting it in half, then cutting one piece in half, and repeating this until you're left with a single, indivisible chunk of pure Awesome.

Some people think that Awesome can be split into 'flavours' of 'Win', but that's just silly.


----------



## Olli (Jul 9, 2008)

Thanee said:


> In D1 you could do some absolutely ridiculous stuff... like kill Diablo in Hell at level 30 (solo, including getting there; I still have a screenshot from that, heh), which wasn't nearly as tough as what some guys did... a party of four warriors with ZERO magic (no spells, no magic items, nothing; just healing potions and white equipment) made it through Hell and defeated Diablo (this took *veeeeery* long). Stuff like that is completely impossible in D2.




well sorry to disagree, but it is entirely possible to go with a naked barbarian (one with no equipment) and beat the crap out of diablo. trust me, i have done it... (i still play d2, and believe me, its not much easier than d1).

that said, i hope they keep the gameplay simple and smooth, all what i want from a new diablo are new monsters,new dungeons and new LOOT


----------



## Amellia (Jul 15, 2008)

Olli said:


> well sorry to disagree, but it is entirely possible to go with a naked barbarian (one with no equipment) and beat the crap out of diablo. trust me, i have done it... (i still play d2, and believe me, its not much easier than d1).
> 
> that said, i hope they keep the gameplay simple and smooth, all what i want from a new diablo are new monsters,new dungeons and new LOOT






I was really psyched to see Diablo III announced... and then I saw the release date. September 2009? That means we're not getting it until summer of 2010, if not 2011. Curse it.


----------



## Thanee (Jul 16, 2008)

Olli said:


> well sorry to disagree, but it is entirely possible to go with a naked barbarian (one with no equipment) and beat the crap out of diablo. trust me, i have done it...




Nice. 

What I meant, though, would translate to having spent NO talent points. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Ranger REG (Jul 17, 2008)

Amellia said:


> I was really psyched to see Diablo III announced... and then I saw the release date. September 2009? That means we're not getting it until summer of 2010, if not 2011. Curse it.



By then, Intel and AMD will be shipping out Kilo-Core CPU.


----------



## drothgery (Jul 17, 2008)

Ranger REG said:


> By then, Intel and AMD will be shipping out Kilo-Core CPU.




I know you weren't being serious here, but there are a lot of important reasons why desktops and notebooks will not go beyond 4 cores for a long time. Quads are likely to last as mainstream desktops for a lot longer than duals do.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jul 17, 2008)

drothgery said:


> I know you weren't being serious here, but there are a lot of important reasons why desktops and notebooks will not go beyond 4 cores for a long time. Quads are likely to last as mainstream desktops for a lot longer than duals do.



That means I better invest in quads for my new desktop PC.

Hopefully next year, quad-core will be in laptops.


----------



## Nyeshet (Jul 18, 2008)

*Did the opening cinema remind anyone else of Midnight?*

Something about the background music, the scene of the falling meteor, and the general feel of neglect, things going wrong, and terrible odds all reminded me rather strongly of the Midnight campaign setting. 

I wonder if any of the developers of D3 ever played in that setting?


----------



## drothgery (Jul 18, 2008)

Ranger REG said:


> That means I better invest in quads for my new desktop PC.
> 
> Hopefully next year, quad-core will be in laptops.




Extreme edition parts late this year (i.e. only in those too expensive to buy and too big to carry around 'gaming notebooks'). Upper midrange parts late next year. Mainstream parts in 2010.

Desktop duals are going to have better price/performance than quads for most apps at least until late next year. Maybe longer; it depends how the dual-core Core 3s (or whatever Intel ends up calling Nehalem) look and how aggresive AMD is on Phenom pricing.


----------



## Rackhir (Jul 18, 2008)

drothgery said:


> Desktop duals are going to have better price/performance than quads for most apps at least until late next year. Maybe longer; it depends how the dual-core Core 3s (or whatever Intel ends up calling Nehalem) look and how aggresive AMD is on Phenom pricing.




Nehalem is what you really want to be waiting for. It and the associated chipsets are going to be introducing a number of features that Intel should have added years ago. The Front Side Bus, is going away to be replaced with a Hypertransport knockoff called Quick Path Interconnect. This gets you much higher bandwidth and lower latency, plus much better support for multiple processors. Then there's the integrated memory controller, which again will lower the latency for memory access and substantially increase the maximum throughput for memory access.


----------



## drothgery (Jul 19, 2008)

Rackhir said:


> Nehalem is what you really want to be waiting for.




Depends on how long you're willing to wait and how much you're willing to spend. If you want a laptop or a sub-$1800 desktop, you won't see Nehalem before the second half of 2009. I wouldn't sit on anything older than a Core 2 Duo / Athlon 64 X2 (and a 4800+ or better at that) that long.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jul 19, 2008)

drothgery said:


> Desktop duals are going to have better price/performance than quads for most apps at least until late next year. Maybe longer; it depends how the dual-core Core 3s (or whatever Intel ends up calling Nehalem) look and how aggresive AMD is on Phenom pricing.



My next desktop PC will most likely be AMD-based.


----------



## drothgery (Jul 19, 2008)

Ranger REG said:


> My next desktop PC will most likely be AMD-based.




Err... why? Intel has better price/performance pretty much across the entire desktop (except the extreme low-end) and laptop space right now (and the single and dual-socket server space), and this is likely to last for the forseeable future (which is to say from now to the end of 2009; beyond that you get into the very speculative portion of roadmaps).


----------



## Ranger REG (Jul 20, 2008)

drothgery said:


> Err... why?



AMD's cheaper.


----------



## drothgery (Jul 20, 2008)

Ranger REG said:


> AMD's cheaper.




Not for equivalent performance (or, actually, for anything above low-midrange, you can't actually get equivalent performance).


----------



## Ranger REG (Jul 21, 2008)

drothgery said:


> Not for equivalent performance (or, actually, for anything above low-midrange, you can't actually get equivalent performance).



So you believe AMD sucks?


----------



## drothgery (Jul 21, 2008)

Ranger REG said:


> So you believe AMD sucks?




No, they just don't have competitive CPUs outside of low-end desktops and multi-socket servers right now. Intel was in a similar situation a few years ago when the Athlon 64 (and especially the Athlon 64 X2) came out and started stomping all over Pentium 4 derivatives (the only place where Intel was clearly better was in notebook chips, where they used the Pentium M family rather than the Pentium 4 family), except that AMD couldn't come close to meeting all the CPU demand out there so Intel sold tons of desktop and server CPUs anyway (not enough manufacturing capacity, and building it up took too long).

I mean, if you're going to spend $100-$150 on a CPU, what makes sense to buy right now? From Intel, it's a Core 2 Duo E7200 for $130 (they have a few other things in the price range, but they're all worse). From AMD, it's either an Athlon 64 X2 6000+ for $115 (a 6400+ is $150, and 200 MHz is not worth $35 on the margins) or a Phenom X3 8450 for $125 (same deal, an 8650 is $145). The E7200 is going to win pretty much every benchmark against either (even the highly multithreaded ones vs. the tri-core, because it's a better architecture). 

For $150-$200 on the Intel side, you're clearly looking at an Core 2 Duo E8400 for $180 (a Core 2 Quad Q6600 for $185 is sort of interesting, but not worth giving up 600 MHz and the advantages of Intel's 45nm chips over their 65nm versions). And the E8400 is faster than any dual-core or tri-core AMD makes. Except where multi-threading helps a lot, it's faster than any quad-core AMD makes -- and there the Q6600 is almost always better. And beyond that you're comparing Q9xxx quads with the top-end Phenoms, and that just doesn't look good for AMD.

Now, if you're spending under $100, then AMD's CPUs look pretty good (unless you're one of those crazy overclockers; Intel's current low-end chips overclock quite well), though the Pentium and Celeron dual-cores aren't bad at all (and the E5xxx Pentiums coming in the next few months may pretty much end the budget case for AMD).


----------



## Logos7 (Aug 1, 2008)

just for the record

My recollections of Diablo is thus: Made up a warrior, killed one glowing red skeleton after another, eventually encountered a boss called "The Butcher", couldn't beat him as he did way too much damage with his meat cleaver. Asked friend who loaned me the game how he did it, he explained the trick was to play a ranged attacker and kite The Butcher between barriers of hanging chains that The Butcher wasn't smart enough to move around. Was pretty much done with the game after that. Very shallow and repetitive IMO.

repeat after me, the game did not fail me, I failed the game. 

some of my favorite moments of diablo I is going toe to toe with the butcher while firewalling him from scrolls and hopping he dropped first. 

that or once looking for him, and finding the stone golem that i summoned from scroll had inadvertantly finished him off before I got their

Lots of great stuff in Diablo I but diablo II really ruined it for me (RUN DAMMIT RUN) 

Right now im working to set my clocks to awesome standard time

also if intel is so supperior to amd at anything above the high end, why is amd still making those chips... Now i can either believe that many the people who buy higher end amd chips are idiots or that you are and i gotta say the odds aint looking good for u


----------



## drothgery (Aug 1, 2008)

Logos7 said:


> also if intel is so supperior to amd at anything above the high end, why is amd still making those chips... Now i can either believe that many the people who buy higher end amd chips are idiots or that you are and i gotta say the odds aint looking good for u




AMD doesn't have any high-end desktop chips right now. Their top-of-the-line desktop chips are priced the same as Intel's upper mid-range for a reason (every quad-core Phenom is chepaer than every Q9xxx , and every tri-core Phenom is cheaper than an E8500).

But there are lots of reasons why limitted quantities of the top-end AMD parts sell. Fanboys. Upgrades of existing systems. People who want the cheapest quad-core system they can get (even if spending just a little more for Intel would get better performance). People buying systems at retail who don't look at CPUs closely, or remember when their geek friend told them three years ago that AMD was better. On the other hand, unless you're getting an amazing deal, there's no reason you should be one of those people. 

When AMD clearly had the better desktop CPUs and Intel was reduced to competing on price, a lot of people didn't have much choice but to buy Intel because AMD simply didn't have the capacity to make anywhere near enough CPUs for everybody. Intel, on the other hand, does.


----------



## Elephant (Aug 2, 2008)

drothgery said:


> AMD doesn't have any high-end desktop chips right now. Their top-of-the-line desktop chips are priced the same as Intel's upper mid-range for a reason (every quad-core Phenom is chepaer than every Q9xxx , and every tri-core Phenom is cheaper than an E8500).
> 
> But there are lots of reasons why limitted quantities of the top-end AMD parts sell. Fanboys. Upgrades of existing systems. People who want the cheapest quad-core system they can get (even if spending just a little more for Intel would get better performance).




I'm not so sure you can draw any valid conclusions about relative performance between chip offerings when the performance tests are gimmicked...


----------



## Aus_Snow (Aug 2, 2008)

Elephant said:


> I'm not so sure you can draw any valid conclusions about relative performance between chip offerings when the performance tests are gimmicked...



Benchmarks, always something to be wary of. 

However, across a wide range of real-world applications and games as well, Intel has been leading for a while now. Too long, IMO (i.e., I don't like near-monopolies.)

I truly wish it were otherwise. AMD had a similar level of dominance, performance-wise, only a short time ago. But, as _drothgery_ also mentioned, not the resources to fully push that lead.


----------



## drothgery (Aug 2, 2008)

Elephant said:


> I'm not so sure you can draw any valid conclusions about relative performance between chip offerings when the performance tests are gimmicked...




Most comprehensive CPU reviews use synthetic benchmarks, but they also use results from real software. Where it doesn't really matter if Valve or Blizzard or Microsoft or the Mozilla group or Adobe have built in EvilStuffThatFavorsIntel, because that's still the software that you're actually using.


----------



## Elephant (Aug 3, 2008)

drothgery said:


> Most comprehensive CPU reviews use synthetic benchmarks, but they also use results from real software. Where it doesn't really matter if Valve or Blizzard or Microsoft or the Mozilla group or Adobe have built in EvilStuffThatFavorsIntel, because that's still the software that you're actually using.




Do the "real software" benchmarks in "most" reviews show such a commanding lead in both performance and price/performance ratio?  For that matter, would you mind posting a couple of links to the comprehensive CPU reviews you've been reading lately?  I'm not trying to be snarky or start a fight here, but I just don't see any facts in your post.

Granted, I'm not in a position to generalize about CPU reviews - I haven't been researching processor performance lately - but if I were, I'd be throwing out any review that included PCMark.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Aug 3, 2008)

Elephant said:


> Do the "real software" benchmarks in "most" reviews show such a commanding lead in both performance and price/performance ratio?  For that matter, would you mind posting a couple of links to the comprehensive CPU reviews you've been reading lately?  I'm not trying to be snarky or start a fight here, but I just don't see any facts in your post.
> 
> Granted, I'm not in a position to generalize about CPU reviews - I haven't been researching processor performance lately - but if I were, I'd be throwing out any review that included PCMark.



See here. Particularly pages 7 through 12 will be of interest to you, in this context. Depressing, but well, kinda interesting I guess. 

The 6400+ is AMD's top of the line dual core desktop processor. The Intel e8400 is within $5 of precisely the same price, around here. Compare, and weep. Everything from speed to power consumption to heat to overclocking capacity. . .

You can find similarly brutal comparisons, but with Phenoms and Core 2 Quads. Especially the good ol' Q6600. Ouch.


----------



## Enforcer (Aug 3, 2008)

So what do others speculate for the other classes? I kinda want to see the Druid, as that was always my favorite D2 class. The assassin was neat too.


----------



## drothgery (Aug 3, 2008)

Enforcer said:


> So what do others speculate for the other classes? I kinda want to see the Druid, as that was always my favorite D2 class. The assassin was neat too.




The Diablo series seems to prefer to avoid pure retreads (or at least it did from 1 to 2), but does keep some ideas around, so I'd guess...

- some variant on the blaster mage (ala Wizard and Sorceress)
- some variant on a heavy-armored warrior (ala Warrior or Paladin)
- someone who's primarily a ranged combatant (ala Rogue or Amazon)


----------



## valdikow (Jan 16, 2014)

With the original version I can say that, unfortunately, the game disappointed me


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Jan 16, 2014)

Holy thread necro, Batman!


----------



## Janx (Jan 16, 2014)

Oddly enough, this thread died before the game was actually released.  Didn't it come out like just last year?


In any event, the console version was rated better than the PC version.  Apparently the controls were better, and the PC had some stupid pay-to-play market place thing going on.  I hear rumors they are yanking that on the PC.

I liked the 360 version, but I find it a bit repetitive once you beat the game, it's just go back and do it again to get better gear.  I'm back to playing Minecraft 360


----------



## Umbran (Jan 16, 2014)

Janx said:


> Apparently the controls were better, and the PC had some stupid pay-to-play market place thing going on.  I hear rumors they are yanking that on the PC.




No, you didn't need to pay to play.  If you found interesting gear in game, you could take it over to the auction house to sell it, but that was by no means required to play the game.  I had no problem playing with only what the monsters dropped, and the in-game shops sold.


----------



## Janx (Jan 16, 2014)

Umbran said:


> No, you didn't need to pay to play.  If you found interesting gear in game, you could take it over to the auction house to sell it, but that was by no means required to play the game.  I had no problem playing with only what the monsters dropped, and the in-game shops sold.




thanks for the clarification.  

And welcome to the section of the  thread about the Actual game instead of speculation...


----------



## Jhaelen (Jan 17, 2014)

Umbran said:


> No, you didn't need to pay to play.  If you found interesting gear in game, you could take it over to the auction house to sell it, but that was by no means required to play the game.  I had no problem playing with only what the monsters dropped, and the in-game shops sold.



Well, to qualify that a bit, it depends on how early you started with Inferno difficulty. In the beginning it was incredibly hard. It took a few patches before it was beatable by players using self-found gear.

I had no trouble getting to the beginning of Inferno very quickly, since I played all five character classes in parallel, one act at a time. This allowed me to distribute items and gems around, so I didn't have to rely on the Auction House. But I still had to temporarily give up at the end of Act 2 and wait for the next patch to reduce difficulty.

The problem is that Diablo is a very gear-dependent game, and drop rates for good items in the pc version simply suck. They fixed this with the console version and shortly before the expansion hits the market, a new patch will also fix it for the pc. I'm looking forward to play it again after pausing for almost a year.


----------



## PigKnight (Jan 18, 2014)

Janx said:


> Oddly enough, this thread died before the game was actually released.  Didn't it come out like just last year?
> 
> 
> In any event, the console version was rated better than the PC version.  Apparently the controls were better, and the PC had some stupid pay-to-play market place thing going on.  I hear rumors they are yanking that on the PC.
> ...



It had a real money auction house. So instead of people buying items from sketchy 3rd parties, they'd buy them from a safe place and Blizz gets a cut of the money. 

It didn't work out that well because rich kids would buy items at ridiculous prices so the RMAH economy went bad real quick.


----------



## Alarian (Jan 19, 2014)

Umbran said:


> No, you didn't need to pay to play.  If you found interesting gear in game, you could take it over to the auction house to sell it, but that was by no means required to play the game.  I had no problem playing with only what the monsters dropped, and the in-game shops sold.




I strongly disagree with this.  I played for about 200 hours before finally giving up in frustration.  On my first characters play though, I vowed never to use either of the Auction halls.   It was an exercise in frustration.  The first dozen or so levels were fine and then it started getting more and more difficult.  By the time I was in my 40's I still had item level 8-14 items on my character and nothing above level 25.  Everything was slow and difficult.  I finally decided I was either going to have to use the AH or quit the game in frustration.  I started buying stuff off the Gold AH "just the one time to get me back up to par" and started playing again and having fun.  10 levels or so later and I was back in the same boat.  I had gotten perhaps 1 or two upgrades other than that I still was wearing all the same equipment I had bought on the AH 10-12 levels earlier.  After that, I waved the white flag and just started buying off the AH.

The Game is (or at least was, I haven't played in a year at least) designed pretty much requiring you to use the AH to continue to level up.  They even managed to get a little cash off me in the Real Money Auction Hall before I came to my senses and quit the game.  In my opinion the game was designed from the start to work like the "free to play" games.  Where sure you can play for free, but if you want to not grind endlessly just stop by our trusty AH and buy a few goodies to make the game even better.  

For me at least, it took away the whole reason I played.  Cool loot drops.  I got no enjoyment at all grinding for gold and buying what I wanted off the AH.


----------



## PigKnight (Jan 19, 2014)

Alarian said:


> I strongly disagree with this.  I played for about 200 hours before finally giving up in frustration.  On my first characters play though, I vowed never to use either of the Auction halls.   It was an exercise in frustration.  The first dozen or so levels were fine and then it started getting more and more difficult.  By the time I was in my 40's I still had item level 8-14 items on my character and nothing above level 25.  Everything was slow and difficult.  I finally decided I was either going to have to use the AH or quit the game in frustration.  I started buying stuff off the Gold AH "just the one time to get me back up to par" and started playing again and having fun.  10 levels or so later and I was back in the same boat.  I had gotten perhaps 1 or two upgrades other than that I still was wearing all the same equipment I had bought on the AH 10-12 levels earlier.  After that, I waved the white flag and just started buying off the AH.
> 
> The Game is (or at least was, I haven't played in a year at least) designed pretty much requiring you to use the AH to continue to level up.  They even managed to get a little cash off me in the Real Money Auction Hall before I came to my senses and quit the game.  In my opinion the game was designed from the start to work like the "free to play" games.  Where sure you can play for free, but if you want to not grind endlessly just stop by our trusty AH and buy a few goodies to make the game even better.
> 
> For me at least, it took away the whole reason I played.  Cool loot drops.  I got no enjoyment at all grinding for gold and buying what I wanted off the AH.



If you were having problems in your 40s it was likely a build issue. And you only really need to upgrade weapons, and a good +dmg, +primary stat, +life on hit/life drain weapon will carry you for a long time.


----------

