Diablo 3 Review

[Legion]

I'd probably give it a shot, but no way in hell am I buying a single player game that requires constant net connection, especially as my net has been somewhat unstable recently (idiotic phone companies need to sort that crap out).

 

[kouriichi]

Honestly, i like it. While i was really against it, i end up getting my copy free, from someone i couldnt turn down.

The thing about Diablo 3, is that its a terrible Diablo game. Other then the lore and grimdarkness, its got nearly nothing diablo to it other then the aesthetics.

But in all truth, its possibly one of the best Hack and Slash games ive ever played(and ive played A LOT!). If they had named it "L00t Wh0r3: Qu35t 4 L00T", and completely ignored the Diablo Brand, people probably wouldnt have reacted as strongly.

What im trying to say is, its a great game, but a terrible Diablo. I can see it being worth 60$. While it is a bit short (10 hours if you dont feel like exploring every nook full of monsters), its got a lot of replay-ability. Smacking something so hard with an axe that its meat literally EXPLODES off its bones really doesnt get old. But thats just me.

 

[Crazy Zaul]

I've pretty much given up on this game now, after 2 failed attempts to buy it. All the shops had no stock and all the online retailers had no stock except Asda which for some reason just wouldn't accept the transaction. Buying it straight from Blizz is a total rip off at £45 and now that Amazon and Play have it back in stock again the price has gone up to £60.

Might try Torchlight 2 though. I was gonna try the 1st one but then I saw that it only had 3 boring classes. The new ones look better.

 

[Lord_Gremlin]

Well, always online DRM is a dealbreaker. I'll pass on Diablo 3. Maybe if it will come to PS3, where it will be naturally playable offline, then maybe.

 

[Viruzzo]

As of now, the only real complaint I have it's the lag spikes: in many occasions (especially with my DH) they spell death; not that frequent, but VERY annoying.
The customization is MUCH better than D2, it's not as granular, but it's much more meaningful. The stats customization you loose from the character is more than offset by that from the gear.
Modding is incompatible with "real" multiplayer (as in competitive and fair).

I'd probably give it a shot, but no way in hell am I buying a single player game that requires constant net connection, especially as my net has been somewhat unstable recently (idiotic phone companies need to sort that crap out).

This (and many other like this) comment reveals that a LOT of people do not really understand that Diablo has never truly been a single player game: you could only get so much mileage from an hack'n'slash if you never did ladder, coop or PvP, and that's the reason why Torchlight was a nice game but completely different in scope with Diablo.

I've never understood the point of unlockable difficulty settings. Difficulty shouldn't be seen as a reward, it's just there to keep each type of player happy.
Also, I've never played Diablo anyway so I'll probably just wait for Torchlight 2.

No offese, but it's apparent that you don't understand how the difficulties work: they are leveled, meaning that to go into Nightmare you need to be 30-35+ and to go into Hell 45-50+ (if you hope to survive); more than unlockable, it's tiered difficulties.

 

[Fortesque]

Meh. I was.... unimpressed.

Gone are the days of my Curse Necromancer, who had a shit load of strength and health, ran around with a 2nd Sword and the best armor I could find... I miss a basic attack.

Oh and YAY!! Leoric again.... The Butcher again.... Tristram Cathedral again.... Its the bastard baby of Diablo 1 and 2 with a shitty coat of paint and dumbed WAAAYYYY down.

I want all of my moneys back..

 

[likalaruku]

Eh, "nothing new" seems kinda like the point or what you'd expect from reviving an old franchise. Change enough stuff & people complain that it's a sequel in title only.

 

[Soods]

I'm just curious, how long does it take to play through the game the first time on normal? Because I keep hearing it only took 6 or 7 hours to complete. Diablo 2 took at least twice that long to finish.

Took me around 13 hours, and I died once. But sure, if you want to rush through everything, you can probably do it in 6-8 hours.

 

[Nuclear_Suspect]

Personally I like Diablo 3 for the most part,the action is very fluid and the skill-runes help you mold your playstyle. And thank GOD all scrolls are gone, no more 'Scroll of Townportal' and 'Scroll of Identify'.

Obviously the DRM is made pretty poorly and a small lag can be fatal, also they removed the item-runes which is one of the things i REALLY liked about Diablo 2 (Also havent seen a single set item)

Overall I agree with the 80% score, its a good game but its safe, theres no big 'new thing'

CAPTCHA: labour of love

Yeah... dont think so

 

[Slycne]

I will never cease to be annoyed by people saying "Making it more accessable at the cost of better players".

Heres a handy hint. If youve NEVER played a game before. Pick easy. If you have. Pick medium or hard. There. No one is hurt by this. Its an OPTION. There could be an OPTION to make the game full of unicorns that do 1 damage and have 1 health. That wouldnt change anything. Since better players KNOW they are better they can challenge themselves on the harder difficulties. The easy levels are not made for you. Dont play them and complain. It would be like you visiting a childrens theme park and complaining the rides are too slow. Theres an adult theme park RIGHT OVER THERE! What are you doing here?!

Which is precisely my issue, you don't get a choice. Put a 1000 hours into Diablo 2 or never even touched an aRPG before and you both start on what's essentially easy mode.

 

[pirateninj4]

Booooooooooooring. No fucking way I'm dropping 60 bucks for this one. No way.

 

[Moffman]

Well, it's Diablo 3.
They did exactly what the fans wanted.
They didn't want drastic changes or innovation.
They wanted Diablo, and they got Diablo made better than ever before.
Just like with they did with StarCraft 2.

Yet are people gonna whinge about how terrible the game is, despite not really changing that much from their beloved prequel? You're damn right they are!
I'll admit, it's a little annoying that you have to level for you customisation (which is actually pretty huge when you do, since every move set and rune is viable in my opinion.) and that you can't ramp up the difficulty at first. To be honest though I'm just really enjoying the story on my first play through, they really delivered on that, it's the usual blizzard very well told yet pretty cheesy storyline but works a lot for me.

 

[Pandabearparade]

I once accused the Escapist of shilling, handing out great reviews to companies that advertise on their site. I was wrong.

Honestly, I would give the game a 10/10, but it's nice to know that simply having adverts plastered all over the site doesn't guarantee a perfect score (even though I think that in this case it merits one)

 

[Rblade]

like people said, the heat they are taking for not changing alot would have paled in comparison to the shitstorm if it "Wasn't Diablo anymore"

If you liked Diablo 2 you'll probably like this and I think thats fine. If they think of releasing something new in the setting though I hope they use that opertunity to do something more drastic

 

[AmayaOnnaOtaku]

I am only in act 2. I am not rushing and enjoying exploring the level and the banter between my demon hunter and the templar follower. I am also engrossed in the story and the cinematics are beautiful.

 

[SAMURAJ]

ok this is a new one i fell asleep playing this, ah to boring for me !!!
waiting for Grim Dawn

 

[Excludos]

Of course, that might not be your cup of tea. But dismissing it completely because it always requires internet when you are always connected to the internet in the first place anyways, is, at best, random nerd stubbornness.

Nah, it is, at best, random fanboi stubbornness to defend this kind of DRM.

There is literally nothing about this that is good for the players. As the launch proved, it's bad, bad, bad. This nonsense is hurting the industry hard right now.

If you don't want to admit that, that's your choice, of course. If you like mediocrity, hey, whatever floats your boat.

Nothing at all, except for what I just said of course. You have to realise, always connected to diablo 3 isn't because they're afraid of piracy. Blizzard knows they will have to maintain their multiplayer servers for at least 10 years, probably more. The best way to go about that is to get somekind of income through the game itself. The answer was the RL Auction House. Its a brilliant idea, seeing as diablo 2 was filled with third party item sellers anyways, why not make it legal in the process? But how do you make sure people don't just simply hack the game and make their own insane lvl 999 weapons and armor? Simple, you make sure all the ifnromation about what items that drop is stored on the server, meaning you will be required to always be online.

For anyone who wants to play diablo 3 lategame, and maybe pvp, this is preferable to pure singleplayer.

edit: Also, this isn't hurting the industry. This is the way forward for the industry. What Ubisoft does with its "always online" for a singleplayer game that is stored completely on your computer anyways, making sure you're hurting your legit costumers and then blame poor sales on piracy, THATS hurting the industry. Not this. All blizzard does is ensure they are able to cover their costs on maintaining their servers for years to come, and probably updates to their game.

But like I said, if you don't want the game to be updated and taken care of in 10 years time, and you're only interested in playing through the singleplayer once for its story, then yes, I can see why you don't like it. But, as I said in my first post: dismissing it completely because it always requires internet when you are always connected to the internet in the first place anyways, is, at best, random nerd stubbornness.

 

[Excludos]

I will never cease to be annoyed by people saying "Making it more accessable at the cost of better players".

Heres a handy hint. If youve NEVER played a game before. Pick easy. If you have. Pick medium or hard. There. No one is hurt by this. Its an OPTION. There could be an OPTION to make the game full of unicorns that do 1 damage and have 1 health. That wouldnt change anything. Since better players KNOW they are better they can challenge themselves on the harder difficulties. The easy levels are not made for you. Dont play them and complain. It would be like you visiting a childrens theme park and complaining the rides are too slow. Theres an adult theme park RIGHT OVER THERE! What are you doing here?!

Which is precisely my issue, you don't get a choice. Put a 1000 hours into Diablo 2 or never even touched an aRPG before and you both start on what's essentially easy mode.

Still haven't tried Hardcore Nightmare mode I gather? Do that for a bit, then come back to me and complain about the game being easy. There are difficulity modes, they just aren't unlocked from the start. It was the exact same thing in diablo 2. Tbh I think diablo 3 is a bit more challenging than its predecessor.

 

[praus]

The game play of Diablo 3 doesn't feel bland or safe to me, it feels fun and interesting. I think people under estimate how difficult that sort of thing can be to achieve.

Think you could use some explanation there my friend. Pretty much that conversation is going "I have an opinion!" "I have one too!"

Yes but I get the impression that a lot of these opinions are based off nothing. They haven't played it, they're just talking out their ass. I thought it was a bit simplistic at first too. Then as I played it, I realized there was quite a bit of complexity, well hidden beneath the surface.

 

[Jadak]

Overall, still loving the game... But finding it a letdown on the same front as Starcraft 2, the story. As with Starcraft, it's well told and given a top grade presentation, but other than a few moments it's just bland and uninteresting. Simply watching the cinematics for Diablo 2's story is still better than the entire more involved story in 3.