Diablo III is Running on Consoles at Blizzard

[RJ 17]

Snip

The complaint about fluff missions is perfectly valid when you look at the core issue of mmy complaint. Why not cut out all the fluff and, I don't know, make it so that you can play the Terran AND Zerg campaign in the same game? Cut out the fluff that's going to be in the Zerg game and *gasp* you might just have enough room to fit the Protoss campaign in there too! All of a sudden we're back to a single streamlined game that they could make into a multi-discer if necessary and everyone gets the sequel they've been waiting over a decade for all in one nice, neat package.

That's why there's reason to complain about the fluff. If the biggest argument for splitting the game is "Well there's just so much we want to do with it!" but a lot of that is completely unnecessary...then why have it in there in the first place? Again, keeping the unnecessary stuff in the game really makes it seem like they were TRYING to fill up the space. That they were TRYING to make the game as big as the first so that they could justify breaking the sequel into three parts. Which leads us back to my hypothesis about them just wanting to suck as much money as they could out of a sequel that people have been waiting over a decade for.

 

[Genixma]

Sounds kinda fun. It'll be interesting to see how we work the Hot Key panels but still. Fun.

 

[Eric the Orange]

Yes, it could. I don't know why this is even remotely a question, and I don't know who could be even remotely surprised by this. It was clear since the very first hints from Blizzard's side and seeing how they developed D3.

Spoiler

Fuck Blizzard.

hmmmm, yess, yessssss, feed me your rage. Hts ts ts ts ts ts ts ts ts.

 

[Fluffythepoo]

[spoiler ="snip"]

Its a joke youd have to have wasted years on diablo forums to appreciate, but its funny, i assure you.
And the case for 6 was goddamn balancing issues. Everyone knows what balancing issues are and it doesnt need elaboration.

Right, so you're just parroting what someone who I think works for a company that's completely full of shit said, you can't even paraphrase what they said, and you expect me to just go with it? No.

"Balance issues" is a pretty vapid and meaningless fucking term on its own. It says nothing to me, and it's not a point on its own by any stretch of the imagination.

Pots demean and/or reduce action. Diablo 3 would be a pretty fantastic of example of this: healing actually takes a degree of skill and alot more action than hitting the heal button (they still give you an o shit button, but severely limit its use). Torchlight 2 copied the diablo 2 potion chugging system and what happened? People just chug pots and ignore the action because fuck it i have pots. Pots are boring, add nothing to the game, and an incredibly lazy way for a developer to balance its combat system.

What do you mean by ignore action, exactly? If anything, potions let the player be engaged in combat more because they don't need to wait for that bloody health orb to drop. The only real difference there is that health orbs are less reliable and more luck based.

And there we go again with the "they add nothing to the game" shtick. Did you not read the article I wrote? What PoE has is kilometers deeper and allows for incredibly varied approaches as opposed to D3's pick up shit from the ground that will maybe drop after you kill an enemy. Even the idea that you must kill enemies for the flasks to refill does the exact same thing as health globes in terms of the approach to healing, except it gives players more choice.

You played diablo 2 and know what im talking about regarding inventory, it doesnt need an explanation.

No, I seriously don't know what you're talking about. You compared two things you didn't bother describing, and I have no clue as to what they are.

Im assuming the predecessor was diablo2. Cause ive played diablo2 with a gamepad, it was ridiculously console friendly (i might even go so far as to say i prefer diablo 2 with a gamepad).. nobody said diablo 2 was made for consoles despite the fact that it -like every arpg ever made- would have run beautifully on them.

Diablo 2 is also archaic as all hell with only 2 active skills at any given time and other such relics of the past. When I say Diablo 3 should have built upon it, I don't think you understand what I meant with this derailment into "b-but it works well on consoles too!". It's something I disagree with too, to some extent, but that's irrelevant.

[to the bolded part] Mkay. Do you want me to stop replying?

[/spoiler]

Jay Wilson:

Spoiler: more jay wilson

 

[RJ 17]

The amount of content they gave for the release is well worth the cost, while it may not wrap up the entire storyline it gives plenty to do in the meantime. If you honestly think they're just adding fluff so they can charge more, you have yourself fooled.

Actually I'm saying they were adding fluff to pad out the game, thus making it obstensibly contain as much content as the original. Remove the fluff, the padding, all the irrelevent crap and you're left with a game that has less content than the original.

This is what I meant when I said it seems as though they were trying to stretch the games out. All that extra stuff is just filler so they could justify saying "Well this game has as much content as the original, so we need to break it into three games." How much of that "just as much content" is unnecessary? According to a lot of people I've spoken with (a number of them in this very thread), quite a bit. Thus my hypothesis remains feasible despite the fact that I haven't even played the game: a number of people that HAVE played the game validate my opinions on the matter by agreeing with them through their own experience with the game.

But the truth of the matter is I've hated Blizzard ever since they canceled SC Ghost because they couldn't be bothered to make the game themselves and decided that they didn't like the game that was made by the company they outsourced the project to. Next came my disillusionment with WoW. SC II being split into three games was the last nail in the coffin. In my book, when it comes to greed, Blizzard will always be worse than even EA.

 

[Evil Smurf]

I just don't like how it needs to be online to play, when it is a single player game!

 

[Fluffythepoo]

Spoiler: blah

snip

Is there a point you're trying to make?

Seeing how you admit to have never played the game before you have quite an opinion. Your hypothesis is completely unfouncded and on second-hand information. I'm sure there are people who feel the same as you, but you haven't played it and seem annoyed that Blizz didn't simply release all three campaigns. The amount of content they gave for the release is well worth the cost, while it may not wrap up the entire storyline it gives plenty to do in the meantime. Given that this is the day of DLC and locked content, I welcome everything they put in Wings of Liberty; meanwhile I'm still miffed about not getting to play the Protoss campaign. If you honestly think they're just adding fluff so they can charge more, you have yourself fooled.

First off, you're wrong about the completely unfounded thing. As long as the guy's opinion is based on facts, it doesn't matter that the facts were presented to him by someone else.

Second, I think you might be missing a point here. The time for this "you just want three campaigns" nonsense is about two and a half years past. We're not talking about the kneejerk reaction (which I disagree with to a great extent, by the way) people had when they first heard WoL will only have one campaign. We've already seen the game and we can hold Blizzard to their bullshit.

The reason they said they wanted to split the game into three parts is because they want to tell a huge story. They didn't. The quality of the storytelling itself aside[footnote]Because "we want to tell a huge story" sounds doubly dubious when the story they have is shit.[/footnote], half of the missions in the game were even remotely relevant, and most of those barely progressed the story at all. When you have Blizzard saying "the story is why we did this" and then barely anything happens in it, that's complete and utter bullshit. And the statement that they're just adding fluff so they can charge more becomes true by default. They give bullshit reasons to create extra games, therefore the actual reasons do not sound as good for PR (e.g. making more money off your asses).

Now, I'm not saying you have to feel like you didn't get your money's worth out of the game. I got tired of the gimmicky missions about 15 in, but I can definitely see the appeal. I'm not even saying you have to hate the storyline; some people - you included, I imagine - may not give much of a crap about that. However, it's seriously annoying to see people defending Blizzard on what is essentially a complete crock of shit. If you like it - or even love it - good, but don't try to portray bullshit as anything more than it is.

Point is: this has become silly, and its time for diablo memes

Spoiler: CLICK FOR FUNNY

and one i made myself

 

[VeneratedWulfen93]

Going for the consoles. A very cheap grab by Blizzard They're getting desperate. Maybe they hop that console gamers will have lower standards and not mind their grindfest. That or they're realizing that alienating a significant chunk of their market off the bat was a bad idea and are trying to make up for it.

Or perhaps since a considerable chunk of the PC playerbase has gotten bored and moved on to other games they can tap the console game market hping that the console gamers haven't heard of any of the problems and annoyances of the game.

Honestly though, I hope blizzard learns from their mistakes. They need to make *GAMES* Not manufacture Revenue Streams.
I played D1.. and D2:LOD I've been a fan of the series for a while now but that Always on Requirement...kinda a game breaker. COme on, D2 was always a game I played when I was tired of online. And while you can play solo... net connection can be a little sketchy.

If they keep losing player base though, they may have to kill that requiremen, but we all know why. THe RMAH. See they know if left offline people would simple find ways to hack items into their inventory and ba, no need for RMAH.

I love Diablo and I'm mainly a console gamer. I've heard the bad things about Diablo 3 but will at least try it myself.
I can also tell you that being a console gamer doesn't instantly mean I have 'low' standards.

 

[Carnagath]

I agree that SC2's story was rubbish (though not as bad as D3's) and many of its campaign missions were so gimmicky that I actually don't know a single person who has replayed it after getting the achievements (the most crushing disappointment for me was the final mission... you do not make the final mission of an "epic" campaign a tower defense, look at "Omega", Brood War's final mission, THIS is how you do it). However, I don't think their main intention of splitting the game in 3 parts was to sell it 3 times, I believe the main reason is they want a constant multi-year presence so they can remain relevant, tweak the game and "win e-sports", which is where the REAL money comes from. Of course, in the meanwhile they got crushed by Riot. So now the whole "3 games" thing feels a bit...awkward.