Is Blizzard Developing Diablo "Sequels"?
- Thread starter John Funk
- Start date
To be honest, I'm not entirely sold on the idea of Starcraft 2's sales model either. It really depends what the prices on the individual components will be/the amount of content per component. I mean, if you're getting the same multiplayer with each component, what's selling the other two pieces is the campaigns... and I don't think I want to pay a extra $100 for all the stories, as good as they might be.John Funk said:
That being said, I'm not going to run around claiming that the sky is falling. I'm willing to wait (a key part of any process involving Blizzard's games
) to see what happens.EDIT: I still have yet to play Diablo I/II. I gotta get on that already...
You only have to look to their books to see what's planned (for avid fans), that's what prompted the original article http://www.incgamers.com/News/21229/blizzard-plans-more-diablo-games-beyond-diablo-iii). You can see in that all the book/comic plotlines that kinda give the game away, not just really to sequels but in what direction they may take or which characters might appear.
Anybody who played Diablo 2 should know, you KILL Diablo, Mephisto AND Baal, AND you crushed their soul stones so they could NEVER be brought backAmnestic said:
Okay well you still kill Baal and with no soul stone to go in, well i just can't see him coming back and yes the World stone being destroyed would be a basis for the third game BUT if he didn't do it the third game's world would be a lot worse offAmnestic said:
Look. I have a very close friend who works for Blizzard. While he is under the effect of an NDA that stops just short of forcing his mouth to be sewn shut, a few issues here I asked him about:Rathy said:
-Rathy is right. The 'Next-Gen MMO' that Blizz is posting job listings for is a brand-new IP, even if it will carry a bunch of nods towards current franchises. (This is actually verified by several other sources; including blue posts.)
-Diablo III is actually closer than you think. The issue here is that Activision has a much more rigid release structure; one that enhances earnings reports a bit more. (This is supported by various posts on gamer news sites.)
-There are no less than 3 projects that Blizzard is working on that have not had any kind of exposure whatsoever, because they don't know if they will continue to be feasible moving forward. One of those might be an additional Diablo product.
The bottom line is that Blizzard is a well-run company. I asked my buddy about what they thought about the 'merger' with Activision, and his response was "there is no reason to believe that they will exert any influence over us beyond what they could as a publisher... I guess what I'm trying to say is that we'll still produce a product that meets our standards, just the release sched might be different."
Of course, you don't have to believe me...
If you think El Douchebagarino Kotick can tell Blizzard what do, you are sadly mistaken. Blizzard is the only developer right now that can and does get away with telling their publisher to "piss off. It'll be done when we say it's done." Sure it takes them forever to release a game and the never make release dates but when was the last time you played a Blizzard game that wasn't polished a near mirror shine?
It's a joke from BlizzCon 2008 in response to people bitching about Diablo 3 looking "too cartoony", and pointing-out that there's a (mind you, fairly unnoticeable) rainbow in the background for one of the early screenshots [http://us.blizzard.com/diablo3/media/screenshots.xml#8].samsonguy920 said:So is that picture a teaser to the new evil in D3?
Gotta love the catch-all excuse "It's just my opinion", eh? Bottom line is that this debate is old and tired. Nothing has changed about either Starcraft or Diablo except that they're in 3D now (edit: For that matter, the first time I watched a video showcasing SC2's gameplay, it took me a while of debating to even decide whether it was 3D or just really detailed sprites). Shock and awe that 3 different games made by the same people happen to all look similar. It's all well-and-good that you don't like that the games are in 3D now, but your original post on the matter was stated like it's a matter of fact, not opinion. So don't try falling-back on that equally-tired excuse just because you're stuck in a corner.OpiateChicken said:
I'd be excited if I didn't know that they were working on World of Diablo Online: Adventures in Grind and Blandness.
As far as the Art goes, yes it is childish and WoW-esque. It is like this for a reason. It will make an easy transition into a shitty MMO. Yeah, the original Diablo artists may sign off on it, but George Lucas signed off on the Star Wars prequels so...
As far as the Art goes, yes it is childish and WoW-esque. It is like this for a reason. It will make an easy transition into a shitty MMO. Yeah, the original Diablo artists may sign off on it, but George Lucas signed off on the Star Wars prequels so...
Wha?Timotei said:It's because not everyone does their eHomework. This leads to very obvious flaws in arguments which make the uneducated stick out like a soar thumb. It also makes them very annoying once they start defending their positions despite the ground below them being made of the of freshly scorched creme brulee.John Funk said:OpiateChicken said:
This again? Really?
The game looks fine. When artists who work on the original Diablo and Diablo II say outright that they have no idea what the fuss is about, you have absolutely no room to stand on. I can't believe people are still bringing this up.
I have been guilty of this on minor occasions.
I didn't know that a different appreciation for aesthetics was an obviously flawed argument?
I'm not one of the people that think Diablo 'should be darker', I think the overall design is off and slightly derivative. The landscape shapes, the models and the effects. They all don't really seem that well designed to me, not because they are overly cartoony, just because they don't give me a very strong sense of place.
Couldn't agree more. It's almost ridiculous that people are flamed here for saying they don't like the art style. If you look at the design for 1+2, it looks to me a lot more based on edgy, thin lines and hand drawn concepts rather than bold, 'epic' shapes (which the developers have talked about using a lot).Dexter111 said:
I don't think Diablo should give you that 'epic' level design feel, it should be more confined and based on gothic architecture.
It takes them so long because they constantly add new elements to the game. While I imagine giving some game companies an unlimited budget and a when-it's-done due date to make an awesome game, I would never give Blizzard that option. They'd keep on adding cool stuff forever and the game would never be released.rockingnic said:
I'd be quick to point out that the entire reason D2 had a "dark" feel to it was because that's what simply looked best. The heavy use of ambient shadows and the light radius around your character were added in because without it the game looked really bad. Like "what am I on again?" bad. Isometric 2D RPG games really rely on this.OpiateChicken said:I really don't think it's a matter of fact whether the game will suck or not, I'm just saying that personally, and I've heard this from others too, I don't like it. It's not really a "defendable position" because there's no right or wrong.Timotei said:It's because not everyone does their eHomework. This leads to very obvious flaws in arguments which make the uneducated stick out like a soar thumb. It also makes them very annoying once they start defending their positions despite the ground below them being made of the of freshly scorched creme brulee.John Funk said:OpiateChicken said:
This again? Really?
The game looks fine. When artists who work on the original Diablo and Diablo II say outright that they have no idea what the fuss is about, you have absolutely no room to stand on. I can't believe people are still bringing this up.
I have been guilty of this on minor occasions.
So no, I wouldn't call you wrong, just completely poorly informed. Without actually knowing something about the history behind the decision you don't look terribly intelligent. It's ok though, honestly I'm just glad you didn't go further and insist that they use the oh so popular color scale ranging from black to brown and dark gray.
Oh, and gun metal.
The expansions, as has been mentioned about 3 million times, will cost $30 each.scotth266 said:To be honest, I'm not entirely sold on the idea of Starcraft 2's sales model either. It really depends what the prices on the individual components will be/the amount of content per component. I mean, if you're getting the same multiplayer with each component, what's selling the other two pieces is the campaigns... and I don't think I want to pay a extra $100 for all the stories, as good as they might be.John Funk said:
That being said, I'm not going to run around claiming that the sky is falling. I'm willing to wait (a key part of any process involving Blizzard's games
EDIT: I still have yet to play Diablo I/II. I gotta get on that already...
Not that I'm into starcraft at all (mostly due to my suckage at RTS) but the whole "pay 120 for the complete story" seems like a total rip. Expansions are great but their method is kind of lame.
One of the main appeals of SC1 was the three race campaigns. You could play all three or you could just play your favorite race and skip the other two and it would still be a worthwhile purchase.
I think if they released 1/3 of each race campaign with each iteration it would have gone over much better than the way they are doing it.
As far as Diablo, D2-LOD was nearly perfect. The only thing that could make it better would be to release a bethesda-ish mod kit that let non-programmers add/tweak skills, monsters, items, quests, rewards, etc.
Cutting out LAN play is just a kick in the nuts, particularly for longtime fans. As much as I was looking forward to D3 I don't think I'll buy it until someone figures out how to set up private severs. Any single player game or non-persistent world game that requires phoning in to the home office just to play with your friends = fail.
One of the main appeals of SC1 was the three race campaigns. You could play all three or you could just play your favorite race and skip the other two and it would still be a worthwhile purchase.
I think if they released 1/3 of each race campaign with each iteration it would have gone over much better than the way they are doing it.
As far as Diablo, D2-LOD was nearly perfect. The only thing that could make it better would be to release a bethesda-ish mod kit that let non-programmers add/tweak skills, monsters, items, quests, rewards, etc.
Cutting out LAN play is just a kick in the nuts, particularly for longtime fans. As much as I was looking forward to D3 I don't think I'll buy it until someone figures out how to set up private severs. Any single player game or non-persistent world game that requires phoning in to the home office just to play with your friends = fail.