Originally Posted by almighty_gir

i'm sure you'll all hate me for this. but every screenshot and video i see of D3 just feels so... bland. i mean, it's a completely non-intensive game (i'm sure they deliberately made it so it can be played by grandma on her 15 year old PC). but i don't understand why? it all just looks extremely out-dated and, dare i say it... uninventive?

there's not a single class that you can't point at another game and say "looks just like that". whether that's the nature of the beast in the classes themselves or not i don't know? but even the class choices just feel mundane and overdone.

i thought blizzard were supposed to be way up there in the games industry? paving the way for everyone else? i mean... that's what people tell me everytime i tell them they ripped off GW for about 80% of their warcraft stuff, but whatever.

First and foremost polishers, they take recipies and refine them in ways other developers can only dream of. That and world of warcraft came out before guild wars, not that I would deny them borrowind good aspects from it.

Diablo3 has taken the real-time roguelike to the outer limits of streamlining and polish.

Originally Posted by almighty_gir

the real question to me though: is this game really worth the price tag? a good 28% more expensive than the majority of other big name pc titles (where i live most pc games are £30, £35 for really "big" ones like crysis... and diablo 3 is £45). is it REALLY that good?

I think you've made up your mind there already.

I can point to other games and say "they saw the D3 preview in 2008 and copied that"

anyone that says the D3 Wizard copied Magicka is gonna get slapped

Originally Posted by fearian

Really? Bland is probably the last word I would use to describe the game. High fidelity is probably the first that comes to mind, before fucking gorgeous - and then low poly.

Everything in the game has a sharp hand painted quality that looks miles ahead of its peers. Seriously, take one look at torchlight and then compare it to D3, both in 1080p. The UI has a level of polish I have simply never seen before.

and then take a look at the budgets for both?

Originally Posted by eld

First and foremost polishers, they take recipies and refine them in ways other developers can only dream of. That and world of warcraft came out before guild wars, not that I would deny them borrowind good aspects from it.

Diablo3 has taken the real-time roguelike to the outer limits of streamlining and polish.



I think you've made up your mind there already.

GW = Games Workshop.

Originally Posted by Geezus

You're probably enjoying the game because you're able to play the game.

I think people have a valid argument that this is unacceptable. I've been attempting to log in all day, to no avail. Granted, I'm not angry enough to post a ridiculous review about a game that I can't play, but yeah, first impressions?...not so hot, if I can't play my single player game due to servers being down.

I have no doubt that the game itself is fantastic, but I understand the mass frustration behind this release.

I know a lot of people that could play. Not saying its unacceptable that the servers are mostly unplayable, but people are giving it bad reviews because they don't like the art style? and low level caps, ect... that's what I mean by complaining about everything.

Originally Posted by almighty_gir

the real question to me though: is this game really worth the price tag? a good 28% more expensive than the majority of other big name pc titles (where i live most pc games are £30, £35 for really "big" ones like crysis... and diablo 3 is £45). is it REALLY that good?

I've said it once and i'll say it again.... Diablo 3 is £33 on amazon.

Originally Posted by almighty_gir

GW = Games Workshop.

Oh that, that's entirely true, but they did it the blizzard way, ripping while creating something that is still pretty unique, much like everything they've done.

Originally Posted by almighty_gir

and then take a look at the budgets for both?

And then compare the profits, and the replayability value, and how long people will keep playing the game. People have been playing D2 up to this day. There's a reason for it.

I tried the beta, and it was absolutely GORGEOUS. The painterly style is leagues ahead of anything I've seen before.

Most of the complaining Ive seen is about the classes and "lack" of customization. But, people havent even touched the surface of the game. The devs have flat out said the real shine comes in inferno mode. It's finally about skill of the player, not cookie cutter specs. THAT is what really has me interested. I`ll play right through to inferno. Yes, there arent a huge amount of skills. But, the fact that you have to choose 6, and use them wisely at any given time. I think that's where blizzards genius will really show through. Too bad no one is there yet.

Originally Posted by Prophecies

And then compare the profits, and the replayability value, and how long people will keep playing the game. People have been playing D2 up to this day. There's a reason for it.

I tried the beta, and it was absolutely GORGEOUS. The painterly style is leagues ahead of anything I've seen before.

Probably because the creators of diablo2 are good at what they do, and still are today ;)

Which means that Torchlight 2 will find its place side by side with diablo 3, both can coexist.

Originally Posted by almighty_gir

and then take a look at the budgets for both?

So what? My point is, Diablo 3 looks miles better than any other action RPG to date. If that's due to its massive budget, team size and development time, then fine, it still looks fantastic. It might be unoriginal in theme, but it is far from bland in style and execution.

Just started playing, on US servers..

rube#1378

punish#1219

Originally Posted by fearian

So what? My point is, Diablo 3 looks miles better than any other action RPG to date. If that's due to its massive budget, team size and development time, then fine, it still looks fantastic. It might be unoriginal in theme, but it is far from bland in style and execution.

I think it's almost unfair to compare Diablo with Torchlight, clearly the biggest discrepancy in the visuals is lighting. The quality of the textures, which is a big factor of both games aesthetic, isn't that far apart. The difference could be the skill-level of the artists, or it could be as gir suggests, budgetary; i.e. artists had a lot longer to work on them.

An accurate comment

DRM sucks. Having to be connected to a server to play alone sucks. And thousands of people are complaining about that today... yet most of them don't understand why Blizzard doesn't offer online play. They say it's to prevent piracy, when it's not. Blizzard has to run servers for at least 10 years to support this game, as they know from their past franchises, for the (very popular) multiplayer component. It shouldn't be surprising they looked for a way to get some recurring revenue from the game so that the ongoing costs are covered by the people still playing it. Their solution was the real-money auction house. To run a real-money auction house, they have to absolutely eliminate hacking and duping, or rare items won't be rare and there will be no incentive to create a robust market which Blizzard can earn money from. The only sure way to eliminate hacking and duping is to run D3 like an MMO... put everything on a server you don't control. You can hack your client all day long, but since your characters, the world, mob spawns and deaths, experience and loot are all generated and stored on the server, you can't cheat and create items. There is no single player game. They never programmed one. To offer one at this point would be as much design and programming effort as creating Diablo 4. So don't expect there to ever be an offline patch for D3. When you play single player, you're just playing a multiplayer server instance that happens to only have one player in it.

DRM does indeed suck.

it's kinda like... the cops are stood outside a car showroom, you buy your car, and the cop tells you that you can't go out on the road just yet as it's too busy, while a bunch of chav's who've all stolen their cars are out on the road lolling at you.

anywho... look guys i wasn't trying to say the game looks BAD at all, i'm sure everyone put a lot of work into it, and congratulations to EVERYONE who worked on it! i guess i'm still just a bit naive to the industry, so i'm sorry if i caused anyone offense.

Actually I sort of agree, I find Diablo 3 to be a bit underwhelming, the models seem way to low poly for me, other than the skill effects I don't think the animations look much more polished than most other games I play.

There are a few other details that sort of seem not as polished like how in dungeons pillars and stuff that normally would block the view of your character become invisible really fast, the transition between them being in view to invisible for better view is a bit jostling. Transitions between some areas also seems a bit random, no fade ins or anything, it's just your character disappears, a quick switch to the new area and your character reappears.

I mean it looks like a decent game and all.

But personally I'm just going to wait for Torchlight 2, I don't have to be online at all times, and they are making it mod friendly, so for the most part if I don't like something about the textures I could just make my own or find a texture pack. Also building my own dungeons and inviting friends to play through it sounds pretty fun.

Finally got a chance to play a good amounts worth. Fk'n gorgeous. Played w a few folks from Polycount and good-goddamn... I'm impressed.

As far as not being able to play offline... I'll wait until I'm on a roadtrip or recovering from a hurricane to bitch about that. With my jobs, I need to be online all day every day so no big whoop. What I'm worried about is years down the line, when everyone has beaten it a million times... can I play it again? W/out the server, the game is useless right?

So im playing through my guest pass

While the game looks orgasmic, whats the point of it? I thought this was an mmorpg? My vague memories of my older brother playing diablo 2 gave me this impression. Is it just a single player rpg with party elements? Similar to GW?

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/diablo-iii

As i expected, ppl exposed their rage about diablo 3 DRM, no offline mode LOL.

I'm agree with almighty_gir, Diablo 3 looks outdated, that's a fact that only a true and idiot fanboy would forget. But keeping aside the graphics, the DRM, and all that, its gameplay is better than with diablo 2, and the best is that i can play it with a very old machine.

We hate comparisons, but just look over youtube some videos for Lineage Eternal. It's a shame, Diablo 3 could have been better, too many years of development for this... but it can't be helped.

Torchlight 2 is only 19 euro, and Daiblo 3 60 euro. I think they are using the brand just for earning cash from fans. I think Diablo 3 is not worthy of 30 euro. If you played the open beta, or a closed beta alone and you didn't it at all, save your cash and don't buy the game. This is a game to be played with friends.

This is the overall impression of the buyers over amazon.co.uk, and i'm agree with them.

This doesn't deserve to be called Diablo 3.

As the server problems will hopefully be sorted by the time anyone reads this, I haven't considered them when choosing my rating. I will however say that if anyone can be expected to handle game servers, I would have hoped it would be Blizzard. I downloaded my copy early, so when the game unlocked at midnight, I was able to start playing straight away, before the servers got slammed by those logging on this evening. What I saw in the game, I can't say I liked. To begin with, the game requires a constant internet connection to play, which has been widely criticised on many other games. D3, however, goes beyond merely requiring online authentication, and has noticeable latency issues in the actual gameplay. DO NOT BUY THIS GAME IF YOU HAVE SLOW INTERNET. You will not be able to play. No, not even in single player mode. Why Blizzard would have single player mode running on a server rather than locally, I have no idea, but they do.

Setting aside technical issues and considering the gameplay, I was less than impressed here too. It's been said that StarCraft 2 was simply StarCraft with updated graphics (And no LAN play, but that's another game...). If only that were true here, I would call it an improvement. One of the great things about Diablo 2 was that it let you create your own hero, with abilities you could choose. Here, abilities are simply granted to you at certain levels, and you get what you are given. You have no control over stat point placement either, and equipment choices are restricted by class. Sorry Blizzard, if I wanted to be shoehorned into a predetermined role, I'd play WoW.

As far as the actual combat goes, it's not bad, if this had been released by another company under another title, I would probably have enjoyed it. But don't buy this expecting another Diablo 2, because it doesn't hold up to it's predecessor. Again, Diablo 2 was better. Ultimately, if you were a fan of previous Diablo titles, don't buy this. Save your money for Torchlight 2, because Torchlight was better at being Diablo than D3 is.

Amazon.co.uk: Customer Reviews: Diablo III...
BTW, zavvi have stock again, and i will receive my 2 copies in short. Let's see if i can make money with the AH and a good magic finding gear lol. Fucking gambling game...

Pardon me, I suppose I just don't play enough games. Idiot fanboy or not, I'm enjoying the hell out of this game and I'm pretty sure that's what it's all about.

Well, this sucks. I got off work, my CE was waiting for me at home. I installed it, logged in, created a character, and without even going into the game, I quit because I had lots of work to do for my online course. I finally decide to call it a night and play some, and now Ive spent the last 20 minutes TRYING to log in....

Im sorry, but for a company that is in no way NEW to online games, this shouldn't happen... People who pay for the game should never not be able to play it.

I'm not quite sure why people are in such a pissy mood about the whole online thing, consider it like an MMO. It's not quite an MMO, but still. MMO's always have issues on Day 1, it's nothing new. Sure, it sucks, but it's as if they did it on purpose.

Originally Posted by fearian

Well, I had no hype for Diablo untill last night, when the internet started shitting their pants about it :P

I downloaded the client, installed it... and oh! It lets me play the first section of the game for free. Cool. I played through with a monk in about 4 hours, getting everything. Then smashed through it again with a demon hunter in 1 hour...

I might have to buy this game. But £45? fuck that!

How did it let you play for free?

I'm waiting on a physical copy that'll take a few more days to get here, would love to play in the meantime


also, Ehnn#2202

edit: oh, I guess it's the guest pass thing
if anyone can throw me an invite so I can wait at the login screen with you guys, raging at it futilely, you'll have my eternal gratitude.
and my guest pass, when I get it

Originally Posted by Prophecies

I'm not quite sure why people are in such a pissy mood about the whole online thing, consider it like an MMO. It's not quite an MMO, but still. MMO's always have issues on Day 1, it's nothing new. Sure, it sucks, but it's as if they did it on purpose.

it's frustrating because Diablo I & II did not have these issues on launch day