By Jim Rossignol on August 22nd, 2009 at 8:33 am.
BlizzCon has revealed the Monk as another class for Diablo III, as well as revealing new environments with the borderlands, an evil-infested desert zone. The Monk, needless to say, has miraculous punching and teleporting abilities, for the slapping of evil. Multiple trailers below, along with the traditional scene-setting cinematic.
There’s some crazy rumours flying around about Diablo III coming out this year, with the original story being that it won’t hit in 2010. Obviously we’ll be keeping an eye on that.
22/08/2009 at 08:43 Vinraith says:
Hmm. I was a big fan of the story trailer up until the final baddie, whose design I don’t care for at all. Generally I’ve been a detractor of the “LOLZ LOOKS LIKE WOW” crowd but that particular critter… looked a bit WoWish.
Fortunately all the gameplay trailers look great, so I don’t think it’s going to be an issue. It’ll take more than a bad critter design here or there to bump this out of “must have” status.
22/08/2009 at 08:45 Vinraith says:
Oh, and the Monk class itself significantly exceeds my (admittedly low) expectations. That actually looks like something I’d enjoy playing, and I’m not usually a fan of eastern martial arts classes in western fantasy settings.
22/08/2009 at 08:46 dadioflex says:
Meh. I’m sure it’ll play far better than it looks.
22/08/2009 at 08:47 Dorian Cornelius Jasper says:
Oh I would so love to play a guy who punches things which then a short time later explode. I support Blizzard’s respect for the classics.
Unfortunately, word is that playing the Monk might take some actual skill. This worries me.
22/08/2009 at 08:49 invisiblejesus says:
I wish I had miraculous punching and teleporting abilities. For the slapping of evil. Or my upstairs neighbors. Same thing.
22/08/2009 at 08:53 N-Al says:
Where have all the ghey colours gone?!? :-(
22/08/2009 at 08:57 Andresito says:
I don’t care about graphics, but the first video looks like an early PS2 game. I’m still sooooo hyped though.
22/08/2009 at 09:26 Rabbitsoup says:
2011 apparently
http://www.gossipgamers.com/blizzard-no-diablo-3-release-for-2010/
:(
22/08/2009 at 09:27 Psychopomp says:
@Andre
They have to keep the models below a certain level of detail. Remember, there’s going to be hordes of enemies onscreen, and if they look amazing up close…
Well.
22/08/2009 at 09:32 Mac says:
Hard to believe that it is over 12 months away though …
22/08/2009 at 09:33 Kester says:
The monk has a cracking beard: I hope he somehow uses it to destroy people.
22/08/2009 at 09:33 Bib Fortuna says:
Unispiring. While I found the original Diablo interesting (genuinely creepy atmosphere and new gameplay, for the time), Diablo 2 was boring and ripetitive (I never managed to finish it). Diablo 3 do not seem to add anything new…
22/08/2009 at 09:48 Howard says:
Odd that they should bring the Monk class back again. I thought he wasn’t very popular first time around?
22/08/2009 at 10:08 alset says:
The monk in Hellfire wasn’t good because it was made by Sierra. I’m sure once we see blizzard’s take on it we’ll love it.
22/08/2009 at 10:08 Herpers says:
@Howard There’s never been a monk class in diablo.
22/08/2009 at 10:10 Sagan says:
The Financial Times Deutschland recommended investing in Activision Blizzard because Modern Warfare 2 and Diablo III were coming out this year. Thus the rumors must be true.
22/08/2009 at 10:11 subedii says:
@Bib Fortuna: My experience was largely the same (although I did just about manage to finish it). However, Diablo 2 was far more built around the multiplayer, and if you could get into that with a group of friends or people you knew, the game really came into its own.
Which is actually part of the problem I had with it as well. At high level play there was such a ridiculous emphasis on “builds” and DPS and grinding for drops that it pretty much became a mini-MMO. The 99 level limit combined with levelling your skills to 20 points meant that you had to put each point into a specific power of your build, and ultimately even though you had 3 whole freaking skill trees, only a few of those skills were used consistently because those were the ones you’d levelled up. That only serves to make the game more dull. People talk about things like the Hammerdin or Meleemancer, and these are things that are incredibly boring to play because they’re entirely built around one or two heavy damage skills and nothing else.
From what I’ve heard they’re addressing that for the sequel, but we’ll have to wait on the release for that. If I remember right, they said something about skills being capped at 5 points instead of 20? Maybe I’m remembering wrong, but if true, that should make thins a LOT more interesting to begin with.
22/08/2009 at 10:18 Howard says:
@Herpers
Err…yes; yes there has.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/index.html?curid=18984561
O_o
22/08/2009 at 10:27 Kakksakkamaddafakka says:
Subedii:
Yes, the whole point of D2 was builds and items, and that is exactly why it’s one of the most popular games around. The whole point of the skill-system and how items and modifiers works is that you’re supposed to be able to make loads of completely different characters, instead of a small set of cookie-cutters or one character that can use all the skills, and guess what: the system works PERFECTLY. It’s exactly why D2 is lauded as one of the best games ever.
D3 is, of course, another story. I don’t have much to say about it. It looks absolutely horrible and every time Jay Wilson opens his mouth, I’m amazed by his stupidity.
At least the Monk is a cool concept, but it’s not like that’s a problem with Blizzard. They just can’t execute things properly.
22/08/2009 at 10:30 Howard says:
@Kakksakkamaddafakka
Hang on. In one breath you are saying that Diablo 2, a game developed by Blizzard, is “PERFECT” and id “one of the best games ever” then in the next you are saying that they cannot execute things properly? Say what now?
22/08/2009 at 10:44 Sonic Goo says:
“At least the Monk is a cool concept, but it’s not like that’s a problem with Blizzard. They just can’t execute things properly.”
Blizzard? The company known for taking ideas that were attempted by others and polishing them to perfection to the point that no one remembers their origins?
22/08/2009 at 10:44 subedii says:
@ Kakks: Yeah um, we’re going to have to disagree on D2 being perfect. What you call perfect, I call dull. I don’t care if it’s popular, plenty of MMO’s are as well but those bore me too. In particular, I’m really not interested in grinding up about a half-dozen different characters.
D3 is looking a lot more interesting in the directions they’re taking it though, at the very least the singleplayer is looking a lot less repetitive with some nice grandiose set-pieces (that battle with the Siege breaker Assault beast looked positively epic in the original gameplay trailer).
Hey, you’re free to hate what you see in D3, they’re making changes to the gameplay. Me, I can at least understand what they’re doing and why. Keeping things exactly the same as D2 but with nicer (But must be darker!) graphics is a surefire way to shrink your playerbase into an impenetrable hardcore, which is exactly the kind of thing they want to avoid.
22/08/2009 at 10:47 Jacques says:
Subedii, that build thing is what makes the game fun for a lot of us. I was mainly an Amazon player when I played, but do you realise quite how many builds there were within that? Off the top of my head you had, jab, lightning, poison, mellee, passive, physical bow, ice, fire, mage and various hybrid types, would you rather see all those different builds go into one character? I sure as hell wouldn’t, which is exactly what put me off Sacred 2, the lack of build diversity.
22/08/2009 at 10:48 l1ddl3monkey says:
Ok: I’ve gone from being sort of non-commital about this to wanting to play it. Damn game developers and their warrior monks…
22/08/2009 at 10:53 Kakksakkamaddafakka says:
Howard, it was poorly worded by me. I meant in this specific case.
22/08/2009 at 10:57 subedii says:
@ Jacques: My issue isn’t with having a variety of different builds. My problem is that those builds were so limited in scope that they only focussed on a few core powers. The entire skill tree had to be left behind as largely useless apart from those powers. Playing the game focussing on those same few powers all the time just got dull for me. Item drops varied things up, but not much. You talk about offshoots of the Amazon for example. It’s weird that people say that’s how the game avoids being “cookie cutter” when one Jabazon or Hammerdin build is often pretty much exactly like another, even down to preferred armour sets.
I just feel The game would be better off with more versatility to builds so that a wider range of skills are useful.
22/08/2009 at 11:01 Tei says:
I like the cinematic video.
22/08/2009 at 11:02 Jacques says:
They were only the same because there was optimal skills to use for the build and optimal gear to use with that build, the only way around that would be to completely remove unique and runeword gear, so that everyone is left using rares that spawn with random mods.
22/08/2009 at 11:02 Psychopomp says:
“D3 is, of course, another story. I don’t have much to say about it. It looks absolutely horrible and every time Jay Wilson opens his mouth, I’m amazed by his stupidity.”
I feel the exact same way.
And by same way, I mean opposite.
22/08/2009 at 11:13 subedii says:
@ Jacques: That is one possibility, but I don’t think they necessarily have to go that way. The design decisions they seem to be making with D3 (at least from what I’ve heard so far) appear to be at least partly to do with tackling this proble,. Especially with things like item and skill customisation. I mean adding in secondary traits to skills was built pretty much with this problem in mind. If they can allow players that kind of leeway in how they tweak their builds, I could see a lot more variation coming about, more do do with preferred playstyle than raw DPS.
22/08/2009 at 11:22 MrMud says:
In any stat based game there will be optimal builds.
Given enough time, players will gravitate towards that build (with inhabiting local maxima in the intermittent period).
It doesnt really matter what you do, this will happen. All you can do is to try and minimize the difference between the global maxima and the surrounding local ones and also to try and have as many “viable” builds as possible.
22/08/2009 at 11:25 Jacques says:
I don’t know, Sacred 2 allows skill customisation and it’s definitely missing something.
Unless they manage to make all the skill modifications desirable, I think they’ll be missing some of the magic that made D2 what it is today.
22/08/2009 at 11:25 alset says:
Everything I’ve seen so far looks great. The combat feels so fluid and satisfying, something so few games did since D2. One gripe I had with D2 and I hope in D3 will be fixed is lack of respecs.
I’ve racked maybe 1000 hours of D2 all in all, and if this footage is anything to go by, they can’t possibly ruin D3 now.
22/08/2009 at 11:26 Jacques says:
alset, you don’t need respecs in a game that allow you to get to level 91 in a few hours :/
22/08/2009 at 11:27 subedii says:
@ MrMud: This is true, but that’s why what they’re doing with D3 makes sense. The ability to hot-swap out secondary traits to your core skills for example, should allow for some nice on-the-fly changeups of how you can handle different combat situations. That alone adds in a tonne of variety, and means that even two players playing the same build will likely be using their skills in different fashions.
@ Jacques: If there’s two things Blizzard knows, it’s polish and balance. so I’m willing to trust that they can make a system like this work well.
22/08/2009 at 12:05 rocketman71 says:
That first video was pityful, even by the new no-LAN-Blizzard standards.
22/08/2009 at 12:10 Jacques says:
Subedii, I agree, I’m keeping optimistic about it, and unless it somehow looks like absolute poo in previews, I’ll buy it on day 1.
22/08/2009 at 12:23 Theory says:
The first trailer, with the Barbarian and Witch Doctor, was sublime. What the hell has happened since then? We’re back to washed-out monotone colour and a generic superpowers guy. What’s his USP? “Faster”?
(I shouldn’t need to add that the class trailer is truly awful. Calling it a PS2 game hits the nail right on the head.)
22/08/2009 at 12:30 Jacques says:
Theory, what colours do you expect to see in a desert?
22/08/2009 at 12:45 Bremze says:
http://www.wegame.com/watch/Diablo_III_Monk_Class_Trailer_Diii_net/
2011? Oh Blizzard, why must you torment me so…
22/08/2009 at 12:50 Beastman says:
Three thoughts:
1. While it does look fairly well polished, unless they’re holding back a lot there’s no way it’s going to get cranked out in the next 4 months.
2. They’ve pretty much stated the only reason SC2 is being delayed til 2010 is because battle.net 2 is taking longer than they thought to perfect. And they’ve announced before that b.net2 will go live with SC2.
3. Just because they say SC2 and Cataclysm are they only games expected to ship in 2010 doesn’t mean that D3 couldn’t sneak in there. Or even if not, I personally wasn’t expecting it til fairly late in 2010, so perhaps just early 2011.
22/08/2009 at 12:51 Bremze says:
That trailer is 11 minutes of gameplay by the way.
22/08/2009 at 12:54 Vandelay says:
I agree with Theory on the graphics in the first trailer. Cutscenes are usually Blizzards forte; where is Blizzard’s usual lush CGI?
Oh well, that is irrelevant. Still looks like it could be fun. Never played the earlier Diablos, with my only experience of this type of game coming from Titan Quest (fun but got bored by about the third world and haven’t gone back to it again.)
22/08/2009 at 13:34 R. says:
There was a guy at the Diablo III panel Q&A who asked the following question:
“Di…ablo 1 looked DARRRRRRRRRK…and….Diablo 2 was…DARRRRRRRRRK and I’m…wondering…if you’re going to make…sure Diablo 3′s look keeps more in line with them and…looks…DARRRRRRRRRRRRRRK because…it doesn’t really…look DARRRRRRRRRRRK and the earlier games were….DARRRRRRRRRRRRRK.”
I’d love to think he was joking but you could tell by the nerdrage in his eyes that this was 110% 4REAL and now I just can’t help but think of that spacker when I see people whittering on about “OMG IT’S NOT DARK ENOUGH”.
22/08/2009 at 13:49 TotalBiscuit says:
I can’t help but notice folks are bitching about graphics in a Diablo game.
Nuff said.
22/08/2009 at 14:15 rivalin says:
You can see Blizzard really are starting to put business decisions first. The much derided complaints (see above) about the art style are right; Blizzard has every right to change it, but they havn’t come up with something new, they’ve just copied one of their other games. If there was nerdrage over Blizzard doing something novel and innovative it would be a fair target, but defending corporate homogenisation and reductio ad absurdums implying that complaints were simply over it not being “DARK ENOUGH” doesn’t make you clever.
And as for excuses for the poor graphics, no Blizzard games have never been bleeding edge but they always used to have at least current gen graphics, Diablo III’s look about three years out of date.
Neither of these design decisons; the art style change and the low end graphics, are creative ones, they are purely about the bottom line. Blizzard simply wants to leverage the current wow casual player base by providing the same generic unthreatening cartoon art style, and the ability to run the game on their outdated pc’s. Blizzard has every right to do so, but the kneejerk defences of their mercenary attitudes are wilfully stupid.
22/08/2009 at 14:41 Psychopomp says:
I’ve said it once, I’m going to say it again.
“They have to keep the models below a certain level of detail. Remember, there’s going to be hordes of enemies onscreen.”
Think before you post.
In addition, realism in 3D does not age well, at all. Go play Far Cry, and Viewtiful Joe. Which looks better?
22/08/2009 at 14:47 bookwormat says:
The game still looks like a lot of fun. But since it’s not coming out anytime soon, why would I want to see or read anything about it today?
22/08/2009 at 14:59 Bremze says:
rivalin, seems you weren’t there for Diablo 2 launch because the game looked dated as soon as it came out, if you are judging the graphics from the Monk trailer you might want to check out the gameplay video I posted. Also could you be more specific about the “WoW gayness fagottery artstyle” complaint?
I’m having high hopes for Diablo 3 just because Blizzard has shown that they don’t care that nerds are raging about COLOUR RUINING “THEIR” PRECIOUS GAME!!! because I realy want the series to evolve. Lets be honest, even though I loved the game, Diablo 2 was using one skill for the whole game and picking up loot . They tried to change that a bit with the Assasin class, that had charge up skills and finishers. If they somehow implement something similar for all clases the game would become much more diverse and interesting. But the “hardcore fans” would probably respond to that in the same way as to Blizzard making the visuals interesting and diverse instead of boring and gritty.
Of course there will probably be tons of dark dungeons, hell they have already shown lots of them but that has never bothered people going “Colours in my videogame?! RAGE!”
22/08/2009 at 15:11 Kakksakkamaddafakka says:
Rivalin is completely correct.
Psycho: Oh, please, having low poly models has nothing to do with oversized armor, disproportion of bodyparts, colours or generally anything the game has beeen criticised for.
Bremze: Please, troll somewhere else.
22/08/2009 at 15:27 Jacques says:
Psychopomp, how come Sacred 2 managed to have hordes of enemies with good looking models, along with lush surroundings and physics effects?
Bremze, what about those of us that did enjoy the gameplay? Oh, and those assassin charge building skills weren’t used by most, seeing as they were for the most part completely underwhelming compared to kicks and trap builds. Calling them finishers is misleading, ’cause claws do crappy damage, so even a big damage multiplier doesn’t help much.
22/08/2009 at 15:29 The Great Wayne says:
Still pretty funny to see people participating in a heated debate about a video game which is more than one year away calling other people nerds.
Just sayin’
22/08/2009 at 15:29 Bremze says:
If you’d provide some examples people would actualy respond to your complaints in a maner thats not “Go cry somewhere else.” Seriousely I can’t see any oversized armor or disproportion of bodyparts in the character models they have shown and I’d like for someone to show me some examples. It’s funny how Halo 3 is colourful as fuck but I have never heard someone complain about it.
22/08/2009 at 15:33 Bremze says:
@Jacques: The combo attacks werent used because they weren’t good enough for the effort. But that could be said about most of the skills. Why use frost nova when you got ice orb raping the whole screen? I used the Assasin example to show a way how I would like to make the game more interesting.
22/08/2009 at 15:44 Jacques says:
Frost nova had some uses, I’m sure I saw a few discussions about using it for pvp, like normal nova sorcs. It could certainly be useful on a 200 fcr sorc, if you built for it.
22/08/2009 at 15:51 pkt-zer0 says:
@ Jacques: Blizzard’s aiming for lower system requirements than Sacred 2, probably. Heck, Shader Model 2 support seems likely.
22/08/2009 at 15:53 unclelou says:
Loving how it looks. And boy am I glad I do, because nothing would piss me off more than not liking the looks of Diablo 3. :)
22/08/2009 at 15:56 subedii says:
Yeah, I also think it’s looking pretty good. I certainly don’t have any complaints about the visuals, and the style and effects have a nice impact to them.
22/08/2009 at 16:01 LQB says:
The character trailer was abysmal. Good lord…honestly it looked like that idiotic Wrath of the Lich King trailer except with an American version of a Dragonball Z character.
@Psychopomp
You’d have a point if this was 2001.
22/08/2009 at 16:03 rivalin says:
You can see Blizzard really are starting to put business decisions first. The much derided complaints about the art style are right; Blizzard has every right to change it, but they havn’t come up with something new, they’ve just copied one of their other games. If there was nerdrage over Blizzard doing something novel and innovative it would be a fair target, but defending corporate homogenisation and reductio ad absurdums implying that complaints were simply over it not being “DARK ENOUGH” doesn’t make you clever.
And as for excuses for the poor graphics, no Blizzard games have never been bleeding edge but they always used to have at least current gen graphics, Diablo III’s look about three years out of date.
Neither of these design decisons; the art style change and the low end graphics, are creative ones, they are purely about the bottom line. Blizzard simply wants to leverage the current wow casual player base by providing the same generic unthreatening cartoon art style, and the ability to run the game on their outdated pc’s. Blizzard has every right to do so, but the kneejerk defences of their mercenary attitudes are wilfully stupid.
22/08/2009 at 16:05 Kakksakkamaddafakka says:
Bremze:
Why bother? It’s apparent that you haven’t even been in this discussion before, and that you just entered to troll because you somehow have a problem with anyone saying anything negative about the game.
The first videoes released used, amongst other things, shoulderpads that are the exact same as a model in WoW. Huge, spiky, riciculous things that doesn’t fit the universe at all.
If you want more, I suggest google. Now shoo, get!
22/08/2009 at 16:09 JKjoker says:
ah, i would love for d3 to come out this year but its impossible, they havent revealed the fifth guy, no word about the beta (which used to take like a year since they announced it) and from the pics they keep showing they seem to have made about 4 areas at best, 2011 sounds more like it, plus they probably want to test their bnet-drm-dlcpusher-thingy on starcraft 2 and wow first, the graphics look incredible dated tho … im surprised they are showing ingame cinematics instead of just cging the thing like they used to
22/08/2009 at 16:12 unclelou says:
@rivalin
In short: “I think it looks shit, and everyone who disagrees with me is stupid”. Would that be a fair summary of your post?
22/08/2009 at 16:19 JKjoker says:
i’d like to remind you guys that diablo 2 looked EXTREMELY dated when it came out (and it still required a pretty powerful box to run)
it does look like shit but that doesnt mean its boring or not fun, what im worried about is that, except for the first part of the barbarian trailer, im seeing very few characters on screen at the same time, being surrounded by hordes of enemies and then taking them out with two swift clicks was one of the best things about diablo
22/08/2009 at 16:21 Juror #9 says:
for some reason the trailer boxes for all of RPS vids are just blank and white. Then again i am at work, maybe they blocked such vid types from opening up.
Im seeing a fair amount of complaints from the lack of “pushing the envelope” on this game. I don’t frequent this type of game very much because of the time involved to finish it. (kids and the like) I got throught the first D1 and the expansions but after that, no time. How do you improve the graphics in a game like this, ramping up the detail? better physics?
What are your ideas?
22/08/2009 at 16:28 unclelou says:
“im seeing very few characters on screen at the same time, being surrounded by hordes of enemies”
http://www.bigdownload.com/games/diablo-3/pc/diablo-3-monk-gameplay-footage
22/08/2009 at 16:55 Jacques says:
JkJoker, D2 can still run like shit when you throw in lots of spells in the 3D mode.
22/08/2009 at 17:03 Psychopomp says:
I’m now convinced there’s just something wrong with my eyes.
Sacred 2 looks like Oblivion, with a tinge less plastic. There’s *much* more detail in D3′s character models.
“The first videoes released used, amongst other things, shoulderpads that are the exact same as a model in WoW.”
Ridiculous pauldrons=WoW
[a href="http://www.thanatosrealms.com/diablo2/pictures/necromancer/render01.jpg" title="Gotcha"]
22/08/2009 at 17:04 Psychopomp says:
HTML fail :<
22/08/2009 at 17:14 Fumarole says:
Man, those are some big balls.
22/08/2009 at 17:16 subedii says:
Yeah I’m going to throw in with the rest and say that visually, I have no problems with D3, it’s looking really good. The design is clean and well thought out (there isn’t an overload of graphical effects cluttering the screen like a lot of games attempt), and the visuals themselves have a nice sense of impact.
22/08/2009 at 17:20 Bremze says:
@The Great Wayne: I know we are all nerds here but nerdrage with the word “nerd” taken out doesn’t sound so good. NMA rage then?
@Kakksakkamaddafakka: Wow, I looked at the first barbarian videos, when the fury system wasn’t announced yet, and towards the end he does get some shoulder pads. The thing is they actually look like more fitting than the ones from Diablo 2. If you need a reminder: http://www.planetdiablo.com/diablo2/gallery/wallpaper/official/barbsewer.jpg
Can anyone tell me what is considered trolling? I thought it meant playing devils advocate or expressing views opposed to that of some people just to see their reaction and anger them, but I have seen it used in other situations than that.
22/08/2009 at 17:23 Psychopomp says:
@Bremze
Basically, nowadays, if you disagree with someone, they’re a troll.
22/08/2009 at 17:24 Theory says:
In the real world: blue sky and a mixture of white/grey/red/yellow rocks + sand depending on geology. In a fictional world: just about anything.
The bottom line is that if Blizzard’s art team can make a dimly-lit dungeon look as good as they have, a desert ought pose them no problem at all.
22/08/2009 at 17:31 SwiftRanger says:
“The monk in Hellfire wasn’t good because it was made by Sierra. I’m sure once we see blizzard’s take on it we’ll love it.”
Odd, from what I heard back in the day he was actually one of the most fun characters in Diablo 1+addon. Hellfire itself wasn’t that bad, just rushed, Sierra-tagged-and-thus-bugged and not feature complete. Synergestic deserve a lot more credit (not just for Hellfire btw) than people are giving them.
This sounds good too of course. Curious what the ranged character will be. There wasn’t going to be an old DII class anymore (Amazon definitely out then, especially with the male/female versions) so either we’ll see a Rogue or some Hunter class or something entirely new…
22/08/2009 at 17:32 rivalin says:
double post again, I hate this comment system.
@Bremze
Personally I don’t have any trouble with the art style at all, but it is essentially that of Warcraft, only slightly less exaggerated. People crowing about “darkness” aside, I think what rational people people were complaining about is Blizzard going from having two distinct art styles to one art style. No doubt the game will be plenty dark, just as Diablo II was in places “light” but it will be in style more cartoonish than realistic. Despite the limitations of the time, it seemed that Blizzard attempted in the earlier Diablo games to make it as realistic as possible; all the characters had correct proportions etc.
Regarding graphics, Diablo II may have looked dated, but only the quality of the artists they have working on Diablo III is hiding how ancient the technology they’re using is; as far as I can see they aren’t even using bump maps, which I believe some games were using in the late nineties, that is, the millennium before this one, the millenium.
22/08/2009 at 18:17 Howard says:
This argument is just weird. People invent things in their own mind and then come to forums to rage about it. Most strange.
For the record I wont be playing Diablo 3 though I was a fan of D1&2. I don’t really like top-down (ish) games any more, not sure why, but there we are.
To give another view though, I simply have no idea what-so-ever what the haters are talking about. What I have seen so far looks exactly like D1/2 but brought into a sensible resolution and clarity. There is no “WOWification” here at all. Those who think there is either need to play WOW to get a grasp on haw awful it looks or put the bong down; possibly both.
D3s visuals are not stunning, no, but no Blizzard game ever has claimed to have great graphics, nor have they striven for them. Blizzard’s game are more about style and artistry (not saying I approve of what they do, but that *is* what they do) not poly-count or shader quality. (To derail for a moment, whoever argued that D2 can still push machines in “3D” mode is also a little loss. D2 had no 3D mode, simply the option to used forced parallax, which is the graphical equivalent of having 2 spiked pieces or cardboard move out of time to represent waves. D2 is 100% 2d and entirely sprite based. Move along now.)
As to it being” more colourful” or “brighter”, this is simply the result of this being the first Diablo engine to actually use 3D, be shown in sensible resolutions, have polygonal models and a polygonal landscape. Changing from 2D artwork to rendered textures just makes things look different, that’s all. Arguments about dis-proportionality of the characters is again just barking as there is none. The characters look like characters from Diablo, nothing more.
As I say, this is from a non-Diablo fan. You people are arguing something that isn’t even there.
22/08/2009 at 19:05 Inferno says:
I love the warcraft style of character models (the colouring doesn’t seem to look majorly similar) it’s not immature or “gay” WC3 had a style I loved and had some of the most epic scenarios in all of RTS singleplayers
22/08/2009 at 19:08 Jacques says:
Theory, you’re not too likely to see the sky in a top down game, so that rules that out, as far as the other colours, obviously they’ve gone for the yellow sand type, although a dark red would have maybe looked a little too interesting.
Anyway, how can you judge an entire area by a short area, obviously there’s going to be more than just sand, ie tombs and stuff like that.
22/08/2009 at 19:10 Heliocentric says:
Sky in reflections in water, also magic islands with reversed gravity.
22/08/2009 at 19:16 Zyrusticae says:
Beautiful, beautiful animations.
“Meh” on everything else.
22/08/2009 at 19:50 Y3k-Bug says:
Welp, just found the class I’ll be playing in D3.
Hope I like the game, I’ve never cared for the Diablo series in the past, but this game has me excited.
22/08/2009 at 20:20 tapanister says:
A Diablo game not being released on time? … That’s new :rolleyes:
22/08/2009 at 20:40 PHeMoX says:
I doubt Diablo III won’t come out in 2010, that’s just nuts.
Unless Blizzard comes to it’s senses and fixes the World of Warcraft stupid graphics up.
For now, even if it would be release soon, I’d refuse to buy this childish crap.
22/08/2009 at 20:44 Bremze says:
@rivalin: I’m sorry for being rude earlier, the hype got to me. Seems your complaint isn’t about the enviroment but just the characters. I remember reading an interview with one of the developers a few months ago where he stated that they tried making everything dark and gritty at first but quickly realised that it made it realy hard to spot and differentiate the monsters thus they made them much more colourful to stand out. Maybe the same could be said about the player characters, they have details that stand out so the player can track them more easily.
22/08/2009 at 20:51 Bremze says:
@PHeMoX: Fuck Yeah! Lets flex our muscles and listen to speedmetal while playing Gears of War because thats what realy manly-men do!
22/08/2009 at 21:26 Jacques says:
Bremze, you forgot to mention smoking cigarillos and drinking ale.
22/08/2009 at 21:31 Psychopomp says:
@PHeMoX
YEAH, SCREW THOSE “CHILDISH” GRAPHICS.
TF2, OKAMI, VIEWTIFUL JOE, SAM AND MAX, AND FREEDOM FORCE ARE ALL CHILDRENS GAMES, AND CAN FUCK RIGHT OFF.
Seriously though, you gave me a hearty chuckle.
22/08/2009 at 21:36 Vinraith says:
Don’t mind PHeMoX, we all had our teenaged insecurity phase (“I must denounce all things childish to prove I’m an adult!”). He’ll grow out of it.
22/08/2009 at 21:40 Gutter says:
You gotta admire Blizzard ability to make any animations look like if they were made as a WoW Machinima.
Could the character movement in the first video be more awkward? I’d do better in Gary’s Mod…
22/08/2009 at 21:42 Taillefer says:
Where are the unicorns and rainbows? :(
Can’t we have character motivations that are a little deeper than “You’re a hero, that’s why!”
22/08/2009 at 21:51 Psychopomp says:
@Tail
If you’re looking for story, you clicked the wrong article.
22/08/2009 at 21:57 Seth says:
Yeah that cinematic was pretty crappy.
And the style is kind of compromise between D2 and WoW.
But the gameplay vids look freaking amazing.
22/08/2009 at 22:26 Seth says:
I mean I don’t know what planet you’re from if you don’t think looks awesome, but I do not want to visit it.
22/08/2009 at 22:51 Jacques says:
The team gameplay certainly looks good.
23/08/2009 at 01:19 A Delicate Balance says:
I second Seth’s recommendation to watch this video. If you don’t think it looks like a hell of a lot of fun, you probably didn’t enjoy D2 and/or think that modern graphics are all smelly and poo. I for one am excited by this – I spent hours playing D2, probably the first RPG I really got into and it seems to me as if this ought to be a worthy successor.
23/08/2009 at 01:23 A Delicate Balance says:
Oh… and to add – from that video in my comment above (or rather Seth’s) – I think I wept tears of joy when I say that move where the monk does some kind of light-effect freeze-frame kick that darts around a group of enemies, hitting them seemingly randomly. Don’t know how to describe it properly but that and what appears to be a delayed-explosion area effect look enticing!
23/08/2009 at 05:19 Pie21 says:
RE: That video of Delicate/Seth, I’m a little confused… the Monk, a man of hand to hand combat, appears to be by far the most explosive class in the game from what we’ve seen so far. Presumably there’s plenty of fancy Sorcerer skills behind the curtain, but even so.
Also, group play looks wicked.
23/08/2009 at 05:53 mister_d says:
That cutscene was rather Matrix-like… ick. I see no problem with it graphically though. Sure it’s not ‘OMGZ MEGA HIGH POLYZ’, but who cares? The art direction is solid.
The problem D3 is going to have is if it is too much like D2 in multiplayer. D2 was popular because of the multiplayer – it was fairly dull as a single player experience – and no doubt D3 will be the same. These days why would anyone prefer D2 style multiplayer to an MMO? Mechanically it was essentially an MMO without a persistent world and nowhere near as much content.
Also: I has map hack. Follow me.
23/08/2009 at 06:05 Jayt says:
Cannot wait for this game.
23/08/2009 at 06:15 JKjoker says:
@mister_d: well, in ye old days you would choose d2 style mp so that you play with hand picked friends and filter out the idiots and avoid queues/downtimes in bnet, but likely they follow the starcraft 2 route and force bnet down our throats making lan/direct ip play impossible
23/08/2009 at 06:46 hitnrun says:
From this thread I’ve learned that if you don’t want to play a PS2 game stylized after a 2004 MMO – with proudly boring gameplay, a shamelessly crappy story, and a multiplayer setup whose chief function is nostalgia – you don’t want to play Diablo 3.
Even if you played 1 and 2 on release.
23/08/2009 at 07:02 KilgoreTrout XL says:
Looks pretty finished to me, so I assume they want to spend the next couple of years really polishing the “Blizzard Entertainment” logo animation when you load it up.
23/08/2009 at 12:17 We Fly Spitfires - MMORPG Blog says:
Looks awesome. Original class, should be loads of fun. Hope they still include a Paladin or something similar. And I really hope the rumours of D3 not coming out until 2011 turn out to be false.
23/08/2009 at 12:33 Howard says:
@We Fly Spitfires
Well if by original you mean resurrecting a class they have already had, then sure…
23/08/2009 at 12:57 Jacques says:
Mister_d probably ’cause lots of us find the hack and slash gameplay shitloads more fun than MMORPG style gameplay.
23/08/2009 at 15:14 Psychopomp says:
Am I the only person who has never, *ever* used LAN?
23/08/2009 at 15:46 Bremze says:
@Psychopomp: Yes.
23/08/2009 at 19:10 Gutter says:
The more I see the maps of Diablo 3, the more I wonder if they are randomly generated.
Are they? I’m not buying the game if they aren’t, Diablo is, ans will always be, a roquelike for me.
23/08/2009 at 19:35 Seth says:
Most of them will be.
23/08/2009 at 20:13 inanimotion says:
That first cinematic looked like it came from the people who made the Tales of the Past series…in the WoW engine.
23/08/2009 at 20:46 unclelou says:
D2 was popular because of the multiplayer – it was fairly dull as a single player experience
Speak for yourself. I’ve always preferred the single-player in this kind of hack and slash games. The games are perfect for “getting into the zone”, and it works better when you’re alone.
Even then though, they’re much better for drop-in drop-out playing over many years than a real MMORPG. I don’t see WoW as an alternative for Diablo at all.
23/08/2009 at 20:54 Vinraith says:
Diablo is good for playing solo or with a small group of friends. It provides a randomized world, so it’s different each time, and of course it doesn’t suffer from the inherent design flaws that come with a subscription system. In short, it bears little resemblance to an MMO in most respects. The notion of MMO’s being a “replacement” for action RPG’s is… chilling.
24/08/2009 at 00:17 Funky Badger says:
Gutter’s right. Diable is roguelike-of-choice 3D. And no bad thing, but there you go…
Also, that first cinematic was dreadful.