Don’t Mention The War: 8 Minutes Of Diablo III

By Alec Meer on August 2nd, 2011 at 5:18 pm.

DAAAAAARK

Yesterday brought assorted confusing news about Diablo III, which left quite a few people unhappy – let’s see if today does any better. Here’s almost eight minutes of Blizzard’s hacky-slashy game in hacky-slashy and incredibly noisy action, in footage taken from the game’s beta. Seems to me – though I say this with extreme caution – that it’s a little more on the grimdark side than perhaps we’d been expecting from earlier look-sees…


Oh, I do want to play that. The things, they splat so nicely. What a shame a game like this has been locked down in so many ways. We can only wait to see if those highly controversial decisions have merit for the player as well as the game-makers.

Via CVG.

__________________

« | »

, .

165 Comments »

  1. Juan Carlo says:

    When will fantasy games finally quit with the vaguely Middle Eastern, Lord of the Rings style, elvish chanting? It’s been the number one cliche in fantasy video games for like the past 7 years.

    • Orija says:

      It wouldn’t be the Diablo we all love if everything in it wasn’t cliche-ridden.

    • HeavyStorm says:

      Sorry, both wrong. Diablo wasn’t elvish like, it was demon like, and that was why we loved it. And that’s why this one is gone suck ass.

    • Cerzi says:

      To be honest, the opening little jingle reminded me more of the music from Planescape than Diablo.

    • Nick says:

      Diablos music used to be all cool guitars and harpsicords and stuff =(

    • DSR says:

      Woman at the begining is moaning because she saw the news about Real Life money on the Auction House in Diablo 3.
      No shit.

    • Hoaxfish says:

      If you want to split hairs, it was quite “christian” devils, rather than “non-specific evil spirits that live in non specific hell-type place”. At least the first one was all kinds of devil-worshipping witchery. Which actually gave it quite a solid personality.

      The second one went a bit skew-whiff with mummies, etc.

    • skalpadda says:

      “Middle Eastern, Lord of the Rings style, elvish chanting”

      What? Are you American, by any chance?

    • lowprices says:

      He’s right though. Always chanting, those Middle Eastern Elves. It’s common knowledge. Don’t you remember footage of the Iraq War? Elves everywhere.

    • BloodPukeSalvation says:

      @hoaxfish, @heavystorm:

      Yes, totally agree with both your statements. First diablo did indeed have that “evil” vibe. Diablo 2 was just the games mechanics on crack so it was fun to play but the settings were expanded to nearly silly levels (flayers, the whole jungle crap). Come to think of it, nearly anything above ground was boring and stupid (with the exception of act 1, that still had a good vibe).

      As for the music? man oh man… I still listen to the diablo 2 soundtrack every now and then in my car. Nothing will ever beat that tristram track. for those interested… its available for free on blizzards site somewhere. Used to come with interesting linear notes from the man who created both D1 and D2 soundtracks. He used a lot of unorthodox approaches to making some of those tracks. Done think the linear notes are available though if someone wants them… they could hunt me down somehow. Im sure i still have them in a text file.

    • sexyresults says:

      @skalpadda

      How would you describe the chanting then? That’s probably how I’d describe it. I’m get a bit tired of anyone accusing another person on the internet of ignorance goes “Lol ur american right?”

      for the record I’m not American.

    • skalpadda says:

      “How would you describe the chanting then?”

      I’m with you on the Middle Eastern, but I have no idea where Lord of The Rings and Elven comes into it, nor how it’s been the number one cliche in fantasy video games for like the past 7 years.

    • Wyrm says:

      complete and utter lack of interest.

    • Lemming says:

      It’s a fair point. The first diablo was spanish guitar. I remember it pretty distinctly because of that.

    • Ragabhava says:

      ahem..if I may explain(sorry, as a ‘world’-musician I can’t resist): this kind of singing is indeed becoming a cliché of late. Now, the first westerner to succesfully integrate mostly Bulgarian,Indian and Armenian singing techniques (heres your ‘middle eastern’) was Lisa Gerrard from Dead Can Dance. That was back in the early nineties; a BIG thing among musicians then and Lisa has many admirers, but only picked up in the last decade by mostly Hollywood (Gladiator,300 etc) and recently the games industry. A few female singers try their voices at this lamenting,crying style (its pretty atmospheric, isn’t it) as of now but Lisa is still the Queen Of The Whiny Voice in my book of the dead. Better get used to it….

  2. Jimbo says:

    Diabno. lolol.

  3. Dominic White says:

    Can I still play with my friends in America? No? Well, I’m still not happy then.

    Someone needs to slap Blizzards executive branch around with a fish a bit and shout ‘THE INTERNET HAS NO OCEANS’ until they get the idea.

    • Merus says:

      Wait, I didn’t think about this. I don’t have any friends around here who play PC games, but a lot in other regions. I’m not going to be able to play with them.

      …I think that’s my tipping point – I probably would have gotten it anyway, but now I’m thinking a little more critically. I barely played Starcraft 2. I have a ton of games I haven’t done much with, and there’s Torchlight 2 which is likely going to be cheaper and will scratch the same itch.

    • Atomosk says:

      Blizzard’s executive branch? You mean ACTIVISION? Ahaahahaha… Slap them with a huge sack of money, that’s the only thing they’re interested in. They’ll probably try to make up for the region thing with a “Secret cow level” DLC… $15

    • Sinomatic says:

      Do you mean you can’t make games together if you and your friend have accounts on different servers or that we’re not allowed to make accounts on foreign servers (like I had an account on US East in Diablo II)?

    • nofing says:

      Yep, current pre-purchase price in Germany for Diablo 3 is 60€ and Torchlight 2 is 20€ and I don’t think this is going to change much.
      Starcraft 2 has to be registered for one region and Diablo 3 will probably do the same thing, so if you want to play with someone from a different region, you would have to buy the game a second time.

    • Starky says:

      Because of the way Bnet 2 is split if you want to play with friends in the US and you are in the EU, you’ll need a US client (imported from America, which is easily done), so if you want to play in the EU also you’ll need 2 copies of the game.

      Same as WoW, same as SC2 – same as every game using B.Net 2.

      Which is as it is because Blizzard built WoW that way and then build B.net 2 on WoW’s network infrastructure and technology.

    • gwathdring says:

      @ Atomosk

      I’m pretty sure someone explained this elsewhere … Blizzard is responsible for Blizzard, Activision for Activision, and Vivendi for both. Activision doesn’t own Blizzard. Activision and Vivendi games merged such that now there is a holding company known as Activision Blizzard that owns both Activision and Blizzard–each separate companies with their own independent management. They are both beholden to Activision-Blizzard in the same way that they are beholden to Vivendi and their stock holders. Project-scale decisions like this? Those are probably all on Blizzard.

      Whether or not a game has single player probably isn’t something the holding company is going to put a lot of weight on controlling. These aren’t game professionals here but business executives and stock market professionals. I don’t think they give a damn about how Blizzard sets up their server structure unless it relates in an more direct way to the bottom line and corporate image.

      As for Kotick, he DOES run Activion-Blizzard, so if you want to attack someone, attack Kotick and not Activision which is in no way controlling Blizzard. Both are sister companies under the same holding company in turn part of a larger corporation. So stop yammering on about Activision killing Blizzard already.

      I admit it’s a bit confusing, what with the holding company lording over both developers being called “Activision Blizzard” instead of something spiffy like Actilizzard or Blizzion or Blictivizzardn.

    • Srethron says:

      Be that is it may, this is from a March 30, 2010 news story reported on Massively, Joystiq, and the LA Times, in which a restructuring took place:
      The new company map features one business unit focused squarely on the Call of Duty franchise, another overseeing Activision-owned brands such as Tony Hawk and Guitar Hero, and a third unit to handle licensed properties. Blizzard Entertainment rounds out the fourth unit but interestingly, Blizzard’s Mike Morhaime now reports directly to newly appointed chief operating officer Thomas Tippl, who in turn reports to Activision CEO Bobby Kotick.

      This is an important change as it will allow me, with Thomas, to become more deeply involved in areas of the business where I believe we can capture great potential and opportunity,” Kotick said in the employee memo.

      And then this:
      “Performance shares” are, according to Investopedia, “shares of company stock given to managers only if certain company wide performance criteria are met, such as earnings per share targets.” Meaning, in so many words, that Activision has to meet a certain performance level in order for Tippl to earn said shares. That they will “vest ratably” is only to say that on Feb. 15 of each year for the next four years, he will earn part of that eventual 225,000-share goal (in 2014) … should he stay in his position for all that time, of course. And finally, this is all based on the prediction that he delivers a higher or equal to non-GAAP earning per share when compared to the previous year. In short, he has to either break even or make money to get the stocks, and he has to maintain that for the next four years. Quite a tall order, sir!

      (Lifted from the massive Team Liquid “A short history of Activision Blizzard or how B.Net 2.0 came to be” that someone linked in the massive Diablo 3 hulabaloorumwahaha yesterday.)

    • gwathdring says:

      I can believe all that. But it means very little to me. My contention was that Kotick isn’t so much in control of Activision as he is in control of Activision-Blizzard any more. Quite simply, Activision and Blizzard are sister companies, not in any sort of hierarchy. I was not aware that the way things were divided up, Activision itself is really several different developers each focused on specific franchises now. That’s interesting and sounds like a terrible idea, long term. But I guess it worked for George Lucas so maybe I’m wrong. Put plainly: Activision doesn’t control Blizzard. It’s not an especially important argument, because Blizzard is still answering to a completely new—wait … they were bought out by Vivendi a while back. Then Vivendi Games merged with Activision and Blizzard was pushed into the newly merged Vivendi property creating Activision-Blizzard. So the main differences since the merger are going to be the personal management styles of Kotick and Tppl to whatever extent those effect specific details of game development.

      And still, at the heart of this issue, these are very specific design choices. I really don’t see why the people responsible from running the share-holding side of the company would be concerned about such specific design choices. Choices like “Is it free to play?” and “Will there be DLC we can sell?” … those are design decisions I’d expect the corporate end of the company to weigh in on. Also things like “can two male characters have sex?” that don’t apply to Diablo III as far as I’m aware. I really can’t see corporate weighing in on weather or not Blizzard could make an offline character mode if Blizzard wanted to put any sort of effort into pitching the idea as valuable to the game’s potential customers. Of course, if they were pressured, they’ll still probably spin it to sound more like their decision than a corporate decision to protect both Activision-Blizzard’s image and Blizzard’s image. But I just have a hard time fathoming that level of specific micro-managing mattering to the higher-ups.

      I can certainly imagining them screwing things up royally if they WERE that invested in design details.

  4. Chibithor says:

    I kind of lost interest in this after yesterday’s news, to be honest…

  5. Scatterbrainpaul says:

    The video left me a bit cold to be honest

    and its 27°C outside

    Does leaving a gap of 10 years between games really work? I know 9 years ago, i would’ve lapped this game up

  6. Jumwa says:

    I don’t even care to be tempted to want to buy this game, honestly.

  7. povu says:

    CVG? Am I on PCGamer.com?

  8. Bantros says:

    Torchlight clone!

    • FakeAssName says:

      lol, I love you man!

    • Nesetalis says:

      actually, i’m with you on this.. the powers feel very torchlight.. the levels feel like torchlight.. not diablo..

      WTF?

      The only big difference i see is that diablo is a little less cartoony and sharper around the edges (the sounds are very crisp and effects stand out sharper)

      I think i’ll pass up D3, honestly… torchlight will be better most likely.. I did want to see what happened next in the diablo universe, i actually enjoyed the storyline… but, this game isnt diablo anymore.

    • Xocrates says:

      @Nesetalis: Diablo 3 was announced before torchlight came out, and back then it looked MORE like torchlight than it does now.

      It looked like a better game back then.

    • UncleLou says:

      Can’t even begin to describe how glad I am that nothing I’ve seen or heard about Diablo 3 disappoints me in any respect whatsoever, because nothing would disappoint me more than being disappointed by Diablo. o/
      edit:
      Hm, this wasn’t meant to be a reply to this post.
      Well, while I am at it: yes, Torchlight was blatantly “inspired” by the first Diablo 3 screenshots, I remember finding the first Torchlight shots quite cheeky. Some of the environments in TL are basically a copypaste job of what Blizzard had shown at that point.

  9. RMPR says:

    After the debacle of yesterday, there is nothing Blizzard could do to convince me to buy this game.

  10. Orija says:

    Youtube link please.

  11. TsunamiWombat says:

    All of the comments about how they’re not tempted or how they won’t buy this game make me chuckle.

    Because you will.

    Because it’s Blizzard.

    • Sian says:

      Don’t presume you know other people so well. I won’t buy it, end of story. Blizzard has made too many mistakes on this one.

    • Dionysus says:

      I’m not touching it with a 10 foot pole what gives me money whenever I poke something.

      If I need a hack’n'slash lootfest:

      http://www.grimdawn.com/

      and a free online

      http://www.pathofexile.com/

      I’m not the type to pay to be abused. Unless it’s a particularly hot and cunning young lady.

    • StingingVelvet says:

      All the comment from people with no self control who assume everyone shares that handicap amuse me.

    • TsunamiWombat says:

      Blizzard has made too many mistakes hubububububub hahaha dude, how many times does the internet go through this?

      If the game is good, which it will be because it’s Blizzard, people will buy it. If the game is mediocre, people will still buy it, because it’s Blizzard and it’s got a strong franchise. If the game is bad? Well, it won’t be. Because it’s Blizzard. Who at worst, makes overhyped mediocre but highly polished games.

      And what mistakes have they made exactly? The game, by which I do not mean this specific game but rather the science and economy of games, is changing. Yeah, it’s annoying they don’t have LAN, that they have region locking, etc. Unfortunatly these things are done for cost and the ease of manufacture. The internet has no oceans, but every country has different, labrynthine laws reguarding internet the internet and media content. Different versions have to be produced for different regions, and these versions are not always compatible. If you don’t like it push for a one world government where we all have homogenised laws, till then, companies aren’t going to waste their time trying to negotiate in a world where governments are increasingly becoming more controlling of how the internet is used.

      Or perhaps you mean the auction house thing? Got a big meh from me. Don’t really care. It’s a way to eliminate rl item and gold sales. It’s basically the way people have been clamouring for them to handle it since WoW got popular even. But now that they do it everyone pisses and moans. Don’t like it use the gold only auction house.

      Admittedly less easy to defend? Always online DRM and no mods. Partially both decisions can be chalked up to the fact they desire in game achievement and stat tracking, which can only be done with an internet connection, ala Starcraft 2 (which optionally allowed you to play offline, but you couldn’t get achievements or track stats) to prevent cheating. I suspect this is also because they determined to create complete cross platform play – by which I mean, a character played offline can then be taken online. But the only way to do that is to prevent modification and cheating so griefers can’t take their souped up glitch characters online. Which means checking the game and character files against the server.

      Blizzard is trying to give people what they’ve asked for – persistant characters, stable online play, achievements, and the ability to purchase gold and items from an official source. But these things come with compromises to maintain the security of the game and the company.

      But none of this really matters because haters gonna hate no matter what is said so i’m wasting valuable time I could be devoting to sandwhich making.

    • The Sentinel says:

      Silly, silly Wombat.

      You came here to pick a fight with an obviously inflammatory comment and get angry and dismissive when people start to fight back? Yes, I think “wasting valuable time” is the very best description of what you’ve been doing on this thread.

    • Brise Bonbons says:

      It’s one thing to claim you won’t buy BF3 or even SW:TOR, since in many ways those are pretty unique experiences. I can’t blame people too much if they cave on some oath and wind up buying one of those games.

      But I can’t see anything unique that Diablo 3 brings to the table. And there are just so many good looking alternatives out there that offer either a comparable experience (Torchlight 2 being the obvious one) or something different and unique (Din’s Curse being my favorite in that camp).

      If someone’s even a little turned off by Blizzard’s business direction, I don’t see how it will be that hard for them to give D3 a pass.

      EDIT: I agree with Wombat, in that people who don’t care beyond “is the game competent, a brand I know, and a Blizzard game?” will still buy it in truckloads – such is the way of things. As long as I have superior options available in the market (for less money even!) however, I can ignore the behavior of the masses easily enough.

    • skinlo says:

      I won’t buy it, just as I’ve never bought any Blizzard game, because they always look dull.

      Yesterdays stuff just made me more concrete in my decision.

    • Plivesey says:

      I for one am happy to say I loved Diablo and Diablo 2, am not affected by the lack of mods (never used any in D1 or D2), the always-online thing (can’t remember the last time I was playing a game and got d/ced), nor the real-gold auction house. I admit I am definitely going to buy it, unless I play a demo that is atrocious.

      However, this does not mean I am happy to say EVERYONE is in the same situation. I believe people who say they won’t buy it, won’t buy it. Whether that is true, who knows?

    • TsunamiWombat says:

      I’m not being angry or dismissive. Well, i’m probably being dismissive, because logic and reason are on my side.

      Inflammatory? Also yes. And I apologize for that. My tone was that of a troll and I should have taken a higher ground and simply gone into reasonings I am sorry.

      Now, onto the ‘unique’ ‘doesn’t bring anything new to the table’ arguement –

      Diablo 3 has completly nix’d potions in persuit of a health/mana orb system gained from comboing attacks together to kill enemie (admittedly not entirely original now that the somewhat bland but well polished Dungeon Siege 3 had).

      Diablo 3 has persistant online/offline play deneccessitating alt-characters for co-op or pvp.

      Diablo 3 has a crafting system which allows you to enhance or recycle existing items into resources to enhance other items (not just sell for gold). Crafted items will be largely unique and non-dropped. The crafting NPC’s can be invested in to improve their stock and services.

      Diablo 3 has the follower system, similar to the hireling system except your botmonkey isn’t a facelesss mercenary drone, but rather a fully fledged character with their own skills and personality and equipment which can be customized which causes visual changed, ala a party member from a traditional RPG.

      Diablo 3 has the rune system which allows you to customize the effects of your spells and skills, both visually and mechanically

      Diablo 3 ‘promises’ to offer more engaging and tactical gameplay than just clicky click by forcing the player to prioritize targets and pay attention to their surroundings to prevent being swarmed and overwhelmed.

      PS: TOR is ‘unique’ but diablo 3 isn’t? What? Have you seen the gameplay footage of TOR?

    • Barman1942 says:

      Except I won’t. Because it’s not even the same dev team that made the first two Diablo games. They were the best of Blizzard, and they all went off and formed ArenaNet.

    • TsunamiWombat says:

      Arenanet is a good company, and i’m curious to see if Blizzard and pull this off without them.

    • Sian says:

      Yes, Wombat, people will buy the game if it’s good enough for them. That doesn’t automatically mean the people who say they’re not going to buy it are not going to follow through. “People will buy it” does not equal “all people will buy it”.

      I meant every one of the mistakes you mentioned, by the way, not one on its own. That’s why I wrote “too many mistakes”.

      Region lock: You really think the different regions will get dramatically different versions? Heck, Blizzard won’t bother with region locking the various European countries, even though they may or may not be required to tone down the violence for Germany. So that’s definitely not the reason for region locking the game.

      I wonder where people have been clamouring for a RMT auction house. As Wikipedia is want to say: Citation needed. The RMT auction house will cause multiple problems – if you want to know more, look for TotalBiscuits Mailbox for 1 August. I’d like to add to his reasons: The gold only auction house won’t have a huge amount of stuff posted, definitely much less than the RMT AH, because people are greedy.

      Always online DRM and no mods: Remember, back in Diablo 2 they used the open Battlenet for that. Now, granted, that might be too complicated nowadays, but they should still give people the option not to be online, coupled with a warning that the character they’re using won’t be available online at any time. Easy as pie.

    • KenTWOu says:

      @TsunamiWombat
      There is only one “Because it’s…” company! It’s Valve!

    • Nalano says:

      Here’s a question, Wombat:

      If you hate the hater comments, how do you think people will respond to fanboy squee?

      Two sides of the same coin, boyo.

    • TsunamiWombat says:

      Actually, i’m only mildly interested in buying the game at all. Whats important is someone was wrong on the internet, and the rules say I had to respond.

    • Hoaxfish says:

      How about, I won’t buy it because it doesn’t look that good?

      As much as Blizzard might trade on their name, it doesn’t mean anything if you take each individual game on its own merits. If you end up buying every Blizzard game, make sure you bought them because you wanted each game, not because Blizzard’s name was on it.

    • Brise Bonbons says:

      @ Wombat:

      Your point about SW:ToR being no more unique than D3 is valid, but here’s my reasoning: I consider the Star Wars brand to be a powerful enough bundle of fluff that simply by having it, a game becomes a pretty unique experience. That is, yes, it’s WoW with a Star Wars skin, but it has fucking Wookies, and it’s Star Wars.

      To be honest my familiarity with the Diablo lore is limited. I was under the impression it is basically so cliche-ridden that it doesn’t have much of its own unique flavor, but I’m sure the reality is that for many people, the Diablo fluff is just as unique a selling point as the Star Wars fluff is in SW:ToR.

      Honestly none of the other mechanics you mention strike me as game-changers which set D3 completely apart from its rivals, but I’m not super familiar with the genre.

      Perhaps Diablo 3 offers more than I realized to set it apart, and all I can speak to is the fact that nothing it offers is exciting to me personally. I’d need to do a lot of reading on its and its competitors to have a strong opinion either way, though.

    • Starky says:

      @Hoaxfish

      While I agree with that statement that you should take each game on it’s own merits, Blizzard is one of the few companies who have never let me down as a gamer (I burned out on WoW pre-Wrath, but that is fine, I enjoyed that game for a good 2 years) – so much so that I feel pretty damn confident pre-ordering from them.

      Along with Valve, they are about the only company left who I have that trust in product quality with. Bioware used to have it until Dragon Age 2 – which while it wasn’t bad was very mediocre. At least when valve did a similar thing (with left for dead 2) it was still a damn good game and an improvement in every way – a worthy sequel, even if it was a bit close on the heels of the first game.

      D3 is still on my day 1 purchase list, because the announced issues – which I fully appreciate might be deal breakers for many people – have zero effect on me, and in fact benefit me in many ways.
      Mods I never used for diablo, the auction house is a feature I expected and wanted (so long as their is both a real money and in game money AH – which they’ve said there is).
      Finally the removal of single player benefits me by moving code serverside that will actually improve my experience of the game by removing the cheating, hacking and duping that plagued Diablo 2.

    • Kdansky says:

      If it costs 50$ on release.
      If there are 10’000 people that won’t buy it due to the new mechanics.
      If Blizzard takes a tiny 3% auction house cut.
      If the average player spends 5$ in the AH (which he might just as well have gotten there in the first place).
      If it sells three Million copies (which would be low for a Blizzard title).

      Then Blizzard still breaks even on the boycott losses. And guess what happens if 5 Million people will spend 10$ at 5% cut… I also want a money-press.

  12. Xocrates says:

    “Seems to me – though I say this with extreme caution – that it’s a little more on the grimdark side than perhaps we’d been expecting from earlier look-sees…”

    Yes, for a game people bitched about so much about it being too colourful, it does seem to be turning into something very brown, doesn’t it?

  13. BathroomCitizen says:

    I didn’t know Serious Sam’s bulls were in the game! We need kamikazes too.

  14. Schaulustiger says:

    I don’t want to bitch about the game, but am I the only one finding the scenery and locations pretty bland and boring? It was something I noticed last Blizzcon and this video is again full of boring outdoor and indoor locations.

    • lasikbear says:

      Yeah, looked really empty and brown/grey/other grey. I was excited for the colorful look everyone decided they hated.

    • Plivesey says:

      Well, a lot of people complained about the fact it was bright and interesting. Shame, I kinda liked the original look…

    • skurmedel says:

      I didn’t see that, middle eastern stuff that was in Diablo 2… it was my favourite part. Kinda bummed by that, but perhaps it offers something similar.

  15. killerkerara says:

    I’m sad that this game actually looks very fun. Oh well, here’s to hoping Torchlight 2 will be even better!

    • skinlo says:

      Really? Looks pretty dull to me.

    • Arona Daal says:

      Yeah,its pretty solid work for a hack and slash if i judge it from the video.
      But nonetheless “Always Online DRM” for Singleplayer?
      If they drop/remove that after 1 or 2 Months,when the first cracked Singleplayer Versions appear and it gets pointless,i might be tempted to buy it.
      If not…..well,im getting pissed off enough if i loose my Connection in Multiplayer Games,i dont need this in SP too. Sorry.

      In all Things,even such a small one,
      you have to draw a Line somewhere.

    • Catalept says:

      I wouldn’t be so sure that a cracked version will appear at all. I’d be willing to wager that ‘always online’ means more than just ‘We’ll be authenticating your session every 10 seconds’. Remember that they need to ensure the integrity of their auction house in the most absolute terms possible, which means they need to lock down item generation. It’s quite possible that D3 is much a more client-server arrangement, with Blizzard’s own backend generating loot and possibly even managing monster AI, WoW-style.

    • Amun says:

      @Catalept: Right, it will be like making an online game in D2. The server (somewhere in the cloud) runs the game and saves your character when it changes. Want to play locally to avoid lag? Sorry, cant. Want to hack in a godly ring of the whale, just to see what it’s like to be invincible? Sorry, you’re online-only bucco!
      Oh, but you can buy one though…. just 16.99!

  16. Hanban says:

    It’s weird. I’ll begin by saying that I wasn’t terribly upset by the previous statement, but this video was rather lame. The first gameplay movies looked awesome, but somehow this one was stale. Odd!

  17. Scroll says:

    Luckily none of the issues mentioned yesterday bother me all that much. I’m not going to touch the MP and I’m only going to be playing it on my decent pc with a constant connection and I’ll be playing it with a bunch of friends that live locally. Sucks if the issues do effect you but I’m not going to pretend my £30 -£40 on this is a terrible thing.

    Oh and when is Torchlight 2 out?

    • skurmedel says:

      Sometime this year is what they’ve said they are hoping for. Diablo 3 has no release date yet. But that’s common with Blizzard.

  18. zergrush says:

    Am rather looking forward to this one, Diablo 2 is among my favourite games of all time, and with guys like Jay Wilson and Leonard Boyarsky onboard the chance of it being awesome are extremely high (:

    I also rather want Path of Exile, Grim Dawn, and anything out of the guys who did Din’s Curse / depths of Peril. Might even try Torchlight 2 if it’s as cheap as the first, although I didn’t enjoy it too much.

    And I’ll still be playing stone soup and nethack on my phone.

    No, sir, there’s no such thing as too much hacking and/or slashing.

    • gromit says:

      Yes, more hacking and slashing can only be good!

      There has been so much hate for Diablo 3 lately. It’s good to have an AAA alternative to Torchlight, Dim’s Curse and all the others.

      It might end up not being super-amazing-best-game-ever but Blizzard usually delivers on polished gameplay with well thought over systems like skills, items and runes that lead to crazy builds discovered by the players (and zealously documented online).

  19. Jeremy says:

    I’m going to be honest. I will buy this game.

    Auction House doesn’t bother me since it’s not required, I can’t see myself ever modding Diablo 3 (never modded the others) and the last time I wasn’t connected to the internet was the early 90s.

  20. Althilor says:

    The sad thing is no matter how bad it is it will probably still get perfect reviews, because it is a Blizzard game. That video of it made Dungeon Siege III look really interesting, and Torchlight 2 look, well…Plus you can always rely on Blizzard to tell a shitty story filled with holes, retcons and the like. This is one of those games that was really interesting to me at first (nostalgia trip) and then has become less so.

    • Nalano says:

      Oh god, the campaign in Starcraft 2 was so horribly cliched and hamfisted. You’d think that, considering how they practically invented their own currency of diamond-encrusted gold-plated dollar bills, they could hire a decent writer or two.

    • Ultramegazord says:

      Sad but true, reviews will be high as always like they were on Starcraft 2, even after both games are extensively recycled, which is even more blatant in Starcraft 2, being it almost a remake of Starcraft 1.

    • Starky says:

      You’re been overly harsh, in the long history of RTS games SC2 wasn’t even close to been bottom of the pile, sure it wasn’t near the top either, but it was at worst mediocre storytelling, but it had a few better moments (mainly in the Protoss side missions).

      That and it had by far the best original mechanics and mission design in any RTS to date. No mission played the same, each one could be beaten a number of different ways – yes you could marine and medic faceroll through them if you wanted on the lower difficulties, hell even on insane if you were good enough. Still it was masterful mission design and pacing all the way through with an excellent difficulty cure at any difficulty setting.

      It is a shame though that the plot was weak as it was (and I’m hoping it will improve for the expansions), but who ever played Starcraft, or any Blizzard game for that matter for the storytelling? That has always been Blizzards weakest aspect. While gameplay and polish has always been their strongest.

    • Nalano says:

      Gameplay? No. Polish? Sure. They polish those turds to a gleam you could positively eat off of.

      SC2, to me, pointed out that they learned basically nothing from the progression of the RTS genre since SC1.

    • Srethron says:

      Seems to me a big problem with Blizzard’s stories has become, first, making Chris Metzen the sole fellow in charge of all their “lore” (in itself not necessarily a problem), and, second, of reaching a point where no one is able to tell him no (apparently.) I kind of suspect every idea that comes out of his mouth is instantly announced as amazing these days, with trumpets. Nevermind the endless retcons, the growing tone inconsistencies amongst settings and longtime characters, the similarities with not-so-hot fanfic, the telling the same story over and over (Broodwar to Warcraft 3 anyone? How about every WOW expansion ever?) or the ever growing number of characters voiced by Metzen cheerfully shouting at each other.

      I would claim Starcraft 1 (nice manual, that) and Lich King his high points. Starcraft because of whomever his cowriter was, Lich King because it seemed like he had finally learned some of the basics about character development and was starting to apply them to his storytelling. However, it was not to be. Except for a few moments (most of which are apparently retconned already), Starcraft 2 was laughable, and Lich King’s promising start soon was undone and a long regression began, which seems to have become an all-out downward slide. At this point he could write the next Soul Calibur game if he wanted.

    • Starky says:

      Nalano that is just a fucking dumb criticism- Starcraft 2 was from the very beginning supposed to be a old school RTS – starcraft 1 updated and improved.

      There are many, many things you can critisize about the story of SC2, or the choices made by Blizzard with B.net and other issues – the quality of their maps and general slowness to respond to the changes in the state of the game (though at lest when they do it is generally a positive response), but the quality of it’s game play and mechanics isn’t one of them.

      If you don’t like that style of game that is fine, don’t play it, but to blame them from learning nothing from the progression of the RTS genre when they were purposefully ignoring that progression, and made it more than bloody clear from the very start on what they were aiming for with SC2, is just stupid.

      They succeeded wonderfully – SC2 is without a doubt the best and brightest (and probably last) of the Dune/C&C style RTS games. Taking that style of mechanic as far as it can go, click perfect micromanagement with simple yet deep macro-management. A stupidly high skill ceiling, and a depth of unit balance, composition and control that set it above and beyond every other RTS of it’s type. Other RTS may be more complex, but none have more depth. The fact that SC2 gameplay is still evolving so rapidly a year after release with thousands of pro’s working on it stands as testament to that.

      The biggest achievement of SC2 in my opinion though is that no other RTS in the entire genre comes close to it in terms of entertainment as a spectator activity either. Only perhaps FPS games match it. Especially when it comes to people watching it who have no interest in RTS games.

      The game is single-handedly (almost) taking esports to levels never before seen in the west, and to call it a turd is just idiocy of the highest form.

    • Nalano says:

      What part of “they purposefully ignored the RTS genre over the last decade” contradicts my criticism? You seem to think they should be lauded for this. I’m pointing out that they don’t innovate; just market.

  21. FakeAssName says:

    WoW, that looked like crap … it’s not spectacular when every spell goes off like a nuke and every enemy explodes in a fountain of blood. on top of which some of those spells were just flat out stupid, WTF was that zombie pillar thing that looked like a pro wrestling move?

    how the hell do they expect people to be able to function effectively in multiplayer when it’s hard to track what is going on with just one player launching over the top effects at every step?

  22. kud13 says:

    is it just me, or does there seem to be a distinct lack of mobs?

    I mean, even compared to Act I of D2, this is pretty weak.

    • Plivesey says:

      I assume that is because this video is of a game not out yet, and it seems to have been purely made to show off abilities of the classes. I’m hoping that the game has more monsters, because once it is more frantic (and in mutliplayer), it looks like it will be a blast!

  23. Big Murray says:

    Always on internet connection required = no sale for me.

    Shame.

  24. Cerzi says:

    Can’t wait. Really not bothered by this DRM/RMT stuff, although I can understand why it really does affect some people. At the same time, though, I think a lot of people are getting all outraged just for the sake of it.
    As far as I’m concerned, the only potential downside will come from how RMT functions, but it is in no way guaranteed to fuck the game up. Besides, I’ll probably be enjoying the game mostly in Hardcore mode.

  25. molten_tofu says:

    Nice, but needs more things to click on.

  26. Plivesey says:

    A lot of people are saying this looks dull. When was the last time you just sat and watched somebody playing Diablo 2 solo? That’s pretty dull too. Playing it though? FANTASTIC! This isn’t Starcraft 2, chaps, where watching is more fun than playing :P (don’t get angry, I enjoy playing too!)

  27. somnolentsurfer says:

    So, when Ubisoft do always-on DRM, you don’t do other coverage of the games concerned. What is it about Blizzard’s DRM that you consider less bad?

    • killerkerara says:

      Because Blizzard are perfect little angels that always make perfect games and could NEVER do anything wrong. And they definitely do not care more about money than their playerbase, no no. EVERY decision they make is designed specifically to benefit ALL players that have a constant internet connection with no desire to play LAN or mod their game!

    • Cerzi says:

      Because Blizzard actually provides a quality service in exchange for the DRM restrictions. It’s kind of like the same reason people don’t bitch at Steam’s DRM much. Yeah, you can play a game offline in Steam for some time, but it’s still a restrictive system. However, Steam has a ton of functionality that people really like.

      Look at what Ubisoft provides in exchange for its DRM. Lame facebook sharing stuff that nobody wants, broken achievements that nobody cares about, and generally rubbish and unpolished services.

    • Sian says:

      As restrictive as Steam may be, you CAN opt to not be online. Diablo 3 … not so much. That is a huge and important difference.

  28. LeJosh says:

    It doesn’t seem to be performing very well on that guy’s PC.

    Especially with the lack of mobs on screen…

  29. Sidorovich says:

    If I play as as Witch Doctor I can summon a pet spider. I GET TO SUMMON MY OWN PET SPIDER!!! Everything is alright with the world again. Blizzard, take my money.

  30. Khann says:

    What’s with the weird fogginess?

  31. skyturnedred says:

    Meh. Looked a bit dull. Then again, everything does after Magicka.

  32. Ultramegazord says:

    Not really excited about this game, it already looks very outdated and isn’t even out, by watching this video I see nothing interesting and am still wondering how they could spend so many years doing such a “simple” game.

    And with yesterday news my interest on Diablo 3 went down to zero, guess my money will go to Torchlight 2.

  33. jonfitt says:

    Hmm. Not really interested. Blizzard need to do something new to get my interest. They’ve gone down the Nintendo route of well polished recycling.
    The DRM and lack of mods put me off any interest I might have summoned with pre-release hype.

  34. aircool says:

    Looks shite to be honest *shrug*

  35. rawtheory says:

    Game looks great. Glad to see its getting lots of hate. Must mean Blizzards doing something right.

    • Sian says:

      Care to elaborate? Blizzard still is a company that wants to make as much money as possible and in order to do that, they need to sell their games to as many people as possible. How is pissing people off “doing something right”?

    • Nalano says:

      I think he’s confusing innovation, which usually involves stepping on the toes of the orthodox, with being an asshole.

    • Dominic White says:

      Introducing region-locking to online PC gaming? Yes, clearly they must be doing something right no wait no shut up that’s stupid.

      What they’ve done is ensure that until they pull a complete 180 on their new policies, I’ll never buy a Blizzard game again, because most of the friends I play online with are stateside, and Battle.net is specifically engineered to make sure I never play a Blizzard game with them.

  36. Bungle says:

    Blizzard used to make good games. Now, ActiBlizzard makes good games that vacuum the money directly out of your wallet. I used to like Blizzard, but I won’t buy shit from ActiBlizzard, as they are evil.

  37. Ultramegazord says:

    What I wonder is, if any other company would make Starcraft 2 or Diablo 3, would they get the same high reviews or be totally bashed by being unnoriginal, recycled and even outdated games?

  38. TODD says:

    In Missouri, NO ONE gets it when I slip Fawlty Towers references into conversation. Are they overused in Britain?

  39. nootron says:

    I liked this video better when i watched it 3 days ago in higher quality

  40. ResonanceCascade says:

    Even though it doesn’t look that great, I’m sure it’s been fine-tuned to be as addictive as a crack-dispensing slot machine. That’s the only conceivable reason I can see for something like this taking so long to develop.

  41. Zogtee says:

    So, I hear Torchlight is getting a sequel? :)

  42. Hybrid says:

    After talking to a hard-core Diablo 1 player, the only way he’ll probably be playing is with close friends, totally avoiding the auction house and other players. Always-online is still an issue, but it looks like everyone’s stuck with it. Developers should be focused on giving more features instead of taking them away.

  43. Fumarole says:

    Watching this after playing DoW 2: Retribution so much recently makes me want a 40k ARPG.

    • Abundant_Suede says:

      You mean another 40k ARPG besides DoW2 ? I’m still waiting for another great 40k *RTS* like DoW.

      *rimshot*

    • Gnoupi says:

      The Last Stand does feel like a ARPG, though (and that’s what sold me to it in the first place, since I was disappointed by the new multiplayer).

  44. Arrrmo says:

    Not sure the news from yesterday will pan out for the best, but it strikes me as far too early to be dooming this game to the “will never buy” pile… I’m waiting until closer to launch to make any judgements in that direction.

    Many, many bonus points for the Fawlty Towers reference, Alec!

  45. dontnormally says:

    Starcraft 2 was about as big of a disappointment as I could handle.
    Pass.

    (Go, Torchlight, go!)

  46. kikito says:

    There are other games.

  47. Big Daddy Dugger says:

    OH MY GOD that gameplay looks so boring.

  48. ziusudra says:

    The game looks good, but iam still sad that it has apparently lost its “gothic” vibe like the first two, wtv that means.

    • Skeletor68 says:

      I’m really hoping they get that vibe right as (rose-tinted nostalgia alert) I loved the atmosphere in D2. It just felt so oppressive and dark.

      Torchlight has great mechanics and is still fun but I just couldn’t take it seriously or really get immersed because of how cartoonish it was. Not a fault of the designers, just a conflict of my personal taste.

Comment on this story

XHTML: Allowed code: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>