Diablo III

Ohh, I loved Torchlight. Not playing this open Beta, but at least I know what I can look forward to lookwise. <3

Oskar wrote:

Vaell wrote:You .. play.. WoW.. and .. question.. graphics.. of.. Blizzard..

WoW was released in 2004. D3 is to be released in 2012. HUGE difference.

D3 looks like Torchlight, despite Torchlight being released in 2009 and having niche graphics. :/

Graphics vs aesthetics.
Blizzard games have never had the best graphics of their time, yet they age much better than your average ultra-polygon wankfests.
It's an intentional choice. Their games can be run on a wider range of computers. And you have to admit that WoW still looks fairly good for a 7+ year-old game.

Besides, it's pointless to complain about graphics these days when over 90% of games are made with ancient console hardware in mind. Say what you will, but they all look dated to me nowadays.

Must have played the beta for about 4 hours yesterday. Gave Wizard, Witch Doctor and Monk a play through. I must say, Monk is absolutely awesome. Had a friend running around as a barb, laughing at the amount of damage he was pulling.

Only for him to run towards me in the dungeon and see everything dead and me spinning in circles fire-kicking the air like a boss.

As for the discussion regarding the graphics, I honestly see no real problem there. Sure, they aren't the best thing in the world, but Diablo has always been stylised. And these graphics suit what it's about. Plus, the actual character models are pretty well done.

Then again, I still play Grandia once a year. Graphics isn't a selling point for me.

Ledgic Caan wrote:Must have played the beta for about 4 hours yesterday. Gave Wizard, Witch Doctor and Monk a play through. I must say, Monk is absolutely awesome. Had a friend running around as a barb, laughing at the amount of damage he was pulling.

Only for him to run towards me in the dungeon and see everything dead and me spinning in circles fire-kicking the air like a boss.

As for the discussion regarding the graphics, I honestly see no real problem there. Sure, they aren't the best thing in the world, but Diablo has always been stylised. And these graphics suit what it's about. Plus, the actual character models are pretty well done.

Then again, I still play Grandia once a year. Graphics isn't a selling point for me.

YES.

fucking 15 gigs for 20 minutes of play WHAT A FUCKING WASTE OF A BETA
I'm not sure wether ill be playing d3 though but its not the graphics that I mind, I find the looks suited for a diablo game, youre not ment to zoom in.

but yeah fuck this beta, waste of space.

Mneeh, couldn't even log-in when I tried and I lack the patience/interest to continue clicking that button 'till I get in. But even seeing the classes was already nice! Might just go with the witch doctor...but for now, I'll just keep waiting. 23 days to go before midnight sales...uuugh!

Had a blast on a monk today. Seems interesting enough, only got to level 4 but from what I can gather about the new skill system I like it

Look at dota 2. That game looks pure amazing at highest graphics, but it looks really simple on the lowest settings so any pc can run it. I don't understand why that doesn't go for diablo 3 as well. Again, I'm not saying I expected amazingly good graphics, just graphics that don't look lazy or filled with bloom.

I wish I didn't care about graphics, but I do. If I didn't, I wouldn't be playing any current-gen games, just the old gems that are still superior to many games today gameplay-wise.

I finished the beta earlier today and although it'll probably be a pretty fun game to play, some of the gameplay changes from d2 I didn't like. The fact that 3 of the classes didn't use their weapons at all is lame and doesn't make any sense. Also the fact you can't use certain weapons on certain classes. Really don't like all this dumbing down in general.

Oskar wrote:Look at dota 2. That game looks pure amazing at highest graphics, but it looks really simple on the lowest settings so any pc can run it. I don't understand why that doesn't go for diablo 3 as well. Again, I'm not saying I expected amazingly good graphics, just graphics that don't look lazy or filled with bloom.

I wish I didn't care about graphics, but I do. If I didn't, I wouldn't be playing any current-gen games, just the old gems that are still superior to many games today gameplay-wise.

I still claim that there's only a handful of current-gens games out there, all of them on PC. All three consoles are so old by now that they can't be by any means called current-gens even if they are the latest console generation. Playing pre-HD Skyrim on PC was the latest reminder on how horridly outdated current console hardware is at the moment. Deus Ex too, now that I think about it. I'm not saying they were ugly looking by any means. It's just really starting to show that "modern" games are made for hardware that was developed almost a decade ago by now.

I finished the beta earlier today and although it'll probably be a pretty fun game to play, some of the gameplay changes from d2 I didn't like. The fact that 3 of the classes didn't use their weapons at all is lame and doesn't make any sense.

The casters in D2 didn't use their weapons unless they were out of mana and that only happened at lower levels or when you were about to die anyway. Actually the same could be said about any class if you mean regular attacks.

Also the fact you can't use certain weapons on certain classes. Really don't like all this dumbing down in general.

Sure, you could stack melee stats and use a sword and board on your sorc in D2 and pretend you were a paladin with no melee skills but I'd argue most players used weapons their classes were "supposed" to use. Not to mention that the expansion even introduced class specific items to the game.

Diablo is my favorite game series of all time. I played Diablo 1 as a toddler, Diablo 2 for several years and had gone back to it from time to time all the way up to about later 2010.

I can honestly say the third one has brought justice to the previous two. The mechanics are great, as said before - no one used their melee weapon as a caster so I don't know why that is an issue - the events, with doors smashing open and the cool mechanic boss battles, everything fits so well.

It feels fluent, every class seems unique and great fun to play, I played it with 3 other friends earlier and it was great fun. The loot system is great etc.

I'm incredibly impressed. I've tried everything up to level 5, with two up to 10. Thinking Monk or Wizard personally, hard to decide which.

Lini wrote:
Sure, you could stack melee stats and use a sword and board on your sorc in D2 and pretend you were a paladin with no melee skills but I'd argue most players used weapons their classes were "supposed" to use. Not to mention that the expansion even introduced class specific items to the game.

I agree that it's a minor issue in general, but here's an example. In Diablo 2, let's say I found a yellow bow on my necromancer at level 10. I haven't found any other good sword or wand so that bow lasts me till level 15, and proves to be the fastest weapon to kill stuff till then. In Diablo 3, I'm disappointed that this couldn't happen as an option. Why remove something so minor? Why dumb down the game where it's not needed? The only effect I see a change like this have is to reduce the longevity of the game, along with removing the possibility of melee sorcs and stuff like that. Hell, with Flaming Weapons, melee sorc could even be viable.

My monk is now level 12... Still my favorite class by far though it's become rather easy and has been for a while now. The Monk is a mass murderer, I had a god damn massacre of 106 enemies without breaking a sweat on him. Demon Hunter is also starting to become quite amusing.

Also, does anyone reckon we'd be able to keep our characters going from beta to the full game?

Antistia wrote:My monk is now level 12... Still my favorite class by far though it's become rather easy and has been for a while now. The Monk is a mass murderer, I had a god damn massacre of 106 enemies without breaking a sweat on him. Demon Hunter is also starting to become quite amusing.

Also, does anyone reckon we'd be able to keep our characters going from beta to the full game?

Nope, you won't be able to. The game still has MMO elements, like the auction house and PvP that will come into it, so they wouldn't want people to have a head start.

Hell, with Flaming Weapons, melee sorc could even be viable

Viable isn't the word I'd use I never saw any of those in 90+ PvP

Vaell wrote:

Antistia wrote:My monk is now level 12... Still my favorite class by far though it's become rather easy and has been for a while now. The Monk is a mass murderer, I had a god damn massacre of 106 enemies without breaking a sweat on him. Demon Hunter is also starting to become quite amusing.

Also, does anyone reckon we'd be able to keep our characters going from beta to the full game?

Nope, you won't be able to. The game still has MMO elements, like the auction house and PvP that will come into it, so they wouldn't want people to have a head start.

Hell, with Flaming Weapons, melee sorc could even be viable

Viable isn't the word I'd use I never saw any of those in 90+ PvP

... I'VE COLLECTED ALL THIS GOLD.. FOR NAUGHT?! Grrr

Vaell wrote:Viable isn't the word I'd use I never saw any of those in 90+ PvP

But you could play it in singleplayer 1-70 at the very least, which is a much bigger part of the game that is Diablo 2. I reckon D3 will be more focused on the absolute endgame however with the lowered level cap.

Hopefully the skills will give you more diversity later on in the game, but as it stands in this beta, getting a skill point and finding out you can only actually spend it on one skill is discouraging as hell.

Oskar wrote:

Vaell wrote:Viable isn't the word I'd use I never saw any of those in 90+ PvP

Hopefully the skills will give you more diversity later on in the game, but as it stands in this beta, getting a skill point and finding out you can only actually spend it on one skill is discouraging as hell.

In D2 you'd most often use that skill point to level a skill you already had since the skills/spells didn't really scale with levels or anything like that.

Lini wrote:

Oskar wrote:

Vaell wrote:Viable isn't the word I'd use I never saw any of those in 90+ PvP

Hopefully the skills will give you more diversity later on in the game, but as it stands in this beta, getting a skill point and finding out you can only actually spend it on one skill is discouraging as hell.

In D2 you'd most often use that skill point to level a skill you already had since the skills/spells didn't really scale with levels or anything like that.

Yes, but there are about 4-6 different skills you can use that point on, at level 1. Then at 6, you get 4-6 more.

Had a lot of fun with the beta together with Solanum and managed to try out all of the classes a little bit. Played the wizard to level 13 and I have to say it is my favorite class to play. Stylewise I love the demon hunter, but still the wizard felt nicer to play.

I did not really like the witch doctor however, we laughed our asses off trying it out, but it does not feel like anything more than a joke class. I would have prefered a proper necromancer.

I suppose bringing out movie shorts is the thing now for big releases.

Watched that a little while ago. It's decent enough.

Not exactly special or anything, nor does it really do much for the game but hey. It's like shiny and shit.

Evil is back it seems! I already ensured my copy with buying Annual Pass, can't wait for it, after so many years!

Almost there!

The Z wrote:Almost there!

Indeed. I should probably download the client soon.

Also