Diablo III?

[Acanthus]

Blizzard North is alive and kicking, even though 4 of the founders left. They are working on an unannounced diablo project.

 

[Acanthus]

What i dont get is why doesnt blizzard just release Starcraft with a brand new graphics engine.

Make everything else identical, same mechanics, same single player, everything.

Just toss in some new multiplayer maps, and severely update the graphics and sound.

Theyd rake in millions without effort.

 

[Calin]

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
I would rather have World of DiabloCraft 2.5

:laugh: :thumbsup:

Man, you just made my day

 

[Calin]

Originally posted by: Mongals
Blizzard recently hired one of the head project managers over LOTR: battle for middle earth(he also worked for westwood) They didn't say which game he was hired on to develop, but he is taking on a new RTS game, we can only hope SC:2. I can't believe how long blizzard has left us without anything of good since Starcraft. My favorite part of starcraft is that it worked on everyones computer and went fast, along with the balance of the different teams.

OK, on Pentium 100 and with some Crystal Logic 2MB PCI video card it wasn't going very well (there was some kind of delay felt), but on S3 Virge 4MB was working great

 

[BFG10K]

I'd still rather have StarCraft II...

If we get it I get the feeling it'll be Warcraft 3 in space and it'll suck donkey balls.

 

[Coquito]

D2 killed half my life. If D3 came out, I might as well wait here in my chair for it to cut my throat out & finish the job.

 

[Forsythe]

Diablo 3? I thought that was WoW. It's so much the same. I think they lost their ingenuity. They still make wonderfull games though.

 

[Elcs]

Originally posted by: Acanthus
What i dont get is why doesnt blizzard just release Starcraft with a brand new graphics engine.

Make everything else identical, same mechanics, same single player, everything.

Just toss in some new multiplayer maps, and severely update the graphics and sound.

Theyd rake in millions without effort.

Because of the bad PR they'd probably get. Plus if they are anything like Westwood Studios, they'd mess up and make the game crap (Dune 2 -> Dune 2000 anyone?)

Starcraft was a good RTS, even though i personally prefer the C&C series. Id much rather see Diablo3 come out. SC2 would probably last me as long as any other RTS does these days, 1 week max.

 

[EpsiIon]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

I'd still rather have StarCraft II...

If we get it I get the feeling it'll be Warcraft 3 in space and it'll suck donkey balls.

Isn't that what they said about Starcraft? That it looked like Warcraft II in space?

*Please, Starcraft 2, don't be Warcraft 3 in any way, shape, or form*

 

[Lithan]

Wow is Online only. Blizzards best stuff is their single player RPG's/cutscenes. Starcraft was fun, but in all honesty, it wasn't a very strategic strategy game. It was all about rushing to one of about 4 different species, then building assloads of them and overwhelming your foolish enemy who had concentrated on economy or defense. In Big multiplayer games with skilled players it had a little strategy, but still for a strategy game, all the age of empires-esque games knocked it flat on it's ass. I still think SC was fun, but it was nearly thoughless for a strat game (perhaps the root of it's popularity). Of course, I'm not saying I wouldn't buy SC-2.

I'll look at Hellgate: London.

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: Lithan
Wow is Online only. Blizzards best stuff is their single player RPG's/cutscenes. Starcraft was fun, but in all honesty, it wasn't a very strategic strategy game. It was all about rushing to one of about 4 different species, then building assloads of them and overwhelming your foolish enemy who had concentrated on economy or defense. In Big multiplayer games with skilled players it had a little strategy, but still for a strategy game, all the age of empires-esque games knocked it flat on it's ass. I still think SC was fun, but it was nearly thoughless for a strat game (perhaps the root of it's popularity). Of course, I'm not saying I wouldn't buy SC-2.

I'll look at Hellgate: London.

The single player campaign, yes, but think of how old it is, back then I thought the AI was fantastic, although it didn't really show until you played cooperative multiplayer(or I suppose, skirmish).

The game itself was in no way lacking strategy though, playing against a skilled human opponent required assloads of strategy.

And it seems like I'm one of the few, but I thought WarCraft III kicked ass, loved the storyline, and the multiplayer was good for many months, though granted, not the years that StarCraft lasted.

StarCraft is without a doubt one of the best ever games IMO, right up there with Doom, Elite/Frontier, etc.

 

[Insomniak]

Originally posted by: Sunner

Originally posted by: Lithan
Wow is Online only. Blizzards best stuff is their single player RPG's/cutscenes. Starcraft was fun, but in all honesty, it wasn't a very strategic strategy game. It was all about rushing to one of about 4 different species, then building assloads of them and overwhelming your foolish enemy who had concentrated on economy or defense. In Big multiplayer games with skilled players it had a little strategy, but still for a strategy game, all the age of empires-esque games knocked it flat on it's ass. I still think SC was fun, but it was nearly thoughless for a strat game (perhaps the root of it's popularity). Of course, I'm not saying I wouldn't buy SC-2.

I'll look at Hellgate: London.

StarCraft is without a doubt one of the best ever games IMO, right up there with Doom, Elite/Frontier, etc.

I'm in agreement there on both points - StarCraft was not very thought complex, but it was very very fun, and at the time, fresh. One of the best games ever, if not the iconic RTS of all time.

 

[biostud]

Originally posted by: malak

The Condor guys, the ones that made Diablo, ditched Blizzard and went to form Flagship Studios, where they are working on Hellgate: London. I can guarantee this will have Diablo style writting all over it and will be 10x better than Diablo3.

I have said it in the past and will say it again. Blizzard didn't make Diablo, Blizzard can't make Diablo. Diablo 3 will suck. Play Guildwars or better yet, wait for Hellgate.

Oh, I hadn't heard about hellgate, sounds like it could be really fun to play.

Hellgate

 

[Malladine]

s i c k

ya so malak what makes you so sure hellgate will be any good?

 

[biostud]

Originally posted by: Malladine
s i c k

ya so malak what makes you so sure hellgate will be any good?

it has hell in its tittle........what could go wrong?

 

[Fenixgoon]

damnit.. hellgate:london looks like an FPS (from the ign review)

 

[Malladine]

Originally posted by: biostud

Originally posted by: Malladine
s i c k

ya so malak what makes you so sure hellgate will be any good?

it has hell in its tittle........what could go wrong?

silly me :laugh:

 

[Malladine]

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon
damnit.. hellgate:london looks like an FPS (from the ign review)

According to a preview in pcgamer is doesn't play like one

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: Malladine

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon
damnit.. hellgate:london looks like an FPS (from the ign review)

According to a preview in pcgamer is doesn't play like one

didn't get that far in the review yet

this should be interesting though: random level generation in a first person game!

OH YES! melee will have third person view!!!

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: Buttzilla
nah i'd rather have diablo 3!!!!!!!!!!!

Gawd. Someone let me know if this thing ever gets to beta. I'll want to setup my rehab appointments ahead of time. Plus I'll probably lose my job, wife, all that good yada yada.

As much as I dig WoW I would have much preferred WoD.

Maybe if I takup crack cocaine ahead of time I can avoid getting hooked on D3. That might be my best option.

 

[Wingznut]

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

Originally posted by: Malladine

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon
damnit.. hellgate:london looks like an FPS (from the ign review)

According to a preview in pcgamer is doesn't play like one

didn't get that far in the review yet

this should be interesting though: random level generation in a first person game!

OH YES! melee will have third person view!!!

It definitely isn't a first person shooter... It'll be completely Diablo-style, in the FP perspective.

There's a lengthy preview in a couple of the latest PC games mags. Check 'em out, if you can.

 

[HardcoreRobot]

even if they do make SC2, it will disappoint most people in the way WC3 dissapoints. meaning, there will be more to it than just massing your units the fastest.

 

[larry89]

I like graphics of the old starcraft, it kinda gives it a nice oldschool feel, they should just use same engine but have unlimited units ^_^ and have a bunch of more units

Like 1000 different soldiers and stuff you can build for each race lol

I can dream can't I

 

[EpsiIon]

Originally posted by: Insomniak

Originally posted by: Sunner

Originally posted by: Lithan
Wow is Online only. Blizzards best stuff is their single player RPG's/cutscenes. Starcraft was fun, but in all honesty, it wasn't a very strategic strategy game. It was all about rushing to one of about 4 different species, then building assloads of them and overwhelming your foolish enemy who had concentrated on economy or defense. In Big multiplayer games with skilled players it had a little strategy, but still for a strategy game, all the age of empires-esque games knocked it flat on it's ass. I still think SC was fun, but it was nearly thoughless for a strat game (perhaps the root of it's popularity). Of course, I'm not saying I wouldn't buy SC-2.

I'll look at Hellgate: London.

StarCraft is without a doubt one of the best ever games IMO, right up there with Doom, Elite/Frontier, etc.

I'm in agreement there on both points - StarCraft was not very thought complex, but it was very very fun, and at the time, fresh. One of the best games ever, if not the iconic RTS of all time.

I think the great thing about Starcraft is that you can play it a few different ways. Massing can be very effective, but good players will use special units and superior control to thwart your massing. It's a viable strategy but, like all others, has some solid counters.