I actually just bought this game today... but i haven't opened it yet. Not too sure i want to join the kiddie crowd that will be prevalent through this.
I'm interested to hear what the game is like. Haven't seen a review of it yet, let us know what you think of it!
I played the alpha thingies they held, realized it was diablo-rehashed, and it was still boring as hell, and decided then and there to wash my hands of it.
Edit: For those of you who DON'T think Guild Wars is a Diablo clone, you are wrong. Very wrong. A large portion of the team at ArenaNet that developed GuildWars are ex-employees of Blizzard North....home of none other than, you guessed it, the Diablo series.
The other half of the team, including Bill Roper, went on to found Flagship Studios, which is now developing Diablo Set In London.
Yes.
You read that correctly.
London.
Anyway, it's obvious that entire team lacks any creativity whatsoever....they all left Blizzard because they didn't want to be forced to develop Diablo 3 by Vivendi so they ran off somewhere else to seperately develop their own Diablo 3s. Brilliant.
Blizzard is so past its time. They either need to develop some new IPs, or give us a sequel to StarCraft, pronto. I haven't had much interest in any of their games since WarCraft 3, and that game FINISHED the WarCraft series. It's over. The storyline has come full circle, it is time to let it die with dignity instead of skullf*cking it's corpse for more dollars.
Anyway, that is all the education for today.
Edit: For those of you who DON'T think Guild Wars is a Diablo clone, you are wrong. Very wrong. A large portion of the team at ArenaNet that developed GuildWars are ex-employees of Blizzard North....home of none other than, you guessed it, the Diablo series.
The other half of the team, including Bill Roper, went on to found Flagship Studios, which is now developing Diablo Set In London.
Yes.
You read that correctly.
London.
Anyway, it's obvious that entire team lacks any creativity whatsoever....they all left Blizzard because they didn't want to be forced to develop Diablo 3 by Vivendi so they ran off somewhere else to seperately develop their own Diablo 3s. Brilliant.
Blizzard is so past its time. They either need to develop some new IPs, or give us a sequel to StarCraft, pronto. I haven't had much interest in any of their games since WarCraft 3, and that game FINISHED the WarCraft series. It's over. The storyline has come full circle, it is time to let it die with dignity instead of skullf*cking it's corpse for more dollars.
Anyway, that is all the education for today.
- Mar 8, 2003
- 38,416
- 4
- 0
Actually, the next warcraft RTS will probably be a prequal to Warcraft 1, how much you bet Warcraft 4: The War of the Ancients
DanTMWTMP
Lifer
- Oct 7, 2001
- 15,908
- 19
- 81
Originally posted by: malak
Originally posted by: Bateluer
Just what we need, another Diablo clone.
Give it a rest already people. Diablo 1 was good for the RPG market because it distilled the genre down to the bare essentials. Diablo 2 was bad for the RPG genre because it pretty much sucked. No dialogue, no story, lousy visuals(D1 looked better), took 3 patches for online play to be feasible, God, I hate that game! You can't even call D2 an RPG. It bears more in common with Quake than an RPG.
I want more BG2s, more PS:Ts, more Fallouts! If you must make an action RPG, then make it like the IWD series. Both games actually had dialogue and story telling. And with a 6 person party, the battles were awesome, unlike the click fests of D1 and 2.
/rant
Guildwars is not a diablo clone in ANY way. The interface is completely different, the gameplay is completely different, it has an actual story...
Don't give up on Guildwars, it'll probably be pretty good.
reason why it may seem like diablo:
creators of the original diablo/dII/battlenet was involved with giuldwars after they left blizzard.
... or so I've heard...
Originally posted by: DanTMWTMP
Originally posted by: malak
Originally posted by: Bateluer
Just what we need, another Diablo clone.
Give it a rest already people. Diablo 1 was good for the RPG market because it distilled the genre down to the bare essentials. Diablo 2 was bad for the RPG genre because it pretty much sucked. No dialogue, no story, lousy visuals(D1 looked better), took 3 patches for online play to be feasible, God, I hate that game! You can't even call D2 an RPG. It bears more in common with Quake than an RPG.
I want more BG2s, more PS:Ts, more Fallouts! If you must make an action RPG, then make it like the IWD series. Both games actually had dialogue and story telling. And with a 6 person party, the battles were awesome, unlike the click fests of D1 and 2.
/rant
Guildwars is not a diablo clone in ANY way. The interface is completely different, the gameplay is completely different, it has an actual story...
Don't give up on Guildwars, it'll probably be pretty good.
reason why it may seem like diablo:
creators of the original diablo/dII/battlenet was involved with giuldwars after they left blizzard.
... or so I've heard...
Well, i've decided to play the game... just scratched the CD code and installing it now. I played GW back in the EARLY beta, like almost a year ago... and haven't touched any of the beta since.
Has anybody install the game and been able to play it yet? I was able to create the account, but when i choose RPG or PvP, it then asks for an Access Key... is that the same one i used to create the account? I'm assuming the key doesn't work because it's not due to go live for several more hours.
Originally posted by: Insomniak
Originally posted by: DanTMWTMP
Originally posted by: malak
Originally posted by: Bateluer
Just what we need, another Diablo clone.
Give it a rest already people. Diablo 1 was good for the RPG market because it distilled the genre down to the bare essentials. Diablo 2 was bad for the RPG genre because it pretty much sucked. No dialogue, no story, lousy visuals(D1 looked better), took 3 patches for online play to be feasible, God, I hate that game! You can't even call D2 an RPG. It bears more in common with Quake than an RPG.
I want more BG2s, more PS:Ts, more Fallouts! If you must make an action RPG, then make it like the IWD series. Both games actually had dialogue and story telling. And with a 6 person party, the battles were awesome, unlike the click fests of D1 and 2.
/rant
Guildwars is not a diablo clone in ANY way. The interface is completely different, the gameplay is completely different, it has an actual story...
Don't give up on Guildwars, it'll probably be pretty good.
reason why it may seem like diablo:
creators of the original diablo/dII/battlenet was involved with giuldwars after they left blizzard.
... or so I've heard...
Blizzard is so past its prime? Are you on crack. They have yet to release a single game that was a gigantic hit!!!!
Sells well /= good game.
Blizzard used up the last of their steam on WarCraft 3, Diablo II was already very mediocre, and they appear to have abandoned StarCraft for the time being (yes, I know about Ghost - spare me.)
Budweiser sells ridiculous amounts of beer each year. Do you think it's good?
Intel sells way more processors than AMD yearly. Does that mean they have the better product?
EA games makes far more revenue and ships far more units than anyone else in the games industry. Does that mean they make the best games? (snicker).
I could keep making examples all night, but I'd rather not.
Hm... the only games from blizzard I really liked before WoW were Warcraft1 & 2 (not 3) and Diablo 1 & 2. Hated starcraft after a week of playing it. I don't know of any other game in the diablo genre anywhere near as good as diablo 2... although many have had great ideas but just didn't put it all together.
My favorite diablo clone failure was darkstone (think that was the name) where it didn't save your progress in multiplayer games. In order to get around this, I decided to leave the game running for a day. I came back and my character was something like 100 years old with all stats at 1-2.
I am conflicted with Blizzard. I think they have a lot of magic left, they just refuse to leverage it because they're busy cash-cowing.
Blizz games I liked:
StarCraft (fantastic)
WarCraft Series (RTS only - get WoW the hell out of here)
Diablo 1 (Unique)
Blizz games I despise:
WoW (I hate MMORPGs)
StarCraft: Ghost (raping a pillaging the series, on a console no less. Yes, I know Blizzard did not develop it, but they authorized it - just as bad.)
Blizz games I used to like before I became enlightened and now hate:
Diablo 2 + The ExPack (Once I played Neverwinter Nights, there was no reason for this game to exist. Ever. At all.)
I would LOVE a sequel to StarCraft, but other than that they need to develop new IPs. I'm sick of hearing excuses for the same damned characters to go back to war with each other. NEW UNIVERSE PLEASE!
Malak
Lifer
- Dec 4, 2004
- 14,696
- 2
- 0
Starcraft was much better than warcraft, even warcraft 3. As far as I'm concerned, it's the only good game they made. Diablo, in my eyes, isn't their's. Condor made it and was 3 years into it before Blizzard Entertainment bought them. With those guys doing Flagship Studios now, I expect their game will be better than Diablo 3.
From a certain perspective, yes. Everyone decides for themselves what is good and what is not, so it's arguable that if I say it isn't good, then it isn't good because my opinion is the only one that matters to me.
Throwing that aside, I'm talking about somewhat abstract but still very noticable measures - originality for example. Diablo 2 had almost none. The levels were slightly larger, the graphics were (I guess?) retooled...but the actual execution of the game was the same and the story was none too amazing.
Most of Blizzard's more recent releases have felt like rehashes...I loved how the trailer for WoW said "The drums of war are beating again..." etc etc...I kept thinking "So after making peace 10 or 12 times, they've decided to fight again, huh? Plausible, or developer grab for more money?"
In my mind it's a "what is more likely?" scenario.
Intel sells more than AMD:
What is more likely: Intel's product is better, or their marketing is better?
Budweiser sells more than Red Oak:
What is more likely: Bud is better, or Bud has super bowl commercials?
Nsync and Britney Spears albums outsell Rage Against the Machine and Stone Temple Pilots albums:
What is more likely: Pop music is better, or better marketed?
Blizzard games sell huge while gems like Prince of Persia: Sands of Time, get lost in the mix:
What is more likely: Sands of Time was worse than every Blizzard game, or the Blizzard logo on a box has mass market appeal?
I've played every single Blizzard title except for World of Warcraft. They have definitely gone downhill in creativity and freshness as time has gone on. Their most recent titles have felt distinctly recycled to me, and considering their content and story is pretty much the same as those games that came before, I don't think it's much of a stretch to say that they actually are recycled, perhaps with a couple new ingredients thrown in.
Turning a brown bottle into a blue bottle, or some such analogy.
Anyway, this is certainly not something I expect many people to agree with me on, but that's fine by me. It's their money and entertainment hours that aren't being put to the best use.
LOL you accused Blizzard of rehasing old hits into new sequels with no creativity and freshness... but then you want a Starcraft 2. Ever think that maybe your desire for a SC2 is the same as those who wanted a sequel to D2? Or wanted WC3? Just because YOU don't like a game, doesn't mean it's not a good game... and certainly doesn't mean that they're past their prime.
Malak
Lifer
- Dec 4, 2004
- 14,696
- 2
- 0
Well if you really look at the game, the warcraft series weren't half as good as starcraft. Anything new that warcraft 3 brought to the series had already been done in other games, so it's complete lack of innovation is what makes it at best an upgrade to an already dismal series. Seems to me starcraft was a fluke.
"Diablo 2 had almost none. The levels were slightly larger, the graphics were (I guess?) retooled...but the actual execution of the game was the same and the story was none too amazing. "
I find it hard to believe you actually played Diablo 1 and Diablo 2.
I find it hard to believe you actually played Diablo 1 and Diablo 2.
And what's wrong with that? I would love for older games to be re-released even if there were absolutely no changes in gameplay except for graphics.
Rehashing the same stuff over again is the very definition of being past one's prime as a developer of creative new stories...which is essentially what a development house is supposed to be.
And I would love a StarCraft sequel - non-rehashed, of course. The precise reason WHY I was disappointed with WarCraft 3 and Diablo 2 is because they were rehashes. I eagerly awaited both, and their arrival signaled to me that Blizzard was either running on creative fumes or knew they could make the money without working that hard to bring anything fresh to the table.
Either one is not what I'd call good.
And you're right, objectively speaking, just because I don't like a game doesn't mean it's bad...but just because you like it, or it sells a lot of units doesn't mean it's good, as I think my examples readily pointed out.
So we're back where we started...imagine...
Oh really? And why is that?
I actually stayed with Diablo 2 far longer than I should've, when the entire online scene had devolved into item-botting, low level dueling, and cow-level runs ad infinitum to try and make it through the last 5 levels to 99.
To say nothing of what happened to D1's online scene...I remember having to run a trainer to prevent auto-killing, and of course having an item authenticating program running to scan all trades for dupes...
...or the little known bug in the early versions of the BobaFett Diablo trainer where flame wave/firewall would subvert the "invincibility from players" hack and you could still get killed and looted...
Hell, I even remember the first week or so of Diablo 2 how everyone had 2000ms pings on the "new, stress tested" Battle.net, and the multiplayer was all but unplayable during that time - which was ridiculous, because no one bought D2 for the single player game.
Look, I'm not going to be able to answer the odds of Blood Raven dropping Item X, or whether the Grand Council in Kurast can be beaten by a barb without Whirlwind or Beserk.
I never got to the point like some people where I'd have to haul out a calculator, and plan each skill point in advance, and no, I did not have mutliple extra accounts of mule characters.
So no, I won't win Diablo/Diablo 2 jeopardy - but I assure you I put in more than enough hours on both games, as well as the D2 expansion.
Malak
Lifer
- Dec 4, 2004
- 14,696
- 2
- 0
I don't really see Diablo 2 as a rehash. They completely overhauled the skill system so that there were actual classes. In Diablo 1, everyone shared the same spells, even warriors. The only thing unique was a single skill. They also added waypoints into Diablo 2, something that certainly helps when you leave the dungeons of the first game and head out into open areas. People still argue which was better, because there were some things that made Diablo 1 better. It was harder, had a darker feel to it. But I think the changes they made to Diablo 2 were much more worth it, especially after patch 1.10 when they made all the skills useful and increased the number of usuable builds.
It's true that they distinguished the classes better, but I see that as minor. The gameplay and story were pretty much the same - you item grabbed, you killed, Diablo was the big bad big baddy.
I mean, in Neverwinter you do all that as well...but at least you also converse, you can customise things WAY more, and the basis of the gameplay in mathematical randomness (and the MUCH deeper character creation and skill system) all make it feel like a much more substantial game.
And then there's the provided toolset. And the scripting. I mean, in D2, you basically picked from 5 (7 after exp) character classes that were pre-made - your customization, at best, was choosing the whirlwind path or the critical strike path with your barb. Rather simple decisions.
With NWN, hell, you can create a whole new class from scratch if you like...a whole new game, really, considering the toolset.
I dunno, to me D2 was just too shallow - random enemy placement/item generation is not enough, and that's why the game turned into an item hunt. Everyone need their Buriza or whatever to compete with everyone else.
I mean, in Neverwinter you do all that as well...but at least you also converse, you can customise things WAY more, and the basis of the gameplay in mathematical randomness (and the MUCH deeper character creation and skill system) all make it feel like a much more substantial game.
And then there's the provided toolset. And the scripting. I mean, in D2, you basically picked from 5 (7 after exp) character classes that were pre-made - your customization, at best, was choosing the whirlwind path or the critical strike path with your barb. Rather simple decisions.
With NWN, hell, you can create a whole new class from scratch if you like...a whole new game, really, considering the toolset.
I dunno, to me D2 was just too shallow - random enemy placement/item generation is not enough, and that's why the game turned into an item hunt. Everyone need their Buriza or whatever to compete with everyone else.
It's too bad that NWN was a horribly flawed and often unenjoyable game. I'll take simple mechanics executed in a consistent and fun manner over complex mechanics muddled with problems, tedium, etc. It only took me about 5 minutes of playing NWN to discover major pathing exploits.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter