Main > Everything Else
Best Diablo 3 Announcement reaction gifs ever...
kahlid74:
I don't worship the Diablo series as a game but I do greatly enjoy it and I'm happy it's\ now on it's way.
Turambar:
--- Quote from: fallacy on March 16, 2012, 01:42:29 am ---Can someone please explain to me what the difference in Diablo then a game like Guantlets? It looks like nothing more than a brain dead hack and slash game. I have never under stood why people like Diablo even the first one when it was brand new.
Was dieing even possible in Diablo 1 and 2?
--- End quote ---
Diablo 3's difficulty really scales with the level of difficulty settings. You have normal, nightmare, hell, and inferno difficulties.
This video from the developers sums it up well:
SavannahLion:
--- Quote from: Louis Tully on March 16, 2012, 06:08:54 am ---
--- Quote from: fallacy on March 16, 2012, 01:42:29 am ---Can someone please explain to me what the difference in Diablo then a game like Guantlets? It looks like nothing more than a brain dead hack and slash game. I have never under stood why people like Diablo even the first one when it was brand new.
Was dieing even possible in Diablo 1 and 2?
--- End quote ---
I guess you could say is some ways it's similar to Gauntlet. It's much more enjoyable though imo. You level your character, get weapons, gear, magic, etc... You learn new spells/techniques through talent trees as you level up. It's a dungeon crawler, man. You kinda dig it or don't. I always looked at the Diablo games as a serious game that doesn't have to be taken seriously. If you've got 30 minutes or 3 hours, it's still fun. I still play Diablo 2 a few times a year, even though it's old as hell. I've actually been hooked on Torchlight lately. It's very similar to the Diablo games. It's been sort of a place holder for fans while D3 was cooking. I'm not digging D3 needing a constant internet connection, even for single player games. I think I'll just wait for Torchlight 2.
It's not difficult to die in Diablo. Just venture into an area that's beyond your level or have a crappy belt that doesn't hold enough potions and you'll get dead real fast. Then you've got to go back to your corpse and get your stuff, which can be a pita at times.
--- End quote ---
As much as I love the Diablo series (anyone remember having to run Bobafett just to keep the cheaters at bay?) being required to always have an Internet connection, especially for single player campaigns may be the dealbreaker for me. It's along the same vein when Sony devs would use MagicGate to prevent people from copying or moving their single player game saves for a game that has zero multiplayer capabilities.
kahlid74:
--- Quote from: SavannahLion on March 16, 2012, 10:32:03 am ---
As much as I love the Diablo series (anyone remember having to run Bobafett just to keep the cheaters at bay?) being required to always have an Internet connection, especially for single player campaigns may be the dealbreaker for me. It's along the same vein when Sony devs would use MagicGate to prevent people from copying or moving their single player game saves for a game that has zero multiplayer capabilities.
--- End quote ---
I respect your thoughts on this and I've felt that way in the past, but in today's day and age I personally feel this argument just doesn't hold weight anymore.
I think it was SC2 where I got super pissed about this so I decided to do an analysis of my internet connection. I found out I only went down once in the past two years and it was my fault. At that point I just let it die personally and wasn't anxious or worried. In the end, it was all good.
SavannahLion:
--- Quote from: kahlid74 on March 16, 2012, 10:47:14 am ---
--- Quote from: SavannahLion on March 16, 2012, 10:32:03 am ---
As much as I love the Diablo series (anyone remember having to run Bobafett just to keep the cheaters at bay?) being required to always have an Internet connection, especially for single player campaigns may be the dealbreaker for me. It's along the same vein when Sony devs would use MagicGate to prevent people from copying or moving their single player game saves for a game that has zero multiplayer capabilities.
--- End quote ---
I respect your thoughts on this and I've felt that way in the past, but in today's day and age I personally feel this argument just doesn't hold weight anymore.
I think it was SC2 where I got super pissed about this so I decided to do an analysis of my internet connection. I found out I only went down once in the past two years and it was my fault. At that point I just let it die personally and wasn't anxious or worried. In the end, it was all good.
--- End quote ---
Please understand that I'm not this way because I think those without internet access should have access to said game. That's not my point. It has more to do with an unnecessary requirement or a contrived requirement that's just tacked on for whatever purpose the developer comes up with.
To put it another way, Imagine if Microsoft decided that every single 360 requires a Kinect in order to function even if the Kinect's functionality is never used? Mind you, Kinect wasn't a pack-in so you gotta shell out for it. Owning the Kinect wouldn't be the problem, it would be the requirement that you must have it even if the games you play have no justifiable reason to require it.
It's the same here. There's no true justifiable reason to require an always on connection for Single Player campaign outside of the developers self interests.