You Will Get to Play Almost Finished Diablo III on May 15

  • 136 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
#101 Edited by Assirra (90 posts) -

@langdonx said:

@Wandrecanada said:

@langdonx: Why would you want to buy it on Steam? It requires a connection to Battle.net anyways and the image is clearly of a digital sale.

Simply because Steam has earned my trust in the digital purchase realm. Their servers are fast, their prices are great, their offerings are ample (overlay, friends, groups, screen shots, etc), and they've never blocked me from re-downloading content that I've purchased on any machine I run Steam on.

GFWL games exist on Steam, and I now have a GFWL account because of that. I don't see why Blizzard and EA can't also put their games on Steam. There's something to be said about customer choice.

Anyway, if I do buy the game, it will be a physical copy.

For some same reason valve games aren't on Origin/battle.net. They are competing with each other.

GFWL failed incredibly on its own so by putting it on steam they try to get what they can.

#102 Posted by shinluis (426 posts) -

@Protonguy said:

Doesn't feel like Blizzard at all. Releasing before all the parts are complete. I feel like something bad has happened here and no one is really paying attention.

Ah well, love me some diablo coop. I'm in the beta and i'm still really looking forward to the final product.

No mate, it feels just like nowadays Blizzard. They were quite a while working on Starcraft 2 and they they decided to go "hey, whatever, the first game had three races and three campaigns but we're ditching it and instead launching a game with just one campaign. Also you know that seamless integration between lore, game mechanics and units? We're ditching it too, 'cause e-sports don't need no story."

#103 Posted by shinluis (426 posts) -

Blizzard is slowly becoming a shitty joke and I wonder how long will it take until everyone realises it.

#104 Posted by Assirra (90 posts) -

@shinluis said:

Blizzard is slowly becoming a shitty joke and I wonder how long will it take until everyone realises it.

How about explaining yourself when spouting silly statements?

#105 Posted by shinluis (426 posts) -

@Assirra said:

@shinluis said:

Blizzard is slowly becoming a shitty joke and I wonder how long will it take until everyone realises it.

How about explaining yourself when spouting silly statements?

Alright. I;m not gonna sit here and write a huge ass essay, but for starters;

1. Blizzard likes to tell everyone they'll "ship games when they're ready," but they decided to ditch the initial concept of three races, three campaigns on SC2 for a single, human-only campaign, and even after launch, some of the producers say on interviews that THEY WEREN'T EVEN SURE of how to handle the next two campaigns, and how to make them work as expansion packs. Rumour has it, entire units will be removed from game when heart of swarm comes. Which is, if not insane, at least sign of some bad planning.

2. Again, after ten thousand years of D3 in the making, they decided to launch the game with Pvp missing. To be added later. Who in world launches their game and say "oh by the way, it's not complete yet. But we're working on the missing part and will patch it. Soon. Hopefully."

3.Art direction got messed up. Diablo 1 & 2 were great, Starcraft's artwork was awesome and yet quite distinct. Now everything looks like WoW. It's colourful and blocky. Also: pandas.

4. Whoever (if anyone) still cared about warcraft lore, Blizzard just gave up on them for good. People sign in for warring orcs, humans and some other medieval fantasy people, get chinese pandas instead.

Those are my silly statements. Whether you like Blizzard a lot or not is up to you. I used to downright love Blizzard but they lost me, and Starcraft II's story, mechanics and design decisions broke my heart. If you like D3 I'm sure you'll buy it day one, but I no longer yearn nor care for Blizzard's games anymore, and from what I've been reading, some people are having the same feelings I do. That is all.

#106 Posted by GioVANNI (1280 posts) -

@shinluis: You ended up writing a long-ass essay anyway.

#107 Posted by Brackynews (3966 posts) -

*crosses fingers for Razer mouse tie-in*

#108 Posted by AxleBro (786 posts) -

@shinluis said:

@Assirra said:

@shinluis said:

Blizzard is slowly becoming a shitty joke and I wonder how long will it take until everyone realises it.

How about explaining yourself when spouting silly statements?

Alright. I;m not gonna sit here and write a huge ass essay, but for starters;

1. Blizzard likes to tell everyone they'll "ship games when they're ready," but they decided to ditch the initial concept of three races, three campaigns on SC2 for a single, human-only campaign, and even after launch, some of the producers say on interviews that THEY WEREN'T EVEN SURE of how to handle the next two campaigns, and how to make them work as expansion packs. Rumour has it, entire units will be removed from game when heart of swarm comes. Which is, if not insane, at least sign of some bad planning.

2. Again, after ten thousand years of D3 in the making, they decided to launch the game with Pvp missing. To be added later. Who in world launches their game and say "oh by the way, it's not complete yet. But we're working on the missing part and will patch it. Soon. Hopefully."

3.Art direction got messed up. Diablo 1 & 2 were great, Starcraft's artwork was awesome and yet quite distinct. Now everything looks like WoW. It's colourful and blocky. Also: pandas.

4. Whoever (if anyone) still cared about warcraft lore, Blizzard just gave up on them for good. People sign in for warring orcs, humans and some other medieval fantasy people, get chinese pandas instead.

Those are my silly statements. Whether you like Blizzard a lot or not is up to you. I used to downright love Blizzard but they lost me, and Starcraft II's story, mechanics and design decisions broke my heart. If you like D3 I'm sure you'll buy it day one, but I no longer yearn nor care for Blizzard's games anymore, and from what I've been reading, some people are having the same feelings I do. That is all.

that argument was pretty silly

#109 Posted by StitchJones (68 posts) -

SO Happy that we now have a date. And that it is not too far out. I could care less about PVP so I consider the game to be complete. Let's roll people!

#110 Posted by phampire (263 posts) -

brilliant!

#111 Posted by Lozz (301 posts) -

My degree is fucked.

#112 Posted by Protonguy (305 posts) -

@shinluis said:

@Protonguy said:

Doesn't feel like Blizzard at all. Releasing before all the parts are complete. I feel like something bad has happened here and no one is really paying attention.

Ah well, love me some diablo coop. I'm in the beta and i'm still really looking forward to the final product.

No mate, it feels just like nowadays Blizzard. They were quite a while working on Starcraft 2 and they they decided to go "hey, whatever, the first game had three races and three campaigns but we're ditching it and instead launching a game with just one campaign. Also you know that seamless integration between lore, game mechanics and units? We're ditching it too, 'cause e-sports don't need no story."

This is true ;(

#113 Posted by Rabbidrat (6 posts) -

YAY!... huh 60 Euro?...abit steep but im still in!

#114 Posted by cruxking (201 posts) -

im sorta hesitant to pre order this even now. Blizzard has a hell of a reputation for pushing things back. maybe i'm just cynical but i feel i have good reason to be in this situation

#115 Posted by SpasticHeathen (33 posts) -
@cruxking: Blizzard doesn't push back release dates once they've been set in stone. 
#116 Posted by selbie (1781 posts) -

I hate having a real life...I've barely been able to play Diablo 3 at all :(

#117 Posted by Bruce (5264 posts) -

It KILLS me, and I mean KILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLS me, that my pc won't be able to run this.

#118 Posted by Picard (255 posts) -

about time.

#119 Posted by siaynoq (83 posts) -

Blizzard's old motto: When it's done.

Blizzard's new motto: When it's almost done.

#120 Posted by oniring (16 posts) -

YES!

#121 Posted by Cubidog1 (211 posts) -

Wow...they are going to release the game without PvP. Thats bs. How long have they been working on this game?

#122 Edited by Floppypants (798 posts) -
@shinluis said:

No mate, it feels just like nowadays Blizzard. They were quite a while working on Starcraft 2 and they they decided to go "hey, whatever, the first game had three races and three campaigns but we're ditching it and instead launching a game with just one campaign. Also you know that seamless integration between lore, game mechanics and units? We're ditching it too, 'cause e-sports don't need no story."

  Kotaku ran a storyabout how so few people completed the long campaign, that Blizzard is making Heart of the Swarm's campaign shorter.  There would have been no purpose to adding even more single player content beyond what's in the box.
Did you even play it?  It has one of the longest campaigns with the highest production values of any RTS game.
 
On Topic:
The PvP Arena is a complete diversion that has nothing to do with the core game.  Its absence is inconsequential, especially for players who are brand new.  When they finally finish it, you'll have leveled a character that is ready for it.
Not that I'm making excuses for Blizzard.  I think they're incompetent.  This game should have come out, feature complete, at least a year ago.
#123 Posted by NoRemnants (378 posts) -

@pw2566ch said:

@HKZ said:

Do the servers have to be live to play it at all? Kinda like what happened with Assassins Creed not too long ago? Because if so, I'm out. I refuse to own a game that requires another machine to validate me playing a single player game while I'm playing it.

Thank you. People are against EA and Ubisoft online DRM, but not this. For me, I'm against anything that requires me to have any sort of online DRM in order to play and I pity gamers that are OK with this.

It sucks that you aren't able to play in some sort of "offline mode" but it is very different from Ubisoft jamming shitty always-on DRM into Assassin's Creed. The entire D3 game is based around co-op play. Sure you can play it by yourself but you are still running it on the Battle.net servers and you can let people join your game at any time. Assassin's Creed is 90% singleplayer with server checks that are arbitrarily jammed in and provide no additional functionality.

#124 Posted by pw2566ch (480 posts) -

@Havox said:

@pw2566ch said:

@HKZ said:

Do the servers have to be live to play it at all? Kinda like what happened with Assassins Creed not too long ago? Because if so, I'm out. I refuse to own a game that requires another machine to validate me playing a single player game while I'm playing it.

Thank you. People are against EA and Ubisoft online DRM, but not this. For me, I'm against anything that requires me to have any sort of online DRM in order to play and I pity gamers that are OK with this.

It sucks that you aren't able to play in some sort of "offline mode" but it is very different from Ubisoft jamming shitty always-on DRM into Assassin's Creed. The entire D3 game is based around co-op play. Sure you can play it by yourself but you are still running it on the Battle.net servers and you can let people join your game at any time. Assassin's Creed is 90% singleplayer with server checks that are arbitrarily jammed in and provide no additional functionality.

If I can't play my games offline, then it's online DRM. I understand that their servers are a lot better than EA and Ubisoft, but what about the people that don't always have an internet connection? I know I always don't and there are a shit ton of people that (most of them in the US) that doesn't always have a good internet connection.

#125 Posted by HKZ (70 posts) -

@Havox: If I am required to sing into a service that doesn't run the game on that server but instead runs the entire game on my machine, it's absolutely no different. I bought it, entered my CD key and that should be the entire transaction between myself and Blizzard unless I want to play a portion of the game that is hosted by them. There is literally no good reason to have to sign in online to an account that does fuck all to the game I'm playing on my machine. Battle.net does absolutely nothing for me in SC2, adds nothing to the single player game in SC2, doesn't affect the ability or speed of my machine to be able to play SC2 so it is completely unnecessary for me to sign into that service to play my game. I won't tolerate shit like that in a single player game. I wish more people would do the same.

#126 Posted by Arthurd (41 posts) -

There is no offline mode because the game has a real money auction house. That's the reason for no offline mode. It's not DRM. Blizzard has to be certain that no one other than themselves is making money off of loot drops in this game. If they allowed an offline mode then the inevitability is that someone will figure out how do dupe or even just sell loot outside of Blizzards auction house. My advice to those of you who have their panties in a bunch about this is to vote with your dollar. Don't buy Diablo 3.

#127 Posted by shinluis (426 posts) -

@Floppypants said:

@shinluis said:

No mate, it feels just like nowadays Blizzard. They were quite a while working on Starcraft 2 and they they decided to go "hey, whatever, the first game had three races and three campaigns but we're ditching it and instead launching a game with just one campaign. Also you know that seamless integration between lore, game mechanics and units? We're ditching it too, 'cause e-sports don't need no story."

Kotaku ran a storyabout how so few people completed the long campaign, that Blizzard is making Heart of the Swarm's campaign shorter. There would have been no purpose to adding even more single player content beyond what's in the box.Did you even play it? It has one of the longest campaigns with the highest production values of any RTS game. On Topic: The PvP Arena is a complete diversion that has nothing to do with the core game. Its absence is inconsequential, especially for players who are brand new. When they finally finish it, you'll have leveled a character that is ready for it.Not that I'm making excuses for Blizzard. I think they're incompetent. This game should have come out, feature complete, at least a year ago.

Yes, I did play it. As a matter of fact, I bought Starcraft 2 not only for me but also for my younger brother, day one. We were both huge fans of the original starcraft. Yes, it does have a long campaign with high production values, but nearly nothing happens on it story wise. I felt disconnected from it. While in starcraft 1 they had that great idea of making you "part" of the story, they completely ignored the nameless magistrate/executor/cerebrate who helped the heroes and retconned the whole thing as if the player never existed; there was no sense of urgency because shit was happened but Jim Raynor was fucking around in the ship's cafeteria, the whole story became a bunch of really silly hollywood-sounding one-liners… SC2's campaign is more than just long, it gets boring and drags on and on.

It really feels like they had the story set for the initially planned 10-mission campaign, but when they decided to change and make starcraft 2 terran only, added more mission mechanics (which is fine), but just picked up and same story and stretched it thin over its overly long nearly 30 missions.

That's really lame for someone who spends so much time making their games and keep bragging about how good they are at making ultra polished shit.

#128 Posted by Recombinant (7 posts) -

Really looking forward to getting my hands on a Monk, might even name him Adrian :D

#129 Posted by G0rd0nFr33m4n (762 posts) -

Ordered and ready to go (digitally) Feels good to have that out of the way... now we play the waiting game ;)

#130 Posted by divakchopra (86 posts) -

Blizzard doesn't care about America's education, just as long as they get their millions.. stay classy

#131 Posted by mattgriffin (51 posts) -

Why does it matter when the servers go live if it is currently a single player game only?

#132 Posted by cavemantom (213 posts) -

@mattgriffin said:

Why does it matter when the servers go live if it is currently a single player game only?

Where does it say it's single player only?

It'll have co-op at launch (the crux of Diablo), and always-on DRM. Things that require servers.

#133 Posted by BionicRadd (617 posts) -

@shinluis said:

@Assirra said:

@shinluis said:

Blizzard is slowly becoming a shitty joke and I wonder how long will it take until everyone realises it.

How about explaining yourself when spouting silly statements?

Alright. I;m not gonna sit here and write a huge ass essay, but for starters;

1. Blizzard likes to tell everyone they'll "ship games when they're ready," but they decided to ditch the initial concept of three races, three campaigns on SC2 for a single, human-only campaign, and even after launch, some of the producers say on interviews that THEY WEREN'T EVEN SURE of how to handle the next two campaigns, and how to make them work as expansion packs. Rumour has it, entire units will be removed from game when heart of swarm comes. Which is, if not insane, at least sign of some bad planning.

2. Again, after ten thousand years of D3 in the making, they decided to launch the game with Pvp missing. To be added later. Who in world launches their game and say "oh by the way, it's not complete yet. But we're working on the missing part and will patch it. Soon. Hopefully."

3.Art direction got messed up. Diablo 1 & 2 were great, Starcraft's artwork was awesome and yet quite distinct. Now everything looks like WoW. It's colourful and blocky. Also: pandas.

4. Whoever (if anyone) still cared about warcraft lore, Blizzard just gave up on them for good. People sign in for warring orcs, humans and some other medieval fantasy people, get chinese pandas instead.

Those are my silly statements. Whether you like Blizzard a lot or not is up to you. I used to downright love Blizzard but they lost me, and Starcraft II's story, mechanics and design decisions broke my heart. If you like D3 I'm sure you'll buy it day one, but I no longer yearn nor care for Blizzard's games anymore, and from what I've been reading, some people are having the same feelings I do. That is all.

1. Diablo 3 is ready. SC2 was ready. Just because a game is ready doesn't mean more content isn't being worked on for it to be released later. The majority of D3's playerbase isn't going to give a crap about PVP and blizzard knows it.

2. They pulled out PVP because they want it to be something worthwhile for the people that want it. PVP in Diablo 2 was awful and they clearly want it to be something more in D3. See above statement, though. Not enough people will even touch PVP in D3 to make it worth delaying the game for. It will be added through a free patch down the road, so I really don't understand why you're bitching. You wouldn't be able to do it on day one, anyway.

3. Pandas were in Warcraft 3. Diablo 3's art looks nothing like WoW, apart from maybe some basic character model styling.

4. Again, Pandas were in Warcraft 3. Warcraft lore in 1 and 2 wasn't exactly ground breaking, anyway. In fact, it was basically Warhammer with a couple twists on it. Warcraft's world held no interest for me until I got to the Human campaign in WC3. When I played WoW, it felt like the same world as WC3. The art style, the humor and the storytelling all felt right. Up to this point, WoW has been the further adventures of Warcraft 3 and, truth be told, Pandaria isn't THAT far off from that, because Chen was in WC3. Anyway, I never understood the outrage at pandas. With all the whacky shit blizzard has thrown into WoW and the Warcraft games, why are Pandas such a big deal?

#134 Posted by Kiri90 (251 posts) -

The release date also solves my dilemma with Max Payne 3. I will unquestionably buy Max Payne 3, but have been debating whether to get it for the 360 (for multiplayer and to get it on the 15th) or to wait two weeks and get it for PC. I built my PC last month, so I definitely see graphical improvements on PC over console. By getting Diablo on the 15th, I think I'll be able to endure the wait for Max Payne 3 without a problem...I hope.

#135 Edited by Funkydupe (3293 posts) -

I played the beta (i'd rather call it a demo or vertical slice). I had latency issues. I was a single player in a singleplayer game. I wasn't expecting to experience lag but ah well.

Edit: Sorry about that Kiri90. I was trying to answer the thread in general, but failed hard and answered your specific post.

#136 Posted by Kiri90 (251 posts) -

@Funkydupe: No worries, man. I came here to look at my comment because I was like, "Did I say something about the gameplay?" haha

#137 Posted by d00dCOMEON (24 posts) -

you are copypasting yet another press release as a "news editor" position for gamespot, and trying to talk down to lower wage position holders?

lol.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.