Diablo III Wild Speculation and Rumor Mongering Abounds

[Ragnoros]

I like to cast spells at monsters, not just in their general direction. Basically I agree with what Malakili said. I've been doing that a lot in this thread.

Right, like no developer has ever thought up a smart lock-on system? Worked fine in Kingdom Hearts. Swing at something, you're automatically locked on. Change you mind? Swing at something else. Still not happy? Manual lock your own target.

Furthermore, I agree that having separate control mechanisms (sticks) for movement and targeting is superior than using one (mouse) for both. Being able to maneuver with one stick while flinging spells with the other is just nice.

Having said all that. While I would love to play some split-screen Diablo 3 with my non PC gamer friends, It had better not effect the PC release date!

Edit: I suppose it is just a preference thing. Demo DS3 or Torchlight on your console of choice vs. the PC demos. See what you like.

[Malakili]

I don't particularly care if they have controller support or release on a console, as long as the PC version feels right.    Blizzard can probably afford to manage this, but I've been burned too many times to be *totally* neutral towards the idea (Borderlands anyone?)

[FieryBalrog]

I've wanted a good Diablo on consoles since the early days of time. Anyone who is against this is just... weird.

Malakili, this is Diablo. Not a fighting game. There are no Just Frames in this.

Diablo was on the PSX and it sucked. Mostly the horrific loading times and being sloppily ported, but still.

But whatever, the reality is that for any of the shitty publishers we live with today any game that costs over $20 retail when it's new has to be made with consoles in mind to end up being profitable.

Yeah, but Torchlight XBLA is quite solid.

[K9]

The item database is now live

[Velorath]

Article from RPS that talks about some of the effects the "always online" has on the game.  I have to admit, I'm one of the people who generally doesn't care too much about always having to be online, since the only time I ever play games is at my desktop, which is always connected.  While he does go into some of the usual talk about how you won't be able to play in the rare instances the server or your internet connection is down, this article does bring up a couple points in the case of how Diablo does things that I hadn't considered.

The first is that technically, since there is no "single player" mode, you can't pause the game.  Even if you aren't playing with anybody else, there is no pause.  This makes thing very MMO-like in the respect that if you're the type who has to frequently get the door or the phone, or check on your kids, or are otherwise frequently interrupted while playing games, this can potentially be an issue.  The other more minor thing that the writer mentions, is that you will be logged out due to inactivity.  The writer mentions that he was away for an hour when it happened to him, which isn't a huge deal.  He also states that checkpoints are currently few and far between (obviously this can change), and that if for whatever reason you get disconnected, you'll find yourself having to do a lot of stuff over again.  Of course this is Diablo so I guess if you can't handle going through the same areas multiple times this probably isn't the game for you anyway.

[Hawkbit]

In my opinion, a game that requires an always-on connection to prevent cheating of the player against the game or others is okay. However, I am not okay with an always-on (or anything more than a first-time check) that is simply there to prevent piracy of the game.  Especially when the only three avenues of distribution are DRM per se.  It seems like a silly distinction, but its valid to me. 

It won't stop me from buying D3, but the inability to pause is a huge downside.  That's one of the reasons I've trended away from MMOs so much.  Hopefully there's a quick way to get to a safe spot.  Also, the disconnect due to inactivity sucks, but if it is really an hour then I can't complain too much. 

The item database is now live

This part I'm pissy about.  I wish that database would have been started fresh once the game is live.  It would have been nice for the gear to be a bit of a surprise.

[Bann]

No release till 2012. 

http://eu.battle.net/d3/en/blog/3002244#blog

[Malakili]

No release till 2012. 

http://eu.battle.net/d3/en/blog/3002244#blog

Bah.

[Arrrgh]

No release till 2012. 

http://eu.battle.net/d3/en/blog/3002244#blog

Ploy to get SWTOR to announce a date.

[K9]

BAH

[Paelos]

They probably announce it right in February when I couldn't care less and have no time.

[Hawkbit]

October would be a perfect time to launch Torchlight 2. 

Bummed by this announcement, I was hoping to play this by end of year. 

[Polysorbate80]

  you won't be able to play in the rare instances the server or your internet connection is down...

Clearly, you've not had the (dis)pleasure of using my DSL.  It frequently shits itself, usually only for short periods but it's still long enough to disconnect me from battle.net; this makes the game effectively useless to me.

[NiX]

No release till 2012. 

http://eu.battle.net/d3/en/blog/3002244#blog

And why would anyone think this wasn't going to be the case? Beta just started.

[Malakili]

No release till 2012. 

http://eu.battle.net/d3/en/blog/3002244#blog

And why would anyone think this wasn't going to be the case? Beta just started.

Because they had stated several times that they anticipated a shorter beta for D3 and that they hoped to hit a 2011 release. Yeah, whatever it means nothing, blizzard, etc etc.  Still, I hoped.

[Murgos]

Honestly, it is Blizzard and 'early' 2012 could still end up holiday 2012.  They have never not taken their time but the results are usually worth it.

[Merusk]

  you won't be able to play in the rare instances the server or your internet connection is down...

Clearly, you've not had the (dis)pleasure of using my DSL.  It frequently shits itself, usually only for short periods but it's still long enough to disconnect me from battle.net; this makes the game effectively useless to me.

Move out of the boonies, you hillbilly.   

[LK]

It would have been nice for the gear to be a bit of a surprise.

Then don't look at it.

[Hawkbit]

That wasn't the point.  I meant a surprise to the playerbase.  As everything Blizzard, they just lay all their numbers out on the table, so before the game is even launched there will be cookie cutter builds and gear. 

I'm the guy who likes a little mystery in my games, though.  There's something to be said for making discoveries, rather than being given the discoveries.  Just my opinion, of course.

[Malakili]

That wasn't the point.  I meant a surprise to the playerbase.  As everything Blizzard, they just lay all their numbers out on the table, so before the game is even launched there will be cookie cutter builds and gear. 

I'm the guy who likes a little mystery in my games, though.  There's something to be said for making discoveries, rather than being given the discoveries.  Just my opinion, of course.

If Blizzard didn't do it, then someone else would with a third party site, its not like it changes anything.

[LK]

Article from RPS that talks about some of the effects the "always online" has on the game. 

I see a writer that doesn't understand the product he's playing because it's new and different from traditional definitions, nor understanding the repercussions of the changes he's proposing, nor willing or unable to adapt to the current system.

Blizzard has already addressed this in interviews, and the Always-On network was chosen for precise reasons, some publically stated and some that have been recognized as common sense as the industry moves towards Always-On everything. Blizzard wants to maintain control over every aspect of its product going forward, and this is the side effect of it. The implementation of an Always-On network can't work for everyone, it never will, and it does create a product that excludes certain customers based on their personal circumstances, and there will be complaints.

Most every point in the article can be refuted with this one.

His overuse of all-or-nothing unsupported judgmental words such as obviously and clearly are bothersome. There are multiple statements he makes I don't like which undermine his argument and are spinning the situation in his favor:

My intention with Diablo III is to solo the game.

Bias red flag which eliminates his objectivity.

It is, undeniably, designed to be played as a single-player game.

Every article and statement Blizzard has made about the game goes against this. Just because you write it and its published doesn't make it true. The game, whatever "style" it is, has the option to be played Solo. That is an available option and a valid use of the product. But that doesn't make Diablo III a single-player game unless you ignore a huge range of features included with the product.

A single-player game that won’t pause, and if you leave it running will boot you out and cancel your progress. That’s insane.

I find this the worst of his conclusions and an attempt to get a zinger statement in his article. He admits his progress *was* saved in the article, just not the way that is traditional for single player games. Repeating "single-player" as a definition of the game would serve to help validate his arguments, but the foundation of his argument, that Diablo III is a single-player game, is flimsy and weak.

Blizzard MUST address this ... But no matter how much they have argued that their always-on system is of benefit to players, it absolutely isn’t proving to be the case.

Not in his unique circumstances, no, and other edge cases exist, and those are recognized by Blizzard. The formula Blizzard has put in place does eliminate some people's preferred control of the game. The change does serve to give Blizzard more control than previous releases have, sets a new standard going forward for their products (and the industry), and forces upon players a feature set that they may not desire or need (or, perhaps, know they need or want, which seems to be the crux of Blizzard's argument with providing players with more than they want. They don't know better?).

[LK]

That wasn't the point.  I meant a surprise to the playerbase.  As everything Blizzard, they just lay all their numbers out on the table, so before the game is even launched there will be cookie cutter builds and gear. 

I'm the guy who likes a little mystery in my games, though.  There's something to be said for making discoveries, rather than being given the discoveries.  Just my opinion, of course.

If Blizzard didn't do it, then someone else would with a third party site, its not like it changes anything.

I understand your concern Hawkbit but Blizzard appears to be beating those that sell their highly-sought after information for personal gain to the punch.

This is another sign that Blizzard wants to control every aspect of their games from access to information distribution so that third-parties aren't the ones making money off Blizzard products.

[Paelos]

Again, the always online component doesn't bother me here because so much of the game revolves around trading. It only bothers me when it's obvious the choice was made to fuck over the userbase in a half-assed attempt to control piracy (see Ubisoft).

[Ingmar]

I maintain my Q2 2012 prediction.

[Yegolev]

Now I have an idea of when to unlock this thread, if things come to a locking.

I'm watching.

[Job601]

A single-player game that won’t pause, and if you leave it running will boot you out and cancel your progress. That’s insane.

I find this the worst of his conclusions and an attempt to get a zinger statement in his article. He admits his progress *was* saved in the article, just not the way that is traditional for single player games. Repeating "single-player" as a definition of the game would serve to help validate his arguments, but the foundation of his argument, that Diablo III is a single-player game, is flimsy and weak.

I agree with everything you're saying. The weird thing is that this is how saving in Diablo II worked, too -- you could pause the game, of course, but if you did a save and quit you'd have to restart from the last waypoint and killl everything again.  Diablo II reviews complained about that, too, before people understood that Blizzard was suggesting a different way of playing the game from what they were used to.

[Sjofn]

Jesus, Yegolev, that thing is starting into my soul.

[Ironwood]

  you won't be able to play in the rare instances the server or your internet connection is down...

Clearly, you've not had the (dis)pleasure of using my DSL.  It frequently shits itself, usually only for short periods but it's still long enough to disconnect me from battle.net; this makes the game effectively useless to me.

This.  Scotland is a Third World Hellhole Wasteland of Broadband.

This game is not for me for a variety of reasons, but this is the big one.  Such a shame.

[Velorath]

Article from RPS that talks about some of the effects the "always online" has on the game. 

I see a writer that doesn't understand the product he's playing because it's new and different from traditional definitions, nor understanding the repercussions of the changes he's proposing, nor willing or unable to adapt to the current system.

I don't want to SirBruce your SirBrucing there, but the writer clearly acknowledges "it’s arguably not the primary way Blizzard intends the game to be played" in regards to him planning on soloing the game.  You can disagree with his conclusions at the end, but most of his article seems to be a fairly reasonable assessment of issues some people might have to deal with as a result of the game always being online.  Yes, he has a "bias".  He makes it clearly known in the opening of the article.  I don't think he's alone in wanting to play the game as mostly a single player experience.

[Ironwood]

I think I missed a whole page.  I hate it when that happens.

[rk47]

A single-player game that won’t pause, and if you leave it running will boot you out and cancel your progress. That’s insane.

I find this the worst of his conclusions and an attempt to get a zinger statement in his article. He admits his progress *was* saved in the article, just not the way that is traditional for single player games. Repeating "single-player" as a definition of the game would serve to help validate his arguments, but the foundation of his argument, that Diablo III is a single-player game, is flimsy and weak.

Haha. Fuck no. As it stands, this game is unplayable when someone just wants a quick run without stable internet connection. And that's just stupid. Any attempt to excuse such software behavior just reeks of 'I don't mind being screwed' mentality that leads to worse DRM.

Point being: He didn't want to save his progress. He wants a pause. A SIMPLE 5 MINUTE PAUSE. Because taking a crap in 30 secs means shit gets stuck in your ass crack. I can imagine the frustration if the guy is just one room away from the boss, ready to kill it, move on to the next chapter and call it a night. It's just so dumb to remove a pause function from anyone in a supposedly 'solo offline' play that doesn't affect any other players.

Oh, I forgot, solution is to hold your shit in or put on a poopsock, because it's the hardcore experience we're always looking forward to when farming bosses for drops.

[Azuredream]

Didn't D2 have town portal scrolls in abundance though? Just throw one up and chill in town while you shit.

[Simond]

Or just play Torchlight 2 instead. 

[Rendakor]

I think they're taking Town Portal out of D3.

[Malakili]

I think they're taking Town Portal out of D3.

Yeah, no TP in D3.  I'm still kind of hoping they have a change of heart though, it'd be a big change to make at this point, ubt hell, if you are going to push the game back to 2012, give me a TP.