|
|
 |
| [May 12, 2011, 6:13 pm ET] - Share - Viewing Comments |
This trailer from Diablo III demonstrates the follower system in Diablo III, which is the updated version of the hirelings from Diablo II. The clip shows the ranged attacks of the Enchantress and the Scoundrel and the tankiness of the Templar, with glimpses of attribute screens showing their skill levels and the use of armor and equipment, including rings and amulets. Thanks IncGamers.
Post Comment
Enter the details of the comment
you'd like to post in the boxes below and click the button at
the bottom of the form.
 |
| 32. |
Re: Diablo III Followers Trailer |
May 14, 2011, 00:06 |
Yifes |
|
|
Slashman wrote on May 13, 2011, 19:07:
This is why I never bothered with SC2. Not the fact that they split the game into three, its the whole philosophy of the design that just irked me. I mean...why can't you have more units per side than you had in SC1? Why is there a totally nonsensical rule like that?
Because limiting the size of your armies are important for balance reasons. As for why the limit is set at 200, that is because a game changes drastically with the scale of the armies. A battle with few units focuses on tactics and micromanaging each unit, while a battle with thousands of units focuses on macro and large scale strategy. The scale of Starcraft is set to allow a good balance of both macro and micro in a game.
Also, there's a lot of misunderstanding when people discuss SC2:
First of all, it's not a game split into 3. It's a game with 2 expansions, which will not be full priced. The first part of SC2 has its own campaign, with a main story arch that gets resolved as well as subplots that continue in the expansions. So structure wise, it is more like A New Hope, where the Death Star gets blown up, and Vader survives for TESB.
Second, there is quite a lot of innovation. The between mission storytelling mechanic is unique, and has the best presentation of any RTS to date. Yes, core game mechanics are still similar to SC1, but this is to preserve classic gameplay that didn't need changing in the first place. Instead, they innovated with new units and abilities, which is what most videogame sequels do.
I'm guessing you never really enjoyed SC's RTS gameplay, so understandably you were disappointed with SC2. In the end, Blizzard is a company that gives fans what they want, and they are incredibly consistent and successful at doing just this.
This comment was edited on May 14, 2011, 01:13. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
.. ..
Copyright © 1996-2013 Stephen Heaslip. All rights reserved.
All trademarks are properties of their respective owners.
Twitter 
