Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

Diablo III Followers Trailer

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.

View
34 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 ] Older >

34. Re: Diablo III Followers Trailer May 14, 2011, 13:29 Yifes
 
You misunderstood my meaning here. I wasn't talking about unit caps. I'm talking about how Blizzard made a resolution that they would only have the same number of unique units per side as was in the original SC. That means that for every unique unit they created in SC2...they removed something from SC1...even if it was a great unit that people liked. The extra units were relegated to single player only. That's something that annoys me.

That was clearly for balance reasons, as you can see there were much more units available in the single player campaign not usable in MP. They've actually talked quite a bit about their thought process. For example, the Lurker was tier 2 unit that was removed because its role now overlapped with new units. I don't agree with some of their decisions, but it was hardly arbitrary and a very difficult process for them.

And you'd be wrong. I preordered SC(the Protoss Box) and my friends and I played it and Broodwar to death. Its just that most of us agree that SC2 plays it too safe and does not allow the same freedom in multiplayer as single player. It turned out to be just more of the same old.

I guess you can grow out of certain types of games then, and SC isn't your thing anymore. You'd be wrong though, for blaming Blizzard for not innovating. As I've said before, they've done a lot of innovation in the single player. The mp is relatively unchanged because SC mp is classic, and people play it avidly to this day. Their core audience doesn't want them to mess with the MP, just like Capcom's core audience doesn't want them messing with Ryu and Ken. Blizzard caters to their core audience, and they are very successful because of it, while games like C&C are now a mere shadow of their former selves. Messing with a beloved forumla just for the sake of innovation isn't always a great thing to do, and I'm glad that there is still an old school RTS out there when the trend now is to dumb things down and consolize. Besides, if you want something completely different, that's what the custom maps are there for. Just look at the official maps like Starjeweled , and that's only a single example.

This comment was edited on May 14, 2011, 13:42.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
33. Re: Diablo III Followers Trailer May 14, 2011, 08:52 Slashman
 
Yifes wrote on May 14, 2011, 00:06:
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.

You misunderstood my meaning here. I wasn't talking about unit caps. I'm talking about how Blizzard made a resolution that they would only have the same number of unique units per side as was in the original SC. That means that for every unique unit they created in SC2...they removed something from SC1...even if it was a great unit that people liked. The extra units were relegated to single player only. That's something that annoys me.

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.

I don't have any particular issue with the split of Starcraft 2. That was never really a big deal for me.

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.

And you'd be wrong. I preordered SC(the Protoss Box) and my friends and I played it and Broodwar to death. Its just that most of us agree that SC2 plays it too safe and does not allow the same freedom in multiplayer as single player. It turned out to be just more of the same old.

C&C Generals(and Zero Hour) was just more fun in multiplayer.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
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.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
31. Re: Diablo III Followers Trailer May 13, 2011, 20:52 Dades
 
They are one of the few companies that can afford to take more risks and push the envelope more without much fear of failure.

I get what you're saying and think it's a noble idea but Blizzard has never really been about pushing the envelope, they tend to create interesting ideas and then refine them continually. That's what people in general seem to want from Blizzard. I'd love to see more innovation, particularly from a great developer like Blizzard but they are essentially giving people exactly what they want already.
 
Avatar 54452
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
30. Re: Diablo III Followers Trailer May 13, 2011, 20:49 Slashman
 
Dades wrote on May 13, 2011, 19:20:
You can't just hire 500 extra people and expect to retain the same level of quality in your product. In the case of Starcraft 2 they set out to make a sport game out of it and they were forthright and honest about their intentions from the beginning. I don't like how it turned out but I can't say I was deceived. They simply had a different goal for their game and it turned out to be different from my definition of fun. Plenty of people enjoy Starcraft 2 all over the world. I think those people are strange creatures from another planet but that's a story for another time.

I get what you're saying here, but Starcraft 2 is a single example of the kind of thing I'm talking about. And it didn't start there.

I agree that arbitrarily adding more people to a project doesn't equal more quality...but I don't think that applies here. Especially since we're not talking about games that generally push the graphics limit anyway. And graphics aren't the only thing that they lag behind on.

As I said, lesser developers, with less resources than Blizzard have managed to do some amazing things. I don't just accept that Blizzard is universally unable to innovate in their products because of fear of dilution of quality.

They are one of the few companies that can afford to take more risks and push the envelope more without much fear of failure.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
29. Re: Diablo III Followers Trailer May 13, 2011, 19:20 Dades
 
You can't just hire 500 extra people and expect to retain the same level of quality in your product. In the case of Starcraft 2 they set out to make a sport game out of it and they were forthright and honest about their intentions from the beginning. I don't like how it turned out but I can't say I was deceived. They simply had a different goal for their game and it turned out to be different from my definition of fun. Plenty of people enjoy Starcraft 2 all over the world. I think those people are strange creatures from another planet but that's a story for another time.  
Avatar 54452
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
28. Re: Diablo III Followers Trailer May 13, 2011, 19:07 Slashman
 
Actually, my question is:

Why can't they do both?

It's not like they have a lack of resources. They certainly don't have any type of standard game development cycle to worry about.

If you're going to take 10 years to make something...why not push it both graphically and from an innovation standpoint?

This is the thing that makes me scratch my head about Blizzard. You can make a game that scales backward and forward well with system requirements. Time and money certainly aren't barriers to them. So what is?

It's this kind of thing that just makes me tired of them. Ok so you don't want to completely rewrite a winning formula. Does this really mean you can't expand on it any more than this?

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?

After the wholly unoriginal, moron-addicting crack that is WoW, Blizzard stopped impressing me to any great degree.

This comment was edited on May 13, 2011, 20:38.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
27. Re: Diablo III Followers Trailer May 13, 2011, 18:41 Dades
 
The visuals are above average for sure, but not up to the excellence that we have come to expect.

People like to play revisionist history but this was a totally different type of game than the shooters that were big at the time. I think it's fair to say Diablo 2 looks bad today but at the time it looked just fine which is not to say the best looking game out there. It did not look like shit on a stick.
 
Avatar 54452
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
26. Re: Diablo III Followers Trailer May 13, 2011, 18:29 PHJF
 
No, it didn't, and in fact the bad visuals were pretty much the only criticism leveled against the game. When Diablo 2 came out I was busy gaming at 1024x768, a level of "visual fidelity" that not even LoD could match.

Why don't I pull something from IGN's ten-year-old review:

Let's start with the most obvious part of the game and why all of you clamber for screenshots all the time: the graphics. For having been in development for around three years, Diablo II really isn't the prettiest thing to look at. It is so much like the first Diablo, and in fact uses the Diablo engine, that it almost seems as though it's a very fancy expansion pack. Okay, maybe that is a bit unfair. Some of the detail in the levels is very good, particularly the dungeons of Act II. But the characters and monsters really aren't the best I've seen, actually look a bit dated at times, and don't look like the three years that went into them. The visuals are above average for sure, but not up to the excellence that we have come to expect.
 
Avatar 17251
 
Steam + PSN: PHJF
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
25. Re: Diablo III Followers Trailer May 13, 2011, 17:52 Dades
 
PHJF wrote on May 13, 2011, 15:54:
Diablo 2 looked like shit on a stick when it came out, and still does.

Diablo 2 came out 11 years ago and looked fine back then considering it's not a 3D shooter.

And I don't demand cutting edge graphics from Blizzard, but something that looks better than WC3 would be a good start.

If you can't see the improvement in visual fidelity between Warcraft 3 and Diablo 3 then you are probably too old to continue gaming without some form of visual assistance.
 
Avatar 54452
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
24. Re: Diablo III Followers Trailer May 13, 2011, 15:54 PHJF
 
Diablo 2 looked like shit on a stick when it came out, and still does.

And I don't demand cutting edge graphics from Blizzard, but something that looks better than WC3 would be a good start.
 
Avatar 17251
 
Steam + PSN: PHJF
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
23. Re: Diablo III Followers Trailer May 13, 2011, 12:41 loomy
 
diablo and diablo 2 looked very good when they came out. diablo 3 is looking a bit backwards honestly.  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
22. Re: Diablo III Followers Trailer May 13, 2011, 12:32 Dades
 
I think there will be plenty of gloomy, gothic environments to suit most peoples taste. We've seen very little of the game so far and more colorful environments tend to play better for preview footage so it's no surprise they have been focusing on them.

I'm so tired of the copout answer of "Blizzard makes games that run on a wide variety blah blah blah"

It's not a copout answer though. You're assuming most PC gamers are desktop users but I would wager the majority are laptop users these days. Blizzard makes games for everyone, not just Bluesnews desktop gamer who has a dedicated graphics card.
 
Avatar 54452
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
21. Re: Diablo III Followers Trailer May 13, 2011, 11:47 Elessar
 
I do wish they would have gone with a grittier, gloomier approach to the art direction. As it is know it looks like an isometric WoW. Visually, that is.  
Avatar 46094
 
"You don't get what you deserve, you get what you get."
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
20. Re: Diablo III Followers Trailer May 13, 2011, 09:53 Optional nickname
 
Blueshrike wrote on May 12, 2011, 19:58:
Graphics look just fine. There's going to be gore galore, tons of mobs on screen, cool lighting and super stylistic graphics - and it will run on your system. Don't knock it until you play it and get a feel for how smooth it runs.


so, you are saying it took them 10 long years to copy the Torchlight engine?
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
19. Re: Diablo III Followers Trailer May 13, 2011, 09:50 Optional nickname
 
One thing for sure, the D3 cinematic cutscenes will not look anywhere as great as they did on D2. I know this from looking at the Botox-lipped Assassin. Dumbed Down. as with everything nowadays. I might be pleasantly surprised when the game does finally release. I'm still kepping an open mind. But I fear on the clean 3D spirtes, and the squeaky clean 3D drawn evironments, that will send shivers of dissapoint down my spine.  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
18. Re: Diablo III Followers Trailer May 13, 2011, 09:18 Mr. Tact
 
I'm sure I'll think D3 is excellent. I trust Blizzard to make a game I'll like, enjoy, and think is well made. What I'm really going to be interested to see is if they can capture and hold my interest through the entire game.

I wasn't particularly excited by SC2, but I bought it anyway. And I think it's a very polished game. However, I also think it's more of SC 1.5 than SC 2. Which is not necessarily bad, but the result was the game didn't hold my attention. I didn't finish the campaign.

I would put that on me and getting older, except I finish other games and I'm still raiding in WoW. So, will D3 be interesting enough that I finish it? Or will half way through I feel like, "Been here, done that" and move on? That's what I don't know...
 
Truth is brutal. Prepare for pain.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
17. Re: Diablo III Followers Trailer May 13, 2011, 09:04 gilly775
 
I wonder if Blizzard will allow modding? I know they are blocking B.Net access in SC2 with people even using trainers JUST for SP access. This probably won't bode well for the modding communiuty. I mean, Meridian XL is just a GREAT mod for D2 LoD.  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
16. Re: Diablo III Followers Trailer May 13, 2011, 07:46 Shagwood
 
Personally these days I'll take mass amounts of quality content(loot, mobs, deep involved skill trees, overall immersion) over cutting edge graphics. These are the games that I enjoy the most. I'll leave the cutting edge graphics to the FPSers. Who knows if D3 will be good. I do know that I spent waaaay too much time in D1 and D2 back in the day with friends. And it wasn't the graphics that kept me coming back.

I do worry that if there is PvP in this as I thought I have read...that Blizz will fall into the same quagmire that is WoW...which is ...I still don't think you can balance classes for both PvE and PvP in the same game...I personally have yet to see it done. Hence the constant revamps, hotfixes etc etc in WoW.
 
Avatar 46982
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
15. Re: Diablo III Followers Trailer May 13, 2011, 06:26 Ray Ban
 
I loved Diablo1, still have IRL friends that I met via Battle.net from those days back in 98. I also enjoyed SC1 quite a bit. My issues with Blizzard and why I think they're prolly the most overrated dev in the industry, is due to 1. That they take so long between titles, hense the graphics generally looking like shit, IE: D3 SC2
and 2. That they take a good 10 years or so per game and still can't manage to innovate at all in all that time of a dev cycle, SC2 brought nothing new to that series aside from looking a tad better and cutting the campaign into a 180 dollar investment just to get the full story.



The whole point was to keep the classic RTS gameplay and just deliver more quality content. Let the rest of the RTS developers innovate as much as they want (not really satisfied with Relics innovation in DoW2) and let Blizzard continue with not fixing what aint broken.


And since you complain about not getting the full story in one game: would you be happy if you got everything in one package but with just one third of the missions? Because there is as much content just in the first part of SC2 as it was in the original SC.
 
"The future's so bright I gotta wear shades!"
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
34 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 ] Older >


footer

.. .. ..

Blue's News logo