Diablo III in February?

Joystiq has an image of a store display in a Rochester, Minnesota Best Buy that seems to show a February 1 launch date for Diablo III, Blizzard's upcoming action/RPG sequel. They have some follow ups that don't completely confirm or deny this, and word that the end-cap was legit, but has since been removed. Meanwhile, the Best Buy Website now shows a February 1 release date for the game.
View : : :
280 Replies. 14 pages. Viewing page 7.
Newer [  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  ] Older
160.
 
Re: Diablo III in February?
Jan 9, 2012, 18:39
Re: Diablo III in February? Jan 9, 2012, 18:39
Jan 9, 2012, 18:39
 
Prez wrote on Jan 9, 2012, 17:57:
Red wrote on Jan 9, 2012, 17:40:
Prez wrote on Jan 9, 2012, 17:25:
Agreed.
Guild Wars and Diablo are about as close to the same game genre as two games can be. Both are third-person perspective action RPGs with customized heroes, AI helpers, random loot systems, and small-team online cooperate play with online avatar-only match-making rooms. That one of them allows for offline solo play hardly differentiates them on anything but a technical caveat (important to some people, but hardly relevant to the actual game).

What a bunch of unmitigated bullshit. Seriously, that has to be one of the most ridiculously irrelevant, unbelievably pointless arguments I've seen made on an internet forum in a long time. This whole conversation has taken a turn for the stupid.

Disregarding the first part of his post...I agree with him on this part. You call it "unmitigated bullshit", or maybe you were referring to the first part of his post and completely disregarding the rest of it. Either way you still haven't explained how they are so vastly different that it's acceptable for GW and unacceptable for D3.

159.
 
Re: Diablo III in February?
Jan 9, 2012, 18:34
Re: Diablo III in February? Jan 9, 2012, 18:34
Jan 9, 2012, 18:34
 
Prez wrote on Jan 9, 2012, 17:02:
yet there are differences too that people using the analogy to make their point conveniently ignore when making said point.

And you have yet to state them yourself other than saying that they exist. Which is why I did not comment any further to your response about that.

I pointed out the similarity of GW/D3. I pointed out that your stance is contrary to your action of owning over 1000 games on Steam, many of which require persistent online connection in order to play.

You still have not countered as to how that makes things different, only stated that it does.


I don't dictate to Blizzard how they make games. But if they can change the direction their game takes from previous iterations (offline SP in the first 2 games, always online DRM for the third), then I can change my buying decisions just as easily.

I don't disagree at all. I'm just having a hard time following your actual reasons for it, because currently I don't see any that don't contradict with your other habits.

158.
 
Re: Diablo III in February?
Jan 9, 2012, 18:28
Re: Diablo III in February? Jan 9, 2012, 18:28
Jan 9, 2012, 18:28
 
Prez wrote on Jan 9, 2012, 17:23:
You know what I've always hated about long discussions on Bluesnews? By the time the discussion has reached over a hundred posts, the quote walls are HUGE. One time, there was so many quoted quotes in response to other quoted quotes that in turn were including previous quoted quotes that the thread just exploded. True story!

Yeah, I cut out all but the most recent post when I quote long threads, since that's what I'm responding to, and I don't like the clutter either.
If Russia stops fighting, the war ends. If Ukraine stops fighting, Ukraine ends. Slava Ukraini!
Avatar 22024
157.
 
Re: Diablo III in February?
Jan 9, 2012, 18:22
nin
Re: Diablo III in February? Jan 9, 2012, 18:22
Jan 9, 2012, 18:22
nin
 
Clearly none of you works as a software developer. You can agree all you want, but the lot of you is wrong.

You'll go far with that attitude.

156.
 
Re: Diablo III in February?
Jan 9, 2012, 18:21
Re: Diablo III in February? Jan 9, 2012, 18:21
Jan 9, 2012, 18:21
 
Undocumented Alien wrote on Jan 9, 2012, 16:14:
Laptops aren't the best gaming systems, and I really wouldn't want to demote an awesome game (assuming D3 is) to the tiny screen and headphones I travel with.

I have a Dell M6500, the screen is MASSIVE and has plenty, plenty, plenty of horse power to run D3.

Again, some people travel 50%+ for work, internet connections aren't always reliable, no reason not to be able to play a game in SP mode because of that.

I play plenty of "current generation" SP games on my laptop on the road. So yeah, D3's asinine SP online requirement might be a deal breaker for me, I'm not happy about as I have VERY fond memories of dungeon crawling in SP mode for Diablo and Diablo 2.

Hopefully they will consider down the road, then I'll happily buy the game.

In the meantime, you can play Torchlight, and when it comes out: Torchlight 2, which it doesn't sound like it will require you to be online to play SP.
If Russia stops fighting, the war ends. If Ukraine stops fighting, Ukraine ends. Slava Ukraini!
Avatar 22024
155.
 
Re: Diablo III in February?
Jan 9, 2012, 18:18
Re: Diablo III in February? Jan 9, 2012, 18:18
Jan 9, 2012, 18:18
 
Red wrote on Jan 9, 2012, 17:40:
Prez wrote on Jan 9, 2012, 17:25:
Agreed.
Clearly none of you works as a software developer. You can agree all you want, but the lot of you is wrong. Just because offline gaming is an ancient concept doesn't mean a shiny new game gets those features without cost.

On another note, Guild Wars and Diablo are about as close to the same game genre as two games can be. Both are third-person perspective action RPGs with customized heroes, AI helpers, random loot systems, and small-team online cooperate play with online avatar-only match-making rooms. That one of them allows for offline solo play hardly differentiates them on anything but a technical caveat (important to some people, but hardly relevant to the actual game).

No one can discuss anything on the internet unless they can program it themselves, thanks for letting us know Rolleyes
Avatar 54452
154.
 
Re: Diablo III in February?
Jan 9, 2012, 17:57
Prez
 
Re: Diablo III in February? Jan 9, 2012, 17:57
Jan 9, 2012, 17:57
 Prez
 
Red wrote on Jan 9, 2012, 17:40:
Prez wrote on Jan 9, 2012, 17:25:
Agreed.
Clearly none of you works as a software developer. You can agree all you want, but the lot of you is wrong. Just because offline gaming is an ancient concept doesn't mean a shiny new game gets those features without cost.

On another note, Guild Wars and Diablo are about as close to the same game genre as two games can be. Both are third-person perspective action RPGs with customized heroes, AI helpers, random loot systems, and small-team online cooperate play with online avatar-only match-making rooms. That one of them allows for offline solo play hardly differentiates them on anything but a technical caveat (important to some people, but hardly relevant to the actual game).

Thank you Mr. Internet Know-it-all!!!

Since we are all know-nothing cretins, hopefully you'll go back to ignoring us dumbshits now. Using common sense and logic on a games forum! How dare we non-industry working people do that??????????

What a bunch of unmitigated bullshit. Seriously, that has to be one of the most ridiculously irrelevant, unbelievably pointless arguments I've seen made on an internet forum in a long time. This whole conversation has taken a turn for the stupid.
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Avatar 17185
153.
 
Re: Diablo III in February?
Jan 9, 2012, 17:46
Prez
 
Re: Diablo III in February? Jan 9, 2012, 17:46
Jan 9, 2012, 17:46
 Prez
 
Deleted. Double post thingy.

This comment was edited on Jan 9, 2012, 17:58.
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Avatar 17185
152.
 
Re: Diablo III in February?
Jan 9, 2012, 17:40
Red
Re: Diablo III in February? Jan 9, 2012, 17:40
Jan 9, 2012, 17:40
Red
 
Prez wrote on Jan 9, 2012, 17:25:
Agreed.
Clearly none of you works as a software developer. You can agree all you want, but the lot of you is wrong. Just because offline gaming is an ancient concept doesn't mean a shiny new game gets those features without cost.

On another note, Guild Wars and Diablo are about as close to the same game genre as two games can be. Both are third-person perspective action RPGs with customized heroes, AI helpers, random loot systems, and small-team online cooperate play with online avatar-only match-making rooms. That one of them allows for offline solo play hardly differentiates them on anything but a technical caveat (important to some people, but hardly relevant to the actual game).
Avatar 8335
151.
 
Re: Diablo III in February?
Jan 9, 2012, 17:25
Prez
 
Re: Diablo III in February? Jan 9, 2012, 17:25
Jan 9, 2012, 17:25
 Prez
 
Mr. Tact wrote on Jan 9, 2012, 16:43:
Undocumented Alien wrote on Jan 9, 2012, 15:55:
To support offline mode, the designers have to re-work the UI to show online and offline heroes in a way that makes sense but doesn't detract from the majority of gamers who'll never have offline heroes.

Come on man, this has been supported for over a decade by many games. Absolutely NOTHING new about supporting SP and MP.

Diablo 2 did it 10+ years ago with supporting SP, MP (LAN), AND MP (Battle.NET).
This 100 times over. That "we don't understand" or "programmers had to" stuff is such utter BS.

Agreed.
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Avatar 17185
150.
 
Re: Diablo III in February?
Jan 9, 2012, 17:23
Prez
 
Re: Diablo III in February? Jan 9, 2012, 17:23
Jan 9, 2012, 17:23
 Prez
 
You know what I've always hated about long discussions on Bluesnews? By the time the discussion has reached over a hundred posts, the quote walls are HUGE. One time, there was so many quoted quotes in response to other quoted quotes that in turn were including previous quoted quotes that the thread just exploded. True story!
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Avatar 17185
149.
 
Re: Diablo III in February?
Jan 9, 2012, 17:15
Re: Diablo III in February? Jan 9, 2012, 17:15
Jan 9, 2012, 17:15
 
Darks wrote on Jan 9, 2012, 17:09:
RollinThundr wrote on Jan 9, 2012, 16:47:
jdreyer wrote on Jan 9, 2012, 15:47:
RollinThundr wrote on Jan 9, 2012, 14:50:

You mean to tell me after a decade, they only managed to finish one race's campaign? Really? C'mon it's a cash grab, you know it, I know it, Blizzard knows it. Let's be realistic here.

I'd love for Activision to give Blizzard a standard 18-24 month dev cycle that the rest of the industy uses rather than 5-10 years they take each title just to laugh at the results.

Blizzard in my eyes is the most overrated developer in the entire industry, Any other team does not need a decade to put out a standard action rpg click fest, or a standard RTS based on genre tropes.

It's astounding to me that people still defend them for being inept.

You're getting way to caught up on what they called the game, and not what is in the game. The content is superior both in quality and quantity to the original. They announced a trilogy. Each game is standalone, separated by two full years of development. This same model is used by countless developers: Bioshock, Mass Effect, Batman Arkham X, Modern Warfare, etc. How is this any different from those games? It's not. If Heart of the Swarm comes out with no SP game, and only 2 extra units per side for $60 I'll eat my words, but that seems extremely unlikely.

As for it taking 10 years to get SCII out the door, Blizzard is a smaller company that focuses on one or two projects at a time. Their products are uniformly high quality, and tend to be played for years after release. I guess if you don't like SCII, you could play that other RTS that came out 1.5 years ago that is still played by thousands of people. Oh, no you can't because there isn't one.

As for it being a "standard RTS", you can't just pump these out like apple pies: it takes a lot of time and effort to get the gameplay and balance of an RTS correct. The possibilities in chess are greater than all the molecules in the known universe. Given that an RTS orders of magnitude more complex than chess, it stands to reason that takes some time to get right. Look at two recent RTS games that didn't take that time: Stronghold 3 and SotS 2, both of which are total messes.

As for Blizzard being inept, SCII scores 93% on Metacritic, 92% on Game Rankings, and has sold over 5 million copies, most of those at full price. By any objective measure, that reeks of competence and success.

I meant inept in the sense of dev cycles. Name one thing that SC2 does game play wise, that any C&C game hasn't done with the exception of C&C 4 that didn't have base building. To be honest I'd rather play C&C Generals than Warcraft3 or Starcraft 2 just on personal preference. SC isn't fun MP, every game is a 5 minute base rush online and the cpu ai cheats solo. Meh sorry not impressed.

I could care less how many copies they sell based solely on the Blizzard brand name, the fact of the matter is their titles graphically look worse 99 out of 100 times compared to others in their respected genres due to their long cycles, never innovate, and imo at the least are over rated because to me they are no better or play really any different than other titles put out by other developers in less time.

With one exception, I though Diablo 1 was one of the greatest games of it's time and really that was made by Condor who Blizzard bought after they pitched the title to them in the first place.


My biggest gripe about Blizzard would be that they get so caught up in the, I don’t want to change anything; we just want to make it look better and play better. They still can’t think outside the box. They refuse to update their games to a more modern look and feel. And what I mean by that is, why is it that we still can’t use the keyboard to move your char around with why is it that we still have lack of control over the camera and lack of rotating the camera?

The best answer I can come up with is that Blizzard is afraid to change anything for fear that it would upset many of their fan bases. I personally can’t stand the camera being locked down. To me, I need a camera more like Dungeon Siege or Sacred 2.

Same goes for their cookie cutter Suck Craft 2. All they did with that game was give it a shiny new coat of paint. The game is still pretty much the same. All you guys got was a new story to go along with that new coat of paint.

Blizzard needs to take more chances with their games, and they really do need to stop taking 5 years to develop a game. They got an endless supply of money coming in, there’s no excuse for not having a good sized team that can get the job done quicker.

Thank you for making my point better than I did Darks,this is exactly pretty much what I was trying to get across. As to someone's comment about Blizzard is "small" isn't the D3 dev team like 100+ people at this point? Yep they're such a "small" indy studio.
148.
 
Re: Diablo III in February?
Jan 9, 2012, 17:09
Re: Diablo III in February? Jan 9, 2012, 17:09
Jan 9, 2012, 17:09
 
RollinThundr wrote on Jan 9, 2012, 16:47:
jdreyer wrote on Jan 9, 2012, 15:47:
RollinThundr wrote on Jan 9, 2012, 14:50:

You mean to tell me after a decade, they only managed to finish one race's campaign? Really? C'mon it's a cash grab, you know it, I know it, Blizzard knows it. Let's be realistic here.

I'd love for Activision to give Blizzard a standard 18-24 month dev cycle that the rest of the industy uses rather than 5-10 years they take each title just to laugh at the results.

Blizzard in my eyes is the most overrated developer in the entire industry, Any other team does not need a decade to put out a standard action rpg click fest, or a standard RTS based on genre tropes.

It's astounding to me that people still defend them for being inept.

You're getting way to caught up on what they called the game, and not what is in the game. The content is superior both in quality and quantity to the original. They announced a trilogy. Each game is standalone, separated by two full years of development. This same model is used by countless developers: Bioshock, Mass Effect, Batman Arkham X, Modern Warfare, etc. How is this any different from those games? It's not. If Heart of the Swarm comes out with no SP game, and only 2 extra units per side for $60 I'll eat my words, but that seems extremely unlikely.

As for it taking 10 years to get SCII out the door, Blizzard is a smaller company that focuses on one or two projects at a time. Their products are uniformly high quality, and tend to be played for years after release. I guess if you don't like SCII, you could play that other RTS that came out 1.5 years ago that is still played by thousands of people. Oh, no you can't because there isn't one.

As for it being a "standard RTS", you can't just pump these out like apple pies: it takes a lot of time and effort to get the gameplay and balance of an RTS correct. The possibilities in chess are greater than all the molecules in the known universe. Given that an RTS orders of magnitude more complex than chess, it stands to reason that takes some time to get right. Look at two recent RTS games that didn't take that time: Stronghold 3 and SotS 2, both of which are total messes.

As for Blizzard being inept, SCII scores 93% on Metacritic, 92% on Game Rankings, and has sold over 5 million copies, most of those at full price. By any objective measure, that reeks of competence and success.

I meant inept in the sense of dev cycles. Name one thing that SC2 does game play wise, that any C&C game hasn't done with the exception of C&C 4 that didn't have base building. To be honest I'd rather play C&C Generals than Warcraft3 or Starcraft 2 just on personal preference. SC isn't fun MP, every game is a 5 minute base rush online and the cpu ai cheats solo. Meh sorry not impressed.

I could care less how many copies they sell based solely on the Blizzard brand name, the fact of the matter is their titles graphically look worse 99 out of 100 times compared to others in their respected genres due to their long cycles, never innovate, and imo at the least are over rated because to me they are no better or play really any different than other titles put out by other developers in less time.

With one exception, I though Diablo 1 was one of the greatest games of it's time and really that was made by Condor who Blizzard bought after they pitched the title to them in the first place.


My biggest gripe about Blizzard would be that they get so caught up in the, I don’t want to change anything; we just want to make it look better and play better. They still can’t think outside the box. They refuse to update their games to a more modern look and feel. And what I mean by that is, why is it that we still can’t use the keyboard to move your char around with why is it that we still have lack of control over the camera and lack of rotating the camera?

The best answer I can come up with is that Blizzard is afraid to change anything for fear that it would upset many of their fan bases. I personally can’t stand the camera being locked down. To me, I need a camera more like Dungeon Siege or Sacred 2.

Same goes for their cookie cutter Suck Craft 2. All they did with that game was give it a shiny new coat of paint. The game is still pretty much the same. All you guys got was a new story to go along with that new coat of paint.

Blizzard needs to take more chances with their games, and they really do need to stop taking 5 years to develop a game. They got an endless supply of money coming in, there’s no excuse for not having a good sized team that can get the job done quicker.
Author of the Neverwinter Nights Eye of the Beholder Series of Mods.
Now integrated into Steams NWN: Enhanced Edition

http://www.moddb.com/mods/eye-of-the-beholder-ii-ledgend-of-darkmoon
Avatar 20498
147.
 
Re: Diablo III in February?
Jan 9, 2012, 17:02
Prez
 
Re: Diablo III in February? Jan 9, 2012, 17:02
Jan 9, 2012, 17:02
 Prez
 
Krovven wrote on Jan 9, 2012, 14:15:
Prez wrote on Jan 9, 2012, 11:57:
Of course there is no valid reasoning behind the move, your suspicions are correct. The Guild Wars analogy is dead out of the gate but inexplicably people still use it to attempt to invalidate reasonable frustrations at a disastrously stupid move by an otherwise fantastic development studio.

Why is it invalid Prez? Because you say so?

Guild Wars and Diablo are both games you can play solo, both games you can play online with friends or random people. Only argument you've given is that Diablo 1 and 2 had offline single player options, so that means Diablo 3 should too. It's been 12 years since Diablo 2 was released, things have changed. Just because it's predecessor did something doesnt automatically mean the sequel should too.


Is what invalid? The analogy? Absolutely. Because I say no? No, analogies are rhetorical comparisons of identical situations, which simply can't be said of the Guild Wars/Diablo 3 comparison. Exactly where the terms "apples to apples or apples to oranges" is applied. There are some similarities, such as the ones you mention, yet there are differences too that people using the analogy to make their point conveniently ignore when making said point.

I'm thrilled that you enjoyed the beta and I am sure I would have too had I not written the game off the instant Blizzard crossed a line where I will not follow. If you share no such standard of tolerance, then more power to you. You and I have no quarrel. What I do take issue with is the implication that I must be a hypocritical person because I own games on an online service that offers vastly less restrictive measures for singleplayer games than Blizzard's unnecessary singleplayer online restriction for Diablo 3 from where I'm sitting.

I don't dictate to Blizzard how they make games. But if they can change the direction their game takes from previous iterations (offline SP in the first 2 games, always online DRM for the third), then I can change my buying decisions just as easily.

This comment was edited on Jan 9, 2012, 17:32.
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Avatar 17185
146.
 
Re: Diablo III in February?
Jan 9, 2012, 16:47
Re: Diablo III in February? Jan 9, 2012, 16:47
Jan 9, 2012, 16:47
 
jdreyer wrote on Jan 9, 2012, 15:47:
RollinThundr wrote on Jan 9, 2012, 14:50:

You mean to tell me after a decade, they only managed to finish one race's campaign? Really? C'mon it's a cash grab, you know it, I know it, Blizzard knows it. Let's be realistic here.

I'd love for Activision to give Blizzard a standard 18-24 month dev cycle that the rest of the industy uses rather than 5-10 years they take each title just to laugh at the results.

Blizzard in my eyes is the most overrated developer in the entire industry, Any other team does not need a decade to put out a standard action rpg click fest, or a standard RTS based on genre tropes.

It's astounding to me that people still defend them for being inept.

You're getting way to caught up on what they called the game, and not what is in the game. The content is superior both in quality and quantity to the original. They announced a trilogy. Each game is standalone, separated by two full years of development. This same model is used by countless developers: Bioshock, Mass Effect, Batman Arkham X, Modern Warfare, etc. How is this any different from those games? It's not. If Heart of the Swarm comes out with no SP game, and only 2 extra units per side for $60 I'll eat my words, but that seems extremely unlikely.

As for it taking 10 years to get SCII out the door, Blizzard is a smaller company that focuses on one or two projects at a time. Their products are uniformly high quality, and tend to be played for years after release. I guess if you don't like SCII, you could play that other RTS that came out 1.5 years ago that is still played by thousands of people. Oh, no you can't because there isn't one.

As for it being a "standard RTS", you can't just pump these out like apple pies: it takes a lot of time and effort to get the gameplay and balance of an RTS correct. The possibilities in chess are greater than all the molecules in the known universe. Given that an RTS orders of magnitude more complex than chess, it stands to reason that takes some time to get right. Look at two recent RTS games that didn't take that time: Stronghold 3 and SotS 2, both of which are total messes.

As for Blizzard being inept, SCII scores 93% on Metacritic, 92% on Game Rankings, and has sold over 5 million copies, most of those at full price. By any objective measure, that reeks of competence and success.

I meant inept in the sense of dev cycles. Name one thing that SC2 does game play wise, that any C&C game hasn't done with the exception of C&C 4 that didn't have base building. To be honest I'd rather play C&C Generals than Warcraft3 or Starcraft 2 just on personal preference. SC isn't fun MP, every game is a 5 minute base rush online and the cpu ai cheats solo. Meh sorry not impressed.

I could care less how many copies they sell based solely on the Blizzard brand name, the fact of the matter is their titles graphically look worse 99 out of 100 times compared to others in their respected genres due to their long cycles, never innovate, and imo at the least are over rated because to me they are no better or play really any different than other titles put out by other developers in less time.

With one exception, I though Diablo 1 was one of the greatest games of it's time and really that was made by Condor who Blizzard bought after they pitched the title to them in the first place.
145.
 
Re: Diablo III in February?
Jan 9, 2012, 16:43
Re: Diablo III in February? Jan 9, 2012, 16:43
Jan 9, 2012, 16:43
 
Undocumented Alien wrote on Jan 9, 2012, 15:55:
To support offline mode, the designers have to re-work the UI to show online and offline heroes in a way that makes sense but doesn't detract from the majority of gamers who'll never have offline heroes.

Come on man, this has been supported for over a decade by many games. Absolutely NOTHING new about supporting SP and MP.

Diablo 2 did it 10+ years ago with supporting SP, MP (LAN), AND MP (Battle.NET).
This 100 times over. That "we don't understand" or "programmers had to" stuff is such utter BS.
“Extinction is the rule. Survival is the exception.” -- Carl Sagan
144.
 
Re: Diablo III in February?
Jan 9, 2012, 16:32
Re: Diablo III in February? Jan 9, 2012, 16:32
Jan 9, 2012, 16:32
 
While I doubt that this release date will be firm, I do believe they are very close to this date for release. Another funny thing is, the guys making Torchlight 2 have been screwing around trying to get the game done, that if they’re not carful Diablo 3 will get released sooner than they expected and this will ultimately have a big effect on their games release and success. Blizzards liable to pull the old switch-aroo on them by releasing D3 sooner than anyone expected.
Author of the Neverwinter Nights Eye of the Beholder Series of Mods.
Now integrated into Steams NWN: Enhanced Edition

http://www.moddb.com/mods/eye-of-the-beholder-ii-ledgend-of-darkmoon
Avatar 20498
143.
 
Re: Diablo III in February?
Jan 9, 2012, 16:14
Re: Diablo III in February? Jan 9, 2012, 16:14
Jan 9, 2012, 16:14
 
Laptops aren't the best gaming systems, and I really wouldn't want to demote an awesome game (assuming D3 is) to the tiny screen and headphones I travel with.

I have a Dell M6500, the screen is MASSIVE and has plenty, plenty, plenty of horse power to run D3.

Again, some people travel 50%+ for work, internet connections aren't always reliable, no reason not to be able to play a game in SP mode because of that.

I play plenty of "current generation" SP games on my laptop on the road. So yeah, D3's asinine SP online requirement might be a deal breaker for me, I'm not happy about as I have VERY fond memories of dungeon crawling in SP mode for Diablo and Diablo 2.

Hopefully they will consider down the road, then I'll happily buy the game.
142.
 
Re: Diablo III in February?
Jan 9, 2012, 16:05
nin
Re: Diablo III in February? Jan 9, 2012, 16:05
Jan 9, 2012, 16:05
nin
 
You're not supposed (or even allowed?) to watch R rated movies on a plane because of consideration for your neighbors.

Oh please. On a flight to London, they showed Training Day, with every profanity intact.

141.
 
Re: Diablo III in February?
Jan 9, 2012, 16:00
Red
Re: Diablo III in February? Jan 9, 2012, 16:00
Jan 9, 2012, 16:00
Red
 
Undocumented Alien wrote on Jan 9, 2012, 15:51:
Be great to play D3 while traveling for 4 hours on an airplane
You're not supposed (or even allowed?) to watch R rated movies on a plane because of consideration for your neighbors. I would think a game like D3 would be similarly inappropriate. Maybe not in first class?

Personally, I use portable devices (gameboys back in the day, iPad now) for gaming on the go. Laptops aren't the best gaming systems, and I really wouldn't want to demote an awesome game (assuming D3 is) to the tiny screen and headphones I travel with. I would save it until I got home on the big monitor and good sound system. I guess I have the luxury of generally being home on evenings and weekends.

nin wrote on Jan 9, 2012, 16:05:
You're not supposed (or even allowed?) to watch R rated movies on a plane because of consideration for your neighbors.

Oh please. On a flight to London, they showed Training Day, with every profanity intact.

Sorry, I forgot the rest of the world isn't as ridiculous as America. Most of my flights are domestic. And our ears bleed and eyes pop at even the faintest hint of public profanity and nudity.

This comment was edited on Jan 9, 2012, 16:10.
Avatar 8335
280 Replies. 14 pages. Viewing page 7.
Newer [  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  ] Older