Op Ed

GameSpy - Should Diablo III have been first person?
I'll admit it. My first ever hands-on time with any Diablo game occurred just 24 hours ago, when my inexperienced Demon Hunter took his first fumbling steps into the Diablo III beta's dark and ominous dungeons. It took just three hours before I'd hacked and slashed my way to the main storyline's satisfying conclusion, but in that short period of time my eyes were opened to an entirely new perspective on a gaming world. As a lover of first person games, the isometric camera system in Diablo III felt very unfamiliar, and I inevitably wondered why Blizzard didn't make the leap to first person like so many other developers. This led me to wonder - should Diablo III have been a first person game, and what are the pros and cons of this approach? Let's find out.

View : : :
15.
 
Re: matthew@welchkin.net
Sep 22, 2011, 11:53
15.
Re: matthew@welchkin.net Sep 22, 2011, 11:53
Sep 22, 2011, 11:53
 
I hope that isn't true. Perhaps I'm an aberration in that I never once played any of the Diablo's as multiplayer, only single player, but a three hour game?

The beta only has Act I in it. Not sure how many acts it'll have overall, but Diablo II had 4, with a 5th added in the expansion. Plus there are multiple difficulty levels, so you generally go back and re-do the content on a higher difficulty.

Which does bring up the following quote from the article:
He informed me that, based on his many hours with the first two games, Diablo never gets very difficult.

Total BS. The ease of running around in Act I Normal compared to running around in Act V Hell is considerable. Especially if you aren't dealing with a fully twinked out character.
Date
Subject
Author
1.
Sep 22, 2011Sep 22 2011
2.
Sep 22, 2011Sep 22 2011
10.
Sep 22, 2011Sep 22 2011
12.
Sep 22, 2011Sep 22 2011
13.
Sep 22, 2011Sep 22 2011
14.
Sep 22, 2011Sep 22 2011
 15.
Sep 22, 2011Sep 22 2011
  Re: matthew@welchkin.net
18.
Sep 22, 2011Sep 22 2011
27.
Sep 22, 2011Sep 22 2011
16.
Sep 22, 2011Sep 22 2011
17.
Sep 22, 2011Sep 22 2011
19.
Sep 22, 2011Sep 22 2011
20.
Sep 22, 2011Sep 22 2011
22.
Sep 22, 2011Sep 22 2011
   Re: Op Ed
41.
Sep 22, 2011Sep 22 2011
   Re: Op Ed
42.
Sep 22, 2011Sep 22 2011
    Re: Op Ed
46.
Sep 23, 2011Sep 23 2011
     Re: Op Ed
26.
Sep 22, 2011Sep 22 2011
3.
Sep 22, 2011Sep 22 2011
4.
Sep 22, 2011Sep 22 2011
5.
Sep 22, 2011Sep 22 2011
6.
Sep 22, 2011Sep 22 2011
7.
Sep 22, 2011Sep 22 2011
8.
Sep 22, 2011Sep 22 2011
9.
Sep 22, 2011Sep 22 2011
11.
Sep 22, 2011Sep 22 2011
21.
Sep 22, 2011Sep 22 2011
23.
Sep 22, 2011Sep 22 2011
24.
Sep 22, 2011Sep 22 2011
28.
Sep 22, 2011Sep 22 2011
30.
Sep 22, 2011Sep 22 2011
   Re: Op Ed
25.
Sep 22, 2011Sep 22 2011
29.
Sep 22, 2011Sep 22 2011
31.
Sep 22, 2011Sep 22 2011
32.
Sep 22, 2011Sep 22 2011
33.
Sep 22, 2011Sep 22 2011
34.
Sep 22, 2011Sep 22 2011
35.
Sep 22, 2011Sep 22 2011
36.
Sep 22, 2011Sep 22 2011
   Re: Op Ed
38.
Sep 22, 2011Sep 22 2011
    Re: Op Ed
40.
Sep 22, 2011Sep 22 2011
     Re: Op Ed
45.
Sep 23, 2011Sep 23 2011
      Re: Op Ed
47.
Sep 23, 2011Sep 23 2011
       Re: Op Ed
48.
Sep 23, 2011Sep 23 2011
        Re: Op Ed
49.
Sep 23, 2011Sep 23 2011
         Re: Op Ed
37.
Sep 22, 2011Sep 22 2011
43.
Sep 22, 2011Sep 22 2011
   Re: Op Ed
44.
Sep 23, 2011Sep 23 2011
    Re: Op Ed
39.
Sep 22, 2011Sep 22 2011