Jivaro wrote on Jun 6, 2019, 23:27:
Besides, while it may be true that Blizzard could easy churn out something that is 1000% the game that either Destiny 2 or Anthem turned out to be

I seriously doubt it TBH. Maybe early 2000's Blizzard could, with time, make the ultimate looter-shooter, but current Blizzard couldn't do it.

VaranDragon wrote on Jun 7, 2019, 04:11:

eRe4s3r wrote on Jun 7, 2019, 03:34:
Back 7 years ago, I might have cared. I like Diablo 3, but I think they could easily just improve the graphics of that and add new areas, classes, new level range (to 100) new skills and new items and it'd sell like hot butter on a stove. Also I will happily say it again whenever Diablo is mentioned but this game more than anything else needs some emergent dynamic element, like a companion beast you can level by feeding it legendaries and that then goes to fight other legendary enemies.. or whatever. Just something dynamic. The game world in Diablo 1-3 is just way too static.

They will fuck it up. Diablo3 is three steps back compared to Diablo2. I can't see the Blizzard of today capturing the gameplay or the atmosphere of the original two games unless they do a complete 180 and hire a lead developer who actually played and LOVED those games.



This will never happen.

I'll give the dev team for Reaper of Souls some credit they did a lot to right the ship. If they had been given another 1-2 expansions I think D3 would have ended up more solid. However that never happened. I'd be warily interested in that team getting Diablo 4 access but overwatch 2 sounds boring and pointless.

Diablo 3's cardinal sin was simplification of dungeon randomization. But then it did many other horrible things too, like getting rid of class-specific items, custom death animations, the Diablo visual theme, removing any meaning from going to Town, removing player agency in every way possible, removing meaningful player cooperation... dumbing down combat in general... necromancer is a melee class... fuck those losers.

Much like WoW Classic is showing people that Blizzard of 2004-2006 was a much smarter company which actually created fun gameplay... if they resurrected Diablo2 with modern graphics, you'd see people waking up to how superior it is in every way to Diablo 3.

VaranDragon wrote on Jun 7, 2019, 06:30:

fawker wrote on Jun 7, 2019, 06:20:
Sometimes some streamlining can be a good thing.

Except thats not what they did. Unless you call gutting the core gameplay features "streamlining":

4 player down from 8 player
Character builds completely gutted since you can change skills on the fly, and most skills useless
Skill trees drastically simplified
No battle.net channels and chat
No named games for hosting, only quickjoin.
Lvls down from 99 to 60. (Don't get me started on the paragon bullshit)
No PvP
No trading (for most items)
No runewords
No mature gothic horror elements, atmosphere and story is bland and made for kids

The only things that are improved are the graphics and the in-game interface. Pretty weak sauce if you ask me.

the actual core gameplay loop of Diablo 2 was loot and slaying stuff though.. what you listed are features they indeed streamlined, but gameplay wise there is no better game for loot/slaying.

Also the game level cap is 70

MacLeod wrote on Jun 7, 2019, 10:09:

MoreLuckThanSkill wrote on Jun 6, 2019, 23:03:
Overwatch 2 already? Well I guess that's their cash cow now, so not that surprising I guess.

I mean, to be fair, it has been 3 years since Overwatch came out, and they haven't even announced O2 yet, so figure at least another 2 years. 5 years for a sequel isn't exactly a short period of time.

To be faiiirrrrrr...

re: Letterkenny.

MacLeod wrote on Jun 7, 2019, 10:09:

MoreLuckThanSkill wrote on Jun 6, 2019, 23:03:
Overwatch 2 already? Well I guess that's their cash cow now, so not that surprising I guess.

I mean, to be fair, it has been 3 years since Overwatch came out, and they haven't even announced O2 yet, so figure at least another 2 years. 5 years for a sequel isn't exactly a short period of time.

That's short for Blizzard though, which makes me think O2 was primarily Activision's decision. They seem to be getting more involved recently, which is certainly not a good thing.

MoreLuckThanSkill wrote on Jun 6, 2019, 23:03:
Overwatch 2 already? Well I guess that's their cash cow now, so not that surprising I guess.

I mean, to be fair, it has been 3 years since Overwatch came out, and they haven't even announced O2 yet, so figure at least another 2 years. 5 years for a sequel isn't exactly a short period of time.

This is like the second attempt to make a StarCraft FPS I think they should give up that idea.

I do however think that they could make an RPG (not an mmo) out of the StarCraft universe. The lore of the game is pretty interesting and would be cool to see from a different perspective.

fawker wrote on Jun 7, 2019, 06:20:
Sometimes some streamlining can be a good thing.

Except thats not what they did. Unless you call gutting the core gameplay features "streamlining":

4 player down from 8 player
Character builds completely gutted since you can change skills on the fly, and most skills useless
Skill trees drastically simplified
No battle.net channels and chat
No named games for hosting, only quickjoin.
Lvls down from 99 to 60. (Don't get me started on the paragon bullshit)
No PvP
No trading (for most items)
No runewords
No mature gothic horror elements, atmosphere and story is bland and made for kids

The only things that are improved are the graphics and the in-game interface. Pretty weak sauce if you ask me.

They will fuck it up. Diablo3 is three steps back compared to Diablo2. I can't see the Blizzard of today capturing the gameplay or the atmosphere of the original two games unless they do a complete 180 and hire a lead developer who actually played and LOVED those games.

RMAH aside, believe it or not, not everyone wanted the same thing with better graphics. Sometimes some streamlining can be a good thing.

eRe4s3r wrote on Jun 7, 2019, 03:34:
Back 7 years ago, I might have cared. I like Diablo 3, but I think they could easily just improve the graphics of that and add new areas, classes, new level range (to 100) new skills and new items and it'd sell like hot butter on a stove. Also I will happily say it again whenever Diablo is mentioned but this game more than anything else needs some emergent dynamic element, like a companion beast you can level by feeding it legendaries and that then goes to fight other legendary enemies.. or whatever. Just something dynamic. The game world in Diablo 1-3 is just way too static.

They will fuck it up. Diablo3 is three steps back compared to Diablo2. I can't see the Blizzard of today capturing the gameplay or the atmosphere of the original two games unless they do a complete 180 and hire a lead developer who actually played and LOVED those games.



This will never happen.

Manga shit 2 for everyone.........

Back 7 years ago, I might have cared. I like Diablo 3, but I think they could easily just improve the graphics of that and add new areas, classes, new level range (to 100) new skills and new items and it'd sell like hot butter on a stove. Also I will happily say it again whenever Diablo is mentioned but this game more than anything else needs some emergent dynamic element, like a companion beast you can level by feeding it legendaries and that then goes to fight other legendary enemies.. or whatever. Just something dynamic. The game world in Diablo 1-3 is just way too static.

How about a really, really, really shallow battle royale game? One that everyone can play... and that works on your mobile and in your browser?!?!

I hope they streamline D4 even more make it feel even more like an MMO. Actually, make it a "free" mobile game. It's what NuBlizz really wants to do anyway.

Probably less chance to put in microtransactions when it would just be an FPS with some multiplayer.

Unfortunately, every game company now wants the multiplayer moba or fps with the capability to sell skins and other fluff.

I'd wager it was management not wanting to take any kind of a risk on something unknown. That's Actiblizz's MO.

If you took a vote among Blizzard's customer base, I would put a confident bet on O2 and D4 being much more of a priority then a SC FPS. Not that fans wouldn't lose their minds over that, but given the choice I think they would pick the course Blizzard appears to be taking. Give the people what they want right? (I do say that with a hint of sarcasm)

Besides, while it may be true that Blizzard could easy churn out something that is 1000% the game that either Destiny 2 or Anthem turned out to be, it may simply occur to Blizzard that now might not be the time to be pushing a new FPS out the door given the sales failures of those other games.

Overwatch 2 already? Well I guess that's their cash cow now, so not that surprising I guess.

heroin wrote on Jun 6, 2019, 19:41:
*yawn*

My thoughts exactly I mean seriously, why not cancel OW2 and keep Star Craft FPS, something that would absolutely be kick ass. Fricking Blizz, they really dont have their priorities right.