xkcd

by **FACM** » Wed Jul 02, 2008 2:54 am UTC

I was just glad to see a gem drop in the video. Likely means socketing is back in D3, and hopefullly will be a little deeper than D2's was before runes went in.

by **Gelsamel** » Wed Jul 02, 2008 2:55 am UTC

God, remember Last Wish? Could you be expensive enough!

by **Notch** » Wed Jul 02, 2008 8:19 am UTC

Sweet brother of Ender! This is the greatest thing to ever happen, including the time some geeky kid in a movie lost his virginity!

I'm a bit sad they're removing the free-for-all loot, though. I do understand why it's needed for random online play, but when I played coop with friends, half the fun was racing for good loot. I hope they include drop type as an option when creating the server or something.

Diablo kicked sooo much ass. I only played this singleplayer, though. I can still hear the music.
Diablo 2 kicked even more ass, but seriously, it was butt-ugly. The pseudo 3d stuff didn't work, and the sprites had horrible color depth.
Titan Quest sucked.
Loki was embarrassing.
Dungeon Siege 1/2 was awesome fun in coop, but totally unbalanced. Crossbow in DS2 with that penetrating shot hero power and a bunch of hero power regen loot meant you were unstoppable tank. It's a freaking railgun.
ADOM was fun, too bad Mr Biskup appears to have stopped developing it.
NetHack is confusing, and not casual fun enough.
Emacs, I don't get. Seems to be a NetHack variant.

by **CogDissident** » Wed Jul 02, 2008 1:43 pm UTC

Notch, try "Tales of Middle Earth" (ToME), it is a rather deep roguelike that is really close to diablo in playstyle. And pretty well balanced for most classes.

by **Narsil** » Wed Jul 02, 2008 2:30 pm UTC

Damn it. I was all set to buy a PS3, now I'm going to have to get a new computer too. The graphics are okay, but my computer stutters on D2. Please don't make fun of me.

by **CogDissident** » Wed Jul 02, 2008 2:34 pm UTC

Since I'm being mr helpful today. Go to http://www.pricewatch.com for your new computer.

A windows machine, with good hardware and able to run Crysis on medium settings (a good benchmark for a good gaming machine) will run you between 400 and 500$. Plus monitor (which you probably don't need to replace).

by **Axman** » Wed Jul 02, 2008 3:50 pm UTC

Narsil wrote:Damn it. I was all set to buy a PS3, now I'm going to have to get a new computer too. The graphics are okay, but my computer stutters on D2. Please don't make fun of me.

It's OK. We can help you. You're gonna be all right.

by **Gelsamel** » Wed Jul 02, 2008 4:33 pm UTC

My laptop can run Crysis well on lowish settings. Reakon it'll run D3 at close to full?

by **CogDissident** » Wed Jul 02, 2008 4:39 pm UTC

I really doubt it. I bet the "full" settings will have stuff like water reflecting the particle effects of magic. But it should run it on settings that make the game "pretty" as well as playable.

by **dyzzy** » Wed Jul 02, 2008 4:47 pm UTC

I'm also somewhat interested in how moddable 3 will be. There are some pretty neat and inventive mods out there for LoD. I actually preferred this mod to the actual game. That's saying something, because I really enjoyed regular D2 as it was.

by **Gelsamel** » Wed Jul 02, 2008 4:49 pm UTC

I didn't even know D2:LoD mods existed...

by **mosc** » Wed Jul 02, 2008 5:19 pm UTC

You can't exactly do much multiplayer on them. D2 without online multiplayer is kinda stupid. Good for lan party short bursts maybe but nothing lasting.

by **dyzzy** » Wed Jul 02, 2008 5:40 pm UTC

For the more popular mods, there exist sizable communities who use tools like Hamachi to achieve this. Given the nature of D2's multiplayer, it isn't too much different. There are also even private servers that host "realms" for specific mods, but that's something Blizzard does not look kindly upon.

by **Kerberos** » Wed Jul 02, 2008 5:47 pm UTC

Something that bugs me in the gameplay video is that in the second area outside, with the big buffalo-things, when one of them slams into the witch doctor at fifty miles an hour, it only knocks him back a few feet. You should be ragdolled into the nearest wall (or off a cliff, if one's handy), I say. It would make the game require more strategic positioning, which I like. Hell in D2 would've been much cooler if one of the corpse projectiles those big slug-things spit could knock you into the lava.

by **dyzzy** » Wed Jul 02, 2008 5:54 pm UTC

Haha, that would be interesting, to say the least. And you thought the knockback in Claw Viper Temple was annoying? Wait until large tank-sized demons are playing a game of hackeysack with your adventurer...

by **CogDissident** » Wed Jul 02, 2008 6:09 pm UTC

Kerberos wrote:Something that bugs me in the gameplay video is that in the second area outside, with the big buffalo-things, when one of them slams into the witch doctor at fifty miles an hour, it only knocks him back a few feet. You should be ragdolled into the nearest wall (or off a cliff, if one's handy), I say. It would make the game require more strategic positioning, which I like. Hell in D2 would've been much cooler if one of the corpse projectiles those big slug-things spit could knock you into the lava.

Diablo has always been about being an "epic hero" where you can run through dozens of demons and beasts laughing the whole way and leaving a pile of bodies behind you. It looks like the minibosses are supposed to be the big threats, while normal field enemies are just fodder to slog through. If a field enemy could knock you an entire screen away, it would certainly break that feel.

by **Kerberos** » Wed Jul 02, 2008 6:35 pm UTC

CogDissident wrote:
Kerberos wrote:Something that bugs me in the gameplay video is that in the second area outside, with the big buffalo-things, when one of them slams into the witch doctor at fifty miles an hour, it only knocks him back a few feet. You should be ragdolled into the nearest wall (or off a cliff, if one's handy), I say. It would make the game require more strategic positioning, which I like. Hell in D2 would've been much cooler if one of the corpse projectiles those big slug-things spit could knock you into the lava.

Diablo has always been about being an "epic hero" where you can run through dozens of demons and beasts laughing the whole way and leaving a pile of bodies behind you. It looks like the minibosses are supposed to be the big threats, while normal field enemies are just fodder to slog through. If a field enemy could knock you an entire screen away, it would certainly break that feel.

Yeah, I suppose... It just sort of breaks my willing suspension of disbelief to have a 1000-kg weight going at 20 m/s (200,000 joules of kinetic energy) stop completely when it hits a hundred-kilogram weight, accelerating it to one m/s (50 J).

Maybe... armor is just heavier than I thought? By a factor of a few hundred?

by **Jebobek** » Wed Jul 02, 2008 6:42 pm UTC

I agree that the less crowd-controlled you get against general mobs, the better. Blizz should never have to worry about putting TOO many creatures of the same type on the screen which would keep the player locked into a never-ending stun or freeze, until death. I'll be ok with fighting huge things that don't knock me into 1950 because I was traveling over 88 Mph. Its just cool to have huge things fall over via clicking.

When it comes to bosses though, I hope we do get some great knockbacks where the bodies are just flyin around. As long as its controlled. I'd hate to lag and die with full health because I was standing in an insta-kill zone even with amazing gear. For the boss battle in the demo I'm hoping he's biting off the heads off of those dudes because they were aleady dead! Otherwise, scary!

by **CogDissident** » Wed Jul 02, 2008 7:14 pm UTC

Kerberos wrote:Yeah, I suppose... It just sort of breaks my willing suspension of disbelief to have a 1000-kg weight going at 20 m/s (200,000 joules of kinetic energy) stop completely when it hits a hundred-kilogram weight, accelerating it to one m/s (50 J).

Maybe... armor is just heavier than I thought? By a factor of a few hundred?

I do have to be the first to say, you are applying realistic physics to a game where the barbarian can wear full plate armor, and do 20ft long standing-jumps that arc at least 10 feet high. And where said barbarian can knock back opponents that mass over a dozen times more than they do.

Also, don't forget the magic, explosions, demons, ect.

by **CogDissident** » Wed Jul 02, 2008 7:18 pm UTC

Jebobek wrote:I agree that the less crowd-controlled you get against general mobs, the better. Blizz should never have to worry about putting TOO many creatures of the same type on the screen which would keep the player locked into a never-ending stun or freeze, until death. I'll be ok with fighting huge things that don't knock me into 1950 because I was traveling over 88 Mph. Its just cool to have huge things fall over via clicking.

When it comes to bosses though, I hope we do get some great knockbacks where the bodies are just flyin around. As long as its controlled. I'd hate to lag and die with full health because I was standing in an insta-kill zone even with amazing gear. For the boss battle in the demo I'm hoping he's biting off the heads off of those dudes because they were aleady dead! Otherwise, scary!

It probably is an attack that triggers when the boss deals an attack that would kill the player. So instead of just "generic slash 2" it triggers the head-biting animation instead. Same code-behind, but cooler visual effect. Diablo has always shied away from any insta-gib attacks. And the boss only does the insta gib attacks on people it has hit several times already, so this seems the most likely.

Blizzard does worry about too many creatures on the screen, because a crowded fight means the AI has to worry about pathing, attacks, graphical effects, behavior AI, and all that sort of thing, for every single creature. And that can get computationally expensive, and make it so games run slower in combat. They want to keep the requirements down, so they keep it zoomed in. Titan quest did this, making the viewable size tiny so they could make fights prettier (though, personally, i hated the "your character takes up 1/2 of the screen and you can't see 5ft infront of you" view of that game).

by **Berengal** » Wed Jul 02, 2008 9:09 pm UTC

CogDissident wrote:Blizzard does worry about too many creatures on the screen, because a crowded fight means the AI has to worry about pathing, attacks, graphical effects, behavior AI, and all that sort of thing, for every single creature. And that can get computationally expensive, and make it so games run slower in combat. They want to keep the requirements down, so they keep it zoomed in. Titan quest did this, making the viewable size tiny so they could make fights prettier (though, personally, i hated the "your character takes up 1/2 of the screen and you can't see 5ft infront of you" view of that game).

Well, there's a difference. Stuff being too computationally expensive can be solved by throwing more computer at it, or dumbing down the equations. Five goblins taking turns smacking you so you can't get a single attack in can only be solved by either reducing the number of critters, or not let the critters interrupt your attacks. Reducing the number of critters doesn't make for grand scale fights, so instead they seem to opt for giving you uninterruptable attacks, or at least attacks that doesn't stun you for five seconds each time it hits. This is a different problem than meeting system requirements, as it deals with gameplay mechanics.

by **Jebobek** » Thu Jul 03, 2008 5:30 pm UTC

Berengal wrote:
CogDissident wrote:Blizzard does worry about too many creatures on the screen, because a crowded fight means the AI has to worry about pathing, attacks, graphical effects, behavior AI, and all that sort of thing, for every single creature. And that can get computationally expensive, and make it so games run slower in combat. They want to keep the requirements down, so they keep it zoomed in. Titan quest did this, making the viewable size tiny so they could make fights prettier (though, personally, i hated the "your character takes up 1/2 of the screen and you can't see 5ft infront of you" view of that game).

Well, there's a difference. Stuff being too computationally expensive can be solved by throwing more computer at it, or dumbing down the equations. Five goblins taking turns smacking you so you can't get a single attack in can only be solved by either reducing the number of critters, or not let the critters interrupt your attacks. Reducing the number of critters doesn't make for grand scale fights, so instead they seem to opt for giving you uninterruptable attacks, or at least attacks that doesn't stun you for five seconds each time it hits. This is a different problem than meeting system requirements, as it deals with gameplay mechanics.

CogDissident wrote:It probably is an attack that triggers when the boss deals an attack that would kill the player. So instead of just "generic slash 2" it triggers the head-biting animation instead. Same code-behind, but cooler visual effect. Diablo has always shied away from any insta-gib attacks. And the boss only does the insta gib attacks on people it has hit several times already, so this seems the most likely.

I have an idea combining these two ideas. Howabout they code the huge knockback on a hit that would have killed you anyway? If I'm dead already, sure, I'd love to see smack me around like a beanbag. Well, for the first 5 times. Then I'd be ready to hunt down every last one of those bastards!

by **Kerberos** » Thu Jul 03, 2008 6:13 pm UTC

Jebobek's idea is Kerby-Approved®.

by **Jebobek** » Thu Jul 03, 2008 6:29 pm UTC

This will translate to PvP as well where you can kill someone and they're ragdolls for a few seconds, so you would use meteor or something as your killing attack and BOOM they're airborne! Kind of like your little taunt.

You know that would be alot better than whats goes on in D2. There is often little to no death animation, all of a sudden you're on the ground and you get the UR DED message. The only Implementation problem is running back to your body to put your gear back on. What happens if your body flies off a gorge? I guess they could put the gear on the edge of the cliff.

by **Amnesiasoft** » Thu Jul 03, 2008 9:48 pm UTC

Jebobek wrote:What happens if your body flies off a gorge? I guess they could put the gear on the edge of the cliff.

Or just do what happens in D2 if you quite and come back, your body is spawned in the center of town.

by **Roland Lockheart** » Fri Jul 04, 2008 1:18 am UTC

I'm hoping they won't wreck the story, I felt a lot of closure at the end of Diablo II, what with all three of the prime evils dead and their soul stones smashed I figured it was over for good. That being said, I'm excited as hell. (no pun intended)

by **Kerberos** » Fri Jul 04, 2008 1:27 am UTC

Roland Lockheart wrote:I'm hoping they won't wreck the story, I felt a lot of closure at the end of Diablo II, what with all three of the prime evils dead and their soul stones smashed I figured it was over for good. That being said, I'm excited as hell. (no pun intended)

Yeah, I do hope they don't bring back the Prime Evils. A new baddy would be appreciated, although Diablo was a really neat boss.

I'm looking forward to seeing the AI when it comes out, too.

by **Axman** » Fri Jul 04, 2008 2:28 am UTC

Roland Lockheart wrote:I'm hoping they won't wreck the story, I felt a lot of closure at the end of Diablo II, what with all three of the prime evils dead and their soul stones smashed I figured it was over for good. That being said, I'm excited as hell. (no pun intended)

Again, Azrael destroyed the Worldstone, the only thing isolating the prime material from the other planes. It was set up for a sequel right there. The prime evils aren't dead, they're just distant--angels (fallen or otherwise) aren't mortal.

I'm not saying Blizzard can't fuck up the plot, but it would take effort to do so.

by **Azrael001** » Fri Jul 04, 2008 2:40 am UTC

I did nothing of the sort, it was Tyrael who smashed the stone.

by **Kerberos** » Fri Jul 04, 2008 4:02 am UTC

Don't lie. We all know that you're really

you're

uh

Dang, it's REALLY hard to find out who Tyrael's voice actor is. Giving up now.

by **Axman** » Fri Jul 04, 2008 4:27 am UTC

I, uh, I knew that.

by **Jebobek** » Mon Jul 07, 2008 3:24 pm UTC

Blizz will never close and seal one of their stories, ever. If they ever go "thats the end, never making a new game for that series" to one of their popular games, I think we're gonna have a black hole appear and suck up that slice of California thats coming off anyways.

This is good, though. Chances are, sequels will not seem clunky and shoved-on, like all these movies coming out (Indiana Jones, Rocky, Rambo..). I agree that it's gonna be REALLY HARD to mess up "Oh! The worldstone barrier is broken, now anything can happen. Craaaaazzzy!!"

Spoiler:

by **aion7** » Mon Jul 07, 2008 8:17 pm UTC

Jebobek wrote:
Spoiler:
You're going to have to fight demons!

Spoiler:

by **CogDissident** » Mon Jul 07, 2008 8:41 pm UTC

Jebobek wrote:Blizz will never close and seal one of their stories, ever. If they ever go "thats the end, never making a new game for that series" to one of their popular games, I think we're gonna have a black hole appear and suck up that slice of California thats coming off anyways.

Blackthorn,
Rock and Roll Racing,
Lost Vikings,
Battle chess. (edited to add a space, for clarity)

All good games/series' that have been locked and closed in the vault of history. At the moment they have three franchise games: Starcraft, Warcraft, Diablo. Until they branch out, I can't see them closing those games.

by **Aluminus** » Mon Jul 07, 2008 8:49 pm UTC

CogDissident wrote:Battlechess.

Don't you mean Battlechest?
EDIT: Google "Battle chess", you will not be dissapointed...

by **CogDissident** » Mon Jul 07, 2008 8:55 pm UTC

Battlechess,
Turning: Rook takes Pawn
Into: Stone golem slams peasant on the head, sinking him neck deep in the ground, and then stomps on his head.

by **Mr. Beck** » Mon Jul 07, 2008 9:25 pm UTC

WANT!!! (in bold and caps and all that)

I loved DII, and was getting pretty excited while the wobsite loaded. Cinematic trailer, awesome.
My thoughts on the Gameplay trailer (stream of consciousness):
Ohh, pretty! Woah, goblins are climbing the walls! Ahh, there's like 200 of them! Woah, he can hit three at once! WHOA, they're ragdolling dozens at a time off the bridge!!!!...
Hmm, looks like the gameplay is a little more complex. Haha, full physics! Dickhead Cain!! Oh, they still have traps...Sweet-ass armor set, eh? More physics...the narrator sounds kinda silly. Still looks pretty, though. Arrgh, big monster is assembling! Sweet!
...
Motherfucking Locust Swarm!!
Female characters, cool.
Oooh, a "real fight". Haha, Ents. Wait, there were easy...oh god. OH GOD! BIGASS GIGANTOR MONSTER!!!! RUN!!
GHKCHHHK!!!!
He ate my buddy!!! AHHH! (damn, was that cool or what!)
Victory! ....Oh shit...SKELETON ARMY!!...............................

Yeah, I think I'll even pre-order this.

by **Amnesiasoft** » Mon Jul 07, 2008 10:26 pm UTC

Mr. Beck wrote:Sweet ass-armor set, eh?

Fixed.

by **Kerberos** » Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:58 pm UTC

Hey, when you're in danger, sometimes you really do need to cover your ass.

Also, I realize that I've never actually seen any truly gargantuan creatures (like the Siegebreaker) in any 3-D computer games, ever. Is there some good reason for that that people can think of? Is it too processor intensive, and if so, why?

by **Amnesiasoft** » Tue Jul 08, 2008 12:14 am UTC

Kerberos wrote:Is there some good reason for that that people can think of? Is it too processor intensive, and if so, why?

I would certainly say it's not too processor intensive, I'd go with the whole "This game needs to be more realistic" crowd, you know, the same group of people complaining about games not being fun, complaining that they're only focusing on graphics, and that complain when a game has bad graphics. Basically, the excessively vocal crowd that game developers need to stop listening to.

Who is online