Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
It looks like they are listening the player base and doing away with the atrocious happy-go-lucky graphics of D3 in favor of a much more realistic and grimdark set. I got instant chills thinking back to the original Diablo trailer from 1997 from that opening. And, given it's been announced for XBone and PS4, this is likely to drop in the next year or so!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/11/05 15:52:09
Adeptus Doritos wrote: Well, I suppose I'll have to sit down and play more Blasphemous for that 'Dark Fantasy' kick. Even if Blizzard was actually ethical, this purchase just became a hard 'pass' for me.
Why, exactly?
This game is at best 2-3 years down the pipe. A TON of things can change, including the "Always online" stuff some of you have noted you're not game for.
Make your voice heard on that and provide feeback to the company so that they know. A lot of game companies are doing the whole "always online" thing right now because this is what the market is clambering for. Fortnite like games.
It's amazing how jaded some of you are in here.
I am quite please with what I see so far, and I'm eager to watch the game grow and develop over the next few years.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/11/03 06:15:59
Eumerin wrote: It's probably still early enough in the process that they could ditch the "always online" stuff. Forcing a game to run online is more difficult than having it run offline. I'd also encourage people to start asking noisy questions about the sex of the different character classes (though that's a bit trickier due to the need to design character models and outfits for each possible combination) .
But, yes, it's been my experience that Blizzard can be ridiculously stubborn about pretty much everything no matter how blatantly stupid their decision is.
There is no reason to do that. Seriously, if Blizz wants barbarians to only be male, that's fine.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Voss wrote: Less customization for the player is always wrong.
Not entirely. Sometimes we're playing through a story designed to work a specific way. There are thousands of games that allow deep character customization, including sex and aesthetics. No need for every single game to have it.
Voss wrote: Less customization for the player is always wrong.
Not always, it depends entirely on concept.
Consider comparing Grim Dawn and Diablo 2. In Grim Dawn you choose your gender and all the armour is universal. The result is that there is actually very little gender difference and visual difference in the characters. There is some, don't get me wrong; however when you compare it to the set designs for Diablo 2 there's a world of differences.
Fixed gender/character types can mean that you can achieve a better level of individual style and variation of that style because the character model is a single fixed entity. The more you require high variety the more complex it becomes to design that same level of variety. It's one reason why in many "open choice" 3D games you can see armour plating clipping through other bits of it because they have a custom base model and then the armour is simply scaled to fit; which results in some fitting and some not - hence why it can clip all over the place.
Then lets compare something like Skyrim - totally freefrom everything; the ultimiate level of choice. To something like Witcher series games where many choices are fixed (appearance, gender, the general direction of your choices etc...). Again neither is better than the other for having more choice nor less. They are simply different takes on the RPG system.
As for the online/offline problem - the main issue is that if it gets built into the core game then it can be so integral to the code that they'd have to start from the ground up to rebuild it. I don't begrudge them, Blizzard has had good luck with the mmo model in WOW and the online system is something they are clearly interested in. It's purely my own selfish desires to want to play the game offline so that I can enjoy it in my way. Sadly it sounds like they are building it from the ground up as a team game. It's a shame that they've not used a system like Borderlands where the game can run perfectly fine offline; and even D3 you could solo the game without any friends; the console version even runs offline too.
So its not impossible - Bliz could do it - Sadly I worry that the management doesn't want it to go that direction and the fans won't make enough actual complaining noise about it to force GW's hand. Heck technically their whole current D3 fanbase and customer base are already happy with online all the time (or at least happy enough to tolerate it).
One of the things that made D3 visually bland was how little difference there was in armor styles. All the armor looked like body paint, even stretching with the characters legs and arms as they moved. It was pretty ugly.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/11/03 17:54:05
If possible let's leave the politics out of this thread on the HK stuff and just stick to discussing the game, what we think they might do with it and what we already know.
That aside, I am really excited to see that we are finally getting to explore some of the other lands in the game. I am really hopeful that we will get to go to Skovos! It looks like we might be starting in Scotsglen too, which would be amazing.
There are so many other locations, anyone have any favorites they hope to see?
flamingkillamajig wrote: After 3 games rpg's with a system that makes your choices matter usually kinda doesn't because there's too much to account for.
Well, you can still pick a color at the end of the third game when they do that, right?
::trollface::
It all depends on what kind of game you want. Blizzard games have always been very railroady. That's why I like them. It might be that things like the witcher or other rpgs have more of what you want from a game.
It all depends on what kind of game you want. Blizzard games have always been very railroady. That's why I like them. It might be that things like the witcher or other rpgs have more of what you want from a game.
Diablo 3 was great, as shocking as that may be to hear. I enjoyed it.
I'm not asking to have full narrative control over my character, but at least let me swap some things around and choose an alternate model for male or female. They could do the latter in D3, not sure why it's too much for D4.
And to assume "you can't have a good story with custom characters" is just ignoring some of the best RPG's out there. I can think of a pair of Star Wars games, some Dragon Age games, and even 2 MMORPG's that pulled that off.
I also enjoyed D3. I just do not count it as a diablo game.
Also, I'd like to take a moment to remind you that there hasn't been a confirmation yet that the genders are locked behind the character wall. We're looking at a likely post 2021 release for this game, and a ton of the games content has yet to be revealed. So you may very well get that chance.
H.B.M.C. wrote: If the player's character doesn't matter then I'd say the story has problems.
Somehow I could imagine a certain group of people throwing an absolute hissy fit if the Amazon or Sorceress was re-rewritten as a male character...
Again though everyone, there hasn't been any confirmation that the races will be locked to one gender, and this is such a small issue anyways. It doesn't really matter...
H.B.M.C. wrote: I knew what you meant. I'm just being difficult.
I've honestly never gone that much into the Diablo lore, so I was surprised to find out that even as far as Diablo 1 the characters in that have actual names and, in some cases, fates (Blood Raven is the Rogue from D1, and the Summoner in D2 is the Mage from D1 - that sort of thing).
So if Blizz is continuing that and having their characters actually be characters rather than blank-slate Commander Shepard types, then "I must be able to choose my gender!!!" stuff is not necessary.
The characters are blank slates within their own games. It's not until the sequel that we ever learn anything more about the character (who is, of course, now unplayable).
Diablo 2 revealed the fate of all three of the first game's character classes. Diablo 3 revealed the fate of *some* of the second game's character classes. The Barbarian became D3's male barbarian. The Sorceress was killed by the Assassin in the Wizard's backstory. The Necromancer's apprentice put in a brief appearance in the second chapter, indicating that the Necromancer was alive and well, and fighting against the current invasion. IIRC, there was no mention of the Amazon, Druid, or Paladin. There appear to have been plans for another D3 expansion, as the storyline quest for the rogue companion is unfinished at the end of Reaper of Souls. So it's possible that the three missing D2 characters would have put in an appearance if the story had been allowed to continue.
D3's story was such a mess.
Case in point, I've been playing the game for over 7 years at this point and I didn't know any of that. Where in the game are these facts about the D2 characters revealed?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/11/04 15:39:53
LordofHats wrote: It is a looter game, which is what Destiny claims to be. In truth, Destiny is a shooter with solid game mechanics, jack all to do, and a horrifically grindy experience that isn't worth the time and effort you put into it. Basically, Destiny is everything a bad relationship is without the possibility for *maybe shouldn't finish that thought*
I want the 40 hours I put into it back. It's just a trash game, the mechanics aren't good either. Revolvers are OPAF and the multiplayer is literally unplayable for newbies.
Melissia wrote: I find Destiny 2 to be quite a good way to spend time with friends in a shooter. It's no TF2 or Siege, though. But at least D2 has a story worth a damn instead of being purely competitive multiplayer.
But I think we're getting off topic here.
I dunno, I've put about 50 hours in and I still cannot tell you what the story is even about. The way they shunted new players in was also pretty terrible.
Chewie wrote: Am I wrong that this game seems "Destiny-esque"??
This comic should answer your question;
Spoiler:
Also if you ever asked yourself "why doesn't Hats play Destiny anymore" this comic also provides the answer
Spoiler alert, the purple thing he's holding is a garbage item.
That comic... replace the last cell with pre-RoS Diablo. That's how loot was during that Auction House era.... it was horrible. RoS with Loot 2.0 saved that game.
I really hope they've learned their lessons and not repeat the same mistakes.
Counter-Opinion
Before RoS things were bad, post RoS things got way, way worse.
