Diablo III - It's official

[AlphaWolf]

I believe this is their next big project.

 

[AlphaWolf]

Well Dave Baumann did make a mention about signing a fairly major deal with Blizzard when talking about DX10.1 games on the Rage3D boards. So it seems logical to assume that this is for Diablo3 since SC2 doesn't use it afaik.


http://rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?p=1335512390#post1335512390

ah ok, I had just seen a few quotes elsewhere that were actually quotes from the April Fools announcement, it made me skeptical.

There's also this. D3 will be DX9 and DX10.1 - no DX10, so leaving Nvidia hardware out in the cold for DX10 support. On top of that, the physics are Intel/AMD Havok, not Nvidia PhysX.

It's certainly quite possible (even likely) that Nvidia will have 10.1 or higher support by the time D3 rolls out. Remember this is Blizzard we're talking about, SC2 isn't even going to hit this year, 2009 is probably unlikely for D3.

 

[Freak'n Big Panda]

I think Blizzard is shooting itself in the foot with just making the same games over and over again.

SC2 = big yawn
D3 = big yawn
WoW = big yawn

Meh! Make something new!

Eventually they'll be forced to come up with new IP. It's a very risky venture though so they'll only do it when they really have too. I don't think they can keep SC/WC/Diablo going for that much longer though.

 

[Richard]

At the same time we see companies like ID stick with old IP and end up with a very poorly received game like Doom 3, or the same with Epic and Unreal Tournament 3, so I think it's more a question of the quality of the game.

What do you mean by DOOM 3 being "poorly received"? Metacritic has it at 87 for the PC version and 88 for the xbox. The game has sold over 3.5 million copies thus far. Now UT3, yeah I can see that.

Okay, so it's not intrinsicly new, but it will probably be a great deal of fun to play, and the fact that millions of people want it will justify it's development.

I agree completely. Everyone wants original IPs but what sells are sequels. I guess posting on a forum that you want something does not make it so. Also @ comparing Blizzard to EA:

 

[Laa-Yosh]

I have, and I played it for 6 months. I quit for a reason. Honestly, Blizzard is turning into EA = no risk, no new IP.

Fans wanted this game for years now, and even harder than the creators themselves. Blizzard will make a lot of money, sure, but this is a lot about pleasing their audience. Look up videos of the announcement event on youtube, people went crazy just for the dude playing the theme song, and then they've played the cinematic teaser for them... it's a dream come true for many.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

At the same time we see companies like ID stick with old IP and end up with a very poorly received game like Doom 3,

Doom 3 is id's best selling commercial release to date with about 2-3 million units.
For reference, Doom2 made about 1.5 million, the original Doom has only been available through registering the shareware version, and the Quake series were around 1 to 0.5 million (Quake3). But they're making a lot more money on their releases because of self-financing the projects.

 

[Bludd]

I'd rather they did a great follow-up than some distinctly average new IP. Something like Diablo is a valuable IP, and not something to be thrown away because a few people want "something new". There are plenty of other companies that will do "something new", but there's only one place to get Diablo 3, and it's what millions of players want.

It regularly comes up in game threads when people say they just want a popular classic game updated for today's hardware. At the same time we see companies like ID stick with old IP and end up with a very poorly received game like Doom 3, or the same with Epic and Unreal Tournament 3, so I think it's more a question of the quality of the game. A high quality game will do well, and the fact there are loads of potential customers who want a high quality Diablo 3 is what will make it a successful and well received game if it comes off well.

Okay, so it's not intrinsicly new, but it will probably be a great deal of fun to play, and the fact that millions of people want it will justify it's development.

Fans wanted this game for years now, and even harder than the creators themselves. Blizzard will make a lot of money, sure, but this is a lot about pleasing their audience. Look up videos of the announcement event on youtube, people went crazy just for the dude playing the theme song, and then they've played the cinematic teaser for them... it's a dream come true for many.

Yes, both of you have good points.

I guess I just want Blizzard to use their game making powers to make new games instead of the same games over and over again.

They had waited this long with announcing D3, they could have waited a little longer and instead announced something new and awesome.

Anyway, I'll bow out of this thread and keep my annoyances regarding Blizzard to myself.

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

Doom 3 is id's best selling commercial release to date with about 2-3 million units.
For reference, Doom2 made about 1.5 million, the original Doom has only been available through registering the shareware version, and the Quake series were around 1 to 0.5 million (Quake3). But they're making a lot more money on their releases because of self-financing the projects.

And MacDonald's sells the most meals a day. Doesn't mean it's great food.

You only have to go back to the threads here when Doom 3 arrived. It's all black, levels are all limited dungeon crawls, flashlight going off every 10 seconds is stupid, enemy AI is rubbish, monster closets are dumb, no large areas, no dozens of enemies, no story, everything repeats exactly due to simple triggers, very low textures, etc.

I was particularly underwhelmed by it myself and thought both Painkiller and Prey were much, much better games in the same vein. Doom 3 could have been so much more, and I'm hoping that Diablo 3 is going to be more than just a bland reworking of an older game that includes the worst, rather then the best features of it's predecessor just to make a quick buck off the name.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

There's been numerous discussions on Doom3 here already and we don't need to start another one. It is id's most successful game regardless of the hc gamers' opinions.

 

[StefanS]

There's been numerous discussions on Doom3 here already and we don't need to start another one. It is id's most successful game regardless of the hc gamers' opinions.

Agreed. Let's get back on topic again. Doom3 isn't really relevant for this thread.

 

[alexsok]

Blizzard never failed me. Diablo III will be a masterpiece!

 

[Laa-Yosh]

“Immense pressure” for console Diablo III won’t turn to force from Activision

This is a very interesting situation indeed.

Diablo III would definitely make a lot of money on any capable system (Wii is unlikely IMHO) and Live/PSN should be able to provide an infrastucture for online multiplayer gaming. I can't really see any big problem with the controls, save for the inventory management - but even that is rumored to undergo some serious streamlining anyway. I see no hardware related problems, some effects might not work but the artwork certainly isn't anything the X360/PS3 couldn't handle.

On the other hand the concerns are just as valid, supporting all the anti-cheat and balance patching over anything not owned by Blizzard may be a serius problem; and announcing console versions would kill PC sales. I for one would seriously consider upgrading my system just to be able to play SC2 and D3 seems tempting with the Fallout designer on board - but why spend the money if it would run on my Xbox?

So what do you guys think?

 

[AlNom]

(Wii is unlikely IMHO)

(yea, I know... trickier interface/controls)

Diablo III would definitely make a lot of money on any capable system (Wii is unlikely IMHO) and Live/PSN should be able to provide an infrastucture for online multiplayer gaming. I can't really see any big problem with the controls, save for the inventory management - but even that is rumored to undergo some serious streamlining anyway.

Indeed.. but judging by the shots of the inventory, it does not appear that players will be playing tetris to fit as many items into the knapsack. And it also looks like they're doing away with the potion belt, and the scrolls appear to stack already. I don't think it will be much of a hurdle already. Just call up the inventory screen (say select button), then just go through the items like any other game with an inventory - A to select/arm, B to cancel action, X to drop?, Y to see stats.

The only problem I see is with the multitude of spells and rapid selection.

*possible control scheme during gameplay*

A - one tap for picking up single item. For multiple items dropped in one spot, tap once to enable scrolling through list. Second tap to pickup what you want.
X - Attack

Y,B,LB, RB, D-Pad, LS, RS - Hot keys for 10 spells?

LT - switch weapon sets (ala Lord of Destruction's default w key)
RT - .... quick item? Town portal or something... *shrug*

Main thing is that there are lots of buttons... Fully customizable keys on controller is essential.

I see no hardware related problems, some effects might not work but the artwork certainly isn't anything the X360/PS3 couldn't handle.

Of which effects are you thinking

On the other hand the concerns are just as valid, supporting all the anti-cheat and balance patching over anything not owned by Blizzard may be a serious problem; and announcing console versions would kill PC sales.

I don't know if it'll really kill PC sales... would it Blizzard has a history of supporting very lowly computer specs. Sure you won't get the visual bang, but I tend to think people play their games because of the gameplay.

As for reserving space for patching... it could be a problem if they release it early. If they release any console edition after the traditional expansion pack, the problem lessons in two ways: A) It'll be so far ahead in the future that the next generation of consoles would be around, B) patches up to that point are already applied on-disc.

 

[Scott_Arm]

“Immense pressure” for console Diablo III won’t turn to force from Activision

This is a very interesting situation indeed.

Diablo III would definitely make a lot of money on any capable system (Wii is unlikely IMHO) and Live/PSN should be able to provide an infrastucture for online multiplayer gaming. I can't really see any big problem with the controls, save for the inventory management - but even that is rumored to undergo some serious streamlining anyway. I see no hardware related problems, some effects might not work but the artwork certainly isn't anything the X360/PS3 couldn't handle.

On the other hand the concerns are just as valid, supporting all the anti-cheat and balance patching over anything not owned by Blizzard may be a serius problem; and announcing console versions would kill PC sales. I for one would seriously consider upgrading my system just to be able to play SC2 and D3 seems tempting with the Fallout designer on board - but why spend the money if it would run on my Xbox?

So what do you guys think?

Honestly, the main thing for me is where my friends are playing. They're 99% more likely to play on the 360, so if that's what they were getting, that's what I'd be getting. If it's PC only, I'd definitely consider upgrading my PC to play this game, as there's a few other single player games that I could play to get my money's worth. Left 4 Dead is the perfect example for me. I'd much rather play it on PC, because I know it will be the best experience, but all my friends will get it on the 360, so that's what I'll be getting.


I actually think a Diablo game on the Wii would be cool. Obviously Diablo3 would be out of the question without some big changes, but a Diablo2 clone could work.

 

[dobwal]

There's also this. D3 will be DX9 and DX10.1 - no DX10, so leaving Nvidia hardware out in the cold for DX10 support. On top of that, the physics are Intel/AMD Havok, not Nvidia PhysX.

To exclude 10.0 would seem kind of backwards as doing so would reduce a bunch of DX 10.0 graphics cards from both Nvidia and ATI to DX 9 graphics. All that it does is give an advantage to a generation of ATI cards that won't even be current by the time D3 is released.

 

[Richard]

To exclude 10.0 would seem kind of backwards as doing so would reduce a bunch of DX 10.0 graphics cards from both Nvidia and ATI to DX 9 graphics. All that it does is give an advantage to a generation of ATI cards that won't even be current by the time D3 is released.

Splinter Cell 3 only supported SM 1.1 and SM 3.0 leaving ATI's (and nVidia's) SM 2.0 cards in the lurch. Like back then, I believe this is wrong. Perhaps now those nvidia fans that supported that decision will change their minds.

Not that I believe this will stand however. D3 isn't coming out any time soon.

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

Splinter Cell 3 only supported SM 1.1 and SM 3.0 leaving ATI's (and nVidia's) SM 2.0 cards in the lurch. Like back then, I believe this is wrong. Perhaps now those nvidia fans that supported that decision will change their minds.

Not that I believe this will stand however. D3 isn't coming out any time soon.

Yeah, there will be new Nvidia cards out by then (most likely supporting DX 10.1) - but what about the older cards still in circulation? I guess they will just have to stick with DX9.

 

[dobwal]

Splinter Cell 3 only supported SM 1.1 and SM 3.0 leaving ATI's (and nVidia's) SM 2.0 cards in the lurch. Like back then, I believe this is wrong. Perhaps now those nvidia fans that supported that decision will change their minds.

Not that I believe this will stand however. D3 isn't coming out any time soon.

Splinter Cell 3 gained SM 2.0 through an update patch.

 

[AlNom]

Splinter Cell 3 gained SM 2.0 through an update patch.

That ATI had to do by themselves, IIRC...

 

[sfried]

Diablo III would definitely make a lot of money on any capable system

The last time Diablo was on a console, it was a disaster. (PS Diablo, anyone?)

(Wii is unlikely IMHO)

Wii is actually a more likely candidate given the pointer interface.