GameBanshee Forums

3D gets my vote. Especially if it stays true to its roots of a hack and slash game.

Think of it this way....

Diablo 1 came out and it was great.

Diablo 2 / LOD was a much better version of D1.

Wouldn't you think Diablo 3 would simply be a much better version of its predecessors?

Diablo is Diablo. In D3, the roots of D1 and D2 will remain in place, and a fuller shrub will have grown on top.

BluePaintCult wrote:Think of it this way....

Diablo 1 came out and it was great.

Diablo 2 / LOD was a much better version of D1.

Wouldn't you think Diablo 3 would simply be a much better version of its predecessors?

Diablo is Diablo. In D3, the roots of D1 and D2 will remain in place, and a fuller shrub will have grown on top.

Counter example, Gothic one was alright, Gothic 2 was a little better, Gothic 3 sucked. Elder Scrolls Arena was great, Elder Scrolls Daggerfall was great, Morrowind was Great, oblivion sucked.

Just because it has the name diablo 3 doesn't mean it's gonna be a good game. If blizzard or flagship studios makes it, they can make it crappy.

Siberys wrote:Counter example, Gothic one was alright, Gothic 2 was a little better, Gothic 3 sucked. Elder Scrolls Arena was great, Elder Scrolls Daggerfall was great, Morrowind was Great, oblivion sucked.

Just because it has the name diablo 3 doesn't mean it's gonna be a good game. If blizzard or flagship studios makes it, they can make it crappy.

First of all, the only Elder Scrolls I've played is Oblivion on 360 (which I'm currently playing again with my second hero, a mage,) and I think it's pretty damn good minus all the glitches and freezing I encounter... If you say the other games in the series are even better, I can't imagine what I'm missing out on.

Secondly, I've always been a Blizzard fan, from Warcraft 2 & 3/ Frozen Throne, along with Starcraft and Brood War as well as Diablo 1, 2, and LOD.

They've never failed to entertain so I have high hopes for a Diablo 3.

I think if they can buffer up their lackluster trademark Diablo story line as well as improve the combat engine / character personalization, they'll have another good seller.

The fact that Starcraft 2 isn't even out yet (and the fact that Ghost never even came out....... or did it?) leads me to believe that if there IS a Diablo 3 on the horizons, we will be waiting another year or two for it which means the game will only be that much more technologically advanced, and hopefully that much more of a quality product.


In my opinion, Blizzard is one of the most innovative game companies when it comes to the PC game world, and it seems that all of their sequels and expansions generally enhance the originals very nicely, therefore I pose the question:

Why would they make a Diablo 3 if they didn't think they could do it in a way that would completely blow Diablo 1 and Diablo 2 off the map?

Why would they make a Diablo 3 if they didn't think they could do it in a way that would completely blow Diablo 1 and Diablo 2 off the map?

They'd do it for the same reason Bethesda created elder scrolls 4 and claimed that it completely blew morrowind and daggerfall off the map. Oblivion is awful, by far one of the worst games of Y2K I've ever played. The mere fact that it takes over a gig and a half of custom player mods to make the game enjoyable is one of the reasons that I refuse to play it anymore.

Cliche dialog, hyped up graphics as the main detail of the game even though graphics are never important, a rather idiotic run back and forth main storyline, the whole idea that even though you were a prisoner at the beginning of the game, everybody who is on your side "strangely trusts you" for no apparent reason, a speechcraft annoying mini-game, promised features that never made it to the game (such as guilds looking for you based on what they see in your potential), NPC interaction stupidity, and so forth.

My point is, is that just because game 1 and game 2 are great doesn't mean that game 3 is gonna be even better. We'll just have to wait and see.

In any case, lets get back on topic, this thread is about whether it should be 3D or birds eye.

Touche, I've only had Oblivion (for Xbox 360) for about a month now but you do make some good points about its quality. I mean, the first time I played the game was really fun considering I was playing an Imperial Warrior Knight.

Then again, it's the first time I've ever played anything like it, which is probably why I enjoyed it so much. However, when it comes down to it, the game is far too easy even with a melee only character. My new level 6 mage has been killing things in 1-2 fireballs since he was level 1... and ran through the entire Arena Gladiator quest in one sitting without taking more than one or two hits in every matchup.

*~*~*~*~*

As for Diablo 3, I think the whole point and click feature of D1 and D2 made it seem less realistic because of the fact that one hero could essentially run through an entire army of enemies against all logical odds by simply click click clicking away at them until they were dead.

I think that a 3D platform would result in less monsters, more challenge, and more realism. Not to mention better graphics.

But then again, a 3D platform just wouldn't be Diablo.

less monsters, more challenge, and more realism. Not to mention better graphics.

I'm guessing yeah, it would be more of a challenge. But Diablo with.. less monsters?? You've got to be taking the piss

Siberys wrote:Counter example, Gothic one was alright, Gothic 2 was a little better, Gothic 3 sucked. Elder Scrolls Arena was great, Elder Scrolls Daggerfall was great, Morrowind was Great, oblivion sucked.

Just because it has the name diablo 3 doesn't mean it's gonna be a good game. If blizzard or flagship studios makes it, they can make it crappy.

It all depends on out preferences. Whilst someone might love a game, others might look at that same game with scorn. I'm sure Oblivion would have something to say about your criticism.

FireLighter wrote:I think it will be Point and Click as anything else just isnt diablo as mentioned above.

Although Im not so sure they will make it as Im still waiting for a starcraft 2 :speech:

starcraft 2 looks so freaking sick..

and yeah... they turned warcraft into a rpg with 3D.. and it dosnt look that great.. no offence blizzard but it looked way to cartoonish

so i think that point and click would be awsome.

Guys lets stay on topic, this isn't about Warcraft or Starcraft. Comparing is fine but it's also on the verge of off topic discussions.

i would like for them to stay the the same. it is a cool game because it is unique. l8er

Eric V wrote:i would like for them to stay the the same. it is a cool game because it is unique. l8er

How is Diablo 2 unique in any way? Most of the skills have already been used in most editions of D&D, the point and click interface with the birds eye view camera is also not unique due to Blizzards other games that came before Diablo 2, such as Starcraft and Warcraft 1 and 2. And most of the creatures in that game are also rather generic and unoriginal. A fallen is a goblin, a fallen shaman is a hobgoblin, a fetish is a pygmy, a Cliff lurker is a Windego, and most of the gigantic versions of bugs have been done in movies that came from the 50's.

i have not played those games, so i guess ill have to retract my statement. i just meant that diableo is fun dont change it.

Siberys wrote:How is Diablo 2 unique in any way? Most of the skills have already been used in most editions of D&D, the point and click interface with the birds eye view camera is also not unique due to Blizzards other games that came before Diablo 2, such as Starcraft and Warcraft 1 and 2. And most of the creatures in that game are also rather generic and unoriginal. A fallen is a goblin, a fallen shaman is a hobgoblin, a fetish is a pygmy, a Cliff lurker is a Windego, and most of the gigantic versions of bugs have been done in movies that came from the 50's.

Nicely put. Then again, most games nowdays also lack plenty of originality. That being said, I would still prefer it to be in 3D. I guess that will make it more challenging, especially if it stays true to its roots of being a hack n' slash game.

Obi-Wan-Evan wrote:I'm all in for the point and click. Anything else is just not Diablo.

Right!!
I hope that graphics will be like (or obviously better than) Titan Quest.
With chache to rotate camera.......that graphics is very cool ...imho!!

i have both dugeon siege 2 and D2 and i would have to say both ways are fun but the D2 style is better suited for controlling a single character.

Point & Click 3/4 view is really outdated. Today's games really in my opinion should use a controller which can be had for less than $15.

Diablo 2 was great and all the clones that followed it. I see people saying "it should be like Titans Quest" or slightly better, graphically.

Come ON! This is 2008.

Core 2 Duo computers can be had for less than $300! Why set the future of gaming for those who want to stick to their 512MB - Pentium 4 gaming rigs?

It's been a looong wait. Forget Titans Quest... Diablo 3 should look and play like this: IGN: Quest of D Trailer, Videos and Movies

Not everyone has the money to buy a new computer, no matter how cheap it is. And a new computer with an Intel Core 2 Duo processor for 300 bucks, I'd really like to see where you're getting that, as the cheapest I've found is 500-600 bucks.

Simply because some people have enough money or have a powerful enough rig for a 3D game doesn't mean a game should be 3D. That's not a preference.

hmmm... maybe it will gonna be a 3D because all of the games are in that kind of resolution, it will be great seeing diablo will be in a new kind of enhancement, cool! :laugh:

I voted point & click not so much because I like the point & click but I like the sky view like looking down at your character and you can like tell if somethings on the ground or if some one it sneaking up behind you.. In 3D if you have it looking from above it just bugs me it has to be looking through like the characters eyes.I don't know if you all understood that but I'm not retyping it. Nuff said!