8 replies to this topic

[IMG News]

Macworld UK has posted a new review of the recently released Diablo III from Blizzard Entertainment. The long awaited third installment in the action RPG series once again returns players to the demon plagued world of Sanctuary. Macworld UK gave the game a score of 4 stars.

From the review:

This time around you can choose from five different character classes – barbarian, demon hunter, monk, witch doctor and wizard – each with its own unique skills and abilities. The graphics have been updated too, and now provide a true 3D view of the action. However, Blizzard seems to have made a conscious decision to stick to the dark, cramped corridors and simplistic graphical style of the earlier Diablo games, and I did find myself longing for the bright, epic landscapes of recent role-playing games such as the Dragon Age series and Skyrim.

Another thing that hasn’t changed much is the sheer finger-clicking addictiveness of the Diablo formula. The moment you arrive in Tristram you find yourself confronted by a horde of shambling zombies who promptly proceed to poop little piles of gold on the floor after you’ve pummelled them into submission. Unencumbered by much in the way of plot or supporting characters, Diablo III simply throws monsters and magical loot at you until your fingers bleed and your mouse bursts into flames.

Check out the full review at the link below.

Return to Full Article - InsideMacGames News

[Hobeaux]

Quote

Blizzard seems to have made a conscious decision to stick to the dark, cramped corridors and simplistic graphical style of the earlier Diablo games, and I did find myself longing for the bright, epic landscapes of recent role-playing games such as the Dragon Age series and Skyrim.

when diablo iii was initially debuted to the public there was a scene with a waterfall that had light refracting in the rising mist--a faint rainbow was visible. The diablo fans were extremely vocal that the world of diablo is a dark and scary place. everywhere. always. forever. lovely things, like sunshine and rainbows, don't belong.

[Wumpus]

IMG News, on 17 May 2012 - 05:14 AM, said:

I do find myself wondering what took them so long. Don't get me wrong – Diablo III is as utterly addictive as its predecessors, yet it doesn't bring very much new to the series given the years that Blizzard has spent on it.

I have to agree with this part of the review. It is great, and it is addictive, but did it really take 10 years to make that? Or 4-5, whichever they spent on it. I agree, the graphics could be better, but as far as Diablo goes its great.

Oddly the reviewer notes a lack of story and supporting characters, but D3 has the most/story characters of any of the games. Its obviously no Witcher of Dragon Age, but as far as Isometric RPG's go, I think its a lot.

[Thain Esh Kelch]

Diablo III development started ín 2001.

[Macster]

Thain Esh Kelch, on 17 May 2012 - 05:33 PM, said:

Diablo III development started ín 2001.

It is one of those things that hard to strike a balance with when making a sequel to a huge game. How much do you change? How much do you keep? Scrap it altogether and start fresh? I am sure they thought about it for a long while and thought this was the best balance for it. Sadly, it is 11 years too late for my interests that and requiring Battlenet for even the campaign kinda killed all excitement I had for this game. Still, I hope it does well for them.

[Thain Esh Kelch]

Macster, on 19 May 2012 - 01:30 AM, said:

It is one of those things that hard to strike a balance with when making a sequel to a huge game. How much do you change? How much do you keep? Scrap it altogether and start fresh? I am sure they thought about it for a long while and thought this was the best balance for it. Sadly, it is 11 years too late for my interests that and requiring Battlenet for even the campaign kinda killed all excitement I had for this game. Still, I hope it does well for them.

Well, they already said that the game changed visual style 3 times during development.. There are some very early screenshots from the first visual style, which was basically a pumped up Diablo II look. Edit: Screenshots 1, 2 and 4 in this google search

My biggest grief is that they announced the game 4 years prior to release.. So Blizzard, the last bit of the hype I had died 2 years ago.

[cleansanchez]

Diablo III development started over 10 years ago but along the way there were rethinks, staff changes and a complete scrapping of work to date. Can't be bothered posting proof of all that, just google it.

Simplistic graphics. Good grief! Firstly look at the graphics options available and the "realistic" Apple model requirements - forget about pushing things with a 2009 built to order maxed out iMac. I should know. Mine is on eBay as I write this. My 27" 2010 iMac with mostly maxed options copes very well with a couple of settings on medium just to be safe. This is an understandable way of understanding how simplistic the graphics are. They simply aren't. Blizzard are not dumb at writing badly coded Mac games that unnecessarily push the graphics capabilities.

But simplistic in terms of style and design? Just play the game. Don't like the style and design? Tough. Play WoW or something else with a different style.

The reviewer clearly never played even the beta. The game is totally linear. If you click on the required npc you get...wait for it...story...and a progression forward. Oh dear. The reviewer just failed to, um, review.

[Tacohead]

I'm glad I'm not alone with my thoughts on Diablo 3. I played the beta some and while it's nice and all it's not exactly mind-blowing in any respect, especially for a game that was announced over four years ago and been in development much longer. I'm actually more interested in Torchlight 2, a game that will cost 1/3 the price and has been in development not nearly as long. And it won't require an internet connection.

Oh and a friend of mine who's been playing since launch day says almost everybody he's met while playing is a Barbarian. Do the other classes suck or something?

-PN

[Wumpus]

Tacohead, on 19 May 2012 - 09:28 AM, said:

Do the other classes suck or something?
-PN

Barb has always been the most popular starting class. Think of it as the Soldier from Mass Effect. (Stats showed it got played like 50% more than any other class.)

That being said I started with the wizard. And my level 30 wizard completely trumps my friends level 30 Barbarian in damage output and efficiency. I can melt hordes of monsters in seconds, while he has to run around chopping them up for a minute or two. The other classes don't suck, the Barbarian is just an easy (and visually fun) starting point.