Conquer Club

I was a huge fan of D2 back in the day when I had no job to go to, was still in highschool and still living at the rents. Now I see D3 has finally come out after all these years... 10 years ago maybe since the D2 days?

Anyone play it yet? Is it as good as D2? If anyone has played it and can give some insight let me know, would be fun to hear. I heard they got a free pass attached to all D3 games that are bought for a free trial version, if you got one and want to give it to a buddy let me know My broke ass isn't gonna buy it yet.



-griff

I hear it's pretty unbalanced. Item generation is plain weird, the new skill system was implemented less than a year before the game came out and received very little testing. There's no PvP, and you can only have a total of 5 characters on your battlenet account.

So, I'm not buying it.

MeDeFe wrote:I hear it's pretty unbalanced. Item generation is plain weird, the new skill system was implemented less than a year before the game came out and received very little testing. There's no PvP, and you can only have a total of 5 characters on your battlenet account.

So, I'm not buying it.

You get ten total characters...but yeah. It's an issue. Another issue is that you can only have 4 players in one game. The itemization is boring right now, mainly because you want every piece of gear you get to have vitality and your primary stat on it. Combat is good, but there aren't as many viable builds as there were in Diablo 2. It isn't a bad game by any means, but if you're looking for the longevity that D2 had I'd wait to see what the expansions bring to the table.

Edit: I can totally hook you up with one of the free passes by the way, assuming I can find them.

I have a bunch of mates who have loved it; if you love D2 you should enjoy D3; its simple mindless fun.

However as others say above it does come with a bunch of issues; the worst being it was designed by Activision Blizzard...

Frigidus wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:I hear it's pretty unbalanced. Item generation is plain weird, the new skill system was implemented less than a year before the game came out and received very little testing. There's no PvP, and you can only have a total of 5 characters on your battlenet account.

So, I'm not buying it.

You get ten total characters...but yeah. It's an issue. Another issue is that you can only have 4 players in one game. The itemization is boring right now, mainly because you want every piece of gear you get to have vitality and your primary stat on it. Combat is good, but there aren't as many viable builds as there were in Diablo 2. It isn't a bad game by any means, but if you're looking for the longevity that D2 had I'd wait to see what the expansions bring to the table.

Edit: I can totally hook you up with one of the free passes by the way, assuming I can find them.

Thanks... would love to try it... bummer that it did not live up to the hype.

One friend said it is almost impossible to keep wizards alive, another friend said it was easy to keep his wizard alive.

it's a good game, no questions about this. but when you factor in the hype and the long wait i'd say it's a disappointment.

it it weren't named diablo 3 and it didn't have all this hype it would probably be played a little then forgotten in a few weeks.

DiM wrote:it's a good game, no questions about this. but when you factor in the hype and the long wait i'd say it's a disappointment.

it it weren't named diablo 3 and it didn't have all this hype it would probably be played a little then forgotten in a few weeks.

This is really a shame... i wish they would of released something ages ago, but now that they waited so long, the expectations were huge.. always hard to meet those standards.

I've been waiting for years for the game... I played the beta and just kinda meh'ed. My buddy bought it and told me that it's got a bunch of problems still. You'd think with the almost 5 years of production and all the shit they went through they would've managed something better. Plus, I was really lamenting the loss of single player or TCP/IP play. I didn't really dig having to sign into a server every time I want to play.

-TG

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:I've been waiting for years for the game... I played the beta and just kinda meh'ed. My buddy bought it and told me that it's got a bunch of problems still. You'd think with the almost 5 years of production and all the shit they went through they would've managed something better. Plus, I was really lamenting the loss of single player or TCP/IP play. I didn't really dig having to sign into a server every time I want to play.

-TG

Hm, that's lame. (inb4 natty dread complaining about perceived bigotry against physically disabled people or some such nonsense).


Is it just me or do all these RPGs with their fancy shmancy graphics really neglect cooperative play? And, if they have a multiplayer option, it must be through their server (no TCP/IP option)...

what's up with this?

BigBallinStalin wrote:

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:I've been waiting for years for the game... I played the beta and just kinda meh'ed. My buddy bought it and told me that it's got a bunch of problems still. You'd think with the almost 5 years of production and all the shit they went through they would've managed something better. Plus, I was really lamenting the loss of single player or TCP/IP play. I didn't really dig having to sign into a server every time I want to play.

-TG

Hm, that's lame. (inb4 natty dread complaining about perceived bigotry against physically disabled people or some such nonsense).


Is it just me or do all these RPGs with their fancy shmancy graphics really neglect cooperative play? And, if they have a multiplayer option, it must be through their server (no TCP/IP option)...

what's up with this?

You can play VIA LAN connection with other players...

I am not sure I've ever really enjoyed a game that I was waiting more than a year for. After that point, it seems downhill. So for the last while I've started looking at cheap or older games, and my satisfaction in gaming is relatively high.

I remember playing D2 quite a bit, but I'll probably skip D3...or at least, probably won't play it for quite a while.


--Andy

grifftron wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:I've been waiting for years for the game... I played the beta and just kinda meh'ed. My buddy bought it and told me that it's got a bunch of problems still. You'd think with the almost 5 years of production and all the shit they went through they would've managed something better. Plus, I was really lamenting the loss of single player or TCP/IP play. I didn't really dig having to sign into a server every time I want to play.

-TG

Hm, that's lame. (inb4 natty dread complaining about perceived bigotry against physically disabled people or some such nonsense).


Is it just me or do all these RPGs with their fancy shmancy graphics really neglect cooperative play? And, if they have a multiplayer option, it must be through their server (no TCP/IP option)...

what's up with this?

You can play VIA LAN connection with other players...

Not in Diablo 3 actually. You have to connect to Blizzard's servers even if you want to play single player.

As for BBS's question, having it online only was supposedly designed to prevent users from using mods and using glitches to create duplicate items...but it hasn't been incredibly successful. The real reason, at least in my opinion, is that they're trying to prevent pirating. It's just more draconian punishment to people that actually buy their games and more inconveniences to pirates. I guarantee that there will be rudimentary private servers up within a year.

It's really sad, considering that Blizzard used to allow Spawn installations (you could use the same CD key to install the game, although it only allowed you to play with the person you "spawned" off of). Now that Activision owns them I guess they can't be as user friendly.

Cant even play along offline now? But what if you live in Thailand in a small cave and cannot access net?

grifftron wrote:Cant even play along offline now? But what if you live in Thailand in a small cave and cannot access net?

Well...that's bad news. I've heard that players in Australia are stuck with terrible latency due to Blizzard not putting up a local server for them, so it isn't just a problem for those without internet.

MeDeFe wrote:I hear it's pretty unbalanced. Item generation is plain weird, the new skill system was implemented less than a year before the game came out and received very little testing. There's no PvP, and you can only have a total of 5 characters on your battlenet account.

So, I'm not buying it.

actually you can have 10 characters.

but it's still not a great game IMHO and i'm a blizzard fan. i have not played diablo 2 though.

Defective by Design

From what my brother says, items are important. One of his buddies had a wizard and it sucked. My bro found a wand and now it is a bad ass character.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Is it just me or do all these RPGs with their fancy shmancy graphics really neglect cooperative play? And, if they have a multiplayer option, it must be through their server (no TCP/IP option)...

what's up with this?

don't confuse diablo 3 with an RPG.
diablo 3 is nothing more than a hack&slash.

Frigidus wrote:

grifftron wrote:Cant even play along offline now? But what if you live in Thailand in a small cave and cannot access net?

Well...that's bad news. I've heard that players in Australia are stuck with terrible latency due to Blizzard not putting up a local server for them, so it isn't just a problem for those without internet.

In D3s defense the game is still client side so you dont get latency when you play single player etc.

DiM wrote:

grifftron wrote:Is it just me or do all these RPGs with their fancy shmancy graphics really neglect cooperative play? And, if they have a multiplayer option, it must be through their server (no TCP/IP option)...

what's up with this?

don't confuse diablo 3 with an RPG.
diablo 3 is nothing more than a hack&slash.

it's basically an itemgrind, it looks very much like korean grinding MMO's, but those also are hardly RPG's.

Lootifer wrote:

Frigidus wrote:

grifftron wrote:Cant even play along offline now? But what if you live in Thailand in a small cave and cannot access net?

Well...that's bad news. I've heard that players in Australia are stuck with terrible latency due to Blizzard not putting up a local server for them, so it isn't just a problem for those without internet.

In D3s defense the game is still client side so you dont get latency when you play single player etc.

wrong, even singleplayer you're connected to a server constantly.

yep, try playing D3 with a poor, unstable connection and you'll see what happens.

Well technically the client has been set up such that it doesnt need to back and forth between the servers to continue playing. IE: Its client side and only sends packets to the servers to make sure everything is behaving as it should; even when ur latency meter shows 200ms you should still see instant ability use etc etc.

HOWEVER: This was the design intent, it sounds VERY much like the implementation is a long way away from this.

DiM wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Is it just me or do all these RPGs with their fancy shmancy graphics really neglect cooperative play? And, if they have a multiplayer option, it must be through their server (no TCP/IP option)...

what's up with this?

don't confuse diablo 3 with an RPG.
diablo 3 is nothing more than a hack&slash.

fixed... wasn't my quote