Diablo 3 Closed Beta Hands-On: Part 3

Diablo 3's Barbarian class
Latest Videos FromTom's Hardware
TOPICS
Kevin Parrish
Contributor

Kevin Parrish has over a decade of experience as a writer, editor, and product tester. His work focused on computer hardware, networking equipment, smartphones, tablets, gaming consoles, and other internet-connected devices. His work has appeared in Tom's Hardware, Tom's Guide, Maximum PC, Digital Trends, Android Authority, How-To Geek, Lifewire, and others.

  • Harby
    In before "not buying it" for blabla reasons.
    Reply
  • maxinexus
    I'm so buying it for d1d2 reasons
    Reply
  • After playing the Beta ive come to the conclusion its the Diablo sequel I very much wanted in 2003, but in 2012 the game fails. The graphics, the control scheme, the story setup, all would have been awesome in 2003, but in 2012 it does not cut it. Mouse clicking and isometric view should have been left to die last decade. Playing Diablo 3 after playing World of Warcraft feels like a giant step back for Blizzard. I want camera control, I want to really be able to see that new armor drop I get, I want to really be able to see those mobs im killing. I want character models that are lifelike and animated so well it sells the story as well as any actor. These are things other RPGs have been doing for years now, and it is a shame that Blizzard didn't bring Diablo into the modern age of RPGs. As it is they should port Diablo 3 to tablets, where it seems with its graphics level and control scheme would be great, but on a PC or a console it is an epic fail.
    Reply
  • then you don't want diablo
    Reply
  • kyuuketsuki
    @stm1185: Mouse-clicking and isometric camera are not some kind of technological thing that has become obsolete. They are gameplay choices. People who like Diablo do not want to play a WoW-clone or third-person shooter or FPS in the Diablo universe. They want to play a Diablo game, which is an isometric, mouse-clicking game.

    That being said, that's about the only thing they did right. Otherwise, Diablo 3 is looking more and more like a failure of a Diablo sequel.

    Oh, and @ author of article: there's no reason for there to be character customization. The viewpoint, and the fact that you cover yourself head-to-toe with armor, would make that pointless. Also, this is an action hack'n'slash with light RPG elements, not an RPG, so don't compare it to one... although, character customization is not some mandatory feature of an RPG anyway.
    Reply
  • anacandor
    @stm1185, have you seen how popular Path of Exile is? It's still in beta too and thousands of people are crying over not getting a closed beta invite. These isometric dungeon crawler games are not dead yet. In fact, i prefer them. I still enjoy playing d2, i got bored of Dungeon Siege 3 after about 5 minutes.

    stm1185I want character models that are lifelike and animated so well it sells the story as well as any actor.Have you ever heard the voice acting in d2? It is amazing, just like every other Blizzard game.

    I cbf typing anymore but yeah... i think Blizzard knows what they're doing, and they're on the right path with the game.
    Reply
  • dragonsqrrl
    stm1185As it is they should port Diablo 3 to tablets, where it seems with its graphics level and control scheme would be great, but on a PC or a console it is an epic fail.Were you also one of the people complaining that the graphics in SC2 were indistinguishable from the original? And you think D3 type graphics could run on mobile hardware? Sorry dude, but you have a lot to learn about real-time rendering.
    Reply
  • dragonsqrrlWere you also one of the people complaining that the graphics in SC2 were indistinguishable from the original? And you think D3 type graphics could run on mobile hardware? Sorry dude, but you have a lot to learn about real-time rendering.
    Internet smart guy right here. They could take the D3 assets and reduce poly count or texture size where necessary to make it work on next gen tablet hardware. They size of the models are so small on the screen it does not really matter if they did. It's not like you have camera control and are going to be able to zoom in and see it. They could port Id Tech 5, they could port Unreal, they could port this.

    SC2 was an RTS, Diablo was an RPG. RTS is dependent on that view point, on that setup. RPG is not, mouse clicking and isometric made since in 2000 because they could not really do much else. Now they can do so much more and they should have for Diablo 3. It should have been as revolutionary as Grand Theft Auto 3, and moved the series into full 3D, full camera, open world. Heavily detailed normal mapped characters with HDR lighting and shadows that you could watch from any angle. Instead they just kept the archaic control and view setup and did the same old thing. Which is going to look very shitty in comparison to Skyrim or The Witcher 2, or many other RPGs coming out. Let alone MMOs like Guild Wars 2, which really is what Diablo 3 is, its a half assed MMO.
    Reply
  • Every game Blizzard releases is played daily by most who own them for YEARS. Thats the objective of blizzard, and that should be the objective of making games, making people want to play them, time and time again. I am really tired of these so called games which are really just tech demos. Give me 60fps, solid gameplay mechanics and a captivating story line (optional) and I'm happy.

    "Tech demo games" => "computer graphics card geeks". Otherwise angry birds wouldn't have had any success :P

    Now there isn't anything wrong with great graphics, but every new game shouldn't forcefully have to be a technical breakthrough, give game developers time to develop games.
    Reply
  • dragonsqrrl
    stm1185Internet smart guy right here. They could take the D3 assets and reduce poly count or texture size where necessary to make it work on next gen tablet hardware. They size of the models are so small on the screen it does not really matter if they did. It's not like you have camera control and are going to be able to zoom in and see it. They could port Id Tech 5, they could port Unreal, they could port this.lol... nice save, or attempt at one. So in your original comment you weren't trying to say the graphics quality in D3 is antiquated, so much so that a port with similar graphics fidelity could run on mobile hardware. No, that wasn't the point you were trying to make.

    What you were actually trying to say is a reworked, mobile-optimized port of D3 could run without a problem on mobile hardware... wow, that's profound. Thanks for the clarification.
    Reply