Diablo 3: We need a thread

[Tru Reptile]

Level 25 barb about to finish Act 2. I honestly can't think of the last time I was this blown away by a game. not even the GW2 beta had me this excited tbh. I keep trying to find things I dislike, but the only thing I can point to is the use of Battletags in-game rather than the character's names. That's it. It's extremely rare that a game has me saying "This is ****ing awesome!" the entire time I'm playing it, but D3 does it easily.

[shawn]

I'm enjoying it a lot more than gw2 as well, although I didn't want to admit it at first. It's true though.

I mentioned I'd like to see char specific names be more prominent earlier, but eh. I changed my battle name to something I'm happy with, so I'll survive.


edit:
So this is interesting: http://darkd3.com/
I may flip that on next playthrough.

[RD]

I love the monk play. That is all.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus.

Agreed.

DRM aside, game good or bad?

lol If everyone gushing about it wasn't clear, it's very, very good.

I don't think I'm in the "I like it more than GW 2" boat - different types of games, in my mind. But I am enjoying it as much.

[Zalis]

So, I hear this is how the Barb plays in D3:

[Alaris]

DRM aside, game good or bad?

Based on the beta, and assuming you played D2 and loved it, it delivers. Very high polish, same general gameplay but improved, better skill system...

[RD]

I would disagree with the "played D2 and loved it" requirement. If you played D2 and didn't hate it, you will at least enjoy D3. I didn't love D2 by any means. I liked it, played it through, but definitely didn't love it. I love D3.

A lot of the changes they made make the game much more accessible for grown ups.

[Alaris]

At least we agree that they improved on D2, which is already quite an achievement.

[Zalis]

On the topic of that oft-beaten dead horse (that I said I'd shut up about), an RPS columnist puts forth a logical reason for people to "stay angry" about it.

He quotes something unsettling from id software's Tim Willits:

“Diablo III will make everyone else accept the fact you have to be connected. If you have a juggernaut, you can make change. I’m all for that. If we could force people to always be connected when you play the game, and then have that be acceptable, awesome. In the end, it’s better for everybody. Imagine picking up a game and it’s automatically updated. Or there’s something new you didn’t know about, and you didn’t have to click away. It’s all automatically there. But it does take juggernauts like [Diablo III] to make change.”

[RD]

The quoted section doesn't really sound like he's making a case to "stay angry" to me.

My only problem with the "always on" thing is when they have to do maintenance or if Blizzard ever went under and I wanted to play.

[Zalis]

The quoted section doesn't really sound like he's making a case to "stay angry" to me.

He's not -- those were words from the linked column. On a personal note, I think angry is a stronger emotion than I'd care to feel about a video game. I'm not buying D3 for now, but following the story, so disappointed might be more accurate.

The Tim Willits quote (quoted from the link) was talking about how other publishers are watching to see if they can follow Blizzard's method. The reason it's a bit worrisome is all the talk of "it's just better for everybody." We know that tends to mean "It gives us more control and makes us more money," when translated from the publisher's mouth.

FWIW, I'd be satisfied with a simple, perhaps even limited, single-player (read: offline) mode. The lack of an option, like even Steam has, is likely what chafes a lot of the disappointed folk. But, hey... whatever. It's hard to seriously complain about a game you haven't played or purchased.