Why hasn't this been posted yet?

http://www.blizzard.com/diablo3

It's coming.

I haven't been this excited about a game announcement in a long, long time.

ditto. this is awesome.

i wonder if diablo 3 is going be good

i wonder if diablo 3 is going be good

Are you serious? Do you really think Blizzard is going to fuck up a flagship title? Especially one as popular as Diablo.

No, no, they'll perfect this one much like they are with SC2.

Never played Diablo though... >.>

Never played Diablo though... >.>

The series or the specific game? The original Diablo is good but really if you have 2 and the expansion I see no reason in playing it again.
The second one is definitley in my top five best games of all time list. There's still a very healthy amount of people playing online to this day (for such an ancient game, at least) and it's still just about as fun as before. Now it takes me like a few days to get a near max level character with almost the best equipment, while before I took like a month to get a shitty character to level 30 (out of 100, haha).... but it's still amazingly fun.

Also if you were to check it out now'd be the time since there's probably a lot of people reinstalling since D3 was announced. But I dunno lol.

Yeah I am so pumped that blizzard has a new Starcraft and Diablo in their line up. After they came out with WoW I was wondering if they were ever going to go back to SC or Diablo. Both of them should be absolutely fantastic. Blizzard is one of the few gaming companies that will not release something till it is perfect (or close to it)

Blizzard is one of the few gaming companies that will not release something till it is perfect (or close to it)

...except for WoW.

Are you serious? Do you really think Blizzard is going to fuck up a flagship title? Especially one as popular as Diablo.

No, no, they'll perfect this one much like they are with SC2.

Never played Diablo though... >.>

So your argument is that if a game is popular it is impossible for a company to make a bad sequel to it?

The thing that interests me most is the claim that 'conversations' with NPCs will play a big part in the game. I wonder if that means it will be more like a RPG then past installments.

The series or the specific game? The original Diablo is good but really if you have 2 and the expansion I see no reason in playing it again.
The second one is definitley in my top five best games of all time list. There's still a very healthy amount of people playing online to this day (for such an ancient game, at least) and it's still just about as fun as before. Now it takes me like a few days to get a near max level character with almost the best equipment, while before I took like a month to get a shitty character to level 30 (out of 100, haha).... but it's still amazingly fun.

Also if you were to check it out now'd be the time since there's probably a lot of people reinstalling since D3 was announced. But I dunno lol.
The series. I dunno, I just never got into it or played it much really. I was more of a SC freak.

So your argument is that if a game is popular it is impossible for a company to make a bad sequel to it?

Thanks for taking what I said to a whole different level and ignoring the fact that I specified Blizzard.

Personally, I'm still much more excited about Starcraft 2.

But I'll admit, I shit my fair share of bricks upon learning of Diablo 3's pending release. I've waited a long time for both these games, and hopefully, with Blizzard taking their time on each, they will both be incredible.

...except for WoW.


Touche

What's wrong with WoW? I haven't played it (or really plan to) but I was under the impression that it's generally considered to be the best MMO currently on the market.

It's not the best, but the easiest to play. It's a fucking cakewalk compared to other MMOs.

What's wrong with WoW? I haven't played it (or really plan to) but I was under the impression that it's generally considered to be the best MMO currently on the market.

Well, the launch was terrible (I know, I played through it), and the game did start off pretty good... then they released lots of patches like the honor system which killed world pvp which killed half the fun of the game, and they drove it into a terrible rut around the time they started adding more and more endgame dungeons. Then BC came out, making pretty much all the effort anyone put into the game before that mean nothing, which is a terrible design philosophy, and those playing now have to live with the fact that when WotLK comes out all their playtime will have been for nothing. Supposedly the game is a lot more fun now than it was when I quit but I don't know. Also what they're saying about the new dungeon philosophy in WotLK (No dungeons taking over an hour?..) makes me wonder if it's maybe even a game worth returning to, but I'll remain firmly on the fence until more details are revealed.

My main point is that it definitley did not launch as something that was perfect or even close to perfect.

I saw this about 2 days ago. I almost yelped in anticipation.

I still haven't played Diablo 2. I looved the first one, though. Good shit, assuming Blizz doesn't cancel it like they did with SC Ghost.

*is still fuming over that fiasco*

Oh boo-fucking-hoo. SC Ghost looked like shit. I'm glad they canceled it.

I still haven't played Diablo 2. I looved the first one, though. Good shit, assuming Blizz doesn't cancel it like they did with SC Ghost.

*is still fuming over that fiasco*

I'm still slightly sad about Warcraft Adventures being cancelled. If it's any consolation they never cancel major releases, especially not after working on them for four years.

SC:G looked good. The stealth action genre doesn't have very many games in it and its posterboy, MGS, doesn't even focus on stealth anymore... so it would've been nice to see if Ghost could pull it off. Oh well.

I hope it's free like the other Diablos were.

Strangely, I have both Diablos w/expansions but have never played either. From what I'd heard at the time, it was just another hack-n-slash similar to the crappy Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance series. What's so great about it?

When finding out about SC 2 being in the works, you just know that this was coming.
I prefered SC and Diablo to Warcraft, particularly WOW.

So your argument is that if a game is popular it is impossible for a company to make a bad sequel to it?

Diablo III has actually been scrapped at least once during production due to it not meeting expectations. They actually had started to work on it a couple years after the expansion for Diablo II was released, but were not happy with the way it was going.

My guess is that they want it to be a true blockbuster in every meaning. I'll grant that all game developers hope that of their major franchise(s), but this one is going to sell a lot of boxes no matter what. It has immediate potential to be a game of the year, a best-seller, all of that. They are going to take extra care to make sure they don't screw it up.

Sure, they still could mess it up, but I don't see that happening. It's going to be a huge game and I can't wait for more info than is already out.

Fucking Awesome. I loved Diablo. It is by far my favorite online RPG game. The story was great and I didn't feel bored as shit during "grinds." The cinematics were cool and each class was unique. They set up D2 perfectly. I hope D3 is just as good. Can't wait to see how the story progresses and what other classes will come up.

I loved playing Diablo 2 with my girlfriend at the time. Too bad she left me.

I loved playing Diablo 2 with my girlfriend at the time. Too bad she left me.

Which it is obvious you are clearly over.

Say what? I know we're over dude.

rofl

I hope it's free like the other Diablos were.

It's free to play, just like the other Diablos.

Er, that is, it uses battle.net for online (which will be upgraded for Diablo 3, although presumably for Starcraft 2 as well), which has been and always will be free.



Strangely, I have both Diablos w/expansions but have never played either. From what I'd heard at the time, it was just another hack-n-slash similar to the crappy Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance series. What's so great about it?

You heard wrong. They were both the absolute best of the genre when they were released. D2:LoD continues to maintain its reign as the best hack and slash loot grindan game, even though there have been many challengers (Titan's Quest, the same team's game Hellgate: London, etc.) over the years. None have matched the magic that was D2:LoD.

It's gonna be awesome.. can't wait to play it with my fellow Diablo fanatic friends. I love how the new one has kept the very similar style of the old Diablo games and hasn't tried something stupidly different. Looks beautiful :))

Speaking of which. I have an old copy of D2 Expansion and I cannot find the original case for the cd key. does anyone happen to have one and doesn't want to play anymore? I just need a Cd key.

Just download a CD-Key generator. Odds are you'll find one that works.

Yeah I been trying that. But it's not working for me. :( It sucks because I really can't afford to buy a new CD when I have one that works pectly right in front of me.

I'm not sure how Diablo works on B.Net. Do you get to choose gateways like in SC? If so, try different gateways.

Unless you mean, the CD-Key that gets generated isn't even accepted at the install. Can't help you there as I've said before, no experience with Diablo at all.

Yeah. I think the CD Key Generators are only meant for single player mode. They don't work when I try to get into a battle net server. I just need to get a real CD Key. I might just have to buy a new one :(

They work online, at least they do for SC. You just need to select a gateway that isn't being used by that particular key.

It's free to play, just like the other Diablos.

Er, that is, it uses battle.net for online (which will be upgraded for Diablo 3, although presumably for Starcraft 2 as well), which has been and always will be free.

Right now the assumption is that it will continue to be free, but that isn't 100% confirmed. Where Battle.net 2.0 is new, there's no clear idea of how it is going to work yet. Not only that, but I can see Blizzard wanting a steady income from both Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3. If they do want this, and do not want it to be based around adds, chances are they will either need to implement a pay-to-play scale, or otherwise content-based charges. At first, I don't think they will have an issue. However, as sales start to decrease I can see them toying with the idea of increased content for a fee beyond full-blown expansions.

Right now the assumption is that it will continue to be free, but that isn't 100% confirmed. Where Battle.net 2.0 is new, there's no clear idea of how it is going to work yet. Not only that, but I can see Blizzard wanting a steady income from both Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3. If they do want this, and do not want it to be based around adds, chances are they will either need to implement a pay-to-play scale, or otherwise content-based charges. At first, I don't think they will have an issue. However, as sales start to decrease I can see them toying with the idea of increased content for a fee beyond full-blown expansions.

I guess you're technically right. They've managed to keep battle.net running for 11 years without having to have any cost, though, and I find it quite hard to imagine they'd change things come battle.net 2.0 (especially if it's replacing the old b.net for the older games?). At the very least, they're making so much money off WoW they probably could just ignore the extra cost of b.net 2.0.

Anyways, implementing a fee to b.net, especially if it comes after the game is released, would cause a humongous internet shitstorm. Hell, even the art-direction of Diablo 3 that we've seen thus far has spawned a petition (http://www.petitiononline.com/d3art/petition.html) with over 20,000 signatures (how many are unique? I don't know).

Right now the assumption is that it will continue to be free, but that isn't 100% confirmed. Where Battle.net 2.0 is new, there's no clear idea of how it is going to work yet. Not only that, but I can see Blizzard wanting a steady income from both Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3. If they do want this, and do not want it to be based around adds, chances are they will either need to implement a pay-to-play scale, or otherwise content-based charges. At first, I don't think they will have an issue. However, as sales start to decrease I can see them toying with the idea of increased content for a fee beyond full-blown expansions.

Blizzard has 10 million subscribers for WoW. Multiply that by 15. That's how much they make a month.

I seriously doubt B.Net 2.0 will have a fee attached.

Never said that the options I put forth would happen. I was basically just saying, "chances are it won't be pay-to-play, but they haven't confirmed it so they might still be toying with the idea."

I understand the scope of WoW as well as everything that would transpire if battle.net suddenly started costing the user something. Just saying be prepared for it to cost something, or for there to be some source of continuous cash flow involved, just in case.

As for that petition, I'm not surprised. People have already denounced the Witch Doctor under the assumption that he has taken the place of the Necromancer. The art thing seems like the more legitimate complaint of the two, because at least it is something based around known current facts instead of speculation.