Blizzard Comments On Classes In Diablo 3

A Blizzard game developer has commented on the game's five classes, emphasizing on their diversity and uniqueness as characters, unlike the overlapping and relatively bland classes in Age of Conan.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
Tmac3608d ago (Edited 3608d ago )

Lol relatively bland classes, jokes. Blizzard needs to focus on why Diablo 3 looks like world of warcraft first.

StillGray3608d ago

Do they really? Most people don't give a damn about how it looks.

The game as it is looks incredibly attractive and inviting, not just to those of us old players who actually enjoy the new style, of which we are numerous in number, but also to the new players who fell in love with the game the moment they saw it.

You should be ashamed for being a self-entitled, closed minded person.

Tmac3608d ago (Edited 3608d ago )

You're agreeing with a copy and pasted atmosphere, that doesn't even remotely transfer into the diablo world. Before you call me close minded, play the first two games and the expansion, come back and explain how this is even remotely relates to D3. Thanks k bai.

Part of the game is the atmosphere you create, clearly they didn't focus all that much on an integral part of the game.

ThanatosDMC3608d ago

I have to agree with Tmac. Also, i hope the Necro is still alive and well.

mariusmal3608d ago (Edited 3608d ago )

i'm a wow player and diablo3 doesnt look like WoW sorry. and frankly i dont care about the color setting,. i just care about core mechanics and gameplay, it was what made diablo I & II the best games ever

@to the guy above. yes i hope the nekro makes a comeback :D

Bolts3608d ago (Edited 3608d ago )

Tmac actually knows WTF he's talking about. The world of Diablo is dark and grim. Everywhere you go the world seems to be cloaked in a creeping shroud of darkness. Basically it comes down to this, anyone who played Fallout 2 can look at a screenshot of Fallout 3 and feel at home with the world despite Fallout 3 being completely different than Fallout 2. The Fallout "universe" seems intact and familar.

With Diablo 2 and Diablo 3, the difference in the art direction of is absolutely jarring. One is completely dark and oppressive like an RPG version of Doom, while the other is like a cloudy day in WoW. Hopefully Blizzard will keep Diablo's mature roots in mind. This should be a M-rated game with an atmosphere to match.

SpaceCowgirl3607d ago

What makes graphics important is not the amount of ZOMG PIXELS a developer can fit in the screen, what makes good graphics is a developer who can use the least ZOMG PIXELS to tell a story, set an atmosphere and let you interact with the game. Then after anything else any extra space left for more ZOMG pixels should only try to add to making the atmosphere, story and everything else even more powerful.

The thing is as far as artistic direction is concerned, it is pretty easy to wow people with "zomg look at all the purdy trees and stuff" but what is really hard is to make a really great hell pit or dungeon not to look pretty but to actually make you feel claustrophobic and make your heart pound. Blizzard has obviously lost their cojones.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 3607d ago
StillGray3608d ago

Since when did graphics matter more than gameplay? You're an idiot, Tmac.

Xi3608d ago

because it's a strawman

graphics directly effect both gameplay and story.

Tmac3608d ago

Graphics can make or break the atmosphere, too bad you don't understand.

thor3608d ago

Diablo 1 & 2 had horrible graphics; poor resolutions, sprites, nice cutscenes though... I did really like the atmosphere, though. When you first set out in the rain from the rogue encampment in D2 and start meeting all the zombies around - I think they may have taken that away from the game which is a shame. Act 2 & 3 were quite colourful, though, so was hell in fact! And there were all sorts of different coloured beasts in act 5

SCFreelancer3607d ago

For Blizzard game play is one of the few cornerstones of their core development philosophy. It worked out perfectly for them. However, this does NOT mean that graphics are not important.

With gameplay as cornerstone, graphics are still an element with which one can either improve or degrade the quality of a game. Where gameplay makes it fun, graphics, sounds, or even story determine the character of the game. This is of a variable importance depending of the game type, but for a game like Diablo III it is important.

To give an example: one of the main reasons I disliked Hellgate in the end was because of the boring graphics and non-existent atmosphere.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 3607d ago
kydrice3608d ago

The game will look the same when released and you, your grandmother and everyone else will end up playing it and loving it anyway despite your pissing and moaning, true story.

Charlie26883608d ago

I just hope they bring the Necromancer back T.T

Bolts3608d ago

I want my Amazon back and druid back too :(

ThanatosDMC3607d ago

Yeah, my necro became a Revive Whore in Hell mode. I tried to focus my druid as a werebear but it didnt quite do a good job in hell mode. Hard to hit enemies.

Raf1k13607d ago

I think Fanboi's done a decent job of describing Diablo 1 & 2.

I've not played either and am interested in Diablo 3. (I would be even if the art style was dark and gritty.)

But I'm assuming Diablo 3 is set after the events of the previous games and with the Diablo universe being the property of Blizzard, it is up to the them what they want it to be like.

I don't know how long after the events of Diablo 2 Diablo 3 could be set it but I do know that places change. Worlds don't stay the same forever.

If Blizzard wants the world of Diablo to become prettier, thats up to them. Not me or anyone else.

Those are my thoughts.

Show all comments (18)