# Diablo III



## Ophiucha (May 17, 2012)

Presuming you've managed to get past Blizzard's _fantastic_ set up of servers and internet connectivity, through Error 37s and all that good stuff... Diablo III, anyone? I'd never played the old games, but my husband got it, and the bizarre choices of the publisher aside, I quite like what I've seen. I'm sticking with Witch Doctor for my main character, but the Barbarian looks cool - and the female model is a proper large lady and everything! - and I really want to give the female Wizard a try since her voice actress does Azula in _Avatar: The Last Airbender_.

So, how're you liking it so far?


----------



## JCFarnham (May 17, 2012)

I'm doing two things presently:

1) Wishing I had a decent PC.

2) Wishing they would port it to the xBox.

I loved the second installment back in my teenage years, I'd probably adore this one for a while too, but ... bah to the _n_th degree!


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (May 17, 2012)

I'm playing it. (Managed to get it running on Linux.) It's fun, but so far I'm a bit disappointed; I was a huge Diablo II fan, and D3 is basically... Diablo II with better graphics and UI. The first two acts are even set in the same two places as the first two acts of D2!

There's plenty of lore and backstory and such, but it doesn't feel all that integrated into the gameplay. I mean, yeah, there's cutscenes that explain what's going on, but for the most part it feels like "run around hack slash kill loot" (which is fun, don't get me wrong) interspersed occasionally with a cutscene for some characters to jabber at each other.

I do appreciate simplifying the skills a bit, but it's annoying that it's kind of difficult to switch skills, and you can't really switch on the fly during a battle unless you run away.

It's also _really_ annoying that you can't play if their servers aren't up. I mean, come on, it's a single-player game with multiplayer elements; is the always-on thing really necessary if all I want to do is play through the game by myself?


----------



## Telcontar (May 17, 2012)

Servers issues are annoying, and I stand by my statement that requiring a constant battle.net connection for solo play is Blizzard's dumbest move EVER, but I still very much enjoy the game. 

The gameplay is as I expected, basically just like the previous two but refined still further. I wish it were possible to more easily switch primary and secondary skills on the fly, but oh well. 

Finally, maybe it's a result of my own standards going up, but the writing seems weaker than previous Blizzard games. Not by much, but I keep noticing some stuff that sounds a bit cheesy without the tongue-in-cheek tone that lets you know it's satire.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (May 18, 2012)

Telcontar said:


> Servers issues are annoying, and I stand by my statement that requiring a constant battle.net connection for solo play is Blizzard's dumbest move EVER, but I still very much enjoy the game.
> 
> The gameplay is as I expected, basically just like the previous two but refined still further. I wish it were possible to more easily switch primary and secondary skills on the fly, but oh well.
> 
> Finally, maybe it's a result of my own standards going up, but the writing seems weaker than previous Blizzard games. Not by much, but I keep noticing some stuff that sounds a bit cheesy without the tongue-in-cheek tone that lets you know it's satire.



Yeah, I have to agree, especially with that last bit. There's also a lot of "Okay, that quest is done. Now here's a couple lines of dialogue that tell you that the next MacGuffin is found in Zone X." It's jarring.

*Here's a really good Ars Technica article that analyzes D3 and how it fits into the franchise. (Warning: plot spoilers)*


----------



## Penpilot (May 19, 2012)

I'm so wanting to hate this game. I agree with the constant battlnet connectiong being a bad idea, but I've go the starter edition installed and am SOOO trying not to play. Need to write dam it..... sigh... who am I kidding.... Hours lost boo hoo. Do you guys know about elective mode?


----------



## Graylorne (May 19, 2012)

I wanted to buy it, but I object to playing a stand-alone game over Battlenet so strongly that I won't. Funny perhaps, because I also play WoW and so I have a Battlenet account. Its just a dark, silly prejudice deep inside me, but no, I wont buy it.


----------



## Feo Takahari (May 19, 2012)

Didn't buy Heroes of Might and Magic VI when I heard it had always-on DRM. Let's face it, I love HOMM more than I love Diablo.

Come to think of it, I can't remember the last time I bought a video game sequel that wasn't on sale for less than $10--Fallout New Vegas, maybe?


----------



## Telcontar (May 19, 2012)

Something that just occured to me: every single class has it's own special weapons. So why the heck would anyone ever use things like longswords, axes, and spears that drop all the time? Are they just there to give to followers? Hmm... methinks the 'loot galore!' aspect of Diablo has gotten a bit out of hand.


----------



## Ophiucha (May 19, 2012)

Armor and weapons are certainly odd in D3. My character is a Witch Doctor and our weapon/off-hand combination is a dagger and a voodoo doll/shrunken head/whatever. But, like, my off hand hoodoo item just seems kind of weak compared to, IDK, a shield. Like, the shrunken head I have now gives me +26 Mana, I think +2% Mana Regeneration, +3-5% Damage? But... it has no armor value. I have picked up random shields with 120 Armor that just seem like they'd be far more useful. The mana is nice, but I mostly just fight creatures with my cheap dogs and by tossing jars of spiders at them. I'd rather some serious defensive bonuses to some extra Fire/Vampire Bats to throw at my enemies.

Also, I know you can share items between characters, but it's kind of annoying how half of my loot I can't even use since it's Monk or Demon Hunter exclusive, y'know?


----------



## Legendary Sidekick (May 19, 2012)

Honestly, I like the new skill system.

While it's impossible to switch skills mid-battle without getting pummeled, that wasn't really Blizzard's intent. A lot of developers felt that (in Diablo 2) it was too easy to unwittingly create a broken character by choosing the "wrong" set of stats and skills. Now the game just levels up stats for you (barbarian gets more strength, wizard gets more intelligence, etc. and I think everyone levels up vitality at the same rate) and you have access to ALL the skills for your class.

I don't find the need to switch skills mid-battle. I just pick a set I like and stick to it until I level up and see if I prefer any of the new skills.

So far, I'm playing a male barbarian named Bouldergut, and I have an alternate to be played when two of my friends are around: a female monk named Nun-Li. (Well... NunLi. You can't hyphenate names.)



Regarding shield vs. no shield, that's been a tough one for me. I want Bouldergut to have a huge hammer, but I like the armor and bonus that comes with my shield. Plus, so far, the one-handed weapons I find do more damage (yes, damage, not just DPS) than the two-handed! I may dual wield when I level up enough to use my new axe that the artisan made. It's not as damaging as my current one, but both give lots of health when I kill an enemy. So every time I kill someone, I'll get ~50 health.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick (May 19, 2012)

Telcontar said:


> Something that just occured to me: every single class has it's own special weapons. So why the heck would anyone ever use things like longswords, axes, and spears that drop all the time? Are they just there to give to followers? Hmm... methinks the 'loot galore!' aspect of Diablo has gotten a bit out of hand.


I found a regular belt that's better than my mighty belt, and my heavy axe does more damage than my higher-level mighty axe (which gives more health when I kill stuff).

At least for the melee characters, all weapons are just as good, but if you want a sword that weighs as much as a person you need to be a barbarian. If you want to punch things, you need to be a monk. That's how I look at it anyway.


The "loot galore" thing... I'm gonna have to agree with you there.


----------



## Penpilot (May 19, 2012)

Loot galor is what I think the whole focus to the game is even in D2. They've just refined it. I mean the auction house where you can spend real world money for virtual items kind of puts the exclamation point on it for me. With the auto level on stats, now the whole build of a character depends on equipment since each every instance of a character class has access to all the spells of that class automatically. I like the game but some of the little things irk me.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (May 19, 2012)

Telcontar said:


> Something that just occured to me: every single class has it's own special weapons. So why the heck would anyone ever use things like longswords, axes, and spears that drop all the time? Are they just there to give to followers? Hmm... methinks the 'loot galore!' aspect of Diablo has gotten a bit out of hand.



Because sometimes you find a generic axe that's better than the Mighty weapon you had before. I think the idea is that in general, Mighty weapons are always going to be better (for Barbarians) than generic equivalents, although I can't prove that yet.

Right now my level 8 wizard is using a two-handed sword because it's the highest DPS weapon I've found so far, and your weapon's DPS for some reason affects your magic spells.


----------



## Telcontar (May 19, 2012)

Yes, it seems your character has a blanket 'damage' stat, determined by whatever your main characteristic is + weapon (and various magic items that increase damage). 

All in all, the gameplay has been boiled down to the minimum necessary to invoke the "Diablo" experience, which I find a little disappointing. Any real semblance of tactical choice and depth has been refined right out. Tis a bit sad - basically, Blizzard made Torchlight Umpteen with a great soundtrack and cutscenes.

I'm ranting a bit. I'm still having fun with the game, but it's become even more shallow than the Diablo franchise USED to be, which is saying something. 

One last rant: My monk can use a staff-type weapon, but all his skills have fist animations. Thus, he never actually seems to be _using_ the staff. Looks dumb.


----------



## Steerpike (May 19, 2012)

Telcontar said:


> Yes, it seems your character has a blanket 'damage' stat, determined by whatever your main characteristic is + weapon (and various magic items that increase damage).
> 
> All in all, the gameplay has been boiled down to the minimum necessary to invoke the "Diablo" experience, which I find a little disappointing. Any real semblance of tactical choice and depth has been refined right out. Tis a bit sad - basically, Blizzard made Torchlight Umpteen with a great soundtrack and cutscenes.
> 
> ...



I'm glad I didn't buy this. I think I'm going to start another Skyrim character instead. I've never been much of a fan of what I've played of Blizzard games, and it looks increasingly like Diablo III will continue that trend.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick (May 20, 2012)

Telcontar said:


> One last rant: My monk can use a staff-type weapon, but all his skills have fist animations. Thus, he never actually seems to be _using_ the staff. Looks dumb.


Interesting... I just started a monk last night so two of my friends and I can play characters that level up together. Multiplayer is a lot of fun if you can find people to level up with you!

I was using the punch weapon that she started with until I found a life-stealing sword. I use her second primary skill, which is a punch-punch-kick combo. I'll have to check again to see if that's now a sword-punch-kick, or just punches and kicks.


By the way, my monk's name is Nun-Li (like Chun-Li, but she's a nun). My point being, the way I name my character should tell you how serious an RPG I expect/want this game to be. Maybe this is why I'm not disappointed with the story and other aspects. I expected this to be the halfway point between Gauntlet and a LARP simulator.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (May 20, 2012)

Telcontar said:


> Yes, it seems your character has a blanket 'damage' stat, determined by whatever your main characteristic is + weapon (and various magic items that increase damage).



I don't think Damage is a stat, per se; it's sort of an aggregate stat that gives you a general idea of how much damage you'll do. If you equip item A instead of item B and your damage goes up, then you'll do more damage. This doesn't mean the item is strictly _better_; item B might have some properties that you care about more.



> All in all, the gameplay has been boiled down to the minimum necessary to invoke the "Diablo" experience, which I find a little disappointing. Any real semblance of tactical choice and depth has been refined right out. Tis a bit sad - basically, Blizzard made Torchlight Umpteen with a great soundtrack and cutscenes.



I dunno, the gameplay seems exactly like D2 to me, with better graphics and UI and a slightly different skill system. And some of the tedious things have been obviated: Having to deal with scrolls of identify and town portal was tedious and not fun, and the way they came up with to fix that was good. The health potion/globes thing is an interesting approach; it means using your health potion is tactical, not just a way to spam your health back up.


----------



## Telcontar (May 20, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> I'm glad I didn't buy this. I think I'm going to start another Skyrim character instead. I've never been much of a fan of what I've played of Blizzard games, and it looks increasingly like Diablo III will continue that trend.



I'm the opposite. I've always been a huge Blizzard fan - though I have to admit Diablo III disappoints me a tad. I just vented into a blog post...

Still a good game. I just expect more than 'good' from Blizzard.


----------



## Ophiucha (May 20, 2012)

Just got disconnected from my single player game for being AFK. This is _hilarious_.


----------



## Telcontar (May 20, 2012)

Ophiucha said:


> Just got disconnected from my single player game for being AFK. This is _hilarious_.



Ouch. Yeah, trying to tear down the separations between single and multi-player was a huge mistake.


----------



## edd (May 21, 2012)

postal problems, haven't had chance to play it..
  I hate postal delivery, wish i had brought the game in store instead.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (May 21, 2012)

Or just bought it online with download


----------



## Legendary Sidekick (May 21, 2012)

Just finished act 1... the boss fight has a bit of console-game flavor, which I enjoyed. Healing potions are really just a safety net in this game, which also makes life interesting. I probably didn't use the optimal skill set, but Leap with Iron Impact and Nerves of Steel kept Bouldergut the Barbarian alive.


----------



## ALB2012 (Jun 6, 2012)

Well firstly it wasnt activated to my account when it should have been, that was fixed. I downloaded it but crashed and it corrupted. I reinstalled it and then had an error message saying it was not attached to my account which it was. Sent another ticket to be told to enter CD key which I dont have as I downloaded it. Then my PC died so now I have no idea if its fixed or not.

I have to say the older games were good and we played for ages. my partner has it and he likes it. if you can get in with the server queues


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Jun 6, 2012)

D3 is fun, but I'm done with it now. Played a wizard up to 60 (Inferno Act 1), and then realized that I'd just played the same game three times through. The item-grinding treadmill lost its allure pretty quick. I mean, yeah, I get the appeal of getting bigger numbers so that you can do more numbers and get items that give you even BIGGER numbers, but the story isn't interesting enough to play through that many times.

I stand by my assertion that D3 is D2 with better graphics and some minor UI/gameplay improvements.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick (Jun 6, 2012)

I'm still enjoying it, but I'm taking my time progressing through the game. It's been about 1 act per week. I'm almost finished normal now.

EDIT - I am finished. Bouldergut the Barbarian spanked normal Diablo. I don't expect he'll be spanking anything in inferno. I'll most likely stop at Hell and only play through Hell with friends at that. From what I've read, Inferno sounds like it involves a lot of dying!


----------



## Varamyrr (Jun 15, 2012)

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> D3 is fun, but I'm done with it now. Played a wizard up to 60 (Inferno Act 1), and then realized that I'd just played the same game three times through. The item-grinding treadmill lost its allure pretty quick. I mean, yeah, I get the appeal of getting bigger numbers so that you can do more numbers and get items that give you even BIGGER numbers, but the story isn't interesting enough to play through that many times.
> 
> I stand by my assertion that D3 is D2 with better graphics and some minor UI/gameplay improvements.



That's what I feel about the game aswell. It's short and all you do is replay the game till you get t on Inferno and then all that remains is the item grind. Luckily, you don't need to pay a monthly fee..


----------



## Legendary Sidekick (Jun 15, 2012)

I think Diablo III's amount of content is fine if you're like me and can't play games often. I'm only in nightmare act I, and what keeps me going at this stage is the co-op. (I'm trying to get my Lv.35 barbarian closer to my friend's Lv.43 monk... it's annoying when one ally totally outclasses the other.) If I hit a brick wall (unable to progress due to difficulty), that's where I stop. I can't blame anyone for ducking out at nightmare. I'd probably take my level 60 characters on naked runs (in normal/nightmare) or something if I get to a point that I have more than one Lv.60 but don't find inferno fun.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Jun 15, 2012)

Legendary Sidekick said:


> I think Diablo III's amount of content is fine if you're like me and can't play games often.



Oh, the amount of content isn't the problem; it's just that I played through the entire game three times in two weeks. And then I kept seeing Blizzard posts talking about the endgame, which essentially consists of farming Inferno for high-end loot. (To what purpose, I'm not entirely sure.) When the game creators talk about farming as if it's something you could enjoy doing, I think maybe the game has reached the limit of its appeal.

There is some content in the game I haven't seen yet; mostly certain random events and random dungeons that I wasn't lucky enough to come across. I'd love to play through those, but not so much that I'm willing to sit there grinding through regions over and over just to have a chance of seeing Random Event C-7.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick (Jun 15, 2012)

Farming isn't fun at all.

I don't see myself going through inferno myself. I figure my barbarian will hit 60. My monk will probably slowly crawl to 30+ since she's an alt that I only play as when two of my friends are on. They also play as alts so one of us is never way ahead/behind.

I doubt I'll start a third character. Most likely, I hit 60 with my main and maybe my alt, play when friends are on and still into the game, then take a break until the expansion pack comes out.


----------



## Reaver (Jun 16, 2012)

DIABLO III?  I still haven't gotten past the first level of DIABLO!


----------



## Varamyrr (Jun 19, 2012)

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> Oh, the amount of content isn't the problem; it's just that I played through the entire game three times in two weeks. And then I kept seeing Blizzard posts talking about the endgame, which essentially consists of farming Inferno for high-end loot. (To what purpose, I'm not entirely sure.) When the game creators talk about farming as if it's something you could enjoy doing, I think maybe the game has reached the limit of its appeal.
> 
> There is some content in the game I haven't seen yet; mostly certain random events and random dungeons that I wasn't lucky enough to come across. I'd love to play through those, but not so much that I'm willing to sit there grinding through regions over and over just to have a chance of seeing Random Event C-7.



Personally, I find the game fun but too short. I find it rediculous that I need to play the game again and again and again to improve my character. Dungeon Siege 1 had that aswell, but at least you had 2 different campaigns. PVP is on it's way but I don't find that a reason big enough to keep this game playing. I'd prefer to go back to The Witcher(1+2) or Skyrim in that case, which are far more superiour games imho.


----------



## chinookpilot77 (Aug 1, 2012)

love the game, but I sure wish there was more content...I'm still banging my head against the wall in act 3 inferno with my barb...but making a little bit of money on the side in the RMAH...nothing to write home about, but its paid for the game and then some!


----------



## Fargoer (Oct 2, 2012)

Have to say I didn't feel the same kind of magic that I did when playing D2. Even so, I think they did a great job and if you look past the initial release problems and balance issues, it's a game that's gonna be played for a _long_ time.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Oct 3, 2012)

But not by me. I don't know what changed for me between D2 and D3, but with D2 I played several characters to very high levels and spent months going through the game over and over. D3, I played for a few weeks, and then lost interest in grinding mobs to try to find better loot. The Paragon level stuff brought me back for a couple of days, but I'm pretty much done.

Mists of Pandaria is going to be sucking up all my time for a few months


----------



## Steerpike (Oct 3, 2012)

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> Mists of Pandaria is going to be sucking up all my time for a few months



Blarg  You should try Guild Wars 2 instead. Better game; no subscription fee.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick (Oct 3, 2012)

What's the Paragon level? I haven't played D3 in a while. Is that an expansion?

I don't know if Diablo changed or I changed. I don't play games as much these days, and actually, Diablo's one of two games I played for more than a month. I still have a long way to go in Zelda for the Wii.

In both Diablos, I stopped with a character at level fifty-something, but I think D3 is a better game than D2 in every way with the possible exception of Inferno. I don't know why anyone thought having to play the game four times instead of three was an improvement. It's like in Spinal Tap when Nigel was asked why his amp goes to 11. Why not go up to three play-throughs and make Hell harder?

JAY WILSON: "These go to Inferno."


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Oct 7, 2012)

Legendary Sidekick said:


> What's the Paragon level? I haven't played D3 in a while. Is that an expansion?



Basically it's a parallel level system on top of the regular levels. So you have your regular level (1-60) and once you hit 60, you start gaining experience in paragon levels (which go from 1-100). Each paragon level you gain gives you a small stat boost and an extra 3% gold find and magic item find. There's no actual new _content_, though.

I don't mind grinding repetitive stuff to get to something new; but the paragon stuff is really just adding numbers to your numbers so that you can have bigger numbers and get more items that have more _numbers_, etc.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick (Oct 10, 2012)

WHAT?

They caved on having characters stop leveling up at 60? So now you have 160 levels, but you're just playing Inferno over and over?

Sheesh... the one thing I liked about the leveling system was that is stops as you finish the game. Then they went and added Inferno, and I thought... well, okay, I guess that gives a maxed out character something to do.

This paragon thing is making me less interested in finishing Hell difficulty. Inferno already turned me off when a friend told me about all of the smithing crap you need to get big-numbered stuff.


----------



## Fantine (Oct 11, 2012)

I have tried to get into D3 but it hasn't been as great As I expected. Not too similiar to WoW at all really other than the generic RPG elements, Diablo is more like a Balders Gate(best comparison i can think of). I havent read to much on D3 yet, but im hoping they allow more character customization and maybe a different aspect to multiplayer, etc.


----------



## Penpilot (Oct 12, 2012)

I played one character to level 60 then realized I was having less and less fun. I was a huge D2 fan, and to me D3 is a pale comparison. Other than graphics D3 is an inferior game. I actually went back and played D2 just to see if I was imagining things but I wasn't.

When you reach inferno, D3 gets unfair and unfun. With next to zero useful item drops, I've given up on the game. The whole point of the game is to find awesome gear, but that rarely happens. Time spent to reward ratio is screwed up. There's a youtube video showing some guy identifying 1000 rare items in a row and he found only one half decent item. I played through the game three times and I found only two legendary items and zero set items. In comparison D2 drops tons.

The whole game is geared towards pushing the player to spend real money on their auction house in order to equip their characters and I refuse to do that.


----------



## hyluvian (Oct 13, 2012)

I've never played any of the D series, although I have looked at D2 a couple of times.  From everything I've been able to find through research, however, D2 was received with nearly as much criticism as D3 until the expansion came out - at which point D2 became that game that everyone remembers so fondly.

Perhaps we will be seeing something similar this time around where once Blizzard puts the first expansion into D3 you'll start to get those game-changing fixes that everyone is looking for.

Either way, I'm uncertain if I'll ever pick up any of the Diablo games - I've played Torchlight and while it's fun, the ARPG just doesn't speak to me.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick (Oct 14, 2012)

Penpilot said:


> I found only two legendary items and zero set items.


You nailed the problem (and why I don't feel too bad about not bothering with Lv.60/Inferno).

In D2, my Amazon had a full set of Angel Armor in Normal. In Nightmare, total strangers LOL'd at me for my low-level set, but Robo_Barbie never died (in a multiplayer game)! She was often the sole survivor, and... well... the set bonus did help, along with the unique (legendary) javelins.

I like the character leveling in D3. I wouldn't say there are NO improvements. But Inferno was a bad move, and the Paragon levels sounds as bad a move as Synergy in the way that it compounds an existing problem that it's supposed to be fixing.

I also agree that harder difficulties become less fun in part because you rely too much on gear. I only did well compared to a friend of mine because of the vitality items I was wearing. (I had 30k health while he had 5k--and we were only 2 levels apart!) I actually would have preferred gear making less of a difference (like in Monster Hunter), but I guess if players are paying real money for items, that's why they went in that direction.

Sad to see that gaming is going down this road, if I'm right about that.


----------



## Penpilot (Oct 14, 2012)

Legendary Sidekick said:


> Sad to see that gaming is going down this road, if I'm right about that.



Yes it is sad, but the thing is, from what I've been hearing floating around the net, (Take that for what it's worth) is that even though D3 was a smashing success in terms of initial sales, it's a dying game as people leave to play other games. They're not sticking around for 10 years like D2. Blizzard was hoping to cash in on the real money auction house, getting a percentage of each transaction, but that IMHO has backfired and given not only the franchise a black eye but also the company. 

It'll be interesting to see how well Blizzard's next game sells because they have a legion of pissed off fans. The fans aren't just pissed off at the game but at the lead designers, and it's not just because they made a mistake. It's their arrogance that shines them off. The designers said stuff to the effect that the people who played D2 didn't have fun. They only remembered they did. Which is basically saying the fans don't know what is fun. We, Blizzard, know what's fun. You should be having fun with D3. Now shut up.

I'm going to stop now before inflict any more ranting pain.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick (Oct 15, 2012)

Meh... rant on. I honestly think D2 became less fun as the game was tweaked in inexplicable ways that made bosses take forever to kill and skills impossible to max out (synergy-wise), but it was very fun when the ex pack came out and remained fun for a long time.

D3 actually did some things better, like leveling (I hated picking stat bonuses) but now they managed to screw that up (paragon?!). I also thought the first boss was cool. I thought, YAY, it's not just "stand there and beat on him." I had to use leap attacks as dodges to survive boss #2. Then the third was, well... "stand there and beat on him," and I thought there was something familiar about Diablo's terror dimension.
_
(Just watch the first 25 seconds.)_


Penpilot said:


> Blizzard was hoping to cash in on the real money auction house, getting a percentage of each transaction, but that IMHO has backfired and given not only the franchise a black eye but also the company.


As well it should. Using real money to buy virtual power disgusts me. It's up there with DLC in terms of being a greedy business model. I'd rather go back to feeding quarters to a machine than pay to play at home.

Well, it's safe to say that if D3 has an expansion pack, I won't bother.


----------



## ALB2012 (Oct 20, 2012)

I dip in and out. I find since I hurt my back I can't sit and play pc games for long. I am back into playing Dragon Age Origins again. My old PC went to silicon heaven and took all my save games so I am back to the start fro everything. I may restart Skyrim as well but again it is limited for me,

I don't mind diablo but it is not quite as good as I was expecting.


----------



## abydos6 (May 7, 2018)

I've always been a fan of Diablo, I play on the ps3, and computer. I am annoyed that I can't play the first two on my computer.


----------



## pmmg (May 7, 2018)

Well, this is a fairly old one. 2012? Wow, can diablo be that long ago?  I think that was one of the last real PC games I played. I liked Diablo, but I also agree with the criticisms it got at the time, kind of click and gather click and gather. I guess kind of liked that it was a bit mindless. I also enjoyed a bit of the backstory. But, I suspect its been way evolved upon now. 2012...how can that be?

PS: I thought first 2 were for computer. That's how I played them, course, that would probably on windows 95 or 98.


----------



## abydos6 (May 8, 2018)

Pmmg, the first two were pc games, and they no longer play on modern computers.


----------



## Svrtnsse (May 8, 2018)

Diablo II does run on modern PCs. As I recall there was a patch for it not that long ago with some system updates.


----------



## abydos6 (May 8, 2018)

Yup, 3 does, but 1 and 2 don't.


----------



## Svrtnsse (May 8, 2018)

abydos6 said:


> Yup, 3 does, but 1 and 2 don't.


I think your information may be out of date, or it's been too long since you tried last. D2 had support for Windows 10 added in patch 1.14a back in 2016.

Admittedly I haven't tried it myself. I hurt my shoulder a few years back and now whenever I play anything like Diablo for more than a few days it the pain comes back.


----------



## abydos6 (May 8, 2018)

Tried it last year but no joy, it won't play my disc, must look for that patch you mentioned.


----------



## pmmg (May 8, 2018)

Diablo is kind of old news now. I enjoyed that is was rather simple play, but it really was not a game the required a lot of thought to play. I liked the story. I thought the story between the angels and demon's and the wizards was pretty cool. And I liked that they used the corrupted souls of the heroes from the first game as the villains in the second. I am not sure I got the same feel from the third game, but I recall that I played it through more than once. I even had a partner at the time, (miss you Anna!) who I played with online for a short while. But, I moved on. If a new one came out, I would probably get it. But three last three games I purchased I never actually played. I was doing the Dead Space series when I kind of wandered away from the PC.


----------



## abydos6 (May 8, 2018)

Well, I always was and am a fan, its on the playstation as well and fun when I can play with my wife. Not many decent 'vent frustrations on monsters' games are 2 player. But each to their own.


----------

