A Diablo 3 Review from a Long Time Blizzard Player

[Callace]

This is a sequel to my previous thread, much in the same way that Diablo 3 is a sequel to Diablo 2, which is to say, not much of one. As stated before, I've played every Blizzard game at their inception, so I will be biased in favor of Blizzard and hopefully have a bit more perspective in the timey-wimey sense.



Let's put the cards on the table first. Diablo 3 is a fine specimen of a game.

The gameplay is at the top of the heap. The action is orchestrated so fluidly that even during the fastest and most intense moments, the dynamics are never lost to the chaos of battle. The key & mouse skills crystalize during these moments with every rapid-fire decision by the player meaning the difference between victory and death. The game handles better than any "beat-em-up", fighting game, or "crawler" I have ever played -with the exception of Diablo 2. Ultimately, they could literally strip the game down to a bunch of geometrical shapes ala pong and early atari, and it would still be a lot of fun to play.

The graphics are beautiful. In terms of cosmetic logistics, Diablo 3 is probably on par with yesteryear's games. It possesses nothing spectacular in the realm of polygon-counts or advanced-filtering. But the art direction more than makes up for that. The cast of characters and enemies are vivid (I distinctly remember every appearance). The landscape feels like a moving painting. The architecture and terrain impress the player with an immersion of "real" depth. For a game with an overhead perspective, the three-dimensional qualities stand out more than any game I have played in a very long time. The graphics are not super-high detail, but every detail exhibits color and meaning. Some might call this "accessibility". I call it art substituted for realism. The spell effects are very tightly rendered -unlike a certain other Blizzard game, where they become a formless, blinding hue en masse. My single complaint is a tiny one: the lack of a death animation makes the experience somewhat more jarring than normal.

As with most Blizzard titles, the sound is even better than the graphics, but receives less attention. The sound effects are exciting and catchy, very kinetic, but not at all obnoxious. The voice acting is better than what anyone would expect to find in a videogame. The music seems relatively subdued, but it is always fitting. The same can be said for the atmosphere, which blends well enough with the music. Like the graphics, I only have one small complaint with the sound: I didn't think the levels were equalized very well when I first started playing (but that might be due to my own hardware configurations).

The story is...well, let's say it starts off very strong. In the first act, characters old and new are brought to life (and back to life). I won't say that the story defers to an absolute nostalgia trip, because we see all new characters the moment we step foot into New Tristram. Even though we're revisiting familiar locations, the mysterious nature of the events is more compelling than any returning feature (i.e. Cain). I am genuinely interested in finding out the source of the meteor, who the mysterious stranger will become, and avenging our old friend Cain. In Act 2, we're still in investigation mode, trying to unmask Belial, The Lord of Lies in Caldaeum. And although not as riveting, the mystery is still a driving force for the player. But at some point after Adria's return, the story just progressively...falls ...apart. I accept the Black Soulstone for what it is, Diablo can only return through such a Deus Ex Machina plot device after [I]destroying his soul[/I] in the last game. I wish the process had been explained better. Or at all, for that matter. We see Adria instructing Cain's niece in the use of her "secret powers". They are a literal red flag. We don't know what they are or where they came from. And then I realize that Diablo is coming back when Blizzard essentially [I]stops telling the story[/I] with this matter. But Act 2 was only the first rung on the poor story ladder (I also had a problem with the player being meant to believe that a prime evil would spare the boy emperor after replacing his entire guard with a demonic host). In Act 3, the story boils down to Lord of Destruction 2.0. Azmodan is the new Baal, and the player must prevent him from assaulting a magical rock (albeit a vastly smaller one). Act 3's story is a complete rehash, and not really worth going into detail about, save the problem I had with the transformation at the end. Cain's niece, the character with the most development is reduced to a plot device. An object. A vessel. After all of the time spent developing her, she is sacrificed without having any countervailing involvement in the story whatsoever. No objections. No fighting back. No anything. Just *poof* "oh, hey, could you exit stage left so that we have an excuse bring Diablo back?" Therein lies the frustration, the main protagonist of the story with the most character development is reduced to not a sacrifice, but [I]an excuse[/I]. After Act 3's disappointing story, it's almost a relief that Act 4 has none. Diablo assaults heaven, like we always imagined he would. Then we kill him. I feel as though Act 4 might have had an accompanying story arc at some point, but the writers weren't satisfied and took an eraser to it. Rather than creating a better story, they left the erased version in place. The final Act did succeed at one measure though. "Okay, let's hurry up and kill Diablo already".

So we have a game with mostly awesome features and a lackluster story. It's just an action-rpg, what's not to love?

It doesn't feel like a sequel. I don't think it is a sequel in the traditional sense. I think Diablo 3 is essentially a Diablo 2 remake posing as a sequel. The second game expanded on the first quite a bit. The list of new features set Diablo 2 apart from its predecessor. Diablo 3 quite deliberately puts almost no distance between itself and its predecessor. At its core, the game offers the Diablo 2 experience with updated sounds and visuals, the story is a secondary consideration (intentionally so). Is that problematic? I'm not sure. But I can honestly wonder if I would have preferred an equally updated "replica" of the last game rather than this "remake". It's worth thinking about. If Blizzard had opted the path of making some design changes, could they have improved the formula? Are they content with Diablo 2 represent the "ceiling" for the genre? They aren't interested in outdoing themselves? Maybe D2 did represent the ceiling for the genre. And Diablo 3 is the last great ride into the sunset for the action-rpg of its kind.



Final thought: Diablo 3 was a great game in the year 2000 when it was still called Diablo 2.




Personal ratings for perspective: D1: 3 stars
D2: 5 stars
D3: 3.5 stars

[WskyDK]

The reason D3 feels like a re-done D2? People are still playing d2 10 years later, it's a simple working formula that doesn't need a redesign or overhaul. Too many changes would have alienated a large part of the "old" player base, hell look at people freaking out about the runes/skills.

[Callace]

The reason D3 feels like a re-done D2? People are still playing d2 10 years later, it's a simple working formula that doesn't need a redesign or overhaul. Too many changes would have alienated a large part of the "old" player base, hell look at people freaking out about the runes/skills.

I thought the runes and skills were fantastic. It makes me sad, because it tells me that Blizzard could have made more successful changes. Should I blame the player base for being obtuse?

[Deleted]

I thought the runes and skills were fantastic. It makes me sad, because it tells me that Blizzard could have made more successful changes. Should I blame the player base for being obstuse?

Possibly, yes. Players tend to cling to the old and comfortable, remembering the awesome feeling back in the day when they picked up the game and it was super fun. That's all fine and good but it makes them less receptive to changes, even if they are objective for the better, because they don't get the same wow-feeling that they got with the previous game, or any previous game from their history for that matter.

On the review itself, a good review and pretty much agree with OPs assessment of the story.

Overall I actually felt the first half of the story was far superior to the second half; the boy-emperor revealed to be Belial and Leah becomes Diablo. I suspected it would happen, when wondering to myself (during Act 3) how they will bring Diablo back but I told myself it was just silly. I was honestly shocked when they killed off Leah with nothing more than a shrug, who was easily the best developed character in the game. This is coming particularly from a new player's point of view, and who isn't carrying around a lot of lore baggage.

Diablo's return has desperation written all over it. Not necessarily Blizzard's fault, as it tends to happen when you get to the 2nd or 3rd installment in the series; you simply struggle how to continue to story, and instead of coming up with innovations you just recycle the old material.

I also felt the ending of the game, the new dawn and all that, went a little overboard with Tyriel's speech. My hero said it the best at the end; "as long as there is a hell, there will be evil" and it will hold true in the future. Sure, the prime evils were defeated but the power vacuum will be filled eventually, if not sooner than expected.

[Glorious Leader]

The voice acting is better than what anyone would expect to find in a videogame.

Disagree completely about the VO. I think it's poor really which is strange given Jennifer Hales usually quality VO work. The Wizard VO was grating and I felt like punching him in the face. The Witch Doctor is slightly better but the overall dialogue and writing is so bad I turn the sound off. The NPC dialogue lacks any sparkle to it. It feels like a bland afterthought.The writing is just meh and I guess the voice actors just struggle with it. Far better VO work out there even in previous Blizzard titles.

[Callace]

Disagree completely about the VO. I think it's poor really which is strange given Jennifer Hales usually quality VO work. The Wizard VO was grating and I felt like punching him in the face. The Witch Doctor is slightly better but the overall dialogue and writing is so bad I turn the sound off. The NPC dialogue lacks any sparkle to it. It feels like a bland afterthought.The writing is just meh and I guess the voice actors just struggle with it. Far better VO work out there even in previous Blizzard titles.

There are a lot of jokes in the dialogue that are meant to be one-liner guffaws. For example, I thought Covetous Shen was entertaining despite his lines being deliberately unfunny. I thought the dialogue itself was OK. There was a lot of tongue-in-cheek fantasy sarcasm (like Zultan Kule's remark about the hidden waterfall passage being unimaginative). I had the pleasure of playing through the game with the female wizard, who I thought was voiced very well, with a sense of conviction, but not to the magnitude of histrionic overkill.

[Glorious Leader]

There are a lot of jokes in the dialogue that are meant to be one-liner guffaws. For example, I thought Covetous Shen was entertaining despite his lines being deliberately unfunny. I thought the dialogue itself was OK. There was a lot of tongue-in-cheek fantasy sarcasm (like Zultan Kule's remark about the hidden waterfall passage being unimaginative). I had the pleasure of playing through the game with the female wizard, who I thought was voiced very well, with a sense of conviction, but not to the magnitude of histrionic overkill.

I've been using the Templar and it was uggh. Painful. No wit, no life. A flat model with no depth or character. It really feels like an afterthought on their part. Previous Blizzard games have MUCH better VO work. And overall much better writing.

---------- Post added 2012-05-18 at 11:54 PM ----------

The worst part of this whole thing is that the min/max elitist mentality is beginning to carry it's way over into D3 ALREADY. I had a friend jump into the party with his lvl 50 Wizard the other day, all decked out with his laser beams and angel wings. IRL hes a normal guy college buddy. Good kid. First thing he says to me is "dogs suck bro, use firebats wayyyy better". I hope to god this game doesn't get rife with that mentality. Notice I didn't invite him to the party or solicit his opinion on the matter in anyway. I don't care if zombie dogs suck I love using them and sacrificing the crap out of them for big explosion sauce. Hopefully ALL my friend's don't succumb to this, I wonder what the larger community as a whole will be like.

[RockStrongo07]

Minmaxing will always be a part of games like this. If you want to avoid it, play with someone else.

[Deleted]

The worst part of this whole thing is that the min/max elitist mentality is beginning to carry it's way over into D3 ALREADY. I had a friend jump into the party with his lvl 50 Wizard the other day, all decked out with his laser beams and angel wings. IRL hes a normal guy college buddy. Good kid. First thing he says to me is "dogs suck bro, use firebats wayyyy better". I hope to god this game doesn't get rife with that mentality. Notice I didn't invite him to the party or solicit his opinion on the matter in anyway. I don't care if zombie dogs suck I love using them and sacrificing the crap out of them for big explosion sauce. Hopefully ALL my friend's don't succumb to this, I wonder what the larger community as a whole will be like.

Not really the game's fault though. It's the mentality born from mmos like wow and is nowadays being carried to every bloody game ever conceived. Stuff like world firsts, min-maxing and the elitism that it all brings with it is embedded in the gaming culture. Sometimes I wonder if people are utterly incapable of just playing a video game and just enjoying the actual process of playing.

The world first racing is a perfect example of this. The game lacks any support for competitive pve, yet people are hyped about who gets the world-first-whatever-kill-in-inferno, filling dozens of pages on youtube and discussion forums arguments. I don't get why anyone is even interested in the whole concept anymore; for years it's been nothing more than gimmicks, datamining, exploits, and getting months of headstart in betas. It's like watching a 100m sprint with one guy using a bicycle, another a catapult, a jetpacks, anything except just running the 100 meters.

I don't care if zombie dogs suck I love using them ... *pause*

There are zombie dogs in this game???? gief!

[BenBos]

Apparently the OP didn't even see the new crafting and built in player driven economics of Diablo 3.

That alone makes it a 2012 on line game hit and after playing the dynamic D3, your beloved D2 ... now looks like a crippled horse ready to be shot, but we will not do it since we have pity with the old pony.

Saying something like "Diablo 3 quite deliberately puts almost no distance between itself and its predecessor" is ignoring the REAL point of focus of Diablo 3... and that is ...

ON LINE gaming on steroids with real economics included.

Something like hack/slash meets Farmville.

----

Diablo 2 had a meaningless Gold economy. Gold meant NOTHING in Diablo 2 rendering it to a one way hack/slash.

That part of the game was broken and is now put into the right place in Diablo 3...

Anyone can see this by playing D3 for 15 minutes already.

Not even talking about the D3 explosive world changes and enhanced graphical scenery, because frankly D2 is very much a very old game in this scenery and animation aspect.

[Deleted]

I played D3 for like 15 minutes up to now, it's all nice and good... but I can't motivate myself to play a game which doesn't offer 1on1 PvP (including rankings and rewards) and the possibility to attack others whenever I want, wherever I want. That's why I also have a hard time with WoW.

Though in the case of D3, I don't exactly know what their excuse is to not be able to also balance this few classes around 1on1 PvP. It's not an MMO, and what's up with this care-bear design philosophy?!

Diablo 1: you could attack and kill your "party members", everywhere in the dungeons, at any time, without warning.
Diablo 2: you have to go to town to declare hostility, a warning appears on all other players screen.
Diablo 3: not possible at all. (the PvP patch won't change what I criticize here)
Diablo 4: no PvP at all, not even consesual PvP to prevent players from hurting their feelings.

WTF?!

I'd love to hunt other players at some time, after PvE content is cleared, without protection or warning mechanisms. If their game is public... they should have to deal with it.
Also, a maximum of 4 players per game is also not that exciting.

[BenBos]

PvP will be coming in an upcoming patch.

It is of no use to include PvP as a kind of unpleasant ganking when 99% of the players simply don't have the gear yet in the coming weeks.

So they will include controlled fights - seperated from the people that don't like PvP.

If you are a real PvP guy, you'll like the fun PvP stuff ... with people who CHOOSE it ... too. You can hunt these guys down without any problem in a couple of weeks... But ...

Never spoil the fun for people who don't like PvP.

[Deleted]

Of course I like that too, but I also like "hunting". An arena match is no hunting. It was great in D2. Why do they remove something that was a lot of fun in its predecessor?

What I don't like is team based PvP. I don't want IRL schedules in a game, and that's what happens if you depend on others.
1on1 PvP with people who CHOOSE it would be great, but it will not come, at least not with rankings and rewards.

So they will include controlled fights - seperated from the people that don't like PvP.

The separation should happen with the server type! WoW gives a brilliant example here, or even D3 itself, with normal and hardcore mode.

Never spoil the fun for people who don't like PvP.

On the other hand, this automatically also means "spoil the fun for those who like it", at least if they don't include PvE and PvP servers, for world PvP!

[nyran125]

its not made by the diablo 1 and 2 guys, so chances are it wont be like diablo 1 or 2. torchlight 1 was just like Diablo 1. I reckon torchlight 2 will be more like Diablo 2 was than diablo 3 is. Just because Blizzard publishes it, the real designers are making torchlight now.

[The Ogdru Jahad]

I totally agree with the story falling apart. But I kinda thought Leahs death was pretty symbolic, and something blizzard has never done. A death without redemption. Leah is never redeemed (possible expansion, but I hope not). She literally ceases to exist, she was a good character, an innocent life, and she became just another casualty in the Eternal Conflict. It hits you pretty hard when you see Leah walking into the Heavens, all corrupt, and see her rip apart into Diablo, who could care less who his host was. I think, and hope that is what blizzard was going for. Death without redemption. Something that rarely ever happens, and I love seeing it.

[Oogly]

Blizzard simply took the formula that worked in Diablo2, slapped a half arsed extremely predictable storyline over it and updated the graphics. I do have to agree with the OP that while I do enjoy the game for what it is, it certainly is not mindblowingly wonderful and the story peters out to non existence as the acts progress.

I also cannot help but feel that Diablo3 has been WoWified in the gameplay direction and decisions. While I admit there are quality of life improvements in the game which can only be a good thing I was personally disappointed with the overall package for a game of 2012. Also bearing mind that the original developers (people not company) responsible for Diablo 1&2 are no longer with Blizzard and made Torchlight and the soon to be released Torchlight2, I feel Blizzard just lacked the innovation to try and improve the game beyond it predecessor.

[Deleted]

Apparently the OP didn't even see the new crafting and built in player driven economics of Diablo 3.

That alone makes it a 2012 on line game hit and after playing the dynamic D3, your beloved D2 ... now looks like a crippled horse ready to be shot, but we will not do it since we have pity with the old pony.

Saying something like "Diablo 3 quite deliberately puts almost no distance between itself and its predecessor" is ignoring the REAL point of focus of Diablo 3... and that is ...

ON LINE gaming on steroids with real economics included.

Something like hack/slash meets Farmville.

----

Diablo 2 had a meaningless Gold economy. Gold meant NOTHING in Diablo 2 rendering it to a one way hack/slash.

That part of the game was broken and is now put into the right place in Diablo 3...

Anyone can see this by playing D3 for 15 minutes already.

Not even talking about the D3 explosive world changes and enhanced graphical scenery, because frankly D2 is very much a very old game in this scenery and animation aspect.

What's with this guy constantly posting all over MMO-Champion how D3 defines 2012 online gaming?

Sheesh...

Keep boasting about D3's super new crafting and player driven economy... they're both a sick joke compared to proper MMORPGs.