Blizzard: Diablo 3 on Console "Makes Sense"

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
[citation][nom]rantoc[/nom]The Reason why PC gamers dont want anything to do with console games is due to the ancient hardware in the consoles, when the lazy developers aims for that seriously underpowered console "hardware" as standard the newer PC hardware wont even run at 10% on that console/pc shared game not to mention crap like auto-aim ect gets included by default to compensate for the consoles lacks of controls. So is it really that hard to understand why PC gamers like exclussives where their hardware is really used and not only the consoles garbage hardware?[/citation]

That argument applies best to titles that are aimed at the console then ported to the PC. Games that are designed from the start to run on all platforms can also suffer from these problems. This isn't the case for games that are designed for the PC then ported to the console. Ports from PC to console can have their own issues but those don't usually come back to haunt the PC gamer.
 
[citation][nom]jacekring[/nom]Buy a gtx460, it's $140 and comes with a free copy of Mafia 2 on newegg. And you'll have a video card that's over 10x more powerful then the 360.[/citation]

You just told him to go buy a card that's about 8 months old after he complained about an 8 month life-cycle for top end cards. I wonder if you can see the irony in that.
 
[citation][nom]f-14[/nom]blah blah blah blah blah[/citation]
Guess what? I'm a PC gamer and ya know what? I could care less if we have cutting edge graphics. I welcome consoles slowing down hardware progression because honestly I HATE spending money constantly on my PC. I have a family and can use it in better ways.

Oh, and by the way, I'm currently playing through Worlds of Xeen right now (came out in what, 93), beat Wing Commander 3 a couple of weeks ago and System Shock 1 and 2 last year. Who the hell cares about graphics?!!?!??!?!?!?

GAMEPLAY. GAMEPLAY. GAMEPLAY. GAMEPLAY. GAMEPLAY. THIS IS ALL THAT MATTERS!!!! The games that came out in the last five years... they LOOK FINE. THEY DON'T NEED TO LOOK MUCH BETTER!

As far as I can tell, your name, F-14 describes your age--14. If you were older, say, in your thirties, you'd remember what it was like to play on an Atari 2600. If you did, you'd be incredibly thankful for what graphics we have now.
 
[citation][nom]demonhorde665[/nom]you obviously haven't really done any research or forethought into what you are trying to discuss here. before i i get on explaining why let me re-iterate that i play both PC games and console games.now many poeple want to jump and say I'm not a "true" gamer if i play consoles at all , but that is just so much bullshit the definition of a gamer is some one that plays video games .. end of dicussion on that point. now back to my point on why you don't know what you are talking about, and really just spewing your biased nonsense opinion. 1. how are the makers of battle field , skyrim ect ect , real developers and blizzard and other console developers not ? first off a game developer is some one that produces and developes video games. it doesn't matter rather or not they are developing for an cell phone console or a PC , if they make games they are REAL developers. Also guess what ... jobs in the game industry arn't anchored to stone, more than likely any company you name has employees that have worked both sides of the fence. 2. your "innovative" games that require a 20 core processor, 130 gigs of ram and 10 SLI-ed 1000 dollar video cards, do not sell nearly as well as games that use far less hardware (i'm being sarcastic and exagerative a bit there i know). if those were teh ONLY games made on PC , then the Pc gaming market would be about 20 times smaller than it is now ... so how the reality is the opposite of what you say it is , the high graphic games turn many would be buyers off when they require a small fortune to run, This HURTS the PC market. the lower end graphic games actually drive pc game sells up witch helps the PC gaming market. Case and point : a few years ago a friend's girlfreind got interested in playing one of my pc games (oblivion) , at the time oblivion made every PC under 2000 bucks in price look like slow shit, even putting together a conservative system plan to run it at medium spec , the figure of 1200 bucks made her scoff , in the end she picked up a 400 dollar xbox 360 and got the game on it. Moral of that story .. what you are calling "innovative" ONLY HURTS PC GAME MARKET GROWTH!!! 3. graphical improvements do not equal game innovation. sure better graphics are nice .. but seriously NONE of the games you listed as being "awsome" , none i mean zero of those you listed are innovative. battlefield 3, ES 5 skyrim, Dirt 2... note they have a number in their name that designates them as sequels . IE they play like the game before them , and the one before that , there is NOTHING innovative about that. slapping a new coat of paint on a old car doesn't make it innovative , it still drives the same just looks better. so relaly your "innovation" argument is thrown out because really nothing you listed or any thing that has come out in the last 5 years really innovated on game mechanics and game play the core of what innovation is in the game industry. ok you can say some of those games innovated on graphics , by having dx 11 support ... but not really. few dx 11 games really make deccent innovative use of tessellation right now , most don't use tessellation at all even. Even if the did , Tessellation (aka displacment mapping ) is nothing new or innovative created by the game industry , because it's been in use in 3ds max and CGI movies for more than a decade now. improving graphics is NOT innovation , it's just playing catch up to CGI movie tech. 4. hypocrytical statment"I mean, look at SC2, it's more like starcraft 1.2, a couple new units, and *slightly* better graphics. No new mechanics, nothing original, just a hyped up, reskinned 10 year old game." right here the very thing you accuse blizzard of doing EVERY game company that makes a game you listed earlier as "awsome" , is also guilty of this same thing !!!! i'm not even calling this bad .. i enjoyed ES 3, 4, and 5 equally , but i don't try to kid myself into believeing that they are just so drastically different from one to the next , because they arn't really that different , a few mechanics change the graphics certainlly change, but you know they are all still ES games . same can be said for AvP 2010, battlefeild 3 , dirt 2 and crysis 1 and 2, and 80-90 % of the game market as a whole. Its why and how genre's exsist , because their are similar groups games that generally play and look the same way . you might as well bitch about every game developer and just stop playing video games altogether going by what you are saying here. next time before posting i suggest you think out what you are saying before hitting the button. have a good day Bro , i'm out.[/citation]

+1 for you and 2 thumbs up for your point #3.
 
As it stands with D3 in beta, it might as well be a console port. They have consolized skill system big time.
 
OMG. Blizzard is taking so much time to explain to people like the ones on this site that the PCs' integrity will not be compromised just because of consoles and that's the reason why it's coming to PC and the console version has not been officially announced. That entire article was dedicated to telling YOU GUYS that just because it's coming to console they won't fuck it up. Did anyone get that? I mean for you guys maybe they should say they'll change it to be console only and then you'll do the opposite and be happy and say stuff like Blizzard is moving forward. I mean THE ENTIRE ARTICLE WAS WAS ABOUT HOW THEY ARE NOT GOING TO MESS IT UP for the sake of the console market. Why can't anyone say Thank you Blizzard for being considerate of PC gamers and also thank you for being considerate of the vast amount of console gamers out there. MMO play is already available on consoles FF 11, PSO etc, not perfect but they weren't Blizzard. I have a pretty good gaming computer but I also have every current gen console and I really want Diablo 3 on them because 1. I like the Idea of controller controls (Reality: game makers do not have PC game controller option unless there is a 360/PS3 port of the same game) 2. This will allow the expainsion of the Diablo userbase, this is a good thing, the more people play Diablo 3 the better. I would buy PC version first and then 360 version later. before you comment on 360 controller just download the demo of Torchlight on the Xbox 360 and try it, it plays really well and I prefer the controller.
Thanks for hearing my rant.
 
[citation][nom]rantoc[/nom]The Reason why PC gamers dont want anything to do with console games is due to the ancient hardware in the consoles, when the lazy developers aims for that seriously underpowered console "hardware" as standard the newer PC hardware wont even run at 10% on that console/pc shared game not to mention crap like auto-aim ect gets included by default to compensate for the consoles lacks of controls. So is it really that hard to understand why PC gamers like exclussives where their hardware is really used and not only the consoles garbage hardware?[/citation]

Exactly the problem, PC gamers care more about the hardware they are playing on than the game they are playing. Making a console version of D3 has no impact on the PC version that is already made, is that hard to understand? Did the first Diablo suck because there was a console version? No, so why would this one? PC gamers are the worst, real gamers enjoy all games, stop QQing.
 
[citation][nom]christarp[/nom]you're all being stupid. Of course they would try to make a game on the console if it can work on the console (which it does), they're a BUSINESS. I don't see why PC games need "PC Exclusives" why can't the console and pc both have versions? Oh that's right because that's for some reason "bad" PC GAMER MASTER RACE right?If it were me I'd try to develop it for the ipad as well. Diablo could work amazingly well on a tablet. The touch screen makes sense for a game like diablo. Pull your heads out of your asses.[/citation]

I'm a PC gamer, I don't have any problem with it being on cosole, the problem I have is that the developers start to concentrate on only console and the PC gamers get the leftover trashy port. When playing ports, the games would be designed for the console and than moved over to PC without any fix or without it being customized for the PC. So it feels like you're playing on an emulator, Skyrim for instance played better with a controller than a keyboard and mice, because it was designed as a console game than moved over to PC. That's the problem I have with ports, not that it is on more than one system. If they're going to make it for PC and console than make it for both, not just design it for console than move it over to PC.
 
[citation][nom]crackseed[/nom]I'm entertained by the haters claiming D3 is dumbed down versus the prior two games. Especially as they use the beta as the means to claim this. Clearly you forget that D2's beta was Cold Plains, Den of Evil and the Barbarian to about level 12. Boring within several playthroughs overall - D3 beta is by far way more robust and considering it's barely 1/3 of Act 1, how can you judge the complete game via that? If I judge the game the same way you are, D2 should have been awful considering it's laughable beta.And not gritty? Are we playing the same game? The one where I find people being gnawed on by zombies, screaming for help. Zombies popping up from the ground, being ripped apart and STILL crawling after me with their spines hanging out. The rooms down in the Cathedral with milita-men spiked into the walls, their heads ripped off, etc. Den of Fallen with massive pulpy flesh-bat hives pulsing and spitting out new bats... Please, not gritty. D2's only true grit was the Durance of Hate. D1 had far more grit then D2 and so far, the atmosphere of D3 reminds me way more of D1 then D2.As for dumbing down, considering the D2 system resulted in stagnation of builds since just about every class followed a "min-max" path of stat allocation combined with skill placement, I find the notion of dumbed down to be utterly misplaced. It seems to be fun to hate on a game for the sake of hating on it and pretending the games of past like D2 were flawless and masterpiece marvels. I played D1 and D2 for 7+ years - I love both of those games, but D3 will supersede them and rightly so. It's typical Blizzard excellence in a much shinier package and while there are things I certainly feel Blizz will need to address AND re-consider [lack of weapon swap, ease of skill swapping, etc] having played it at 3 Blizzcons and in Beta for months now, the game cannot land soon enough. I respect the right of any mature individual to say "I have my personal grief with it and this is why and I won't buy it" - more power to them. But people needlessly hating on it with false reasons and pretending they are sticking it to the man are just frankly, laughable. You enjoy not playing it [though some of you will probably buy it anyway and love it while reversing your tune] while I have fun playing Diablo 3 and having a blast[/citation]

i agree with you. been playing D3 beta for a while and so far so good. can't wait for may 15. to all those complaining about the graphics and grit, please take a closer look and don't just jump on the hate bandwagon. skill and stat points? how many of you have read character build guides? stat points distribution are uniform. imo the skill system in D3 is better than the first 2 games. it gives you more freedom in trying out different builds. no need to max a character and delete it because you mis-clicked on a stat or skill. or deleting a character because you found out that your build sucked or found about a better build online. the only complains i have is the skill UI. i want the drag and drop method. no weapon switching and the monster attack hit detection.

cya online on may 15th
 
Thats ok Blizzard. You can spew a lot of news regarding Diablo 3 trying to pump it up for people to get suckered into buying a mediocre game. Ill just wait for a game from a group of TRUE ORIGINAL BLIZZARD developers ya dig? Which is Torchlight 2! Hurrrry up TL2
 
People: chill. This isn't hurting you.

Personally, I would love to be able to play with my bro who can't afford a gaming computer but already has a 360.

Also, do you not realize the enormous amount of money that this will give them for developing more games for all platforms?
 
[citation][nom]demonhorde665[/nom]i got no problem with what you said myself , other than the way you went about saying it, you make yourself sound like a bigger ass than you are. we need less childish word sniper fights and more intelligent and respectful arguments debates. i hate it when either side of the argument comes off as condescending and sarcastic as you just did. i play both pc games and console games for the record .[/citation]

because when i make that respectful pointing out, do you want the game to require a tri sli setup, that the game isnt looking like wow, or god forbid i say the game would control better with a controller than a mouse, an i have been nice about it in the past i get downvoted to nothing because how dare i say that the game isnt looking bad, a controller would be better, or that graphics shouldt require a tri sli setup.

after the i cant count how many times i have gone on about how graphics should never take into consideration future cards as a fix to current problems, how a game should be game play first over anything else, i mean look at all the comments above the no picture, they downvoted a voice of reason, and the moment consoles were mentioned, everyone basically crapped themselves. i honestly expected my comment to fall on deaf ears, though im supprised it was removed entirely, would have loved to see where it sat.

i wonder who called a mod in to remove it though.
 
[citation][nom]f-14[/nom]hey console hack, you are the exact reason why every game is not at the cutting edge, no multi core processing no 7680x1920 screen sizes with out avatar quality.everything is stuck at 1080p because that is the best your 2001 POS hardware can handle so designers are stuck designing like it's 1999 still!console people are the very reason there are no more advancements in software, games, and everything else. the dvd format war lead us to being stuck with obsolete blu ray because of you guys, seriously a mini sd card holds the same garbage, not that you'd need the biggest one, i'm pretty sure every single console game made al together would fit on a 8GB mini sd card. but you can't upgrade or add on to a console so your stuck with dvd still, seriously, pc games come on a USB stick now, but consoles can't use them. 27"computer monitors are at 2560 x 1440 but you can't play that so all tv's have no reason to get our of 1080p.you have no quad core processors so they don't bother making games really f'ing fantastic, instead they design them to 2001 computer animation and game play, you can only play 24 people at a time. that's only what your tiny puny little pos system can handle, god forbid you get into a 3,000 person game like WOW which is by far one of the greatest features of a game is to be able play 24/7 with hundreds of other people and not always running into the same ones time and again and improve so much so fast to the point you can wipe out consoles players 24 at a time because 24 became EASY after you were dealing with 200 all at once and they had another 1,000 they'd call in as back up![/citation]

first off, for non racing games, i believe multi monitor setups are stupid. some like it, some dont

now, lets go with 2001, name me the 1920x1080 monitor back than that was able to be played on at that resolution by a gpu of that time.

you want to know what stunted software more than the consoles? graphics. when a limit is broken (think ps2 graphics to ps3 graphics jump) no one things about anything else than how to make the game prettier... no one thinks about ai, game play, or story till the graphics are "maxed" and the only way to stand out is go in other directions.

o yea, and lets talk about mmos, ps3 has one, dc online, and lets also not forget mag, the fps game with 256 player multiplayer, or lets also not forget that japanese ps2 game thant had wither 64000 or 180000 enemies on screen at one time.

now lets see here, consoles not having quad core... ps3 has what, an 8 cor cpu with 1 core locked, 1 core for drm and 6 for the game, but because "graphics make the games better" the cpu is used as a crutch for the gpu and almost never used as an ai improved aspect.

i despise good graphics, not because my pc cant handle them, but because they mean they spent most of the games money on making it pretty than making it good.
 
[citation][nom]fyasko[/nom]graphics aren't everything. most people don't spend 300$ on a graphics card.[/citation]
You are echoing the pain of PC gamers. A modern GFX card half that price will out perform a Xbox / PS3.

Ever hear the rants of 'Why dont games support more than 2 cores'... Blame console savvy slack coders.

'Why dont my games look more realistic like the Unreal Engine 4 demo'... Game developers dont want to push the engine hard on PC, if it looks too much better on PC they wont make any console sales.

When 'Black and White 1' came out in 2001 (yes over ten years ago) I was completely blown away by how it looked and played. Compare the visuals to todays games and I cant help but feel that developers aren't trying anymore. Feels like they are more interested in spending money on actors (for voices or cutscenes) instead of pushing technology to its absolute fantastic limit.

People still hail the first Crysis for a very good reason! Com'on you slack coders out there, show us you can do it again.
 
Wait so this means that Diablo 3 main platform was a console. WTF??? Does this mean PC players will get a crappy console port? God I hope not...
 
BULL..... CRAP

"We're exploring the idea..."

NO your just wanting to make a quick buck and screw over the people that brought you here i.e. The PC community

Consoles arn't the bane of PC gamers lives its the publishers that are twisting the arm of the dev's making the games.

Devs want creativity. Publishers want cash. Its that black and white. Thats why no matter how hard you write and write they wont do anything about

Money > Content

Thats why everything now is a console port for PC gamers that will never get patched or fixed. These companies need to have a HUGE loss and everyone leave before they get their butts in gear

But because people are waiting so long an eagerly for the games they end up sticking and playing it. So they always win.

I really wish it was different
 
Did everyone forget that Diablo (the original) came out on PSX and PC? I own both and personally I think they did very well with the console version, although it didn't have online, and multiplayer was kind destroyed by having to share the same screen (no split screen). So if your friend was stuck while you were running from attack to get off screen you'd be stuck. That's my only gripe about that though, otherwise it was just as good as the PC version.
 


First of all, they didn't "re haul" the game. It's the same system. Same play style. They added nothing note worthy to the mechanics. And the "new 3D graphics" which are sub-par at best compared to other RTS's like Shogun 2 and a few different unit types. The gameplay is almost exactly the same as their first SC over 10 years ago!

Now to get a feel of what I am talking about: Graphics aren't what I'm talking about when I'm talking "innovation". Sure graphics themselves can be "innovative", for example Battlefield 3 looks amazing and it really complements the great gameplay, but I'm talking mostly about mechanics.

See, a game like Company of Heroes came out with "mechanic innovation" in a RTS. They added new mechanics that drastically changed the way you played the game. It wasn't a SC/CnC clone.

In CoH, units can be overwhelmed and "suppressed" with machine gun fire or mortars, reducing their effectiveness. Terrain like ditches and shrubs could be used as "concealment" to protect against small arms fire damage and Walls could be used as cover to protect against attacks. On top of these features, unit positioning actually effected the battle. 1 tank firing at another face to face would do small damage, while a 2nd tank shooting from the rear would gain bonus damage. If you sent 1 group of troops to engage enemy troops, and had a splinter group of your troops break off and flank the enemy troops you'd do more damage. The game even had destructible environments ffs.

Now, all this was new to RTSes at the time, and really changed the gameplay. It wasn't another Warcraft clone where units just smashed into each other and shooting pewpews at each other. This is the kind of "innovation" i'm talking about. Bringing something NEW to the genre! Not just recycled garbage.

And if CoH's new mechanics weren't enough, it also boasted top of the line DX10 graphics for the time, far better then other RTSes around that time.

These are the kind of devs I admire. People not afraid to think for themselves, bring new stuff to the table, and ALSO make a beutiful game with great graphics to compliment the great gameplay that's fresh and innovative.

Also, I have played D3 beta, and that's why I'm so disappointed with it. It feels, in fact, LESS advanced then D2. A lot of what little mechanics D2 had have been removed, and nothing fresh or innovative has been put in it's place, except a SUB PAR GRAPHIC UPGRADE!

Hey, I can't hate people for liking what they like. If you love to play blizzard games for hours on end and it makes you happy, then go for it! Power to you brother.

But don't expect any of the serious PC gaming community to praise it as some sort of "good" title.



Great post. My thoughts exactly on graphics. Consoles really do bring down the PC games in terms of graphics.

I tend to look more at the gameplay first though, but graphics shouldn't be some sort of afterthought. They are important as well.

But that's why I hate blizzard. Simplistic, archaic gameplay mechanics and graphics that blow. What a waste of $60.
 
I wonder why people are flipping out about the console comment? The game is launching with all it's PC centric features [you know, it's developed for the PC, etc] on May 15th and it will probably be a long wait for anyone wanting to see it on the consoles. Blizzard already proved they don't do cheap ports - while I prefer my games on the PC, the D1 port to PS1 for example was actually well done and never hurt the original PC game at all.

What's the beef? If they can find a way to make it accessible on the console gameplay wise while the rest of us on the PC are already mowing down demonspawn, I say win win.

I'd be more concerned if they backtrack on making the Arena an e-sports - provided they do decide to chase that, as long as they continue the balancing of PVE and PVP skillsets separately, that's my only MAJOR concern at this point with their development plans.
 
My main concern with this would be what about patches? We can expect a onslaught of patches to come and even a occasional here and there after most things are ironed out. Unless the console version is so heavily delayed behind the PC to let the PC gamers endure the bugs and patches first. If they don't do that then they are going to spend tons releasing patches on the console, I read it was $40K per patch on the 360 alone. They could patch rarely but force console gamers to endure a terribly buggy game for a very long time. Worst case scenario is this also effects PC gamers and patches are released at similar times making the game way more broken than it would need to be on the PC.
 
It is not super graphics that are the problem with console ports, but rather the limitation in weapon selection and gameplay. I do not want to play button mashing sequence to solve a puzzle. I do not want to be limited in ability or weapon selections or have it very slow to change them because it was designed for a gamepad. A perfect example of poor gameplay was the original ghost recon with innovative gameplay and GRAW which ignored the ability to switch who you played. Blizzard has done very well for producing solid games with mediocre graphics that will play on old systems. I loved warcraft3 and it played well for both new and old systems which allowed me to play with a bigger group of friends. The editor was fantastic as well, but you won't find that on a console.

diablo 3 makes sense for a console game. Easy to button mash and simple but addictive game play. The better question is why sony and microsoft do not encourage game to use mice and keyboards to expand their systems.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom