Diablo II: Lord of Destruction 135
Blazemonger writes "There's a story from IGN on Yahoo! talking about Blizzard recruiting for the upcoming expansion beta test.
" I just filled out my form - have you? And I'd just like to reiterate my willingness to beta-test. Blizzard. I'm willing. So's CowboyNeal.
Re:Whoo hoo! (Score:1)
Re:Would have been great in 1998 (Score:1)
Plain and simple, it's an action game, an iso-shooter. And to add insult to injury, it's still very much a find-key-and-open-doors type of game. You run around completing straight-forward quests, and progress to the next one in an extremely predictable, linear manner. Anyone who thinks Diablo is an RPG would be sorely mistaken and does great injustice to the genre.
Re:Would have been great in 1998 (Score:1)
It's all about being rewarded for what, on the surface, is a repetitive behaviour. Like real life work, but more control, and better rewards.
As long as you don't sink into the "it's only a game" funk, it'll keep you happy as a drug.
--
Re:Diablo Beta Testing (Score:1)
If it spoils your enjoyment of the end product, then call yourself weak for not being able to wait for an end product.
This is why I like beta test screens and allow a general public technology test near the end.
Its friday, and I wanna go home!
-M-
Aww quiet up.. (Score:1)
On the total end of the stick, like anyone cares if someone can't participate in a 'beta' test.. You gonna cry for me? I'll play the violin.
Ooh I'm a stinker today..let me out!
-M-
Re:Incorrect on many accounts (Score:1)
These people have to realize that games are mocks of life.. People are stupid and cowlike in general.. There are those of us who know how to play a game and dominate it, in teamplay we are leaders or executioners, in solo we are fiesty as hell.
I play to win, I rally a team to dominate.. I get mad as hell at team killers.. oh I hate societies rejects..
I still play a MUD from occassion.. Still have wiz chars on a few of the top ones (Batmud anyone?
Hey, and I'm 6'3, 205lbs, 7%bf.. You really wouldn't think I am who I am..
The world is cool, games are an extension of our imagination and I can't wait for the time to create my own corp to add to the bounty.
Peace,
-M-
Re:Would have been great in 1998 (Score:2)
And what's this fascination with 3D? An isomorphic view is much better for a game like this, where it is important to be able to see all around you. With a fixed view, you might as well make it 2d, since then you can make the graphics as detailed/pretty as you want.
Re:I wonder (Score:2)
From my limited personal experience, I'd say that few people who believe video games should be less violent actually buy violent video games. The mentality seems to be "I don't like violent video games, so neither should you." Though I won't say this is a general rule.
Waitaminute! (Score:2)
Everytime we see a post from Taco that contains a link to a QuickTime video we hear him whining "Of course, it doesn't work in Linux so I can't see it." Yet, whenever there's an article about Diablo Taco is right there chiming in "Oh I can't wait. Oh Diablo2 is great, I can't stop playing."
I can't believe I just noticed this... I just lost about a metric ton of respect for CmdrTaco. Not because he uses Windows (hell, I still play Baldur's Gate), but because he pretends he doesn't when he feels like sounding righteous.
Yes I know this was posted by Hemos, but just do a /. search for Diablo and you'll see what I mean about CmdrTaco.
This is not meant to be flamebait or a troll... just the truth. If I'm wrong please correct me.
Re:Wrong (Score:1)
Check out www.lurkerlounge.com. Sure seems to be an awful lot of strategy discussion going on for a game with no strategy... (grin)
Re:Of Diablo... (Score:1)
Re:I'm glad... (Score:2)
Falcon's Eye (was Would have been great in 1998) (Score:1)
Check out Falcon's Eye [www.hut.fi]. From the site:
And a screenshot [www.hut.fi] or two [www.hut.fi].
Re:Wrong (Score:1)
People take for granted that most of Diablo's levels and magic items are randomly generated. This is a big deal. No other major games are doing random level generation by default, and few competing RPG's use randomly-generated magic items.
I believe that randomly generated quests are a plausible next step. In the future, I believe it will be possible to create your own character classes and that you will have clever, dynamic options for rendering of these custom classes. For instance, an 18-strength character will have a beefier musculature than a 17-strength character, and you will be able to see the difference. It is not hard to imagine a scale for charisma (bad hair, bad complexion, bad teeth, nasty facial expression that morphs smoothly up to perfect hair, perfect complection, charming facial expression, etc), or for dexterity (when doing your IK to get hand from point A to point B, dexterity could create an algorithmic flourish).
I agree that Diablo 2 gets tiring from the click-kill RSI-inducing user interface, but this is a user interface and AI issue that I think is solvable. For one, Diablo 2 did not allow the user to queue targets. This would not only make attacking simpler but would improve the multiplayer experience for people playing over slow, lossy links.
The Diablo games have short-comings, but it is the only modern game franchise I see pushing the limits of dynamic content generation, I think it has a lot of room to grow, and I wish it well.
I believe Blizzard's one major mistake is that they profess to be abandoning 2D engines. 3D engines have a consistent track record of not staying in the PC Data Top 10 lists anywhere near as long as the evergreen 2D engines. 3D PC engines are notorious for being flaky if you use a driver feature the driver author didn't expect to be heavily used. I believe that most strategic and RPG-ish PC titles, even today, should be 2D, because it makes market sense, the user gets a more consistent experience, and it gives the coder explicit, direct control of every pixel. There is room for 3D games, but the market is not as broad a reach because frankly, Microsoft botched the delivery of D3D and couldn't keep it simple, and the 3D accelerator IHV's flailed trying to add unique display features to their chips.
Surprisingly, Fallout Tactics - which was just released - is the first PC title I've played that used anti-aliased sprites. The result is gorgeous, and it works on every platform perfectly. When we did Abuse, we added dynamic lighting, an effect that wasn't terribly hard to do, but for some reason hadn't graced PC scrollers before, perhaps because someone thought it was difficult to use a lookup table to shade one palettized colour into another. It wasn't that hard, the effect was dramatic, and it worked on every platform.
There is a lot left to explore, and I think people forget that the power and grace of a modern computer is that it's a general purpose processor. In other words, it's always going to be slower than an ASIC (such as a 3D accelerator), but you will be able to enjoy your own, custom, unique, pixel-accurate effects.
Re:Would have been great in 1998 (Score:2)
Ha, that's so funny and true its sad. Its also part, I think, of why it's getting harder to sell games to adults. I know I still love video games, but I just can't justify spending 40 hours a week playing/learning them (or god forbid 120 hours like I used to). Today's games all brag about how they have "80 hours of play time" -- well, damn that pretty much guarantees I won't play it because I know going in I don't have that much time to spend.
I played Diablo 2 for a week straight, every night, then thankfully I forgot the disk at my brother-in-law's house and haven't played since. I remember having a great deal of fun playing, yet somehow my life does not feel less full since I stopped.
It's nice to play a good RTS or something every now and then, because you can play for just an hour (or three) and stop without having just "one more level"...
---------------------------------------------
Timezones - Read the FAQ (Score:4)
*sing* I'm a karma whore and I'm okay....
I work all night and I post all day
Re:Would have been great in 1998 (Score:1)
True, it may suck a bit more, but it's far far from dead.
Re:But only in america/canada/korea (Score:1)
Why? Why should you be given the chance to work around this? It's not like beta-testing is a right.
Blizzard wants to make the beta small and hit their servers fast and furious. They also want to limit the number of people who have access to the beta. Taking 2500 people from all over the world would probably not give them quite as good an idea as 2500 people from one region. Furtheremore, just saying "Well *some* of us could work around that" doesn't work because frankly, they can't require that you log on certain times of the day. The easiest way for them to get a good estimate of the server usage etc is to do it this way.
Would have been great in 1998 (Score:4)
There's only so much you can do with a "click mouse until you kill it" game. Yes, it is better in multiplayer mode, and yes there are lots of improvements over D1, but it took so long to come out that it just can't compare to other games, such as Unreal. Heck, even Acheron's Call is close, and it has a much bigger (and more interesting) scope and multiplayer functionality.
Just my $0.02.
What about Ireland? (Score:2)
But I'm worried.
My windows box exists only for Diablo 2; if Bill is reading this, he should note that if I don't get a beta, Microsoft lose a toehold in another house. Not that I'm trying to apply pressure, you lovely blizzard people.
Re:Of Diablo... (Score:1)
On the other hand, I can't really say that a game like DII would benefit from an improved resolution in the same way that a FPS might. I mean, how much resolution do you really need to hack the living crap out of a blowgun-wielding pygmy?
--
Why Diablo 2 soured me to Blizzard... (Score:1)
Firstly, I won't even bother griping about the fact that registration to sign up for the beta test of an expansion pack of a MS-Windows game is considered newsworthy at Slashdot.
Secondly, I have to admit that I spent a good week and a half of my life dedicating most of my waking hours to Diablo 2, ending with my uninstalling the game in disgust and never playing it since. A number of reasons:
Ah well, I'm sure some people will enjoy the D2 expansion, if only the folks at Blizzard whose bank accounts are fattened by it.
As for me, I'll probably log a couple of hours this weekend playing Heroes of Might & Magic III (still haven't gotten tired of it, and haven't even tried any of the expansions), Test Drive Le Mans (Best. Console Racer. Ever. (DC)), and Go (the board game, since it gets me the heck away from the computer, and makes me use my brain).
Rant (Score:4)
WHY do game publishers hate europe? Every time a beta cycle is started, you have to be located in the US of A (and sometimes canada) to be able to apply. Do these people think we can download? We don't buy games? (asia + europe buys more games combined then the US).
It so pisses me off to see all these US centric game companies, as if we dont make up a large percentage of their profits.
I gues it's not bad enough we get the games weeks behind the US, we can't apply for beta programs either. Is this some f**king 3rd word country or something?!
Sorry had to do that
-- Chris Chabot
"I dont suffer from insanity, i enjoy every minute of it!"
Re:Whoopee (Score:1)
But if expansion packs are news then I guess I should be submitting stories about the DooM and Quake maps I've been tinkering with.
Re:Would have been great in 1998 (Score:1)
--
Re:Whoo hoo! (Score:1)
If you want to troll, at least get your facts straight. Blizzard releases for both MAC and Winblows. Last time I counted, that were 2 operating systems, not one.
Also, most Blizzard games are playable under Wine/WineX. The only thing that doesn't work well is Battle.Net support -- and it's coming.
Re:Would have been great in 1998 (Score:1)
As for newbies getting crushed
24/7 playing just to be good ? It strikes me that you have never actually played the game. Yes, if you want to be number one in the ladder, you'll have to play in teams or 24/7. Nutcases, that. Yesterday I played a few hours, and the day before. Before that, I was on hiatus for two months. Still works fine.
And, in all fairness, how long _do_ you have to play to get good at FPS games ? Quite some time to find your style
Re:I wonder (Score:2)
Oh gee thanks! Now I have to pick all these FruitLoops out of my keyboard!
I don't have moderator points so I just gotta say +5Funny... that made my day. :^)
Ender
Re:Wrong (Score:1)
>Just cause it sold a bunch doesn't mean anything.
So sales != good game.
>More and more people want something besides just hack and slash...
And how do they vote? By BUYING the games, thats sales.
Also by playing them. Thats why I said that there are 50K people playing on servers currently.
Re:Wrong (Score:1)
Wrong (Score:5)
Diablo2 sold over a million copies. There are 50K players over 3 contenets playing. Behind the times? A good game doesn't have to be bleeding edge.
>but it took so long to come out that it just can't compare to other games, such as Unreal.
Unreal and Diablo2 are two totally different genres of games and you can't compare.
>Heck, even Acheron's Call is close, and it has a much bigger (and more interesting) scope and multiplayer functionality.
But you have to pay $10/month for Asheron's Call. Thats totally different.
Incorrect on many accounts (Score:2)
CS is not dead. It has not died, it is not dieing. I have no idea where you got that bit of info. Maybe it's wishful thinking on your part. I still played after 1.0 (on hiatus now because of T2) and it was still the same basic game and still very fun.
About Tribes... funny that very few of the people online actually use teamwork. No, T1 did well because it was nicely positioned and an excellent break from the standard FPS games. T2 is selling out because it is a sequel. Never underestimate the selling power of a sequel. Do you think B&W would be doing this well without Peter's name being dropped?
Re:Incorrect on many accounts (Score:2)
In Tribes, while I understand that teamwork helps alot, alot of people still don't do it. Also, there's an enormous rambo factor, a single player can be very hard to stop if he's skilled. Therefore, I'm not sure that teamwork is the primary appeal of the game. At least, not anymore, maybe it was.
T2 is a different animal so far, let's hope it keeps going.
As for Diablo 2, I don't know if you played it much, but the same class can have completely different spell sets. There are at least 2 paths of advancement for most of the classes.
Re:Aaaaannnnd...... (Score:1)
Why? Slashdot is News for Nerds. Stuff that matters. Not everything has to relate to Linux... and who modded that shit post up?
Diablo Beta Testing (Score:5)
Here is the problem I have with it. I beta tests Diablo 2 before its release. It spoils your enjoyment of the game. It's great and being able to play a game before anyone else, but when you play a game that is well (I think) for online play, and you are playing with suck a limited crowd in a beta, you will get burned out. As I did, when playing D2 beta, I played it so much, that when it came out, and I got a the final release of the game, I was already burned out. There was no enjoyment really left.
Well, so I regestered for beta testing again, shoot me. I just love being able to say, "Ya, I am a beta tester, eat it!".
Its not what it is, its something else.
Re:Waitaminute! (Score:1)
Whoo hoo! (Score:1)
Re:Whoo hoo! (Score:1)
Has
Why play diablo when you can play Evercrack? (Score:1)
Re:Would have been great in 1998 (Score:2)
The fact that you don't like it doesn't automatically make it a bad game.
Kintanon
Incidentally, I signed up for the Beta about 20 minutes after signups opened. Beating out both Hemos AND neal.
Re:Whoo hoo! (Score:2)
Kintanon
Re:Would have been great in 1998 (Score:2)
And just because something dosn't match your criteria doesn't make it a bad game. I dislike Starcraft quite a bit, but I still recognize that fact that it's a good game for people that like that sort of thing.
Kintanon
Re:Rant (Score:1)
Because France is in Europe.
Next question?
Re:Wow. (Score:1)
Burn Out (Score:1)
Diablo 2 is the first game we've ever done that for. Thats really saying something about the quality of the game.
--
Donald Roeber
Re:Rant (Score:1)
--
Donald Roeber
Re:Rant (Score:1)
*blinks* Oookay.. game beating times (Score:1)
I have a boyfriend, and a career.
I beat it last night.
(Sorceress, 30th level, ice path, for those who case)
Am I just a mad D2 machine? Did I fall into some bizarre time warp?
Poor little no puppy toe!
Re:*blinks* Oookay.. game beating times (Score:1)
If so, that's what I did.
I died once or twice trying to kill him, got annoyed, ran around, leveled a few times, and managed to get some armor and a weapon that was good in whacking his sorry annoying ass.
And IMO, he's the MOST annoying boss. I had an easier time with Diablo himself than Duriel, although that may have been due to the character I was playing.
've got a barbarian now that's just awesome who's about to go take him on though.
Poor little no puppy toe!
Re:Rant (Score:2)
------
Re:I wonder (Score:1)
Generally, it's the Democrats and Pyschopath liberals who limit our free-speech and decry violence in video games.
Republicans (the decent ones) are the only people I lknow that don't have their head buried up their ass.
Re:Wrong (Score:1)
There is still a large user base of DopeWars..
somethings are never outdated.
Re:Diablo Beta Testing (Score:2)
So who's problem was this? Blizzard's for having a public beta test? Blizzard's for making a really fun game? Yours for signing up? Or yours for sitting at your computer for hours playing it?
If you truly want what you say you do (to be able to play it after its official release and enjoy it), perhaps you should exercise some self restraint and wait until it comes out rather than being a beta tester just for bragging rights as you said in your last paragraph.
The first reply said it (Score:1)
If they couldn't get enough beta testers in the US, maybe you'd have a point, but since they always get too many applications anyway, it'd be silly to go through any extra expense for the sake of getting even MORE applications.
Sorry had to do that... man Europeans who always think we're trying to fuck them for no apparent reason can piss me off :)
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
Darned americans (Score:1)
f.
Ah, the Lurker Lounge. You beat me to it. ;p (Score:1)
Yes, but we wanted a fix NOW (Score:1)
Re:Whoopee (Score:1)
Why'd you announce this? (Score:1)
Re:But only in america/canada/korea (Score:1)
It's supposed to be a stress test. So they are going to try to get alot of beta testers in one particular market, across only a few timezones. That way (assuming everyone has a similar lifestyle) all the beta testers will hammer on the stress test servers in unison, giving them the stresses they are looking for.
Re:Falcon's Eye (was Would have been great in 1998 (Score:1)
If you're on Windows, there's also Utumno [mit.edu], an isometric roguelike based on Angband. Unfortunately, the project has been dead for exactly three years today (how's that for coincidence?); fortunately, the source appears to be available and it's looking for a new maintainer ...
Re:Would have been great in 1998 (Score:1)
After you continue to play the game for a week or so, you find that you're not really "playing the game" as much as you're building up your character. Almost all of the Diablo players I know went through the game again at least in Nighmare mode. Obviously they didn't do it to go through the story again.
The expansion pack would indeed have not been worth it if they weren't including two new different types of players to fool around with, but that's like telling a drug addict you've got two new exotics for him to try out ;)
Re:Would have been great in 1998 (Score:1)
Re:Diablo Beta Testing (Score:1)
Diablo Clickfest! (Score:1)
Re:Beta.. (Score:1)
That must be where their servers are. I could just see the engineers saying "Gee boss, the servers must be ready to go, we have 2,500 people connected from all the houses next door, and they're getting good ping times. Let's release."
Fade to one week later. Diablo sells two million copies across the world.
Fade to one week later, one hour later Why is our server crashing now? It was running so well during beta test?
You Diablo players know what I'm talking about
I wonder (Score:1)
Same idea, different group. How many Democrats who applauded Lieberman will sign up?
This is not flamebait, this is an honest question about the hypocracy in the US's political system.
DanH
Cav Pilot's Reference Page [cavalrypilot.com]
Re:Would have been great in 1998 (Score:1)
Where the hell have you been living?
Ah, i get it - just because you stopped playing you think everbody else did. BRRRRR. Wrong. - Thanks for playing.
--
Hey Blizzard :: Two Words (Score:1)
---
Assholes. (Score:1)
int break_spirit()
{
crush_nutz(left_nut,right_nut);
return(1);
};
gg (Score:1)
Aaaaannnnd...... (Score:1)
Oh well, i had to put SOMETHING in this article that was remotely Linux-based.
Re:Whoopee (Score:2)
Does anyone care? (Score:1)
I cant wait... (Score:1)
Re:Would have been great in 1998 (Score:1)
Re:Wrong (Score:1)
Re:Would have been great in 1998 (Score:1)
I gave my opinion, which, funny enough, doesn't agree with yours.
But to put more into this post:
I was putting the game up against many categories, and against many games. D2 is a hack-n-slash, without much strategy, no fancy graphics, and a decent online community. I could name at least a dozen games that do better in all categories. That is how I made my decision that this isn't a good game.
I like all types and genres of games. But if you wanted an RPG, I'd suggest something fun like Balder's Gate, and if you wanted a hack'n'slash, I'd suggest UT (at least it has more than one mode of play when you get bored of hack'n'slash).
Re:Would have been great in 1998 (Score:1)
Yes, several do. But there still exists developers that enjoy plot and gameplay more than graphics and sound. Like the almighty Warren Spector. Go play Deus Ex if you haven't yet. He's working on another game. Lets, also, not forget Richard Gariott, and Sid Meier who are both working on new games. Hopefully people will learn from these gurus...
Re:Incorrect on many accounts (Score:1)
There was a major drop of players after the 1.0 release. That, to me, means its dying. And there will always be fanatics that will stay, but most of the players left.
About Tribes... funny that very few of the people online actually use teamwork. No, T1 did well because it was nicely positioned and an excellent break from the standard FPS games. T2 is selling out because it is a sequel.
But if you jump into a game that uses teamplay, which I find everyday, you'll either be losing poorly, or winning easily (depending on which side you start on).
The reason its hard to find, though, is because people get frustrated because they know that teamplay is the easiest way to fight teamplay (fire with fire), and getting people to work together while they are loosing is tough. I do agree with T2 selling out because its a sequel, but it is a sequel to a very popular game, and it was good as the hype behind it.
Actually the gameplay of Diablo is one of the best things about it. Their interface is decent and intuitive. It's much less dull than many games because you often have to judge when to use this power or that power, and often do so creatively. Two characters of the same class could have completely different styles.
See, now when I think of a good interface, I think of Sacrifice. It was very fast to learn and simple to use even though its based on a very complex system. A bad one would be B&W (since you are familiar with it), which is a touch ackward (but I am still enjoying the game).
True, the style of play is different from character to character, but the goal is the same (hack'n'slash). Go play Deus Ex, where you can have the same "class" but different skills, and every obsticale you find can be overcome a variety of ways, including the skillset you prefer.
Re:Would have been great in 1998 (Score:5)
I agree with the idea behind what you are saying. But graphics aren't what makes this game dull. Heck, I still play systemshock2 religiously (if you haven't played it yet, go grab youself a copy! Its only like $9.99, and it is more than worth it!). The reason the game is dull is because its just go around and kill stuff. Yeah... collect armor and gain levels... but is this really that interesting? Where's the strategy? There is very little.
Lets look at counterstrike. It was extremely popular, because it required more than just 13373 FR4GG1NG SK1LLZ. It required thought and strategy. Then, just before version 1.0, they decided to make it more like a quake game and make it easier to frag and required less thought. What happened? It died... quickly.
Lets look at Tribes (and the new Tribes2). Sold out instantly. Why? Because this game *requires* teamwork and strategy. Time and time again, I could round up a band of 6 guys that weren't good at fragging, but knew how to work together, and annilate a team of 8 deulers (excellent one-on-one'ers) that wouldn't work together.
D2, also, makes the person that takes too much time (plays all day for about 6 months), and makes him a god that can't be beat. This is a cheap way to keep players. It makes you want to play more and more so that you are unbeatable. Then when a newbie comes along they are crushed.
I think games should reward the person with the best strategy. That way you learn strategies the more you play, and they better you will be.
Would you rather play a game where you have to spend months of 24-7 playing to be the best, or days of thinking to be better, and always have a challenge? If you answered the former, then you'll be in for a great wakeup when you have to work all day.
Re:Would have been great in 1998 (Score:3)
Seems kinda pathetic when I think about it, but DAMN I miss that!
Re:I wonder (Score:3)
Of Diablo... (Score:2)
With the introduction of Diablo II, the hack and slash fun I remember in the original was back but it seemed that it was just more of the same. Granted, longer and with more characters and game play options but still I felt as if I could have reinstalled Diablo and gotten the same feeling.
The main and most glaring reason for this was Blizzards decision to leave the screen size at 640x480. While they did introduce some new graphical options with their 3d support, Blizzard has always been about eye candy and quality game play. While they at least hit for par in the game play area they sliced hard and lost their balls in the rough when it came to the eye candy.
To rant some more, I'm not sure what demographics they were studying when they picked out 640x480 as being the ONLY resolution for one of their hallmark games. The web has been standard at 800x600 (if not already at 1024x768) for a few years now. Some users might still run 640x480, but I doubt that if that was the case that they could even meet the min system requirements for DII let alone run it at enjoyably.
Bottom line, I played DII a bit, but after a while I just felt like I was back in the late 90's and better games were calling. Unless Blizzard fixes that my opinion will remain the same.
p.s. And for you hardcore linux geeks. Get over the fact that some ppl run Winbloz to play games.
Re:Whoo hoo! (Score:2)
Diablo's lost its spark (Score:2)
I say go play Baldur's Gate II for a real RPG experience. The Sims, Unreal Tournament and No One Lives Forever are some other great Windows games.
Re:Incorrect on many accounts (Score:1)
Diablo is a very simple game. Repetivie, simple interface, few choices, and it focuses on keeping the player occupied by physical goals such as levels, stats, items and exp. Typical of MUDs and today's MMORPGS. But that doesn't mean its a bad game or one that shouldn't have been made.
I see alot of gamers who want to become game designers or work in the game industry. But the big hurdle that alot of them need to get over is the idea of true games. They need to realize that a game is good if enough people want to play it to make back the cost of its production. It doesn't matter if it follows the rules of all the other games, or if its not original enough.
The weirdest thing about games is that everyone wants to tailor the game to themselves. But the biggest thing about gameplay is the challenge of adaptability. If people want all the good games to be ready-set for their style of play then there would not be any creativity or expansive learning involved in playing those games. Adapting to a new style of play caused by changes in games or new games is one of the things that evolves decent gamers into great gamers.
:)
100 hours? (Score:1)
Re:Rant (Score:1)
I got three letters that should make you feel better about living outside of the US....G S M.
Re:Waitaminute! (Score:2)
I can think of a number of reasons why the two situations are slightly different:
Reboot Time Overhead
In a dual-boot situation, it's not hard to see the difference between rebooting for several hours of game play versus rebooting just to view a 5 minute video clip. In the later case, the hassle of rebooting is a disproportionately large portion of the entire task.
Gaming Precludes Multitasking
Most games tend to suck most-to-all of your attention. While you may have peaks and lulls in the Diablo excitement level, you generally have to actively control your character for even the mundane task of travelling through completely purged levels (assuming they haven't added an autowalk feature to Diablo II). With a video clip, on the other hand, (especially if it's a talk, lecture, or a similar thing where the visual contents consist of long periods of pictures of J. Random Person just moving his/her mouth and occasionally gesturing), it's generally possible to get other tasks done. Depending on what those other tasks are, you may feel less than fully productive when working from a Windows box (especially if you don't use Windows often enough to justify going through the trouble of installing all the Unix-like utilities and tools for Windows that you can get your hands on).
Games -> Code, Video -> Information
I understand the technological and economic reasons that prevent Linux versions of most games -- the games are generally non-free (in both beer and speech), porting takes work, work generally takes money (due to the non-free factor), and that money generally needs to be recouped by selling copies of the port. While, ideally, I wouldn't complain if a game company were to start releasing all the games for free (either one), I would have to question their business sense. (Apologies for any inaccuracies in the following; I'm not well-versed in most of the video details.) With video, on the other hand, the people providing it are generally doing so in a "come one, come all, see our video clip" information provider manner. There are ways they can avoid making their information unviewable to a certain minority of computer users. However, due to ignorance, laziness, or any of a number of other possible factors, they've failed in part of their "information provider" role.
Re:Aaaaannnnd...... (Score:1)
Re:Would have been great in 1998 (Score:1)
Sanchi
Re:and when will this be out? (Score:2)
Sanchi
But only in america/canada/korea (Score:1)
Re:and when will this be out? (Score:2)
Will they even need to reboot? (Score:2)
Uh-huh. Of course, Slashdot editors will continue to conclude any story involving a QuickTime file with a smug, "I just wish they would release it in a format I could actually view."
And you guys wonder why developers aren't falling over each other to release quality Linux games?
Unsettling MOTD at my ISP.
Re:Rant (Score:2)
Keep in mind that a majority of game developers are based in the US. Since Blizzard only wants to do a limited test of the expansion, it makes sense that they limit it to the continent they are based on. International shipping costs are an unnecesary expense for a beta test.
As for getting games weeks behind the US... that's also because a majority of game companies, publishers, and distributors are based in the US. When they decide to ship, they want there game out there ASAP, and the US is the easiest maket to hit first.
I understand your frustration at having to wait for everything and not being eligable for most betas, but look at it as a logistical situation... it doesn't make sense for companies to do an international beta test. Lionhead did an extensive amount of beta testing for B&W (though sometimes I wonder about that...) in England, their home country... Why wasn't there a beta test in the US? Because it would be stupid to spend all that money on shipping when they have a cheaper solution.
It's not always about us Americans getting all the breaks.
-Z
The REAL reasons D2 sucks... (Score:2)
The following is a repost from the Diablo Strategy & Tactics forum on battle.net, where I originally posted it to try to explain why I uninstalled D2 two weeks after I wasted my $40 on it.
(repost begins)
...The thing is, D1 was amazing for its time,
whereas D2 is very mediocre for modern times. D1's graphics were
top notch when it came out, and still have a nice feel of gritty
realism D2 lacks. D2's are just: "Oh... Er... Blizzard
obviously felt no need to bring the graphics into the new
millennium. Ok..."
Gameplay? Mostly the same. I suppose this is ok, except for the
insane "no level load" mistake, which hideously punishes
anyone who doesn't have 256 megs of RAM, a T1 connection, and a
hefty dose of blind luck. (Can you say, "Lagcore"? Can
you say, "Waypoint PK'd"? I knew you could!)
Sound? Improved very slightly, I'll admit, though my system,
alas, is sucking too bad to handle it now.
The whole skills thing is cool, and would be amazing if it
weren't so buggy and RIDDLED with apocryphal, inaccurate, and
missing information. Also, the ratio of usable to useless skills
has decreased a LOT since D1. In D1 the only spells I never use
are Inferno, Blood Star, and Bone Spirit; in D2 I can think of 4
or more skills in EVERY class I never use. If there is ever a
JG2, it will be about 100% more different from the D2 manual
than JG was from the D1 manual. Seriously. The only other
drawback is that one must rise to a very high level before the
game actually becomes FUN, in my experience - in that at level
20, if you're playing for power, you probably only have 2 or 3
skills to play with. Yay, now that's excitement.
Playerkilling... don't even get me started. Once again, Blizzard caters to 15 year old punks with bad attitudes by keeping playerkilling in the game. And then they do 10 million "balance" changes, as if pkilling in a fight where whoever sees the other guy first wins, makes any sense. At least they got rid of "ears". =/
The plot is semi-ok, except for the fact that the entire thing
was kept secret for about 3 picoseconds. Hurrah. The trouble
with the multiple towns is that I was unable to ever CARE about
any of them or their people, just as soon as I started to get a
handle on the various townies' characters I was off again, always
to the east...
Plus the tacked-on fourth act and the callous treatment of
Tristram's destruction really left me cold. I think Tristram's
destruction deserved an FMV more than Diablo's meeting with
Marius. I *really* would have enjoyed watching Wirt die.
>:) Of course, the absolute WORST, unforgiveable, thing
about D2's plot is that it trivializes your victory in D1. So
what if you beat Diablo? Your precious character failed in the
end, and so did Tal Rasha, and oh by the way we lied to you about
what the Soulstones are for. So there, nyaah. Gee, thanks
Blizz...
Oh, and the items... lots of good (though highly confusing to
the D1 mind) ideas here. The set items are, I think, one of the
only truly great improvements over D1, but the game does not
allow enough inv/stash space to store set pieces until you find
the rest, so instead you get people using set items like they
would any other rare. Oh well. It might have been nice to have
an extra stash with the general store owner in any town, like
having items "in hock" that you'd have to pay a little
fee to retrieve, but have like 20x20 more storage. Or something.
Add to this the buggy items, the weird items, the dupable (sigh!)
items, and the completely missing items... And the fact that it takes over 200 times the disk space of Diablo 1, for about 2/3 the fun value.
D1 had its
problems, I'll admit. Its buglist is also ridiculously long for
a game that's been patched so many times. But cmon, gimme a
break. I played D2 until I beat it in Open. A week later, it
was off my HD. Diablo 1 has never left. D2 is simply not worthy
as a successor, and if I tried to point to a reason for its
failure, it would be this:
Blizzard tried to do too much, and didn't have enough time or
resources left over to polish and debug. So some areas of it
shine, and the rest suck abominably. Oh, it's a playable game,
but there's no way it's on the level of Diablo. If they had been
a bit less ambitious (ie., if they had managed to put a sock in
their marketing guys before they could promise too much), it
would have been a FAR better game.
... and oh yeah. Serverside SUCKS. I'm amazed they thought it
would work.
(repost ends)
I've been playing D1 for years, and D2 just isn't worthy. The reasons it's more popular than D1 are:
1.) you can run - SERIOUSLY!! I know people who prefer D2 for no more reason than this! However, they fail to remember that there were much smaller distances in D1, and thus no reason to NEED running. Plus, D1 success requires tactical thinking, running (or teleporting) around like a chicken with your head cut off is an excellent way to get mobbed and killed. D2 is completely lacking in tactical or strategic thinking. "Put on magic items. Go click on monsters. WHEEEEEEE!" As a Diablo old timer, Pete, puts it, when there's no challenge then all the game is, is an hours-long mouse test. Have fun left clicking.
2.) It's shiiiiiiiny. Typical "newer must be better" attitude, plus a lot of folks have never tried D1. However, though the graphics may be better, they're not 3 freakin' years better. And the "atmosphere" has been lost... where D1 was gothic and creepy, D2 is cartoonish and dull.
3.) The Diablo patches. Blizzard has deliberately released a "patch" v 1.08, as well as several server patches, in a more or less successful attempt to kill Diablo 1. Before v 1.08 and the server patches, despite the presence of D2, there were usually between 5 and 8 thousand D1 clients online. Now it's a heavy day for D1 when there are 1000 clients on.
I'm sorry to be a wet blanket, but it's just been too many years since I've seen anyone at Buzzard do anything to deserve the great reputation they got off Diablo and WC2.
-Kasreyn
Re:Would have been great in 1998 (Score:3)
Would you care to explain to me how old game=boring game?
Just because a game doesn't have a flashy shiny interface that requires a Geforce2 to run, doesn't make it any less enjoyable. Have you ever played Tetris? It is so simplistic, it can be coded to run on a Texas Instruments calculator, and yet it is one of the most popular games in history. People have been playing chess for hundereds of years without any major improvements to the game. Does that make chess "boring"?
Just because a game doesn't use millions of polygons and fancy lighting and texture effects, doesn't make it a bad game. Period.
Re:Whoo hoo! (Score:5)