Quake3World

http://us.battle.net/d3/en/blog/4963739 ... _2012#blog

:D

Up to level 13 I thought...?

Yeah if you replay the 2hours over and over you can get to level13 in the beta...

I'm glad there isn't much. I've got other shit I'd like to get done this weekend but I want to check out the classes and see which one feels right to start with first come release.

witchdoctor better be as awesome as i'm anticipating.

Memphis wrote:I read that there's 2.5 hours tops to play on one character, after that there's nothing left to do, unless you roll a new character.

That's to get to the end of the Beta story-wise. Assuming you're not playing to get the most XP possible, it may take a tad bit longer to get to the level cap of 13.

phantasmagoria wrote:witchdoctor better be as awesome as i'm anticipating.

Not in my experience. It's a re-skinned Necromancer. Skeletons are replaced by zombie dogs, bone spells are replaced by throwing jars full of spiders and puddles of goo with clawing hands coming out of the ground, etc. I don't know what they're like in the later levels, but I expect more of the same: it's a pet class with debuffs. I'm sure they'll need rebalancing at the higher difficulties just like the Necromancer did.

I've been playing the beta, I won a key in a contest. I really like it. It's a good SP and Co-op game, Not sure how the PvP will be tho.

I like all the characters equally, beside the monk.

There is an Open Beta going on this weekend, anyone can play so if you're interested check it out.

http://us.battle.net/d3/en/?-
http://www.diablofans.com/

No shit?

Stoner wrote:
I like all the characters equally, beside the monk.

Funny, that's the class I'm playing right now in the beta. It's alright. Should have done wizard...

The Monk isn't bad, I just don't really like the play style that much. But that's just my preference, I saw plenty of people playing Monks. It kinda felt like they were a little weak at the time. But I was playing it a month and a half ago and I know the classes have been tweaked a lot since then.

I love the Barbarian, Demon Hunter, Witch Doctor, and Wizard. I'll probably play a Barbarian to start but all the classes are equally fun to me.

phantasmagoria wrote:witchdoctor better be as awesome as i'm anticipating.

I'm debating between wizard and witch doctor for my role in a four man, week long, grinding group. They both look far less powerful than the last time I played with the character planner on the D3 site but WD really looks weak.

indeed but he looks quite fun. After healing classes I usually favour ones with pets and mob spawn capabilities simply because of the variety of play. I'm gonna roll him simply for aesthetic reasons. My main will probably be wizard as if i can't heal then high dps is usually my forte.

You're going to like the WD, then. I imagine that class will have the most variety in the visual department.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3vGigXYlXg

Barbarian all the way. Just finished playthroughs with barb, demon hunter and wizard. Monk and Witch Doctor to go

Memphis wrote:that works tho
still, click click click click
i see no reason why this hasn't simply evolved into twin stickery

You do know that you can just hold LMB or RMB to keep attacking, right? I just want to make sure...

Memphis wrote:Played a few levels of monk ... Nothing impressive to look at though really.

Agreed, the Monk is unimpressive. I'm with everyody else about the Barbarian, it's very enjoyable to smash shit with a large hammer.

I'm pretty sure the Barbarian will probably be my first character, closely followed by the Wizard. Not sure, though.

Memphis wrote:pressing only 2 buttons and 4 hotskills is a far, far cry from twenty to thirty binds you'd have in say, WoW

Yep... this is what I have said for years. I just don't get what people are talking about when they rave about Diablo's "addictive gameplay." I understand the addictive quality of running a dungeon over and over and getting loot and hoping something rare and awesome drops, but let's be honest: the gameplay in Diablo is pure shit, is it not? Every time I post that and ask for someone to explain why they love it so much, I am met with silence. Any takers this time, now that the beta is open for anyone to try it out? Specifically interested in comments from long-time Diablo players/addicts.

Stoner wrote:The Monk isn't bad, I just don't really like the play style that much. But that's just my preference, I saw plenty of people playing Monks. It kinda felt like they were a little weak at the time. But I was playing it a month and a half ago and I know the classes have been tweaked a lot since then.

I love the Barbarian, Demon Hunter, Witch Doctor, and Wizard. I'll probably play a Barbarian to start but all the classes are equally fun to me.

Oh, it's Stoner.

Took Wizard up to 13 but didn't try the rest. I like this setup the best:
http://us.battle.net/d3/en/calculator/wizard#WcYd!b!.aa

Also, what I was saying about items earlier is definitely true. The random mods have a pretty good chance of giving you a completely retarded combination. Normal difficulty seems easy enough that you could run around naked though so we'll see how much gear comes into play later on.

Mogul wrote:

Memphis wrote:pressing only 2 buttons and 4 hotskills is a far, far cry from twenty to thirty binds you'd have in say, WoW

Yep... this is what I have said for years. I just don't get what people are talking about when they rave about Diablo's "addictive gameplay." I understand the addictive quality of running a dungeon over and over and getting loot and hoping something rare and awesome drops, but let's be honest: the gameplay in Diablo is pure shit, is it not? Every time I post that and ask for someone to explain why they love it so much, I am met with silence. Any takers this time, now that the beta is open for anyone to try it out? Specifically interested in comments from long-time Diablo players/addicts.

Why the hate?

Not exactly hate, it's just easy for me to challenge the nearly universal claim that Diablo has "great gameplay." When I think of great gameplay, I think of the Quake games, Mario games, and in the RPG genre, games like WoW and SWTOR take the cake with their wonderfully visceral and complex combat systems. Diablo? ...click click click click.... Is that great gameplay? What is so great about Diablo?

I have mentioned the things I think are cool/good/addictive about Diablo. But I don't think they should be confused with gameplay. Is Diablo REALLY that fun to Diablo fans? I just want to know why.

Armchair game design is one of my things.

edit: in before H4H4 V1RGEN ALERT!!!!!!!

personally, i liked the simplicity of the gameplay in combination with the complexity of the builds.
what put me off was that after a while, equipment was more important than character lvl, skill level and player skill.

that said, guild wars showed how it can be done in a better way.

I'm a nerd when it comes to video games, I like the lore and farming rare gear/items. Simple gameplay doesn't mean the game is boring or bad. I think Nintendo and games from the late 80's and 90's are proof of that. Sure gaming has changed and gameplay nowadays is 100 times more complex, but simpler games are still a ton of fun.

Mogul wrote:Not exactly hate, it's just easy for me to challenge the nearly universal claim that Diablo has "great gameplay." When I think of great gameplay, I think of the Quake games, Mario games, and in the RPG genre, games like WoW and SWTOR take the cake with their wonderfully visceral and complex combat systems. Diablo? ...click click click click.... Is that great gameplay? What is so great about Diablo?

I have mentioned the things I think are cool/good/addictive about Diablo. But I don't think they should be confused with gameplay. Is Diablo REALLY that fun to Diablo fans? I just want to know why.

Armchair game design is one of my things.

edit: in before H4H4 V1RGEN ALERT!!!!!!!

Quake: shoot things in front of you. Mario: jump.

Diablo is so good because despite the simplicity, the execution is pretty flawless on all counts. I think it is similar to Quake in that regard. Neither game is amazing in terms of complexity compared to the games we see today like Mass Effect, but the experience they provide is no less amazing because of it. Just like Quake, the best part of Diablo is playing with friends and when you throw in the random nature of the game it becomes endlessly replayable. There's just something really satisfying about building up a character with your friends that can lay waste to hordes on enemies with a few clicks of pretty spells.

Then there's the PvP aspect that requires some serious skill and intimate knowledge of the game.