Zelaron Gaming Forum - The Third Game in the Game Series Formerly Known as Diablo

Page 2 of 2

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Zelaron Gaming Forum (http://zelaron.com/forum/index.php)

- Diablo III (http://zelaron.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=392)

- - The Third Game in the Game Series Formerly Known as Diablo (http://zelaron.com/forum/showthread.php?t=46251)

!King_Amazon!

2008-07-02 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WetWired (Post 643216)

I'm sure you can still make a p2p connection with your friends without going through battle.net and play for free if they require payment for battle.net. If nothing else, I'm sure it'll have a LAN multiplayer option and people will use a virtual LAN program.

Actually, you're right. If battle.net requires payment, Blizzard will lose a bunch of money because people will do multiplayer by virtual LAN and won't need a unique CD key.

Unlikely. While that sounds good as far as being able to play multiplayer, an economy would not exist, and getting really good items would be a lot harder than if you were on battle.net.

WetWired

2008-07-02 09:50 AM

Not really, since you could just hack them into your save file.

!King_Amazon!

2008-07-02 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WetWired (Post 643223)

Not really, since you could just hack them into your save file.

By that logic, people wouldn't be playing battle.net right now. They could play LAN multiplayer and have the best items in the game.

NonGayMan

2008-07-03 08:42 AM

Sounds reasonable. I highly doubt it'll be P2P either. The game isn't a MMO, and there are a lot of kids who I bet can't afford WoW that will play Diablo 3.

Asamin

2008-07-03 04:09 PM

Plus, they can ask for money to put those adds on top of the battle.net thing.

PureRebel

2008-07-04 04:44 AM

just from the video previes and the gameplay video's im keen to get back in. altho it looks alot like diablo II the new animations i saw for some of the barbarian skills are kickass.

Asamin

2008-07-04 07:43 AM

I didn't like the new whirlwind. It didn't look as awesome as the dII one.

!King_Amazon!

2008-07-04 11:34 AM

It looked more realistic in my opinion.

Draco2003

2008-07-04 08:03 PM

I only ever did the first, maybe second, quest in Diablo 1 for Playstation. It was alright, but, to me at least, it was one of those "I got a friend or two, so let's get to slaying shit" type games. It reminded me of Gauntlet (Which, at the time before I knew better, I thought it was a new-age Gauntlet). I only made a character on the second one on PC, but never got to actually play it. I guess it just never interested me...

With that said, I think I may get this one. Is there anything I will be missing from the first two, or can I just jump right in? I thought it was like Final Fantasy with the sequels never being the same story line, but apparently I was wrong.

As far as the paying to play shit, if I have to pay to play, I am definately not getting it. It looks hella good, though. And it seems as though many of the members here have something to be excited about again.

!King_Amazon!

2008-07-05 01:09 AM

Play the first two.

The Playstation version of Diablo 1 sucked balls. The only reason to get it is for the story shit that's included on the CD.

badboy

2008-07-05 02:16 AM

So by yall's logic paying to play hurts a game. So how did WoW become so popular?

quikspy67

2008-07-05 05:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NonGayMan (Post 643331)

Sounds reasonable. I highly doubt it'll be P2P either. The game isn't a MMO, and there are a lot of kids who I bet can't afford WoW that will play Diablo 3.

You took the words right out of my mouth.

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:25 AM.

Page 2 of 2

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page