Review of Diablo 3 by Blizzard Entertainment

Jhaelen · May 24, 2012

I'm definitely enjoying the game. It's plain and simple fun. I definitely plan to play every class to level 60, although considering the rather sharp increase in difficulty in nightmare and hell might mean I'll have to give up earlier since I'm frankly not a very good player.

The online requirement doesn't bother me since I always played Diablo 2 via the Battle-Net as well - even if I was just playing on my own (which I did most of the time).

I'm currently a bit doubtful if I'll still be playing it 10 years from now (which is what I did with Diablo 2), but it will still see sufficient gameplay to be well worth its price. Just playing through Act I took me 9 hours with the first character (reaching level 16). Now, after playing the fourth class I'm down to 5 hours (playing the Barbarian).

The Witch Doctor is actually my favorite class so far, and I'd recommend it as a starting class. Generally, in the beginning the game is easier for ranged characters and the Witch Doctor's pets mean you have a bunch of tanks to keep your enemies away from you. They also get a very powerful Int buff early on, resulting in extremely high dps without requiring good equipment.

After getting used to the game my appreciation for the Monk has increased a lot. It's a markedly different play experience and it feels very cool to dash or teleport from foe to foe killing everything lightning-fast. Killing the Act I boss is also easier with a melee class.

GX.Sigma · May 24, 2012

Li Shenron said:
If I wanted to give a computer game as an example, I would show them one of Baldur's Gate.

You would give Baldur's Gate to a non-D&D player? Are you trying to scare them off?

Li Shenron · May 24, 2012

GX.Sigma said:
You would give Baldur's Gate to a non-D&D player? Are you trying to scare them off?

I think the OP threw that sentence of him (that I quoted) more as a half-joke... but if taken seriously, then D&D is definitely not "like Diablo without the computer". Baldur's Gate is the closest thing, while Diablo is an endless stream of trivial combats, one player character alone against thousands of mostly irrelevant opponents per hour, no environment interaction/exploration, no character interaction, no chance of affecting the storyline, no problem-solving, a very different implementation of resource management, and even character creation is minimal compared to the breadth of design you get in a RPG.

Anyway, I had my fun with both D1 and D2, and I'm sure D3 is even better, but it's nowhere near the experience of a RPG, it's just a very different type of game.

That's my only criticism on this otherwise very nice and useful review, but again the OP probably didn't mean that sentence to be particularly serious.

(Edit: and on the off-topic edge, I didn't want to suggest that Baldur's Gate should be used to attract new players to D&D, but those who loved BG are much more likely to like D&D than those who loved Diablo)

amerigoV · May 24, 2012

GX.Sigma said:
You would give Baldur's Gate to a non-D&D player? Are you trying to scare them off?

I would give them the first Dragon Age game.

avin · May 24, 2012

Diablo 3's story is a huge cliché.

You can see what's gonna happen from miles away. It's like a poorly written fantasy movie.

Well, story was never the greatest strength of Blizzard... after all these years playing Diablo 1, 2, now 3 and World of Warcraft since vanilla I'm comfortable to say that.

On the other hand, Diablo 3 it's a hell of a fun game and, yes, that's a good start to give some newcomer a notion of what's a RPG

Gargoyle · May 24, 2012

This review seems overly critical.

Playing a Diablo game for the story is missing the point. It's possible, but not very likely that you will be satisfied. The vast majority of game time is spent killing thousands of monsters and taking their stuff, not talking or viewing cinematics. I guess my expectations were lower, but I had no problem with it, and thought the cinematics were pleasing and coversations with NPC's in the game entertaining. I didn't expect a masterpiece like I might have from Bioware because story just isn't the focus here.

Piracy is probably the number one reason that online play is required. But it's not greedy to want to make money from the products you create, and it's especially not greedy when a large number of players do enjoy multiplayer.

The fact is, for those of us who enjoy multiplayer, Diablo III takes great advantage of battlenet and makes grouping with your friends easier than any game I've ever played. The auction house is a great new feature, and while the real money AH and PVP is not online yet, I think Battlenet is fine. You have to expect disconnects and additional maintenance with any game that is as popular as Diablo III. Software bugs happen, and it's impossible to accurately predict how much infrastructure they would need on launch day. I have no problem forgiving launch week problems, and in the last few days I've had very few issues with lag, disconnects, or unscheduled maintenance.

As far as gameplay, I like it. The game is simple to get into, yet has some depth once you level up and start acquiring dozens of runes to modify your skills, giving you lots of options to customize how your character plays. It can be a mindless diversion, or it can be an involving game if you push yourself to explore more difficult areas or go into hardcore mode. All the classes are fun IMO.

Dornam · May 24, 2012

For all characters there is a "best" way of speccing for Boss/Grind fights. Most of the skills never see they light of use because others are clearly leaps and bounds better in any and all situations.

So, 5 years of development and balancing and the result is ... this?!

I have the distinct feeling that the reason for not offering PvP Arenas right from the start has something to do with borked balance!

Other than that I must say I enjoy the game but not in the amount I enjoyed D II. All in all D III feels like a dumbed down version of D II so far but maybe this gets better in the higher tiers of play when the AI may make fights more interesting.

Grumpy RPG Reviews · May 24, 2012

avin said:
Diablo 3's story is a huge cliché.

Who is buying this game for the story? As compared to buying it for a grab bag of things, such as a visual feast, a decent story excuse to kill slobbery monsters, and fun game play?

Whizbang Dustyboots · May 24, 2012

Also lacking a good story: Gauntlet and Pac-Man.

Kichwas · May 24, 2012

GX.Sigma said:
Eh, it gets a little better. Much like StarCraft 2, it's a very generic "epic" story that tries to shove production value down your throat as a substitute for good storytelling.

You can kinda say that about almost any computer game (I would say any, from my experience, but among those I've missed is probably the gem).

Those of us who come from RPGs or from reading a lot of fantasy novels can sit down in front of nearly any computer game and realize after a bit that "this is no better than my DM/GM from high school 20 year ago, and he was high half the time and failed lit class."

But that DM/GM didn't have the production values, graphics, voice actors, and pixelated boobies.

I play WoW, my younger brother plays WoW. We're 10 years apart. I grew up reading (we didn't have a TV until I was 8). Read a -LOT- of fantasy, classical lit, and have gone on into political science and reading Asian and African history.

My brother grew up in front of a Nintendo. Read his first book in college. He is a physicist.

I find WoW lore thin and contrived. He finds it amazing and deep. Its not written for me, its written by people of his generation for people of his generation (at least the subset that is more TV/game and less 'read a book'). I looked at D3 (got it free due to WoW sub), and came away thinking it was really not for me either.

Video games are fast supplanting movies and TV as the -primary- form of adult-age (as opposed to adult-themed...) entertainment. The others getting pushed over to the space now filled by 'them book thingies' and radio.

They are gaining in production quality from this as their available budgets get higher. But they're not going to gain in scripting from it - TV has even worse scripting... and worse acting... (watch your average TV show/movie, pick any A through B-list actor, and look through that actor's filmography: 70% odds they've played the same role, with the serial names filed off, for most of their career).
- Which is to say that we can get braced for the stories to get worse, as soon as those Hollywood actors and writers start showing up at game companies with a resume in hand.

TLDR version: Just kinda have to shrug and accept that 'deep soul shattering storyline' isn't their market. I play WoW / Blizzard games to kill elves, and gloss over the text boxes. I'll show up at D&D night to hear the quest text.