I think your making it a bit more negitive then it should be.

It's not like we're never disappointed with something about a game we know we love.

Vager

Well, the difference is, you guys will have to make Fallout 3 better than perfect with the new engine to not get torn up by legions of rabid fanboys, whereas the Bliz fanboys are probably thrilled that they didn't mess with the formula of the originals, instead just bringing them forward into the current generation. I for one am way more excited for D3 then I ever thought I could have been before seeing the gameplay video.

By the way, I still believe you guys can make Fallout 3 a great game. Just you got a longer climb for completely changing it from earlier Fallouts.

Karlott

I totally disagree with this guy on the subject of StarCraft II.

First of all, it is a sequel to a very successful game. Any notion of radically re-inventing the game at this point would be a huge mistake. If you want to make something totally new, do so - just don't go calling it StarCraft II.

Secondly, Blizzard have actually been quite radical in the few areas they could - specifically the strategic choices are massively different in StarCraft II. It's not as if they've just renamed a few units - only someone who doesn't play StarCraft would think that. All the old strategies are now out the window, with units that can teleport, jump over high terrain, jump up cliffs etc. So frankly, Blizzard have been creative and radical where it counts, while keeping the overall visual design and user interface familiar enough to satisfy the huge number of fans worldwide.

Sounds like this guy doesn't understand StarCraft.

kiigan

Bethesda should take an example of Blizzard of taking an old succesfull formula, renew and add features and turn into a "fun, addictive and polished" game, that also doesn't require the latest hardware, instead of screwing over everyone that liked the original Fallout 1 & 2 and turn it into some action-based Oblivion with guns that tries to please the HD console audience.

Bluetribal

I'm rather glad to see Blizzard sticking to its roots with follow up Starcraft and Diablo games coming out in the future. I am a die hard Fallout fan owning Fallout 1, 2, and even tactics. I don't believe that Bethesda should be giving negative vibes to Blizzard just because they want to keep the franchises to same formula.

I have been a fan of The Elder Scrolls series since Daggerfall but seeing Fallout 3 from time to time gives me that taste that its an elder scrolls game with a fallout polish. The two franchises are separate entity's and I would much rather have them apart than alike.

I'm not saying that Fallout 3 will be a Post=Apocalypse Oblivion but rather it in some ways it lost it's originality and in some ways it's self being manifested in this new form we see it as now.

I have high hopes for Fallout 3, Diablo 3, and Starcraft 2. I just don't like seeing Blizzard talked down for keeping some things the same and adding new things.

Stevetrop

As for Starcraft 2 being conservative - you don't really want a war with South Korea due to messing that one up, don't you? ;-)

El-Suave

was this post sarcastic? is ashcraft such a blizzard fanboy that merely stating that your dissappointed with a single quality of a game admist a plethora of praise is something he thinks distasteful? if intended to be sarcastic im having a hard time picking it up. and if not? then id suggest ashcraft embrace skepticism a little more as its intrinsic to the field of journalism.

iao_

Oh man, am I glad that I didn't have a mouth full of coffee when I saw that picture. Otherwise, my office computer would be a pretty nasty sight by now...

Logician

At least he apologizes when he makes a comment that could upset people unlike *some* other developers. It softens the the sting.

Anyway, I am optistic towards Blizzard's future releases. Diablo 3 and Starcraft 2 both look pretty good right now. I just wish they would decide on what is actually going on in SC2 since the gameplay and balance has apparantly changed a ridiculous amount since they first revealed it a year ago.

Diablo 3 is looking pretty good so far. I never played a Diablo game before, so I had no preconcieved notions about what it should be like, but I am CRAVING for a loot game.

Too bad Blizzard's development cycle is so long that we probably won't see either of these games until 2009 at the earliest.

That doesn't mean we still can't hope for a 2008 release though. Then again, SC2 looked pretty much done a year ago with all the polish that had been put into the demo, same with D3, byt Blizzard likes to take their sweet time. It's not like they need to crunch with the amount of money they make off their games, especially the cash cow that is WoW. I mean, what other developer is pulling in millions each month, consistently, for years on end (like 4 now?)

Anyway that's all I have to say except that all the Blizzard Diablo 3 and Starcraft 2 naysayers should just shut up. They are going to get the game anyway and it will be balanced out eventually with patches.

CarbonFalcon

@CrimsonAngel: Or they can just admit that it doesn't matter who makes FO3, and that the game turned out perfect in every way, the fan boys would still bitch and compare it to a game that has become impossibly prefect in their minds.

Thorax

so, since they make a gazillion dollars on world of warcarft, it would be funny if they just decided "you know what? fuck you fuckers. you ungrateful assholes. you've been doing nothing but bitching "when's diablo 3 coming out? why won't you guys make diablo 3? make diablo 3! whhaaaaaaaa!!! for at least 5 years, and now that we've said "Hey! guess what? we're making diablo 3! we've been doing it for the last 4 years! sneaky aren't we? =D" now it's all petitions and bitching! well ya know what? we changed our minds. NO DIABLO 3 FOR YOU! EVAAAARRRR!!! EAT IT BITCHES!!"

srsly, despite looking forward to diablo 3, i think it would be funny as hell. OR..OR!! OR! OR! EVEN BETTER! they log everyone who's bitching about it now, and such and they're not allowed to play it.....evar. they can send space marines to make sure...not like we're doing much space exploration/war currently that would require their services >.>

demonknightinuyasha

There are three kinds of people:

- The ones that think everything should stay the exact same and any changes will disrupt the essence of the game
- The ones that think there should be a big evolution with each iteration and that the game should be original and innovative

- ...and the people who have to put up with them.

Ashurahori

You guys should like totally credit the original site for finding it instead of "Big Download" or whatever.

Not that I really care that much.

SolInvictus

Oh, right:

+ Watch video

Erwin

Blizzard can't make anything new and it's EXACTLY why they stay in business.

...and you wonder why I'm not part of this industry.

Mavwick

@CrimsonAngel: How are they fucking up Fallouts source material? People need to take off those rose tinted glasses, FO3 has nowhere to go but up.

SkutSkut

Dammit Joey, er Ash, why do you have to play it so harsh? Be more considerate. I don't want to see Dawson's crying face in another Kotaku post.

Erwin

While I believe his point is fair, I think he needs to consider his own advice as well. Instead of taking any risks with the Fallout series, Bethesda is just remaking it in the image of The Elder Scrolls. Sure, it will probably turn out to be quite fun, but it's still quite a conservative decision with the game design.

Nirolak

I don't know, Brian, the post seems almost completely positive except for that one line. And it's not even really that negative; just one viewpoint.

I think Blizzard and Bethesda are going to get along aaallllll right.

Neo Deus

Haha that picture is hilarious, silly James Van Der Beek.

D-Sovereignty

thats a fare comment I mean its not like Blizz has really done anything revolutionary with their games. They have 3 great franchise but they always take the safe road with them.

taftsearlobe33

i am dissapointed with blizzards' decision as well. why would they make starcraft 2 an isometric top-down game in this day and age. i know they want to 'stay true to the fans' but this seems like such a cop out...(dude, check it out! starcraft 2! it's sooo awesome, oh wait i'm just playing starcraft with the graphics turned up...my bad)

TheGuzzleMunch

@.endejas.: Nevermind, other people have shown me how to be negative.

Praise to ye, anal commentors!

.endejas.

Could be worse...at least Blizzard aren't turning Diablo III into a First Person Shooter.

Finklestone

Damn you bashcraft! Now we don't know how to react.. He's disappointed with the game premises, yet still praises Blizzard!

I am so lost!

!!!

.endejas.

Blizzard FTW!!! I guess they have their own motives to stay with the "conservative" side

McFazo

So for some, Diablo 3 is too different, for others, Diablo 3 is too samey.

...for me, Diablo 3 is juuuuuuuust right. =D

Ashurahori

<3 Blizzard too... WTB Diablo 3, Starcraft 2...

And... Chrono Trigger :/.

NuZZ

Now Blizzard could do more, but at least they are not fucking over the source material like Bethesda is doing with fallout.

Maybe that is why people want the Blizzard games and the Fallout fans are planing to fire bomb Bethesda studios.

CrimsonAngel

The homoerotic fascination with the Beeks is apparent.

i'm looking at you brian.

Azures

I'd have to disagree with him. I'd say that Valve is top of the class when it comes to game development. Their Cabal system is brilliant. Blizzard would come after them.

Atheist Jew

@Ashurahori: Yeah the screenshots and videos looked just fine to me. Some people will complain about anything I think.

Ajh

@TheGuzzleMunch: Same thing with Diablo 3

garytek

Obligatory "If it aint broke, don't fix it."

Blizzard has this formula down. All they do is improve upon their games, Blizzard is incapable of doing wrong.

argh

Oi. This is the kind of thing that makes it so damn hard to completely trust Bethesda's handling of the franchise.
I've never understood why they insisted on calling their game Fallout 3 after making such major breaks from the gameplay and original setting, for the same reason both of Blizzard's new titles are receiving almost disgusting amounts anticipation: one is not a true sequel, the other two are, from basic mechanics on up.
It's not too late to make a second game yourself Beth...

cynopt

Dude the guy had one sentence where he gave his honest to god opinion on what HE think of Diablo III and Starcraft II. An opinion that is obviously highly subjective and some people share. He says the game will probably be fun and polished and said that Blizzard is always good. Is he supposed to be beyond hyped no matter what he really thinks?

Cartman86

BTW funny note: one of the main designers behind Fallout 1 & 2, Leonard Boyarsky, is now actually working on Diablo 3.
Here's an interesting interview with him about his part on the project:
[pc.gamespy.com]

Bluetribal

I feel like it's a philosophical difference, between franchising and iteration. Fallout has already had some questionable chapters, mostly on the console, and as much as I love Fallout Tactics it really did make me want a new Fallout. I'm pretty sure people will still play an isometric RTS in this day and age, ditto with isometric action/rpg. Is what makes a good game rapid innovation and wholesale changes from previous chapters, or polish and deep, refined gameplay? It also makes me think of TF2, it was the same kind of game as TFC, but took drastic chances in gameplay and presentation. I'd like to think good games are good, and Blizzard has a reputation for great games.

periodical

It's Ashley Cheng, not what you have there.

Briosafreak

@Azures: "The homoerotic fascination with the Beeks is apparent.
i'm looking at you brian."

...says the guy using a pet name. :P

Antiterra

The clan castes that have sprung up around these games scares me a little. I can understand the desire not to have your "good name" besmirched by interlopers, but it's not even your name.
I live with a guy who refuses to acknowledge Fallout 3 unless you specifically clarify it as "Betheseda's Fallout 3". But to me it just feels like those football fans who say "We beat them". No, you didn't. The team on the field beat them. Not you. You are an insignificant worm who had so little impact on the outcome that apart from consuming oxygen in the vincinity, the world would not even notice your passing waste of skin and bone.
Did Episodes 1-3 make you stop liking A New Hope? Did your hatred for World of Warcraft make you stop enjoying WC3? Did you stop liking the Lord of the Rings books because the films weren't what you expected? Because if so, you need to examine that shallow little pool of self that you inhabit and learn to dissociate.

Starcraft 2, I will pick up because I'm hankering for a good strategy game and I imagine the Red Alert 3 formula will be beginning to drain me a bit by then. Diablo 3, I will get to see what the fuss is all about. Fallout 3, I will get because I'm curious to see my flatmate's reactions to it and I know there's no way in hell he'll buy it.
Also Blizzard-Valve as a combined force would be a delicious development. Automatic WoW patching...World of Team Fortess...I need a towel...

Mattz

While I do see Chung's point about blizzard's recent games being "safe" (and I was hoping that the most recent announcement would be a new IP), I don't think it's a valid knock against blizzard.

This is going to sound very fanboyish but blizzard's games are near-perfect. Having new units and new graphics will be refreshing and will stir-up the gameplay but like all blizzard's real-time strategy games, the balance will be excellent (I think we can give blizzard the benefit of the doubt at this point).

Compare starcraft II to say C&C3: both games are new versions of influential RTS games. C&C 3 seems to have more newer features that changes the game. Not only do you have new units but you also have an entirely new faction. Yet at the end of the day, playing C&C3 online was horrible: the game was unbalanced to the point where the only viable strategy was scorpion tank spamming. Yet starcraft's II innovations however small they seem, instead of resulting in a loss of strategy like C&C3's should introduce some new tactics along side traditional starcraft tactics such as zerg-rushing, the marine medic combo and harassing overlords with protos corsairs. Again I am giving blizzard the benefit of the doubt but I think they have proven themselves worthy of it: just look at how they scrap certain new "features" such as the protos mothership's black-hole in the name of balance. Seeing blizzard do something new would be great and they are capable of doing so (look at the intorduction of hero units in wc3 or simply making wow) but when you iterate on something as good as starcraft, you can't really go wrong. Introducing something "new" for the sake of it being "new" is more of an EA or ubisoft tactic, since anything new can be branded as a selling-point on the back of the box.

Morgoth

@Mattz: "But to me it just feels like those football fans who say "We beat them". No, you didn't."

It reminds me of a Bill Maher routine: "I love guys who get so excited when their team wins. 'We won! We won!' Nooo, you didn't. Ten Black guys who would hate your guts if they knew you won."

But yeah, you make a very good point, Mattz. While it's true that games wouldn't amount to much without the people who buy them, it always bugs when the self-styled "true fans" claim to assert some sort of ownership over a franchise.

When you have a particularly dedicated fanbase, I imagine that, as a developer, it must be delicate to strike a balance between what the public expects and what you want to push in the game.
"Dedicated" has a nasty habit of turning into "rabid", with disquieting ease.

Antiterra

@CarbonFalcon:
I'm afraid I don't agree. I'd rather he hit hard, and stuck to his guns than write 'touchy feely' statements to lessen the blow.

Otherwise, it stinks of trying to complain without appearing the bad guy.

Grow some stones, say what you mean I say. There's altogether too much mutual backslapping as it is. :)

Shockeh

@CrimsonAngel: Fire bomb? You mean we weren't pooling our resources to get a nuke?

@SkutSkut: Recently replaying Fallout 1 and 2 made me realize what horrendous games they were. I mean, isometric turn based with a good amount of strategy that amounts to a completely enjoyable yet not too fast-paced event? And the writing, that excellent writing combined with humour? Absolutely terrible. Every game should feature characters speaking at most 2 lines with very little actual content, so as not to detract from the action. After all, writing is so last-gen, to make a next-gen game, you need to create a graphically excellent game that has no polish or notable lines.

Sarcasm, people, sarcasm.

@Thorax: The game wasn't perfect by a long stretch, however, it was a lot more interesting than anything made by Bethesda. Their entire formula is based on first person action, not isometric turn based strategy. They're turning one of the best RPG titles of the 90s that is remembered and revered today into a first person action game that won't be remembered 5 years down the track.

In short, Bethesda is making Oblivion-With-Guns, a full priced mod.

Evangel

but Blizzard always wins that's why they get thrown so much crap.

Arthois

I agree with him, what's the point in having Starcraft 2 being Starcraft 1.5 and Diablo 3 being Diablo 2++.

Blizzard Games might be "perfect" at the time of release, but guess what? games improved over time, and if you had to play starcraft for the first time today you might find the gameplay clunky and lacking the intricate elements that make a great RTS by today's standard

But I guess this isn't blizzard fault as much as it's the fanboy's for b****** about every change they make, so what they added an overpowered space station for the protoss, but balancing the game is what the beta is for :D. And nyway you know they are going to bring it back in the expansions so you might as well get used to it already

Ragarnok

Well, of course Blizzard can't "win" when all they're doing is milking WoW and making sequels. That's not what a brave, wonderful studio does. They're in it for the money, or at least that's what their recent actions have told us.

Some of us gamers like to think that we care about the medium. Some of us even like to sometimes pretend that the studios do, too. Blizzard, in announcing their lineup of games including nothing fucking new, is basically directly saying to gamers "You and the whole damn medium can all go to hell, but only after giving us another $100 plus $15 per month, hulol!"

All the talk of "incentive" is just another way of talking about "how much money Blizzard can scrape from a given action," which is a concern that we gamers would like to see a studio with eight hundred million trillion of our goddamn dollars push to the background just a little bit every now and then. Just because there are plenty of business-based reasons not to do so doesn't even approach making it wrong. On the contrary, I'd say acting against the raw desire for "MOAR MONEYZZZZZZ X™"* has a tendency to make your action closer to right.

* - That X is flaming and screams in with slashy-ching metal noises to make it more EXTRUUUUUUM. For the kids.

Kainy

It doesn't seem to be in Blizzard's best interests to create a new MMO from one of their existing IPs. Reason being is that they would end up competing with themselves -- they already have the lion's share of (paying) MMO players in the world, creating something like World of Diablo or World of Starcraft would end up primarily stealing customers from themselves.

Since it turned out that the Diablo announcement was not an MMO, I would not personally expect that the unannounced MMO would be from a fully-developed IP. It just doesn't seem like a strategic move. I'd anticipate something of a slightly different monetization plan -- micropayments or a scaled subscription. Something that will pull those not entirely comfortable with a flat per-month subscription into the fold.

As for Ash's remarks, there's something to be said about treading fearlessly into the night. A great many of us loved Fallout and Fallout 2, to take it towards Oblivion for the third installment is a risky move (though things have been looking very good on that project). But not everything merits going off in a new direction.

Look at Hellgate. That's what happened when Diablo veterans tried to reinvent that genre. It's done well, but it has not been such a ground shattering success as Diablo was. There's little incentive for Blizzard to try to re-innovate for innovation's sake, because what they've presented in the first two installments still rates among the best loved of all PC game play.

eakolb

Uhm, Fallouts combat is kinda shit, especially with it being so slow and especially with 10+ characters to run through turns at a time.

But whatever I'm not going to argue with monkies about a game that's not out yet.

SkutSkut

I think over 11,000 signatures gives an idea of just how many people are disapointed they are with the game.

It would be nice to see the people who are first to buy these games having some say over how the game is developed

MikoKeZ

Agree there's nothing negative in those comments, really. Even if there were, Bethesda's uber-generic "bland is a style" art dept. would have no place criticizing Blizzard's art design; as for the game design, by "conservative" I'm guessing the guy means "not 1st-person POV" which I applaud Diablo 3 and Blizzard for -- I don't want a 1st-person Diablo, nor a 1st-person Fallout. In fact, I very much wish Blizzard was developing Fallout 3 -- they'd be a better pick.

That said, cool as Diablo 3 looks, I actually agree with the "rainbow petition," poorly written as it is. The altered screenshots illustrate the point they're making well. Nothing I'm going to boycott the game over, but Blizzard would be wise to hammer out a more gothic, Diablo-esque style/mood and steer away from the cartoony WoW-ness.

burko

dude the guy shares my thought. Im ecstatic that sc2 and d3 are finally coming out. Im happy that the way they present it is nostalgic, but at the same time a bit disappointed since I wanted them to do something different.

And as everyone says, but hey! Its Blizzard. You can't go wrong

Leepox

Other than one line, Cheng seemed to really have nothing but good things to say about Blizzard.

I'm looking forward to both games really. I've never played the Fallout games before so I can't really comment on the changes made but I played both Diablos almost religiously and the third one appears to be just what we want.

The insane backlash both of these companies have been facing from the fanboys shows just how popular these games are. It also shows how ungratefu said fanboys are with their worthless petitions and constant bitching. Wow, you signed an online petition? Good for you. Pat yourself on the back for getting so worked up over a trivial issue while ignoring real-life problems because they don't affect your bubble of an existence. Self-serving bastards.

I've got confidence in Blizzard as they havn't disappointed yet. As for Fallout, well, Bethesda is a kind of hit-or-miss company but I thought Oblivion was fantastic so if they can keep that sort of momentum going I think we'll be fine.

deadjesterx

I hope the new secret cow level is filled with clowns of doom, gnomes, mimes, and ponies.

IroKuMata

The games look awesome, but he has a point. I would have loved to see Blizzard take some risks, but I'm sure I'll be more than happy with both SC2 and D3.

Struct09

yeah... it's a shame that d3 will not be ANOTHER f****** FPS isn't it...

WoW have done good work filling up blizzards' budget, so they can make good games, not piece of sh** overhyped ones.

stopierwszy

By the way, about that rainbow petition.

Load up Diablo 2. Watch the opening cinematic.

In the scene in the cell, have a look at the reflection of the sun coming through the window... it looks kind of like a...

RAINBOW!

cordsie

@Ashurahori: I am pretty sure you hit the nail on the head.

This is just an issue of you can't please everyone. I don't care, it pleases me. Everyone I know is super excited because it looks just as much fun as the original.

SubKamran

I know Diablo 3 will kickass. Fallout 3 ,while I look forward to, has a chance of being bland and boring.

Shinryoma

No biggie. Bethesda just really really hates isometric perspective. It's so last-century.

PositivelyGreg

I reinstalled D2 last night to end this jonesing for Diablo and I have to say D2 looks a lot worse than I recalled it looking. D3 looks incrediable and since I haven't played it I'll refrain from making judgements on the game play like most haters are doing.

Metropolis

@SkutSkut:
My God. "Nowhere to go but up"?! You do realize that FO1 and (to a somewhat lesser extent) FO2 were among the best RPGs (yeah, you know, those things that Bethesda thinks they do well, but don't) ever?

BigWeather

I knew people were going to take the opportunity to bash "Fallout 3" with these comments that were nowhere near negative...Thanks for not disappointing me.

heretrix

The producer of Fallout 3 could learn A LOT from Blizzard about, ummm, I dunno, NOT MESSING WITH AN EXISTING FORMULA.

BigWeather

@burko: At this point they might have only a few areas made for Diablo 3. There were bright areas and dark areas and mystical areas and dark areas and swamps and all in Diablo 2. I think at this point the fanboys are jumping the gun.

Ajh

it's really a matter of perspective.

blizzard works very hard on evolving gameplay mechanics in their series'.

they don't really work on changing the design, because that only guarantees that it will be different, not better.

traced

honestly, WOW is perhaps the greatest RPG ever made. And I'm being serious. To say WOW has Diablo-qualities kinda stings a bit. as Diablo--to me--always felt like Gauntlet's spiritual sequel.

color me UNIMPRESSED with Dialob 3.

rainofwalrus

@Ashurahori: Totally agree. This is the updated experience I was looking for. Not a ginormous overhaul.

kseezy

@MikoKeZ:
"It would be nice to see the people who are first to buy these games having some say over how the game is developed"

I hope this day never comes. If you want some say over how the game is developed then join their team or take on some risk (i.e., invest heavily in them), as any of us players' $60 or 100s of hours playing pale in comparison to the time and money being spent to produce the game.

Our power is in our wallet and what we decide to buy.

BigWeather

@Ashurahori: agreed, though we've really only seen a tiny sliver of the game.

darknessgp

I absolutely loved Diablo 2, but I felt the same thing as Ashley Cheng. The disappointment soon faded when I realized more of the same complaints are like complaining when someone offers you ANOTHER truck full of gold ingot.

M-26-7

Things I don't want:

1) A 3-d WoW like Diablo 3
2) A 3-d Diablo 3 with DMC/NG style fighting (cough Too Human cough)

Thank you Blizzard for not disappointing me.

Gray665

Starcraft is an expertly designed and balanced RTS that even today holds up well against all of the competition. Short of some user interface polish, visual and technical upgrades, an improved online platform, and some improved modding tools, Blizzard would be foolish to try to do much different.

Diablo on the other hand, while fun, really hasn't evolved much at all since the original kicked off the mindless action-RPG clickfest genre about a decade back. The competition continues to offer slight improvements, but it still comes down to a game that is based around a fairly boring mechanic: click a bunch of times while not having to think.

The provided video showed very little for most gamers to be excited about, except the visuals and the promise of another new game from Blizzard. There's so much that could be improved on the Action-RPG, namely adding some action. After games like God of War and Devil May Cry, Diablo's action is pretty dull in comparison. Spamming a few buttons with minimal concern for tactics is what turned most gamers away from Diablo and the many Diablo clones, yet the video shows little other than greatly improved environments with hordes of easy to slaughter enemies with basic AI.

I can't say I share his sentiment that Starcarft 2 is a disappointment, it just polishes an amazing formula and updates where it was needed. Diablo on the other hand, is disappointing in what was shown, but I have some hope that the promises that have already been made by PR and the Lead Designer are that they aren't just going to shovel out Diablo 2.5, and that they know Diablo has a lot of shortcomings that could benefit from significant redesign.

fall

Starcraft shouldn't be changed too much because balance is so important and so fickle in an RTS game. Lose balance, and Starcraft is just another RTS.

Looking at Diablo III, I just wonder why they didn't up the ante on combat and animations. The gameplay I'm sure will be decent, but it looks like a game made 5-10 years ago in terms of combat. You run along and have two different buttons you can hit to attack. No combos, blocking, counters, etc.?

Don't get me wrong, I am stoked about this game. But why doesn't Blizzard try to do a little more with it?

sand0789

What I still don't understand is how lifting the WoW art style for the latest Diablo game can be considered by so many people to be an evolution of the series.

If you ask me, it looks more like laziness. The fact that the inventory and armor so far looks so similar to WoW's is also disappointing but im hoping that is just placeholder stuff for now, and that that will change.

I'll still be getting D 3 most definitely, but i'm not looking for a game that looks to use a modified WoW engine as the foundation for the latest diablo story

As for this article, i think its something more liek developer's envy because he knows Blizzard (for its company name, and product name) have 2 multi-million best sellers in SC 2 and D3 regardless of how much they change things or even update the games.

Collision891

This story should go well for Ashley Cheng, although he really isn't saying anything at all. He thinks that the games look like sequels of the games their based on? Just for the Diablo III detractors what are were you looking for in the sequel? I think the game looks pretty good but I was never a big Diablo player. I thought the controls were a little tough to get into and moved on to the other things. It sounds like they are updating the graphics and refining the control for part III. Sounds like a good deal to me.

Pornosaur

Fallout 3 = innovation... Hopefully PC users will get a mod toolset so I can make myself a cybernetic version of Dogmeat!

Diablo III = more of the same in 3D?

Daigoji Gai

After reading this article, I finally decided to read the rainbow petition and after viewing some of the concept artwork these individuals constructed for the petition, I have to agree that it is too cartoony looking. I signed the petition and it's currently at 13,395 signatures.

I'm not sure if there were any finer details on the petition that I didn't read (I don't really want to be a hypocrite) but art direction redesign or not, I'm still going to pick up and play this game. I would love to have that more mature art direction that's similar to previous games in the series but I won't let it stop me from enjoying one of my favorite game series.

MordecaiX7

I thought Blizzard kept true to roots and what the fans really wanted. WoW is WoW. Diablo is Diablo, 'nuff said.

Para

Hmm, could this be a "response" to this:
[www.destructoid.com]

Phokal

I LOVED Diablo 2, that was of course before 1.10+

If they butcher Diablo 3 the same way, and their current trend with WoW keeps up in the Diablo games (make something fun then nerf into oblivion) ... I will have to honestly pass on it.

EnigmaNemesis

Seems alright to me. The only thing in those trailers I wasn't impressed with was the inventory full of tiny 1x1 icons for each item.

Wolfers

Those who think the color pallete petition for D3 is ridiculous apparently has never really kept up with any Blizzard game before and DEFINITELY has never visited the Battle.net forums.

I know a lot of artists in the industry, being one myself and we've all commented on the overly saturated color pallete for D3. It looks GOOD sure, but there are too many WoW influences in terms of shapes and silohettes, texture style and color as it was brought up before.

Also, Blizzard for the most part, listens to their fans. As mentioned before, there were complaints about SC2's color pallete during the initial announcement, AND they listened to the fans by changing the color pallete. A friend had mentioned that Samwise (one of THE original founders and concept artists for Blizzard, and is now THE art director and mythos/lore writer) had stated that only NOW does SC2 look like Starcraft which was after the change. Blizzard has always been about the fans because they are fans of the stuff they make themselves. I bet you at least 90% of the people there are now just people who've grown up with Blizzard games and now work there.

In any case, art styles for ANYTHING can look good/awesome, but it might not be right for the particular product or art piece.

Kuren

His name's Ashley. Of course he's gonna whine about it.

tuffymcfukelbee

eh, I happen to like D3's art style and such, same with SC2. At least we aren't taking another game (like Oblivion) and fitting another franchise in it's shoes (Fallout 3) and forgoing any of the previous canon.

Sammo21

God forbid anyone should develop a game that is only fun and works well. Apparently if you don't reinvent the wheel and require the latest hardware in order to run the game properly then you have failed as a developer.

Look how well that worked for Crysis.

Slothboy

@Finklestone: 'Twould be why the man is disappointed, no doubt. Not everybody needs to dress their RPG as a first-person shooter to compete these days. ;)

Paladin58

When you're on top like Blizzard happens to be for the moment, everyone is going to take a swing at you.

Halosucks3

Diablo 3? Looks like 2.

I'm more interested in what Sacred 2 will be like. Since going full circle D3 appears to have taken some cues from Sacred 1.

ArcaneDevice

I understand what this guy is saying, but imo Blizzard has been more about refining gameplay conventions, rather than make brand new innovations. That said, when they do make truly innovative products they always deliver.

smuckersisgood

Is it just me, or does it seem like there has been a lot of evolution from what we've seen.

The combat system looks way different - much skill-based and fun, potions aren't the unstoppable force that they once were, the skill system looks different from those gameplay trailer zoom-in screenshots that were going around, and more.

I think everyone sees the isometric view and tons of monsters getting slaughtered and thinks "OMG Diablo II with pretty graphix." To me, it looks like the series is definitely evolving, and for the better.

Whatever, I have to stop reading forums and stuff, cause they make me sick. The game looks awesome.

idkmybffgreg

I actually kind of think it's a really good idea.

Sometimes the best way to reboot is go back to the basics and just make it more slick.

It's definitely a good way to please most of your fanbase, too.

Just think how pissed the core crowd would have been if Bliz had made SCII and DIII truly three-dimensional and truly mucked it up in the process.

They'd rather tackle that bridge much further down the road.

sir_carrot

What kinda asian is named ASHLEY? Sure a white guy I could understand, but ASHLEY? What was his parents thinking?!!

LeLoi

I don't understand people who say that fallout 3 looks like an oblivion mod then defend diablo 3. imo, diablo 3 looks like a diblo 2 mod with high res textures.

ifalldownstairs

@Daigoji Gai: How is Oblivion with guns innovative?
I mean just for starters, Mass Effect is already out.@ifalldownstairs: You said it yourself; Diablo still looks and plays like a Diablo game; the other is called Fallout, but looks and plays like Oblivion with guns.

cynopt

@ifalldownstairs:
Yeah pretty much. Neither D3 or SC2 do anything new besides adding new units and high res textures. They're basically just huge updates and not true sequels considering how little they have in terms of new gameplay. Because you know I LOVE playing the same game I played 10 years ago >_>

For those that don't understand me Blizzard seems to be going this route for SC to SC2:

Doom 2 to Doom 3
instead of
Total Annihilation to Supreme Commander

GreyFoxV1

I kind of see where he's coming from there...I mean, there hasn't really been an overhaul. They ARE kind of playing it safe with both of those titles. Not that it's a bad thing, but in a sense I agree.

ThisCharmingMan

You can only do so much with an isometric view. They need to make it first person, and go the Metroid Prime route.

DO IT BLIZZARD :>

malio

yea, I think after many years with WOW Blizzard is taking the Stalone path and trying to be all nostalgic with old franchises. @cynopt: I don't think the game is just Oblivion with guns, I think that's just an assumption you drew from it because it's made by the same people and retains the first person POV. I will admit that I'm not pumped for Fallout 3... but that team certainly has put out some great games in the past.

tehflyingwombat

@Halosucks3:

Truly. Thus the satire of your monicker, right?

Bungie got ripped to no end for supposedly playing it conservative with Halo 3 by vocal and pervasive commenters, so why were people so soft on Starcraft and Diablo III for seeming playing it even safer?

DARTH_TIGRIS

@Ashcraft:

"Blizzard cannot win, like never ever ever."

At least their employees can all afford to dry each and every tear they shed over it with a brand new $1000 bill, right before it becomes kindling to the most expensive bonfire since the one they had yesterday.

You know... for fun.

stranger

What is he talking about??? If Blizzard knows anything right, then it's certainly not to improve their Sequels for the worse.

Seriously, I LOVE Blizzard. They know how to produce games that simply are fun, take fan-oppinions into consideration (at least the majority), and polish their games HARD!

D3 and SC2 are going to be great as hell!

Mlata

So Bethesda is suggesting that Blizzard evacuate its bowels all over its source IP for no particular reason?

This is new and surprising (heavy sarcasm).

FellTheDabus

Wow. We have so many fans bashing Blizzard for, as they say, "being too similar to Wow", now here's one high-profile fan who's complaining that Diablo III isn't enough like WoW.

Blizzard can never, never win. Except when it's laughing its way to the bank along with Nintendo, that is.

GhostWhoWalks

@tehflyingwombat: FO3 is an FPSRPG with a shooting system that's keyed off of player stats and built using the Gamebryo engine; short of putting in orcs and elves with shotguns it couldn't be more like Oblivion, with guns.
You're right that it will probably be good in and of itself, I'm hoping so as well considering I've preordered the collector's edition, but it's still going to be Oblivion with a Fallout themed re-skin and added shooting mechanics.

cynopt

"Its easily one of my favorite RPGs."

*Rolls eyes*

MoaM

Um, doesn't anyone remember the epic failure that was Starcraft: Ghost? Blizzard DID try to get its SC universe expanded into a different genre, and in this case, it went horribly. I had the misfortune of playing a demo of it a Gencon a couple years back, and it was heartbreaking, to say the least.
Point is, no one in their right mind, after seeing how an offshoot of the series translated, would dare to jeopardize the main series by "innovating" and being "trendy", which some people have apparently associated with "being good."
Also, I don't wish to say that Fallout is going to fail by any means. There are plenty of good genre-crossovers. But it's not hard to see why Blizzard decided to go the route it did, changing things up for fun, and not for popular trends' sake.

AntiheroKing