yeah.. its been a long time since StarCraft.. but there is alternatives to SC but Diablo is kind of a unique game..scem0 said:All I have to say is that it better be after StarCraft II....
thats great news.. at least they work on it..Anarchy99 said:a few months back PC Gamer had a small article that diablo3 was being developed but it had no real info on it just that after WoW was released and such they would announce it as under development
The general game concepts might be pretty close, but if you'd played both games you would know that the gameplay isn't even similar.Jigglelicious said:World of Warcraft is basically like Diablo anyway (level up, get equipment, mindlessly kill monsters), so why not just play that?
So, bugger all chance of you are looking forward to Halo 2 then?benpatient said:Blizzard is in no danger of "going under."
The difference between Splinter Cell and the average FPS is no more than going to the console and typing "behindview_1" and hitting return.
It's the same thing. And they suck on consoles. The last truly "fun" console shooter game was, goldeneye. and even that was awkward because you don't have a mouse.
Even the most adept, die-hard console gamers look like mediocre PC gamers when they're playing something like Splinter Cell or GTA or Halo.
If you've played any of these games on both console and PC, then you know what I mean. Let's put it this way: Blizzard currently has two projects, one is a pay-to-play subscription, and the other is a console that should, at the very least, be on a PC because it has a first or third-person element and it's a shooting game. No, it's not Unreal Tournament, but it IS similar to Thief or Splinter Cell or Hitman. All of these games had PC and console versions, and the console versions were shadows...even splinter cell. Blurry doesn't impress me. and I'm not ever going to pay by the month for a game that I purchased in a store up front. Never. I know lots of people do, but I think they should stop, and we wouldn't have to deal with this foolishness anymore.
So, from a guy who has the following Blizzard titles proudly displayed on a shelf above his computer: Warcraft, Warcraft2, Warcraft Battlechest, Warcraft 3+expansion pack, Diablo, Diablo2+expansion pack, and Starcraft+Broodwar, let me say this...Most Blizzard fans want the next great RTS fantasy game. They do NOT want splinter cell. They do NOT want Everquest. They want Starcraft 2. They want a fresh approach to Diablo on par with the Warcraft III reinvention. They want what they've been buying by the tens of millions of copies for the last 10 years. I've got no doubts that SC:Ghost will be a fine game. But I won't play it. And I'm sure WoW will do well, but I'm not spending 200 dollars a year on ONE game, because there is literally NO way that it will be to me what the original Starcraft was to me in terms of joyful gameplay. And I paid 30 bucks for Starcraft.
I know this was a rant. But someone had to say it.
Back near the release of Diablo II, Blizzard bought out and brought in-house the porting shop that they were contracting to do the Mac ports of their games. Now all of the people responsible for the Mac versions of their games also work on the PC versions of their games, so they get extra hands and parallel development of the Mac & PC versions of their games -- a win for them (debugging on different platforms often exposes bugs uncaught on the other) and a win for the fans (we get the Mac versions the same day instead of months later).toughboy said:Blizzard seems to be a small company since they only work on 1 or 2 games at one time.. but how can they be mac competable being that small?.. any subsidies or something else???