Rumor: Diablo 3 Announcement Coming Next Month (Update: Blizzard Responds)
Update: "We definitely appreciate that the community has a lot of interest in seeing the Diablo series continue, and we certainly share that desire," a Blizzard representative told Shacknews when reached for comment.
"For now, though, our focus remains on StarCraft II and Wrath of the Lich King. I'm afraid I don't have any new plans to announce at this time."
Original Story: Rumors are running rampant that Blizzard Entertainment may officially reveal its action-RPG sequel Diablo 3 next month.
The first solid evidence for Diablo 3 popped up in 2006. Since then, the World of Warcraft developer has unveiled StarCraft II, announced the WoW expansion Wrath of the Lich King, and mentioned a "Next-Gen MMO" that is not a WoW expansion.
Now, PC Gamer magazine has teased that its next issue--due around June 30--will feature a "top-secret cover story so huge we had to go to [CENSORED] to get it," and fansite Blizzplanet has responded with the following points to back speculation that the timing and phrasing suggests Diablo 3:
- Blizzard held a press event at its studio in early May.
- Blizzard is holding its 2008 Worldwide Invitational from June 28-29.
- Diablo II shipped in North America on June 29, 2000.
- Diablo II: Lord of Destruction shipped in Europe on June 29, 2001.
- StarCraft II was announced at last year's Worldwide Invitational.
The site further speculates that the "[CENSORED]" in PC Gamer's tease could be substituted with "hell," a likely Diablo reference. Then again, it could be replaced with anything from "Mars" to "The Mystical Island of Glitter Unicorns" and still make sense.
Shacknews has contacted Blizzard Entertainment for comment and will update with any further relevant information.
-
FiReaNG3L
replyI just hope its not a MMORPG
-
-
-
-
Are you ok with the "kill X monsters" quests if they lead into dungeons? Like "Oh hey, while you're down there scooping up loot in the Pisswell of Unremembered Suffering, could you put the screws to a dozen Hellweevils for me? They, like, killed my family or something. Look I just hate them, and please kill them, I'll give you 100... er, 28... no, shit. My daughter. I'll give you my daughter."
-
Nah, there's no need for kill x mob type quests in Action RPGs. Neither Diablo 2 nor Titan Quest needed them, and both were lots of fun. Semi-meaningful quests like in Diablo 2, where most of them actively pushed the storyline or gave you a decent reward are all that is needed, along with the general gameplay of killing infinite amounts of bad guys.
-
What if it was phrased differently. To use Diablo 2 as a direct example, when you're in the jungle act you have a very plot-centric quest to go build up the mace and then smash something with it. What if during that time there was a fella in town who offered X gold and XP for intact pygmy scalps? Would that feel contrived as well?
I'm actually kind of in agreement with you, I'm just looking at all the angles.-
To me it would. Generally, you can accomplish the same thing just by saying (ala Diablo 2), "Go kill Nilathak". You inevitibly kill dozens of mobs on the way there, but it feels better to me to phrase it that way, without artificial restrictions of killing at least x of one particular type of mob. The net result is the same, for the most part, but I'd much rather be told to kill boss-type mobs like the Council or to retrieve artifacts, and enjoy the inevitible slaughter along the way.
-
-
-
-
I agree. MMO quests suck. Kill or collect X of Y, FedEx and Run across the World for 2 hours for your next leg of this quest chain are stupid.
All of the 'quests' that were in Diablo 2 were superb and totally supported the feel of the game. "Kill all the monsters in the Den of Evil" Not "Kill 10 imps in the Den of Evil" not "Collect 10 imp spears from the Den of Evil" Kill everything in there - in a game where monsters don't respawn that actually means something.
Almost all the other quests were to kill a boss, or to build a weapon to progress, and that involved scouring an area, killing everything in there to do it.
-
-
If it is going to be an MMO, I'd like it to be free, ala Guild Wars.
-
To expand, I am a fucking HUGE Diablo fan. It's easily my favorite Blizzard series and even more, my favorite PC game (Diablo II, but D1 is practically tied). I've long debated whether or not I'd purchase D3 if it was an MMO, and the answer is, yes - but I probably wouldn't play it for long.
I simply don't like getting tied up in MMOs. It's way too big of a commitment for me. When I sign on to pay a certain amount per month (and I realize you can cancel at any time), I feel like that I have to be playing that game because I'm continually paying for it. Plus, I'm more of a single-player guy, and so hate getting bogged down in quests that require 30+ other players; hell, I don't even want to team with 2-3 other players IF I don't feel like it. But some MMO quests require that you do that.
Basically, I just want Diablo 3 to follow the same model as Diablo 2: give it a strong storyline that you don't necessarily have to pay attention to (I did, but some of my friends could've cared less; they just like leveling and gathering loot; and that's fine), and give the game a strong multiplayer component. I played D2 online, but nowhere near as much as I did solo. -
I would love this. Questing is instanced, while cities, stores, auctions, etc. are global.
-
I have always felt Guild Wars was Diablo 3 in a way. In fact weren't a lot of the big names at ArenaNet the main people behind Diablo 2?
-
ArenaNet people were mostly responsible for battle.net, not Diablo 2. And GW is nothing like Diablo. The combat model is pure MMO, where you're fighting 1, 2, or *maybe* 3 mobs at a time at most, and toggling various skills while watching the cooldown timers instead of spamming attacks like crazy. Gear is almost irrelevant in GW compared to its importance in Diablo. You had a dedicated healing class. It is impossible to solo most of the game. You essentially have every skill for your class available to you, instead of being forced to min/max your skill tree.
I picked it up on release hoping it would be Diablo 2.5, and instead got a watered down MMO :(-
You don't have every skill for your class available to you because out of the hundred plus that any character has, you get to choose eight of them. When you group, you have to decide what eight works best with the eight your teammates have. Many talk about how it's similar to choosing your deck carefully in a card game like Magic the Gathering.
I do agree that GW is nothing like D2, but let's not shit all over the solid game that GW actually is.
-
-
-
-
I completely agree. I hope Blizzard realizes that while WOW prints money, there is an untapped market of cheap bastards like myself who won't buy a game that has a monthly fee, even if it is "optional"(Hellgate).
I realize, of course, that the fee is peanuts compared to say eating fast food twice in a month, but I can't get past the principle of the thing, so sue me.
I played the hell out of Diablo 1 and Diablo 2, so I would be all over this. -
[deleted]
-
-
-
i love and miss that. what a great coop experience.
WoW, for all it entertains me, is a hugeass failure when it comes to coop. I find its scatter-shot of quests non-conducive to playing coop (THIS way, no THAT way!) People disband the moment you finish whatever task it was because its just too obnoxious to try and do more.
My coop experience in WoW boils down to a handful of group quests, end-game BGing and text-chat with friends. I'm a casual player so the 1-70 game is actually the most entertaining part for me, but i feel mildly punished and strained to try and play 1-70 cooperatively with a friend for more than a few days, where as Diablo was non-stop fun.
Then we get into dungeons. God, i hope you don't like killing shit, because if you do, you'll be waiting and waiting and fighting for a spot. Otherwise, have fun NOT killing things, but at least you can refill bars and take a long time to die?
Diablo was a fucking blast in a party and it didn't matter what anyone played. PLEASE KEEP THIS Blizzard!-
I find it really odd that, given the massive success of Diablo 2, no company (Flagship Studios and HG:L notwithstanding) has put out an MMO that focuses on raw slaughter of dozens of enemies per minute, instead of spending 20 seconds beating on every trash mob that crosses your path. Seems like an obvious way to stand out from the crowded MMO field. How fucking incredible would it be to have an over-the-shoulder view of a frozen orb blasting through 7, 8, 9 enemies at once, spinning and shooting off ice shards as it goes?
-
-
[deleted]
-
-
-
-
[deleted]
-
What else could they do to the title to make it compelling? I don't need to run through randomly generated dungeons anymore.
-
i hope not as well. true they would be digging into their own market with warcraft, but i could see them doing it because this game won't be out for years after all. My biggest concern with the idea of it switching to an MMO is not getting to enjoy it like the first two diablos. I mean hell if i really wanted to i could kill every last creature in Diablo II BY MYSELF! and thats a big deal. I like WoW and all, have been playing since launch but never have the time or drive to see the big end content in it. If I have to get a group together to kill diablo i'm going to be angered.
-
Eventually people will get tired of WoW and transitioning them to something like Diablo3 could be on Blizzard's mind. I didn't play WoW, but it was just because the warcraft universe doesn't interest me much. Do a WoW-like game with Diablo3 and I'd have a hard time saying no.
-
-
I hope it's a pure MMO dungeon crawler. Hardly any mmo has captured the feeling of you & friends going deeper into the unknown.
If it's like diablo 2 I'll cry some. Awesome game play but they completely kicked the dungeon crawling aspect of the original Diablo to the curb and shit on it. Yeah you went underground but it was nowheres as epic as Diablo.-
[deleted]
-
Ya i think you nailed it regarding why i preferred diablo1 over 2. There was something so incredibly thrilling going deeper and deeper and you just knew that every time you want down some more you'd come across even scarier shit. But you'd keep pushing and pushing because it was exciting as hell and there was an even greater chance of finding some sort of sword that would make your current one look like a piece of shit. God i loved diablo1.
-
The Bastard Sword of the Heavens! +15 to all stats!.
Combine that with thw strongest piece of armour of each class with 'of the Heavens' enchantments and you were like a fucking tank.
Even then though, the damn succubus bitches in the deepest levels were a pain in the ass
-
-
I agree. Diablo 2 was a fantastic game but it didnt have the same feeling of cold dread as you worked your way deeper into the catacombs of the Horadric Monastery, edging closer and closer to the imprisoned Lord of Terror.
That was fuckign epic, you actually felt like you were accomplishign something, and when you did it with a friend, one a sorcerer and one a warrior, it was even better. The warrior acted as the tank blocking up doors and shit while the sorcerer just unleashed uber pwnage with the firewall.
There was just something about Diablo 1 that was absolute evil, macabre and terrifying that Diablo 2 never managed to replicate.
But saying that I did play Diablo a lot more, just cos it was so much fucking bigger and epic on Battlenet with three or four mates. Wez the Druid ftmfw!-
I did play Diablo 2* a lot more
-
-
-
[deleted]
-
-
There is no rule the Diablo 2 gameplay can't be turned into an MMO. Not all MMOs are Evercrack copies...
