Diablo II: Lord of Destruction

Blazemonger writes "There's a story from IGN on Yahoo! talking about Blizzard recruiting for the upcoming expansion beta test. " I just filled out my form - have you? And I'd just like to reiterate my willingness to beta-test. Blizzard. I'm willing. So's CowboyNeal.

Comments

Re:Would have been great in 1998

[Chris Burke]

Because Nethack is several orders of magnitude more complex than diablo? And there would be a ridiculous number of graphics to make?

And what's this fascination with 3D? An isomorphic view is much better for a game like this, where it is important to be able to see all around you. With a fixed view, you might as well make it 2d, since then you can make the graphics as detailed/pretty as you want.

Re:I wonder

[Chris Burke]

It's not a very honest question when you imply a hypocrisy exists without any substantiation. Especially since there is no way anyone here actually knows.

From my limited personal experience, I'd say that few people who believe video games should be less violent actually buy violent video games. The mentality seems to be "I don't like violent video games, so neither should you." Though I won't say this is a general rule.

Waitaminute!

[GypC]

Everytime we see a post from Taco that contains a link to a QuickTime video we hear him whining "Of course, it doesn't work in Linux so I can't see it." Yet, whenever there's an article about Diablo Taco is right there chiming in "Oh I can't wait. Oh Diablo2 is great, I can't stop playing."

I can't believe I just noticed this... I just lost about a metric ton of respect for CmdrTaco. Not because he uses Windows (hell, I still play Baldur's Gate), but because he pretends he doesn't when he feels like sounding righteous.

Yes I know this was posted by Hemos, but just do a /. search for Diablo and you'll see what I mean about CmdrTaco.

This is not meant to be flamebait or a troll... just the truth. If I'm wrong please correct me.

Re:Waitaminute!

[Erasmus Darwin]

Everytime we see a post from Taco that contains a link to a QuickTime video we hear him whining "Of course, it doesn't work in Linux so I can't see it."

I can think of a number of reasons why the two situations are slightly different:

Reboot Time Overhead
In a dual-boot situation, it's not hard to see the difference between rebooting for several hours of game play versus rebooting just to view a 5 minute video clip. In the later case, the hassle of rebooting is a disproportionately large portion of the entire task.

Gaming Precludes Multitasking
Most games tend to suck most-to-all of your attention. While you may have peaks and lulls in the Diablo excitement level, you generally have to actively control your character for even the mundane task of travelling through completely purged levels (assuming they haven't added an autowalk feature to Diablo II). With a video clip, on the other hand, (especially if it's a talk, lecture, or a similar thing where the visual contents consist of long periods of pictures of J. Random Person just moving his/her mouth and occasionally gesturing), it's generally possible to get other tasks done. Depending on what those other tasks are, you may feel less than fully productive when working from a Windows box (especially if you don't use Windows often enough to justify going through the trouble of installing all the Unix-like utilities and tools for Windows that you can get your hands on).

Games -> Code, Video -> Information
I understand the technological and economic reasons that prevent Linux versions of most games -- the games are generally non-free (in both beer and speech), porting takes work, work generally takes money (due to the non-free factor), and that money generally needs to be recouped by selling copies of the port. While, ideally, I wouldn't complain if a game company were to start releasing all the games for free (either one), I would have to question their business sense. (Apologies for any inaccuracies in the following; I'm not well-versed in most of the video details.) With video, on the other hand, the people providing it are generally doing so in a "come one, come all, see our video clip" information provider manner. There are ways they can avoid making their information unviewable to a certain minority of computer users. However, due to ignorance, laziness, or any of a number of other possible factors, they've failed in part of their "information provider" role.

Re:I'm glad...

[An Ominous Coward]

Or complain about QuickTime movies because he "can't watch them" without a Linux player.

Re:Would have been great in 1998

[NMerriam]

I would fall asleep playing, wake up, and play some more.

Ha, that's so funny and true its sad. Its also part, I think, of why it's getting harder to sell games to adults. I know I still love video games, but I just can't justify spending 40 hours a week playing/learning them (or god forbid 120 hours like I used to). Today's games all brag about how they have "80 hours of play time" -- well, damn that pretty much guarantees I won't play it because I know going in I don't have that much time to spend.

I played Diablo 2 for a week straight, every night, then thankfully I forgot the disk at my brother-in-law's house and haven't played since. I remember having a great deal of fun playing, yet somehow my life does not feel less full since I stopped.

It's nice to play a good RTS or something every now and then, because you can play for just an hour (or three) and stop without having just "one more level"...

---------------------------------------------

Timezones - Read the FAQ

[Kris Warkentin]

The main purpose of the public beta is to stress test their servers. Therefore they want people in more or less the same timezone so that they will mostly come on during the same general window.

*sing* I'm a karma whore and I'm okay....
I work all night and I post all day

Would have been great in 1998

[Markvs]

The problem remains, though, that D2 is simply behind the times. I played D2 and was, well, bored. The game's graphics and interface is dated, and even the storyline is kind of dull.

There's only so much you can do with a "click mouse until you kill it" game. Yes, it is better in multiplayer mode, and yes there are lots of improvements over D1, but it took so long to come out that it just can't compare to other games, such as Unreal. Heck, even Acheron's Call is close, and it has a much bigger (and more interesting) scope and multiplayer functionality.

Just my $0.02.

Re:Would have been great in 1998

[Kintanon]

Ahh, so what you are saying is that since this isn't the type of game that you personally enjoy it is automatically dated and boring? Gee, and all this time I had no idea that you were the sole arbiter of game quality on the planet. Remind me to look you up next time I'm going to make a game purchase so I can make sure it lives up to your standards....

The fact that you don't like it doesn't automatically make it a bad game.

Kintanon
Incidentally, I signed up for the Beta about 20 minutes after signups opened. Beating out both Hemos AND neal.

Re:Would have been great in 1998

[Kintanon]

Except that I wasn't looking for RPG or Hack and Slash, I was looking for something with a continuous gamestate that could be played on a 6-8 person LAN that would be enjoyed by all of my friends who have quite diverse taste in gameing. D2 has filled that need quite nicely and now we can all stay up until all hours of the night playing it.
And just because something dosn't match your criteria doesn't make it a bad game. I dislike Starcraft quite a bit, but I still recognize that fact that it's a good game for people that like that sort of thing.

Kintanon

Re:Would have been great in 1998

[FortKnox]

I'm just going to post to the parent to support it.
I agree with the idea behind what you are saying. But graphics aren't what makes this game dull. Heck, I still play systemshock2 religiously (if you haven't played it yet, go grab youself a copy! Its only like $9.99, and it is more than worth it!). The reason the game is dull is because its just go around and kill stuff. Yeah... collect armor and gain levels... but is this really that interesting? Where's the strategy? There is very little.
Lets look at counterstrike. It was extremely popular, because it required more than just 13373 FR4GG1NG SK1LLZ. It required thought and strategy. Then, just before version 1.0, they decided to make it more like a quake game and make it easier to frag and required less thought. What happened? It died... quickly.
Lets look at Tribes (and the new Tribes2). Sold out instantly. Why? Because this game *requires* teamwork and strategy. Time and time again, I could round up a band of 6 guys that weren't good at fragging, but knew how to work together, and annilate a team of 8 deulers (excellent one-on-one'ers) that wouldn't work together.
D2, also, makes the person that takes too much time (plays all day for about 6 months), and makes him a god that can't be beat. This is a cheap way to keep players. It makes you want to play more and more so that you are unbeatable. Then when a newbie comes along they are crushed.
I think games should reward the person with the best strategy. That way you learn strategies the more you play, and they better you will be.
Would you rather play a game where you have to spend months of 24-7 playing to be the best, or days of thinking to be better, and always have a challenge? If you answered the former, then you'll be in for a great wakeup when you have to work all day.

Re:Would have been great in 1998

[Psmylie]

I really yearn for the days (pre-girlfriend and pre-career) when I could take the time to actually beat a game, let alone multiple times. Heck, when I was a teen, I would fall asleep playing, wake up, and play some more.

Seems kinda pathetic when I think about it, but DAMN I miss that!

Re:Would have been great in 1998

[UltraBot2K1]

The problem remains, though, that D2 is simply behind the times. I played D2 and was, well, bored. The game's graphics and interface is dated, and even the storyline is kind of dull.

Would you care to explain to me how old game=boring game?

Just because a game doesn't have a flashy shiny interface that requires a Geforce2 to run, doesn't make it any less enjoyable. Have you ever played Tetris? It is so simplistic, it can be coded to run on a Texas Instruments calculator, and yet it is one of the most popular games in history. People have been playing chess for hundereds of years without any major improvements to the game. Does that make chess "boring"?

Just because a game doesn't use millions of polygons and fancy lighting and texture effects, doesn't make it a bad game. Period.

What about Ireland?

[rde]

I signed up for the D2 beta first time around, and lo, fun was had. So I rushed (metaphorically, of course) over to the signup, and... the dropdown for country of residence includes only the US and Canada. Okay, I was born in Toronto, but I live inDublin. Whassup? Obviously I'm not going to refer to blizzard as bastards; after all, they gave use not only Diablo 1&2 and Starcraft, but I don't want to compromise may slight chance of getting a beta again.
But I'm worried.
My windows box exists only for Diablo 2; if Bill is reading this, he should note that if I don't get a beta, Microsoft lose a toehold in another house. Not that I'm trying to apply pressure, you lovely blizzard people.

Rant

[chabotc]

I'm sorry but i have to include this rant in the discussion.

WHY do game publishers hate europe? Every time a beta cycle is started, you have to be located in the US of A (and sometimes canada) to be able to apply. Do these people think we can download? We don't buy games? (asia + europe buys more games combined then the US).

It so pisses me off to see all these US centric game companies, as if we dont make up a large percentage of their profits.

I gues it's not bad enough we get the games weeks behind the US, we can't apply for beta programs either. Is this some f**king 3rd word country or something?!

Sorry had to do that .. man US based companies can piss me off :)

-- Chris Chabot
"I dont suffer from insanity, i enjoy every minute of it!"

Re:Rant

[Temporal]

Other than the costs involved in shipping, which others have pointed out, there is also the time zone difference. Blizzard may want to do a server load test from 7 to 10 PM their time, which is perfectly reasonable for most people in the western hemisphere. However, that would be (depending on where you live) about 3 to 6 AM your time. Maybe you are willing to do that, but probably not. At least, you probably wouldn't be able to do it as often as they want you to.

------

Re:Rant

[zoomba]

I do not believe that companies are out to screw over their customers on the other side of the pond.

Keep in mind that a majority of game developers are based in the US. Since Blizzard only wants to do a limited test of the expansion, it makes sense that they limit it to the continent they are based on. International shipping costs are an unnecesary expense for a beta test.

As for getting games weeks behind the US... that's also because a majority of game companies, publishers, and distributors are based in the US. When they decide to ship, they want there game out there ASAP, and the US is the easiest maket to hit first.

I understand your frustration at having to wait for everything and not being eligable for most betas, but look at it as a logistical situation... it doesn't make sense for companies to do an international beta test. Lionhead did an extensive amount of beta testing for B&W (though sometimes I wonder about that...) in England, their home country... Why wasn't there a beta test in the US? Because it would be stupid to spend all that money on shipping when they have a cheaper solution.

It's not always about us Americans getting all the breaks.

-Z

Re:I wonder

[ender-]

Hee... I just got this image of Strom Thurmand staring at a computer screen, shouting "Yes! I just got Corpse Explosion!"

Oh gee thanks! Now I have to pick all these FruitLoops out of my keyboard!

I don't have moderator points so I just gotta say +5Funny... that made my day. :^)

Ender

Wrong

[GoofyBoy]

>The problem remains, though, that D2 is simply behind the times.

Diablo2 sold over a million copies. There are 50K players over 3 contenets playing. Behind the times? A good game doesn't have to be bleeding edge.

>but it took so long to come out that it just can't compare to other games, such as Unreal.

Unreal and Diablo2 are two totally different genres of games and you can't compare.

>Heck, even Acheron's Call is close, and it has a much bigger (and more interesting) scope and multiplayer functionality.

But you have to pay $10/month for Asheron's Call. Thats totally different.

Incorrect on many accounts

[Illserve]

Actually the gameplay of Diablo is one of the best things about it. Their interface is decent and intuitive. It's much less dull than many games because you often have to judge when to use this power or that power, and often do so creatively. Two characters of the same class could have completely different styles.

CS is not dead. It has not died, it is not dieing. I have no idea where you got that bit of info. Maybe it's wishful thinking on your part. I still played after 1.0 (on hiatus now because of T2) and it was still the same basic game and still very fun.

About Tribes... funny that very few of the people online actually use teamwork. No, T1 did well because it was nicely positioned and an excellent break from the standard FPS games. T2 is selling out because it is a sequel. Never underestimate the selling power of a sequel. Do you think B&W would be doing this well without Peter's name being dropped?

Re:Incorrect on many accounts

[Illserve]

I didn't notice much of a drop in 1.0. But more significantly, I didn't notice much of a change in gameplay. It still plays much the same way, and teamwork is crucial.

In Tribes, while I understand that teamwork helps alot, alot of people still don't do it. Also, there's an enormous rambo factor, a single player can be very hard to stop if he's skilled. Therefore, I'm not sure that teamwork is the primary appeal of the game. At least, not anymore, maybe it was.

T2 is a different animal so far, let's hope it keeps going.

As for Diablo 2, I don't know if you played it much, but the same class can have completely different spell sets. There are at least 2 paths of advancement for most of the classes.

Diablo Beta Testing

[Necroman]

Most people (me, myself, and I) are fans of Blizzard, and enjoy their games. And I think it is great that Blizzard does beta testings for their games, even if it is for them to stress test their servers, it opens it up to the public before it actually goes gold.

Here is the problem I have with it. I beta tests Diablo 2 before its release. It spoils your enjoyment of the game. It's great and being able to play a game before anyone else, but when you play a game that is well (I think) for online play, and you are playing with suck a limited crowd in a beta, you will get burned out. As I did, when playing D2 beta, I played it so much, that when it came out, and I got a the final release of the game, I was already burned out. There was no enjoyment really left.

Well, so I regestered for beta testing again, shoot me. I just love being able to say, "Ya, I am a beta tester, eat it!".

Its not what it is, its something else.

Re:Diablo Beta Testing

[n3rd]

Here is the problem I have with it. I beta tests Diablo 2 before its release. It spoils your enjoyment of the game. It's great and being able to play a game before anyone else, but when you play a game that is well (I think) for online play, and you are playing with suck a limited crowd in a beta, you will get burned out. As I did, when playing D2 beta, I played it so much, that when it came out, and I got a the final release of the game, I was already burned out. There was no enjoyment really left.

So who's problem was this? Blizzard's for having a public beta test? Blizzard's for making a really fun game? Yours for signing up? Or yours for sitting at your computer for hours playing it?

If you truly want what you say you do (to be able to play it after its official release and enjoy it), perhaps you should exercise some self restraint and wait until it comes out rather than being a beta tester just for bragging rights as you said in your last paragraph.

Re:Whoo hoo!

[Kintanon]

How odd, and here I've been playing D2 on the 1.05 patch for the last couple of months and haven't come across a single bug, nor anything that remotely resembles one, unless you count the blood golem/iron maiden combo a bug....

Kintanon

Re:Whoopee

[diabolus_in_america]

The Slashdot tag line(s) is this: "News for Nerds. Stuff that matters." That tag encompasses more than just Linux. If all you want is Linux news, there are a multitude of sites for you. And while I admit Slashdot has and always will have decidedly pro-Linux leanings("Debian is Jesus," CmdrTaco once said), there is much more to Slashdot than Linux. Here's just a few of the topics that bring me here many, many times a day. Space news. Movies. Science. Ask Slashdot. And yes, even video game news, such as the Diablo II beta. That's news for nerds. And that is stuff that matters.

Re:I wonder

[Psmylie]

Hee... I just got this image of Strom Thurmand staring at a computer screen, shouting "Yes! I just got Corpse Explosion!"

Of Diablo...

[yoshi_mon]

When Diablo originally came out I spent many an hour hacking and slashing away. It was frustrating at times having to run all over that stupid little town but the overall fun factor was there.

With the introduction of Diablo II, the hack and slash fun I remember in the original was back but it seemed that it was just more of the same. Granted, longer and with more characters and game play options but still I felt as if I could have reinstalled Diablo and gotten the same feeling.

The main and most glaring reason for this was Blizzards decision to leave the screen size at 640x480. While they did introduce some new graphical options with their 3d support, Blizzard has always been about eye candy and quality game play. While they at least hit for par in the game play area they sliced hard and lost their balls in the rough when it came to the eye candy.

To rant some more, I'm not sure what demographics they were studying when they picked out 640x480 as being the ONLY resolution for one of their hallmark games. The web has been standard at 800x600 (if not already at 1024x768) for a few years now. Some users might still run 640x480, but I doubt that if that was the case that they could even meet the min system requirements for DII let alone run it at enjoyably.

Bottom line, I played DII a bit, but after a while I just felt like I was back in the late 90's and better games were calling. Unless Blizzard fixes that my opinion will remain the same.


p.s. And for you hardcore linux geeks. Get over the fact that some ppl run Winbloz to play games.

Re:Whoo hoo!

[Fervent]

Actually, they should just give up and start playing Baldur's Gate.

Diablo's lost its spark

[Fervent]

I don't know about anyone else, but in reading the reviews for Diablo II the series definitely lost its spark. Antiquated graphics, an inept client/server system and more of the same "hack and slash" gameplay caused most reviewers to say "Huh? This is what we were waiting for?"

I say go play Baldur's Gate II for a real RPG experience. The Sims, Unreal Tournament and No One Lives Forever are some other great Windows games.

Re:and when will this be out?

[Sanchi]

Welcome to Blizzard. They dont put out crap for games, they canned Warcraft Adventures. Warcraft 1 and 2, Diablo 1 and 2 Starcraft, and 4 expansions. 9 products and they have been in buiness for 9 years now. That should say something for quality.

Sanchi

Re:and when will this be out?

[Decado]

June or July was the projected release date and all word from blizzard to date indicates that they are running on schedule if not slightly ahead.

Will they even need to reboot?

[update()]

I just filled out my form - have you? And I'd just like to reiterate my willingness to beta-test. Blizzard. I'm willing. So's CowboyNeal.

Uh-huh. Of course, Slashdot editors will continue to conclude any story involving a QuickTime file with a smug, "I just wish they would release it in a format I could actually view."

And you guys wonder why developers aren't falling over each other to release quality Linux games?

Unsettling MOTD at my ISP.

The REAL reasons D2 sucks...

[Kasreyn]

It is actually inferior to the original in many, many ways. Blizzard worked on it for over 3 years and just couldn't get the job done.

The following is a repost from the Diablo Strategy & Tactics forum on battle.net, where I originally posted it to try to explain why I uninstalled D2 two weeks after I wasted my $40 on it.

(repost begins)

...The thing is, D1 was amazing for its time,
whereas D2 is very mediocre for modern times. D1's graphics were
top notch when it came out, and still have a nice feel of gritty
realism D2 lacks. D2's are just: "Oh... Er... Blizzard
obviously felt no need to bring the graphics into the new
millennium. Ok..."

Gameplay? Mostly the same. I suppose this is ok, except for the
insane "no level load" mistake, which hideously punishes
anyone who doesn't have 256 megs of RAM, a T1 connection, and a
hefty dose of blind luck. (Can you say, "Lagcore"? Can
you say, "Waypoint PK'd"? I knew you could!)

Sound? Improved very slightly, I'll admit, though my system,
alas, is sucking too bad to handle it now.

The whole skills thing is cool, and would be amazing if it
weren't so buggy and RIDDLED with apocryphal, inaccurate, and
missing information. Also, the ratio of usable to useless skills
has decreased a LOT since D1. In D1 the only spells I never use
are Inferno, Blood Star, and Bone Spirit; in D2 I can think of 4
or more skills in EVERY class I never use. If there is ever a
JG2, it will be about 100% more different from the D2 manual
than JG was from the D1 manual. Seriously. The only other
drawback is that one must rise to a very high level before the
game actually becomes FUN, in my experience - in that at level
20, if you're playing for power, you probably only have 2 or 3
skills to play with. Yay, now that's excitement.

Playerkilling... don't even get me started. Once again, Blizzard caters to 15 year old punks with bad attitudes by keeping playerkilling in the game. And then they do 10 million "balance" changes, as if pkilling in a fight where whoever sees the other guy first wins, makes any sense. At least they got rid of "ears". =/

The plot is semi-ok, except for the fact that the entire thing
was kept secret for about 3 picoseconds. Hurrah. The trouble
with the multiple towns is that I was unable to ever CARE about
any of them or their people, just as soon as I started to get a
handle on the various townies' characters I was off again, always
to the east...

Plus the tacked-on fourth act and the callous treatment of
Tristram's destruction really left me cold. I think Tristram's
destruction deserved an FMV more than Diablo's meeting with
Marius. I *really* would have enjoyed watching Wirt die.
>:) Of course, the absolute WORST, unforgiveable, thing
about D2's plot is that it trivializes your victory in D1. So
what if you beat Diablo? Your precious character failed in the
end, and so did Tal Rasha, and oh by the way we lied to you about
what the Soulstones are for. So there, nyaah. Gee, thanks
Blizz...

Oh, and the items... lots of good (though highly confusing to
the D1 mind) ideas here. The set items are, I think, one of the
only truly great improvements over D1, but the game does not
allow enough inv/stash space to store set pieces until you find
the rest, so instead you get people using set items like they
would any other rare. Oh well. It might have been nice to have
an extra stash with the general store owner in any town, like
having items "in hock" that you'd have to pay a little
fee to retrieve, but have like 20x20 more storage. Or something.

Add to this the buggy items, the weird items, the dupable (sigh!)
items, and the completely missing items... And the fact that it takes over 200 times the disk space of Diablo 1, for about 2/3 the fun value.

D1 had its
problems, I'll admit. Its buglist is also ridiculously long for
a game that's been patched so many times. But cmon, gimme a
break. I played D2 until I beat it in Open. A week later, it
was off my HD. Diablo 1 has never left. D2 is simply not worthy
as a successor, and if I tried to point to a reason for its
failure, it would be this:

Blizzard tried to do too much, and didn't have enough time or
resources left over to polish and debug. So some areas of it
shine, and the rest suck abominably. Oh, it's a playable game,
but there's no way it's on the level of Diablo. If they had been
a bit less ambitious (ie., if they had managed to put a sock in
their marketing guys before they could promise too much), it
would have been a FAR better game.

... and oh yeah. Serverside SUCKS. I'm amazed they thought it
would work.

(repost ends)

I've been playing D1 for years, and D2 just isn't worthy. The reasons it's more popular than D1 are:

1.) you can run - SERIOUSLY!! I know people who prefer D2 for no more reason than this! However, they fail to remember that there were much smaller distances in D1, and thus no reason to NEED running. Plus, D1 success requires tactical thinking, running (or teleporting) around like a chicken with your head cut off is an excellent way to get mobbed and killed. D2 is completely lacking in tactical or strategic thinking. "Put on magic items. Go click on monsters. WHEEEEEEE!" As a Diablo old timer, Pete, puts it, when there's no challenge then all the game is, is an hours-long mouse test. Have fun left clicking.

2.) It's shiiiiiiiny. Typical "newer must be better" attitude, plus a lot of folks have never tried D1. However, though the graphics may be better, they're not 3 freakin' years better. And the "atmosphere" has been lost... where D1 was gothic and creepy, D2 is cartoonish and dull.

3.) The Diablo patches. Blizzard has deliberately released a "patch" v 1.08, as well as several server patches, in a more or less successful attempt to kill Diablo 1. Before v 1.08 and the server patches, despite the presence of D2, there were usually between 5 and 8 thousand D1 clients online. Now it's a heavy day for D1 when there are 1000 clients on.

I'm sorry to be a wet blanket, but it's just been too many years since I've seen anyone at Buzzard do anything to deserve the great reputation they got off Diablo and WC2.

-Kasreyn

Re:Whoo hoo!

[UltraBot2K1]

Yeah, what kind of a two-bit company would only release a software title for one OS? I don't know who the hell Blizzard thinks they are, but it's high time they stop alienating the dozens of customers who use Linux. Imagine all the money they're losing by only releasing a product that works with 95% of the world's computers. Those silly software designers!