Following the massive Diablo III reveal over the weekend, Blizzard's COO hasn't ruled out the game coming to console.
Of course he didn't say we would see the game on 360 or PS3 either. "I don't know yet," Sams told The Guardian. "A lot of it depends on whether we think the gameplay experience will be the same on console, especially regarding the controls. Also I'd like to keep our audience together.
"One question mark I have is whether the console owners would allow PC players to play against console gamers. I think the answer gets a lot easier if the console owners say yes. But at the moment they do like to have closed systems. But you know, I think what it really it comes down to is the game itself. We want to deliver what is the best experience possible so the controls and everything else have to be perfect.
"When you are developing for multiple platforms you sometimes have to compromise. We aren't willing to compromise. We have relationships with all the console manufacturers. I know they would love to have us on their platforms, ideally on their own and not their competitor! But it's all about the game experience." Go on Microsoft, dig deeper!
Sams also says that the Activision deal won't have any impact on the developer in terms of seeing more Blizzard games on consoles. "Just because we are merging with Activision doesn't mean you will start seeing Blizzard console games. You will if it is the right case for the game but that ultimately depends on the game we are making at the time."
I wasn't aware of console gamers liking to be isolated from PC players. Im perfectly happy to play games online with and against those playing on PC via my consoles, and vice versa. Unless he's referring here to console manufacturers, in which case I have to say: Shadowrun. Sure, the game was pretty pap, but at least you could play console vs PC with it.
And, going back a little further, Dreamcast Quake 3 arena..
I think they could do console ports of Diablo 3 and still keep the gameplay experience the same, though. They ported Diablo to the PS1, and I thoroughly enjoyed it; the more direct control system worked fine (just like the controls for the console Baldurs Gate series and its ilk) and the two-player splitscreen made it a joy to do multiplayer. I loved it, and I'd love to see the same with Diablo 3.
I wasn't aware of console gamers liking to be isolated from PC players. Im perfectly happy to play games online with and against those playing on PC via my consoles, and vice versa. Unless he's referring here to console manufacturers, in which case I have to say: Shadowrun. Sure, the game was pretty pap, but at least you could play console vs PC with it.
I suspect he is - I would LOVE cross platform support. Hell, I wouldn't even say no to 360/PS3 cross platform (though hoo wee would there be some lively debates). The more players the better as far as I'm concerned.
The more players the better as far as I'm concerned.
Never a truer word was said.
Rubbish. 'More players the better' is the mentality Nintendo have pimped recently resulting in this shift of focus to the casual market and a belief that even hardcore games need to be dumbed down.
As for Diablo 3, console gamers are welcome to it! Generic fantasy RPG hack-n-slash auto attack clickclickclickclickclick F**K OFF!
The more players the better as far as I'm concerned.
Never a truer word was said.
Rubbish. 'More players the better' is the mentality Nintendo have pimped recently resulting in this shift of focus to the casual market and a belief that even hardcore games need to be dumbed down.
Hardly. For a start, the PC version of CoD4 had more players able to play on the same map, so it's not just Nintendo apparently.
And what's wrong with wanting a bigger pool of opponents to play against? I'm tired of going online with some games (especially those that have online achievements) and being unable to find opponents.
As for Diablo 3, console gamers are welcome to it! Generic fantasy RPG hack-n-slash auto attack clickclickclickclickclick F**K OFF!
I look forward to playing the gaming innovation you've been working on soon.
I only own a 360 out of the current generation of consoles. But I'd definitely snap up Diablo 3 on it if it were to be released. I loved Diablo II on my PC back in the day, and looking at some of the gameplay videos of the third game, it could easily work with a control pad!
The more players the better as far as I'm concerned.
Never a truer word was said.
Rubbish. 'More players the better' is the mentality Nintendo have pimped recently resulting in this shift of focus to the casual market and a belief that even hardcore games need to be dumbed down.
As for Diablo 3, console gamers are welcome to it! Generic fantasy RPG hack-n-slash auto attack clickclickclickclickclick F**K OFF!
I am totally with you on that count. Consoles have far superior hack and slashers. God of War, Ninja Gaiden, Devil May Cry....
The term 'hack & slash' can be used for a lot of games, for pure action games like the ones you mention and for action RPG's (itemhunt, classes, randomised stuff, you know the drill).
I am glad they are not thinking about a DIII port for the moment, crossplatform play for Xbox360 would require that Blizzard implements Live which is just an abomination compared to Battle.net (and to pretty much any other free matchmaking service on PC). It might be better for the PS3 since that's more open but only if it doesn't compromise the options of the PC version.
Okay, fair point. I just prefer my games a little more tactile. The demo I saw looked like someone repeatedly pressing the attack button.
They obviously wanted to keep the same feel, hence minimal noticeable differences. But c'mon, it's been years since the last one is this really about as far as this series can go?
Any other sequel would get ripped a new one if it was so stuck in the past.
Okay, fair point. I just prefer my games a little more tactile. The demo I saw looked like someone repeatedly pressing the attack button.
They obviously wanted to keep the same feel, hence minimal noticeable differences. But c'mon, it's been years since the last one is this really about as far as this series can go?
Any other sequel would get ripped a new one if it was so stuck in the past.
Yep, that's the biggest problem. The gameplay mechanics are totally obsolete - relics from an era when that was the best compromise given the technology. It's the equivalent of makng a sequel to one of those old text-based speccy games (where everything was just text "You are in a room, there is a table in the corner" etc) and keeping it text-based. By modern standards, that gameplay is diabolical, if you'll excuse the pun (and if you won't, you can f**k off). The same principle applies here.
Okay, fair point. I just prefer my games a little more tactile. The demo I saw looked like someone repeatedly pressing the attack button.
They obviously wanted to keep the same feel, hence minimal noticeable differences. But c'mon, it's been years since the last one is this really about as far as this series can go?
Any other sequel would get ripped a new one if it was so stuck in the past.
Yep, that's the biggest problem. The gameplay mechanics are totally obsolete - relics from an era when that was the best compromise given the technology. It's the equivalent of makng a sequel to one of those old text-based speccy games (where everything was just text "You are in a room, there is a table in the corner" etc) and keeping it text-based. By modern standards, that gameplay is diabolical, if you'll excuse the pun (and if you won't, you can f**k off). The same principle applies here.
But you have to accept that you are basing your opinion on a brief video, having no real experience or details of the game itself. There may be many 'innovations' behind the scenes (i.e. with the control interface) that are not immediately obvious from that vid.
While I strongly suspect your points about tired gameplay are likely correct, wait and see what it's like before writing it off completely.
Okay, fair point. I just prefer my games a little more tactile. The demo I saw looked like someone repeatedly pressing the attack button.
They obviously wanted to keep the same feel, hence minimal noticeable differences. But c'mon, it's been years since the last one is this really about as far as this series can go?
Any other sequel would get ripped a new one if it was so stuck in the past.
If a demo of an FPS is shown then it looks like someone is repeatedly pressing the shoot button. Just saying that the isometric view plus clickspam defines the action RPG genre, it's as basic as the first person view and aiming for FPS's. If you don't like it, then stick to other genres.
The things they've already announced and have shown of DIII look very promising and not 'old' by any stretch, at least not in comparison with the previous games in the franchise. They're trying something new with the health system, the action is a lot more intense and so well animated, there are gonna be a lot less passive skills and they are even upping the randomisation by adding random mini-quests, what's not to like if you enjoy playing these kind of games? And then they're not even telling us everything yet.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court, 30 Monmouth Street, Bath, UK BA1 2BW England and Wales company registration number 2008885
Just saying that the isometric view plus clickspam defines the action RPG genre, it's as basic as the first person view and aiming for FPS's. If you don't like it, then stick to other genres.
