Imagine we told you the story of a game where you hack things up over and over and over and over by clicking the mouse to gain items. These items allow you to go into harder areas of a dungeon and hack things up over and over again. Would you buy into it? Probably not.
Yet Diablo, since its inception, has fascinated gamers with the fundamental goals of hacking and slashing your way to a hellish beast in hopes to hack and slash him as well. It does, however, have a firm storyline which has gotten better with age and usually marvels gamers with graphic advancements set to blow the mind.
Diablo II had some nice graphics, but they were not mind blowing and earth shattering but the game continued to be fun to play. So fun, some gamers continue to play Diablo II even today, grinding out armor and weapons. What’s the fascination?
Blizzard Entertainment seems to be born on the wind of success, each title pulling more gaming headlines than the last. Diablo III has taken over gaming RSS feeds, headline news and has presented itself on social media sites like it was the second coming (perhaps, just the opposite?)
Diablo 3, graphically, and functionally, seems to highly exceed the levels it set with the last two titles. Destructible environments being one of the best additions to the franchise, along with new classes, weapons and enemies.
The core of the game, based on the gameplay footage, is fundamentally the same: beat baddies in excess and capture cool items. Blizzard has mastered the “grind” for items and the repeated quest plots in all of its title, especially World of Warcraft, but they’ve done it in an addicting manner. We know its repeatative yet we desire to continue to play. Work of genius.
How much Diablo 3 can a single person play before growing bored? For most, boredom is quite the opposite of the hack and slash experience, choosing to sit down with their Fritos and Soda and waste away the days.
Microsoft Xbox 360 Outsells PS3 and Wii
Hi guys great episode!
I found Infamous to be a pretty easy game, if they make the third even more so just seems sad. Not a lot of games seem to be as difficult as the old 8-bit games. I do like the paper trail feature Jordan talked about and I know Rockstar has a similar thing though not quite as cool as unlocking more missions through using the website, you can still track your progress of various games on the site.
Hearing Paul spending 200 on in game purchases on a FB game just makes me sad. I know it’s his choice on how to spend his money but a lot of FB games really seem to encourage you to spend real money to get fake in game money just to speed things up and make the game enjoyable. The Foxtrot comic Jonah brought up is a good example of why I don’t like those games. I feel like it’s lazy game making and undeserving of my money. I know they got to make money to pay their bills but I don’t like what they are selling. I guess though if there is a demand for these type of games who am I to judge? I’ll stop beating the dead horse now.
@Occulus bought by FB: When I first heard the news I was like “Why?” I wasn’t the only one scratching my head at this. I really didn’t want to think of Virtual Farmville. I do like the idea though of remote classroom, though I know we already have video chat for that sort of thing. Is anyone going to really want to wear this thing on their head? It’s like a fancier virtual boy.
QOTW: I subscribe to Gameinformer, which can be read online now. It does seem like it’s less and less necessary now though given how easy it is to hear about gaming news.