Quote fromObvious troll is obvious.
Seriously though, not all companies are evil, not all companies want to drain your wallet to suck the life out of the economy.
How many of you went to Blizzcon? Hmm? How many of you paid for the DirectTV package? Those are optional buys that are based on disposable income. Nobody's forcing you to buy anything from Blizzard. Think as a conscious consumer.
Now, that being said, I'm sure they have a rough deadline for when they want the new Diablo game released, but what sets Blizzard apart from EA, Take Two, Sony, Bethesda, and Microsoft Games is that they don't release a game until they are satisfied with it, release dates be damned. That's why Starcraft: Ghost became vaporware. They weren't satisfied where it was going (after having devoted a lot of financial and labor assets into the production of the game) and dropped the game. If they had any other mindset, we'd see a shitty version of the game out right now.
So please, take all of your "Evil Corperate America" propaganda elsewhere. Take Economics 101 to learn how businesses work, and please stop degrading these forums.
The developers at Blizzard may not be corrupt but Blizzard is certainly run and owned by a corporation that is no different from EA or any of those companies you listed. The developers don't have ultimate control over the release of the game. I'm sure as GAMERS, the Blizzard devs would love to see Diablo 3 out before Cataclysm, but it's the higher-ups that are calling the shots, and they need to keep WoW marketable since it has been the most economically successful franchise for the company. Even though the games all have separate teams, there are developers that work in between the teams, and resources that are divided differently. I'm sure once SC2 and Cataclysm are out, any leftover work on D3 will wrap up quickly because they can push all their resources into it. I certainly don't think it's the actual developers that couldn't release a completely polished game by holidays 2010, but the higher-ups didn't provide them the resources or the deadline for it.
1
Seriously though. From everything I've seen thus far in Diablo 3, we'll see a broader scope of things in a single act, and much of that will stem from, what I believe, to be a change in pace. We're now traveling across Sanctuary, perhaps across several specific locations in a single Act. That will definitely keep me interested.
1
8600GT isn't that good of a card currently, you can pick up a 250 card pretty cheap these days, and those have some power behind them.
1
1
And now, without further ado....
[spoil]
[/spoil]
1
1
And yet... it really was only about two and a half months of work because of the Warcraft III security breach.... oh wait... lets throw out that because it doesn't fit your point.
1
2) To satisfy the player-base that has consistently questioned the release of the 1.13 patch, despite the numerous posts by the Community Manager on the reason for the delays, Blizzard opened the beta for 1.13 with what they've accomplished thus far.
3) This amalgamation of random fixes was completed by a small development team that has tirelessly worked on content spanning two legacy games. This development team could be used elsewhere, but Blizzard has its fans in mind, and thusly has worked to repolish the Diablo II game for its fanbase.
4) In this author's honest opinion, instead of complaining on how much Blizzard sucks, one should be thankful that Blizzard has not forgotten its Legacy titles like so many other companies have before it, and anticipate the upcoming changes that will inevitably occur. These initial changes are just the stepping stones for what will come.
1
Actually, that is false. Baishok has already implied that these are just preliminary changes to test. This was to satisfy everyone who has complained in one form or fashion about the length of time between the initial post about 1.13 and now.
1
For now, you should "equip" that one signature =D
1
The whole point of this thread is to discuss how it won't be (or for you to prove me wrong). I will be using logic and citations to prove my case. Please be mature and discuss rationally.
We've seen several archetypes thus far in what Blizzard has released:
~Barbarian - Sword and Shield type pure Melee warrior
~Witch Doctor - Enemy Manipulation, Damage over Time, and minion creator
~Wizard - Pure caster
~Monk - Speed Powerhouse
And Damage Archetypes being;
~Pure Strong Melee (Barbarian)
~Disease and Fire (Witch Doctor)
~Lightning, Arcane, Cold (Wizard)
~Holy and Fast, Weaker Melee (Monk)
Now, if you've seen any of the gameplay footage, we all know that each class can hold its own in both short and long range battles. Even the Barbarian uses Ground Slam and Leap Attack, and the Wizard uses something similar to Arcane Explosion.
Barbarian Gameplay Video
Witch Doctor Gameplay Video
Wizard Gameplay Video
Monk Gameplay Video
Being that each class is capable of decimating its opponent at all ranges, we can safely assume that the last class will be able to do that very same thing. Based on this strand of logic, the last class cannot be a pure ranged class.
Now, someone had pointed out to me earlier that a short bow was shown as a dropped item in the Barbarian gameplay trailer at around 3:55. That is an excellent counterpoint, but the only issue is that the game has evolved quite a bit since then. To illustrate my point, I challenge you to find a Staff, some type of Claw-type weapon, or a wizard's orb in any of the previous videos, before the class was announced. I watched each video closely and didn't find it at all. Why? The game has changed tremendously.
So, now that I've finally laid my claim, I challenge you all to an honest debate as to why I'm wrong.