DIABLO 3 ANNOUNCED AT WWI

Blizzard announces the highly-anticipated Diablo 3. Thousands of nerds lose control of their bodily functions and nerdgasm. (story)
Popular since:
2008-06-28
Category:
Gaming, PC Games
Digg submission:
[link]
Best thread:
1183 diggs (thread)

Here's an excerpt of the most-dugg comment thread for 2008-06-28 :

869 diggs
Jsoul87 on 2008-06-28 10:36:12
The fact that it's Diablo 3 and not World of Diablo is a huge relief.
  • 108 diggs
    khuongsta on 2008-06-28 10:49:01
    amen... now lets just hope theres no monthly fees of any kind for D3
    • 82 diggs
      kinseyincanada on 2008-06-28 10:53:45
      there is no way they are going to charge for online for this, its Battle.net it has to be free
    • 7 diggs
      mizatt on 2008-06-28 21:20:43
      Honestly, I hope there are. Not as steep as Diablo 3, but if I had a choice between paying a fee for stability or having Diablo 2 era battle.net, I'd pay the fee
    • 0 diggs
      DalamarArgent on 2008-06-28 23:45:36
      @mizatt

      Umm, Diablo 2's Battle.Net was much more stable than WoW.
  • 63 diggs
    medfreak on 2008-06-28 12:50:23
    I hope they preserve a complete stand alone single player experience as well.
    • 25 diggs
      tallassrob on 2008-06-28 13:00:35
      The FAQ on blizzard.com/diablo3 confirms you can still play the game single player.
    • 21 diggs
      estvir on 2008-06-28 13:06:41
      I really can't imagine Blizzard gimping the SP part in anyway like that. Seriously..
    • 5 diggs
      claypool2008 on 2008-06-28 14:10:14
      It's a valid concern I think. Given what the original Blizzard North (now Flagship) did with HG:L (gimping Single Player patches behind the pay-to-play multiplayer stuff).

      Hopefully Blizzard realizes what a trainwreck that turned into for Flagship and doesn't try to create a "revenue mode" that involves holding content and fixes hostage for a monthly fee.
  • 25 diggs
    Sabretou on 2008-06-28 13:21:40
    Yeah well, WarCraft also did with 3 games before an MMORPG. Not suggesting anything here, just saying.
    • 1 diggs
      BestJaxx on 2008-06-28 23:29:19
      They already have a successful MMORPG. I don't think many people want to play two.
  • -11 diggs
    Coercion on 2008-06-28 13:39:15
    and i was hoping for World of Starcraft : /
    • 12 diggs
      PhishTahko on 2008-06-28 15:35:37
      You go to hell and you die. Both of you. Warcraft got fucked over already, keep your mits the hell off Starcraft and Diablo.
    • 3 diggs
      Wetzilla on 2008-06-28 16:23:30
      How exactly did World of Warcraft "fuck over" Warcraft? If anything it added more to the lore of the game, and is opening opportunities if warcraft 4 ever comes out.
    • 10 diggs
      Wetzilla on 2008-06-28 19:11:18
      Yeah, that would suck if the major boss in Diablo died, you now, like Diablo? Oh wait, didn't he die in both games? You know what happens when bosses are killed? They make new ones.

      And it's called progressing the lore. How can you claim they added "bullshit" when they were the ones that created all the lore in the first place? How is anything they added in WoW any more bullshit than anything they added in Warcraft 3?
    • 3 diggs
      Edrick on 2008-06-28 22:01:11
      It's ok Wetzilla, Digg just hates WoW for no good reason.
  • -8 diggs
    Alegoo92 on 2008-06-28 14:59:45
    I was actually hoping for a "World of Diablo"-esque game. But this still looks great.
    • 1 diggs
      Fozefy on 2008-06-28 20:03:58
      Go play WoW?
  • -8 diggs
    JettaMan on 2008-06-28 16:59:41
    I want this for the Xbox 360. The Balder's Gate: Dark Alliance games were way too fun on the console.
    • 8 diggs
      exeprime on 2008-06-28 17:09:27
      BLASPHEMY!


This entry was posted on June 29th, 2008 and is filed under Best Comments. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response or Trackback from your own site.

Tags: , ,

 
« Dugg & Buried on 2008-06-27
Dugg & Buried on 2008-06-28 »
 
 

Leave a Reply