Technically the 360 could probably support the keyboard and mouse, seeing as how it has usb ports... But that is just a guess imo.
iirc the 360 does have keyboard support/a keyboard made for it... this allows your current keyboard/mouse to work it seems: http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/gadgets/xcm-brings-pcstyle-gaming-to-your-360-217332.php
It's not necessarily that the 360 can or cannot support M/KB. It has to do with the limitations of the console. The PC is, and has always been a far superior powerhouse over the consoles. It's able to render everything so much better. Plus, with the potential for Diablo 3 to contain DX10.1 support, I won't be surprised if we never see Diablo 3 on consoles. Plus...It's Blizzard. They won't sell out like studios like Epic have done. Unreal Tournament 2k4 was awesome. UT3 was fucking garbage. Know why? It was "Consoled". Dumbed down to appeal to the console crowd. PC'ers are far pickier when it comes to our games. Blizzard won't go that route. They know they will make MORE than enough money by keeping it on the PC. They don't need to sell out to make a fast buck.
Well.. They did make diablo 1 for PS1, and they made Starcraft 64... so I mean it's not like they havent made their games into console ports. Just slow it down for the consoles. If it is a rendering problem, then slow it down so that the console can render it properly. Albeit I do not think that it is a processor power that is the issue. Probably more along the lines of the actual game play in itself.
And piss off the millions of PC gamers that play your games and consider you one of the most pristine development studios in the world. That's what I hate about consoles. You take fantastic PC series (UT for example) and piss all over it. Slow it down and noob it up for the console fucks.
I agree with you Pdog.. Wait.. did I just say that? Anyways.. I am not a fan of the console ports, just saying that there is that possibility that it could work.
I dunno, I played the PC version of UT3 and liked it quite a lot... UT2k4 gives me better framerates (obviously), but the visuals don't really compare, and the UT3 vehicles seem to handle better too... I won't even touch the menus. 2k4 had the most ass-ugly catastrophe I've ever seen.
On why “Diablo III” isn’t an MMO: Sams: When we’re deciding what type of game we’re going to make, we look at what the gameplay experience is going to be. We talked to the team a lot and say, “What is it you want to play? What is it that you want to make?” And we really felt like “Diablo” is a franchise that is very cooperative in the manner in which you play it. We felt like the gameplay experience that we had delivered historically with being in a non-persistent world was the right way to do it for this particular product. I think a lot of people expected us to say that this is going to be an MMO — maybe an obvious choice in a lot of people’s minds. But really, the bottom line is we thought the right game to make was “Diablo III” in the way that we’ve announced it. On making another MMO that would compete with “World of Warcraft”: Sams: Well, it’s certainly a conversation that we’ve had. The idea of doing games that could compete with “World of Warcraft” is something that I think a lot of people would say, “Geez you shouldn’t do that.” But I do believe that if the game that we wanted to make was another MMO, then we would do that. I don’t think we’re scared to do that. And I think that if our developers come up with the next great game that they want to make and it’s an MMO, then we’ll do that. We would go about trying to make the best MMO of all time, and to try to eclipse “World of Warcraft,” if we were ever to do such a thing. But it really all comes down to what type of game we want to make, and the people that we have working at the company. Pearce: Whether or not it makes sense to have another subscription-based MMO competing against “World of Warcraft” within the Blizzard space is hard to say. At some point, some product’s going to come along and cannibalize the “World of Warcraft” player base, and if it’s going to happen, it’d be better for us to cannibalize our own player base compared to having another publisher do it. But our hope is that “Starcraft II” and “Diablo III” will be games that can be enjoyed by our fans simultaneously with “World of Warcraft.” On the player overlap between their games: Pearce: I’m not sure exactly how much overlap there would between the “Diablo” player base and the “World of Warcraft” player base. We’ve found that there’s not a large overlap between the “Starcraft” player base and the “World of Warcraft” player base. But it’s really hard to say. Our hope is that we can build a big online community, like the Battle.net online service, that would give us the opportunity to introduce all our fans to all of our different franchises across all the different genres. I’m sure our marketing group is ready to do some research about how many people would migrate from the “World of Warcraft” to “Diablo III,” but those aren’t necessarily the data points that we use for decision-making when it comes to the games that we want to make. What’s most important to us is that we’re servicing our community and our fans with great games and so if we come out with a new great game where some people playing on existing games will migrate to the new game, they’re still our fans, they’re still our players, and we’re still happy about it. On the Activision merger helping with having three announced games all at once: Sams: I think [the merger] certainly gives us access to more talent and experience in the industry. There’s a lot we can learn from them, and I think vice versa. So I think that’s an opportunity to gain strength in retail and gain strength in the manner in which we market out games and make our games available to customers. But as it relates to what games we’re going to make and how many we’re making, it really doesn’t have anything to do with the Activision-Blizzard merger. … Right now, we’ve been able to build up one of the best group of development teams in the industry, and we feel like we’re in a place right now where we have the necessary and requisite talent to be able to do a few games simultaneously. On the time between game releases: Sams: I think that there will be a little bit less time, but we’ll continue to take our time to make sure that they’re right. I don’t see there being any differences in our thought processes as it relates to that. We’re going to make sure that we put the time and the energy and the money and the resources into making the best games in the world that we can. And do I think because we have multiple development teams that the release dates will go closer together for Blizzard releases? Probably a bit. But I don’t think our development cycles will shrink on any of the projects that are going on; it would just be that there’s more product flow. On creating new mobile and web applications: Sams: Those are areas that are very much booming — the phones, the iphones and the web apps. Certainly, it’s an area that we’ve looked at and that we’ve explored. I can see us looking at those further but I don’t know if that will be a core focus of ours. We’re really focused on doing the types of games that we do — the RPGs and RTSs and MMOs — and doing them on platforms that really allow us to spread our wings and do the best games we possibly can. There’s more limitations on some of those devices, so I don’t know if we’d be able to deliver the types of experiences that we would want to on those devices just yet. If that changes and we find that it’s the right platform for us to be on, then certainly we would look at it. We’ll see, but I think that it will probably be a bit of time. Sams: At this point we don’t have anything that we can share abut that. I can say that’s certainly something that we’ve explored and are continuing to examine. And if we think we can do something that’s compelling and will be of value to those that play our games, then we certainly would look at that. Standalone type of apps, probably not so much, but the type of apps you’re referencing where they’re connected to other parts of the games — that’s possible. We’ll have to see though. We’re still exploring it. On creating new a new game franchise: Pearce: We have a lot of developers that would be really enthusiastic about the idea of doing a new intellectual property. Everyone at the Blizzard offices loves the “Warcraft” franchise, loves the “Starcraft” franchise, loves the “Diablo” franchise but we’ve been doing a lot of that for a long time, and I know there’s a lot of guys that at some point would love to have the opportunity to do something new. When the current development teams roll off what they’re working on, we’ll involve them in the decision-making process for what game they’re going to make next. And we’ll be having those discussions when those teams are rolling off “Starcraft II” and “Diablo III,” but that’s a ways down the road.
defintley going to be jumping on the Diablo 3 bandwagon, i hope i am correct in assuming there WILL be a XoO group for this awesomely awesome game, I for one am probably owed about 3 lifetimes off blizzard for the amount of time i spent on Diablo 2, although im very glad of the time i spent on it, muchos fun thats for sure. If this is even 1/10000th as good, it will be great.
They need to release new info already! I NEEDZ IT!!! My one, my only, my precious Diablo franchise...
Bashiok on Diablo 3 Re'Specing There will almost definitely be some sort of system to respec; however, it isn't likely to be as liberal as World of Warcraft. We don't want to lock a player into a system that punishes them for mistakes, experimenting, or lack of knowledge early on in the game. We also don't think a system that allows immediate, complete, and at-a-whim changes to a character spec matches the feel of Diablo. It's likely to be somewhere in between. That said we still feel like the desire to play the same class again that you may have played before is still a part of the game, and with some ability to respec could potentially require other incentives. Diablo 3 Forums ---------------------------------- Diablo III: has the world gone mad? GP's resident gaming nut GaR vents on the state of internet rumours, fanboys and geek assumptions. Next week, he's sorting out Palestine. BLIZZARD HAS SET THE internet ablaze with its announcement that Diablo III is to be released... sometime. For days prior to the announcement, they had mystifying splash screens up on their major sites, with tantalising clues hidden in the pretty pictures. One was a rune from Diablo, sparking rumours of Diablo III, but the next day there was an image containing the Protoss symbol from Starcraft. Cries of "Starcraft 2?" were heard echoing through the intertubes (despite it already having been announced). A third image with what appeared to be a pair of enigmatically glowing eyes set the rumour mill off again, with people claiming that they were the eyes of Diablo, or of a Protoss Zealot, or the Lich King from the Warcraft universe. A symbol appeared that appeared to be from Blizzard's 1992 side-scroller Lost Vikings. But no agreement was reached. Internet scuttlebutt reached absurd levels. Is this really too cheery? Click for Bigger Image Players were up in arms over a rumoured shift to RTS-style play for the Diablo franchise. Others were adamant that a Diablo MMO was on the cards. The arguments raged back and forth, one forum poster even saying: "**** me. The world is am exploded." Finally the official announcement was made. Diablo III was indeed the mysterious game, and it would retain the game style that helped make its predecessors so popular. With Starcraft II still a distant speck on the horizon, despite its official announcement coming in May of last year, fans knew they'd have a while to wait. This didn't stop them from flaming each other to Hell and back on discussion boards around the world when the first screenshots and gameplay videos from Diablo III were released. "Vivid colors, beautiful forests with colorful vegetation, shinny (sic) and beautiful waterfalls" were among the features that would allegedly bring about Armageddon. Forgetting how colourful the original Diablo was, and how much criticism current generation games have attracted for their dreary colour palettes, fans immediately began to demand that the graphics in Diablo III be made more depressing. An online petition was started. Screenshots were photoshopped to look more like Diablo III "should". Now that's taking it a bit too far... Click for Bigger Image And my soul died a little more. Some opined that the gameplay might perhaps be more important than the graphics. Such hopeless souls were quickly shouted down. The claims were that Diablo III looked more like World of Warcraft than Diablo. I don't know where these people got their impressions of World of Warcraft, because in all the Diablo III material out there, I have yet to see a bipedal cow in a wedding dress attempt to seduce a pink-haired gnome in the ancient forest of elves. The genre debate resurfaced with many questioning Diablo's classification as an RPG, causing many others to spend much time not caring at all about crap like that. The graphics debate evolved from its original "don't make it like WoW" roots into the sort of "I am entitled to my viewpoint for the following reasons" mish-mash that tends to typify online arguments that have outlived their usefulness. Those who dared to suggest that the game will likely kick seven shades of shit out of everything else anyway - regardless of how much bloom the graphics eventually have - were duly ignored. Geeks with too much spare time should be locked up. Click for Bigger Image Out of the blue, the whole community buried the hatchet, fired up Diablo II, and went on a big nostalgic romp through lands with pleasing levels of colour and lighting. Or lack thereof. The unavoidable conclusion here is that people really shouldn't be allowed to have opinions. They clutter up the place. Now: Serious conclusions? I may be beating a dead horse here, but I'll say it anyway. What we've seen so far is a tiny portion of a game that's likely more than a year away from release. Things are likely to change in that time. People are complaining about textures - and even some scenery - being lifted from World of Warcraft. I'm inclined to believe that some of these are WoW items. But as placeholders, not as final details. It stands to reason that they'd use the odd bit from WoW if they needed textures and other bits for an otherwise playable build that they were intending on demoing and releasing videos of. Did they jump the gun in doing so? Perhaps they did. I imagine that the decision was made to make the announcement at the Blizzard Invitational, and the devs were told to crank out a certain amount of Diablo III content by that date. Sometimes compromises are made in order to meet deadlines. Whatever Blizzard releases, it'll get played. A lot. Click for Bigger Image But this is Blizzard. You can bet they won't rush a crap game out the door. While they're big on their running fixes, I honestly don't see them releasing this looking like it is. When I say that though, I'm not saying that it looks shit. Far from it. In a few places the detail is lacking, some parts are definitely a bit unDiabloish, but overall it looks like an awesome game. Things like the brighter outdoor areas I think make a great contrast to the dark underground tombs. In the twenty years since the vast decimation of the events in Diablo II, it makes sense that the world would be looking a bit less dreary in places. It makes the transition into the really messed up bits more jarring and atmospheric, in this writer's humble opinion. As always, I'll have to reserve judgement until I see the release version, but at this stage I'm still optimistic. I think Diablo III will rock. GamePlanet ---------------------------------- Bashiok on Diablo 3 Loot System Currently - while in a party each player will see their own drops from each kill. This could mean that after killing a zombie I see a sword drop, and you may see a shoulder slot item drop. Or I see nothing drop, while you got an axe. Obviously while in a group you're killing faster, and this could translate to an exponentially increasing number of drops with each additional player in your party. However, it's balanced in such a way that the drop % is pulled back a bit with each additional player (I'm simplifying it, but that's what it boils down to). This keeps it from being almost detrimental to not play with a full party, while still giving a nice increase to the amount of drops if you do. From this system it seems quite a few people got the impression that you'll never see items drop that you can't use. For instance, a Barbarian will never see a dagger that only a Witch Doctor can use. This isn't true. There is no effect, or at least no currently intended effect, to restrict which items which classes can or can't see for their respective drops. It's still intended that you could see an item that your class can't use. It's easy enough to drop the item, ask if anyone can use it, or just sell it off of course. Diablo 3 Forums ---------------------------------- Bashiok on Diablo 3 Health Orbs The health globes are actually, in my opinion, really cool. Playing the game and actually seeing what types of strategy they encourage, you can start to see what they add and how they make the combat more interesting. I'll set the scene. You're a barbarian, you're in the wilderness and after fighting wave after wave of ghouls, skeletons, demons, what have you, you're low on health. You're out of potions, and after using a strategic leap out of the fray you turn around and seismic slam the skeletons charging you. Two of them drop health globes, but the globes dropped behind the skeletons that are still advancing. If they reach you, you're not going to survive. Are you able to leap safely to snag the globes before they can tear into you? Can you throw out another slam and try to remove the remaining enemies? How can you survive? You have a fraction of a second to decide. The health globes help to create situations just like this, where you're not just sitting there spamming potions, you're using your abilities and strategy to stay alive. Possibly most importantly, you're encouraged to keep fighting, and not just run away. With random spawns, random drops, and of course the randomness of combat, the health globes add to creating situations that are just more... interesting, and in my opinion, fun. On the side of potions, they still exist, but they're likely to be on a cooldown of some type. They'll also likely restore health based on a percentage that's relative to your character. They may heal an instant amount, they may be the old over time type system. They're probably going to be filling an emergency-heal role more than anything though. Diablo 3 Forums
Sounds like respecing may be a bit like PlanetSide where you have to wait before you can forget more things
In all honesty it would make it too easy. You could instantly respec for a certain fight and spec back afterwards. Removes the challenge, and quite possibly the need for more specialized players in Co-op.
Because in real life you don't learn things instantly to fill the "void" in your head. Anyway, I never played PlanetSide. What was its respec system?
Every level you get a Certification Point. You use that to learn things such as different weapons, or the right to use certain vehicles or equipment. To forget certifications and spend the points on another cert, you could only forget one certification (ie. Hacking) every x hours (I think it's 6 hours now). You'll get all certification points back once forgotten (in Hacking's example, you get 3 points back). You get the points back immediately and can spend them on another cert...But you can't forget another one until the timer has ended. I remember it used to be a day to wait.
Yea its 6 hours now which isnt that bad but you still cant instantly become something new so it does the job. Really it could be 1 or 2 hours as long as you cant change everything right there and then