Will Diablo III be a game for men?

#0 - Oct. 6, 2010, 7:07 p.m.

Hi all,

My hope is that DIII will be a game that can please an adult audience. I mean: not nude girls, but dark and scary atmosphere and as little as possible complains for the little children playing it.
Do you remember Diablo 1? The atmosphere in it? Do you remember that when u died ur stuff fall on t he ground? Do you remember the PK fear?

Why new games have to be such "protective"? if u die, u die and lose everything. if someone in the doungeoun wants to kill u and get all ur stuff, it is ok. We are adult and we have the real life to feel protecred and safe in it. If I don't want to be thrilled I only need to live my real life!

My point: no mercy for cheaters, and a "safe mode" for crying babies. But true men want to play it hardcore, I'm sure.

But it's only a dream: blizzard have to make money and I'm almost out of its target audience!

Bashiok

#48 - Oct. 6, 2010, 11:18 p.m.

Yes, I remember playing Diablo when I was 16. I'm not sure if I was a "man" then. ... Sometimes I question if I'm one now... BUT THAT'S NEITHER HERE NOR THERE!

Anyway, I'm not sure being screwed out of experience and gold and items makes it a "man's game". A masochist's game, for sure, but then I'm sure there are plenty of ladies who enjoy being punished too.

This post is getting weird.

Ok, in closing, mechanics that punish players are contrary to our core company design philosophies, and so no, outside of you playing a Hardcore character, there will likely be no intentional mechanics in the game that will punish you.

Semi-related is that we're still aiming for an ESRB rating of Mature.

Bashiok

#54 - Oct. 6, 2010, 11:47 p.m.

Q u o t e:
wow, i didnt take it to this extent but.... they say gold will be valuable but.... if we dont lose any when we die.... um

better have some nice gold sinks nobody has ever thought of before!

You lost gold when you died in Diablo II and it was still worthless. Losing gold on death isn't a necessary sink to make it worth something. Balancing gains and expenditures properly will make it worth something.

That said, I don't think we've made any final determinations on death penalties. Though I wouldn't expect it to take anything away from the player. Gold, experience, etc.

Bashiok

#59 - Oct. 7, 2010, midnight

Q u o t e:
Point being there are mechanics designed to punish players for good reason. Those should still exist.

Glad to hear you're still thinking it through.

I don't think death penalties need to edge into the 'punishment' definition (although I realize that's a confusion of terms) to be worthwhile.

Making sure someone can't endlessly throw themselves against monsters/die/repeat and eventually win is something we'd want to stop. To make the player take pause and realize they're not going to get past them unless they straighten up and pay attention and play better, or take some extra measures to buff up, or simply come up with a different strategy, those are the types of death penalties that work. Those are the ones we like and that I'm talking about.

Taking gold away from people, or taking a full level of experience away, yeah, that's a wake up call. It's also the quickest way to get someone to uninstall the game. A very select few people will put up with something like that. It's fine in Diablo II because gold has almost no use, but imagine if it did. You'd be encouraged through the mechanic to grind in easier areas where you're sure you couldn't die just so you could earn gold safely. That sounds terrible. Without a gold penalty you can play the content you want to play and meanwhile you're finding items and amounts of gold that are relevant. That sounds like fun.