Well considering the beta is just a tiny part of the whole game, with it's 4 difficulty levels.. holy crap I am sold. Not that I wasn't before but damn, this really is Diablo 3. So polished and so damn good.
that nephalem valor buff makes me very happy, actually!
THIS WACKY SKILL AND RUNE BUILD IS MINE AND NO ONE WILL COPY IT WITHOUT REPERCUSSIONS
0
aerynkellynothing to see here, move alongRegistered Userregular
I had no server issues last night - I'm kinda hoping they finish up their stress test and open up more servers tonight so I can play again.
What I'm about to say might be considered sacrilege by some, so please be gentle
I never played either Diablo or Diablo 2 - after the taste of Diablo 3 that I got last night, it did peak my interest a bit in the previous games. Is the gameplay on the previous games pretty similar to Diablo 3?
I had no server issues last night - I'm kinda hoping they finish up their stress test and open up more servers tonight so I can play again.
What I'm about to say might be considered sacrilege by some, so please be gentle
I never played either Diablo or Diablo 2 - after the taste of Diablo 3 that I got last night, it did peak my interest a bit in the previous games. Is the gameplay on the previous games pretty similar to Diablo 3?
Diablo 2 moreso than Diablo.
Diablo, these days, is rough to play if you don't have memories and nostalgia to back you up. It's a great game, but it's really rough around the edges, from a gameplay perspective. Many features people just take for granted in the dungeon crawler genre like sprinting, talent trees, special abilities (outside of spells), etc just are absent entirely. It's a very straight forward dungeon crawler without really any fluff at all. Whether that's good or bad is up to the player. Granted, this makes sense given when it came out, those things weren't the norm back then; even the idea of randomized loot was novel compared to similar style games. I played a lot of Gauntlet games and I remember Diablo blowing me away. It just shows its age these days, is all.
I know there are a few people who actually like Diablo more than Diablo II, and that's a matter of personal preference. However D3 is more of an evolution from D2, not as much D1.
Though, I mean, if you're gonna go back and buy them, just get the battle chest anyway and it'll come with everything (except Hellfire, but that's not a big deal, 3rd party xpack for Diablo).
Diablo is from 1996 and it feels like it. It's a lot more plodding and dangerous and true to its Roguelike heritage than Diablo 2.
Diablo 2 sort of invented the current paradigm in the isometric action RPG genre, so it will feel a lot more like D3, but it's also got a few slightly archaic bits to it as well, which will be extra pronounced if Diablo 3 is your first introduction to the series.
Scosglen on
0
aerynkellynothing to see here, move alongRegistered Userregular
I'm not adverse to playing older games - I still play games that were built on DOS (yay DOSBox!) I don't plan on purchasing D3 straightaway, so I think I'll poke around and see what sort of sales I can get on the rest.
About Diablo...has anyone who has played it also played Beyond Divinity? If so, how would those compare?
0
SteevLWhat can I do for you?Registered Userregular
Though, I mean, if you're gonna go back and buy them, just get the battle chest anyway and it'll come with everything (except Hellfire, but that's not a big deal, 3rd party xpack for Diablo).
Although be aware that there's a newer version of the Battle Chest that doesn't include the original Diablo.
This is in no way a sign that they are woefully under prepared. This is part of preparing for launch. I'm pretty sure they're not using all the server capacity they intend to use for launch. They don't want us to have a perfect experience during this stress test. They want to see how the servers handle being pushed to their limit and resolve the problems that arise from that.
Nonsense, while this was indeed a stress test they wanted and expected to pass the stress test with flying colors. Especially at the start. People not being able to log in during the free weekend is not exactly good press for them. If things suddenly become perfect at 5 pm tonight then maybe I'll agree with you that they faked it, but you don't get any information at all with people unable to log in.
They wanted and expected to pass with flying colors?
Not only has Blizzard never said either of those things, they almost certainly were completely anticipating a situation where the servers would fail. It's almost like they're running some kind of test to see what they can learn when the servers are purposefully over-stressed.
This is not a "free weekend", or a public demo, or a marketing stunt. It's a no-holds-barred free for all where Blizzard has put a drop of blood in the water in order to incentivize millions of people to DDOS their servers in order to monitor what happens. The buzz-making aspect is somewhat secondary considering this is a game that does not exactly need to be buzzed.
No, the idea of a stress test is that you see if anything unexpected happens to your servers when they are close to full capacity. Not to simply crash your servers. Thats not an unexpected bug, you don't need to do a stress test to learn that if your servers handle 10000 concurrent connections and people try to dial in 500000 connections your servers crash. Given that their servers HAVE crashed the test is either...
a) Pointless (since they've learned what they already knew)
b) Failed, since they have learned that their servers crash without getting to their listed full capacity
Though, I mean, if you're gonna go back and buy them, just get the battle chest anyway and it'll come with everything (except Hellfire, but that's not a big deal, 3rd party xpack for Diablo).
Although be aware that there's a newer version of the Battle Chest that doesn't include the original Diablo.
Thats...uh...that doesn't quite make a battle chest. That makes it like...Diablo II complete or something.
This is in no way a sign that they are woefully under prepared. This is part of preparing for launch. I'm pretty sure they're not using all the server capacity they intend to use for launch. They don't want us to have a perfect experience during this stress test. They want to see how the servers handle being pushed to their limit and resolve the problems that arise from that.
Nonsense, while this was indeed a stress test they wanted and expected to pass the stress test with flying colors. Especially at the start. People not being able to log in during the free weekend is not exactly good press for them. If things suddenly become perfect at 5 pm tonight then maybe I'll agree with you that they faked it, but you don't get any information at all with people unable to log in.
They wanted and expected to pass with flying colors?
Not only has Blizzard never said either of those things, they almost certainly were completely anticipating a situation where the servers would fail. It's almost like they're running some kind of test to see what they can learn when the servers are purposefully over-stressed.
This is not a "free weekend", or a public demo, or a marketing stunt. It's a no-holds-barred free for all where Blizzard has put a drop of blood in the water in order to incentivize millions of people to DDOS their servers in order to monitor what happens. The buzz-making aspect is somewhat secondary considering this is a game that does not exactly need to be buzzed.
No, the idea of a stress test is that you see if anything unexpected happens to your servers when they are close to full capacity. Not to simply crash your servers. Thats not an unexpected bug, you don't need to do a stress test to learn that if your servers handle 10000 concurrent connections and people try to dial in 500000 connections your servers crash. Given that their servers HAVE crashed the test is either...
a) Pointless (since they've learned what they already knew)
b) Failed, since they have learned that their servers crash without getting to their listed full capacity
c) useful because they found an error or bug that they did not know existed and were then able to fix it prior to release.
The point of a stress test is to see if it breaks, where it breaks, and then change it accordingly.
Delphinidaes on
NNID: delphinidaes Official PA Forums FFXIV:ARR Free Company <GHOST> gitl.enjin.com Join us on Sargatanas!
This is in no way a sign that they are woefully under prepared. This is part of preparing for launch. I'm pretty sure they're not using all the server capacity they intend to use for launch. They don't want us to have a perfect experience during this stress test. They want to see how the servers handle being pushed to their limit and resolve the problems that arise from that.
Nonsense, while this was indeed a stress test they wanted and expected to pass the stress test with flying colors. Especially at the start. People not being able to log in during the free weekend is not exactly good press for them. If things suddenly become perfect at 5 pm tonight then maybe I'll agree with you that they faked it, but you don't get any information at all with people unable to log in.
They wanted and expected to pass with flying colors?
Not only has Blizzard never said either of those things, they almost certainly were completely anticipating a situation where the servers would fail. It's almost like they're running some kind of test to see what they can learn when the servers are purposefully over-stressed.
This is not a "free weekend", or a public demo, or a marketing stunt. It's a no-holds-barred free for all where Blizzard has put a drop of blood in the water in order to incentivize millions of people to DDOS their servers in order to monitor what happens. The buzz-making aspect is somewhat secondary considering this is a game that does not exactly need to be buzzed.
No, the idea of a stress test is that you see if anything unexpected happens to your servers when they are close to full capacity. Not to simply crash your servers. Thats not an unexpected bug, you don't need to do a stress test to learn that if your servers handle 10000 concurrent connections and people try to dial in 500000 connections your servers crash. Given that their servers HAVE crashed the test is either...
a) Pointless (since they've learned what they already knew)
b) Failed, since they have learned that their servers crash without getting to their listed full capacity
c) useful because they found an error or bug that they did not know existed and were then able to fix it prior to release.
The point of a stress test is to see if it breaks, where it breaks, and then change it accordingly.
A failed test is still a useful test, my original point was that its a sign they were under prepared. Fixing a bug would make them better prepared. It's still not a great sign to have the servers be down for half of your free weekend!
This is in no way a sign that they are woefully under prepared. This is part of preparing for launch. I'm pretty sure they're not using all the server capacity they intend to use for launch. They don't want us to have a perfect experience during this stress test. They want to see how the servers handle being pushed to their limit and resolve the problems that arise from that.
Nonsense, while this was indeed a stress test they wanted and expected to pass the stress test with flying colors. Especially at the start. People not being able to log in during the free weekend is not exactly good press for them. If things suddenly become perfect at 5 pm tonight then maybe I'll agree with you that they faked it, but you don't get any information at all with people unable to log in.
They wanted and expected to pass with flying colors?
Not only has Blizzard never said either of those things, they almost certainly were completely anticipating a situation where the servers would fail. It's almost like they're running some kind of test to see what they can learn when the servers are purposefully over-stressed.
This is not a "free weekend", or a public demo, or a marketing stunt. It's a no-holds-barred free for all where Blizzard has put a drop of blood in the water in order to incentivize millions of people to DDOS their servers in order to monitor what happens. The buzz-making aspect is somewhat secondary considering this is a game that does not exactly need to be buzzed.
No, the idea of a stress test is that you see if anything unexpected happens to your servers when they are close to full capacity. Not to simply crash your servers. Thats not an unexpected bug, you don't need to do a stress test to learn that if your servers handle 10000 concurrent connections and people try to dial in 500000 connections your servers crash. Given that their servers HAVE crashed the test is either...
a) Pointless (since they've learned what they already knew)
b) Failed, since they have learned that their servers crash without getting to their listed full capacity
c) useful because they found an error or bug that they did not know existed and were then able to fix it prior to release.
The point of a stress test is to see if it breaks, where it breaks, and then change it accordingly.
A failed test is still a useful test, my original point was that its a sign they were under prepared. Fixing a bug would make them better prepared. It's still not a great sign to have the servers be down for half of your free weekend!
It's not a "free weekend". It's a beta test, stress test, weekend.
You seem to have some serious misconceptions on how you actually test software and hardware. EDIT: If you don't think that purposefully breaking things is a viable and productive way to test things than I'm going to go out on a limb and say you've probably never actually tested software or hardware.
No, the idea of a stress test is that you see if anything unexpected happens to your servers when they are close to full capacity. Not to simply crash your servers. Thats not an unexpected bug, you don't need to do a stress test to learn that if your servers handle 10000 concurrent connections and people try to dial in 500000 connections your servers crash. Given that their servers HAVE crashed the test is either...
a) Pointless (since they've learned what they already knew)
b) Failed, since they have learned that their servers crash without getting to their listed full capacity
I'm not an IT guy and I'm not prepared for a protracted debate about this, but there seems to be some disagreement that the point of a stress test is to put your servers up at full capacity and make sure that nothing goes wrong. So I'll just quote another person from a different forum who obviously is an IT guy, and honestly his explanation makes a lot more sense than accusing Blizzard of being incompetent:
The point of a stress test isn't really to see if it's possible for servers to handle the game at all. The point is to establish a baseline performance for servers, to figure out the minimum amount of slots (and associated memory) provided per server to provide a stable environment.
The reason for doing this is dead simple, money. You don't want to waste a shitload of money providing any more servers than you absolutely need, because the cooling cost alone can be prohibitively expensive, even ignoring hardware/networking costs.
So the way to do this is you cram as many people as possible into as small a space as possible, slowly (usually in a binary search fashion) ratcheting memory/thread/whatever limits up and down until you figure out what's the most efficient thing to do.
This is in no way a sign that they are woefully under prepared. This is part of preparing for launch. I'm pretty sure they're not using all the server capacity they intend to use for launch. They don't want us to have a perfect experience during this stress test. They want to see how the servers handle being pushed to their limit and resolve the problems that arise from that.
Nonsense, while this was indeed a stress test they wanted and expected to pass the stress test with flying colors. Especially at the start. People not being able to log in during the free weekend is not exactly good press for them. If things suddenly become perfect at 5 pm tonight then maybe I'll agree with you that they faked it, but you don't get any information at all with people unable to log in.
They wanted and expected to pass with flying colors?
Not only has Blizzard never said either of those things, they almost certainly were completely anticipating a situation where the servers would fail. It's almost like they're running some kind of test to see what they can learn when the servers are purposefully over-stressed.
This is not a "free weekend", or a public demo, or a marketing stunt. It's a no-holds-barred free for all where Blizzard has put a drop of blood in the water in order to incentivize millions of people to DDOS their servers in order to monitor what happens. The buzz-making aspect is somewhat secondary considering this is a game that does not exactly need to be buzzed.
No, the idea of a stress test is that you see if anything unexpected happens to your servers when they are close to full capacity. Not to simply crash your servers. Thats not an unexpected bug, you don't need to do a stress test to learn that if your servers handle 10000 concurrent connections and people try to dial in 500000 connections your servers crash. Given that their servers HAVE crashed the test is either...
a) Pointless (since they've learned what they already knew)
b) Failed, since they have learned that their servers crash without getting to their listed full capacity
c) useful because they found an error or bug that they did not know existed and were then able to fix it prior to release.
The point of a stress test is to see if it breaks, where it breaks, and then change it accordingly.
A failed test is still a useful test, my original point was that its a sign they were under prepared. Fixing a bug would make them better prepared. It's still not a great sign to have the servers be down for half of your free weekend!
but the entire point of this free weekend was that the servers would almost definitely go down
Man, this game. I love how they made the attack animations so exaggerated that even at the beginning of the game your character feels powerful. First time I hit a Zombie with my Barbarian and he flew 10 feet it was an "oh shit" moment.
I feel really bad for the Torchlight 2 guys right now, though I will probably still pick that up.
Yeah I can't emphasize enough how awesome bash is. I wish all the characters had that level of awesome, because I'm not a barb guy. But I guess that over the top feel is sort of a barbarian-like thing? Dunno. but whatever it is they nailed bash. Never started a game and been that impressed with a starting skill.
Really like the changes to town portal and identify.
Was also pleasantly surprised by the random dialogue between my character and the templar.
Question though, in what way does my weapon effect my spells?
A faster weapon will hit for less than a slower weapon, but it will do so more often.
So if your a wizard and your rocking a slow staff, your arcane orbs will hit like a truck but will take longer to shoot out and queue up another one, than say if you used a wand and an orb.
And the big reason for an open beta stress test is to get the large numbers the closed beta didn't have. Just tracking the bandwidth alone needed from 500k requests for login will yield them information they didn't have previously. I fully expect some issues on the 15th but doing this early stress will help ease the issues on release for sure. I can understand being disappointed in not being able to play but I can't understand being angry that a test to stress the system actually stressed the system. Hold your anguish and hate for the 15th after they have your money.
Stuff like +2-4 cold damage? Yeah they are already factored in to what your weapon says its damage is, and will thus be applied when you cast spells
Right but I take it your spells don't hit with the cold effect's slow? Its just a straight dps and attack speed check?
Thats a good point, yeah I don't know. Will have to test it later
Seems like it would be fairly overpowered tbh. Certainly devalues spells that have slow components built in. Now that I think about it slow is the only one where it would be an issue. Poison would just front load another dot.
Cold is still going to be the bee's knees like in D2 though.
0
eeSanGI slice like a goddamn hammer.Registered Userregular
Aha! If you want to up the difficulty in the Open Beta, find some friends to afk in your game for you and just make the monsters stronger.
Slice like a god damn hammer. LoL: Rafflesia / BNet: Talonflame#11979
Well, this is kinda neat. I had to stop and stare when I saw that my barbarian had bashed the skeleton clear out of a zombies body. Duoed with Khildith running a Demon Hunter to complete the skeleton king bit.
It felt like a very relaxing dungeon crawl. I'd like to see what the later game and higher difficulties offer.
Basil on
0
lu tzeSweeping the monestary steps.Registered Userregular
Felt way more powerful than the Wizard. Tore through the skeleton king in half the time while a level lower.
My roommate and I played Monk and Barb on our first run through. Neither of us ever had to use a potion until the Skeleton King. Then we tried wizard and witch doctor and were like 'Oh. Huh.' I'm not personally too worried about it as I imagine all the focus has been on later game balance, but... still a little bit silly.
Finally able to play. This game is too fucking slick. Love it. Also love the skill system; it's a lot like Guild Wars, and Guild Wars worked just fine.
Thunderclap is weird at first, but way fun after you get used to it.
Blizzard had a pretty smooth launch with StarCraft 2, so I'm not overly worried about the release servers. Blizzard probably has more expeirence then anyone with dealing with a mass demand at launch.
Though, I mean, if you're gonna go back and buy them, just get the battle chest anyway and it'll come with everything (except Hellfire, but that's not a big deal, 3rd party xpack for Diablo).
Although be aware that there's a newer version of the Battle Chest that doesn't include the original Diablo.
Thats...uh...that doesn't quite make a battle chest. That makes it like...Diablo II complete or something.
That's silly.
Yeah, basically they threw in a Diablo II strategy guide in place of the first Diablo. It's pretty dumb.
Though, I mean, if you're gonna go back and buy them, just get the battle chest anyway and it'll come with everything (except Hellfire, but that's not a big deal, 3rd party xpack for Diablo).
Although be aware that there's a newer version of the Battle Chest that doesn't include the original Diablo.
Thats...uh...that doesn't quite make a battle chest. That makes it like...Diablo II complete or something.
That's silly.
Yeah, basically they threw in a Diablo II strategy guide in place of the first Diablo. It's pretty dumb.
ROFL.
Yeah because what Diablo II needed was a strategy guide. That's hilarious.
"here, instead of a classic game you might want to play, here's a completely unnecessary guide for a game that has long since been patched to make it irrellivant, as if there was anything in the game that needed a guide anyway!"
Though, I mean, if you're gonna go back and buy them, just get the battle chest anyway and it'll come with everything (except Hellfire, but that's not a big deal, 3rd party xpack for Diablo).
Although be aware that there's a newer version of the Battle Chest that doesn't include the original Diablo.
Thats...uh...that doesn't quite make a battle chest. That makes it like...Diablo II complete or something.
That's silly.
Yeah, basically they threw in a Diablo II strategy guide in place of the first Diablo. It's pretty dumb.
ROFL.
Yeah because what Diablo II needed was a strategy guide. That's hilarious.
"here, instead of a classic game you might want to play, here's a completely unnecessary guide for a game that has long since been patched to make it irrellivant, as if there was anything in the game that needed a guide anyway!"
Posts
THIS WACKY SKILL AND RUNE BUILD IS MINE AND NO ONE WILL COPY IT WITHOUT REPERCUSSIONS
What I'm about to say might be considered sacrilege by some, so please be gentle
I never played either Diablo or Diablo 2 - after the taste of Diablo 3 that I got last night, it did peak my interest a bit in the previous games. Is the gameplay on the previous games pretty similar to Diablo 3?
Diablo 2 moreso than Diablo.
Diablo, these days, is rough to play if you don't have memories and nostalgia to back you up. It's a great game, but it's really rough around the edges, from a gameplay perspective. Many features people just take for granted in the dungeon crawler genre like sprinting, talent trees, special abilities (outside of spells), etc just are absent entirely. It's a very straight forward dungeon crawler without really any fluff at all. Whether that's good or bad is up to the player. Granted, this makes sense given when it came out, those things weren't the norm back then; even the idea of randomized loot was novel compared to similar style games. I played a lot of Gauntlet games and I remember Diablo blowing me away. It just shows its age these days, is all.
I know there are a few people who actually like Diablo more than Diablo II, and that's a matter of personal preference. However D3 is more of an evolution from D2, not as much D1.
Though, I mean, if you're gonna go back and buy them, just get the battle chest anyway and it'll come with everything (except Hellfire, but that's not a big deal, 3rd party xpack for Diablo).
Origin: Galedrid - Nintendo: Galedrid/3222-6858-1045
Blizzard: Galedrid#1367 - FFXIV: Galedrid Kingshand
Diablo 2 sort of invented the current paradigm in the isometric action RPG genre, so it will feel a lot more like D3, but it's also got a few slightly archaic bits to it as well, which will be extra pronounced if Diablo 3 is your first introduction to the series.
About Diablo...has anyone who has played it also played Beyond Divinity? If so, how would those compare?
Although be aware that there's a newer version of the Battle Chest that doesn't include the original Diablo.
Really like the changes to town portal and identify.
Was also pleasantly surprised by the random dialogue between my character and the templar.
Question though, in what way does my weapon effect my spells?
No, the idea of a stress test is that you see if anything unexpected happens to your servers when they are close to full capacity. Not to simply crash your servers. Thats not an unexpected bug, you don't need to do a stress test to learn that if your servers handle 10000 concurrent connections and people try to dial in 500000 connections your servers crash. Given that their servers HAVE crashed the test is either...
a) Pointless (since they've learned what they already knew)
b) Failed, since they have learned that their servers crash without getting to their listed full capacity
Thats...uh...that doesn't quite make a battle chest. That makes it like...Diablo II complete or something.
That's silly.
Origin: Galedrid - Nintendo: Galedrid/3222-6858-1045
Blizzard: Galedrid#1367 - FFXIV: Galedrid Kingshand
c) useful because they found an error or bug that they did not know existed and were then able to fix it prior to release.
The point of a stress test is to see if it breaks, where it breaks, and then change it accordingly.
Official PA Forums FFXIV:ARR Free Company <GHOST> gitl.enjin.com Join us on Sargatanas!
A failed test is still a useful test, my original point was that its a sign they were under prepared. Fixing a bug would make them better prepared. It's still not a great sign to have the servers be down for half of your free weekend!
It's not a "free weekend". It's a beta test, stress test, weekend.
You seem to have some serious misconceptions on how you actually test software and hardware. EDIT: If you don't think that purposefully breaking things is a viable and productive way to test things than I'm going to go out on a limb and say you've probably never actually tested software or hardware.
Origin: Galedrid - Nintendo: Galedrid/3222-6858-1045
Blizzard: Galedrid#1367 - FFXIV: Galedrid Kingshand
I'm not an IT guy and I'm not prepared for a protracted debate about this, but there seems to be some disagreement that the point of a stress test is to put your servers up at full capacity and make sure that nothing goes wrong. So I'll just quote another person from a different forum who obviously is an IT guy, and honestly his explanation makes a lot more sense than accusing Blizzard of being incompetent:
but the entire point of this free weekend was that the servers would almost definitely go down
Yeah I can't emphasize enough how awesome bash is. I wish all the characters had that level of awesome, because I'm not a barb guy. But I guess that over the top feel is sort of a barbarian-like thing? Dunno. but whatever it is they nailed bash. Never started a game and been that impressed with a starting skill.
A faster weapon will hit for less than a slower weapon, but it will do so more often.
So if your a wizard and your rocking a slow staff, your arcane orbs will hit like a truck but will take longer to shoot out and queue up another one, than say if you used a wand and an orb.
Stuff like +2-4 cold damage? Yeah they are already factored in to what your weapon says its damage is, and will thus be applied when you cast spells
Right but I take it your spells don't hit with the cold effect's slow? Its just a straight dps and attack speed check?
Not for spells.
At least not life leech.
Im not sure about spells, but with the DH abilities it does. I have a cold dmg xbow and it slows everything constantly.
Thats a good point, yeah I don't know. Will have to test it later
Seems like it would be fairly overpowered tbh. Certainly devalues spells that have slow components built in. Now that I think about it slow is the only one where it would be an issue. Poison would just front load another dot.
Cold is still going to be the bee's knees like in D2 though.
Slice like a god damn hammer. LoL: Rafflesia / BNet: Talonflame#11979
Running fine for me
Doing that right now! Though more for the theory it ups the XP than the difficulty.
Felt way more powerful than the Wizard. Tore through the skeleton king in half the time while a level lower.
Did you finish the download completely before clicking play? Or were you still in the yellow?
Official PA Forums FFXIV:ARR Free Company <GHOST> gitl.enjin.com Join us on Sargatanas!
It felt like a very relaxing dungeon crawl. I'd like to see what the later game and higher difficulties offer.
My roommate and I played Monk and Barb on our first run through. Neither of us ever had to use a potion until the Skeleton King. Then we tried wizard and witch doctor and were like 'Oh. Huh.' I'm not personally too worried about it as I imagine all the focus has been on later game balance, but... still a little bit silly.
Thunderclap is weird at first, but way fun after you get used to it.
magic missile stutterstepping all day
tumblr | instagram | twitter | steam
Yeah, basically they threw in a Diablo II strategy guide in place of the first Diablo. It's pretty dumb.
ROFL.
Yeah because what Diablo II needed was a strategy guide. That's hilarious.
"here, instead of a classic game you might want to play, here's a completely unnecessary guide for a game that has long since been patched to make it irrellivant, as if there was anything in the game that needed a guide anyway!"
That cracks me up. It's also really depressing.
Origin: Galedrid - Nintendo: Galedrid/3222-6858-1045
Blizzard: Galedrid#1367 - FFXIV: Galedrid Kingshand
Chapter One:
GRIND IN THE RAIN
Chapter Two:
GRIND IN THE SAND
Chapter Three:
GRIND IN THE JUNGLE
Chapter Four:
GRIND IN NORTHERN IDAHO
Chapter Five:
GRIND IN THE SNOW