PDA

View Full Version : Diablo III



khorven
01-02-2013, 07:09 AM
http://stoicstudio.com/forum/showthread.php?634-Not-enough-renown&p=11651&viewfull=1#post11651


Well off topic but people that liked diablo III all point to the auction house. And that was the biggest flaw in the game. Why progress the game through the auction house, not through actually playing the game. Gold wasn't supposed to be a reward in itself either, the point of diablo III was loot and finding it, not searching and playing the auction house.

I only ever thought finding loot was pleasurable in an MMO environment, and I stopped playing those because they are boring. When I say it could have been better, what I want is a crafting system. A good one, where you choose your stats. Then stats could really be customizable. But the auction house serves almost the same purpose. You get gold (which serves almost the same purpose as crafting materials) and you search for what stats you want. So it's only a tiny flaw to me.

http://stoicstudio.com/forum/showthread.php?634-Not-enough-renown&p=11652&viewfull=1#post11652


Ooooh that statement about diablo 3 makes my skin crawl, did you play much of diablo 2 back in the day?

I was addicted to Diablo II and it used to be one of my favorite games. It's boring when I play it now though.


After 3 was such a disappointment for me I went back and played diablo 2 to see if I was just looking back on it with rose-tinted glasses, and I enjoyed myself so much more. 3 wasn't a terrible game, it made a lot of improvements especially with skill variety, and the old stats placement/skill leveling system was pretty much limited to either the "right build" or the "wrong build."

The best part about D2 is min/maxing, but there is rarely any reason to use more than one attack skill and stat points were poorly balanced. So it is pretty shallow. The most fun I had was with my katar sin because I had to level up and use multiple skills. But for the most part it's not like that. You are usually spamming one skill the whole game. Compare that to D3 where there is a small amount of tactical depth in choosing what skill to use at which time as well as having six useful skills at once instead of one. This depth in the skill system and the polish of the combat system (e.g. not having to stock up on and spam mana potions constantly) are the reasons I rank it so highly in the genre, because when you strip that away the genre (of top down ARPGs) doesn't really have anything.


But everything else they changed: the emphasis on gear over skill/reflexes/positioning

This positioning thing was worse in D2. Attack, move back to kite the enemies while potting, repeat. I did this through all of act 1 and 2 last time I played (I stopped playing after Duriel because I was bored) and it was real tedious. There's none of that bullshit in D3. In D3 I have to move into or out of crowds on my monk when I want to do damage or take less damage, and also go for certain enemies in crowds. You never have to do that in D2. One bad change though is that you can't dodge projectiles in D3.

The emphasis on gear is what you make it (at least until you start playing monster powers in inferno). I always get gear that is strong enough that I can kill at a decent pace and not die too often, but not so strong that I am indestructible and plow through everything, because that's how I like it. And the emphasis on gear is the same, but some sort of useable gear is actually obtainable. In D2 you either had the best or near best gear which you had to farm hundreds of hours for or whatever, or your character was trash. Or at least that's how it was for characters that needed weapons to do damage.


the lack of any reason to ever create two characters of the same class

There is a reason: to re-experience the game. You can even use different skills if you want.


and the one-two-punch of the atmosphere being anything but diablo

Yeah, I guess, but at least it looks decent.


and the story being complete schlock

I don't know about this one. I never payed attention to the story in any of the games. For D3 since I wanted to play with other people I got into the habit of skipping the cutscenes and dialogue.


edit: Another point about the combat polish in D3: in D2 you were forced to spam potions and use TPs all the time, which felt corny and the TPs slowed the pace down. Things like this were fixed in D3.

mrpresident
01-02-2013, 05:44 PM
Hey confused people just finding this thread on its own, this is a continuation from another thread that got derailed, if you want to read the earlier stuff it's in the thread khorven linked above.

--------

A lot of good points, diablo 3 did make a lot of improvements, it just had so much unnecessary baggage, and some of its aspects were done very poorly or without consistency, and those things prevented me from enjoying the game enough that I quit after a couple weeks.



The best part about D2 is min/maxing, but there is rarely any reason to use more than one attack skill and stat points were poorly balanced. So it is pretty shallow. The most fun I had was with my katar sin because I had to level up and use multiple skills. But for the most part it's not like that. You are usually spamming one skill the whole game. Compare that to D3 where there is a small amount of tactical depth in choosing what skill to use at which time as well as having six useful skills at once instead of one. This depth in the skill system and the polish of the combat system (e.g. not having to stock up on and spam mana potions constantly) are the reasons I rank it so highly in the genre, because when you strip that away the genre (of top down ARPGs) doesn't really have anything.


I really liked what they did with the skill/leveling system, it was definitely the best part of the game. Making incredibly varied but still viable skill builds, and being able to try out different builds quickly, was a lot of fun. I just wish in the process they hadn't taken away the ability to build different types of the same class. I had a friend who loved barbarians and made 6 different barbarians in diablo 2, all built differently, I haven't seen him in a long time but if he tried to do that now he'd get strange looks because 1 barbarian could just switch between the different types whenever he felt like it.




This positioning thing was worse in D2. Attack, move back to kite the enemies while potting, repeat. I did this through all of act 1 and 2 last time I played (I stopped playing after Duriel because I was bored) and it was real tedious. There's none of that bullshit in D3. In D3 I have to move into or out of crowds on my monk when I want to do damage or take less damage, and also go for certain enemies in crowds. You never have to do that in D2. One bad change though is that you can't dodge projectiles in D3.


In diablo 2 I always felt like I was on the verge of death and had to pay close attention to what I was doing. Now admittedly I didn't play the harder difficulty levels in d3, I got every class to at least the halfway point or so, and beat the game once, and had no desire to continue playing so I don't know what the harder difficulty levels are like except what disappointed friends told me (for example an inferno mode that was clearly never tested before release). But from what I played on my monk, I just walked into fights holding the left mouse button down and won. I don't remember ever needing to do anything else except for a couple bossfights where I actually had to reposition at times. This is probably different and more fun at higher difficulty levels but I was so sick of the game by that point I had no desire at all to try it and see.



The emphasis on gear is what you make it (at least until you start playing monster powers in inferno). I always get gear that is strong enough that I can kill at a decent pace and not die too often, but not so strong that I am indestructible and plow through everything, because that's how I like it. And the emphasis on gear is the same, but some sort of useable gear is actually obtainable. In D2 you either had the best or near best gear which you had to farm hundreds of hours for or whatever, or your character was trash. Or at least that's how it was for characters that needed weapons to do damage.


When you say "get" gear do you mean find it or get it from the auction house? I knew many people that didn't want to use the auction house at all, they just wanted to play single player diablo. I wasn't one of them, but every time I did find a great piece of equipment I was excited to use I'd check the auction house and... see a hundred things better than it I could use listed for dirt cheap. One of the core reasons people continued to play diablo 2, if not the core reason, was that rush from finding new equipment. Which in D3 that feeling was completely eliminated because nothing you're going to find is going to be better than what you can get in the AH for pennies.




Yeah, I guess, but at least it looks decent.

I don't know about this one. I never payed attention to the story in any of the games. For D3 since I wanted to play with other people I got into the habit of skipping the cutscenes and dialogue.


I think this is the biggest reason you enjoyed diablo 3 and I did not, not much anyway. In diablo 2 everything was part of a cohesive whole, a vision with unified themes, ideas, and concepts in every aspect of its creation. Diablo 2 (and 1 as well for that matter) were about the fear of the unknown, whether that fear was of what lays in the lands far to the east (or deep beneath the earth in 1), or what was right around the corner, and then gaining the strength to defeat and overcome your fears in an epic struggle for survival. It sounds silly after playing through the game dozens of times to the point where the thought of being "scared" while playing d2 is almost laughable, but do you remember your first playthrough? I nearly shit my pants the first time I turned a corner and ran straight into andariel. Or the infamous butcher in diablo 1. Those first experiences were what made people want to play through the game dozens of times, and everything about the games was focused on those core ideas. From the visual style, to the music and sound design, to the movements and animations of the monsters, the level design, and also the careful use of cinematics and dialogue at key points, usually opting to let the game tell the story simply by playing it. It all was focused on those core ideas and it all worked together to be more than the sum of its parts; the old games also had their fair share of dialogue and game mechanics issues, but when you put it all together it worked so beautifully that people didn't care much about the problems with the individual pieces. People kept playing and farming for better items because after that amazing experience they wanted more.

Also, because MMO's were fairly limited/barely existed at that time, it captured that audience as well in addition to the people that loved the game for all of the above. By the time D3 came out the landscape had changed dramatically though, and if they also wanted the MMO players they'd need to step up their game that way as well... but they didn't manage to recapture that demographic either.

Back to the cohesion thing, compared to D2, D3 is an absolute mess. When people say that a game sucks but they can't point out specifically what was so bad about it this is usually the culprit, where the game is actually less than the sum of its parts. It has a vibrant (beautiful?) artstyle that while it may be good it does not belong in the world of diablo, mixed with the worst dialogue and plot of any AAA game I've played in the past 5 years, and that's saying something. It seriously had the quality of a 14 year-old's fanfic, and I have no idea how these people get into writing positions for multi-million dollar projects. From the little kid emperor that's evil, but isn't evil, but then turns out to be an evil demon all along. To the 5 minutes of dialogue spewing out of bosses before every fight completely draining the scene of any tension. To plot twists given away by the voice actor delivery in their opening lines. To dramatic deaths without taking the time to actually build any drama or make you give two shits first. It was... just... awful...

Come to think of it, the entire plot can be summarized as characters dying for no reason, bosses yelling that they're going to kill you every 5 minutes, and OH NOEZ LITERALLY EVERY SINGLE CHARACTER IS EVIL AND BETRAYS YOU WHAT A TWIST (www.dramabutton.com). "Hey guys, most good stories only have, like, 1 big death and 1 major betrayal. We've got... like.. 3 major deaths and 4 betrayals... that means our story is 3.5 times better than other stories guys." I'm going to limit my storyline complaints to just this, because at the end of the day it's a dungeon-crawler first and foremost, but because the other games did such a good job with story and mood seeing it missing in this one showed how important a factor it was to the enjoyment of the old games. If D3 had had no plot at all, just levels/areas with bosses at the end, it would have been a much much better game, that is saying something.

--------

One last thing, know which modern games have been completely blowing all the diablo games out of the water and really advancing the genre of the action rpg? The demon's and dark souls games. They may not be a top-down ARPGs, and obviously they feel a lot different, but they do everything diablo 1 and 2 did and they do it better. If we're going to talk about pushing genre's forward, that's where we should start.

raven2134
01-02-2013, 06:49 PM
Dark souls fan. Forever. It felt like the game I had always wanted to play, and the game I had always dreamed of playing. I felt like a kid playing videos games for the first time. That game brings tears to my eyes T-T so friggin good. And the multiplayer tho a bit laggy, just adds to the already great gameplay. I couldn't tell you how much I want to gush about dark souls...

khorven
01-02-2013, 08:52 PM
@mrpresident
I lolled at your story description.

Good gear being so easy to obtain can make D3 easy. But if you aren't overpowered the champion packs in later difficulties and even the bosses at the end of the acts in Normal are harder than anything you'll come across in D2. I guess you have to make an effort to not be overpowered.

I didn't pay attention to the story and didn't care too much for D2's art style so I can't relate with what you're saying too much. The aspect of tension and fear of loss is there in tons of games though. I suppose I could see your point about the cohesion, but only with games like Silent Hill where the atmosphere is actually scary. But in those games you end up getting used to it and not being scared anymore, and the game itself isn't tense because all you need to do is run around. So I've never felt that before.

I love D2's music though. That soundtrack has some of my favorite music ever.

I think Dark Souls is a better game than D3, (though not Demon's Souls because I thought it had balance issues), and it might be the best ARPG, but when it comes to innovation I wouldn't put it so far ahead of D3. Skills are what really makes customization meaningful to me, which is why I wouldn't say Demon's Souls sets a new standard for the genre but Etrian Odyssey maybe does (if we are talking about the dungeon crawling aspect of Demon's Souls) (I don't really know if EO does set a new standard though because I haven't played a lot of dungeon crawlers). Besides that all Demon's Souls did was fuse dungeon crawlers and 3D beat 'em ups. D3 had some similar innovations with its bosses (like you said, repositioning helps with them, specifically for avoiding attacks), though not nearly to the same extent of course. And D3's main innovation was its breadth of skills and runes, which does set a new standard. So I don't know how they rank but they aren't too far apart to me.

khorven
01-02-2013, 08:58 PM
Skills are what really makes customization meaningful to me

Actually I take this back, but I do think it is more meaningful than stat customization. Maybe Demon's Souls or Dark Souls does stat customization better than any other game before it? I wouldn't know about that either. But games like Devil May Cry have better skill customization.

khorven
01-03-2013, 11:21 PM
Actually D3 is more innovative than Demon's Souls. I think it takes a lot more creativity to come up with those skills than to balance a game to be a beat 'em up with stats.

And I thought about the cohesion thing but I don't get it. It's too deep for me I guess. I don't see how fear is more out of place in any atmosphere. If I was playing, say, Maple Story on hardcore mode like I used to play D2 I would feel just as scared. The fear comes from mechanics 100%.

mrpresident
01-04-2013, 02:07 AM
EDIT: Sorry about the length, I try to keep these to as few words as I can but there's just too much to talk about XD.

The most innovative aspects of demon and dark souls were everything they did with the online mode, making a singleplayer game that's also a multiplayer game in several different ways that had never been done before. It was a game that could be brutally hard or incredibly easy all depending on the input of other players also playing the "singleplayer" campaign... it was very unique. On top of that it was the first thinking-man's action game I'd played in a very long time. The skills/spells weren't wholly unique, but I had several different setups of spells and equipment that I would switch between depending on what I thought I would be facing and plan of attack. Most action games you can just rush in and mash buttons/combos and come out ok as long as you have quick reflexes, whereas the souls games were about patience, strategy, and finally execution in that order. It was a very refreshing change from the norm. And then on top of that you also got the bonus of gorgeous art and a story that was very well-written, even if it was minimalist and you had to dig deep to find it.

I'll say again that I really liked the skills they came up with for D3, but I wouldn't call them innovative, just "very well done" and the best part of D3 by far. There was nothing in the skills I hadn't seen before (same with the souls games, it was other things that were innovative). Also, unfortunately even though they were great there was a lot of overpromising done before release; the skill system we ended up with was literally about 5% of what they said they were going to do. No matter how good it was I was fairly disappointed because of that.

Cohesion isn't necessarily about fear or being scared, it's just everything in the work, be it a movie, book, game, etc, needs to be working together to support the core themes and concepts. I could go on all day about that topic and what works and doesn't work, and even whether or not it's even necessary to find enjoyment in something. I'll try to give you some examples of things that didn't work, because when it does work you can't even talk about the individual pieces because they're already intertwined and inseparable.

Bioshock is a great example because everything about that game works together perfectly, except for one weird thing that sticks out like a sore thumb: the pipe hacking minigame. The enjoyment a person gets from solving a minigame/puzzle like that isn't related to or even remotely similar to the concept of trying to survive in an underwater ayn rand dystopia... it just doesn't fit the mood, themes, or ideas that game is trying to convey. (that's not to say bioshock was perfect except for that minigame, but that's a different topic)

If you want to know more about what makes a game "cohesive" a good place to start would be subtractive design, there's been a bunch of stuff written about the concept and it's probably the most effective way to get there: http://www.sirlin.net/articles/subtractive-design.html

Subtractive design isn't the only way to make a game fun though, some game series straight up flip the idea of subtractive design the finger and shove everything and anything they can get their hands on into their games, and they can still be a lot of fun. A good example would be the assassin's creed series, random tower defense game out of nowhere what? XD They're still great games, but I don't think they'll be considered one of the greatest games of all time 20 years from now.

Now if the reasons we play and enjoy D3 are the combat/skill use, leveling up, and finding better equipment... then why does it interrupt that to shove this awful story down your throat every 5 minutes? why do they take away reasons to play more than once with a class you like? why do they make every item you find worthless because the AH offers much better stuff? By adding these extra features they're actually taking away from the experience and making the whole game worse than if those "features" weren't there.

Case in point: you skipped the story and cinematics, so for you the story wasn't actually there, and you enjoyed the game more for it :P.

raven2134
01-04-2013, 03:27 AM
+1 mrpresident :) agree wholeheartedly. And indeed it says a lot when people that do think d3 was good/liked it mention so selectively in reference to elements very core to the game itself (that is, like not caring about the story/or how great the itemization/AH makes the game - somehow really twists to the core game elements).

khorven
01-04-2013, 10:39 AM
All of the great 3D beat 'em ups are "thinking-man's action games" though. You have to learn enemy patterns and timings and experiment with combat strategies. And those things take more thought to me than equipment switching for things like exploiting elemental weaknesses, needing to use ranged attacks, wanting to roll more or less or needing poise. Those are the only reasons that I could of think where you'd need to switch equipment. I don't know about spells though. I only melee'd.

About D3, yeah I guess you are right. What I should have said rather was it raises the bar of the narrow genre of top-down ARPGs more than the Souls games do for 3D beat 'em ups or dungeon crawlers.

I kind of get the thing about cohesion. D2 was going with a horrorish theme with it's visuals, music and story, and maybe the mechanics fit (although you can feel fear in all action games). In contrast D3 is about Hell and the Devil or something and it has bright colors and some really quiet minimalistic ambient music. And then there's that pony level. At least the cows in D2 seemed like evil cows from Hell. (I know it was supposed to be a joke but it's a good example if you disregard that.)

khorven
01-04-2013, 10:48 AM
+1 mrpresident :) agree wholeheartedly. And indeed it says a lot when people that do think d3 was good/liked it mention so selectively in reference to elements very core to the game itself (that is, like not caring about the story/or how great the itemization/AH makes the game - somehow really twists to the core game elements).

It just says that I'm more sensitive to art and am capable of enjoying things without being pedantic about every little easily ignored flaw or without looking for an MMO grind and "slot machine" thrills.

(That said this isn't true for me generally, probably. Just in the case of D3 compared with all the people that hate it).

mrpresident
01-04-2013, 02:18 PM
I think most people tend to judge something for the whole rather than the parts, I know plenty of people that played D3 and simply felt like it sucked without being able to really explain why, they just knew that they didn't like it. It was probably a combination of impossibly high expectations, game design changing drastically in the past 10 years which also causes people's tastes to change, and all the things I listed above.

I'm not making an end-all be-all "D3 was terrible and this is why my opinion is correct" thread, but I am attempting to explain that the reasons a lot of people didn't vibe with it were more than just "pedantic." Unfortunately many people also weren't able to articulate why they didn't like it because it wasn't extremely obvious. You couldn't just point to any one thing, it was problems with the whole thing put together. Kind of like how everyone hated the star wars prequels but couldn't explain why they hated them, so they just blamed jar jar binks. Then those 2 hour "reviews" of the movies came out and people were so happy they could finally have reasons to point to and really understand what it was about those movies they hated (those movies are a lot lot worse than D3 was a game though, don't take that comparison too seriously XD).

You and others like the game a lot and feel it pushed the genre forward, and that's great, enjoy it. I and other people didn't like it and have very valid reasons not to. It wasn't simple elitism, there were very valid reasons that affect some people more than others.

For me personally a good story that meshes well with the mechanics is very important to my enjoyment of most games, so I had no real hope of liking the game from the moment that "script" got greenlit, even if story isn't the primary reason people play it. All the other problems were just adding to the pile after that.

sweetjer
01-04-2013, 07:24 PM
I think comparing dark souls and d3, even though it's unfair to lump them together, actually illuminates rather well what makes d3 so disappointing. it's the unification of atmosphere and mechanics, attention to detail, impassioned design decisions (re: difficulty) that make Dark Souls so phenomenal -- and it's the lack of those elements that made D3 the disappointment it was. It felt like another (to use an oldschool and oft-maligned phrase) Diablo-clone but lacking any sort of original vision like that displayed by the From team. Essentially D3 feels like a corporate money-grab, whereas the Souls games are legit "art." I have more to say, but I think mrpres pretty much has me covered here.

khorven
01-05-2013, 12:45 AM
I just said that elitist stuff because it felt like I was being snapped at. I don't normally see the point on a forum like this. It didn't bother me at first but then I thought "no one will respect me if I let that slide." So, lol. I think raven wanted to play it differently, by finding loot or something, so I think I get that he didn't like it. I have my way too. Whatever.

khorven
01-05-2013, 09:58 AM
About finding loot, the pleasure comes from becoming more powerful or rich in the game. But what's the point when all you did was grind to get there? If you cater to people who want this pleasure you will make an inferior game, because people with inferior tastes want it. You just have to look at MMOs and how they are derided by everyone as "second jobs that you pay for" and how obviously true that is. So the slot machine pleasure comes at the cost of the rest of the game. And even that pleasure will get old when you realize the rest of the game was not balanced around having those gears, and that PvP is just as fun with crappy gear as long as you are playing with other people with crappy gear. So it's a blessing that there is an AH actually, and it is not "the biggest flaw in the game," since it to some extent kills the grinding aspect.

khorven
01-05-2013, 10:31 AM
Just to make the point that it's ridiculous to be elitist about your slot machine pleasures. Although I suppose since monster powers the game is balanced around those gears, so there is a bit of a reason for it, even though if I was playing with monster powers I'd still prefer to just buy the gears.

khorven
01-05-2013, 12:46 PM
I kind of get the thing about cohesion. D2 was going with a horrorish theme with it's visuals, music and story, and maybe the mechanics fit (although you can feel fear in all action games). In contrast D3 is about Hell and the Devil or something and it has bright colors and some really quiet minimalistic ambient music. And then there's that pony level. At least the cows in D2 seemed like evil cows from Hell. (I know it was supposed to be a joke but it's a good example if you disregard that.)

I will try to make this my last post in the thread. I just want to clarify that there is nothing jarringly out of place in D3 besides the pony level. It's just that maybe some styles work better with some themes, like perhaps the darker style of D2 for the themes "hell" and "demons". I don't really have an opinion on that in this case though. I do think for those themes there should probably be more gore though.

As for this being what mrpresident means, I don't know. D3 having cohesion problems is so confusing that it just sounds like a crock of shit. Sorry. So the best I could come up with is that D2's style fits better. Anyway I'll never get it so don't bother explaining.

sweetjer
01-06-2013, 06:46 PM
An example of what mrpres is talking about re: cohesion (as I understand the assertion) is how the Auction House has no place in a loot-grab game (cause the joy is, indeed, in FINDING rare loot, not necessarily in being "more powerful") and furthermore an auction house has no place in Diablo lore or universe in general. There's no justfication for its existence in a diagetic sense, and therefore its existence breaks both the cohesion of the world, and to hark back to the previous point, spits in the face of the mechanic I (and many others) derive enjoyment from in this type of ARPG, which is killing monsters and grabbing sweet loot from them, not reading spreadsheets and comparing prices.

EDIT: also just jay wilson and his team's treatment of the original Diablo team was a huge tell for the lack of understanding the Blizzard team had for the original game, the progenitors of the genre, and the people who made this their life's work.

khorven
01-07-2013, 01:29 AM
There would be no pleasure if it was just rare trinkets that did nothing. And you would want to be reading spreadsheets and comparing prices anyway when you trade up for gear with stats that fit you better.

And in my last post I talked about the themes of hell and demons when mrpresident was talking about fear, but I can't see the fear thing, so I just changed it to what I could see. Fear seems to general. Tons of stories and games have an element of fear, I don't see how it's so pronounced that it would be a main theme of D2. In fact it should have even less of a fear element than other games since you don't lose any progress when you die, just a bit of time walking back to where you were.

sweetjer
01-07-2013, 01:38 AM
Nah you contorted my meaning a little bit (thru no fault of your own) but what I meant by that was that the joy isn't in taking more numbers off the other guy because you acquired sweet gear, the joy is in FINALLY finding that rare gear with the Name and awesome stats and becoming more powerful because you FOUND AN ARTIFACT IN A HELLSCAPE. The AH version of gear acquisition is: I won a bid on ebay. You see the difference? You're saying how you acquire the gear is irrelevant. I'm saying how you acquire the gear is the game.

P.S. Most D3 forum threads devolve into either name calling or "you just don't get it" I want to be clear here: this isn't what I'm saying. The intention of my assertion is more "to each his own."

sweetjer
01-07-2013, 01:51 AM
And also I just want to weigh in and say that the D3 story, which I haven't mentioned yet, is absolutely terrible. Not even worth discussing, which is why I haven't yet. But this thread has me remembering that abysmal mess. Seems like the team interpreted "in ARPG, story doesn't matter" as "we can half-ass the story because it doesn't matter." Demon's Souls barely has a story. And it barely matters. But it's steeped in atmosphere and style, two things at which, as we've already noted, D3 miserably failed. Except for the frogs. The frogs were cool.

khorven
01-07-2013, 02:00 PM
Nah you contorted my meaning a little bit (thru no fault of your own) but what I meant by that was that the joy isn't in taking more numbers off the other guy because you acquired sweet gear, the joy is in FINALLY finding that rare gear with the Name and awesome stats and becoming more powerful because you FOUND AN ARTIFACT IN A HELLSCAPE.

Yeah, the rarity makes it pleasurable too. I think the rarity and the good stats make it valuable so getting it for nothing is pleasurable, plus the suspense when it drops about what it is. Would you really feel that different if you chanced upon some guy who was giving the items away if it was very rare for a person to do that? I think it would be mostly the same feeling, maybe without the suspense. That many people that like this sort of thing compare it to gambling (but you pay with time instead of money) makes me think I am right.

sweetjer
01-07-2013, 02:02 PM
Personally I come from the roguelike camp not the slot machine camp. But I guess speaking generally you may have a point there.

khorven
01-08-2013, 12:10 PM
http://www.garath.net/Sullla/D3/D3.html

This explains why the auction house is a huge flaw.

About it making the game easier though, I think that flaw has more to do with the quality of gear being so random making the game impossible to balance. Why does everything have to be random? It shouldn't but it is because more people want it like that when finding loot and competing with others for gear. Plus for real money auction house reasons.

edit: So it is partially because of the auction house, because the auction house is part of the reason they designed it like that. Derp.

khorven
01-08-2013, 01:40 PM
Shit, you know what? Monster powers fixes the balance issue. Unless you have a problem with choosing your difficulty and not being forced into one. So it's not a perfect solution but it's at least better than it was at launch. But the drop rate in the higher monster powers is poorly balanced I hear (it doesn't rise at a good enough rate). Plus you might be leveling too fast and not want to bother with the higher difficulties (though maybe that's good). Plus you can't play pub games with them.

Also it doesn't fix that all your characters' gold is pooled together. So if you beat the game in inferno once the fun in managing gold is gone. Then your gold is "imbalanced" so later games won't be fun in that respect. But you could always just give it away.

I wonder if the game is even playable now using the AH. The economy might be ruined, especially with paragon levels.

cofro17
01-11-2013, 04:28 PM
POE. It's free in like 2 weeks. IMHO the combat has nothing on D3, but the character customization and gear systems are much, much more fun. And the story is pretty interesting as well.

cofro17
01-11-2013, 04:29 PM
Torchlight 2 is pretty fun as well, but I hear that the visuals turn a lot of people off.

R0113R C045T3R
01-23-2013, 04:02 AM
I didnt really read much on this thread but why i stopped playing the game (after buying myself the collectors(was 49 outta 50, waited in the line directly in the sun for 4hrs), being in the first wave of beta and buying 2 other copies for my then broke ass friends) is that if you take away all the loot theres no diffrence between you and a level 1 other then the skills you've unlocked, to me thats lame. theres no progression cause theres 2 much random loot. The games to far along though to change anything, the thing they could do is remove all the white items and just keep the blues but then because theres no stats the only items that are good are the ones with your main stat and vitality which in a total random loot system is rare.

The games just flawed and theres nothing they can really do to fix it. no skill levels mean they cant add +skill level items, all the mana resources are different so they cant balance the game to allow you to have items that are like enigma that give you a skill from a different class, like wtf were they thinking?

everything about that game is terrible it's like everyone that had a hand in the game never weighed the pros and cons, they didnt weight the pro's and con's of the resource system, the item system, the skill system, the stat system; every system in the games F'd so they cant do anything but make a new game.

Look at banner saga, theres stats so you can min/max to your play style and because all the stat's arent displayed people cant straight up copy you. In diablo 3 if you saw some1 better then you thats the same class you can just rip them off completely and you lost your edge. In banner saga i can beat people cause i can weigh the pro's and con's of a list and cause of my own hard(ish) work im better before we even make the first move but everyone has this option. In diablo 3 all that matters is the loot which you ahve to get from the auction house cause the loot chance is terrible so no one is unique and cause of the game having no pvp theres no skill involved cause in the engame you one shot almost every monster in the game or atleast thats how it worked in d2.

also not having a lobby system is a joke. I wanna be able to make a game called free so people join, raise the drop chance and then sure cause your in my map take what i dont want cause you helped me get the rarest drops... the list goes on the game cant be salvaged and its sad cause if d3 was just a straight port of d2 with widescreen i'd be playing that game now, atleast i found a gem like this game that please's my inner geeeeeeeky-F'in-ness.