Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[3]

[...]right now it appear to me it's just a level based skill unlock, no hard decision or character specialization.

Right, but the other side of that argument is that, say, in D2's system, you had to be clued up on everything and do everything right or your character was utterly worthless. Would you prefer having to look up tables every time you want to check if something's viable and find out it probably isn't anyway, or just be able to experiment?

In fact I don't see much incentive to replay the same character twice, unless there is some mechanic that escape me.

Because attributes actually have a notable effect on your character now, the main customisation vector is gems. I might be misremembering the exact value but I think the top-level gems give you +60 to a specific stat, and with every stat being useful to every class (as opposed to them all being equally useless, lolololol) that's quite a potential shift in the damage/dodge/crit/mana/survivability emphasis.

Besides, it's not like "perfect strategy for each area" is relevant at high levels. In Inferno everything's max level anyway, so you just go wherever you want.

[fenrif]

*Spend 5 minutes clicking the "play" button because it can't find the server for some reason to let me play a singleplayer game*

*Get it to work, play for 5 minutes, get booted to main menu because it lost connection, click play and it flashes up an error code*

Fuck this ¬_¬

Yeaah, that seemed bound to happen when they let everyone into the game at once. Guess they're trying to prevent this kind of thing happening at launch by testing it now. Most likely it's gonna be a clusterfuck anyway. Makes me kinda happy I have to wait a few days for my physical copy.

This is the first time I've ever tried to play a game that requires always-on online activation for singleplayer. I can't say im terribly impressed.

[Haven]

Right, but the other side of that argument is that, say, in D2's system, you had to be clued up on everything and do everything right or your character was utterly worthless. Would you prefer having to look up tables every time you want to check if something's viable and find out it probably isn't anyway, or just be able to experiment?

I dunno about that. I managed to beat D2 without any sort of external guide, and I didn't have much of a clue of the mechanics. I'm thinking it was a result of decent skill balance. Character locking doesn't necessitate discarding every route but the best for any given situation. X being the best doesn't make Y insufficient, in the case of fighting against a static campaign. PvP, of course, is a different beast entirely.

[3]

"Beat" as in finished Normal, or finished Hell? I'd be seriously impressed if the latter was the case, and honestly, I beat Normal when I was 11. Almost anything can get by in it, and for a great deal of players, it was a fractional part of the game. Whether you find that relevant or not... well, that's another matter.

D3 has far, far better skill balance than D2 ever did. A guy who made a long analytical post on the US battle.net forums put it really well: What happens when a player, who has no knowledge of the metagame, does something like maxing Frost Nova? Or Thorns? Or the entire Druid Elemental tree? It's fine for a while, but then they get to a point in the game (usually the start of Nightmare) the game just goes "haha no", there's an impasse, and the only solution is to start again. You might like those skills, but that's not to say they're actually useful.

An even worse case is in something like Firebolt vs. Fireball: Why would you bother picking one over the other? Fireball is superior to Firebolt in every way. The only reason why it's a case of "optimal" vs. "sub-optimal" is because the game doesn't give you any incentive to pick anything other than the optimal. The simple fact that "optimal" has to exist is flawed design in itself.

As far as I'm concerned, there are two root causes of this: One, skills are based on flat numbers, not percentile scaling. This is the same reason why attributes are useless in D2: Say, your weapon damage massively outstrips the bonus you get from points in strength, so it becomes a waste of time to invest in said stat. Skills in D3 are percentile-scaled so every skill can be useful at every point in the game; this also means there's no reason for there to be more or less powerful clones of the same skill.

Two, the game's design is generally confused and not particularly well-thought-out. For instance, in the earlier example of Thorns, monster HP scales faster than monster damage, so Thorns becomes exponentially less useful as you progress. The average player has no way of knowing this, and no reason to suspect it, because it's contrary to the way the design presents itself! It's ridiculous.

[fenrif]

So you're saying Hell difficulty was harder than normal, and required a better understanding of the game mechanics and how your chosen class played? I will not stand for it!

Stuff like skills not scaling properly with monster HP is just plain bad game design, and doesn't really have anything to do with how easy or difficult it was to build a character in D2. That isn't an arguement to streamline the leveling process, but an arguement to actually think about things and make sure skills aren't useless. ALL the skills should be usefull.

Right, but the other side of that argument is that, say, in D2's system, you had to be clued up on everything and do everything right or your character was utterly worthless. Would you prefer having to look up tables every time you want to check if something's viable and find out it probably isn't anyway, or just be able to experiment?

This statement that you made is saying "D2 was impossible to play unless you looked up strategy guides and leveling tables."  Which is demonstrably false. Sure you wouldn't be able to beat the harder difficulties without at least a fair understanding of how the game worked, but beating it on normal difficulty, or hard? Not as impossible a task as you seem to think.

"Sure you can drive your car to the shops and back, but you can't drive in the Gran Prix, so we're going to put a 30mph speed limit on that so anyone can do it!" Is a good metaphor to explain why I have a problem with this line of reasoning.

Disclaimer: Still haven't played the game as it still wont let me into singleplayer because server issues ¬_¬ So i dunno what the character advancement is actually like, but this arguement of why its ok to dumb things down (if they indeed are) irks me.

[3]

If you're totally insistent on reducing the argument to "D2 levelling system vs D3 levelling system" then... I don't have much to say I haven't already said.

My impression is that D3 is going to get harder because it actually gets legitimately harder. That is, you need to learn to play the game and not just follow some predetermined skill build that has nothing to do with your playing ability. D2 is the opposite; you look up a bunch of skills and figure out what works, and if you don't, you can't progress. D3 allows players to make choices independently of which is the "optimal" skill, because the "optimal" skill doesn't exist in the first place. Players can then focus on actually playing the game as opposed to following cookie-cutter builds (which, grind aside, was 99.9% of D2's gameplay).

This statement that you made is saying "D2 was impossible to play unless you looked up strategy guides and leveling tables." Which is demonstrably false. Sure you wouldn't be able to beat the harder difficulties without at least a fair understanding of how the game worked, but beating it on normal difficulty, or hard? Not as impossible a task as you seem to think.

No, you're being more hyperbolic than I am. I hope you read my post properly this time.

dumb things down

"Dumb things down" should be made the Godwin's Law of game-related arguments. It contributes nothing, ignores all other points made, is repeated endlessly, and is generally fucking stupid.

[fenrif]

D2 is the opposite; you look up a bunch of skills and figure out what works, and if you don't, you can't progress.

No, you're being more hyperbolic than I am. I hope you read my post properly this time.

We're specfically talking about you're contention that D3 has been made easier to understand because D2 was impossible to play without guides. You say I'm not reading your post properly and literally repeat that same sentiment in the same post. Are you reading your posts properly?

Other people in this thread have allready said it, but here goes again: You can beat D2 without any outside knowledge of the game. It's not that hard, and certainly not as impossible as you seem to think it is. MANY people did this. I ran through the game a month or so ago with two friends who had never played D2 before and none of us looked up builds or guides, and we got through the game without much difficulty.

Godwins law is there because calling someone a nazi is basically a rhetorical dead end. No matter what you're arguing about invoking it's a weak attempt to insult the person you're talking to while avoiding actually discussing the topic at hand. "Dumbing things down" is something that is actually pretty prevelant in the modern games industry, and if you're going to talk or think about games critically then it's kind of unavoidable. (Not to say it's necissarily always true, but y'know, i never said that in my other post anyway). That aside, talk about ignoring points made, you quote 3 words out of context of the rest of the sentance, let alone the post. Are you literally that angry over those three words being used regardless of how or why they are said, or did you just desperatly need a segueway for insinuating im "fucking stupid?"

[3]

We're specfically talking about you're contention that D3 has been made easier to understand because D2 was impossible to play without guides. You say I'm not reading your post properly and literally repeat that same sentiment in the same post. Are you reading your posts properly?

Other people in this thread have allready said it, but here goes again: You can beat D2 without any outside knowledge of the game. It's not that hard, and certainly not as impossible as you seem to think it is. MANY people did this. I ran through the game a month or so ago with two friends who had never played D2 before and none of us looked up builds or guides, and we got through the game without much difficulty.

"Beat" as in finished Normal, or finished Hell? I'd be seriously impressed if the latter was the case, and honestly, I beat Normal when I was 11. Almost anything can get by in it, and for a great deal of players, it was a fractional part of the game. Whether you find that relevant or not... well, that's another matter.

There, have the original context, because you apparently still couldn't be bothered to read it.

If the endgame difficulties aren't relevant to you, then neither is this argument, because D2 is easy enough to play through however you want on Normal, and you're going to be playing D3 however you want anyway.

"Dumbing things down" is something that is actually pretty prevelant in the modern games industry, and if you're going to talk or think about games critically then it's kind of unavoidable.

I disagree. Entirely. I think there have been overall changes in the direction of game design. Those changes are not "dumbing down", they're a different approach that prioritises different areas of game design. This is why I made the Godwin comparison: "dumbing down" is used as a buzzword/phrase/whatever, spouted by people who don't want to actually discuss anything, just find something to criticize, and they just keep on repeating it without even trying to consider what it actually means.

[Andir]

I never once used a cookie cutter build in D2 and I did great through all the difficulties.  There were times I had to get help from a friend, but that's what made it more fun.

Also, as far as I can tell... there is only normal difficulty in the Beta.  I've beaten the boss several times and normal is the only choice I have for resetting my quest.

I disagree. Entirely. I think there have been overall changes in the direction of game design. Those changes are not "dumbing down", they're a different approach that prioritises different areas of game design. This is why I made the Godwin comparison: "dumbing down" is used as a buzzword/phrase/whatever, spouted by people who don't want to actually discuss anything, just find something to criticize, and they just keep on repeating it without even trying to consider what it actually means.

I think the game is incredibly dumbed down... I never once died as the demon hunter.  Even when I found a room with what seemed like a million skeletons all spawning rapidly in a set period of time.  I sat in the corner and took out a bunch without ever having to use my potions.  In D2, potions were life.

[fenrif]

So you disagree with me therefore I dont want to discuss anything and don't even know what I'm saying?

This statement that you made is saying "D2 was impossible to play unless you looked up strategy guides and leveling tables."  Which is demonstrably false. Sure you wouldn't be able to beat the harder difficulties without at least a fair understanding of how the game worked, but beating it on normal difficulty, or hard? Not as impossible a task as you seem to think.

I'm going to repost this, since this is a thing we do now? You're basically arguing that every difficulty for every game should be as easy for someone who's never played it before as for someone who has played through the game on the previous difficulties and has an intimate knowledge of how the game works. Normal difficulty is the standard one, which is where you learn how the game works, how to play, etc. Hell difficulty is deliberatly supposed to be extremely punishing. I say punishing rather than rewarding (even though it's both usually) because it punishes lack of knowledge and skill with lack of progress. It's not that they aren't relevant, and I never said that, it's that they aren't relevant concerning what you're complaining about. Maybe it's my fault for reading what you wrote at face value, and not filling in the bits you obviously meant to write but left out for some reason, like "D2 is the opposite; you look up a bunch of skills and figure out what works, and if you don't, you can't progress on the hardest difficulty ." (bolded the parts you forgot, i guess?)

If you honestly don't think games have been getting easier, on average, then I don't know how to respond. Ever see that video of the COD level that plays itself? How many racing games have rewind functions incase you mess up taking a corner? Again (as I said this before) I don't know if Diablo 3 is simplified or dumbed down or streamlined. I made no claims to that as I've still not been able to play the game. But as a general trend in gaming? Definatly. They don't call it "nintendo hard" because they had detailed quest logs and magic arrows that pointed your way to the glowing object while the A button flashes up on the screen to tell you how to interact with it.

"Sure you can drive your car to the shops and back, but you can't drive in the Gran Prix, so we're going to put a 30mph speed limit on that so anyone can do it! If driving in the Gran Prix isn't relevant to you then neither is anything because driving is easy and you're going to drive however you want anyway"

I disagree. Entirely. I think there have been overall changes in the direction of game design. Those changes are not "dumbing down", they're a different approach that prioritises different areas of game design. This is why I made the Godwin comparison: "dumbing down" is used as a buzzword/phrase/whatever, spouted by people who don't want to actually discuss anything, just find something to criticize, and they just keep on repeating it without even trying to consider what it actually means.

This would make sense if I actually said the game was dumbed down, or haven't been actively discussing the topic with you (without resorting to thinly veiled ad hominems, thank you), or haven't shown an awareness of what it means, or have repeated it outside of this discussion, or haven't had actuall things to criticise about the game itself and your arguement to which I was initially responding without needing to make things up.

I never once used a cookie cutter build in D2 and I did great through all the difficulties.  There were times I had to get help from a friend, but that's what made it more fun.

You are a liar. Noone has ever beaten D2 without at least taking the 4 year skill-tree 101 class at MIT, or the intro to clicking LMB studies course at Harvord!

[3]

So you disagree with me therefore I dont want to discuss anything and don't even know what I'm saying?

I didn't say that. I said:

"dumbing down" is used as a buzzword/phrase/whatever, spouted by people who don't want to actually discuss anything, just find something to criticize, and they just keep on repeating it without even trying to consider what it actually means.

I also said, on your assention that "dumbing down" is the status quo:

I disagree. Entirely.

Me disagreeing with you and the fact that the "dumbing down" "argument" fustrates me are two seperate things.

Stop taking things personally. Stop being pedantic and dragging this into a semantic argument. (Hell, I don't even know if you have an argument, because your posts seem to contain less and less content as they go on)

If you honestly don't think games have been getting easier, on average, then I don't know how to respond. Ever see that video of the COD level that plays itself? How many racing games have rewind functions incase you mess up taking a corner? Again (as I said this before) I don't know if Diablo 3 is simplified or dumbed down or streamlined. I made no claims to that as I've still not been able to play the game. But as a general trend in gaming? Definatly. They don't call it "nintendo hard" because they had detailed quest logs and magic arrows that pointed your way to the glowing object while the A button flashes up on the screen to tell you how to interact with it.

"Simplified", "dumbed down", "streamlined", and "easier" are different things and have different connotations. They are not to be lumped together, which is what you appear to be doing.

If driving in the Gran Prix isn't relevant to you then neither is anything because driving is easy and you're going to drive however you want anyway"

This doesn't have anything to do with what I said. You've paid enough attention to notice that my argument is about endgame content, so what makes what I said there any different from what I said elsewhere?

In case you don't get the point, what I'm saying is that the player has free reign over how they play in Normal D2... and throughout the entire of D3. That's it. There is nothing else you should be getting out of that, no matter how clever you think you're being with self-references.

This would make sense if I actually said the game was dumbed down

You implied that you had the suspicion, and you were arguing from the position of the dumbed-down argument, so...

(without resorting to thinly veiled ad hominems, thank you)

You're taking things personally again.

or haven't shown an awareness of what it means

By all means, define it for me. Please. I'm honestly interested on your perspective on things.

[Andir]

I never once used a cookie cutter build in D2 and I did great through all the difficulties.  There were times I had to get help from a friend, but that's what made it more fun.

You are a liar. Noone has ever beaten D2 without at least taking the 4 year skill-tree 101 class at MIT, or the intro to clicking LMB studies course at Harvord!

Aw man, you outed me!  I have a BS Degree in Barbarian Whirlwind and a Masters in Frozen Orb.

[chaoticag]

In all honesty, I have to say, I prefer Diablo III's level system over Diablo II. Since classes level up a set way, and every skill gets unlocked as you go along (from what I've seen so far) you can avoid being a dead weight to the team. It's just a matter of picking the skills and runes that you feel do the best job, and being able to painlessly change them as you feel fit. In Diablo II, our more in the dark, and won't know whether the skill is useful or not until you picked it, though you can suspect it being useful or not from the display text. Effectively, the game is simpler, but that's not a bad thing, since if you are going to provide options, and not let the player take back their choices, it just becomes an artificial way of lengthening the game.

(Also, being able to reset skill points and attribute points would be fun too. The player already proved they can get this far, let him have the option to speed things up a little.)

[umiman]

Anyone who's ever played Diablo 2 knows there were only one or two real builds for any class anyway (e.g: Put everything into STR, then everything into VIT). Having everything level based and preset for you doesn't change a damn thing.

[chaoticag]

Well, no it does change something. There are no more pitfalls in character creation. You might know what they are if you played diablo II, but you don't know what they are if you're playing diablo II, if you know what I'm saying. Most pitfalls are skill based anyway.