Auction House Online: The Game (Diablo 3) is a MASSIVE decline

[J1M]

At low level, there is no build permanence.

At max level, if you choose to change your build you will lose the stacking gold/magic find bonus that comes from defeating successive champion/boss monsters. So the cost of changing builds will probably be 60-100% magic find. (Until you kill 5 champion packs with your new one)

Doesn't stop you from changing when you start a new game or playing for the day, but makes changing your build each time you meet a new enemy very suboptimal. (Especially since you cannot easily swap skills in combat, even if you can do it without dying you have to wait 30 additional seconds to use the ability. On any difficulty that matters, that means a town portal to change.)

 

[Jasede]

I see what you are saying; I just do not think Diablo is the correct franchise for this sort of idealism. That said, I have my own fair share of misguides idealism all the time, complete with dumb and inappropriate opinions, so I am not one to talk.

I honestly believe they have to all go bankrupt before something new can happen. I am waiting for a kind of renaissance. Maybe Kickstarter will bring it, but then again, probably not. But here's to hoping!

 

[DraQ]

The thing is that when you remove elements like builds, Diablo becomes a game about clicking things to death, repeatedly. That's all there is to it, especially since D2, that got rid of persistence and having to work with what you find.

Clicking things to death over and over again is very shitty gameplay.

You are just lying to yourself. Diablo was always about clicking things to death over and over to get better loot. It was never about the builds or about Act 1 on Normal being difficult or even about the much-praised atmosphere.

For you. For me it has *always* been about the atmosphere and making do with what you're given - I'm not some WoWtard. That's why I found D2 p. shitty. Of course clicking stuff to death and picking up loot was the core gameplay, but only in the aforementioned context and the game really dosed the phat lewt with micropipette.

Now, D2 was pretty shitty, but at least it allowed the variety of possible builds to discover and play with.

D3 takes away the builds and gives what in exchange? what will be there to make the game anything more than clickclickclick loot slot machine?
It looks like the ultimate coup the grace to the series.

 

[Jasede]

I am not a "WoWtard" either; I still contest that that is not what they are trying to achieve with the franchise. It always struck me as the dumb clickclickclick slot machine that was, however, dressed up nicely so that people like you can also find something to like about it.

They have chosen to cater more to the broader mass than to the fewer aficionados. You are mistaken to believe this will be the coup the grace. I have a feeling it will be a smashing success that will make Blizzard incredibly rich for years to come.

 

[Captain Shrek]

I see what you are saying; I just do not think Diablo is the correct franchise for this sort of idealism. That said, I have my own fair share of misguides idealism all the time, complete with dumb and inappropriate opinions, so I am not one to talk.

I honestly believe they have to all go bankrupt before something new can happen. I am waiting for a kind of renaissance. Maybe Kickstarter will bring it, but then again, probably not. But here's to hoping!

 

[aris]

The thing is that when you remove elements like builds, Diablo becomes a game about clicking things to death, repeatedly. That's all there is to it, especially since D2, that got rid of persistence and having to work with what you find.

Clicking things to death over and over again is very shitty gameplay.

You are just lying to yourself. Diablo was always about clicking things to death over and over to get better loot. It was never about the builds or about Act 1 on Normal being difficult or even about the much-praised atmosphere. This new skill system changes jack shit. In Diablo 2 people would just do this:

They play the game. They fuck up their build. They look up a build that looks fun. They play that build.

A few of them would experiment- which you still can, by picking different ability/rune combinations, merely in a different way.

But nothing really changed. The game was about killing things and clicking and picking up stuff. That was always the biggest criticism and the biggest draw. I doubt Diablo 3 will be any different. I played 1 and 2 when they came out and yes, they were merely that: games about clicking and killing things that appealed to nothing but the basest instincts.

And that was fine because they were video games, not an intellectual exercise. Diablo never pretended to be anything more; anything you might see in Diablo 1 or 2 that was "more" is merely your addled perception so you can talk about something on a video game forum.

Look, I am not saying that it isn't dumbed down. It is. So what? The game was never about planning out your stat points; at least not from my viewpoint. It was just a fun game to play with friends or alone that was a great time waster, like most video games.

I'd understand all your criticism if this was a real RPG- but it's freaking Diablo! It's an action RPG hack&slash loot and killfest! The whole argument is pointless because even if you were correct you'd be proving nothing new!

This. Draq, if you thought diablo 2 was crap, why do you care about the third iteration? I would've ignored it. Anyway, I will enjoy it (possibly dislike it) for what it is, and financially it will probably do extremely well, it will probably sell far more copies than diablo 1 and 2 did combined, so a coup de grace? Not very likely.

 

[Raghar]

He don't care he is trolling.

 

[shihonage]

I am not a "WoWtard" either; I still contest that that is not what they are trying to achieve with the franchise. It always struck me as the dumb clickclickclick slot machine that was, however, dressed up nicely so that people like you can also find something to like about it.

Calling D2 a clickclickclick slot machine is reduction ad absurdum.

I fondly remember having to decide which spells to use when, depending on the type of group encountered - confuse them, make them gnaw on my golem and hurt themselves with Iron Maiden, slow down influx of new enemies in the room by casting Bone Wall, giving my party more time to finish off the first wave, using that missile thing when enemies are lined up, making sure my summons are all Mage Skeletons on Act 3, so they can take out those annoying tribals... Blood Golem was useful in some situations and deadly in others, due to shared life pool...

The Paladin's Zeal was good for medium groups of enemies, but his shield-stun attack (forget what its called) was very powerful and underrated when it came to powerful enemies/bosses, or surviving in low-health situations...

I spent a LOT of hours in Diablo2, mainly because of the little strategies that the game afforded me with, mostly with Necromancer and Paladin classes...

Not only Diablo3 skills look like a thoughtless mishmash of DPS dressed up in crappy effects (and often duplicating from one bizarrely designed class to another), it has no build permanence that has always been the axiomic, founding quality of the genre from which Diablo sprang from as a series. That genre would be roguelikes, of course. A sub-genre of RPG.

They have chosen to cater more to the broader mass than to the fewer aficionados. You are mistaken to believe this will be the coup the grace. I have a feeling it will be a smashing success that will make Blizzard incredibly rich for years to come.

Smashing financial success does not mean it's going to be a good game. Kotick's other titles prove that every year.

There's more to games that clear-cut categories like "dumb" and "smart", you know. Diablo2 was somewhere in the gray area, it was an action game not absent of thought, closer to "dumb" perhaps, a guilty pleasure of sorts, but the series wasn't "dumb" in a black-and-white sort of way until now.

I believe what was meant here by "coup de grace", is that the series will be dead to anyone with a functioning brain. We'll move on, and hope that other games, perhaps Path of Exile or Torchlight series, haven't completely lost it.

 

[Stabwound]

This entire argument is almost completely pointless considering no one has played the game yet. The beta doesn't count being basically the introductory portion of the game.

It's very possible that the game is designed around the premise of having interchangeable skills. Imagine harder difficulties, where there might be bosses with certain resistances or attacks, where you'll change up your skills to be able to kill them. Not just "oh no this boss has ____ ability. WHIRLWINDWHIRLWINDWHIRLWIND" but "This boss has fire resistance; I better rune my beam to ice damage rather than the default fire damage."

I can see it being pretty fun for hardcore mode, which I plan on playing the most.

Is having a completely non-permanent system better? It depends who you ask. I'm not saying that non-permanent is better than permanent, but I honestly think D2's system overall, including the skills themselves, was broken beyond repair.

 

[DraQ]

This. Draq, if you thought diablo 2 was crap, why do you care about the third iteration? I would've ignored it. Anyway, I will enjoy it (possibly dislike it) for what it is, and financially it will probably do extremely well, it will probably sell far more copies than diablo 1 and 2 did combined, so a coup de grace? Not very likely.

You think I'm going to buy or even pirate it?

Isn't bitching about shit being shit pretty much *the* purpose of RPGCodex these days?

And yeah, shitty lowest common denominator entertainment does tend to sell.
Doesn't make it any less shitty, unless you're a kotick.

 

[shihonage]

This entire argument is almost completely pointless considering no one has played the game yet. The beta doesn't count being basically the introductory portion of the game.

It's very possible that the game is designed around the premise of having interchangeable skills. Imagine harder difficulties, where there might be bosses with certain resistances or attacks, where you'll change up your skills to be able to kill them. Not just "oh no this boss has ____ ability. WHIRLWINDWHIRLWINDWHIRLWIND" but "This boss has fire resistance; I better rune my beam to ice damage rather than the default fire damage."

I can see it being pretty fun for hardcore mode, which I plan on playing the most.

Is having a completely non-permanent system better? It depends who you ask. I'm not saying that non-permanent is better than permanent, but I honestly think D2's system overall, including the skills themselves, was broken beyond repair.

Build permanence is just part of it. A symptom of the overall disease. It may be convenient to single it out on its own, but it works together with the rest of the game's deficiencies. And there are videos out there of higher level skills than shown in the beta. They too, look retarded.

But on the subject of build permanence, hey, maybe you're NOT supposed to easily defeat the boss by doing a respec. Maybe someone else in your party has to do the job for you, while you relegate to a support role. I much prefer this approach to being a jack-of-all-trades, master-of-ALL.

 

[Damned Registrations]

But on the subject of build permanence, hey, maybe you're NOT supposed to easily defeat the boss by doing a respec. Maybe someone else in your party has to do the job for you, while you relegate to a support role. I much prefer this approach to being a jack-of-all-trades, master-of-ALL.

Yeah, because it would be totally satisfying to reach level 60, and discover that your build is useless against the final boss. And I'm sure random people will want an extra person they know is completely useless and can do nothing but leech health orbs everyone else needs along to take another share of loot if they win.

 

[J1M]

It's kinda funny to see people so upset about permanent build choices. Diablo 1 didn't have different builds at all. You just picked which stat you wanted to max out first, and max was based on class. Everyone could learn every spell.

What has been lost (but will hopefully be reintroduced with Inferno difficulty) is the sense that your character is fragile, outnumbered, and kinda fucked. Diablo 2 was the same way, very easy at the start. Easy enough that most people could easily save up 10+ levels of skill and ability points.

 

[attackfighter]

The thing is that when you remove elements like builds, Diablo becomes a game about clicking things to death, repeatedly. That's all there is to it, especially since D2, that got rid of persistence and having to work with what you find.

Clicking things to death over and over again is very shitty gameplay.

You are just lying to yourself. Diablo was always about clicking things to death over and over to get better loot. It was never about the builds or about Act 1 on Normal being difficult or even about the much-praised atmosphere. This new skill system changes jack shit. In Diablo 2 people would just do this:

They play the game. They fuck up their build. They look up a build that looks fun. They play that build.

A few of them would experiment- which you still can, by picking different ability/rune combinations, merely in a different way.

But nothing really changed. The game was about killing things and clicking and picking up stuff. That was always the biggest criticism and the biggest draw. I doubt Diablo 3 will be any different. I played 1 and 2 when they came out and yes, they were merely that: games about clicking and killing things that appealed to nothing but the basest instincts.

And that was fine because they were video games, not an intellectual exercise. Diablo never pretended to be anything more; anything you might see in Diablo 1 or 2 that was "more" is merely your addled perception so you can talk about something on a video game forum.

Look, I am not saying that it isn't dumbed down. It is. So what? The game was never about planning out your stat points; at least not from my viewpoint. It was just a fun game to play with friends or alone that was a great time waster, like most video games.

I'd understand all your criticism if this was a real RPG- but it's freaking Diablo! It's an action RPG hack&slash loot and killfest! The whole argument is pointless because even if you were correct you'd be proving nothing new!

The atmosphere alone didn't make the game, but it was a crucial component. That's why I enjoyed Diablo 1, but lost interest in Diablo 2. That and the grind...

 

[shihonage]

Yeah, because it would be totally satisfying to reach level 60, and discover that your build is useless against the final boss. And I'm sure random people will want an extra person they know is completely useless and can do nothing but leech health orbs everyone else needs along to take another share of loot if they win.

That shouldn't be happening in the first place. An END-boss, that honors only a single specialization, requires a special kind of retarded design.

A smart way to design such a boss would be in creating depth to its interactions. For instance, a certain character could stun it, but not damage it, while another one damages it. The third character could set traps that slow down its movement as it chases others, or stops it from teleporting.

If there's no participation of any kind, it is indeed, poor design.

 

[Damned Registrations]

Your design would be retarded. You'd need to organize a fucking diverse party to beat the boss? If you and your friend are playing together but didn't pick the specialization that does damage you're fucked?

This shit has been done before. Ask anyone who's played an MMO. Certain characters do specific things the best, and everyone else becomes a second class citizen waiting in line for their chance to add fuck all to the group. There's no point in bringing along the second best healer when you can bring the best healer instead. And if you think you can balance a game so every possible combination of dozens of different builds can fight effectively and get a fair slice of the action, you're delusional.

 

[shihonage]

Diablo 2 worked fine in regards to bosses, and it had build permanence. So, whatever they did there, worked. It's really just a fake problem you're creating so that these "dynamic builds" have something "to solve", or perhaps be even seen as a "step forward".

A rather sad state of affairs.

 

[Stabwound]

That isn't the point of Diablo anyway. Teaming up in co-op isn't necessarily supposed to make things "easier." It just makes it more fun and adds a sense of community. I do hope that there are challenges in D3 that can only be overcome with a team effort, though. They would never make the main game require that but special challenge levels would be cool.

And yes, in Diablo 2 it was very possible, and actually likely, to create a character that simply isn't viable in later difficulties if you went into it without a guide. I don't know what kind of person thinks its fun to spend 100 hours playing a character only to find that they can't even damage enemies in later difficulty levels but that's what will probably happen unless you concentrate all of you skill points into 1-2 skills that don't suck, which is counter-intuitive.

On that note, wow, it's so fun to use 1-2 skills over and over and over as your primary attack in D2. At least in D3 you have 7 skill slots available at all times to use.

 

[Jasede]

I certainly made a couple useless characters when I didn't use a guide, and I'd like to think I'm not all that retarded.

 

[Cowboy Moment]

Limited respecs are a much simpler answer to that problem. For instance, one free respec per difficulty. Of course, Blizzard won't do that, because that is not even close to the real reason they removed any character permanence beyond level.

 

[waywardOne]

Respecs are shit. If you can't stand to replay the first "level" or tutorial area or whatever, then that's an entirely separate issue of shittiness.

 

[Revenant]

Limited respecs are a much simpler answer to that problem. For instance, one free respec per difficulty. Of course, Blizzard won't do that, because that is not even close to the real reason they removed any character permanence beyond level.

This. Most of you people talk like there was no respec in Diablo 2. You got one respec as a reward for the "den of evil" quest in each of the difficulty levels - which totals to 3 sort of free respecs - and after that you could use a token to respec unlimited amount of times. The trick was that the token wasn't that trivial to obtain - you had either to grind different act bosses for the token crafting materials or to trade for it, not very cheaply. This way builds had a reasonable persistence and you had to think if you really want to make the effort to respec.

 

[Berekän]

That was on one of the later patches afaik, it wasn't in the game when I used to play it.

 

[Multi-headed Cow]

That was on one of the later patches afaik, it wasn't in the game when I used to play it.

It was added after Blizzard was far in decline in 2010. 10 years after the game's release in 2000.

 

[Revenant]

I see... I only got my hands on a legit cd-key after respecs were introduced, then :>