Official RPG Codex Discord Server

  1. Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.
    Dismiss Notice

Is Diablo III Blizzard's best modern game and why? Discuss!!!!

Discussion in 'General Gaming' started by Revenant, Oct 21, 2017.

  1. Overwatch is a terrible FPS, Diablo 3 is a bad hack and slash/arpg, Starcraft 2 is at best a mediocre RTS and that card game is a fucking joke. And WoW is one of the reasons why there are no good MMORPGs anymore.

    Bottom line: Blizzard's days of glory have been long gone.
     
    • Despair x 2
    • Brofist x 1
    • incline x 1
    • Yes x 1
    • retadred x 1
    ^ Top  
  2. fantadomat Arcane Edgy Wumao

    fantadomat
    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2017
    Messages:
    31,896
    Location:
    Bulgaria
    Now they are in the days of money! Who needs glory when you can have money! ;)
     
    • Despair Despair x 2
    ^ Top  
  3. Cowboy Moment Arcane

    Cowboy Moment
    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2011
    Messages:
    4,394
    Eh, it's probably Starcraft 2. The storytelling and writing in the campaigns are awful just like in Diablo 3, but core gameplay and mission design are pretty good. Multiplayer doesn't measure up to the original, but is still better than any of its contemporaries.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • incline incline x 1
    • Yes Yes x 1
    ^ Top  
  4. Mazisky Magister

    Mazisky
    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2015
    Messages:
    2,021
    Location:
    Rome, IT
    Seven years later and nobody has done something better tho, maybe just one or two nice titles ...in 7 years.
     
    ^ Top  
  5. DeusX1 Educated

    DeusX1
    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2014
    Messages:
    48
    For me it was a fun a level or 2, but when you see the same shit, doesn't the atmosphere just wear off? It did for me. There were games with good level design and diversity back in 1996, not the same genre, but duke nukem 3d comes to mind.
    Regarding repetitive gameplay in general, I personally can only endure it if the story is top notch and this is not the case.

    But anyway, you like this genre, I don't.
     
    ^ Top  
  6. Mastermind Cognito Elite Material Patron Bethestard

    Mastermind
    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    21,144
    Both Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3 are top tier in their genre.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 2
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • [citation needed] [citation needed] x 1
    • retadred retadred x 1
    ^ Top  
  7. [​IMG]
     
    • Brofist Brofist x 2
    • Funny Funny x 2
    • Yes Yes x 1
    ^ Top  
  8. Dzupakazul Arbiter

    Dzupakazul
    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2015
    Messages:
    707
    Well, I personally think that Brood War is the absolute top tier of the RTS genre, but honestly, SC2 is also pretty high-tier - even if we argue that it's because there just haven't been too many good RTS games on the market around lately.
     
    • Brofist Brofist x 1
    ^ Top  
  9. fantadomat Arcane Edgy Wumao

    fantadomat
    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2017
    Messages:
    31,896
    Location:
    Bulgaria
    Nah both of them are pretty bad examples of their genre and worst in their franchise.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Yes Yes x 1
    ^ Top  
  10. Dzupakazul Arbiter

    Dzupakazul
    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2015
    Messages:
    707
    Edition wars between BW and SC2 (or Warcraft and SC2...) aside - what makes SC2 a bad example of an RTS game? It has all the trappings and assorted skill requirements. It isn't particularly unbalanced or clunky (and I don't consider BW's mechanics to be "clunk" in any way, I mean stuff like the obscure Black Moon Chronicles by Cryo where the characters would quite often randomly freeze up instead of casting their spells or whatever) either.
     
    ^ Top  
  11. RhodokMasterRaceOfficial Arbiter

    RhodokMasterRaceOfficial
    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2015
    Messages:
    634
    Location:
    Kangaroo Island
    SC2's just bad because armies have absurd DPS density and clump up too easily.

    And also because it stinks of command and conquer and doesn't feel like Starcraft to me, but I guess that's an "edition wars" point.
     
    • Brofist Brofist x 1
    • Thanks! Thanks! x 1
    ^ Top  
  12. Mastermind Cognito Elite Material Patron Bethestard

    Mastermind
    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    21,144
    the clumping up is a great feature, not a bug. nothing i hate more than sending a pack of units someplace and them spreading across half the map because they don't want to get within 10 meters of each other like in the original starcraft. if anything they should have gone further and add toggleable formations like warlords battlecry or aoe2/3

    it also feels nothing like a C&C, no unit/building side bar and buildings rising up from the ground = no c&c.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
    ^ Top  
  13. Mastermind Cognito Elite Material Patron Bethestard

    Mastermind
    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    21,144
    D3 aesthetic is nothing like warcraft (I know because I detest warcraft aesthetic), it's more like an 80s post-apoc cartoon and suits it well. Diablo 1's athmosphere was fantastic but horror doesn't really fit the gameplay of an ARPG and Diablo 1 is only memorable because they did it so well that clashing with the gameplay didn't take anything from it.
     
    • WTF am I reading WTF am I reading x 1
    ^ Top  
  14. Dzupakazul Arbiter

    Dzupakazul
    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2015
    Messages:
    707
    I think it was Day9 (or someone else) who pointed out that Brood War pathfinding being imperfect is among the chief reasons for what makes the micromanagement portion of that game exciting - because us humans are prone to making mistakes, and because the limitations of the game allow the micro feats to look truly spectacular.

    In Brood War, anyone can make a mistake - Jaedong can sometimes forget his expansion morphed in and there are idle larvae gathering there with no work getting done, Flash's SCV might be hanging out not doing his job, or Bisu can just randomly lose a whole bunch of probes to a mine he carelessly triggered. This helps level the playing field - even if someone is better than you you can still try to screw them up, and any comebacks are much easier to perform.

    Common criticism of SC2 is that, with all of the QoL improvements that game gives to the player, the game is much more unforgiving of mistakes - as any room you leave to your opponent is much more likely to snowball when so much of the game is automatized - and that many engagements in the late game are basically deathballs smashing other deathballs. You can't really have deathballs in BW - even the infamous Terran deathball slowpush that brings death to many Zerg and Protoss on the ladder is clunky, very prone to being caught out of position by a smart scout, and susceptible to stuff like Zealot bombs, flanks, Psionic Storm and Stasis Field play. Not to mention that Terran's powerful deathballs might be unmatched in the field, but the much faster Zerg and Protoss armies also have more ways of simply outmaneuvering said deathball by striking away from it.

    It should be acknowledged that SC2, like its precedessor, -is- a very mechanically intensive game - you have to be really good to maintain stuff like injection of larvae, to remember all the M.U.L.E. deliveries, to keep your resources low, and to micro skirmishes and spells, and I very appreciate the depth that goes into all of those things! - and it also makes sure that you need to know and understand your build orders well.

    But it feels like the mechanical challenges of Brood War look more exciting. You are what any ambitious commander would like to be - an avid micromanager that knows what's best for his troops in all spheres of their short, digital life. You have to be in charge of the logistics, you have to pay attention to the economy, you have to keep an eye on their movements, and there's plenty of techniques that allow you to set up great flanks even with the janky 12 unit limit. There was a gif a long time ago where a pro Zerg player amasses his full force and is about to clamp down on an opponent who will type "gg" in a few moments - and it looks great to see all those little dots on the map just move, one by one, from their carefully placed stations and collapse onto the enemy, as the little Zerg dots fall-in and begin consuming the Terran dots.

    SC2 can't offer those challenges by the nature of its design - but I've seen outlets like TL and whatnot say that if many games can simply be reduced to "who was best in injecting their larvae and just smashed their deathball on the enemy better", it doesn't feel nearly as exciting. The Protoss Dragoon in Brood War is often rightfully considered to be the most dysfunctional of his brethren, but that only makes the Dragoon control exhibited in this match all the more spectacular.

    I still believe SC2 has every right to be called a "good" experience, and I wouldn't judge it as harshly as many here, though I'm much more of a Brood War fan and I'm happy to see people migrating back from SC2 to BW and giving it another ride.

    And again, SC2 really doesn't have that much working competition among RTS games with working netplay or decent balance, which makes it all the more viable.


    Are you sure you played Diablo 1? The atmosphere doesn't go against the gameplay at all, especially with the sorta shit that D1 could throw at you. Diablo 1 is, for the most part, slow and methodical to play, monsters sound quite terrifying and could often surprise you - Illusion Weavers, for example are the most advanced variation on a common enemy, who stays invisible until he pops up right in your face and unleashes a barrage of very fast attacks that deal heavy damage and are prone to stunlocking you - all the while unleashing guttural sounds against a creepy audiovisual background. If you died in MP, you dropped all items on the floor individually and it was even more tense to try and get them back.

    It isn't necessarily a "survival horror" game or whatever, but it *is* themed around horror tropes and it does its job really well. In some ways it plays like a mid-level game of Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay hosted by a competent DM - stuff is generally creepy, mysterious and disturbing, but not to the point where you will shit-your-pants-be-scared, but you will feel serious and invested. The game features extensive demonic imagery, villagers who went completely insane from the PTSD received from the demons, children mutilated in a sacrificial act to a demon, insane cultists, constant threat, the notion that you can easily fall under the influence of evil and go insane, corruption, and general moodiness.
     
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2017
    • Brofist Brofist x 7
    • Prestigious Prestigious x 1
    ^ Top  
  15. Mastermind Cognito Elite Material Patron Bethestard

    Mastermind
    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    21,144
    I don't play competitive SC, so that part of the game is alien to me. The main issue is that with a really popular game all of the best moves eventually become public and it all ends up a matter of who is more robot-like. It doesn't sound like fun to me, whether it's sc2 or bw. the single player (aside from the mediocre story in the first two and downright shitty story in lotv) is superb. the campaign has a wide variety of missions with cool and unique environments and scenarios, there's tons of shit to customize between levels and a wide variety of units to play with. everything i could ask for in a single player rts and on a smooth running engine with very few annoyances.

    I didn't find d1 particularly slow. obv it's slower than 2/3 but it's still an action game. I don't deny that the atmosphere is fantastic, but it's just not fitting with the gameplay for me. it doesn't help that by the end i was cycling apocalypse staffs with my sorcerer and nuking everything in sight (including diablo when i finally got to him).
     
    ^ Top  
  16. Dzupakazul Arbiter

    Dzupakazul
    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2015
    Messages:
    707
    Well, it's 2017 and BW is still evolving in terms of used strategy, with many great revolutions and minor evolutions throughout its history - new playstyles and ideas can be seen even in this year's ASL - and there's enough admirable player silhouettes (White-Ra, Testie, Calm - all great players with remarkably low APM and noted for their decision making and crazy strategies) to show that being "robot-like" isn't any more of a true assertion than, say, pro-level chess where a particularly uncharitable spectator could potentially belittle grandmasters for extensively preparing against certain openings before world championships and following certain established lines to a tee, being able to dictate a game's passive outcome many, many moves in advance. The truth is more than such blanket statements; even if we cherrypick games like this one, and add some lines about how Berlin Defense is cancer, which I've seen some chess communities claim after a particularly boring bout during some WCS. (By no means I'm trying to make broad comparisons between chess and Starcraft - I thought this was an useful parallel, however)

    I understand though if you don't care for competitive SC, though SC2's co-op content is still decent enough from what I've played (though the bonus commanders at the price of a DLC are just beyond commentary). Still, competitive SC shouldn't be neglected in those discussions because SC2 really, really tried to shine as a competitive game and was extensively marketed as one - it can be said that it actually made the game less accessible and lost Blizzard sales / Twitch stream revenue / interest in tournaments.

    That's the crux. D1 Warrior has to whittle down everything one by one; D2 martial builds are generally melee spellcasters, except their screen-clearing fireballs are fluffed to behave and look like melee swings. A D1 Warrior didn't have access to Whirlwind or Frenzy.
     
    • Brofist Brofist x 3
    • Agree Agree x 1
    ^ Top  
  17. RhodokMasterRaceOfficial Arbiter

    RhodokMasterRaceOfficial
    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2015
    Messages:
    634
    Location:
    Kangaroo Island
    That was Hero playing in SSL earlier this year wasn't it? Pretty sure it was a Protoss on the receiving end and not a Terran. I remember watching that map-wide pincer with hydras on the minimap and just creaming my pants at how elegant it was.
     
    ^ Top  
  18. fantadomat Arcane Edgy Wumao

    fantadomat
    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2017
    Messages:
    31,896
    Location:
    Bulgaria
    Mainly the art direction is far too cartoony and boring. They lack any kind of atmosphere and the story is shit in both of them. May not believe it but RTS games are a single player genre. Many games try to go for the multiplayer and end up shit like the SC2. I found its core boring and repetitive and unlike SC BW it didn't have a cool story and that dark and gritty art style to push you forward. SC2 is one of the worst RTS from the modern ones.
     
    • Yes Yes x 1
    ^ Top  
  19. TheHeroOfTime Arcane

    TheHeroOfTime
    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2014
    Messages:
    2,473
    [​IMG]
     
    • Brofist Brofist x 2
    ^ Top  
  20. And the online is shitty balanced. Not the races, but the general gameplay balance sucks. The hard counter nature of most units is way overemphasised. When you get scouted without realising, you lost right there. In Broodwar, there was a chance to come back. What plays also into this is that everything dies way too easily; one suboptimal encounter and everything is dead, almost no chance to come back etc. And then it's meatball versus meatball, everything dies, the end. MBS and automining made macromanagement a joke, whereas in BW it was exciting to watch pros handle their mainbase and 4 expansions and constantly pump out units, all the while navigating a couple scouts and control groups over the entire map and harrass two enemy expansions all simultaneously. Broodwar, where epic matches with small little skirmishes all over the map in an ebb and flow rhythm are the norm, not the exception.

    I'm not even good at either of them, but SC2 is a shallow shitshow as a competitive RTS game.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 28, 2017
    ^ Top  
  21. fantadomat Arcane Edgy Wumao

    fantadomat
    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2017
    Messages:
    31,896
    Location:
    Bulgaria
    Yeah i still play broodwar from time to time. The game is about strategies and outsmarting the opponents.
     
    • Prestigious Prestigious x 1
    ^ Top  
  22. Kutulu Arcane Patron

    Kutulu
    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2015
    Messages:
    1,347
    Location:
    ger
    PC RPG Website of the Year, 2015 Codex 2016 - The Age of Grimoire Make the Codex Great Again! Grab the Codex by the pussy Insert Title Here RPG Wokedex
    Pretty fucking stupid when the lack of complexity was the main reason d2 players hated d3. And Diablo 1's atmosphere does trump both d2 and d3, but enjoy your stupid mobile game in disguise that is d3.....
     
    • Edgy Edgy x 1
    • Yes Yes x 1
    • WTF am I reading WTF am I reading x 1
    ^ Top  
  23. Dzupakazul Arbiter

    Dzupakazul
    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2015
    Messages:
    707
    Eh, I disagree.
    RTS games are generally as much - if not more - about the "real time" component as they are about outsmarting your opponent, as evidenced by a lot of people who dismiss Starcraft as "gookclick" because the mechanical level of entry is still quite steep. I often feel like those people believe the game would be much more "fair" and interesting to play if it were purely a "brainy" game - which is a very flawed way to look at it.
    You can be a genius strategist, but that won't help you much if you can't execute a basic build order (and I don't even mean following an extremely strict and optimized build order - I mean winging it, playing a very basic style of "make sure your Pylons/depots/overlords are on time" and "make sure you add buildings when you get the money for them").
    But a lot of the learning time of Starcraft is really about crunching down the basics; when you listen to a competent commentator evaluate players, they will sometimes note if a player is known primarily for his extremely solid playstyle that is simply very hard to dismantle even with heavy harassment play, or a very fluid player known for oddball strategies, cheese, proxies and surprising his opponent. Both are viable and coexist with one another. Fantasy's revolutionary TvZ build or Bisu's groundbreaking advancements into the PvT meta would matter naught if they weren't executing their ideas properly, too.

    I'd say that the sort of "game sense" exhibited during Starcraft play is more akin to a dynamic game like basketball rather than a thinking, strategic exercise - you wouldn't say Michael Jordan was primarily a strategist who could outsmart people on the field, you would focus on the fact that the guy is huge and capable of flying -- and that he is capable of performing on-the-fly decisions that let him outmaneuver the 15cm taller Patrick Ewing and score against him.

    So I don't believe that good RTS games are necessarily "smarter", or that outsmarting someone is the primary component. Killing someone with hidden Dark Templar tech that you prevented someone from scouting? Sure, happens. More often than not though you will also win by just maneuvering your army better, hitting spells better and all that shit.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
    ^ Top  

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.