Diablo 3 Discussion

[Drowsy Emperor]

D3 is as much a remake of D2 as SC2 is a remake of SC1. That's how Blizzard rolls, you don't have to like it.

 

True but Starcraft 2 did actually bring many necessary improvements to a very old game, and it has yet to be seen what Diablo 3 will bring to what's essentially a very stale genre.

[entrerix]

its only stale cause there was no diablo 3 yet. none of the followups to diablo 2 were as good as diablo 2.

 

the same could be said for the old school rts games. since starcraft there was nothing like it as good. instead they took a different path altogether and we got games like company of heroes.

[LadyCrimson]

uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

 

if you think titans quest looks the same or better you need to get your eyes checked.

 

i mean, these don't look omg so amazing, but titans quest? really? that game looked bad 5 years ago, and certainly didn't get better with age.

 

just saying.

I don't think I'd say D3 looks the same or better as TQ, but it does constantly remind me of TQ graphically. That is, when I watched all those early vids they kept releasing, my mind kept thinking "TQ." I'm not sure exactly why. It's not just the shared 'top down" 3D viewpoint thingie either - many games that remind me nothing of each other have that...but something about TQ & D3 specifically reminds me a lot of each other. At least in the videos.

Edited August 19, 2011 by LadyCrimson

[Purkake]

D3 is as much a remake of D2 as SC2 is a remake of SC1. That's how Blizzard rolls, you don't have to like it.

 

True but Starcraft 2 did actually bring many necessary improvements to a very old game, and it has yet to be seen what Diablo 3 will bring to what's essentially a very stale genre.

Oh? I'm all ears.

[Drowsy Emperor]

its only stale cause there was no diablo 3 yet. none of the followups to diablo 2 were as good as diablo 2.

 

the same could be said for the old school rts games. since starcraft there was nothing like it as good. instead they took a different path altogether and we got games like company of heroes.

 

Its stale because isometric action role playing games haven't changed a single thing since Diablo 2 was released, except backdrops and superficial, cosmetic differences.

Maybe some people are happy with this, I dunno. I consider them obsolete in terms of gameplay, like adventure games (which can at least vary the stories and challenges).

 

There were plenty of great RTS games since Starcraft just none among those that chose to clone its three race approach. Age of Empires 2, Homeworld, Dawn of War etc.

[LadyCrimson]

Its stale because isometric action role playing games haven't changed a single thing since Diablo 2 was released, except backdrops and superficial, cosmetic differences.

I'm going to agree with this. They change minor things of course, like skill & loot systems, but as much as I have loved hack n slash games in the past, anything gets old when it's basically the same game over & over again. I liked Torchlight well enough, but I didn't play it very long because...well...I'd done it before. Obviously if the maps and combat and all of that are still awesome, it'd still be fun to play for a while, but....I'd rather they have created a hack slash game that was at least set in a new "world" rather than that of Diablo again.

 

Guess that's why, even tho a part of me was looking forward to D3, another part was thinking "meh don't care." It's a strange feeling.

Edited August 19, 2011 by LadyCrimson

[Drowsy Emperor]

D3 is as much a remake of D2 as SC2 is a remake of SC1. That's how Blizzard rolls, you don't have to like it.

 

True but Starcraft 2 did actually bring many necessary improvements to a very old game, and it has yet to be seen what Diablo 3 will bring to what's essentially a very stale genre.

Oh? I'm all ears.

 

1. flexible unit selection

2. matchmaking (and everything else available at battle.net)

3. improved use of terrain

4. even more diversification among races

5. the spectating system that makes it easier to learn new tactics

6. improved unit AI

 

And that's just off the top of my head.

[Purkake]

And how much of that was apparent 6+ months before release?

[entrerix]

i am in agreement with purkake on this bit. its too early to say this isnt different enough from diablo 2 to make it not stale

[Drowsy Emperor]

And how much of that was apparent 6+ months before release?

 

Depends on who you are, I joined in beta and saw the stuff myself, but wasn't interested to follow it on the forums prior to the beta, so I can't really answer that question.

[Purkake]

I guess we'll have to wait and see in this case as well.

[Gizmo]

Its stale because isometric action role playing games haven't changed a single thing since Diablo 2 was released, except backdrops and superficial, cosmetic differences.

Maybe some people are happy with this, I dunno.

I see nothing wrong with that at all. What are they supposed to change? (and why would it matter?)

 

If something works (and works well), there is no reason to break it or mutate it for the sheer sake of mutation. (While I'm not planning on buying it), Diablo 3 looks like a superb sequel to Diablo 2 (and that is as it should be). If a developer wants a purely new creation, then they should come up with a new IP and new game mechanics. To needlessly alter the series mechanics in a sequel (like they way they did Fallout 3 for instance ) is tantamount to deliberately deceptive name re-use... Same as if someone tried to sell maltitol syrup labeled as honey, and packaged it in a little bear shaped bottle.

 

You see the name, you remember the game, and you get nothing of the sort when you install it and try to play it.

Starcraft 2 would have been many times worse of a sequel had StarCraft: Ghost shipped as StarCraft 2. I remember Ashley Cheng made a ridiculous comment some time back almost chiding Blizzard for not going First Person with Diablo 3 ~it was nuts.

* About as nuts as releasing a turn based sequel to Gauntlet, a first person sequel to Myth; or a Homeworld 3 that goes first person during the marine assaults when boarding enemy ships.

 

I consider them obsolete in terms of gameplay, like adventure games (which can at least vary the stories and challenges).

How? Please be specific. Diablo is about frenetic top-down hack-n-slash with a heavy dose of 'swarming'; Anything else... [making its gameplay like Resident Evil or left 4 dead] is an absurd break from the series ~and would be better incorporated into some other game series and not Diablo.

 

Leonard Boyarsky's interview about it made some good points about their reasons for not going the deep multiple choice route with D3, and even though that's opposite my favored style... Its very in keeping with the Diablo series IMO.

Edited August 20, 2011 by Gizmo

[MacMichael]

or a Homeworld 3 that goes first person during the marine assaults when boarding enemy ships.

 

My secret dream has always been to have a space sim/fps/rpg hybrid. Something along the lines of Privateer meets Deus Ex.

[Humanoid]

Opportunity to resurrect Wing Commander and Crusader at the same time?

[pmp10]

If something works (and works well), there is no reason to break it or mutate it for the sheer sake of mutation. (While I'm not planning on buying it), Diablo 3 looks like a superb sequel to Diablo 2 (and that is as it should be). If a developer wants a purely new creation, then they should come up with a new IP and new game mechanics. To needlessly alter the series mechanics in a sequel (like they way they did Fallout 3 for instance ) is tantamount to deliberately deceptive name re-use... Same as if someone tried to sell maltitol syrup labeled as honey, and packaged it in a little bear shaped bottle.

It's all well and good except that games today target audiences many times larger than they have a decade ago.

A game can't have modern AAA production values and make money from sales numbers that were good back then.

The constant drive for better technology brought the industry to the point were it needed to charge more for games or expand the customer base and unsurprisingly it went with the latter.

Just because something appealed to us at one time doesn't mean it will today, and it most certainly doesn't have to be accepted by larger audience that is not nostalgia-ridden and has different standards.

[Drowsy Emperor]

How? Please be specific. Diablo is about frenetic top-down hack-n-slash with a heavy dose of 'swarming'; Anything else... [making its gameplay like Resident Evil or left 4 dead] is an absurd break from the series ~and would be better incorporated into some other game series and not Diablo.

 

Leonard Boyarsky's interview about it made some good points about their reasons for not going the deep multiple choice route with D3, and even though that's opposite my favored style... Its very in keeping with the Diablo series IMO.

 

If you look at other genres most of them have gone through a lot of changes - FPS is a good example. Back in the day we had Doom, but from then on a lot of things happened, like Half Life, System Shock 2 or whatever. Diablo is a dressed up gauntlet, and gauntlet is an arcade game, basically "Doom" in the RPG world. If you like that that's fine, but for me its lame in the day and age when RPG games offer coherent storylines, involving quests, sometimes diverse gameplay and the like.

It basically takes the worst, most mundane aspect of role playing games, the mechanical grind and progression and makes it the sole virtue of its gameplay.

[Gizmo]

or a Homeworld 3 that goes first person during the marine assaults when boarding enemy ships.

My secret dream has always been to have a space sim/fps/rpg hybrid. Something along the lines of Privateer meets Deus Ex.

But (in my example), the entire battle would either have to be paused while you played the marines boarding the ship, or lose the battle as it continues during the marine assault.

 

*Its mutually exclusive gameplay.

 

 

It's all well and good except that games today target audiences many times larger than they have a decade ago.

That's fine by me... so why dredge up a decade old game [not suitable for today's audience] and create a "food court" version?

(Carefully tested to have just enough to be palatable to most, while never enough to be great to any ~as enough for one group is too much for the other.)

 

 

If you look at other genres most of them have gone through a lot of changes - FPS is a good example. Back in the day we had Doom, but from then on a lot of things happened, like Half Life, System Shock 2 or whatever. Diablo is a dressed up gauntlet, and gauntlet is an arcade game, basically "Doom" in the RPG world. If you like that that's fine, but for me its lame in the day and age when RPG games offer coherent storylines, involving quests, sometimes diverse gameplay and the like.

What RPGs have you been playing!? (that you assume "coherent storylines, involving quests", and "diverse gameplay", are products of this "day and age")

If anything RPGs have stagnated or even gotten worse in every single aspect other than 'eyecandy'. (And the sad part is that its not always the developer's fault ~ the market will pan a game that is too deep.)

 

It basically takes the worst, most mundane aspect of role playing games, the mechanical grind and progression and makes it the sole virtue of its gameplay.

Its a funny thing, but if you play an older game like IcewindDale [or Eye of the Beholder 2, or Curse of the Azure Bonds], and you use a hacked PC at some ridiculous level and power ~Its no fun unless you actually built them up to that point. So yeah, I'd take that virtue any day in a good RPG.

 

 

In fact I just finished 104 hours of Disciples 3 (finished the first of three campaigns in the game); That game is almost (but not entirely) all grind, when you look at it close. Its primarily a combat RPG where XP only comes from killing enemies; but its addictive fun, and is visually like an interactive oil painting; and most importantly... That's the series! It shipped last year, and is far from lame IMO. As a sequel, its flawed (some really bad), but its still very much in keeping with the previous games (though not as good). It would have been a terrible disappointment (believe it or not) had they made Disciples 3 a Witcher or Witcher 2 clone.

 

 

 

___________________________________________

As an aside: I have not found a better shooter than Monolith's original BLOOD ~and I look.

 

If you were making a Gauntlet Sequel, Diablo is not appropriate, If you are making a Diablo sequel, WoW and Oblivion are not appropriate. Changes away from the core series are never appropriate; You need to make a new series for that. It should not be a priority to bring Fallout (for instance) to a new generation, if you have to "tweak" it to the point of being something else completely; better to have left it alone.

Edited August 21, 2011 by Gizmo

[Drowsy Emperor]

You make the mistake of thinking I'm proposing a radically different Diablo sequel when I was merely pointing out that ten years later here we are, still playing the same garbage - only in HD.

The PC has like five decent titles per year and four of them are HD remakes of whatever semi decent 90s/early 00s titles the suits managed to dredge up.

 

I have no patience for grind and heavy repetition in my games, dumping time into self serving game mechanics (replacing your +5 sword with a +6 one, two more points to dexterity, blah blah) is (no longer) my idea of fun - narration and getting to a point (as in telling a well rounded tale, ) - is.

Thats why I liked the Witcher. It may have had portions with grind, but at least it killed the randomized loot and tried to focus on the story.

[Gizmo]

You make the mistake of thinking I'm proposing a radically different Diablo sequel when I was merely pointing out that ten years later here we are, still playing the same garbage - only in HD.

The PC has like five decent titles per year and four of them are HD remakes of whatever semi decent 90s/early 00s titles the suits managed to dredge up.

 

I have no patience for grind and heavy repetition in my games, dumping time into self serving game mechanics (replacing your +5 sword with a +6 one, two more points to dexterity, blah blah) is (no longer) my idea of fun - narration and getting to a point (as in telling a well rounded tale, ) - is.

Thats why I liked the Witcher. It may have had portions with grind, but at least it killed the randomized loot and tried to focus on the story.

The mistake (from my perspective) is recycling an old franchise with new gameplay... If they want a new game they should make one; IMO they should not make a new Diablo (as anything but) ~that's what the series gameplay is about.

 

How does it make sense to pull a game out of the last millennium and redesign it for modern users (who don't want it unless its completely re-made as something else)?

 

** Imaging a company digs into the past decides to market slide-rules; but no one these days would use one like they had originally... so they add a digital read out to display the results, and later they decide to make it smaller by replacing the bulky metal rules with a numeric keypad... But they still call it a slide rule on the box. Is that so different as we've seen with redone games?

 

I like finding a new weapon that works better and replacing the old one; Its something the PC would do in that situation. Combat in RPGs is the minigame where you have to win the privilege of being shown the next piece of the story; If your PC dies on their way through the swamp, you (the player) don't get to the next chapter in the game.

 

Wanting to "skip the grind" is perhaps reason to just skip the game and watch the cutscenes; or perhaps suggest a "skip" option be present during combat and when pressed, have the game assume that you won and continue on getting to the point.

 

The problem is the word "grind", and that is that it means differing amounts to different players. The guy that finds combat or skill use to be boring thinks, "Oh not another one, I hate these silly overland fights when I just want to get to the town"... While a different player thinks, "So he gets ambushed again by another fool" and he dives right in to the fight merrily dealing out carnage to the unsuspecting brigands; While still another player thinks, "these guys don't have any good loot, so I'm leaving", then at the next encounter, "Ah... These guys have some cool loot so I'll be taking it from their decapitated corpse".

 

I'll admit that calling it a +3 sword, and the next a +5 sword is pretty uncreative, and uninteresting; but having them perform that way under the hood is not wrong IMO. Having the hero find an elvish saber that is just incredible in a fight is a good way to put it, but actually might be no different at all to the engine.

 

*** Interestingly enough... I like the Witcher (we are talking about the first one right?); I liked it for the combat most, but I also liked the visuals, the art design, the animation, the ease of suspending disbelief with the world and the main characters. I also liked that the player had to put out some effort to research monsters or miss out on certain components due to lack of skill and information. I liked that it reminded me of Fallout (1) where the NPCs opinions seemed to matter and could make things hard or easy for the PC. I liked that his choices caused consequences later in the game; and that it discouraged 'baby-stepping' or 'save-crawling' your way through the game.

Edited August 21, 2011 by Gizmo

[pmp10]

It should not be a priority to bring Fallout (for instance) to a new generation, if you have to "tweak" it to the point of being something else completely; better to have left it alone.

You do realize that Fallout was also a tactical/strategy game and a console action game long before Bethesda bought the rights to it?

Where do you want to draw the boundary on how much change is too much and what audience is too modern?

 

And what is it with the attitude that such an interesting setting is better off dead?

Especially since game worlds has gotten terribly generic lately and Bethesda treatment wasn't that bad - they clearly had some fans working on it.

How does it make sense to pull a game out of the last millennium and redesign it for modern users (who don't want it unless its completely re-made as something else)?

It gets you free publicity.

By people naive enough to think that a new game will resemble the old one in the gameplay department.

And by those who cry and complain that the new installment will somehow ruin all their precious childhood memories.

It works because gamers get terribly upset when someone so much as touches their beloved franchise.

Take the emotion out and it should be pretty obvious that revisiting IPs that had their high-point 17 years ago is an indication of a cheap cash-in or a desperate act to gather some attention.

And if publishers have no faith in those games why should we care?

There is plenty of bad games out already.

[Gizmo]

You do realize that Fallout was also a tactical/strategy game and a console action game long before Bethesda bought the rights to it?

Where do you want to draw the boundary on how much change is too much and what audience is too modern?

It was a strategy game long before FO:Tactics. and neither of those games were Fallout #3; they were spin-offs... and I would have loved for the combat system in Tactics to had been folded back into the series ~Sans the RT/mode.

 

I draw the boundary at looking at a localized version (with an unfamiliar language), and not recognizing it for a Fallout game. I draw the line at abandoning the core game and simply re-using the IP setting and assets ~in a differently designed game, made for a player that's looking for a Sci-Fi TES.

 

Why would a series player want a TES-like franken-shooter as a sequel to a top down tactical RPG that [actually] rewarded varied roleplaying? In TES/FO3 all you can make is a Walker Texas Ranger clone ~anything else and you go against the design of the game.

 

And what is it with the attitude that such an interesting setting is better off dead?

Especially since game worlds has gotten terribly generic lately and Bethesda treatment wasn't that bad - they clearly had some fans working on it.

IIRC it was learned on the forum that few if any had actually played the games, and some of them had never heard of it. I assume that Emil & Pete played them (they were reviewers at Adrenaline Vault).

 

The originals exist, and that's plenty ~they did it right to begin with and its a setting that loses its charm the farther you go into the future; because the series is about recovery and not perpetual

50's apocalypse. Their interpretation is a disservice IMO.

It seems derived from a cursory glance at some Lets-Plays on youtube, and has gone overboard with wacky 50's shtick (Due I suspect, to misinterpreting the special encounters as canon, and not 4th wall pokes at the player for sake of atmosphere and levity in such an oppressive setting).

 

How does it make sense to pull a game out of the last millennium and redesign it for modern users (who don't want it unless its completely re-made as something else)?

It gets you free publicity.

By people naive enough to think that a new game will resemble the old one in the gameplay department.

And by those who cry and complain that the new installment will somehow ruin all their precious childhood memories.

It works because gamers get terribly upset when someone so much as touches their beloved franchise.

Take the emotion out and it should be pretty obvious that revisiting IPs that had their high-point 17 years ago is an indication of a cheap cash-in or a desperate act to gather some attention.

And if publishers have no faith in those games why should we care?

There is plenty of bad games out already.

I've played good sequels that were in keeping with the series they came from; Making everything a First person shooter/stabber is not some great gaming panacea.

(Though it will sell a lot of discs & downloads. )

 

*Troika's PA project demo video [iMO] had more "Fallout" spirit in its four minutes than any other game I've seen in the last ten years.

Its a sad shame they did not get the chance at it. Sadder still is that Bethesda's engine is perfect for a Fallout game ~just not the way they chose to use it.

 

**Yes, I'd have preferred the setting only used for spin-offs if they felt that a FO3 could not sell this decade ~there is always the next decade.

Edited August 21, 2011 by Gizmo

[Thorun]

Personally I think I'll be playing around with the barbarian or monk first, both seem pretty appealing to me.

 

A lot of people are definitely pissed about the real money auction house (RMAH). I personally don't mind it, as long as a couple things happen. First, Blizzard needs to take an extremely aggressive stance on botting and account hacking, to stop it before it gets too far and prevent it from happening in the first place. Second, there have to be some really solid gold sinks implemented in game for the gold auction house to even be remotely competitive to the RMAH and to make gold still desirable. If gold is barely worth anything, real money becomes the official currency of the market.

 

I'd guess that Blizzard will push for a very late 2011 release if possible, even if it is just to prove Max wrong. I disagree somewhat with Max Schaeffer's assessment though, they really won't be spending that much time analyzing beta results and feedback, since the entire point of the D3 beta is for stress testing, and not for bug-testing as only the first act is available.

 

As for that whole zerg argument, zerg is actually in a pretty good spot right now. Idra says zerg sucks and that protoss is OP every time he loses, but that's just who he is. Smart use of infestors is absolutely key for crushing any opponent, with an eventual transition into broodlords and corruptors with that infestor support and a roach cushion to help protect the broodlords. Smart use of fungal growth and neural parasite absolutely dominate terran opponents. For protoss, getting those fungal growths off on the stalker group is vital so they can't blink under your broodlords to focus down a kill.

[Drowsy Emperor]

The mistake (from my perspective) is recycling ... discouraged 'baby-stepping' or 'save-crawling' your way through the game.

 

I agree with a lot of what you said, I think we're sore about different issues. You're sore about dumbing down and needless tinkering, and I'm sore about the action RPG and MMO's (which have similar gameplay) as a genre.

I resent their success because I see it as another nail in the coffin of the traditional RPG and a triumph of mediocrity over quality (and yes, I know its not exactly that black and white).

[Gizmo]

I agree with a lot of what you said, I think we're sore about different issues. You're sore about dumbing down and needless tinkering, and I'm sore about the action RPG and MMO's (which have similar gameplay) as a genre.

I resent their success because I see it as another nail in the coffin of the traditional RPG and a triumph of mediocrity over quality (and yes, I know its not exactly that black and white).

It is another nail; Now we know how Betamax and HD-DVD owners felt; (and for similar reasons ). Edited August 21, 2011 by Gizmo

[trulez]

It is another nail; Now we know how Betamax and HD-DVD owners felt; (and for similar reasons ).

How's that any way related ?

Everyone, the industry and consumers, benefitted from having one standardized storage medium instead of two competing ones.

 

If you want to draw analogies from other industries try the music industry. Regardless how much I loathe Pop music it hasn't killed off the fringe groups that I like, and the same WILL apply to ARPGs / MMOs, they won't be killing traditional RPGs.