Diablo 3. Fun but disappointing.

[BloatedGuppy]

I also find it funny that yet again decard cain finds himself in trouble

Deckard Cain is Diablo's answer to Princess Peach. That idiot is ALWAYS in trouble.

 

[kingthrall]

I also find it funny that yet again decard cain finds himself in trouble

Deckard Cain is Diablo's answer to Princess Peach. That idiot is ALWAYS in trouble.

he should hide in the horodric cube with three quivers of bolts to become a stack of arrows

 

[Nicha11]

My main criticism of the game would be its lacklustre plot.
The 'twists' could be seen coming from a while away, and the foreshadowing some of the npcs do is just criminal.

It's not that the plot was terrible, but it was terribly derivative (IMO).

 

[zinho73]

So clearly, the answer to this problem was just to remove the tree almost entirely. I mean, its not like they had 12 years to make and properly balance 5 of them, RIGHT???? RIGHT?!?!?!?

Oh yeah, thats another thing, "Normal" is way to fucking easy. I mean, seriously. I have died ONCE. And this is with 2 other friends, which is supposed to make the game harder. The boss fights are an absolute piss take. Wheres my 10-30 minute bosses from Titan Quest? Wheres the one hits? This isn't normal, this is super easy casual mode or something.

It doesn't matter how complex you make your skill trees. If there's one "right" way to spec, and everything else is gimp, you've created one option. Balancing complex systems is hard. If the more streamlined Diablo 3 trees are BALANCED, they actually WILL be an improvement. But I can't say if they are or aren't yet.

You're 100% right about the difficulty so far though. It's a breeze. I wish there was some way to jack it up without going all the way through normal first.

Actually, balance is only an improvement for PVP. In Rpgs in general, unbalance means fun and more opportunities. The "making games for tournaments" mentality hurts single player a lot, you simply cannot focus on both.

That said, with a simple rebuild option and a generally balanced skill set you can do wonders for PVP, because Blizzard could always make changes along the way if a combination seems too powerful. Perfect builds are the realm of hardcore players, that are usually not the majority. Even in Dark Souls, unbalanced as it can be (with cheats and so on), most of my PVP plays are quite OK.

Also, perfect builds are a bigger problem if you mostly do one on one matches. With more players in the equation you will actually want to have variety, so one player can complement another.

And, finally, linear progression is not the only way to achieve balance, it is just the easiest way. Blizzard made a game that is comfortable to them (total control, easier to equate balance), not to the consumer.

 

[zinho73]

I agree, nothing Blizzard have produced since 2008 has had the same impact as their earlier work. Either they no longer have what it takes to make a real game changer, or all hands are on Titan and it'll rock our socks.

I agree with that.

It seems that Blizzard mixed some safe ideas with a money grabbing structure and threw resources at it until it worked - in a very inefficient way, given the time it took to make the game. At least it worked (or will, as soon as the servers emergency interventions are over) but I?m struggling to find the passion behind those triple A titles lately.

It is the little things, like the marketing speeches. For example, Blizz devs said that the game was focused on single player when that?s clearly not the case ? all the real improvements on the game were on the coop or PVP side.

I might be wrong, but I keep thinking that if the developers of some decent titles like Titan Quest, Sacred 2 and Torchlight had the same amount of resources that Blizzard has, their games would have been much better than Diablo 3.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Actually, balance is only an improvement for PVP. In Rpgs in general, unbalance means fun and more opportunities. The "making games for tournaments" mentality hurts single player a lot, you simply cannot focus on both.

Are you kidding me? It's MORE important for PvP, but to claim it's ONLY important for PvP is mind boggling. You think there's no play balancing or difficulty tuning needed in PvE at all, then, do you? Especially in a game that's designed to be played in perpetual repetition with others in a cooperative/competitive sense?

That said, with a simple rebuild option and a generally balanced skill set you can do wonders for PVP, because Blizzard could always make changes along the way if a combination seems too powerful. Perfect builds are the realm of hardcore players, that are usually not the majority. Even in Dark Souls, unbalanced as it can be (with cheats and so on), most of my PVP plays are quite OK.

Yes. With a simple, balanced skill set you can do wonders. Perfect builds are NOT the realm of hardcore players. If you'd ever played a MMO with FOTM builds you'd know that the internet is a great leveler, and you don't need to be a hardcore player to go to the forums, press some buttons, and have a perfect build.

Also, perfect builds are a bigger problem if you mostly do one on one matches. With more players in the equation you will actually want to have variety, so one player can complement another.

No, they're a problem period. Blizzard has always liked a tightly balanced game. To think they'd endorse a big, messy skill system when everything in their design philosophy over the last 10 years shows them moving in the opposite direction is kind of boggling.

And, finally, linear progression is not the only way to achieve balance, it is just the easiest way. Blizzard made a game that is comfortable to them (total control, easier to equate balance), not to the consumer.

Who said anything about linear progression? If you're gaining levels, you're experiencing linear progression, so lets just put that bizarre non sequitur off to one side and address part two of this, which is where you say the game is made "uncomfortable" for the consumer. You realize that games with simple, streamlined systems that are difficult to break and easy to understand are actually CONSUMER FRIENDLY, right? That big, sprawling, complex systems with lots of moving parts and infinite build varieties appeal only to a VERY SPECIFIC SUBSET of "consumers", in this case the hardcore gamer. The guy who likes to pour over numbers and experiment with builds and will trade the possibility of gimping his character for the joy of infinite theorycrafting possibilities. That might be you and me and Smash. It might even be many of the people who frequent this gaming forum. But if you think it represents the bulk of Diablo 3 players, let alone the bulk of CONSUMERS, you're sorely, sorely mistaken.

I'll say it again. I LIKE big, messy systems with billions of options. I understand why its kind of sad that this one is more limited. I felt sad about it too. But I understand WHY they did it, and it's probably healthier for the game long term if it leads to better balance.

 

[Danny Nissenfeld]

Just to enlighten some, as far as variety of builds in d3 for those who haven't realized it yet:

In gameplay options is a toggle checkbox that lets you put whatever skill you want on whatever key/mousebutton you want.

You could have 4 energy/mana/rage builders bound if you want. You could have none.

The default way the game runs with regards to the skill building is a bit idiotic. A lot of us complained in the closed beta about it but they left it to default in idiot mode at release for some reason.

 

[shintakie10]

Question, is there only no skill tree? Can I still pass out points on other things?

"Skill Tree" works thusly.

You have 2 primary skills, bound to the LMB and RMB respectively, and 4 secondary skills, bound to keys 1-4. You can choose between 4 options for each. Those options can be further modified by one of...six?...runes. New options and new runes get unlocked at set levels.

You don't "pass out points" on anything, really. You make either/or selections.

This isn't actually true. If you turn on elective mode you can have absolutely any ability in any of the 6 slots. The default is to have elective mode off and gives a very guided approach to how your skills are set up.

First thing I did after video and audio settins was to turn that on. The guided approach works for people who don't really know what they're gettin into, but its really annoyin for someone who wants to experiment.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

This isn't actually true. If you turn on elective mode you can have absolutely any ability in any of the 6 slots. The default is to have elective mode off and gives a very guided approach to how your skills are set up.

First thing I did after video and audio settins was to turn that on. The guided approach works for people who don't really know what they're gettin into, but its really annoyin for someone who wants to experiment.

Ah, cool. Thank you for clarifying that. I have admitted my experience with the game is still really limited.

 

[Seydaman]

I like the game.

All these problems sound like personal problems to me.

Echo what he said.

 

[shintakie10]

This isn't actually true. If you turn on elective mode you can have absolutely any ability in any of the 6 slots. The default is to have elective mode off and gives a very guided approach to how your skills are set up.

First thing I did after video and audio settins was to turn that on. The guided approach works for people who don't really know what they're gettin into, but its really annoyin for someone who wants to experiment.

Ah, cool. Thank you for clarifying that. I have admitted my experience with the game is still really limited.

Its alright. A lot of people don't seem to know about elective mode and think that the guided approach is the only way you can do skills in D3. This leads them to think that the skill progression is way more linear than it actually is. I mean, its still fairly linear up until the 20's because you don't have a ton of skills to fill all the buttons, but once you do it starts gettin interestin between rune unlocks and new abilities.

 

[zinho73]

Actually, balance is only an improvement for PVP. In Rpgs in general, unbalance means fun and more opportunities. The "making games for tournaments" mentality hurts single player a lot, you simply cannot focus on both.

Are you kidding me? It's MORE important for PvP, but to claim it's ONLY important for PvP is mind boggling. You think there's no play balancing or difficulty tuning needed in PvE at all, then, do you? Especially in a game that's designed to be played in perpetual repetition with others in a cooperative/competitive sense?

That said, with a simple rebuild option and a generally balanced skill set you can do wonders for PVP, because Blizzard could always make changes along the way if a combination seems too powerful. Perfect builds are the realm of hardcore players, that are usually not the majority. Even in Dark Souls, unbalanced as it can be (with cheats and so on), most of my PVP plays are quite OK.

Yes. With a simple, balanced skill set you can do wonders. Perfect builds are NOT the realm of hardcore players. If you'd ever played a MMO with FOTM builds you'd know that the internet is a great leveler, and you don't need to be a hardcore player to go to the forums, press some buttons, and have a perfect build.

Also, perfect builds are a bigger problem if you mostly do one on one matches. With more players in the equation you will actually want to have variety, so one player can complement another.

No, they're a problem period. Blizzard has always liked a tightly balanced game. To think they'd endorse a big, messy skill system when everything in their design philosophy over the last 10 years shows them moving in the opposite direction is kind of boggling.

And, finally, linear progression is not the only way to achieve balance, it is just the easiest way. Blizzard made a game that is comfortable to them (total control, easier to equate balance), not to the consumer.

Who said anything about linear progression? If you're gaining levels, you're experiencing linear progression, so lets just put that bizarre non sequitur off to one side and address part two of this, which is where you say the game is made "uncomfortable" for the consumer. You realize that games with simple, streamlined systems that are difficult to break and easy to understand are actually CONSUMER FRIENDLY, right? That big, sprawling, complex systems with lots of moving parts and infinite build varieties appeal only to a VERY SPECIFIC SUBSET of "consumers", in this case the hardcore gamer. The guy who likes to pour over numbers and experiment with builds and will trade the possibility of gimping his character for the joy of infinite theorycrafting possibilities. That might be you and me and Smash. It might even be many of the people who frequent this gaming forum. But if you think it represents the bulk of Diablo 3 players, let alone the bulk of CONSUMERS, you're sorely, sorely mistaken.

I'll say it again. I LIKE big, messy systems with billions of options. I understand why its kind of sad that this one is more limited. I felt sad about it too. But I understand WHY they did it, and it's probably healthier for the game long term if it leads to better balance.

. Just turn down the volume a little bit and you will see that we agree a lot.

I'm not talking in absolutes here. I'm not saying that what makes a game better for single player is that it is completely unbalanced. Of course the game must have balance, but total equilibrium is the realm of online tournament play, not casual. And certainly not for Rpgs. Diablo 2 is considered a very unbalanced game and I think people find it quite OK and very fun, with the exception of hardcore people that played the hell out of it and mostly multiplayer.

I'm not against a game more balanced than Diablo 2, but what I'm saying is that it cannot be front and center the main focus of a single-player game. You have to also worry a lot about: story, immersion, variety and fun (in which a little unbalnce is quite welcome once and again).

I agree that perfect builds or optimum builds are accessible thanks to the internet, but in the games I play actually very few people use them, simply because to even reach close to the perfect build a person has to be at very high levels or have rare loot, and the majority of players do not even finish the games. Man, to be even worried about something like that you have to spend a lot of time with a game - that's hardcore to me, in the sense that it requires more dedication than average. Hell, if you go to the forums you are already showing more dedication than average.

Yes, some games have a more dedicated player base than others and it shows more, specially MMO's, which I don't play (and it saddens me that we are comparing Diablo with an MMO). But I'm telling you: Dark Souls has a pretty obsessed fanbase, the perfect builds are all over the internet and, yet, the vast majority of my invasions are pretty varied.

I would also not endorse a big messy system. I'm just saying that if the barbarian with the "Short Sword of Internet Rage" is the great damage build of the game and can take every other character one on one, when you add other players to the mix that power becomes more relative and less absolute.

In your last paragraph I actually agree with everything you said in theory (and the linear progression was a poor choice of words - a perk of not being a native speaker), but a progression tree is not rocket science, and casual players understand that just fine (as the D2 stellar sales prove). They just don't do the math behind it.

If we were talking about the Divine Divinity progression system I would agree wholeheartedly, though.

But what I meant is that this kind of progression in which everyone can be the same in the end is easier to balance. And, actually, it is more hardcore. It is a DOTA system and DOTA is not a casual game.

That's my point. This kind of progression is much more calculated than the simple fare of Diablo 2. By the end of the game you will have tons of options and you will have to carefully consider: your role in your party, who you are going to fight, DPS, AEO effects, and so on. You cannot simply overlevel (cap 60) and abuse fireball because you like to see things burn. To me, the middle ground is the sweetspot here, to make things more fun and lose without totally compromising the endgame - to do that, you have to have a single-player focus, which is not the case here. It is not of course bad, it is a matter of preference. I, however, always preferred to play Diablo solo or coop. To PVP I prefer FPS, RTS, DOTA and Dark Souls.

In an unrelated issue, I actually find the system in Diablo 3, comparing to 2:

1. More boring for the casual players in the earlier levels, because there´s nothing to do until you advance in the game. I had to explain to some people that, yes, you do have to decide something after you are around level 10 to 15.

2. Less intuitive.
- Do my monk is using his wepons?
- What? If my mage use a sword I will do more DMG with my spells?
- Do I spend Runes?
- Why I can't use two spells of the same "tree"?
- How does spending rage and acquiring discipline works again? Or was it hate?
I've placed my 8-year kid (that does not speak english) to play D2 and in 5 minutes I left her alone. She intuitively grasped which weapons would be better for each character. In D3 (she is now 9)questions pop up more frequently.
People say that this skill system is dumbed down. I don't think so, I think it is just boring as hell on the first levels.

3. Very hardcore in the endgame, with much more analysis and less balls to the walls everything in strength naked barbarian with a double-handed sword.

 

[zinho73]

I like the game.

All these problems sound like personal problems to me.

Echo what he said.

Well, to me too. It is my opinion after all.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

. Just turn down the volume a little bit and you will see that we agree a lot.

Do be aware that when I use allcaps on a single word or a sentence fragment, I'd just putting emphasis on those words. I'm not shouting. The alternative is typing in bold tags, which requires a lot more keystrokes, and if I'm emphasizing a lot of words it becomes a huge pain in the ass.

Diablo 2 is considered a very unbalanced game and I think people find it quite OK and very fun, with the exception of hardcore people that played the hell out of it and mostly multiplayer.

It's true that Diablo succeeded in spite of the fact it was a big sloppy mess balance wise. I'm not sure it succeeded BECAUSE it was a big sloppy mess though. An argument can be made that the ONLY reason Starcraft succeeded the way it did was precisely because it wasn't a mess, and because it was balanced to a razor sheen. I think Blizzard is really pushing the multiplayer this time around. I don't think they view Diablo as a classic single player experience any more.

I'm not against a game more balanced than Diablo 2, but what I'm saying is that it cannot be front and center the main focus of a single-player game. You have to also worry a lot about: story, immersion, variety and fun (in which a little unbalnce is quite welcome once and again).

To be fair, gorgeous cutscenes aside, Diablo was never about story or immersion. It was always a quick and dirty game with bland, random levels. It was an aggressive loot and level treadmill with the "mobs are slot machines" hook that the next mob might drop something amazing. It actually had a lot more skinner box in it than most modern MMOs, despite their bad reputations. Which brings us to...

Yes, some games have a more dedicated player base than others and it shows more, specially MMO's, which I don't play (and it saddens me that we are comparing Diablo with an MMO).

Diablo was ALWAYS a forerunner of the MMO. WoW may have taken its IP from Warcraft and its design paradigms from Everquest, but the soul is pure Diablo. You roll mobs for loot so you can roll bigger mobs for better loot. Do the same content over and over again, in perpetuity. Tweak your build. Assign your talent points. Compete with friends to kill faster, better, to have the better build, the better gear. Even the universal color coding for rare/special gear found its genesis in Diablo. The only thing it doesn't share with MMOs is scope. It's a much more focused, much more distilled experience. I actually wondered, on more than one occasion, whether a game like WoW hasn't made a game like Diablo obsolete. I still wonder it, tbh.

I agree that perfect builds or optimum builds are accessible thanks to the internet, but in the games I play actually very few people use them, simply because to even reach close to the perfect build a person has to be at very high levels or have rare loot, and the majority of players do not even finish the games. Man, to be even worried about something like that you have to spend a lot of time with a game - that's hardcore to me, in the sense that it requires more dedication than average. Hell, if you go to the forums you are already showing more dedication than average.

I'm not talking about gearing, I'm talking about talent assignments. Or skill assignments, in Diablo 2's respect. I remember the game well, and I remember that for all its variety, there was basically 1-2 "right" ways to spec, and you could stray from the beaten path if you wanted, but you'd have a rubbish character. That's not ACTUAL variety. That's just the freedom to gimp your guy if you weren't up to date on whatever the FOTM was after the latest round of nerfs and buffs.

1. More boring for the casual players in the earlier levels, because there´s nothing to do until you advance in the game. I had to explain to some people that, yes, you do have to decide something after you are around level 10 to 15.

It definitely leaves something to be desired early on.

2. Less intuitive.

I disagree with this. It's definitely intuitive. It's very hand holdy, in fact. Perhaps a bit too hand holdy, as I wasn't even aware there was an option to assign whatever skills you wanted to whatever slots.

Do my monk is using his wepons?

That's an animation issue.

What? If my mage use a sword I will do more DMG with my spells?

And again, an animation issue, and a curious decision besides. I'm not thrilled with their decision to have a Monk running around holding a staff he then slaps on his back to fight. It smacks of laziness, which is not usually a hallmark of Blizzard.

Why I can't use two spells of the same "tree"?

You can, apparently. I agree this was not well explained.

People say that this skill system is dumbed down. I don't think so, I think it is just boring as hell on the first levels.

I agree, and that was the point of my initial reply to Smash. More options does not always mean you've got a better system or even a more interesting system. The more variables you add, the higher the likelihood its going to be an unbalanced mess, and big sprawling unbalanced systems only provide the illusion of choice and depth. I'd rather have a game with tons of balanced choices than a game with few balanced choices, but I'd also rather have a lean, focused, streamlined and balanced game than a big sprawling glorious fucked up one.

Note that Diablo 3 might still be an unbalanced crapfest, I haven't played enough to find out.

 

[zinho73]

To BloatedGuppy: I won't respond to everything you said even if I have minor disagreements, because I think your opinion is very fair and well though out, and I'm not on a crusade to convince you of anything.

But I will talk about a little bit more about some points just to further the discussion, which I think is quite good.

I don't think they view Diablo as a classic single player experience any more.

Truth. My only gripe with that is the developers going out of their way to say that they are focused on the single-player game.

To be fair, gorgeous cutscenes aside, Diablo was never about story or immersion.

True about the story, but I disagree about the immersion. The characters always had a lot of personality and the monsters and locales were always contributing heavily to the setting.

Also, the animations. They used to reflect exactly what you were doing.

You see, it is not just the monk. The wizard swings a blade, the animation is there, but what he/she is actually doing is casting a missile. My kid said that her "mage" "refuses" to use the sword. I think that breaks the immersion and the fact that it is in D3 shows that they were even less worried about it this time around, regardless of the amount of immersion the other Diablo games had.

Diablo was ALWAYS a forerunner of the MMO.

I agree, but they are still very different games for different people. I really dislike MMOs.

2. Less intuitive.

I disagree with this. It's definitely intuitive. It's very hand holdy, in fact. Perhaps a bit too hand holdy, as I wasn't even aware there was an option to assign whatever skills you wanted to whatever slots.

That's my point - it is too hand-holdy, but it is less intuitive, which is an annoying combination. Early on you have lots of pop-up texts and tooltips, but what the tooltips do not say, you don't know and is harder to infer. Remember that my kid do not speak English. In D2, without my input, she was pumping up her barbarian strength and vitality, giving bows and javelins to her amazon and so on. On D3 she stumbled on minor issues more often. It is not hard and it is certainly friendly enough, but D2 was really a no-brainer.

Also, the animations are not part of the UI, but they do contribute to enhance and teach gameplay concepts. If they are not there for any reason, gameplay can be less intuitive, as it is the case here.

Also, my questions were kind of rhetoric. I knew the answers but it was just a collection of most asked things I saw around. In any case, thanks for answering them!

Note that Diablo 3 might still be an unbalanced crapfest, I haven't played enough to find out.

In fact, nobody tried the true balance test: multiplayer. It is really weird that Blizzard invested so much in online and balance just to leave this aspect of the game out on launch.