Sad. After the crap that was the Starcraft 2 campaign, I don't think I'm going to buy any more Blizzard games for a while. I'd love to test D3 and see if I like it at all, because maybe I'll find it fun, but honestly it sounds rather bad.
If they're trying to make it God of War -esq then Blizzard can go fuck themselves. GoW 3 (only one I've played) was not a very good game to me.
All that said, I only know a little of D3 and so I still maintain some hope that it will pull through.
I know this was directed at the other poster but since I also had some issues with the Sc2 campaign I thought I'd answer. It was mostly for me that it butchered a lot of the lore and my favorite characters. Every mission also revolved around gimmicks and more action oriented content. There really wasn't any missions of building a base and going after the CPU, your standard RTS fare. Starcraft 2 basically plays more like a real time action game.
Now don't get me wrong, I still enjoyed the campaign enough to get every achievement in it so in many ways, the gameplay is way superior to the first game. That is just why I think a lot of people don't care for it.
while I concede on the butchering some characters part [the overmind and tassadar shall never recover] I prefer the gimmick a mission style, I mean if I wanted to just play standard, I would set up a vsAI custom game, no reason to just play standard in the main story.
although some people have gone way too far, I met one guy on the sc2 forums that was convinced that mengsk was a tragic hero and raynor a murderous butcher, I think he had a law and order complex
Sad. After the crap that was the Starcraft 2 campaign, I don't think I'm going to buy any more Blizzard games for a while. I'd love to test D3 and see if I like it at all, because maybe I'll find it fun, but honestly it sounds rather bad.
If they're trying to make it God of War -esq then Blizzard can go fuck themselves. GoW 3 (only one I've played) was not a very good game to me.
All that said, I only know a little of D3 and so I still maintain some hope that it will pull through.
I know this was directed at the other poster but since I also had some issues with the Sc2 campaign I thought I'd answer. It was mostly for me that it butchered a lot of the lore and my favorite characters. Every mission also revolved around gimmicks and more action oriented content. There really wasn't any missions of building a base and going after the CPU, your standard RTS fare. Starcraft 2 basically plays more like a real time action game.
Now don't get me wrong, I still enjoyed the campaign enough to get every achievement in it so in many ways, the gameplay is way superior to the first game. That is just why I think a lot of people don't care for it.
while I concede on the butchering some characters part [the overmind and tassadar shall never recover] I prefer the gimmick a mission style, I mean if I wanted to just play standard, I would set up a vsAI custom game, no reason to just play standard in the main story.
although some people have gone way too far, I met one guy on the sc2 forums that was convinced that mengsk was a tragic hero and raynor a murderous butcher, I think he had a law and order complex
I mostly agree about the gimmicky missions. They were more interesting to play. The story was very weak though. I just hate the whole "chosen one to defeat the incoming evil" aspect. I sorta liked it better when it was just a lot of factions against each other. It was enough that I won't be buying the next game to continue the story, but I still enjoyed the first one for what it was.
Sad. After the crap that was the Starcraft 2 campaign, I don't think I'm going to buy any more Blizzard games for a while. I'd love to test D3 and see if I like it at all, because maybe I'll find it fun, but honestly it sounds rather bad.
If they're trying to make it God of War -esq then Blizzard can go fuck themselves. GoW 3 (only one I've played) was not a very good game to me.
All that said, I only know a little of D3 and so I still maintain some hope that it will pull through.
I know this was directed at the other poster but since I also had some issues with the Sc2 campaign I thought I'd answer. It was mostly for me that it butchered a lot of the lore and my favorite characters. Every mission also revolved around gimmicks and more action oriented content. There really wasn't any missions of building a base and going after the CPU, your standard RTS fare. Starcraft 2 basically plays more like a real time action game.
Now don't get me wrong, I still enjoyed the campaign enough to get every achievement in it so in many ways, the gameplay is way superior to the first game. That is just why I think a lot of people don't care for it.
while I concede on the butchering some characters part [the overmind and tassadar shall never recover] I prefer the gimmick a mission style, I mean if I wanted to just play standard, I would set up a vsAI custom game, no reason to just play standard in the main story.
although some people have gone way too far, I met one guy on the sc2 forums that was convinced that mengsk was a tragic hero and raynor a murderous butcher, I think he had a law and order complex
I mostly agree about the gimmicky missions. They were more interesting to play. The story was very weak though. I just hate the whole "chosen one to defeat the incoming evil" aspect. I sorta liked it better when it was just a lot of factions against each other. It was enough that I won't be buying the next game to continue the story, but I still enjoyed the first one for what it was.
A lot of people had problems with the prophesy, but I disagree. that was one of the themes of the story, prophesy vs freewill, with jimmy ultimately concluding that free will is true not prophesy, even the main character calls bullshit on the prophesy! you only get to hear that convo if u stuck with tosh and continued to talk with him though, so maybe a lot of people missed it.
EDIT: I do hope they don't just pull a WC3 on us and have all 3 races team up against the xelnaga :/
Sad. After the crap that was the Starcraft 2 campaign, I don't think I'm going to buy any more Blizzard games for a while. I'd love to test D3 and see if I like it at all, because maybe I'll find it fun, but honestly it sounds rather bad.
If they're trying to make it God of War -esq then Blizzard can go fuck themselves. GoW 3 (only one I've played) was not a very good game to me.
All that said, I only know a little of D3 and so I still maintain some hope that it will pull through.
I know this was directed at the other poster but since I also had some issues with the Sc2 campaign I thought I'd answer. It was mostly for me that it butchered a lot of the lore and my favorite characters. Every mission also revolved around gimmicks and more action oriented content. There really wasn't any missions of building a base and going after the CPU, your standard RTS fare. Starcraft 2 basically plays more like a real time action game.
Now don't get me wrong, I still enjoyed the campaign enough to get every achievement in it so in many ways, the gameplay is way superior to the first game. That is just why I think a lot of people don't care for it.
while I concede on the butchering some characters part [the overmind and tassadar shall never recover] I prefer the gimmick a mission style, I mean if I wanted to just play standard, I would set up a vsAI custom game, no reason to just play standard in the main story.
although some people have gone way too far, I met one guy on the sc2 forums that was convinced that mengsk was a tragic hero and raynor a murderous butcher, I think he had a law and order complex
I mostly agree about the gimmicky missions. They were more interesting to play. The story was very weak though. I just hate the whole "chosen one to defeat the incoming evil" aspect. I sorta liked it better when it was just a lot of factions against each other. It was enough that I won't be buying the next game to continue the story, but I still enjoyed the first one for what it was.
A lot of people had problems with the prophesy, but I disagree. that was one of the themes of the story, prophesy vs freewill, with jimmy ultimately concluding that free will is true not prophesy, even the main character calls bullshit on the prophesy! you only get to hear that convo if u stuck with tosh and continued to talk with him though, so maybe a lot of people missed it.
EDIT: I do hope they don't just pull a WC3 on us and have all 3 races team up against the xelnaga :/
If Raynor was calling bullshit on prophecy then why did he suddenly decide to spare Kerrigan? He did it because he was told by Zeratul that without Kerrigan, everyone is doomed. At the end of Brood War, Raynor basically tells Kerrigan that he is going to be the one to kill her.
I just can't stand this redemption of Kerrigan bullshit. The ***** deserves to die, stop painting her as a hero who was just enslaved to the Zerg. That was my biggest gripe. If at the end of SC2, they put a bullet in Kerrigan's head, I woulda given the game a 500 out of 10 just for having epic balls.
Sad. After the crap that was the Starcraft 2 campaign, I don't think I'm going to buy any more Blizzard games for a while. I'd love to test D3 and see if I like it at all, because maybe I'll find it fun, but honestly it sounds rather bad.
If they're trying to make it God of War -esq then Blizzard can go fuck themselves. GoW 3 (only one I've played) was not a very good game to me.
All that said, I only know a little of D3 and so I still maintain some hope that it will pull through.
I know this was directed at the other poster but since I also had some issues with the Sc2 campaign I thought I'd answer. It was mostly for me that it butchered a lot of the lore and my favorite characters. Every mission also revolved around gimmicks and more action oriented content. There really wasn't any missions of building a base and going after the CPU, your standard RTS fare. Starcraft 2 basically plays more like a real time action game.
Now don't get me wrong, I still enjoyed the campaign enough to get every achievement in it so in many ways, the gameplay is way superior to the first game. That is just why I think a lot of people don't care for it.
while I concede on the butchering some characters part [the overmind and tassadar shall never recover] I prefer the gimmick a mission style, I mean if I wanted to just play standard, I would set up a vsAI custom game, no reason to just play standard in the main story.
although some people have gone way too far, I met one guy on the sc2 forums that was convinced that mengsk was a tragic hero and raynor a murderous butcher, I think he had a law and order complex
I mostly agree about the gimmicky missions. They were more interesting to play. The story was very weak though. I just hate the whole "chosen one to defeat the incoming evil" aspect. I sorta liked it better when it was just a lot of factions against each other. It was enough that I won't be buying the next game to continue the story, but I still enjoyed the first one for what it was.
A lot of people had problems with the prophesy, but I disagree. that was one of the themes of the story, prophesy vs freewill, with jimmy ultimately concluding that free will is true not prophesy, even the main character calls bullshit on the prophesy! you only get to hear that convo if u stuck with tosh and continued to talk with him though, so maybe a lot of people missed it.
EDIT: I do hope they don't just pull a WC3 on us and have all 3 races team up against the xelnaga :/
If Raynor was calling bullshit on prophecy then why did he suddenly decide to spare Kerrigan? He did it because he was told by Zeratul that without Kerrigan, everyone is doomed. At the end of Brood War, Raynor basically tells Kerrigan that he is going to be the one to kill her.
I just can't stand this redemption of Kerrigan bullshit. The ***** deserves to die, stop painting her as a hero who was just enslaved to the Zerg. That was my biggest gripe. If at the end of SC2, they put a bullet in Kerrigan's head, I woulda given the game a 500 out of 10 just for having epic balls.
Sad. After the crap that was the Starcraft 2 campaign, I don't think I'm going to buy any more Blizzard games for a while. I'd love to test D3 and see if I like it at all, because maybe I'll find it fun, but honestly it sounds rather bad.
If they're trying to make it God of War -esq then Blizzard can go fuck themselves. GoW 3 (only one I've played) was not a very good game to me.
All that said, I only know a little of D3 and so I still maintain some hope that it will pull through.
Well, it was basically a lot of fluff. It barely seemed to touch on the actual story line from the original game. Plus I disliked most of the stuff between levels, and on top of that I think that the game should have been more about base and army building, but it seemed like every level they made some arbitrary time limits and random tasks to accomplish. In some cases it worked out alright but in others it was just a dumb pain in the ass.
I'm not saying it was particularily bad, but it was not interesting or fun to me. And I loooved the first game and brood war. I read the manual many, many times over and beat the games a few times as well.
You can earn it all without buying it, but since you don't have to, they know there is a very large percentage of the player base that will gladly pay top dollar to be bad ass for minimal effort. That's why micro transaction games do so well. People pay for convenience.
And this is a problem, how exactly? Let them, power to them if you ask me. As long as the developer doesn't give the paying customer content that the other players can't get to, or in other words the infamous "Pay2Win" formula, I'm not seeing an issue. Plus it takes away the power scammers had in Diablo 2.
Diablo 2 was more of an action game than an RPG. I am glad they are starting to go all the way.
The removal of the skill tree though I wasn't very happy with. However it made sense with at least going away with stat points (although they could have done better and just redesigned the stat system to make it more balanced).
Q: I?m curious as to why you guys did away with the ability to set your own stats.
A: Well, the main reason we didn?t do attribute point spending was that as a customization system, it wasn?t very good. What you found was, my favorite example is, if you want to know how to build pretty much any character in D2, you take enough strength to use the armor that you?re targeting. That?s usually around 120-220, depending on what type of armor you take. 75 Dexterity, because that?s generally the number you need for a good block percentage, you take no Energy at all (unless you?re making a Sorceress build using Energy Shield) and then everything else in Vitality. That?s a shitty customization system. That?s just not a good system. And the thing is, once you get into just pure, mathematical attribute spending, there?s a mathematically correct answer. And we are not so smart as to outsmart all the incredibly intelligent people in our community who will find that correct answer. So we focus on customization systems that literally are that, that feel like customization systems, that are catering to playstyle, as opposed to just being able to move around these attribute points and knowing that there?s an optimum way to do that. So that?s the primary reason.
TL;DR This is what you would spend your attribute points on.
Enough strength to wear gear
75 dexterity for max block (if playing LoD)
Rest into HP
Nothing in energy
It wouldn't really be that big a deal if it depended greatly on your class/build, but you do more or less this for every single character you make. If the developers don't have confidence in making a customizable stat system that doesn't come down to what happened to diablo 2, I am not suprised they just scrapped the idea alltogether.
They adressed quite a few changes in that blog, although not all of them may be relevant today because it's pretty old.
The problem with removing attribute customization is that you're limiting the potential for off-the-wall builds. Barbarians can only play one way now. Sorceress can only be a sorceress.
My bear-sorc in D2 wouldn't have been viable without being able to pump dexterity. Zealadins, Hammerdins, and Auradins wouldn't have been possible. Trapsins and Kicksins? Without customizing your attributes, every class will be the same, look the same, and play the same, and that's boring.
They've killed off one of the best aspects of a new Diablo game, and that's experiencing the different builds possible with each character.
tl;dr the only reason that's being done is so Blizzard could get in on the action. You're deluding yourself if you think for a moment there's any moral reason for it whatsoever.
Well yes I misunderstood their intentions back then, I didn't know about that hard stance against scammers. It's a shame they switched so suddenly, but yeah, money. Still, it helps against scammers, intentional or not.
Your arguments regarding the ingame economy are interesting though, I'm curious how that'll work out. That's an aspect I didn't think of as yet, but I took my definition of Pay2Win from Extra Credits; it's not that you only can win, it's just that players will get an unfair advantage when they buy things with real cash that can only be bought with real cash.
Star Trek Online for instance sells superior starships that can only be bought with real money. Diablo 3 isn't, as far as I know, going to do such a thing. Everything that'll be for sale will be available for all players, regardless of currency. Yes, I suppose that selling things for real cash will have an effect on the economy that might hamper people who sell stuff for ingame cash, but it's not the same as what STO is doing and a lot less bad I think.
That's literally impossible. The game will get Blizzard more money than was ever spent developing it on the first day in retail. Don't hope for it, because you're about to be disappointed.
There's always hope, like that ME novel that was shit, people realized it was shit when the others and the games were good, so it shows people can still turn around on somethings.
I would suggest this thread for all those who don't understand how the game is changing:
http://us.battle.net/d3/en/forum/topic/3988231384
I mean, I've played D2 for such a long time and I can tell you that the first levels of the game were not the pinnacle of customization. And for those who wish it to tank... way to go, a publisher that actually takes time to release a quality game and you bash them without any justification.
Damn, that post was almost as bad as moviebob when he talks about Metroid other m, there are plenty of reasons why we can bash blizzard without even playing the game, like how the aesthetics are completely different than the other diablo games, or how about it being set in a different area, with different characters, and otherwise not belonging in that series at all, but no, he goes out of his way to insult those who think differently. I don't see why you would bring him up without bringing up the positives of his argument.
Sad. After the crap that was the Starcraft 2 campaign, I don't think I'm going to buy any more Blizzard games for a while. I'd love to test D3 and see if I like it at all, because maybe I'll find it fun, but honestly it sounds rather bad.
If they're trying to make it God of War -esq then Blizzard can go fuck themselves. GoW 3 (only one I've played) was not a very good game to me.
All that said, I only know a little of D3 and so I still maintain some hope that it will pull through.
Probably the story and character inconsistencies, I know people who didn't like it because a character had changed over the years that they never show you, so you have no idea who this new person is or why he carries a six shooter with only one bullet in it. Others didn't like how the plot is solved by a magical macguffin that can wreck zerg, and has never been seen or mentioned before that point.
Diablo 2 was more of an action game than an RPG. I am glad they are starting to go all the way.
The removal of the skill tree though I wasn't very happy with. However it made sense with at least going away with stat points (although they could have done better and just redesigned the stat system to make it more balanced).
Q: I?m curious as to why you guys did away with the ability to set your own stats.
A: Well, the main reason we didn?t do attribute point spending was that as a customization system, it wasn?t very good. What you found was, my favorite example is, if you want to know how to build pretty much any character in D2, you take enough strength to use the armor that you?re targeting. That?s usually around 120-220, depending on what type of armor you take. 75 Dexterity, because that?s generally the number you need for a good block percentage, you take no Energy at all (unless you?re making a Sorceress build using Energy Shield) and then everything else in Vitality. That?s a shitty customization system. That?s just not a good system. And the thing is, once you get into just pure, mathematical attribute spending, there?s a mathematically correct answer. And we are not so smart as to outsmart all the incredibly intelligent people in our community who will find that correct answer. So we focus on customization systems that literally are that, that feel like customization systems, that are catering to playstyle, as opposed to just being able to move around these attribute points and knowing that there?s an optimum way to do that. So that?s the primary reason.
TL;DR This is what you would spend your attribute points on.
Enough strength to wear gear
75 dexterity for max block (if playing LoD)
Rest into HP
Nothing in energy
It wouldn't really be that big a deal if it depended greatly on your class/build, but you do more or less this for every single character you make. If the developers don't have confidence in making a customizable stat system that doesn't come down to what happened to diablo 2, I am not suprised they just scrapped the idea alltogether.
They adressed quite a few changes in that blog, although not all of them may be relevant today because it's pretty old.
Okay, there's a very good reason why I want customization in my diablo games, it's because I want to play the games my way, if I want to be a bone spear throwing necromancer, I put points into energy, If I don't care about how much I get hit or just run from the fights until my mana refills I won't put anything into dexterity, sorry to break it to blizzard, but people don't play the same way as everyone else, and no, I don't do that for every single character I make, because I make different characters to try different playing styles.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
