descender wrote on Nov 8, 2016, 10:55:
So you want to grind the midgame instead? Now I'm wondering if you actually even played D2. The only thing you could do to advance in D2 after you finished Nightmare was the "end game" of act 4/5. The only mobs that dropped any meaningful items were the bosses.
You are the one asking for more randomization so you can keep playing the game ad infinitum. You don't need perfectly random dungeons unless your intention is to grind the game forever...
Actually, no. That allows more people to be able to play the game, which is the goal of all games. No one cares how cool you think you are that you can figure games out on your own.
There are class specific items all throughout the game. You literally have no idea what you are talking about.
Yeah, this complaint is just mind numbing. You like that they added "re-speccing" but somehow think that means they also removed "builds". It's clear now that you have absolutely no idea how D3 actually plays and just ride the hate train with petty semantic complaints. Good times.
You rush through the games as fast and efficiently as possible, never stopping to actually enjoy them, and then grind the endgame.
I really don't understand that at all. Having spent 12+ years in cubicle jobs, I really don't need another grind like that.
Actually no. When your game needs a "tutorial", instead of simply letting you play it and slowly learn, it is REGRESSIVE in design.
I care about class-specific items. I want mage to carry items that a fucking MAGE WOULD CARRY to enhance his MAGE POWERS.There are class specific items all throughout the game. You literally have no idea what you are talking about.
but then D3 went and fucked it up, by removing the notion of builds entirelyYeah, this complaint is just mind numbing. You like that they added "re-speccing" but somehow think that means they also removed "builds". It's clear now that you have absolutely no idea how D3 actually plays and just ride the hate train with petty semantic complaints. Good times.
descender wrote on Nov 7, 2016, 23:29:
Even if D2's dungeons were more random, no one cleared dungeons more than once anyway, you would just bumrush the bosses.
Maybe the story is stupid, most video game stories are stupid. It's a game about demons and hell. It's not Shakespeare and it never was in the first place (or the second place). I played D2 for thousands of hours and I couldn't tell you what most of the story was, it's simply not important.
The tutorial level and story being integrated into the game better in D3 is a direct result of both technological and design progress, to think otherwise is absurd.
Why in the flying fuck does it matter what particular stat scales the spell damage? If it's a damage stat or a modifier or the color of the armor? You can't possibly care that much where this stat comes from and it absolutely does not matter in any way.
Tons of design changes in D3 are for the better, and when they steal some ideas from their competition (like PoE) for D4, it will get even better.
I don't have to fool anyone. 30+million people bought and played the game.
I have played with thousands of people online and had lots of fun doing it. It's much better now than the last time you (maybe) played it. It's Diablo 3. You aren't getting anything else. It's been 4 years, how many more posts about how much you don't like D3 have to be made? Some people are rather enjoying it. Calling them names and ridiculing the game doesn't make you a bigger person
It was not perfect, but unlike any of the endless Diablo clones that followed over the next decade, it actually lasted for a long long time.
where a mage's spell is powered by the physical damage of the axe he is holding...Why in the flying fuck does it matter what particular stat scales the spell damage? If it's a damage stat or a modifier or the color of the armor? You can't possibly care that much where this stat comes from and it absolutely does not matter in any way.
Poorly randomized dungeons, no reason to spend any time in town, no control over town portal placement, no custom stat controls, inferior system of elemental damages, muddy/confused characters created by a pretentious 7th grader, moronic/incomprehensible plot, generic music, washed-out graphics with no sense of taste or directionThe music/graphics complaints we will have to just disagree, it looks and sounds just fine. The need to have old unnecessary gameplay features like town portals, identifying scrolls, unadjustable skills, considerably more grinding (due to the need to raise more characters for more builds) we will also have to disagree on. None of the things you are asking for would make the game more fun to play, only more tedious. Maybe more randomness in the dungeons but honestly I don't even really care about this. Even if D2's dungeons were more random, no one cleared dungeons more than once anyway, you would just bumrush the bosses. You can fight high level bosses in adventure mode in every dungeon of the game in D3, not just act4/5 like in D2. I don't want to play any game that much again anyway. Maybe the story is stupid, most video game stories are stupid. It's a game about demons and hell. It's not Shakespeare and it never was in the first place (or the second place). I played D2 for thousands of hours and I couldn't tell you what most of the story was, it's simply not important. The tutorial level and story being integrated into the game better in D3 is a direct result of both technological and design progress, to think otherwise is absurd. Tons of design changes in D3 are for the better, and when they steal some ideas from their competition (like PoE) for D4, it will get even better.
descender wrote on Nov 7, 2016, 19:30:
The designs of D2 you are clinging to seem to have more to do with technical limitations at the time than anything else.D2 was absolutely the king of ARPGs
I don't disagree with this at all, I just don't believe that is climbing a very tall hill.
descender wrote on Nov 7, 2016, 16:42:
Diablo 3 plays almost exactly like Diablo 2. There is practically zero gameplay difference between the games aside from D2 being incredibly easier. The only real difference is the character development, and the only real difference there is the skills you have access to on the player you are playing. Oh, that and there is about 10 times the amount of content in D3 to keep higher level players busy.
Maybe you didn't play D2 much, or recently... I don't know... but your assessment of the gameplay available in the two games is bonkers. D2 was absolutely not any more difficult or "strategically played" than D3. Map positioning and player movement in D2 wasn't nearly as prevalent for all classes as it is now. The skill ceiling in D3 is MUCH higher than D2 was. It is considerably harder to stay alive in D3. Class synergies exist in D3 (literally the only way to get through higher torment levels and rifts for some classes), item identifying is possibly the single stupidest gameplay "mechanic" ever... literally the only complaint that makes any sense is the character building and progreassion.
The problem here is that D2 (and ARPG's in general) simply was not as good as people want to claim it was, and D3 is being judged against something that never existed. It's rose-colored glasses all the way.
christheshitter wrote on Nov 7, 2016, 05:56:
I agree with you and as bad as the cartoonish graphics is the awful story. The gameplay sucks too! It's if the game constantly is serving you things on a silver platter. So the graphics is not the only thingthat make Diablo 3 a very dull and boring game.
shiho wrote on Nov 6, 2016, 03:58:descender wrote on Nov 6, 2016, 00:28:
How many developers should be bowing to the concerns of 0.2% of their users? It's time to get over that.
The people who actually bothered to file the petition, do not represent all the people who dislike the graphics style.
Plus, it's objectively terrible. The ground is blurry. The characters look like overdressed flamingoes. My male mage looked like an Asian woman.
Just changing the colors would not really fix the visuals of this game. That is the one misconception that petition had. First, they'd have to give it an actual visual style. Make things look not like they're made out of carton. Carton swords, carton shields. Just no. Give characters and monsters a memorable visual identity.
When I think what Diablo3 COULD'VE looked like with the Diablo2 team recreating that style in 3D, with full use of normal mapping to create solid-looking surfaces made out of metal, wood, etc, detailed environments... fleshed-out character archetypes that are easy to visually identify (like they were in Diablo2)...man, I can only dream.
eRe4s3r wrote on Nov 6, 2016, 11:12:
But then it wouldn't have run on (back then) low end hardware. You can still play D3 just fine on an i3 with intel gpu... in the end it is something inherent to Blizzard though, Warcraft 3, WoW, Overwatch, Diablo 3 and HOTS, all look visually alike to me. And that is not a good thing. Diablo 3 in some ways actually looks worse than Warcraft 3
shiho wrote on Nov 6, 2016, 03:58:descender wrote on Nov 6, 2016, 00:28:
How many developers should be bowing to the concerns of 0.2% of their users? It's time to get over that.
The people who actually bothered to file the petition, do not represent all the people who dislike the graphics style.
Plus, it's objectively terrible. The ground is blurry. The characters look like overdressed flamingoes. My male mage looked like an Asian woman.
Just changing the colors would not really fix the visuals of this game. That is the one misconception that petition had. First, they'd have to give it an actual visual style. Make things look not like they're made out of carton. Carton swords, carton shields. Just no. Give characters and monsters a memorable visual identity.
When I think what Diablo3 COULD'VE looked like with the Diablo2 team recreating that style in 3D, with full use of normal mapping to create solid-looking surfaces made out of metal, wood, etc, detailed environments... fleshed-out character archetypes that are easy to visually identify (like they were in Diablo2)...man, I can only dream.
shiho wrote on Nov 5, 2016, 03:38:They actually mocked the critics with their rainbow level.Yifes wrote on Nov 4, 2016, 21:27:
And anyone complaining about the art direction of D3 must have forgotten just how colorful and cartoonish Diablo 2 can look.
First link is showing that Diablo2 has colors. Congratulations.
Second link shows promo art. Congratulations once again.
Meanwhile back in the real world, there was a 50000+ people petition to Blizzard to make Diablo3 look like an actual Diablo game. A similar petition was done when they tried to pull the same shit with Starcraft 2, and they listened.
With Diablo 3, they ignored the petition, and it is one of the least visually appealing games I've ever seen. It looks like a rainbow was gutted violently, its innards spilled onto a paper-mache world, and then someone generously covered it with a thick layer of piss.
And let's face it, that someone was Jay Wilson.
descender wrote on Nov 6, 2016, 00:28:
How many developers should be bowing to the concerns of 0.2% of their users? It's time to get over that.
Devinoch wrote on Nov 5, 2016, 14:32:
I was expecting an announcement of... something significantly more substantial, I think that's all I'm saying. Warcraft 4, maybe a resurrected Starcraft: Ghost, a new MMO, something more than "here's new stuff for things you already know about" and fairly lackluster at that. But maybe it's just not for me anymore, and that's fair.
Jivaro wrote on Nov 6, 2016, 01:23:
Give it a single player campaign system and 100% game voice acting like SWTOR and holy hell...I might not ever leave my house.
Dreams are great, doubt anything like it will happen though. My tastes in MMO features and design don't seem to jive with even a small minority let alone the majority.
shiho wrote on Nov 5, 2016, 03:38:
First link is showing that Diablo2 has colors. Congratulations.
Second link shows promo art. Congratulations once again.
Meanwhile back in the real world, there was a 50000+ people petition to Blizzard to make Diablo3 look like an actual Diablo game.
With Diablo 3, they ignored the petition, and it is one of the least visually appealing games I've ever seen. It looks like a rainbow was gutted violently, its innards spilled onto a paper-mache world, and then someone generously covered it with a thick layer of piss.
Jivaro wrote on Nov 5, 2016, 00:50:Devinoch wrote on Nov 4, 2016, 21:38:
This was their big reveal of the show? Really?
err..no. It was the big reveal regarding Diablo 3 but hardly for Blizzard's show. I suggest reading some of the other headlines from their other games if you haven't already. I am pretty sure you will pick out the 2 (minimum) announcements that Blizzard considers their big reveals of the show pretty quickly.
edit: I don't want to come off as a smart ass as that isn't my intent so here are the two I think are easily the big reveals as far as Blizzard is concerned: Allen is back and Overwatch League is a go. The Hearthstone and Heroes of the Storm expansions/content would probably be next. This content for D3 is fan service more than anything. That's probably how Blizz looks at it..or at least I think so. As for us gamers, I suppose it all depends on your tastes...but yeah...this is a letdown if you were really banking on either a full expansion or D4. Personally I was hoping for HD D2. This D1 inside of D3 will be a fun consolation prize I imagine though.