Lol@Those of you saying it was made easier
Originally Posted by (Blue Tracker / Official Forums)
I just wrote like three pages of a reply and the forums lost it when I clicked Preview. ... *cry*
Ok what it boiled down to was:
Ok what it boiled down to was:
- Read my previous post. It seems like some people glossed over it.
- I'm happy most of you are happy about the change, and I know you're going to love the game.
- Those few of you who don't like it, you'll love the game too because you're wrong.
- Item pools are not limited by Act, or Boss, or anything like that. While you'll have a better chance to get better items in Act IV Inferno, you could get those same items in Act I, or even Hell.
- Our item pool philosophy is that you can break an urn and get the best item in the game - it's all a matter of chance. Running more difficult areas and taking on more difficult enemies will not always be the most efficient way to find upgrades.
- Previously, Inferno difficulty was mlvl 61 across all of Inferno, and now it starts at mlvl 61 and ramps up quickly in Act I and ends somewhere around 65 (?) in Act IV. We've only increased the difficulty.
- I'm aware of internal bets on how many months it will take someone to beat Inferno.
- A flat Inferno of mlvl 61 had a small curb of difficulty, and once that was over you had nowhere else to progress and no reason to. That's boredom.
- Boredom doesn't generally come from content repetition, it comes from lack of ability to progress, or ease of progression.
- By having a sharp increase in difficulty in Inferno we can encourage progression without having a brick wall of difficulty.
Edit:
Bashiok has said the following via Twitter as well:
Originally Posted by (Blue Tracker / Official Forums)
Sorry, to clarify, the beginning of Inferno is not any easier than it was before. We've only made Inferno harder.
https://twitter.com/#!/Bashiok/status/187421452549636096
1
1
If people place some thought and reasoning behind what they actually want from the game, then Blizzard would maybe help improve the game, rather than sifting through piles of trash statements and overlooking the valid points.
Doesn't this just reflect life? A few selfish pricks always need to go out of their way to ruin everything for the rest.
Yes, you can say it didn't affect you. Likewise, I can say I don't PvP in Diablo, so I feel they shouldn't add it and rather just focus on PvE and make the game better for me. Now that would be selfish, wouldn't it?
Some of the issues with D2 online was really far reaching. My short online D2 career never took off because of all this crap. I really wanted to participate, but eventually I chose against it, for the reasons people state it sucked where just that overwhelming. You can say it however you like, but Diablo is a co-op experience, first and foremost, and in this day and age internet play is growing to overtake LAN in a major way. Online features in gaming has blossomed, and this was the obvious direction to take D3 in.
I understand a lot of your points, really I do. To an extent I agree that D3 should be LoD+, a sequel should by all right be superior to its predecessor and its expanded content. However, D2 didn't have skill rune effects, nor did it have a large crafting component through the use of salvaged materials, or even randomly generated events, even it's economy sucked and needed to be restructured from the ground up.
What I'm trying to say is, D3 isn't merely building on D2 LOD, it's also taking many new features and trying to incorporate it into the established format of the Diablo games. They couldn't exactly go balls to the walls and make an intricate crafting system, or give each class insane skill layouts with hundreds of skills through numerous customizable rune effects. This isn't D2.5 or LOD+ where old systems were expanded. This is D3, an entirely new game with entirely new systems. Just wait and see what they do with the expansions. I'm sure you'll be impressed to find just how much they can improve and expand on the new features they've created.
Actually, I loved D2. I loved it so much in fact that I saw the glaring flaws that hampered the game. Sorry you can't see that crap that weighed that game down, and the fact that your jaded nostalgia is holding you back from experiencing a good game that can stand on its own.
D3 isn't trying to stand strong on D2's back. In fact D2 was a huge step away from D1, almost vastly so. Its time people see D3 is a big step away from D2, very much like D2's departure from D1.
1
I like it this way, it give items flavor. What I find odd though is that you don't think need any Int or Dex on barb items...
You still need the dodge and resist I'd say. If a mighty item drops with +200 Str and 150 Int/Dex, would you rather prefer it not having that extra defence, or what?
1
I don't know how you play, but I constantly refine my skills, testing and contemplating, and I've found many good combos, even some that don't really work for me. My one friend also plays a wizard and I cant think of a time when we were trying the same skills. In this game you're welcome to trade out your style to try something new, it's what makes the game great. According to what you're saying, you need to be shoehorned into a corner to make the game replayable and enjoyable?
Well, that's sad to hear. Not for Blizzard, or for me, sad for you. My wizard is almost level 60 and going strong in Hell, strongish. And I'm going to be making another wizard, sure as hell. I'll have the benefits of being able to craft good items, and to aply everything I've learned during my first playthrough. You can bet it will be fun and exciting. The constraints games use to employ to enforce 'replayability' or 'customization' is a bit archaic, and it's very refreshing to play a game that's thinking outside the box, to try something new. If you want to limit yourself through mentally constructed limitations (i.e. I can change my skills, so I can't replay), then that's all on you.
Do you know what I think is asinine? Placing an arbitrary, nigh unreachable number out there, just for the sake of keeping players playing. If there was content at level 99, sure, but there wasn't. I never had any 99s. Yeah, you can turn it around and say it's all one me, though the reason I had no 99s was because they had nothing to do, except for repeating old content a bit easier. You can't refer to that as an effective endgame. Inferno is a wall of constant improvement and challenge, while D2 had an open field for faffing about.
I prefer the new systems. It's all an improvement over the issues I had with D2. I supported the changes since they were announced, and I'm glad to say I'm sticking by them. Well, these are my thoughts, people do differ, so its unfortunate that some people out there are unhappy with the game, but oh well, that's life for you.
1
... It's the first thing that came to mind when you said that.
1
1
Even so, bragging about being super great at games ... sad.
1
The question the OP raised wasn't if the developers are still the same or if the story continues, he's asking whether or not they captured the spirit of Diablo better than D2 did. To an extent, I think they may very well have. People who think D2 is so very true to the Diablo name should go play the two games again, time has clearly made your mind jaded.
I remember clearly the discussions I had on the diablo2.net site around release time where people tore the game to shreds. 'It was too light and cheerful, why skill points and not books, why no random quests, the monsters aren't evil enough, not enough level randomization.' People were fuming, but in time they grew quiet when they realized how good D2 actually is, and the same will happen once D3 is released.
Blizzard North was initially known as Condor, but was changed when Blizzard purchased the company. You should be grateful they did, Diablo was envisioned to have been a claymation, turn based RPG, until Blizzard changed it to the great game it is today. One of the reasons Blizzard North was closed down was due to the crap D3 they were working on, it looked horrible, and I'm really glad things turned out this way. The D3 we have today is a whole lot better than what it looked like back them.
"The art direction is more similar in D1 and D2 compared to D3."
Are you serious? Diablo came out in 1996, D2 came out in 2000. That's 4 years between the two games. D3 will come out 12 after D2 was released, so I'd damn well hope the artwork was improved in the years since 2000. People should remember, gaming graphics have come a long way in the last decade, and technology has changed in new and interesting ways so obviously things won't look the same.
1
At first I shunned the new system with all my heart. I've grown rather attached to the skill system in its itemized incarnation. The things I love about it most was the idea of adding random affixes to the items, and the fact that skills were essentially itemized, a very Diablo take on the system. But then, over time I realized the change really didn't detract from the system. In fact, what I now really love about the system is that you keep on growing until max level. This is a far better advancement on the system from skill points.
1
The fact is, to get anything useful out of the RMAH will be a juggling act, and very close to playing the stock market, so kudos to anyone willing to do that. And like I said, anyone willing to degrade a piece of entrainment to a monotonous chore has my sincerest sympathy.