TBH a lot of your points are very narrow minded/backwards thinking.
1) Firstly 4 players per game
-Easier to get a full game Same as entering Max 4 players in D2
-Makes balancing difficulties on no. of players easier Yes, considering all that happened in D2 was the enemies scaled with any number of players in game
-limits spam/add bots effectiveness (hopefully remove them all together)Nope, just means that there will be fewer slots in each game since ad bots don't have human reaction times
-Reduced Lagmost lag is client side due to video cards or client side issues, server side all that is recorded is position, so this is a false assertion
-With the massive graphics upgrade on a lot of abilities it would make for some intense system requirements with 8 players. As I've said before this logic would require that games STILL be developed for the C64
Depends how it plays out, but atm it looks like win, win, win, WIN. or lose, lose, lose, LOSE.
2) No stat allocation.
I'm personally for as much customisability as possible and at first this sounded like a downer... but seriously think about how stat allocation went in Diablo 2...
Strength: - Enough to wear the "best" gear Now only Barbs can do that, apparently physical exercise for other classes is anathema
Dexterity: - None, or enough to wear gear/max block Differed entirely depending on class and build, such as Druids choosing to max dex for attack, Paladins choosing between a lot for Zeal or none for Charge, Barbs needing Dex for Wizardspike in singing builds, etc., etc.
Vitality: - Every point that wasn't needed in Strength/Dexterity Which varied greatly depending on build.
Energy: - None ever.... as long as you only EVER played the cookie cutter builds and never EVER tried builds like the all energy Sorc...
And don't try to say otherwise because most serious players this was exactly how the points were spent, and because of this, hell difficulty was tuned based on the assumption that all players there had a similar stat distribution. This is not customisation, this is pigeon holing.
I never liked the stat allocation system in D2 except for the one class where it mattered, the dragon tail Kick Assassin.
The one positive thing was that it allowed for creative random builds like melee casters etc.... but even some of those (such as energy shield sorcs) were over powered.
Overall it just makes balancing easier, and is less harsh on beginners. I WILL say otherwise because your assertion is false and disregards entire sites dedicated to MULTIPLE builds with wildly varying stat placement. It IS customization because you're making a customized choice, whether you choose to be a sheep or unique is up to you. Let us not forget the Naked Sorc who made it through Hell Difficulty Act 5...
3) Potions/Life Leech.
Again Blizzard have stated multiple times why they wanted these two things to go, basically you get anout potions and life leech and you are invincible... you gain life faster than you lose it and it's a never ending resource. THEREFORE the only way to challenge you is to make monsters/bosses that can one shot you... and how fun is being invincible 90% of the time and then killed in one hit?
This also adds strategy to how you move in combat, if you need a heal and there are multiple zombies in between you and the orb you have to get around them (or kill them) some how instead of mindlesly charging to the next area.
Right, there were never lance babas with 33% or more life leech that died all the time in Chaos Sanctuary. Or the fact to get high enough Life Leech to make you "invincible" sacrificed gear in other areas that still made you vulnerable. Or the fact that unless its softcore, NONE of those concerns matter. And exactly how do kill a bunch of enemies when your continued killing hangs on the balance of getting to a life orb? This is a dumb way of doing things, if I want Legend of Zelda I'll go play that.
4) Runewords
Subject to personal opinion, however these were the single worst thing to happen to Diablo 2.
They started out rediculously underpowered, or average, but requiring expensive/rare runes, and ended up being completely over powered, to the point where everyone had teleport, 5 aura's, and multiple rediculous runewords....
Once again the game became balanced around this and makes it impossible for the casual gamer to enjoy, because the game is set to "runeword difficulty"
So you're blaming the tool for the problem? That's like saying its the hammer's fault you hit your thumb. Its simply a matter of Blizzard not playbalancing the Runewords, and towards the end of LoD and the latest patches, there was a distinct lack of thought going into any item balance, runeword or otherwise. The problem wasn't the runewords themselves, but the way Blizzard balanced them. Had they had more concern for their game, it would have been a simple matter to tweak stats. But, just like in D1, once the game is old enough they quit worrying about it and cease support.
5) In regards to the "suspense/horror" being taken away because characters are too powerful....
There was a post from a D3 dev mentioning that normal mode would be very easy and nightmare/hell would be the challenging area's. This is so that the new players are not immediately put off by a steep learning curve, it also makes leveling multiple alternate characters less painful (at least in the early stage)
I also don't recall Diablo 2 ever being that challenging in normal unless you got rushed...
Go back and try to beat Duriel at level 18-20 without twink gear. Or fighting Mephisto, Diablo, the Ancients or Baal without some highlevel coming in to do the dirty work for you. D2 was VERY challenging if played as intended, as any will be.
Massive conclusion... I've seen far too many posts, bagging something they haven't tried, something that isn't finished and claiming "they are never going to play D3 now". Please stop with the ignorant/narrow minded postings and if the game that is far from completion upsets you that much... go for a bike ride, listen to some music... do something else and don't worry about it.
Massive conclusion, I've seen far too many posts, defending something they haven't tried, something that isn't finished and claiming "they're going to pay and play regardless of the finished product". Please stop with the ass-kissing defensive postings, and if the concerns of hardcore gamers upsets you that much... go for a bike ride, listen to some emo music... do something else and stop infringing upon other's right to voice their opinions.
It isn't even in Alpha and people are treating it as if it's about to be released tomorrow and is finalised.
It will be too late to change anything once it IS finalized. Might want to consider that.
You're right, I suppose there's nothing really that could be considered taken from Diablo in WoW. Blizzard doesn't make little throwbacks to it's previous titles unrelated in it's games.
According to your logic, WoW is based upon Army of Darkness.
I never said they should make no profit. In fact, from an economic perspective, nickel and diming your playerbase is MORE effective than large single purchases because its psychologically less painful to pay small amounts over time than one big lump sum. Its how many economic functions of society work.
Vivendi owns the controlling stake in Activision Blizzard. They also were one of the reasons a game series like the Elder Scrolls is seen as going downhill, since Bethesda is owned by them, and their latest release Oblivion was seen as a critical failure due to its dumbing down from previous games, following the consolization of Morrowind. However, due to the namesake and brand loyalty, it still sold well. Now though, with Bethesda developing Fallout 3, the critics and playerbase are VASTLY more cautious and nervous about the outcome.
The problem with a company having multiple successes, especially on the order of magnitude like WoW, is it starts to color their perceptions. Soon, ALL games made by them will resemble their biggest success, which will cause the playerbase to become alienated, critical consensus will reflect this, and their customer loyalty will dissappear. For some, that happens quicker than others, usually because they can see the trends before they occur.
Remember the dismal failure of Hellgate: London and that it was in large part developed by ex-Blizzard employees who had been on the original Diablo team.
As to your dog collar analogy, that's pretty flawed. What I'm suggesting is not guilty until proven innocent, what I'm saying is assume innocence while preparing for guilt. Based on the last few game releases I've personally seen, such as Spore, the games never live up to their hype, despite the tantalization provided by conventions and movie clips. Game previews are just like movie previews, they showcase the best parts without showing the sordid underbelly.
So in essence, I'm cautious and hope that D3 lives up to my expectations. Given that many of the current design decisions sound like terrible ideas and a step backwards, that's not likely. If I love the game upon release, I'll of course eat my words and apologize publicly lol. But based on what I've seen not just here but among the entire industry, I'm pretty sure my words will stick.
1) Imo the graphics are fine. Makes it sure that it runs smoothly even with 8 players on screen spamming stuff. Would you like to be the one explaining the millions of low end computer owners that "hey go buy a top computer to play D3"
At some point, the consumer is responsible for keeping up with current technology. If we followed your logic, developers would still be designing with the Commodore 64's specs.
2) I love the new inventory, thers nothing about D2 invetory I'd like to see in D3.
I want an inventory where the amount carried is felt. D2 was better because you didn't have the rediculous option of carrying twenty suits of armor alongside thirty different weapons.
3) Automatic stat hmm.. yea it might be tough one to digest but if they work it out nicely to the game it doesn't bother me. In Baldurs Gate you don't get to put any stats after you have created your character and it doesn't feel any bad.
Baldur's Gate is based on an entirely different system. Plus, D&D's natural evolution has gone from a static attribute system to one where you DO increase it as you level, subject to play balance. To go from more customization to less is bass ackwards.
4) D2 skill system sucks, no matter what they do with D3, it will probably be a lot better. They were talking about having 6 active skills and bunch of passive, sounds great.
I thought it was fine given the scope of the game. Having all those different skills, while of course giving rise to "cookie-cutter" builds, also allowed for experimentation and creativity. The addition of synergies in LoD further refined the concept. It was MORE choice and customization.
For D3 to have FEWER skills radically alters the gameplay experience. Having 6 or 9 fully fleshed out skills as your only choices IMHO is worse than having 30 skills that you can mix and match, especially given the improvements LoD brought. D3 should have MORE than 30 skills per character with the skill system they're putting in place.
5) Hm yea respec doesn't sound too good, only if the skill trees allow a huge variety of different kind of builds, it might be nice so that you don't need to create 20 wizards.
I'm on the fence about re-speccing. Its not very RPish, but allows for less downtime as you learn the game and character class. I hope re-speccing isn't one of the "monetized features" though, because that's a shitty way to backdoor noobs.
They are making D3 very much like a Gauntlet game. Whether thats a good thing or a bad thing will vary with different people, but the similarities are there.
*cries*
So, yes. D3 is like an arcade game in the sense that they removed the RPG aspect, and made it almost entirely a Hack n'Slash, but to some people that isn't automatically a turn off.
Makes me want to Whirlwind the Blizzard developers responsible.
I think runes in skills are around, oh, 1000 times better than in items. It's the one idea I think Diablo 3 really achieved innovation with.
You can see this amazing innovation in the WoTLK expansion coming out in a month.
Monetizing Features doesn't translate to downloadable content and P2P to me, sorry. They haven't asked anyone to accept the idea of either one of those things and I am against DLC (for a fee) and P2P when it comes to Diablo specifically. I'm not going to complain to Blizzard about something they haven't done and that they must be preparing to do because others companies have.
So you're against the idea of P2P and DLC, but WON'T complain about it when *laugh* Blizzard is forced into it because other companies have? Excuse my insolence, but Blizzard is one of the most successful game developers out there, with an MMO that generates immense cash flow. I highly doubt they're in the same bracket as other game developers who need to scrape and search for every bit of publisher's money they can find.
I can understand people voicing their opinion that they are against a monthly fee, hell I completely agree. What I can't understand is people making empty threats and screaming at Blizzard for something they haven't done and have yet to say they are thinking about doing. They didn't once say they are considering DLC or P2P.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Well, just ask yourself what could the term "monetizing features" POSSIBLY refer to. Obviously it means in past games features that were included as part of the base program are to be made a cash cow, whether that means extra storage, character slots or what have you. Which in my mind is simply abuse of the playerbase, with the kind of revenue stream Blizzard has its very little to them to have an extra couple of character slots or a few more pixels of in game storage.
The fact that these might be the types of features "monetized" (and I find it tough to imagine what else that could refer to) is them simply just looking to take the average gamer by the ankles, hold them upside down and vigorously shake them until every last cent tumbles into their holds.
Well then GTFO off the site and OP get a life ..lol runewords sucked my dick cuz all people would do is search for the best runewords add em up onto their item and become godly with ease..and im gladd theres no stat point allocation its easier for my life...and i highly doub th egame will be shorter than d2 or equal to d2 from what i can see its going to be much much bigger
Attacking someone because they have a different opinion than you is the hallmark of low intelligence.
How were runewords any different from any other top gear in D2? How was acquiring powerful runewords any different than everyone looking for Shako, Shaftstop, Arkaine's Valor, Windforce, and Stormshield?
Runewords were a GREAT addition not only from a fantasy concept, but also allowed new players without great gear or MF Barbs with 1000% or more to get decent gear and be able to compete in the harder difficulties of LoD.
Your words speak of ignorance and intolerance to others. And realistically speaking, the game's total length is irrelevant because its designed to be played over and over again.
This is a good idea, because it can allow Diablo fans everywhere to become active in creating the content of the game, so if the game fucks up at least they can blame it on us.:)
To be honest, it's a good way to past the time, but it's not a good way to create anything worth putting in Diablo 3. It will probably end up something like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGYCMotyVDU
Development on the game should be left to the people who have experiance with making good games. That's just my opinion, but I will be happy to play with you guys.
HAHA that episode and the WoW episode are my favorites.
I was thinking of a change of format. The way I see it, each class performs a certain function. Although the lines are blurred a bit, since all do ranged/melee AoE damage. Barb's Whirlwind, Doc and Wiz's AoE spells etc.
But conceptually, the Barb is melee, the Wiz is a blaster, the Doc is a controller, etc. I think what is needed is another class basic, the sneak.
Whether its a Ninja, Rogue, Thief, Assassin, Hashashin, or any of a hundred other monikers, it would be nice to have a continuation of the LoD assassin in D3. Perhaps in this version, Cloak of Shadows actually renders you invisible, giving you backstab ability against enemies (whether AI or PvP). The katar-style of weapons could be kept, as well as expanding upon the martial artsyness. Besides, where better for an invincible Pai Mei clone than an action RPG with exploding enemies? Imagine using the 5 point exploding heart technique on Diablo! MUHAHA!
As well, it would be nice to see the Druid back, in all his shapeshifting volcanic glory. With the boost in graphical capability and smaller party size, having the health or attack boosting spirits as well as summoning Wolves and Ravens to strike your enemies prior to shifting into a deathmachine would be very cool. Perhaps more forms as well, not just Wolf and Bear, but any of the various lycanthrope animas, Boar, Lion, Tiger, Cheetah, Shark, Eagle, etc. A lot of fun could be had by even customizing which "skin" a certain form would take, so you could have the Wolf shift customizable as a Timber Wolf, Black Wolf, Arctic Wolf, etc. Perhaps also the Druid could have abilities that heal the other classes, whether a passive regeneration over time linked to a spirit summon or even an active heal to make him more valuable as a party member in the limited 4-man system.
You seem to be getting the wrong idea about what was said.
They are not saying that they are going to charge a monthly fee for Diablo 3. They are saying there are possibly features (and I mentioned above about those features having no compromise to the game and you yourself mentioned additional character slots) that could require a fee. Actually they never even used the term monthly fee/subscription here and were talking about specifically features the entire time.
For all we know this could be purchasing additional character slots for your account.
No I'm really not. I fully understand the situation, I'm just saying that its a slippery slope, and once people accept the idea of DLC and P2P, that a monthly "Battle.Net maintenance fee" is not far behind.
By adamantly reinforcing the idea that the playerbase will not accept that, its possible to avert such a disaster before its considered. However, complaints lodged AFTER THE FACT are impotent at best.
And given the state of the economy, and the industry's move into microtransactions as a money machine, its not hard to imagine Blizzard creating a deception of optional when its actually required.
You do realize that they said synergies are coming back? They are really only changing one thing from Diablo 2 to Diablo 3 and that is the ability to attribute your own stats. Distributing your own stats by the way did NOT work well and lead to many overpowered builds such as the pure energy sorc that could never die... Not to mention almost all characters used the exact same stats regardless.
Did not work well? Did you ever play a Singing Barb in an 8 player party who was able to pretty much lockdown a mob allowing the others to destroy everything? The original "tank." Or an 8 Pally party where some were all Vit Hammerdins, some were Dex Zealots, and others Strength Chargers? Or the balanced Melee Sorc/Meleemancer? Or Sword Dodge Zons? Don't cite one example of an overpowered build (which is an issue of one skill's function) as proof that an entire system doesn't work. That's a fallacy of logic.
So they change one thing and all of the sudden they are crippling the game? It is ridiculous, people are just looking for a reason to complain.
Obviously its important to a lot of people who see it as further dumbing down of the gaming industry. Its one less option of customization, and is the same thing that happened with games like Oblivion, and most likely will continue to happen as the gaming world becomes more docile and pliable.
I also am baffled as to how people are so upset that they would take ideas from WoW. WoW took ideas from the Diablo series as well. WoW is one of the most successful, addictive and fun games of all time... Why would they not use certain ideas from such a successful game? Just like it would have been foolish to purposefully ignore any ideas ever used in the Diablo series while building World of Warcraft.
WoW is addictive yes, but many I know who play consider it work, but cannot give it up because they've already invested so much time into it. What ideas did WoW take away from Diablo I might ask? I was under he impression that MOST of WoW was taken from its namesake Warcraft, I have yet to see Baal/Mephisto as a boss, nor have I met any Barbarians or undead raising Necromancers.
And how are they being clever using the term 'Wizard' to try and throw people off? If they would have kept the name as Sorcerer and Sorceress how would have that lead people to believe that they were 'copying' WoW? You do realize that the spell caster in WoW are Mages, Clerics and Warlocks... Right?
Look at the "Wizard's" skill tree and then look at the WoW Mage's. You'll notice striking similarities. My comment was mostly tongue in cheek, because any moron can see that Blizzard is simply copy/pasting a lot of WoW into D3.
I also think it is absolutely hilarious that you look at the Wizard's skill tree and automatically assume that it is complete or finished. The game has been announced for what... Three months now? You are honestly foolish enough to believe that a class just announced yesterday is already completely finished? They said in the end game of Diablo 3 they want you to be using up to 6 different skills at once, there are barely even six useable skills in all of the trees displayed.
I'm pretty sure I didn't mention anything about it being finished, in fact I'm sure its not. I fully expect them to include Arcane Brilliance, perhaps Conjuring of Health/Mana "orbs", an elemental summon, and others. Wouldn't want the WoW players who buy D3 to have to navigate new and unfamiliar territory now can we? Their small brains can't cope, according to Blizzard's design philosophy.
Those would all allow for glass cannon builds with maximum damage and minimal necessary life. Which can be very unbalancing to a game.
Which every game has. Its a tradeoff, do you choose to be a glass cannon, a jack of all trades, or a survivalist tank?
Your logic doesn't make sense because ANY build type can be unbalancing. Look at the concept of "tanking" in any MMO. A single character, through carefully selected skills, buffs and attributes can keep the attention of the enemy on it solely, allowing other classes to focus on healing or damage. Without a "tank" the entire raid falls apart, which makes tanks very unbalancing because the other characters are built around the concept of having a tank in the "keystone" position.
D2 was awesome in this regard, because the bosses attacks, like Diablo's Lightning Hose were, for a long time, un-tankable, without very specific items, and the bosses attack EVERYBODY, forcing tactical positioning and awareness. Which meant glass cannons were at a distinct disadvantage because they could die easily, survivalists might not do enough damage to matter, and jack of all trades engaged in a battle of attrition.
So really, I am all for different builds, especially at the attribute level which allow for unconventional builds ala the Singing Barb and Meleemancer. I want to be able to build a 450 Strength Barb who one hit kills things with a huge hammer, but can get killed easily if swarmed. I want to build a max defense Wizard who dispatches enemies one at a time with a sword, using defensive magic to compensate.
There's a small problem though, you don't know what you are complaining about. That's kind of, well, asinine. There's people pretty much cutting their wrists about this "possibility", and over what? A comment that they want the game to be free and that there are certain features they are thinking about that if they do enable access to would require people to pay a monthly fee? That says nothing. What would be a problem with features possibly being added on as an additional option instead of not at all when we don't even have the slightest idea as to what these "optional features" are?
If they had said they were thinking about asking for a monthly fee for regularly added content, extra storage space, or exclusive items then by all means, yell and scream to your heart's content, I don't blame you. But as it stands there is nothing to yell about. For all we know these features could be something good that wouldn't compromise the game for people not willing to pay.
Several MMOs have had such an additional service. Such as a site that keeps your character's data on it in a nice portfolio with a player finding system along with player/character biography and history tracker (such as what quests had been completed and when) as well as several other useful features that had no impact on the game itself whatsoever for a small monthly fee.
Which is why I say before throwing tantrums let's see what they are "considering".
The problem isn't what they're considering charging for, its that they ARE considering it at all.
Look at Guild Wars. It still is running, off of expansion money, pretty sizable playerbase for a startup, and the only things they charge for are additional things like character slots that are permanent and give no additional advantage to those who do not similarly pay.
I've said in multiple posts that I don't mind pay for content that renders no in game advantage and is more or less cosmetic in nature. But paying a monthly fee is out of the question, given the scope of the game. You pay $15 a month for WoW, and its a massive free-form world with up to 40 man raids and huge diversity.
Diablo will at MOST be a 4 man instanced game and a GUI chat service. Not to mention that I'm not all that impressed by the game's graphics or GFX, when compared to current generation games.
Maybe people's expectations have been lower considering all the dreck that is passed off as games these days, but when you're up against next gen games like Call of Duty, the Tom Clancy stuff, and a bunch of competitors who want your market share, you'd think the game they release would be more than just a graphically different WoW with all instance play in small parties.
If you all want to just sit back and take it be my guest, but I will use my right to say what I want and complain about what I see as a step backward, not forwards, and hopefully effect the outcome positively. If Blizzard decides to go with a P2P format, then they lose me as a customer is all. I'm sure its no big deal to them, they've got 9 million people who are slaves to their power. But I can at least make my point.
Maybe they should just repackage Diablo 2 and sell it as Diablo 3? That way nothing would change and everything would be "perfect".
I thought they made new games to change things and try to make them better... Not to stay the exact same.
I never said I wanted the exact same game.
However, what most successful franchises do is build upon the success of their forbear. Diablo 1 had spells that were the same across all classes, with a few minimal skill differences. Attributes were left to the player, as were the levels of the spells.
Diablo 2 expanded upon the idea, with more classes, and varied skills for each class that made contextual sense. The skill system was revised to be class specific, and made into a tiered system that meant you built up a skill base. LoD further expanded upon this idea, introducing things like skill synergies, runewords, and more.
Diablo 3 gets rid of the attribute system, so no more creating your character as you see fit (bye bye Singing Barbs and Meleemancers), changes the skill system to have fewer skills but with a point system very similar to the WoW skill system.
Normally, when I buy a sequel, I expect the original plus better graphics, updated story to account for the original, as well as gameplay improvements. NOT removal of systems and ideas that worked. The whole point of a sequel is you build upon the original, much like a building upon a foundation.
What happens to a building once you start hacking away at the foundation? It falls upon itself.
What Blizzard is doing is moving Diablo to a more WoW oriented style, to make transition of their 9 million playerbase easier and facilitate sales. In much the same way as a PC game will be dumbed down in development due to the console market (i.e. Oblivion), Diablo is being streamlined for the WoW market. Which is why if you look at the Wizard skill tree for example, it reads almost like the skill descriptions of the WoW Mage. Blizzard probably thought they were being clever in naming the class Wizard, to throw off people's claims that they are basically copying WoW's concept.
Makes good sense economically, but it hardly captures the original spirit D1 and 2 inspired in the playerbase. Microtransactions have been hinted at, as has P2P, both of which automatically dismiss the game from consideration for me. Not to mention the hostile stance Blizzard has taken to the modding community, despite having come from the same humble roots.
Hypocrites.
And btw, I've watched the gameplay videos, and all I can say is it looks very much like Nox, a game that came out EIGHT YEARS AGO. Food for thought...
Ive been playin the Diablo series for 8 years and im in love with it. Idk how you count yourself as a hardcore diablo fan or not I would classify myself as a hardcore diablo fan i dont know what your requirments are about it but I accept these changes. Right now the only thing that can ruin the game for me is well the natural things but the BIGGEST thing is if the story line and lore dont make any sense. If the storyline is crap that is what will make me complain and bitch and moan like you guys But untill then I think everyone should stop complaning and wait................and not loose our minds waiting
Its quite simple. Those who bend over with a smile on their face are not hardcore fans. Those that smile while the game franchise they loved is slowly morphing into a P2P, DLC, microtransaction mockery of its original self are not hardcore fans.
And you're certainly not hardcore if you think the main draw to the Diablo franchise is story and lore lol. The main draw is whirlwinding through a bunch of enemies as they explode on screen. Diablo is a visceral action oriented RPG. You want story, go play Baldur's Gate.
But the moment you stop complaining and taking an active interest is the moment you lose any influence over the creative process whatsoever, minimal as it may be.
The reason they are trying to go a different route with charging for features is because of the fan backlash against any fee. But whatever they decide, the'll squeeze the same amount of money out of the playerbase whether its subscription or microtransactions or whatever.
Well that's just stupid. A bunch of people complain and they go ahead anyway? Sound strategy there.
What's sad is that for the first time in their development history, Blizzard is going to have to convince me to buy one of their games. I played WoW only briefly, and couldn't stand the idea of P2P as well as it being a mindless grindfest with every character out there solely distinguished by gear.
But Warcraft, Starcraft and Diablo were all brilliant and I bought them without hesitation.
But now, I'm going to wait several months past their release date to see what corporate shenanigans they're planning, both for D3 and SC2. If they start big-timing the playerbase like Bethesda did with Oblivion, they won't get my money I guarantee.
0
It will be too late to change anything once it IS finalized. Might want to consider that.
0
According to your logic, WoW is based upon Army of Darkness.
http://www.wowhead.com/?search=boomstick
There's a difference between making an homage to a former title, and basing the development of the new title upon another.
Personally I would have preferred they try to make D3 more like D1 and D2, rather than WoW, but that's just me I guess.
0
Vivendi owns the controlling stake in Activision Blizzard. They also were one of the reasons a game series like the Elder Scrolls is seen as going downhill, since Bethesda is owned by them, and their latest release Oblivion was seen as a critical failure due to its dumbing down from previous games, following the consolization of Morrowind. However, due to the namesake and brand loyalty, it still sold well. Now though, with Bethesda developing Fallout 3, the critics and playerbase are VASTLY more cautious and nervous about the outcome.
The problem with a company having multiple successes, especially on the order of magnitude like WoW, is it starts to color their perceptions. Soon, ALL games made by them will resemble their biggest success, which will cause the playerbase to become alienated, critical consensus will reflect this, and their customer loyalty will dissappear. For some, that happens quicker than others, usually because they can see the trends before they occur.
Remember the dismal failure of Hellgate: London and that it was in large part developed by ex-Blizzard employees who had been on the original Diablo team.
As to your dog collar analogy, that's pretty flawed. What I'm suggesting is not guilty until proven innocent, what I'm saying is assume innocence while preparing for guilt. Based on the last few game releases I've personally seen, such as Spore, the games never live up to their hype, despite the tantalization provided by conventions and movie clips. Game previews are just like movie previews, they showcase the best parts without showing the sordid underbelly.
So in essence, I'm cautious and hope that D3 lives up to my expectations. Given that many of the current design decisions sound like terrible ideas and a step backwards, that's not likely. If I love the game upon release, I'll of course eat my words and apologize publicly lol. But based on what I've seen not just here but among the entire industry, I'm pretty sure my words will stick.
0
At some point, the consumer is responsible for keeping up with current technology. If we followed your logic, developers would still be designing with the Commodore 64's specs.
I want an inventory where the amount carried is felt. D2 was better because you didn't have the rediculous option of carrying twenty suits of armor alongside thirty different weapons.
Baldur's Gate is based on an entirely different system. Plus, D&D's natural evolution has gone from a static attribute system to one where you DO increase it as you level, subject to play balance. To go from more customization to less is bass ackwards.
I thought it was fine given the scope of the game. Having all those different skills, while of course giving rise to "cookie-cutter" builds, also allowed for experimentation and creativity. The addition of synergies in LoD further refined the concept. It was MORE choice and customization.
For D3 to have FEWER skills radically alters the gameplay experience. Having 6 or 9 fully fleshed out skills as your only choices IMHO is worse than having 30 skills that you can mix and match, especially given the improvements LoD brought. D3 should have MORE than 30 skills per character with the skill system they're putting in place.
I'm on the fence about re-speccing. Its not very RPish, but allows for less downtime as you learn the game and character class. I hope re-speccing isn't one of the "monetized features" though, because that's a shitty way to backdoor noobs.
0
*cries*
Makes me want to Whirlwind the Blizzard developers responsible.
You can see this amazing innovation in the WoTLK expansion coming out in a month.
0
So you're against the idea of P2P and DLC, but WON'T complain about it when *laugh* Blizzard is forced into it because other companies have? Excuse my insolence, but Blizzard is one of the most successful game developers out there, with an MMO that generates immense cash flow. I highly doubt they're in the same bracket as other game developers who need to scrape and search for every bit of publisher's money they can find.
Well, just ask yourself what could the term "monetizing features" POSSIBLY refer to. Obviously it means in past games features that were included as part of the base program are to be made a cash cow, whether that means extra storage, character slots or what have you. Which in my mind is simply abuse of the playerbase, with the kind of revenue stream Blizzard has its very little to them to have an extra couple of character slots or a few more pixels of in game storage.
The fact that these might be the types of features "monetized" (and I find it tough to imagine what else that could refer to) is them simply just looking to take the average gamer by the ankles, hold them upside down and vigorously shake them until every last cent tumbles into their holds.
0
Attacking someone because they have a different opinion than you is the hallmark of low intelligence.
How were runewords any different from any other top gear in D2? How was acquiring powerful runewords any different than everyone looking for Shako, Shaftstop, Arkaine's Valor, Windforce, and Stormshield?
Runewords were a GREAT addition not only from a fantasy concept, but also allowed new players without great gear or MF Barbs with 1000% or more to get decent gear and be able to compete in the harder difficulties of LoD.
Your words speak of ignorance and intolerance to others. And realistically speaking, the game's total length is irrelevant because its designed to be played over and over again.
0
HAHA that episode and the WoW episode are my favorites.
I was thinking of a change of format. The way I see it, each class performs a certain function. Although the lines are blurred a bit, since all do ranged/melee AoE damage. Barb's Whirlwind, Doc and Wiz's AoE spells etc.
But conceptually, the Barb is melee, the Wiz is a blaster, the Doc is a controller, etc. I think what is needed is another class basic, the sneak.
Whether its a Ninja, Rogue, Thief, Assassin, Hashashin, or any of a hundred other monikers, it would be nice to have a continuation of the LoD assassin in D3. Perhaps in this version, Cloak of Shadows actually renders you invisible, giving you backstab ability against enemies (whether AI or PvP). The katar-style of weapons could be kept, as well as expanding upon the martial artsyness. Besides, where better for an invincible Pai Mei clone than an action RPG with exploding enemies? Imagine using the 5 point exploding heart technique on Diablo! MUHAHA!
As well, it would be nice to see the Druid back, in all his shapeshifting volcanic glory. With the boost in graphical capability and smaller party size, having the health or attack boosting spirits as well as summoning Wolves and Ravens to strike your enemies prior to shifting into a deathmachine would be very cool. Perhaps more forms as well, not just Wolf and Bear, but any of the various lycanthrope animas, Boar, Lion, Tiger, Cheetah, Shark, Eagle, etc. A lot of fun could be had by even customizing which "skin" a certain form would take, so you could have the Wolf shift customizable as a Timber Wolf, Black Wolf, Arctic Wolf, etc. Perhaps also the Druid could have abilities that heal the other classes, whether a passive regeneration over time linked to a spirit summon or even an active heal to make him more valuable as a party member in the limited 4-man system.
0
No I'm really not. I fully understand the situation, I'm just saying that its a slippery slope, and once people accept the idea of DLC and P2P, that a monthly "Battle.Net maintenance fee" is not far behind.
By adamantly reinforcing the idea that the playerbase will not accept that, its possible to avert such a disaster before its considered. However, complaints lodged AFTER THE FACT are impotent at best.
And given the state of the economy, and the industry's move into microtransactions as a money machine, its not hard to imagine Blizzard creating a deception of optional when its actually required.
0
Did not work well? Did you ever play a Singing Barb in an 8 player party who was able to pretty much lockdown a mob allowing the others to destroy everything? The original "tank." Or an 8 Pally party where some were all Vit Hammerdins, some were Dex Zealots, and others Strength Chargers? Or the balanced Melee Sorc/Meleemancer? Or Sword Dodge Zons? Don't cite one example of an overpowered build (which is an issue of one skill's function) as proof that an entire system doesn't work. That's a fallacy of logic.
Obviously its important to a lot of people who see it as further dumbing down of the gaming industry. Its one less option of customization, and is the same thing that happened with games like Oblivion, and most likely will continue to happen as the gaming world becomes more docile and pliable.
WoW is addictive yes, but many I know who play consider it work, but cannot give it up because they've already invested so much time into it. What ideas did WoW take away from Diablo I might ask? I was under he impression that MOST of WoW was taken from its namesake Warcraft, I have yet to see Baal/Mephisto as a boss, nor have I met any Barbarians or undead raising Necromancers.
Look at the "Wizard's" skill tree and then look at the WoW Mage's. You'll notice striking similarities. My comment was mostly tongue in cheek, because any moron can see that Blizzard is simply copy/pasting a lot of WoW into D3.
I'm pretty sure I didn't mention anything about it being finished, in fact I'm sure its not. I fully expect them to include Arcane Brilliance, perhaps Conjuring of Health/Mana "orbs", an elemental summon, and others. Wouldn't want the WoW players who buy D3 to have to navigate new and unfamiliar territory now can we? Their small brains can't cope, according to Blizzard's design philosophy.
0
Which every game has. Its a tradeoff, do you choose to be a glass cannon, a jack of all trades, or a survivalist tank?
Your logic doesn't make sense because ANY build type can be unbalancing. Look at the concept of "tanking" in any MMO. A single character, through carefully selected skills, buffs and attributes can keep the attention of the enemy on it solely, allowing other classes to focus on healing or damage. Without a "tank" the entire raid falls apart, which makes tanks very unbalancing because the other characters are built around the concept of having a tank in the "keystone" position.
D2 was awesome in this regard, because the bosses attacks, like Diablo's Lightning Hose were, for a long time, un-tankable, without very specific items, and the bosses attack EVERYBODY, forcing tactical positioning and awareness. Which meant glass cannons were at a distinct disadvantage because they could die easily, survivalists might not do enough damage to matter, and jack of all trades engaged in a battle of attrition.
So really, I am all for different builds, especially at the attribute level which allow for unconventional builds ala the Singing Barb and Meleemancer. I want to be able to build a 450 Strength Barb who one hit kills things with a huge hammer, but can get killed easily if swarmed. I want to build a max defense Wizard who dispatches enemies one at a time with a sword, using defensive magic to compensate.
0
The problem isn't what they're considering charging for, its that they ARE considering it at all.
Look at Guild Wars. It still is running, off of expansion money, pretty sizable playerbase for a startup, and the only things they charge for are additional things like character slots that are permanent and give no additional advantage to those who do not similarly pay.
I've said in multiple posts that I don't mind pay for content that renders no in game advantage and is more or less cosmetic in nature. But paying a monthly fee is out of the question, given the scope of the game. You pay $15 a month for WoW, and its a massive free-form world with up to 40 man raids and huge diversity.
Diablo will at MOST be a 4 man instanced game and a GUI chat service. Not to mention that I'm not all that impressed by the game's graphics or GFX, when compared to current generation games.
Maybe people's expectations have been lower considering all the dreck that is passed off as games these days, but when you're up against next gen games like Call of Duty, the Tom Clancy stuff, and a bunch of competitors who want your market share, you'd think the game they release would be more than just a graphically different WoW with all instance play in small parties.
If you all want to just sit back and take it be my guest, but I will use my right to say what I want and complain about what I see as a step backward, not forwards, and hopefully effect the outcome positively. If Blizzard decides to go with a P2P format, then they lose me as a customer is all. I'm sure its no big deal to them, they've got 9 million people who are slaves to their power. But I can at least make my point.
0
I never said I wanted the exact same game.
However, what most successful franchises do is build upon the success of their forbear. Diablo 1 had spells that were the same across all classes, with a few minimal skill differences. Attributes were left to the player, as were the levels of the spells.
Diablo 2 expanded upon the idea, with more classes, and varied skills for each class that made contextual sense. The skill system was revised to be class specific, and made into a tiered system that meant you built up a skill base. LoD further expanded upon this idea, introducing things like skill synergies, runewords, and more.
Diablo 3 gets rid of the attribute system, so no more creating your character as you see fit (bye bye Singing Barbs and Meleemancers), changes the skill system to have fewer skills but with a point system very similar to the WoW skill system.
Normally, when I buy a sequel, I expect the original plus better graphics, updated story to account for the original, as well as gameplay improvements. NOT removal of systems and ideas that worked. The whole point of a sequel is you build upon the original, much like a building upon a foundation.
What happens to a building once you start hacking away at the foundation? It falls upon itself.
What Blizzard is doing is moving Diablo to a more WoW oriented style, to make transition of their 9 million playerbase easier and facilitate sales. In much the same way as a PC game will be dumbed down in development due to the console market (i.e. Oblivion), Diablo is being streamlined for the WoW market. Which is why if you look at the Wizard skill tree for example, it reads almost like the skill descriptions of the WoW Mage. Blizzard probably thought they were being clever in naming the class Wizard, to throw off people's claims that they are basically copying WoW's concept.
Makes good sense economically, but it hardly captures the original spirit D1 and 2 inspired in the playerbase. Microtransactions have been hinted at, as has P2P, both of which automatically dismiss the game from consideration for me. Not to mention the hostile stance Blizzard has taken to the modding community, despite having come from the same humble roots.
Hypocrites.
And btw, I've watched the gameplay videos, and all I can say is it looks very much like Nox, a game that came out EIGHT YEARS AGO. Food for thought...
0
Its quite simple. Those who bend over with a smile on their face are not hardcore fans. Those that smile while the game franchise they loved is slowly morphing into a P2P, DLC, microtransaction mockery of its original self are not hardcore fans.
And you're certainly not hardcore if you think the main draw to the Diablo franchise is story and lore lol. The main draw is whirlwinding through a bunch of enemies as they explode on screen. Diablo is a visceral action oriented RPG. You want story, go play Baldur's Gate.
But the moment you stop complaining and taking an active interest is the moment you lose any influence over the creative process whatsoever, minimal as it may be.
0
Well that's just stupid. A bunch of people complain and they go ahead anyway? Sound strategy there.
What's sad is that for the first time in their development history, Blizzard is going to have to convince me to buy one of their games. I played WoW only briefly, and couldn't stand the idea of P2P as well as it being a mindless grindfest with every character out there solely distinguished by gear.
But Warcraft, Starcraft and Diablo were all brilliant and I bought them without hesitation.
But now, I'm going to wait several months past their release date to see what corporate shenanigans they're planning, both for D3 and SC2. If they start big-timing the playerbase like Bethesda did with Oblivion, they won't get my money I guarantee.