RPGWatch Forums

RPGWatch Forums (http://www.rpgwatch.com/forums/index.php)
-   News Comments (http://www.rpgwatch.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=10)
-   -   Diablo 3 - More Forum Tidbits (http://www.rpgwatch.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7004)

Dhruin April 15th, 2009 19:30

Diablo 3 - More Forum Tidbits
 
Diablo fansite diii.net again has some interesting forum quotes from Blizzard's Bashiok, this time hinting at unannounced archetypal classes:
Quote:

… there are a few archetypes of classic fantasy characters. Expecting us to do something completely outside of those archetypes for the sake of trying to be original is unnecessary, and would probably lead to something that’s just ridiculous and not fun, or difficult to design - let alone balance. […]
Well, I’m not sure I can discuss much more without showing our hand. But! I think we’ll have at least one class in the game that will appeal to everyone. And that’s sort of the goal with the core game, hit those main archetypes that everyone can identify with. “Hey, a Wizard… I’m pretty sure I know what that’s all about without even seeing it.” Any potential expansions are probably where you’d try out something not of a core archetype like, say, an assassin or druid. ;P
More information.

Krzychu April 15th, 2009 19:31

I want my assassin and druid! ;P

danutz_plusplus April 15th, 2009 19:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Krzychu (Post 1060943630)
I want my assassin and druid! ;P

I'm dying for a samurai class or something similar. A class proficient with the katana, of course they can name it something else, agile and with fast attacks, light/medium armor. Would be awesome. :D

The armors he/she can equip should also be medieval japanese-inspired.

Yeah, I have a thing about medieval Japan and samurai. :p

Krzychu April 15th, 2009 20:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by danutz_plusplus (Post 1060943635)
Yeah, I have a thing about medieval Japan and samurai. :p

Who doesn't? ;)

Well, I wonder how that would work, but it's pretty obvious now that they won't risk anything revolutionary or controversial in the core game. Heh, the game hasn't been even released yet, and I want to see what's in the expansion!

Hm, but your post makes me think if there will be an agile/fast class for close combat in D3 similar to the assassin of D2.

redman5427 April 15th, 2009 20:42

Give us a hand to hand person with thrown weapons to boot and I will be happy

Yeesh April 16th, 2009 00:03

I think that one of the strengths of DII was the wide variety of builds in EACH class. Because of this variety of builds, pieces of gear tended to be useful to multiple classes depending on what sort of builds the classes were using. For this reason, it would be limiting to have classes that had particularly distinctive gear; those classes might have to be locked-in to that kind of gear, and/or other classes wouldn't be able to use it. And that would be lame.

I think a samurai class, for example, would just be weird unless it had the distinctive armor and weapons that come to mind when we think of samurai. But that's problematic because it would limit the range of builds for such a class, since they'd be stuck wearing that samurai armor instead of able to use the wider range of equipment available to all classes. OF COURSE, you could say shut up, Yeesh, the samurai won't have to use any specific armor or weapons, to which I'd reply, well if he's not running around in that distinctive armor and wielding those distinctive weapons, what exactly makes this character feel like a samurai?

Although I guess one of those cool flags sticking out out of your back all the time might get you halfway there…

NOTE: Yes, the expansion to DII did introduce distinctive item types, one for each class, e.g. assassin claws, but that was only one piece of equipment. I just can't imagine a samurai running around in gothic armor, even if he is wielding a no-dachi…

Krzychu April 16th, 2009 01:44

@Yeesh: Well, in D2 each armor looked a bit different on each class, didn't it?

DArtagnan April 16th, 2009 09:30

This is the sort of problem you'll always run into when going the relatively strict class/archetype route.

Blizzard obviously prefer this approach, and there are many distinct advantages - among them balance and a strong established "feel" that players can relate to easily. It's most likely a very wise approach when targeting primarily casual gamers, which I personally consider Blizzard's core audience.

A Samurai class would probably fit well into this, because Bliz tend to introduce multiple class specific items - and depending on how strict they want to adhere to "lore", they could be as flexible with armor and appearance as they would wish. Of course, there will be a point where flexibility would interfere too much with a given class feel, but you can get around that by making up your own lore and in this case, your own kind of Samurai.

The Barbarian, for instance, is not typically associated with heavy armor in traditional fantasy - as in we all picture Conan when we think about this class. But that hasn't stopped them from ignoring this with Diablo 2, so I don't really see a big issue.

One way to solve this, would be to introduce class specific armor that would support a "Samurai" build for those who want to roleplay a traditional Samurai. Others could go their own way and use whatever items they prefer for their build.

Yeesh April 16th, 2009 22:37

Quote:

@Yeesh: Well, in D2 each armor looked a bit different on each class, didn't it?
Sure, but that's because DII was 2D. Blizzard did an awesome job with having a vast number of different sprites for each class, and palette-shifting up the wazoo, but at the end of the day each class had a distinctive look and you weren't really seeing a piece of armor look the same on a sorceress as that same piece looked on an amazon. Now with 3D, one hopes, you'll see each specific piece, and the only difference in how it looks from one class to the next should be size. So if you have samurai armor, it should make anyone who puts it on look like a samurai, wouldn't you think?

Yeesh April 16th, 2009 22:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by DArtagnan (Post 1060943707)
This is the sort of problem you'll always run into when going the relatively strict class/archetype route.

Blizzard obviously prefer this approach, and there are many distinct advantages - among them balance and a strong established "feel" that players can relate to easily. It's most likely a very wise approach when targeting primarily casual gamers, which I personally consider Blizzard's core audience.

I disagree. Last point first, I'm not sure how you define "casual", but I don't think there's a less apt word for Blizzard's core audience. World of Warcraft? Diablo II? Starcraft? Warcraft III? There are more people who've put in a thousand (1000) hours or more to any ONE of those games than there are people who've put 1000 hours into all of our beloved CRPG classics COMBINED. I don't have empirical data here, but do you honestly think that's incorrect? I mean, frigging WoW? In how many games can people can play 10-15 hours a week for 2 or 3 years and still be called "casual" by the hardcore players? I think if you're going to call Blizzard games casual, you'll need to provide some examples of what games are hard-core.

But to the topic, I think your view of class-specific equipment is more based on WoW than on Diablo II. Of course it's true that in WoW, ALL the best equipment is class-specific. And further, in WoW, class archetypes are much more strictly enforced, with many classes erally only having 2 or 3 truly effective builds, or less. Or at least that's how I remember it.

But Diablo II is a different beast. First, as I said, the expansion introduced ONE (1) type of armor OR weapon per class, for a total of one (1) class-specific item per class. Just one. Assassin claws, Necro shrunken heads, etc. But just ONE per class, and one piece of equipment is certainly not enough to give a class like samurai a distinctive look. In Diablo II, all the rest of the equipment was generic. I mean, there were stat requirements, but that was it.

And this dovetails with my primary point, which is that Diablo II was so flexible that the archetypes you see in WoW were nowhere near as strictly enforced. Sure, amazons and sorceresses tended to shoot, but they didn't have to. There was a melee sorc, and a far more viable melee amazon. There were paladins who threw hammers and didn't ever melee, and others who had to charge in and smack each monster, and otehrs who just killed things with massively pumped shock auras. There was so much variety and flexibility that it still pisses me off when people call Diablo simplistic. Sure, it was a realtime clickfest. But underneath it was a massive array of options for creating a character that could go the distance.

Anywho, an inherent part of this system was generic equipment that could be used by any class. And indeed, most of the best armor and weapons were sought after by multiple classes. It couldn't have been further from the structure of WoW, where there are precious few pieces of armor that are useful to more than a single class (and generally, those are useful to 2 classes and no more).

So, Samurai in WoW? Sure, that would be completely easy to do. Samurai in Diablo? Not so much, unless you're ok with him not looking like a samurai. And again, what would the point be of that? I don't think DIII will lend itself to roleplaying the Bushido code or anything…

Krzychu April 16th, 2009 23:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yeesh (Post 1060943808)
So if you have samurai armor, it should make anyone who puts it on look like a samurai, wouldn't you think?

I suppose. Or we could not have any samurai armor, and the samurai would still just add such elements to what he's wearing, like the animal parts on the druid, 3D or not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yeesh
And again, what would the point be of that? I don't think DIII will lend itself to roleplaying the Bushido code or anything…

Heh, I guess it sounds a bit off, but then again, in Diablo we had more generic classes like Warrior, Sorcerer, etc, and in DII we suddenly got these Barbarians, Paladins and Necromancers, of all sorts of different descent, not to mention places like Lut Gholein and Kurast.

DArtagnan April 17th, 2009 07:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yeesh (Post 1060943811)
I disagree. Last point first, I'm not sure how you define "casual", but I don't think there's a less apt word for Blizzard's core audience. World of Warcraft? Diablo II? Starcraft? Warcraft III? There are more people who've put in a thousand (1000) hours or more to any ONE of those games than there are people who've put 1000 hours into all of our beloved CRPG classics COMBINED. I don't have empirical data here, but do you honestly think that's incorrect? I mean, frigging WoW? In how many games can people can play 10-15 hours a week for 2 or 3 years and still be called "casual" by the hardcore players? I think if you're going to call Blizzard games casual, you'll need to provide some examples of what games are hard-core.

I don't think we agree at all, here.

I'm not being exclusive about this, as in WoW isn't the only Blizzard game and we should remember that there's an addictive quality that I would deem quite unhealthy, and which can affect even the most casual of gamers.

While 10-15 hours a week might seem hardcore to you - and I'm certain there are millions who don't even play that much - it's nothing compared to the enthusiasts or hardcore gamers.

But playtime is but one aspect, and the primary aspect of the hardcore gamer is the amount of passion and energy he's willing to invest to learn and understand the finer mechanics, and to strive to become the best player he can be. I know enough about WoW to recognize that kind of player is still in the minority.

Anyway - Blizzard have always specifically designed their games around people who don't necessarily want to work to understand them, and they go out of their way to make sure the basics are as easy to grasp as is humanly possible.

Their main audience is casual, there's no doubt about it, and it will become steadily more casual as the years go by - if I'm not much mistaken.

Yeesh April 17th, 2009 16:01

Let me just quote myself here:
Quote:

I think if you're going to call Blizzard games casual, you'll need to provide some examples of what games are hard-core.

danutz_plusplus April 17th, 2009 16:53

Blizzard games have always been enjoyed by both hardcore and casual gamers. They know how to make games very easy to get into, but they also take a lot to master. My opinion anyway.

Moriendor April 17th, 2009 17:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yeesh (Post 1060943811)
I disagree. Last point first, I'm not sure how you define "casual", but I don't think there's a less apt word for Blizzard's core audience. World of Warcraft? Diablo II? Starcraft? Warcraft III? There are more people who've put in a thousand (1000) hours or more to any ONE of those games than there are people who've put 1000 hours into all of our beloved CRPG classics COMBINED. I don't have empirical data here, but do you honestly think that's incorrect? I mean, frigging WoW? In how many games can people can play 10-15 hours a week for 2 or 3 years and still be called "casual" by the hardcore players? I think if you're going to call Blizzard games casual, you'll need to provide some examples of what games are hard-core.

Not sure I'm quite getting what you are saying here but are you trying to say that the games are hardcore because some crazy people put more time into it than is healthy for both their physical as well as mental condition? How does that make the games themselves hardcore? The games and their very simple mechanics and the general casual appeal do objectively remain the same, no matter how many hours some individual "people" put into it, no?

There will always be people who become hardcore addicts of some games. I remember a guy at the German Gothic forums who was sharing his experiences from his 27th (IIRC) playthrough or something like that. That doesn't really turn the game into a hardcore game though.
With Blizzard I think it's just the addictive nature (hunt for better equipment or rank or reputation or honor or whatever) of the games that lets people get all hardcore about them. I know a guy in RL who wouldn't touch any "real" hardcore games (you know, the ones with a steeper learning curve that take a bit of dedication and time to learn how to play well) with a ten foot pole since he's got an extremely short attention span but he's (been) playing Diablo 2, Warcraft 3 and now WoW like a nutter (we're talking about a guy here who pulled off 72+ hour raids with no sleep!).

IMHO, Blizzard games are among the most casual games that money can buy. Right in line with Nancy Drew and The Sims. They appeal pretty much to anyone and everyone. Just because some people play them excessively doesn't make them hardcore games.

Yeesh April 17th, 2009 20:16

Quote:

IMHO, Blizzard games are among the most casual games that money can buy. Right in line with Nancy Drew and The Sims.
Let me address a broader point.

People here on this forum aren't all that fond of Blizzard games. That's cool. I mean, people don't even all like the same kinds of sex. Surely we don't expect everyone to like the same kinds of games.

But, despite the wise and intelligent nature of the CRPG crowd, I feel that some of us tend to mistake our dislike for certain types of games, or certain game mechanics, as a failing of the qualities of the games, as opposed to a personal preference. To me, that's what's going on when I hear you say Blizzard games are not hardcore, or Blizzard games have "very simple mechanics."

Because those two statements are not true. You've taken your opinion of the game and you've turned it into an empirical-sounding fact based on nothing.

Explain how the games you like have more complex mechanics than WoW, with its 9 or 10 classes, each with myriad builds, with its interrupts, silences, and school lockouts, its buffs and debuffs, its cool-down timers, its different classes of resistances. With its customizable interface, with its raids requiring 25 people to coordinate their actions and learn a different set of tactics for each of dozens of raid bosses.

As a former DPSer, I can point you to spreadsheets for weighing the pros and cons of your equipment and attack patterns for different types of fights in WoW. Here's one: http://rogue.raidcal.com/RogueDPS_2_4_2_2.xls

What game are you thinking of with enough complexity to make that "very simple" by comparison? Arcanum? IE games? Ultima? Geneforge? Gothic? Like I said, I'd love to hear examples.

My point: something isn't simplistic just because it's not your cup of tea.

Explain your definition of simple. Explain your definition of hardcore, admittedly a pliable concept. Do we disparage games that are easy for people to start playing? Do you really think a gentle learning curve is somehow WORSE than a steep one, if the two both ramp up to similar levels of complexity in the end?

Is Starcraft simplistic? Is chess simplistic?

DArtagnan April 17th, 2009 20:22

Quote:

I think if you're going to call Blizzard games casual, you'll need to provide some examples of what games are hard-core.
That would be easy.

Let me give you some examples of different genres - and I will limit myself to random relatively modern titles:

Dominions 3
Hearts of Iron 2
Darkfall
Hellgate London (not really, but still - I'll clarify if you wish)
Ninja Gaiden
Neverwinter Nights 2: Storm of Zehir

I could give endless examples, but as our industry "evolves" - we'll see games for enthusiasts (I prefer this term over hardcore) become steadily exclusive to the indie market - and Dominions 3 is an excellent example of this trend.

That said, I will concede that Blizzard games all follow the "easy to learn, hard to master" formula - and as such, they do have room for enthusiasts who're willing to deal with the comfortable entry to get to the meat of the game. This allows a certain type of gamer to excel over a larger crowd than usual.

They specialise in mass market addiction, if you will, and that's really why they're so successful - because they design inclusive games on a level you rarely experience in this industry.

That said, their direction since WoW took off has been worrying for this enthusiast - because they seem to care less and less about my kind, and more and more about the casual gamer. But that's not a big issue for me, because I'm not the kind of player who needs to feel superior by being better simply because I invest more time. I prefer deeply engaging and pioneering gameplay - and in that way, Blizzard would never succeed and they've never done anything to please me at the core. They simply don't care about that kind of game design.

I can't blame them, really, but there it is.

DArtagnan April 17th, 2009 20:35

Quote:

Explain your definition of simple. Explain your definition of hardcore, admittedly a pliable concept. Do we disparage games that are easy for people to start playing? Do you really think a gentle learning curve is somehow WORSE than a steep one, if the two both ramp up to similar levels of complexity in the end?
I think you're misunderstanding what some of us perceive, as if we were criticising their approach. It's just that it's not necessarily what we prefer.

The reason Blizzard games aren't hardcore is simple. They design inclusive games, and as such allow for everyone to learn and have the opportunity to master them. That makes their games casual.

But it's true that to truly master them, you have to be "hardcore" or enthusiastic about THAT game. But even so, you're not necessarily hardcore or enthusiastic about games in general. I've certainly played WoW with people who never played games on a serious level before, but who dedicated themselves to WoW and have become masters at it. That doesn't make them hardcore gamers and it doesn't make the game hardcore.

Quote:

As a former DPSer, I can point you to spreadsheets for weighing the pros and cons of your equipment and attack patterns for different types of fights in WoW. Here's one: http://rogue.raidcal.com/RogueDPS_2_4_2_2.xls
I managed to become no. 1 DPS horde side on EU shadowsong, so I know something about that which you speak. But that's a competitive side-effect that isn't really integral to the game design itself. Blizzard didn't force you to be no. 1 and the main challenge was always coordinating a team - not excelling at your class role. Recently, it's become a joke in both ways - so that's hardly supportive of this argument.

To this day, I don't think they've included damage meters in the built-in UI - so that should tell you something about their thought process.

Quote:

Is Starcraft simplistic? Is chess simplistic?
Simplistic is a bad term.

They're casual - because they don't require you to be enthusiastic to play them.

Pretty much any well designed competitive game can be extremely hard to master, but that doesn't really speak for the complexity of the game. It speaks more about the complexity of the human brain - because that's what you're competing against.

You don't sit down and play Advanced Squad Leader unless you're extremely enthusiastic (or you'd stop right quick) - and you won't be able to excel - at all - unless you're a hardcore gamer at heart. Beyond that, there's a subtext to hardcore games that appeal to hardcore gamers exclusively, because they're hardcore about whatever subject they're into. With ASL - it's WW2 and all the historical research that went into it.

WoW is an excellent example of pop-culture story telling, and no enthusiastic story freak holds the lore of WoW in high regard. Because, basically, it's fluff and filler content. You see the distinction? It's about how serious the content was taken and how passionate the developers were about telling a plausible, rich story, and how engaging and intricate the gameplay mechanics are. It's all about enthusiasm, and the sooner you understand that it's not about games being better or worse - the better.

Casual is just different, not implicitly better or worse.

Moriendor April 17th, 2009 22:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yeesh (Post 1060943976)
Let me address a broader point.

People here on this forum aren't all that fond of Blizzard games. That's cool. I mean, people don't even all like the same kinds of sex. Surely we don't expect everyone to like the same kinds of games.

But, despite the wise and intelligent nature of the CRPG crowd, I feel that some of us tend to mistake our dislike for certain types of games, or certain game mechanics, as a failing of the qualities of the games, as opposed to a personal preference. To me, that's what's going on when I hear you say Blizzard games are not hardcore, or Blizzard games have "very simple mechanics."

Dude, you're totally on the wrong track here. I do like Blizzard's games. I wouldn't place any of them among my top 10 games of all time but I've had good fun with them.

Quote:

Because those two statements are not true. You've taken your opinion of the game and you've turned it into an empirical-sounding fact based on nothing.
No, I haven't. Blizzard (single player) games are objectively very easy to pick up, play and finish even for casual gamers.

Quote:

Explain how the games you like have more complex mechanics than WoW, with its 9 or 10 classes, each with myriad builds, with its interrupts, silences, and school lockouts, its buffs and debuffs, its cool-down timers, its different classes of resistances. With its customizable interface, with its raids requiring 25 people to coordinate their actions and learn a different set of tactics for each of dozens of raid bosses.

As a former DPSer, I can point you to spreadsheets for weighing the pros and cons of your equipment and attack patterns for different types of fights in WoW. Here's one: http://rogue.raidcal.com/RogueDPS_2_4_2_2.xls
Aaaah. That's where you're coming from. WoW. OK.
Well, if we look at games at a competitive level then a lot of games with per se simple mechanics do get pretty damn complex. That much is true. If you play Diablo or WC 3 ladder games or WoW at the high level then it does become a lot more complex, of course. But the same is true for "simple" shooters like Counter-Strike, UT or just about any game for that matter.
I was more thinking along the lines of single player games though and especially the Diablo series since the topic of this thread used to be Diablo 3.

Quote:

What game are you thinking of with enough complexity to make that "very simple" by comparison? Arcanum? IE games? Ultima? Geneforge? Gothic? Like I said, I'd love to hear examples.
Well, since we are in MMO realm where I am lacking experience due to only a relatively short phase of interest in MMOs (between 2003 and 2006) I can not really bring up a lot of examples. I know where you are coming from though. You seem to be pretty hardcore into WoW. I used to be very hardcore into SWG (a game that certainly used to be more complex than WoW at least in the timeframe that I mentioned so there's sort of an example ;) ). Anyway, if someone would have insulted "my game" as being simplistic back then I would have reacted in a similar fashion probably because SWG at least used to be a very complex affair if you aimed to play at a high level.
Again: It was not my intention to belittle WoW at the high, competitive level. I was thinking of Blizzard's single player efforts and the Diablo franchise first and foremost.

Quote:

My point: something isn't simplistic just because it's not your cup of tea.
My point: Blizzard (single player) games are actually my cup of tea ;) . I would even play WoW if it wouldn't be so time consuming. After my experience with SWG I never really got into any other MMO because I was/am not willing to ever dedicate that much time to a game again. As I get older time becomes more valuable to me and working full-time the little spare time that I do have I prefer to do (IMHO) more productive stuff like sports (I run at a competitive level). I fully acknowledge, however, that high level WoW is not simplistic.

Quote:

Explain your definition of simple. Explain your definition of hardcore, admittedly a pliable concept. Do we disparage games that are easy for people to start playing?
No, we (myself included) don't. You can't just put me in that drawer where you want me to be. You seem to think of me as if I'm one those elitists when in reality I'm non-/anti-elitist. As I said I like the (IMHO) simplistic Blizzard single player games. I like mindless games like Serious Sam. I like complex games like the Realms of Arkania trilogy. I like Tomb Raider and Lara's b00bs. I like Oblivion. I don't mind DRM (much). I'm a Gothic fanboy. I like a lot of EA games. I love Drakensang. And so on and so on.
See, I don't really fit into some black and white pattern.

That doesn't really change the fact though that a game like Diablo is a lot more simple than Realms of Arkania. Or that Warcraft 3 or Starcraft is a lot more simple than Company of Heroes (again just talking about the single player experience).

Quote:

Is Starcraft simplistic?
Yes (the single player game).

Quote:

Is chess simplistic?
No. A strong no.


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 16:07.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright by RPGWatch