Diablo 3 - What We Want From the Diablo III Expansion

kalniel · May 31, 2013

DArtagnan said:
Today, it's completely different - and if you don't scale difficulty - I'd argue it's pretty easy with middling gear.

So the problem has been fixed? That was the point I was trying to make - if there was a problem then it's been patched, so now the AH is entirely optional, as it should be.

But the auction house is still mandatory if you want top-end gear - and most players will want that for obvious reasons.

Just like trading was mandatory in previous games? There's no need to get the top 0.1% of gear except for bragging reasons I expect. The game is fun and completable without.

DArtagnan · May 31, 2013

kalniel said:
So the problem has been fixed?

The problem of needing the AH to succeed in Inferno has been fixed, yeah.

I've never had a big problem with AH, personally. I actually liked it in some ways.

My issues with the game are different - as my post above should clarify.

Just like trading was mandatory in previous games? There's no need to get the top 0.1% of gear except for bragging reasons I expect. The game is fun and completable without.

Yes, I'd say trading was mandatory in previous games if you wanted the best items. Except, of course, if you played it singleplayer - where you could cheat - which many did to get their hands on otherwise impossibly rare items.

You could play the game in LAN mode - and agree upon a certain level of "cheating" - and enjoy the game with the best items without having to rely on trading.

That said, the item design was far superior - but that's another matter.

As for your opinion of the "fun value" of having the best items - that's not really relevant to those who think it's really fun to be at their best.

kalniel · May 31, 2013

DArtagnan said:
As for your opinion of the "fun value" of having the best items - that's not really relevant to those who think it's really fun to be at their best.

Even if it's just a number on a screen? I guess if you're one of those people then the openness of the AH must be a god-send as you can actually get hold of the best items, rather than having to illicitly use a third-part website like in the past.

DArtagnan · May 31, 2013

kalniel said:
Even if it's just a number on a screen? I guess if you're one of those people then the openness of the AH must be a god-send as you can actually get hold of the best items, rather than having to illicitly use a third-part website like in the past.

"one of those people"?

Yes, I enjoy coming up with the most efficient character builds I can find - and I love to experiment in that way. When you want to test your performance - you need the best items to verify efficiency.

AH is fine with me - though I would probably have preferred a better balance in terms of drop rates.

The item design is abysmally bad - and it's almost entirely stat-reliant. Meaning even when you find that most desirable legendary - the chances of it being any good are miniscule - because it's all down to stats.

It's like it was designed to minimise the enjoyment of the item hunt.

Mr Smiley · May 31, 2013

DArtagnan said:
There's no "you should" - it's just an option for people who enjoy the gameplay sufficiently to continue with a higher challenge.

Of course. My only experience of this kind of play is from Titan Quest, and there was no higher challenge in that game, since your character levelled up at an even pace with the enemies. If anything, I found the final round easier than the previous rounds. (I did try a second round of both Sacred 2 and Borderlands 2, but thankfully avoided addiction and didn't go very far with it.)

If it was really about challenge, why not just restart your character from scratch with tougher enemies, instead of ridiculously piling on the levels and numbers? I'd rather start over with another character than continue to level up the same character through a second round anyway.

Obviously, the developers think you "should" keep levelling your character through several rounds; the game is designed for it. It's a multiplayer invention, all about keeping the player grinding levels, and I still think it's a stupid idea, from a player perspective in general and from a single player perspective in particular.

DArtagnan · May 31, 2013

Mr Smiley said:
Of course. My only experience of this kind of play is from Titan Quest, and there was no higher challenge in that game, since your character levelled up at an even pace with the enemies. If anything, I found the final round easier than the previous rounds. (I did try a second round of both Sacred 2 and Borderlands 2, but thankfully avoided addiction and didn't go very far with it.)

If it was really about challenge, why not just restart your character from scratch with tougher enemies, instead of ridiculously piling on the levels and numbers? I'd rather start over with another character than continue to level up the same character through a second round anyway.

Obviously, the developers think you "should" keep levelling your character through several rounds; the game is designed for it. It's a multiplayer invention, all about keeping the player grinding levels, and I still think it's a stupid idea, from a player perspective in general and from a single player perspective in particular.

Well, you certainly see it very differently than I do.

To me, these games are primarily about developing your character and optimising his performance - based on skill distribution and loot setups.

So, the longer I can play with the same character and have a reasonably fresh experience - the better.

These games scale loot and challenge according to the difficulty levels - and Titan Quest is no different. Doesn't mean that your first foray into the next difficulty will be part of a smooth upwards curve. It depends on your character and his gear.

But I can assure you that these games are much harder as you progress through the levels.

The gear gets increasingly more interesting and your character build will be more and more vital for success.

That said, they do have a tendency to make the first playthrough too easy - and Diablo 3 is especially poor in this way.

It's like both Normal and Nightmare are designed for super casual players with no interest in investing themselves. That will seem very boring to experienced gamers.

Mr Smiley · May 31, 2013

DArtagnan said:
So, the longer I can play with the same character and have a reasonably fresh experience - the better.

Yes. The problem is "reasonably fresh." Ideally, character levels and game content should last equally long. In a huge game with plenty of side quests, it's often possible to reach the level cap before you run out of content to explore, which I much prefer. The Diablo model means you run out of game content long before you reach the level cap, so the entire content has to be regurgitated. How is that not a stupid idea? Of course, I can see the point from a developer perspective, but from a player perspective?

DArtagnan said:
That said, they do have a tendency to make the first playthrough too easy - and Diablo 3 is especially poor in this way.

It's like both Normal and Nightmare are designed for super casual players with no interest in investing themselves. That will seem very boring to experienced gamers.

Too easy, too hard, doesn't matter. Every game should let the player choose difficulty. Forcing experienced players to go through the entire game twice in order to reach a suitable difficulty is a horrible idea. And of course it's all due to multiplayer requirements. (I played the previous Diablos single player offline and that's how I'll play Diablo 3, if at all.)

DArtagnan · May 31, 2013

Mr Smiley said:
Yes. The problem is "reasonably fresh." Ideally, character levels and game content should last equally long. In a huge game with plenty of side quests, it's often possible to reach the level cap before you run out of content to explore, which I much prefer. The Diablo model means you run out of game content long before you reach the level cap, so the entire content has to be regurgitated. How is that not a stupid idea? Of course, I can see the point from a developer perspective, but from a player perspective?

Because you don't understand the gameplay paradigm and the history of the genre - or you don't agree with it.

The content is secondary. The character progression and loot hunt is primary - and represents the heart of the experience. The genre was originally based around randomly generated levels - potentially providing infinite content - albeit with limited variety. This is how the Rogue-like genre has always worked - and that's what Diablo is primarily based upon.

Since I understand the paradigm and I agree that it's a solid one - it's not "stupid". Appealing to you, specifically, and ignoring the fans of the genre and their expectations isn't "smart". At least, not the way I see it.

Too easy, too hard, doesn't matter. Every game should let the player choose difficulty. Forcing experienced players to go through the entire game twice in order to reach a suitable difficulty is a horrible idea. And of course it's all due to multiplayer requirements. (I played the previous Diablos single player offline and that's how I'll play Diablo 3, if at all.)

No, it has nothing to with multiplayer requirement.

But the dawn of the Diablo genre had multiplayer at heart - so changing that for you would, indeed, be stupid. At least, I think so.

Anyway, the reason for the difficulty progression is to extend the experience by re-using content. Again, the heart of the experience is the ever-evolving character progression combined with the loot hunt. The "content" in terms of levels and the world you walk around in is secondary - and is essentially there only to provide some kind of motivator and flavor for the primary drive.

What you're asking for would result in a game with one playthrough - and effectively eliminate the core of the paradigm - which is potentially infinite replayability.

You can't expect developers to provide 3-4 times the content of a normal game because you want to keep it fresh the way YOU prefer it to be fresh, through all 3-4 difficulty levels.

That's completely unreasonable and telling of a person who doesn't understand the genre at all.

Mr Smiley · May 31, 2013

DArtagnan said:
Because you don't understand the gameplay paradigm and the history of the genre - or you don't agree with it.

Oh, I understand the slot machine addiction genre allright. And yes, I don't agree with it much, though I enjoyed Borderlands 2 recently.

DArtagnan said:
The genre was originally based around randomly generated levels - potentially providing infinite content - albeit with limited variety. This is how the Rogue-like genre has always worked - and that's what Diablo is primarily based upon.

Yes, and I would much prefer endless randomly generated content padding to solve the problem. (Think Arena and Daggerfall.) Killing other similar monsters in other similar dungeons makes more sense than killing the same monster in the same dungeon over and over. At least from a role playing perspective.

DArtagnan said:
No, it has nothing to with multiplayer requirement.

But the dawn of the Diablo genre had multiplayer at heart - so changing that for you would, indeed, be stupid. At least, I think so.

Personally, I would be happy if online multiplayer had never been invented. But that's a bit beside the point. It's also my opinion that we haven't seen a real MMO RPG yet. Yes, we have seen lots of MMO RPGs, even a few successful ones, but so far they are all basically single player RPGs with lots of people playing simultaneously, and all the worse for it as far as I'm concerned. I wish the MMO genre would evolve beyond its single player roots. Then we would get better single player games too.

DArtagnan said:
Again, the heart of the experience is the ever-evolving character progression combined with the loot hunt. The "content" in terms of levels and the world you walk around in is secondary - and is essentially there only to provide some kind of motivator and flavor for the primary drive.

True, the slot machine mechanic and powergaming is what keep people playing these games beyond what can be justified by actual content. But you are wrong in thinking that the rest is secondary. Without the world, the lore, the design and atmosphere of the game, all you have is numbers. "The rest" is what makes the numbers mean something.

DArtagnan · June 1, 2013

Mr Smiley said:
Oh, I understand the slot machine addiction genre allright. And yes, I don't agree with it much, though I enjoyed Borderlands 2 recently.

No, you don't understand. It's the power trip first, and the slot machine aspect is interesting because of the power trip.

Much like an actual slot machine is interesting because of the overarching promise of "riches" - at least to most people.

Yes, and I would much prefer endless randomly generated content padding to solve the problem. (Think Arena and Daggerfall.) Killing other similar monsters in other similar dungeons makes more sense than killing the same monster in the same dungeon over and over. At least from a role playing perspective.

Have you played Diablo? It sure doesn't sound like it. All Diablo games have endless randomly generated content and all the dungeons are different. Oh, they look alike - just like they do in Arena and Daggerfall.

So, it did "solve" the problem.

Personally, I would be happy if online multiplayer had never been invented. But that's a bit beside the point. It's also my opinion that we haven't seen a real MMO RPG yet. Yes, we have seen lots of MMO RPGs, even a few successful ones, but so far they are all basically single player RPGs with lots of people playing simultaneously, and all the worse for it as far as I'm concerned. I wish the MMO genre would evolve beyond its single player roots. Then we would get better single player games too.

I'm not sure why we're talking about this. You don't sound like you know much about the MMORPG genre, though. Lots of them are based around multiplayer interactivity - and the "singleplayer" aspect is a relatively recent invention when it comes to the genre.

But it's true that a multiplayer game has a lot of single players playing together and some of them don't enforce grouping up. That's how I like it, actually.

However, a lot of the older MMOs enforced grouping for the vast majority of content - and EverQuest is a good example of that.

True, the slot machine mechanic and powergaming is what keep people playing these games beyond what can be justified by actual content. But you are wrong in thinking that the rest is secondary. Without the world, the lore, the design and atmosphere of the game, all you have is numbers. "The rest" is what makes the numbers mean something.

Oh, so you do get that it's a power trip. That's not powergaming, though. Powergaming is about optimising your character to the exclusion of pretty much everything else. There are MANY Diablo players who don't powergame - and who wouldn't even know how to powergame.

But power trips are something most players can enjoy - as can you, obviously. I don't know if that's supposed to be a bad thing, but think it's a very natural drive. I'd say most CRPGs in the world have power trips as a primary feature.

You don't seem to understand what secondary means. Secondary doesn't mean unimportant - or superfluous. It's just not primary.

I completely agree that it's important - and that's why I'm saying it's in place as a motivator to continue.

But it's not MORE or AS important as the power trip or the slot machine mechanic, as you seem to prefer calling the character progression and loot hunt.

Obviously, I'm talking about the genre - and not your personal preferences.

Mr Smiley · June 1, 2013

DArtagnan said:
No, you don't understand. It's the power trip first, and the slot machine aspect is interesting because of the power trip.

Much like an actual slot machine is interesting because of the overarching promise of "riches" - at least to most people.

Of course. And the power trip takes place in a fantasy world; it's part of the story arch of your character. If you need to repeat the story arch of the game several times in order to conclude the arch of your character, there is a problem, at least as far as role playing and immersion is concerned. You might put up with it because you're focused on the power trip, as I did put up with it in Titan Quest, because I was focused on collecting armor sets. But that's not role playing, it's pure addictive behaviour.

DArtagnan said:
Have you played Diablo? It sure doesn't sound like it. All Diablo games have endless randomly generated content and all the dungeons are different. Oh, they look alike - just like they do in Arena and Daggerfall.

I already told you that i have played the previous Diablos. And enjoyed them. But I never played a second round with the same character. The difference between character classes made it worthwhile to replay with another class, but I'm not sure that's true for the latest Diablo.

There is a huge difference in how randomness is used in Arena and Daggerfall, where content is expanded laterally.

DArtagnan said:
I'm not sure why we're talking about this. You don't sound like you know much about the MMORPG genre, though. Lots of them are based around multiplayer interactivity - and the "singleplayer" aspect is a relatively recent invention when it comes to the genre.

It's true that I have limited first hand experience of the MMORPG genre, since I don't like MMO play. However, I do follow games in the media and on forums, so I dare say that I both know and understand them. Those coming closest to being real MMO RPGs, where people play different roles instead of basically the same role, are games like Second Life and The Sims.

DArtagnan said:
Obviously, I'm talking about the genre - and not your personal preferences.

And obviously, I'm talking about my personal preferences. We both know the genre from different perspectives. Talking about the genre and where it's at, is only interesting in relation to where we would like it to be.

Stingray · June 1, 2013

DArtagnan said:
Demon Hunter was specifically considered overpowered with the right choice of skills. With the right combination of escape skills and runes - he was near invincible under the right circumstances.

Youtube was full of middling DH players defeating Inferno - and they were among the first to do so.

So, that's pretty useless as an example.

All other classes - especially Monk and Witch Doctor - had SEVERE difficulties with Inferno without some really good gear.

Sure, you could potentially grind your way to that gear - but it would take a VERY LONG time - unless you were incredibly lucky.

Making the auction house all but mandatory for Inferno.

I played a monk when the game came out, and killed Inferno Diablo (solo) before the first patch (ie: in his original state). It most definitely would have been impossible for a monk without the AH. You could not have "grinded your way" to the gear to do it because by the time you got the gear, the nerfs would have been in place and you could no longer claim to have beat it in its original form. So it was either use the AH, or stand around and wait for Blizzard to make things easier for you. I know which I prefer, given that awful choice.

DArtagnan · June 1, 2013

Mr Smiley said:
Of course. And the power trip takes place in a fantasy world; it's part of the story arch of your character. If you need to repeat the story arch of the game several times in order to conclude the arch of your character, there is a problem, at least as far as role playing and immersion is concerned. You might put up with it because you're focused on the power trip, as I did put up with it in Titan Quest, because I was focused on collecting armor sets. But that's not role playing, it's pure addictive behaviour.

No, there's a problem as far as you are concerned. That's fair enough - but you're talking about the genre paradigm as "stupid" - where it's really just that you don't like it.

No one is calling it roleplaying - though I think it has elements of that.

I already told you that i have played the previous Diablos. And enjoyed them. But I never played a second round with the same character. The difference between character classes made it worthwhile to replay with another class, but I'm not sure that's true for the latest Diablo.

Oh, then you should know there's infinite "content" through randomly generated levels.

There is a huge difference in how randomness is used in Arena and Daggerfall, where content is expanded laterally.

I see it as much the same. If you've visited a handful of towns or dungeons in both games - you've seen what there is to see in terms of content. Changing the layout doesn't change the feel of the assets. Much like Diablo.

99% of both Arena and Daggerfall is generated through simplistic formulas based on a random seed. If that sort of thing represents "content" that's exciting to you, then we will just have to disagree.

It's true that I have limited first hand experience of the MMORPG genre, since I don't like MMO play. However, I do follow games in the media and on forums, so I dare say that I both know and understand them. Those coming closest to being real MMO RPGs, where people play different roles instead of basically the same role, are games like Second Life and The Sims.

No, you don't understand them if you haven't played them a lot.

I have played them a LOT - and I understand them.

Sorry, but there's no substitute for firsthand experience.

As for your personal perception of what makes an RPG - it has nothing to do with how the genre works and doesn't work.

It has always been multiplayer centric - and lots of MMOs motivate and inspire "real" roleplaying as you understand it. Like LOTRO - where you're encouraged to write your own background, compose and play your own music, own your own house and invite people over. Then we have a game like Secret World - where you can put on your own shows in the theater and entertain people.

Lots of games have lots of features that motivate people to play their roles. It's just not enforced.

The primary difference between old and new MMOs, for this specific issue, is that new games allow people to play by themselves and experience most of the content. That's not because developers are "evil" or WANT players to solo. It's because a LOT of players are not social and don't want to participate in social events. Blaming the games or the genres for human nature is unfair and silly.

That said, you can always pick a RP server - where it's strongly encouraged - if not enforced.

I'm afraid you just don't know what you're talking about. In that case, I would advise not talking about it while pretending you have a position of sufficient knowledge.

And obviously, I'm talking about my personal preferences. We both know the genre from different perspectives. Talking about the genre and where it's at, is only interesting in relation to where we would like it to be.

I don't follow.

I'm trying to educate you in terms of the genre and the expectations of its fans. This might sound arrogant, but it's really not. I'm just aware that I have an excessive amount of experience with the genre - all the way back to Nethack and all the clones - and I simply understand what it's about and what people who share that understanding want.

Not ALL people - but fans of the genre as it came about and how Diablo basically works.

My personal preferences have nothing to do with it. I think there are many aspects that could be improved - and the world and its importance is one of them. So, I'd agree with you about that.

But I don't confuse my own opinion with the "smart" choice and I think it's important to understand where developers are coming from.

Sometimes, you just have to recognise that a genre isn't for you - and that's really all there is to it.

Mr Smiley · June 1, 2013

DArtagnan said:
No, there's a problem as far as you are concerned. That's fair enough - but you're talking about the genre paradigm as "stupid" - where it's really just that you don't like it.

Fair enough. I call it stupid because I don't like it. I'm only speaking on behalf of myself. And I don't consider it a paradigm, just an extra feature offering a kind of replayability that I consider less rewarding than starting over with a new character.

DArtagnan said:
I see it as much the same. If you've visited a handful of towns or dungeons in both games - you've seen what there is to see in terms of content. Changing the layout doesn't change the feel of the assets. Much like Diablo.

99% of both Arena and Daggerfall is generated through simplistic formulas based on a random seed. If that sort of thing represents "content" that's exciting to you, then we will just have to disagree.

I could conclude that you just don't understand, and try to educate you regarding the benefits of lateral content extension, but I won't. It's obvious that we want very different things from the games we play.

DArtagnan said:
As for your personal perception of what makes an RPG - it has nothing to do with how the genre works and doesn't work.

My main point is that a MMO game is (or at least should be) an entirely different thing from a single player game. The MMO RPGs of today are derived from the single player RPG, and retain many features and conventions that are less than ideal for the MMO form. I predict that MMOs will continue to evolve and that we'll get better single player games because of it. A game trying to provide both will always be a compormise. It's obvious that Diablo 3 (and the previous Diablos to a lesser extent) sacrifices aspects of the single player experience to benefit multiplayer.

DArtagnan said:
It has always been multiplayer centric…

I know. But not multiplayer centric enough to scare me off…

DArtagnan said:
I'm trying to educate you in terms of the genre and the expectations of its fans. This might sound arrogant, but it's really not. I'm just aware that I have an excessive amount of experience with the genre - all the way back to Nethack and all the clones - and I simply understand what it's about and what people who share that understanding want.

That's fine, but I have plenty of gaming experience too, and I know what I want. Now you might say something like "maybe this game is not for you" or "there are other games more suited to your tastes"…

DArtagnan said:
Sometimes, you just have to recognise that a genre isn't for you - and that's really all there is to it.

But it's not all that easy. I seldom come across a game totally to my taste, so, like most people, I make do with what's on offer. As for Diablo 3, I'll settle for a version that I can play single player offline. And the PS3 version seems set to provide that.

What I really want is Sui Generis. Or Project Eternity. Or the next Elder Scrolls. But mostly Sui Generis. Or rahter the game that Bare Mettle hopes to make. But in the end, I'll take whatever I can get. If I'm lucky, I'll be too busy to bother with Diablo 3.

DArtagnan · June 1, 2013

Mr Smiley said:
Fair enough. I call it stupid because I don't like it. I'm only speaking on behalf of myself. And I don't consider it a paradigm, just an extra feature offering a kind of replayability that I consider less rewarding than starting over with a new character.

Well, you actually asked "how is that not stupid?".

It's pretty hard to believe you were only speaking for yourself in that instance.

But ok, let's say you were.

I could conclude that you just don't understand, and try to educate you regarding the benefits of lateral content extension, but I won't. It's obvious that we want very different things from the games we play.

Are you suggesting I like only Diablo and no other games?

If you think you can educate me in any way related to gaming - I wish you the best of luck

Oh, but you won't even try…..

My main point is that a MMO game is (or at least should be) an entirely different thing from a single player game. The MMO RPGs of today are derived from the single player RPG, and retain many features and conventions that are less than ideal for the MMO form. I predict that MMOs will continue to evolve and that we'll get better single player games because of it. A game trying to provide both will always be a compormise. It's obvious that Diablo 3 (and the previous Diablos to a lesser extent) sacrifices aspects of the single player experience to benefit multiplayer.

I don't agree. Diablo 3 chose online because it fit the design - and I happen to agree with that.

Their choice to make it offline for consoles is one of necessity - not because it's ideal for the design.

As for MMOs - they're not derived from single player games but from games. But obviously they resemble single player games - because those are games as well. They just happen to allow more players to participate and have lots of features that work well with that concept.

That's fine, but I have plenty of gaming experience too, and I know what I want. Now you might say something like "maybe this game is not for you" or "there are other games more suited to your tastes"…

I'm sure you have lots of experience - you're just not talking about things you have lots of experience with. That's my point.

What I really want is Sui Generis. Or Project Eternity. Or the next Elder Scrolls. But mostly Sui Generis. Or rahter the game that Bare Mettle hopes to make. But in the end, I'll take whatever I can get. If I'm lucky, I'll be too busy to bother with Diablo 3.

Games that aren't released? Well, some of them look great - and some of them look ambitious.

I want it all, personally.

Mr Smiley · June 1, 2013

DArtagnan said:
Are you suggesting I like only Diablo and no other games?

Of course not. I said that it's obvious that we want very different things from the games we play. You are a prolific poster on the Watch and from your posts I have a pretty clear picture of what you appreciate in a game.

DArtagnan said:
If you think you can educate me in any way related to gaming - I wish you the best of luck

That was mostly a jibe at your attempts at "educating" me. But why not?

When I grew up, computer games was not invented yet. Instead I immersed myself in comics and books. As a young reader of science fiction and fantasy, I got to explore strange and fascinating worlds. It was all about escapism. Later, when games as different from each other as Zork, Ultima Underworld and Myst captured my imagination, it was still all about escapism. Technology offered this new, more hands on, interactive way of escaping into fictional worlds. I was hooked. And from a technology standpoint, it's getting better all the time.

That's my approach to "gaming". I'm in it for the exploration, the lore and the world design. I usually don't mind the game aspect of a game. But I sometimes wish that there was another name for this wonderful interactive entertainment. Because I don't really like games as such.

And when you claim that game content is secondary to game mechanics, that's just your perspective (shared by many, but it's still just one perspective). To me, the mechanics are there to give the player something to do in the game world. A good game needs both good content and good mechanics for sure. But to me, the game will always reman secondary to the escapist experience.

DArtagnan said:
Games that aren't released?

Of course. If the game I want was released, I would be playing it already.

DArtagnan · June 1, 2013

Mr Smiley said:
Of course not. I said that it's obvious that we want very different things from the games we play. You are a prolific poster on the Watch and from your posts I have a pretty clear picture of what you appreciate in a game.

I'm not so sure.

Why do you think we want very different things?

I'm not really talking about what I want from my games - but what fans of Diablo are expecting.

And when you claim that game content is secondary to game mechanics, that's just your perspective (shared by many, but it's still just one perspective). To me, the mechanics are there to give the player something to do in the game world. A good game needs both good content and good mechanics for sure. But to me, the game will always reman secondary to the escapist experience.

No, I'm not claiming that.

I'm claiming that character progression and the loot hunt is primary - and the world and lore is secondary - to the genre in question.

Try not to confuse one genre with the entirety of gaming.

Of course. If the game I want was released, I would be playing it already.

So, no games released are anything like what you want?

Mr Smiley · June 1, 2013

DArtagnan said:
Why do you think we want very different things?

You play a lot of MMO RPGs for instance. When I play, I like to escape from reality, including real people. I get enough social interaction in real life and I find it immersion breaking and stressful to have other people in my game.

DArtagnan said:
I'm not really talking about what I want from my games - but what fans of Diablo are expecting.

Sorry for missing that distinction. Why would you even want to speak for others than yourself? Fans mostly want more of the same. I'm not a fan, but I want more of what I liked about the previous game and less of what I didn't like.

DArtagnan said:
I'm claiming that character progression and the loot hunt is primary - and the world and lore is secondary - to the genre in question.

Again, sorry for missing that distinction. And again, why would you speak for the genre rather than yourself? I understand the genre and the appeal of the loot hunt. It's addictive. Sometimes you realise that all you want from a game is a better axe for your character. It's a wake up call.

DArtagnan said:
Try not to confuse one genre with the entirety of gaming.

There is no confusion. I don't care about genres. They are shackles to developers with imagination and crutches to those without. The notion of genre is useful when you want to identify games that have certain features in common, but mostly it's a marketing tool. I would never mention "genre expectations" as something positive.

DArtagnan said:
So, no games released are anything like what you want?

Oh, I'm sure that I have missed some gems through the years. I'll play Bioshock Infinite next. It's not what I want, exactly, but I think it's close enough for me to play it. Feel free to suggest games that you think I would like.

Ihaterpg · June 1, 2013

Lol, this game has been bought and hoped by too many people, myself it wouldn't have been Torchlight 1 I wouldn't have care much. I do agree it's a failure but I played it close to 150 hours, perhaps more. But I didn't achieved Inferno, not even played it much, and a large part of those hours are coming from the Mac version, PC only I wouldn't have played it as much.

I really don't care the AH I just don't use it, I don't care the coop and multiplay so even less any market exchange between players. The forced solo online is a nuisance but I have to admit I was playing solo online only with D2 (to exchange items between my characters). The DRM is just a DRM I smile when I read comments about that, and it's much better than many other including Steam forcing a client shop launch.

So why I consider Diablo 3 is a failure anyway, few points:
- There's a ton of excellent skills designed, but limit their number at same time is an awful idea because the number limit is a lot too low. They won't be able change that because it means a huge work to re design balances and skills merges.
- The builds has been broken because of this weird idea of dynamically choose about all skills at any time. I doubt this can be changed, it will be too restrictive in comparison with current mechanism.

And two less major points:
- The elites and groups around elites design is cool but there's an abuse of this.
- The random management isn't good enough. i mean choose randomly among a huge set of design was perhaps the original idea and the goal but it's never been achieved up to simulate a good random level.

No expansion can fix all of that or even any of that point, I'll still buy and play the crap because it was good fun anyway so I can hope it will be the same with the expansion.

DArtagnan · June 2, 2013

Mr Smiley said:
You play a lot of MMO RPGs for instance. When I play, I like to escape from reality, including real people. I get enough social interaction in real life and I find it immersion breaking and stressful to have other people in my game.

Sure, but I play a lot of non-MMOs as well. I'm not particularly social - though I don't seem to have the same issues with people you do. I'm pretty good at not letting anyone bother me - and that goes for IRL as well.

Sorry for missing that distinction. Why would you even want to speak for others than yourself? Fans mostly want more of the same. I'm not a fan, but I want more of what I liked about the previous game and less of what I didn't like.

I'm speaking about the subject at hand - and that involves the Diablo genre and how it came about. Fans are people just like you and I - and they will all have their own personal nitpicks and favorite features. I can't speak for them to that degree.

What I can do, is speak about the genre and the natural limitations of it.

That's because I understand it and I understand what drives it. You can't create perfection - so you have to prioritise. You can't create infinite content - but the genre needs infinite replayability - if you're going to stick to its roots.

I'm explaining why it's not "stupid" - and we've established that you merely don't like it.

That's fair enough and if you'd started out saying that, I wouldn't have bothered to explain.

Again, sorry for missing that distinction. And again, why would you speak for the genre rather than yourself? I understand the genre and the appeal of the loot hunt. It's addictive. Sometimes you realise that all you want from a game is a better axe for your character. It's a wake up call.

Because the subject is the genre and not myself. I happen to like the genre - but I like a lot of genres.

I don't know why it's a wake-up call. I'm fully aware of why I want a better axe - and that's because I want my character to perform at his best. Is that meaningful? No more or no less than most games, I'd say.

As long as I'm having fun with character development and the loot hunt - I consider that meaningful. Eventually, I'll be bored and that's it.

Goes for most games, really.

But I also need a motivator to keep going, and that's where content enters the picture. This is why most modern examples of the genre fail - because I've gotten increasingly more demanding.

Diablo 3 did pretty well there, actually, because they introduced dynamic quest content - and some of that was pretty cool for what it was.

I'd probably still be playing if they hadn't messed up on the primary drive.

There is no confusion. I don't care about genres. They are shackles to developers with imagination and crutches to those without. The notion of genre is useful when you want to identify games that have certain features in common, but mostly it's a marketing tool. I would never mention "genre expectations" as something positive.

I don't see it as a marketing tool. I see it as an inevitable result of a natural evolution. Human beings need genres to communicate and understand each other - because it's impractical to communicate the exact nature of any particular game.

However, there's a reason it's called the Diablo genre - and that's because the original was a huge smash and people loved it.

You, however, didn't love it.

But it has a certain paradigm and I think it works well. But that doesn't mean I want the same thing from all my games. I'm greedy and I like variety.

Oh, I'm sure that I have missed some gems through the years. I'll play Bioshock Infinite next. It's not what I want, exactly, but I think it's close enough for me to play it. Feel free to suggest games that you think I would like.

I know you don't like social games - and I know you like the world and the "content" to last from start to finish.

Bioshock Infinite would seem to be a good fit, even if it's very much a shooter before it's anything else. Keep that in mind, and you shouldn't be disappointed.

Diablo 3 - What We Want From the Diablo III Expansion

SasqWatch

DArtagnan

Guest

SasqWatch

DArtagnan

Guest

Watchdog

DArtagnan

Guest

Watchdog

DArtagnan

Guest

Watchdog

DArtagnan

Guest

Watchdog

SasqWatch

DArtagnan

Guest

Watchdog

DArtagnan

Guest

Watchdog

DArtagnan

Guest

Watchdog

Banned

DArtagnan

Guest