Editorial: Diablo 3's poorly planned end-game plays to addiction, not fun
Blizzard is finally coming out and admitting something that Diablo III players realized some time ago: The end-game is "not long-term sustainable." It didn't have to be that way.
I've tried to stay engaged in Diablo III, I really have. I got my monk to level 60. I played into Act IV of Hell mode. I created a Demon Hunter for a change of pace. I've even tried playing the AH game to make some money. But in the end, the game offers the same trap as World of Warcraft: Grinding for gear and leveling up alts is more of an addiction than it is enjoyable game play.
Blizzard has finally caught on to its end-game problem publicly, admitting in its forums that it knows the game does not have a "long-term sustainable end-game." Community manager Bashiok said they are working on lots of fixes and changes in patch 1.0.4 as they move toward PvP arenas in 1.1, but any further changes are still only a distant work-in-progress:
"We have some ideas for progression systems, but honestly it's a huge feature if we want to try to do it right, and not something we could envision being possible until well after 1.1."
Bashiok acknowledged that content and systems roll-outs, like in World of Warcraft, are not possible every few months in Diablo III. But DLC has become an expected part of non-MMO games. Did Blizzard really expect fans to just play the auction house and grind for gear in Inferno mode until PvP finally made its debut? What if you don't like PvP? Excessive repetition isn't good design. It's a pandering to players who have a compulsive need for the best possible gear. But unlike World of Warcraft, where new content is inevitable and better gear is needed, Diablo III gives you nothing but an endless cycle of grinding for no future purpose.
I've been at Blizzard's mercy since the first Warcraft RTS. I have played every Blizzard game (with the exception of Lost Vikings), but not until World of Warcraft did the actual addiction kick in. While I wasn't as bad as some poor souls, I still had four level 85s geared well enough for the pre-Deathwing raids. I also had four other characters between 81-84, three twinks for levels 29, 39 and 49 battlegrounds, and four more characters between levels 45-65. I finally broke away, but trust me when I say that I know about grinding and the desire for better gear, and playing the auction house to find the best deals.
I guess that Blizzard may have subconsciously hoped that players with that World of Warcraft mentality would be able to sustain Diablo III as they moved toward the PvP patch. But personally, I broke my grinding addiction about a year and a half ago, and I have stopped playing Diablo III because I recognized the addiction signs I had in WoW. This time, however, I wasn't going to let myself become one of those mindless zombies I was killing in the game.
I am surprised that Blizzard did not have a longer term plan for the game. I'm sure an expansion is already planned (Diablo II: Lord of Destruction came out only a year after the original), but how many times can you kill Belial and Azmodan without wanting to beat your head on the desk when your gear upgrade doesn't drop? There are no other options. And since I suck at PvP, the 1.1 patch doesn't interest me. But even that is still at some undefined time in the future.
It's a shame that a company with Blizzard's pedigree couldn't have foreseen the monotony and disillusionment that could creep in less then two months after the game's release. Blizzard has some good storytellers and a fantastic animation staff. Something as intriguing as Halo 4's planned Spartan Ops episodic content would have been enough to keep me engrossed until the inevitable expansion, even if it was every month instead of every week.
In the end, I guess, players with the same mentality as die-hard MMO players will continue to populate the Diablo III servers. Diablo III was an enjoyable game for the first 80 hours. Bashiok said in a later post:
"We have hundreds upon hundreds of thousands playing every night. Comparing to just normal drop-off post release of a WoW expansion, Diablo III has been very solid, and it's not even out in China yet."
That's the kick in the head. The game is a huge success financially. Blizzard has my cash, so my departure will go unnoticed and my protest of poor planning will join with that of a vocal minority of others dissatisfied with wasted potential. It didn't have to be that way.
-
John Keefer posted a new article, Editorial: Diablo 3's poorly planned end-game plays to addiction, not fun.
Blizzard is finally coming out and admitting something that Diablo III players realized some time ago: The end-game is "not long-term sustainable." It didn't have to be that way.-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Copies of Diablo: Battle Chest continue to be sold in retail stores, appearing on the NPD Group's top 10 PC games sales list as recently as 2010. Even more remarkably, the Diablo: Battle Chest was the 19th best selling PC game of 2008[44] – a full seven years after the game's initial release – and 11 million users still play Diablo II and StarCraft over Battle.net.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_2-
-
-
To be clear when I say "still playing it" I mean really running the endgame content on a longterm basis as your preferred form of entertainment. D2 is a classic and it gets replayed for nostalgia all the time, but perpetually replaying the endgame for the best gear has always been an ultra-hardcore niche as far as I'm concerned. I've hardly ever known anyone who has the attention span to do that for a long time.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I spent a lot of time playing in hopes that it got better. It took me almost 40 hours to get to where "the game actually begins." After that, I kept grinding away for more hours just hoping that something changed -- call me crazy. Then they started patching things, changes were made etc etc. So I spent more hours trying to convince myself that these changes made the game more fun or interesting, but the little that it did wasn't enough.
-
-
-
-
-
haha. well people now aren't about pacing themselves. gotta consume the game content absolutely as fast as possible, dump 100+ hours into it, then ask for a refund.
blizzard had some glaring oversights in tuning the difficulty scaling, and arriving at inferno was a disaster. then there's all the farming techniques that people developed that weren't even exploits or cheats. all of that had to be nerfed. endgame should be about farming, right? if you want to farm, FARM... but there were some egregious deficiencies in design that made things so unbalanced, they had to be removed entirely.-
Well sure but it took d2 an exp pack as well as patches that changed the entire way skills worked to get it to a good point.
I like your 100+ hours argument. A friend of mine was recently complaining about the game and saying he wanted his money back after beating Diablo on inferno. He put in over 200 hours into the game... how bad could it be? So the game isn't our digital messiah, if I put 200+ hours into a game normally I would say that game was fun or a success.
-
-
-
-
-
The reason Blizzard designed D3's endgame this way is because D2's endgame was exactly the same, and people loved it(or at least so they claim). It was even more tedious actually because you were just slaughtering the same bosses in Hell again and again with zero challenge. They made a bunch of good changes to that formula - albeit with a couple missteps - in the form of Inferno and NV, but ultimately a lot of people who never enjoyed that formula in D2 are discovering that they still don't like it in D3 and getting mad about that.
I think the constant thorn in Blizzard's side with D3 has been trying to figure out what their fans actually want. Everybody is always shouting their own ideas and Blizzard ultimately went with a pretty faithful recreation of D2's endgame with some gameplay improvements, which I think was ultimately not good enough for most people.-
-
-
-
That's only when Lord of Destruction came out. When the base DII game arrived, the only way to get to 99 was the chain-kill Diablo for days on end; entire teams of people would share characters in an attempt to be the first ones to do it, and it took them weeks. I don't think many people ever hit 99 before LOD came out. Even after it did, I don't think I got anywhere close to it.
-
-
The more I play, the more I think the absolute worst thing they did wasn't the AH, but instead the very low level cap. The second is the way they handled gear. There needs to be something between magic, and rare. The third is that bosses and super unique, that I know of, don't have the chance to drop specific pieces. And yeah, the AH would be last. Keep it in but turn it into a item barter system. No gold or money involved.
Basically in Diablo 2 you were rarely at level cap, so your character was still progressing. When you played you had a goal to kill some super unique or boss. While you were playing you had the chance to goodies to drop.
In Diablo 3 your character is no longer progressing. Rares rain from the sky but 99% of it is useless for the character you are playing. Super unique and bosses are not a goal by any means.-
This is sort of what I'm talking about. I don't agree with any of your suggestions at all. Most of the things that people are claiming to have loved in D2 made that game objectively worse for me. I think the times have changed since D2 was popular, and a lot of people who look back at that stuff in fondness would actually not enjoy it anymore in D3, let alone the much larger community of people who were never into D2's endgame at all. IMO Blizzard should have thrown out even more of D2 than they did and redesigned the endgame from scratch.
-
I guess it all matters on how you like to game then. If you disagree with wombat and wish that d3 was nothing like d2, then im guessing you wish it was more simplified? If so im assuming you like casual gaming more. The reason I enjoyed d2 so much was that it seemed more of a hardcore game, and with that mindset expected d3 to be the same. Instead you get a ridiculously easy game until you hit inferno, at which point it becomes a game of AH trading
-
I wanted D3 to be more fun than D2. And it is. I thought D2's "endgame", consisting of joining a game, jumping into the sorc's town portal, killing Baal/Meph/whoever, then leaving and joining a new game, rinse and repeat, was the most tedious experience imaginable. And I think the AH is at least more fun than D2's convoluted player trading economy, though I would prefer if it was more feasible to find/craft your own loot. Which was only relatively feasible in D2 because there was no Inferno mode.
I think the complaints with D3's general play experience are still resolvable with patches in the near future. For example, there's still hope for crafting to be made a real alternative to the AH for gearing yourself, but it certainly isn't there yet. The more fundamental endgame problems that the blue post is talking about though are problems that D2 always had too. I think people are getting their own complaints with D3's direction mixed up with the actual concession that Blizzard made, which is that once you beat the final difficulty there isn't really anything left to do but keep playing it. That in and of itself is the Diablo formula, but Blizzard is saying here that they don't think that's good enough.-
Exact opposite for me right now. The way D3 is set up right now I could sit down for 30 minutes or 5 hours and potentially not progress my character at all.
The following has happened to me more often than I care.
1: None of the rares dropped are of any use. *Extremely common
2: Died a several times so now I actually lost gold overall. *Which ever way the wind is blowing with uniques that day.
3: None of the items that were obtained sold on the AH. *Getting better at this but I want to play Diablo 3, not auction house simulator 3.
In diablo 2 at the very least character level was typically always progressing, which meant more stats & skill points to disperse. -
What you're saying about D2 is true, but when you get bored, you could always go and help your friends (powerlevel), do PVP with your friends or random people, or just challenge yourself by doing stupid stuff (poison bombs or potions). And while youre pretty much spot on in d2's endgame, isn't d3 endgame the same, if not worse? replace joining a game to buy/sell on the AH.
I do agree that if the crafting system was more in place, it would be a lot better. And no, crafting mode was feasible in D2 not because of the lack of "inferno mode" but because there was an off chance that it might actually be really really good. Getting an ammy that had +2/+3 to skills with crazy boosts to resist was really rare, but still possible. On the topic of inferno mode, I honestly don't understand why they would add another difficulty level if its essentially the same as D2's hell. sure monsters are harder, but guess what your equipment are also hundreds of times better.
While I agree that d3 could get better, I'm pretty sure it won't be any time soon.
-
-
-
-
the thing is you can make grind optional for the 40 year old virgins while making content manageable for other people. the real problem with Blizzard is they don't get what virtually every other company already has and that's that poopsocking is out of date, as are fake excuses about not having the money to make more content systems for normal people.
-
I don't really get it. They put a way in there for you to avoid grinding altogether: go to the RMAH and drop $150.
Improving your characters through getting stuff is *the point* of these games. It's the adventure that's supposed to be fun, not the final destination. You don't have to be able to "win the game".-
-
What is the motivation to do the same things in an MMO? You grind raid bosses for gear to make grinding that raid boss easier. Then an expansion or content update comes out with a new set of raids to repeat the process to get the new gear that super ceded the old stuff you grinded for. Then there's some amount of PvP. And D3 will end up with PvP and an expansion pack or two.
-
-
I agree, but that was the point in D2. Kinda just tweaking your character(s) based on your available drops to be as powerful and versatile as possible. It was certainly an addiction of sorts.
But what else could they do? Without content patches to inject a "new challenge" on a regular basis, there's really never any tangible purpose to keep acquiring gear. It's always kind of a competitive endeavor, even if it's a level removed, to see how well you can perform relative to your time spent relative to everyone else who's playing the game.
The major problem I see is that they offered plenty of options for character improvement that don't involve playing the game. And in doing so, they screwed up any hope of tuning that progression through the content, and made it feel like the point was not really the pursuit of gear but *having* the gear. That's an incredibly shallow goal in itself, *especially* when you can go open up your wallet and shortcut to having enough gear to skip straight to the end.
I just really think they missed the point of their own game, or cynically let the dreams of dollar signs overwhelm their good sense. -
-
-
-
-
You expect them to add new areas & bosses for free? Or are we going down the DLC route? Because there are no monthly fees here, of course they're not going to keep churning out content. Look at D2, over the last 12 years they added a handful of new bosses.
So basically, you're complaining that a aRPG is out of date because it's an aRPG and you don't like that kind of gameplay.
-
-
-
-
-
They spend a lot of time and effort telling a story, that much is for sure. The story ends up being disjointed, cliche, immature nonsense, but it's well-produced nonsense.
Story-telling was far more minimal in D2, but I think it worked for that game. It allowed the atmosphere to build a story that enabled players to fill in the blanks with their imagination. And it didn't annoy or obstruct players on substance play-throughs.
I was fairly charitable early on, but honestly, gamers should expect better from AAA titles. -
-
-
Damn I wish DroidChatty can post to news articles because I couldn't reply except on a browser or Lamp.
But year the atmospherics were excellent in the game. Music, voice action, art, etc. D2 also made me feel like a fucking bad ass. Like with the NPC's said, "Hail to you CHAMPION!"
D3 doesn't make me feel bad ass at all. All my followers are meh.
-
-
-
-
SC1 was fine for a story but I enjoyed the characters interacting more. That was the best part of the game's campaign. Their story got surpassed by the likes of Relic and Homeworld.
WC3 wasn't as interesting as Age of Mythology. That game was more advanced than WC3 in every way and it came out only a few months later.
-
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJS4TeykUmM
go back and watch the diablo 2 cutscenes and compare it to how the story is presented to diablo 3
diablo 3's story was just ridiculous, the villians were cliched and had some of the worst writings, and the expository is borderline retarded.
diablo 2's writing was much more mature, dark, more fleshed out, and infinitely more cohesive.
Blizzard's story-telling has just taken a dive after LoD
-
-
-
There's a typo in Lords of Destruction -- Lord should be singular.
I also think you miss the point a bit; grinding for gear through an unchanging end game did in fact hold players' attention in Diablo 2 for years and years until the 1.10 patch introduced a new boss ... and then that single new boss again kept players entertained for years until 1.11 introduced a new endgame event.
Players are perfectly happy to play through the same content over and over given sufficient motivation, of which Diablo 2 had several. Diablo 3 undermines almost every one of those reasons:
1) Never any reason to have more than one of a character, since every class can do everything that class is capable of. In Diablo 2, you were rerolling all the time to try out new builds and for all the griping about that system and praise for the infinite rerolls you heard about Diablo 3's system pre-release, I think the reality is that while in theory it seems superior, it takes away some of the challenge and compelling reasons to replay. It's kind of like using a cheat code in an FPS to have every weapon from the start. Awesome, rocket launcher in Act 1! And it's fun as hell at first, but it does diminish the fun factor of the game.
2) Itemization. There's been enough talk about this that I won't go into detail, but the items, the drop rates, and the prevalence of the AH all undermine what was perhaps THE most important factor in Diablo 2's success, the item hunt game. Trading was a huge pain in the ass in Diablo 2 but, in retrospect, that was actually to its benefit! It was scarcely easier to find upgrades via going into a trade game and suffering through the inevitible "WUG?"s than it was just running bosses. The fact that it was just as cumbersome meant that neither way was neceessarily faster, but you had two options to choose from of equal effort so you use the method you preferred. In D3, it's unquestionably faster to gear up via the AH, which means it is always the superior option, which undermines the actual core mechanic of the game -- finding gear in the game itself.
3) There are some other design decisions that I think directly undermine fun, addictiveness, and replayability (in-game player hostility is a big one) but those are the major ones. More minor ones could be tweaked easily enough with patches but numbers 1 and 2 are fundamental to the game and barring a huge overhaul in an expansion, Diablo 3 will in hindsight be considered Blizzard's weakest game of the last 15 years imo.-
Got the typo. Thought I had fixed that before it went live. Thanks.
As far as point three, it may be Blizzard's weakest game, but they will determine it a success based on sales. Only time will tell whether they learned from the mistakes. I maintain that the the games industry has progressed significantly since D2 and that what happened with D3 is inexcusable, especially with a company as experienced as Blizzard. -
-
Perhaps my favorite time in Diablo 2 was theorycrafting a new build for a sorc, figuring out what gear would work best for it (which included some insanely unconventional items that no one ever ever ever used - e-bugged Prudence, Memory staff), building it, and having it succeed (in hardcore, no less) beyond my wildest dreams. That was easily my favorite sorc, and a big part of the fun was levelling her up, getting each new piece of gear I had theorycrafted as being ideal as I reached such and such a level, and just watching her progression.
-
-
Great points. Personally, I still like the decisions behind #1, but #2 is a really big factor affecting my enjoyment. At this point I never feel hopeful that I will find a nice item when I'm grinding. I feel like I am just trying to maximize my gold farming so that I can get something on the AH. That is really fucking boring and slowly killing my desire to keep playing. The only time I have fun now is when I play with other people, which I used to avoid because I find it harder to keep track of what is going on and I end up dying more. But that is not the end of the world. I appreciate the changes they've made to drops, but I still barely look at items when I identify them (and fuck the stupid "open your present" bullshit, just have them revealed god damn waste of my time) because they are never better than what I bought on the AH. I just check to see if they're worth anything and even that is becoming ludicrous. 100k items have to have the hot stats; crit, crit dmg, main stat, vit, all resist, run speed, gold find.... and it has to have all of them or its shit. grumble grumble rabble rabble. I WOULD HAVE ENJOYED THE GAME MORE IF THE FIRST PLAY THROUGH WASN'T A FUCKING JOKE. THE MOST FUN I HAD WAS SEEING NEW CONTENT. FUCK.
-
-
-
I came to the same conclusion a few weeks ago: that its addictive but not fun; even exploitative:
http://www.shacknews.com/article/74361/south-korea-bans-virtual-item-trades?id=28379046#item_28379046
however, no one seemed to like that opinion because I'm not an editor.
TLDR: agreed. -
WTF happened,(been lurking and occasionally posting since 00) this site used to be all about playing games and enjoying them with friends, now its nothing but a bunch of whiny little bitches screaming about remakes of games they were not even old enough play much less understand.
Gaming has evolved? really? I'm sorry but no. It has be devolving for a good time while everyone and their slimy investor brother jumped in for fast cash in the light of a dying music industry and completely stagnant, greedy film companies.
Whine and bitch all you want about it, until people start making games for fun and enjoyment again and not just a deadline for profit and investors, the shit is only going to be re-flung back your faces over and over again. And don't bitch about the costs and misc of making something, Black Sabbaths first record cost roughly $800 to make and is still a timeless icon of its genre. And still quite awesome in light of all its sequels and knock offs that cost much much more to make. -
-
You missed the point. I said I loved the game. Had a lot of fun. Would love to find a way to keep playing it, but the current end-game system does not allow for that. Blizzard did not design the game with the intention of "Beat the game and you are done." It wants you to keep playing. But the premise to keep you playing is flawed and troubling.
-
I don't understand what people like you want out of a diablo game besides a hack and slash gear grind. That's all it ever was and will be. The itemization may need some tweaking, which they are addressing with buffed legendaries, but that doesn't sound like it would alleviate your concerns. They nailed the diablo premise perfectly, your expectations are flawed and troubling.
-
You need a reason to get the gear. Even a shitty reason.
Bad PvP, getting to a ridiculous level cap, getting to the next level of an infinite dungeon, something.
Diablo 2 had that.
Also, I think the end game would be much better if they could take care of botting. People are still running 24/7 bots. It ruins the economy. Why log in and "farm" for an hour or two when you can set it and forget it with an AutoIT bot? -
-
-
So you basically want it to be more of an RPG then, with a huge amount of sidequests?
Or do you actually want there to be a huge level grind? Which, IMO does nothing for longevity as I played hundreds of hours of D2 and never once achieved L99 on any character, or felt the need to.
Have you played D1 & D2? What do you think of those games?
-
-
People keep saying this, like it totally negates criticism of games.
Here's my canned response: the Diablo series is legendary for its replay ability. The Diablo 3 designers admittedly set out to create a highly repayable experience. If the game is falling way short of expectations in spite of 12 years of consideration and 7 years of development, it's fair to think about why that is.
-
-
I didn't make it even to 20 hours. I got bored with it and didn't finish.
The game is dull. It does not have any of the charm of Diablo 2. Diablo 2 was much more engaging to me. It's certainly possible that I've simply moved on from this type of game. My feeling though is that the game is simply not up to the same bar set by Diablo 2. That bar was set very high, but I think this game misses that mark by a fairly wide margin. -
-
-
When playing from Normal through Hell, D3 is by far a better game than D2 in just about every respect IMO, except perhaps the story. It's in Inferno that all their really new experimental ideas begin, which have had their strengths and weaknesses. It would be an incredible feat if they had nailed all of it right out the gate, but that didn't happen. There's still time for them to do some course correction and fix most of the biggest issues over the next few months I think.
-
-
-
-
i forgot to say, if its fun or not, appart from beeing a whole different story, its subjetive, everybody thinks different about it.
But its a fact that its a hack and slash game, and beeing one means the endgame is grinding for better gear. And that is objetive, its a fact and there is not two ways around it.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I was kinda wondering when the next diablo 3 editorial would come out, and if it would be something along these lines.
It is funny if you think of them all....how great the game is when you first start, and then how boring it ends up being.
So sad....and such potential gone to waste.
Just like John said.........Blizz already got our cash and doesnt care about the vocal minority.-
-
I'd certainly like to hear how you came to that conclusion. The blue post that inspired the article you're responding to is basically a direct apology to the vocal minority. Blizzard has been completely open about their design process every step of the way, and in response the "fans" just spit in their face.
-
-
I still can't believe people want refunds for Diablo 3. I bought fucking BRINK at full price. the game barely even worked.
the scope of what deserves a refund is completely fucking skewed. people dumping more hours into it than it takes to finish an FPS title of the same price point.... still want refunds ????????????-
Yea I don't get it either. I played for 3 weeks and then moved on when I got bored. That being said it's rare that a game can keep my attention for longer than a week, so by that standard it's a fantastic game.
I wasn't expecting to be entertained for the rest of time but I more than got my moneys worth, good grief.
-
-
-
Haha, you're the typical internet kid who thinks people should be GRATEFUL to Blizzard because they're being open about the game being trash (after 3 months..) and after they've received their $60.
You are exactly the puppet companies want you to be, so they can throw anything at you and you instantly reply with your fanboyism. :)
-
-
-
-
-
-
I agree with Ars Technicas article on the subject a bit more
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2012/07/blizzard-admits-diablo-iii-is-a-game-that-ends/
-
-
-
-
-
-
I do like the Ars-Technica viewpoint on this.
You got your 100+ hours(and for some 500+ hours) and you're complaining there is nothing now to keep you coming back because you've exhausted what Blizzard has made for you. If any game gives you that much entertainment, how can you really complain?
I think the frustration is this, at least for me: we've waited many, many(many many many) years to get play the 3rd Diablo. We have such fond memories of what Diablo 2 was. This game could never be Diablo 2 or offer the same complete feeling of Diablo 2. But it tries to act like its that good.
I think the way they set up the skill system and the inclusion of the AH is very much how WoW is like now. That's a problem because it gives people the false sense that this game IS that game. It isn't. It's a action RPG that has a clear beginning, middle and end.
I think this game is a lot more fun to play interms of how you use your skills and you level up your character but at the same time, loot drops basically are worthless. Once you start using the AH, any gear you ever get in a loot drop is either going to sold, salvaged, or put to the AH. I think the AH basically ruined the experience that Diablo 2 did so well. If you aren't excited about anything that may potentially drop...then the whole point of the game really suffers. Even worse, it's not like you can avoid the auction house. You literally cannot play the higher difficulties of the game without using it. That is the worst intentional design decision of a high profile game that I think I can remember.
It is a fun game, I love the battle and skill system. The AH has taken its toll, however, and I don't really think those that dislike the AH are in the minority.-
-
If you're spending a lot of time doing something that is entertaining you, I fail to see how that is "the worst" argument.
I played Skyrim for 140 hours. 140 hours of FUN. Yes, it may have been "addicting" at times, but always fun.
Diablo 3 is fun to play, it also can let you just zone in on it for hours. I fail to see this as a bad thing, too. Unless it causes you to not maintain your responsibilities in life.-
Because it isn't entertaining. I'm constantly finding myself just staring at the start screen and thinking of other things to do. I have to work up the will to play or else I'll just quit and do something else. I just DL'ed Spelunky and am playing that more than D3 now.
As for Skyrim, it was fun to grind in that game because outcomes weren't random. I knew what I had to do and could accomplish individual tasks in a matter of hours, if that. I, too, put in 100+ hours and enjoyed it; that's not what's happening with D3.-
Oh, and the other part is the time required to get to Inferno. Normal to Hell is a cakewalk with non-level capped gems. Why not just start at that difficulty if you are going to make me hit a brick wall at the end of every act? There is no logical sense of progression in the game and the solution has shown me how dated the farming mechanic is. I have no idea how but running dailies in SW:TOR was more enjoyable than farming in D3.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Time spent is just one way to quantify fun. My argument was that you spent 100+ hours playing a game, whether you're just addicted or your having fun...you still spent 100+ hours of your life. Why are you complaining that you're "bored" now?
So, for me with this game and other games I play: the more time I spend playing, the more I feel I'm getting fun out of it and once I'm not getting fun out of it, I no longer play.
Sure, it can be the cause where you get addicted to a game you absolutely hate playing and just playing because you are... addicted to it for no other reason than that the mechanics are prime for getting young and innocent gamers into the game addiction circuit.
I think time is a valid way of determining if you have fun with something or not. It isn't the only way but it surely isn't the worst way. -
-
-
-
If a game is designed to be addictive, then I could see it being the games fault. That's not saying that you don't get your money's worth out of a game you have 140 hours in, because you clearly have. But if a game like D3 is designed to be addictive, with little reward, with the end goal of feeding the RMAH and maintaining a revenue stream for Blizzard, then it's a problem. But that's still not saying you didn't get your money's worh. Just that it's a shitty way to do business.
-
-
-
-
-
answer honestly: if there was no AH/RMAH, do you think people would be MORE or LESS pissed off?
customers now want things right away. it is my opinion that no AH would make people even more volatile, as they'd be forced to replay the game forever to get good loot. look how successful the AH was, so successful it crashed a fuckload.
from an overall design standpoint, sure it might not be pure to diablo 2.... but, for TODAY'S consumers, I think it was wise to include them.-
If the AH didn't exist, the game would have been designed for more drops that are necessary to continue playing the game. Drops from bosses and elites would actually be useful and you wouldn't just immediately get rid of them. The AH completely changed the design of how they handled the frequency and quality of loot drops. So honestly, yes I do. For a game that's all about getting incredible loot that you want to use...like any dungeon crawling loot game...I don't see how players today would not have played this game and like it more than they do now.
-
-
The weird thing is, to me, that there are very few items which are class specific.
There are a few weapon types and armor types that you can't use for any class and yet it seems to me that these are the majority of the drops I get. Useless in most cases because why would I save something for a level 50 Witch Doctor when I'm likely to find something better on my way to level 50, unless it was a legendary item.
I think having a majority of drops that pertain to your specific class makes sense. Getting a few items for another class is cool too, with the shared stash so you can easily share it.
My biggest complaint about the game is that instead of awesome loot drops that are more frequent in the places you expect them, the AH has replaced that entirely. -
Why is that bad? I don't know any DH's who are stacking Int. I don't know and Monks that are stacking it either. Why would a Barb-only weapon need it? I'm not sure if they fixed it but there was the picture floating around awhile ago of a a class-only item with a differen't class' ability. Why would it be ok to remove these conflicts and not the ones I'm talking about? You don't need >100 of an off-stat for most builds before the benefits are negligible so why have them on class-specific stuff?
-
-
-
Well someone got that. It's not like it just magically materialized on the AH. I do understand the difference though. It's far more exciting to get items then to buy them. However, there isn't any difference really in the drop rate from D2 to D3 as far as crap you got.
Where you run into trouble is once you start buying stuff from the AH you've effectively bought some of the best items so getting an actual upgrade is going to be even more rare.-
-
You are just as capable of finding loot that you can use in D3 as you are in D2. Nothing has changed in that regard. There is a reason that third party trading was so rampant in D2. They didn't add the AH for no reason or to pull a profit, they added it because it was an extremely high demand feature.
-
-
That is objectively false. There was a far greater ratio of sets/uniques to base items in D2, meaning you were much more likely to see those drop. Furthermore, any given set or unique item was much more likely to actually be useful.
I would possibly argue that it was easier to stack magic find in D2, but that part might be offset by NV stacks.
That said, the influence of the AH is such that they probably can't make sets and uniques too powerful, because they're fairly easy to obtain through that channel. Serious players will definitely get complete sets in very little time.-
Sets/Uniques have clearly been delegated to a lesser role as of now, but that's a separate issue. In D3 if you don't use the AH at all, you'll find upgrades for yourself pretty frequently. Yes, you will have to progress through Inferno fairly slowly. As you deck yourself out in sweeter gear, it takes progressively longer to find upgrades - exactly like in D2. Both games have the option to fast track that process by trading with other players. The only difference is that in D3 the AH makes trading much more accessible.
I do think they should improve crafting to be a completely viable alternative to using the AH, but that would be a large improvement over D2. As it is, they're very similar in this regard.-
Crafting should be considered a replacement for D2's gambling.
Honestly, it seems like a lot of the "faults" of D3 are it differs relative to the established norm of mmo's. Instead of trying to understand what the different areas of D3 are on their own, people go into game mechanics expecting it to follow the mmo mold -- legendaries to be the best stuff in the game, crafting not to be random, endgame to be easily obtainable and last indefinitely, spec's to be solid, etc. This isn't what D3 is, and as a result there's a lot of friction because a number of people want to complain about the game instead of update their model of what it is.-
-
I'm saying they shouldn't go into it expecting certain game mechanics work a specific way and then raging when they don't work the way they want them to. Learn how the game works and then decide if it's fun, instead of raging about how it's different than what you expect.
This is how you should approach every game.-
I personally have an extraordinarily good idea about how the systems in the game work. That's just me speaking for myself.
I suspect when other people playing the game make their own decisions about whether they find it fun or not, you'll have reasons for why their idea of fun is wrong as well.
But maybe everybody who thinks the end game sucks is just a big uninformed idiot who needs to reevaluate what "fun" means to them.-
I'd suspect you're wrong, given how many of the reasons being touted about are either straight false (ex: forced to use the AH, crafting useless, legendaries useless etc.) or mismatched expectations (legendaries should not be worse than rares).
Everything is so fucking hyperbolic these days that people really do believe the shit they're saying, even if it's false.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Except if you listen to the lead designer, the game wasn't balanced around the AH at all.
Normal, Nightmare, and Hell were balanced around what was dropping in the game. Inferno was balanced around weeks to months of farming. The AH negated the difficulty of the first three difficulties, and made progression into the last significantly faster.
The idea that the drops would be better without the AH is directly opposite of the available information. Additionally, without an AH there would have been a fuckton of "WTF No AH?!?" complaints because it's expected of a game like this.-
Diablo players did not want an auction house. Blizzard shoe horned into the game so they could make money off the RMAH.
The AH is the single biggest detriment to the game there is. Instead of being excited over boss drops, the only "Excitement" comes from clicking Buy on the AH after farming gold for weeks.
Stupid design and completely removes what made D2 great - the "wow" factor of getting an awesome drop or gear tailored towards specific builds / play styles that is basically non existant in D3.
Basically D3 lacks variety in player builds & and has shit poor itemization that is made even worse by the AH presence.
-
-
-
-
You literally cannot play the higher difficulties of the game without using it.
You are wrong. Maybe it was harder post 1.03 patch, but I've made it into act 2 inferno with a Monk w/o using the AH for gear.
I bought 1 Logan's Claw for 20k just because I like the wolverine reference and they look cool. DPS on it is way to low to actually help in late game Hell so I never really used it as I had better weapons.-
-
I'm sure that pre 1.03 patch that yes it gets hard due to drop rates and needing resists, but for me in my experience and with what my gear / resists are at now I should be able to make it pretty far into act 2.
Hell there is a youtube video of a monk beating act2 inferno using 200k in gear. Yes it might take me a longer time to finish all of inferno w/o using the AH, but it's not something I want to use because I like the challenge of doing it with drops.-
-
-
Kripp beat all of Inferno for less than 500k on his Barbarian.
Dude also beat pre-nerf Inferno hardcore, which was a system that didn't have ilvl 63 items propagate the market due to certain classes being able to deathflop content. It was always possible, but it's easier to dismiss personal failures as something insurmountable than admit it's a personal failure.-
Scouring the AH for deals is cool, can't argue with you there.
As for the Hardcore accomplishment, yeah, it was a hell of a thing. A lot of the loot acquired for that was done by things like farming treasure goblins for dozens of hours, or just having gear straight up gifted to him by fans. Is that a valid way to play? Absolutely, but it may not be enjoyable or feasible for most players.
I think you get really hung up on these literal interpretations, over and over again. Yes, it is literally possible to do fine without the AH. Is it realistically a compelling gaming experience for a skilled-but-not-ultra-serious player to do so? Not so much.-
Yeah, dude, keep repeating I'm hung up on taking things literally when people use the word literal to prove their point, and the point falls apart when it's not taken literally. That's.. that's mighty fine detective work right there, Lou.
Inferno mode isn't for everyone. Never was. Inferno mode was designed to require some of the best gear in the game to complete and progress. This requires a ton of farming and item trading. This is what it was designed to be. If you don't like this, then it's not designed for you.
Every game is going to have aspects not intended for you. Instead of acting like a spoiled 2 year old whenever you encounter one, you should recognize this, and either move on when the game dives too much into the "not for you" category, or find some way of liking that stuff to continue playing. That's the mature adult way of handling this.-
-
I would say a lot of vocal gamers reaction to Diablo 3 is akin to throwing a temper tantrum in Walmart because your mom won't buy you a $2 action figure, yes. Whether or not you fall into this category is up to you.
How many $60 have an endgame? You've got Diablo 2, and... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Oh, and revisionist views aside, Diablo 2's endgame is very much what Diablo 3's is. The only difference seems to be people thought Diablo 2's endgame was more than this, when it really wasn't.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
The AH shortcuts farming. That's all it does.
Anything you get off the AH can be found in game, and the perception that you needed ilvl 63 items to get through Act 2 was blatantly and repeatedly proven false. The trade-off is time, but instead of admitting that people have concocted this notion that it's literally impossible as a scapegoat to not wanting to admit they either can't or don't want to do it.-
Seems to me like you're taking a very literal interpretation of the word "impossible" that some players may or may not have used. I doubt anybody thinks its literally impossible.
When players have the option of getting that same gear through farming, but observe that it takes 20x longer than just popping into the AH, then it's probably fair to say that it *feels* impossible.
This is where you say, "but it's still possible, gamers today are just lazy" or something like that that's technically true but still kinda misses the point. Go ahead, I'll wait!-
When people say it's literally impossible, yes I'm going to take the literal interpretation of the word impossible because that's what their words mean. Further more, when they use the difficulties said impossibility to support or prove the rest of their assertion, it's going to be what I point at first because that's how you go about disproving an assertion.
Kind of part of the deal here.-
Case in point :
I think the AH basically ruined the experience that Diablo 2 did so well. If you aren't excited about anything that may potentially drop...then the whole point of the game really suffers. Even worse, it's not like you can avoid the auction house. You literally cannot play the higher difficulties of the game without using it. That is the worst intentional design decision of a high profile game that I think I can remember
His thesis is Diablo 3 was ruined because of the inclusion of the Auction House.
The support for this thesis is :
1. The Auction House changes the excitement over drops, changing it from a "potential upgrade" to a "potential sale."
2. You cannot avoid the Auction House because "you literally cannot play the higher difficulties of the game without using it" (emphasis mine).
Now, the way you go about debunking a thesis is to attack the validity of the support and/or provide counter-examples. Given the nature of this thesis, the easiest approach is to attack the validity of the support.
The first support is a perception issue, and differs from person to person. Some people will see it that way, others won't, and likewise, some will find it fun while others won't. In other words, it's an opinion.
The second support is phrased as a statement of fact -- you are forced to use the AH to progress. The game is bad because you're forced to use this thing that you may not find fun. This is a false statement, and attacking it as such is the way you'd go about refuting the argument.
Claiming I'm hung up on a literal interpretation of a statement intended to be taken literally in support of a thesis is a straight failure of critical thought.-
Uh, I read your post, and you're STILL hung up proving that it's not literally true that it's "impossible" to not use the AH. You just reworded your argument.
When people talk about whether they find games and their systems to be enjoyable, it's practically by definition a matter of opinion and personal preference.-
-
-
That's a personal opinion. He might not be excited about a potential drop, but that doesn't mean no one is excited about a potential drop.
The "endgame" for crawlers have always been about getting excited over potential drops, but that's not an endgame everyone (or even a majority of people) can enjoy. This has always been something that caters to a very small niche and Diablo 3 is no different.-
Enjoyment of any activity is opinion. The question is whether it is commonly held. The idea that changing the game to pay-to-win, be it through the AH or RMAH, lessens it isn't unreasonable. You could also argue that AH/RMAH enhances it by allowing people to over come obstacles and it would also be reasonable. The true state of it is probably somewhere in between with some players falling on both sides. It doesn't make either side right or wrong.
-
-
-
Blizzard is not selling the gold for real money. They are allowing players to put their own gold up for sale on the rmah.
That's the fundamental difference between actual "pay to win" and Diablo 3 -- the "pay" part is player driven in D3. Blizzard isn't magically creating anything and selling it to players for a free -- it's all stuff the players found in-game and offered to sell. They're taking the black market D2 & D3 stuff and putting it in game. -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Okay, well, even if I think it's kind of a stupid thing to debate, you still haven't really provided any sort of rigorous proof in support of your claim.
Regarding the idea that Kripp beat Inferno on 500k worth of AH gear... Needless to say, that involved the AH.
Regarding the idea that he cleared Hardcore, I think it's true that relatively little of that support came from the AH. That does not imply that none of it did. If he hasn't explicitly said that they didn't use the AH, then it's reasonable to assume they were benefiting from all that loot channels available to them. Especially given that they died several times along the way. Plus, when you've got random dudes just giving you stuff, it seems as likely as not that the AH was directly or indirectly involved in the acquisition of that gear.
If you want to play this game we definitely can, but I don't know if it'll get us anywhere.-
What do you want me to prove?
Everyone on the AH can drop in the game. The hardest difficulty can be beaten using drops in the game. Therefore, the AH is not required to beat the hardest game. QED. Done. Finished. Proof over.
The fact that Kripp beat pre-nerf Inferno hardcore is direct proof that you did not need Act 3 & 4 drops to beat Act 2, which was a statement many people were clinging to. The statement was the only reason people were able to beat Inferno was because broken classes deathflopped their way to farming Acts 3 & 4 and flooded the economy with ilvl 63 items letting people beat the content. This strategy is literally impossible in hardcore mode, and therefore cannot be used to explain how Kripp & Krippi beat it. QED. Done. Finished. Proof over.
The fact that Kripp beat Inferno on 500k of gear was a direct contradiction to the statement that you need tens of millions of gold (or hundreds of dollars) to beat Inferno, yet another statement many people were clinging to to explain why D3 sucks. There's your proof. QED, blah blah blah.
This won't get anywhere because you're not doing anything other than poking me about taking the word "literal" literally. I'm sorry, but if a certain argument depends on taking something literally then it's stupid not to take it literally when trying to refute it.-
The fact that everything on the AH must have dropped in the game is not, in itself, proof of anything. For all you or anybody else knows, without doing a thorough statistical analysis, it could take four thousand hours to successfully navigate the progression curve and put together a set of gear capable of completing Inferno. You're making huge, unfounded assumptions about the nature of progression and randomness.
You assert that because some people have beaten Inferno with a degree of AH usage that you perceive to be negligible, it must be possible. As you're fond of pointing out, that is a logical fallacy oh the face of it. That doesn't *prove* anything, and in fact your examples directly contradict the value of that claim.
If you want to go total aspy pedantic on me, find somebody who at least *claims* to have beaten Inferno without having touched the AH.-
Actually, my assertions are fine because neither you nor anyone else complaining about this shit is making time bounded statements. Therefore, if it's possible given four thousand hours, then it directly contradicts the statements you and others are making.
In fact, in the time prior to release the statements regarding Inferno difficulty from Blizzard implied it would take a minimum of months of farming for an individual to complete. The goal was to provide long-term progression for people who farmed the fuck out of Diablo 2. This was how they tuned it, meaning if it does take four thousand hours then it's exactly what it was intended to be. The fact that it was completed so quickly (in both softcore & hard) indicates it was actually easier than what they had intended.
If you carefully read what I wrote, I'm using other people's achievements to disprove specific common statements accepted as truth by the outspoken community. There's no logical fallacy because I'm not making time-bounded statements. The purpose is using their achievements to prove you don't need Act 3/4 loot to beat Act 1/2, which is something that would make progression literally impossible.-
-
See, and this is what it reduces to --
Statement A : Inferno Act 2 is impossible to beat without drops from Act 3 & 4.
Statement 1 : [Diablo 3's hardest difficulty designed for hardcore players and intensive farming] is impossible to beat without [farming beaten content for 10+ hours]
Statement A makes it sound like the problems with Inferno difficulty is a fundamental design issue with the game. This one is factually incorrect. Statement 1 makes it sound like whining from players who feel their $60 entitles them to beat content not necessarily designed for them. This one is factually accurate.
That's the disconnect. Inferno was not intended for everyone, but everyone feels like it should be intended for them.
Prior to release Blizzard reps said their desire was to create a progressive difficulty from normal to hell that people would find challenging *somewhere* along the normal, nightmare, hell, and inferno line. Those people could then work to overcome the challenges and progress, whether that "work" included researching different builds & playstyles, or farming content for better gear & drops.
The problem is the Auction House, but not in the way people are complaining. Without the AH, trivializing normal -> hell content through outgearing would not have been possible. Many people would have hit a wall prior to Inferno difficulty, and would have had to overcome it legitimately (either through farming, or through new specs). This would make Inferno's difficulty less of a shock. Instead, a lot of people got used to the brains-off difficulty outgearing content afforded them, and suddenly hit a wall when they couldn't play and spec like shit, or outgear everything by a ridiculous degree for next to no coin.
At this point, their reaction wasn't to step back and do what they should have been doing all along in getting better at the game, but to start regurgitating Statement A over and over again like it was a legitimate complaint.
Sure, you need Act 3 & 4 drops to beat Inferno if you want to beat Inferno with busted ass specs and playing like shit, but the people who beat Inferno did not beat it this way, nor was Inferno intended to be beaten this way (at least initially).
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
They are MY STATEMENTS. Thanks for "debunking" my opinion.
You are welcome to disagree.
Maybe I should have phrased the whole thing as "In my honest opinion:". However, as it is coming from my mind, not anyone else's, I think that is a far gone conclusion that it is, in fact, my opinion.
So, IMO the AH ruined a lot of the fun getting loot in this game. IMO the higher difficulties basically demand that you have better gear than is being dropped, so IMO the AH is necessary. IMO I feel forced to use it just to progress through the game. IMO. IMO. IMO.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Wow, this is an incredibly negative and entitled editorial. A company rep comes out and makes a post saying "We realize that the end game is kind of weak, and we are going to work on it and give you some new systems to make the game you already paid for better," And he still complains about "being unnoticed". How long should a game entertain you? You played a character all the way to 60, and have beaten the story of the game at least 4 times. How many hours do you have sunk into it? The endless grinding of gear was enough to keep diablo 2 going for a long, long time, and they are now admitting that they didn't do as good a job with the system in Diablo 3, and they are going to try to fix it. What else do you want?
-
I think a lot of people played through Nightmare and then Hell based on the notion that level 60 and/or Inferno would be as compelling as Diablo 2. I assume that if they knew they wouldn't have any fun in the much-touted Inferno difficulty, they wouldn't have bothered and sunk that time into those difficulties. I personally felt like the game started to drag around Hell.
Still not saying that it wasn't worth $60, but I think that in this type of game there are a lot of factors that might convince people to play significantly beyond the point where they feel like they're having fun.
Besides, like I've said before, I think it's somewhat childish to state that people are "entitled" if they criticize something they've spent time on. -
-
Exactly how many hours should you get out of Diablo 3 before you're satisfied? Even the best games get boring after a while. It happens. I think they've included a lot of content for the price they asked for.
All this "endgame" talk is MMO nonsense anyway, it's for completionists that have dumped 100+ hours into the game and still want more more more content for their buck.
You have five different classes and four different difficulties. You can play with friends, or alone. Every bit of the game allows co-op. The different classes give you a different playing experience.
I'm a little surprised that you guys have so much free time that the game is already boring for you. How many hours a week do you guys play this game? I'm lucky to get 5. -
That "hundreds upon hundreds of thousands" number will drop off soon enough. Yesterday I got to talk games with a bunch of RL friends, and I found out I was by far the furtherest into D3 of anyone in the room, and I'm only level 54. I checked with my officemates after reading this and we have one guy doing inferno out of six players, and the other four besides me are still in 30's and 40's. No one in either group had quit yet, they just weren't playing it very often.
So it seems to me that there must be a huge population of casual and semi-HC gamers that haven't finished hell yet, and I'd bet that if you're not in inferno by now, either you're not going to bother or you're going to pay to win once and then quit. I'm guessing most of these folks will stop playing in two or three months, and when we really do see the hardcore numbers they'll be a hell of a lot smaller. I wonder what that will do to the AH? -
-
-
One thing I think that stinks about D3 being always online is that you can't have any mods. Something like Median XL which breaths a lot of new life into D2 is something that would be great on the graphics engine that D3 provides.
I guess you could technically do it, but you'd have to make your own server to do so.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Yes, and you can do the same thing in Diablo 3, though maybe slightly less so.
Simply play through the game up to level 60 on every class. Also try hardcore, etc. There is well over 300 hours of content if you really want there to be. It isn't endless, but compared to most games these days it's well on the level of say, Skyrim in terms of replayability, yet you don't hear people whining about getting tired of playing Skyrim (and it happens a ton more than you hear!).-
-
-
-
Why is it mandatory for people to take a post that criticizes a game and reduce it to the most absurd version of the point that was trying to be made. If your counter argument was good enough, you could probably make it without being a jerk about it. Try that next time.
I don't want loot to fly out of my characters asshole and I don't want the game to be easy. I want the game to be fun for me, and right now its more tedious than fun. I had *fun* levelling up my wizard and getting to 60. I had fun the first few hours in Inferno. Blizzard does this with all of their MMOs, they overtune the endgame to make it artificially harder to extend the life of the game. They admitted they tuned Inferno internally before release and then multiplied the numbers by 5 or 10 because they knew players were going to be better at the game than they were. And yet people still keep defending the game as if by reading criticism the game would be taken away from them and they would never get to play it again.
Get over it. Some people don't like what you like as much as you like it. Stop trying to reduce their argument to something silly sounding and retarded, it will actually make your argument stronger and people dislike you less!
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
This whole thread and no mention on how it took D2 years to get it right. I would be surprised if D2 was patched at all in the first 1.5 months, roughly the age D3 is on now. We're conveniently forgetting how LoD changed up the game with new places to farm and whole new classes of items. Plus runes!
All the things that are considered essential to the farming/collecting/upgrading/grinding experience of the previous game were additions that were brought in later. Everybody is dog piling on Blizzard for not releasing the perfect game right out of the gate, while their entire product history shows us that they are patient and tenacious developers who will keep polishing and patching and improving this game until it is perfect. Now that they have all their user data (hopefully offsetting the subjective opinions of their spergy forums) they have all the tools to make this game the best for the largest amount of people.-
-
-
-
-
-
If you claim Diablo's not a skill-based game, then I'd argue the Souls games aren't either.
The challenges presented by both games can be overcome with either gear or level. Just because they can be doesn't mean they are, and certainly doesn't imply skilled players can't overcome the challenges with less.-
If you get hit in those games, it is your own fault. In D3, if you get walled-in/jailed/desecrated, you are fucked without gear. I can learn an enemy's attacks and do something about it and stay engaged in the fight for the whole encounter. In D3 I just kite more if I'm undergeared. That isn't fun.
Skill-based games also have logical difficulty progression. D3 has a brick wall at the end of each act.-
I'd argue that skill-based games also tend to have difficulty options based on player input. This is not the case in Diablo. In Diablo, you're simply expected to move from normal to nightmare to hell to inferno because that's where higher level monsters are and higher level loot drops.
It'd be different if you chose a given difficulty and that was just the level you played at. I think Blizzard's goal (and I agree with it) is that all players will eventually clear all difficulties should they play the game long enough.-
http://us.battle.net/d3/en/forum/topic/4254459132?page=33#654
There’s a wide variety of players out there and we wanted to make sure everybody had something to sink their teeth into. We expect that anybody with enough time and dedication will reach level 60. But the jump in difficulty to Inferno needed to be different amounts for different people. For the crazy people they need a HUGE ramp in difficulty, for a more “casual but still hardcore” audience you want an obvious but milder increase in difficulty. So for the crazy people who play non-stop they’ll hit Act I and get a challenge, but 1 month later they’ll still have something to work on (Acts II, III and IV). For the “hardcore-casual” they will reach level 60 later and not get brick walled when they reach Inferno. They can experience some “small victories” working on Act I with the dream of maybe someday reaching the later acts.
Longevity. We know people really want goals to work towards and challenges to overcome. We made Act III and Act IV really, really brutally hard, for the most elite players only. It felt wrong to make ALL of Inferno that brutally hard.
Now, you could (and probably will) just dismiss this as "Bashiok," but that intent very much did ring true for how Inferno was released. While they did underestimate the super-hardcore again, then intent behind how they balanced of the content for most people does follow those two points, which are the exact opposite of yours.-
-
I think that's pretty clearly always been the case. The best "challenge" in virtually every game I've ever played, or games I've run (in terms of tabletop gaming) is almost always the sort that makes people feel like it's "hard" without ever forcing a real setback.
Just like in real life, *almost* dying is a huge adrenaline rush...actually dying just sucks. People want the game to make it seem like they're doing something that's hard, but they don't want it to actually be hard enough that they are hitting their heads against a wall at any point in time.
Obviously this isn't true of absolutely everyone, but it seems pretty damn common.
-
-
-
You can hit a point (level-wise) in the Souls games where getting hit really doesn't matter, just like you can get to a point (gear-wise) in Diablo 3 where the content is trivialized as well.
Neither of those states are normal in the game, nor do you get there without paying your dues up front.
As for your specific example -- you're fucked in D3 without the gear, without your class' escape abilities in your spec, if you blew those escape abilities early putting them on cd, if you chose to engage the mobs in a bad location, or if you fucked up the positioning during the engagement. Three of those five are what I'd consider to be in the "reactive skill" category, one is in the "planning skill" category, and the remaining one is simply gear.
Skill-based games tend to be a brick wall until you hit some magical "skill" threshold. Demon Souls is was after the tutorial, where you had to learn to approach the game tactically instead of frantically. Games like Ninja Gaiden and Devil May Cry were at each new difficulty level and then again at the bosses, the magnitude of which depended on how many collectibles you had gathered up to that point. There was no less "logic" to their difficulty progression than Diablo 3 -- the later shit got harder.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I agree with this. People just need to be patient. I will withhold all judgement from this game until blizzard has slowed down with the patches.
At least we know blizzard is making an effort in improving this game. I don't recall the makers of Brink or DNF reaching out to the community to seek feedback on what to improve on.
It's a work in progress. Let's keep holding our breaths.
-
-
Keef, you haven't even gotten to inferno and you're already talking about end game.
Act 1 inferno can be longer than entire hell, and it's fun because there's a challenge but its perfectly doable, even with cheap gear. You need to be more careful and play better, though.
If you're not up to the challenge, or you don't like the high repair costs, that's fine. In Diablo 2, every time you died you would lose experience. When you were lvl 90, that was huge, a couple of deaths could set you back 2-10 hours.
If you don't want the challenge that is inferno, Try playing Hardcore. You'll feel your heart beating and you'll learn to not pick up health globes if you're on full health, and other cool survival tricks.
If you still aren't having fun, the game is over for you, and at least you've had a good time and you have finished it multiple times. -
I have gotten less than 1 usable, equipple rare item per week from actually playing the game (read: not buying on the AH). the rest of the drops have been mostly unsellable garbage, meaning it has a collection of affixes that no class would want. i got one helm with decent dex and stats that I sold for 1.5 million, and more than half of that money is gone to new items from the AH or finishing up my stash and crafting upgrades.
Now random luck is random, but I don't have much luck at all. Most items dropped in the game are garbage and always will be, but EVERYTHING I GET that is dropped by the game, with a few exceedingly rare exceptions, has been trash. i like rare quivers as much as the next guy, but in one clear of most of Act 1's elite packs (we do most of them, not all) I got six rare quivers and a few magic ones, most of them within 2-3 packs of each other. I regularly get bows and quivers and I get plenty of shit for other classes, but anything that looks remotely like Wizard gear is full of melee stats. Like, I will get a high level belt or a chest item with Int on it and maybe a little Vitality, but also 150 Strength or Dex. Almost every item I pick up on it has Dexterity, but apparently that is random and I am just lucky. I'd have the most geared Monk or Demon Hunter ever, too bad I picked Wizard to play.
I suspect that Blizzard has some kind of algorithm that makes it more likely for a given class to get drops for other classes. This helped them ensure the AH would be seeded immediately with a bunch of stuff. I am aware that drops were random in D2, but I got way better gear more often in D2 and I never hit 99 on any of my characters.
You CAN level up by playing the game, but you're gonna be playing a LONG LONG time to get items you can actually use to do it and forget about anything beyond Act 1 or 2 of Inferno unless your time is totally worthless to you. -
-
-
In both genres you mention the level of difficulty changes quite often when you play against people. You'll play against opponents with different skill levels and play styles in fight games and shooters. In diablo the monsters are the same each time except for elites with random affixes. Your comparison doesn't hurt his argument at all.
-
-
-
Diablo 3 = 3 times the Disappointment! I got about 100 hours into the game with a level 60 monk and moved on to Dota 2 for literally the exact same reasons discussed in this post. Even from there, like the author said, Blizzard has my money, and at this point really, the less people who continuously play the game the better. There's no monthly fee, so there's no incentive for Blizzard to want to keep a large player base (why have the additional server-load?) They will most likely just hope that most people will come back and buy the expansion.
-
-
-
This article is spot on. Repetitive button-mashing action gameplay is the #1 thing holding video games back from realizing their potential. In single-player gaming, "Action" is basically a synonym for repetition. Most games consist of little more than shooting or hacking your way through hordes upon hordes of near-identical enemies in near-identical encounters. Innovation consists of endless attempts at trying to making this interesting again, but without deeper gameplay all such attempts are doomed to fail. This is why almost everyone prefers multiplayer or PvP to single player in these repetitive games, because only with real people on the other side do the simple game mechanics allow for any depth. Action games are only as interesting as their AI, which generally means not very interesting.
The future of single-player is in story-driven experiences where players make real choices and never face the same encounter twice. Stories are the antidote to repetition, but it has to be intergrated into the gameplay, not just some tack-on story. Telltale's Walking Dead, Heavy Rain, LA Noire are all recent examples of this kind of game. But such games have been with us forever, old text adventures like Zork, classic RPGs like Baldur's Gate, these games have almost no repetition.-
If this was some new game with fantastical claims about being a new genre of play-ability I would agree with much that you said.
But it is Diablo 3. Of the top down hack, slash, and pick up tons of loot genre - with a few cool cut scenes and story along the way. To expect it to be anything different is silly in my opinion. D3 is exactly what the Diablo franchise has always been about.
-
You aren't missing out on much Keef. I got through Inferno acts 3 through 4 and beat Diablo last night. Nothing good dropped the whole way. The cherry on top was when I got to Diablo and, after messing up the first time, decided I'd have to switch out a couple things in my build. So I defeated him the second time around at the cost of losing all 5 of my NV stacks. He dropped 3 white items. It was one of the emptiest gaming victories I've ever experienced.
-
-
I agree there. Problem is all these wow annual pass freebie peeps think its supposed to be an mmo. That said though, it certainly does need more to the end-game than it currently has. I don't think d1 and 2 basic endgame is going to cut it now days. Games have evolved and in turn the definition of what a fun game is to people.
-
-