Now this is probably for people who have: 1. Played the beta or 2. Has watched a lot of youtube videos and have a good idea of how the game will play.
Now I've played the beta for about a total of ~3 hours. Except for some huge hitbox issues that a recent patch has fixed, the game looks like it will be the 'next big hit' in its genre. On the other hand, being a huge fan of LoD, this game just doesn't give me the same satisfaction. How would you rate the game right now as it stands since this is the product (expecting no major changes) we will be getting for release?
I myself would rank it a 3. Now if someone asked me this question when Diablo 2 was about to launch, it would've been an easy 5 for how excited I was. Maybe I'm just no longer in middle school? What are your opinions
Poll: How do you rate Diablo 3?
5 Stars - Will buy (Game looks/is great and will probably take up a lot of my time) (522)
57%
4 Stars - Will buy(Game looks/is very fun but needs small tweaks with patches) (160)
17%
3 Stars- Will buy (Game needs improvements that can come with Patches) (101)
11%
2 Stars - Will not buy (Game needs major improvements i.e Battle.net 0.2) (87)
9%
1 Star - Will not buy (Probably means the genre is not for you) (51)
6%
921 total votes
Your vote: How do you rate Diablo 3?
(Vote): 1 Star - Will not buy (Probably means the genre is not for you) (Vote): 2 Stars - Will not buy (Game needs major improvements i.e Battle.net 0.2) (Vote): 3 Stars- Will buy (Game needs improvements that can come with Patches) (Vote): 4 Stars - Will buy(Game looks/is very fun but needs small tweaks with patches) (Vote): 5 Stars - Will buy (Game looks/is great and will probably take up a lot of my time)
I'm really excited and I know it will take a lot of my time. Haters will be haters: Try playing 1.00 vanilla D2 and compare it with 1.10+ and up LoD... you just played 5% of a beta build, ffs.
i like diablo series , and hack & slash games to play with friends so ill get it.
BNET could be better and theyre surely not reinventing the wheel with D3 , some nice additions here and there but hack & slash its what it is.
im MUCH more excited for gw2 , but doesnt matter ill play both and keep up with sc2 in the process , hope my friends dont forget me while im not there with them doing wathever they do xDDD
On April 19 2012 08:30 Terranist wrote: 3 stars. i'll buy it only because it is diablo but blizzard should know that they are quickly pissing on the franchise in my mind.
5/5, because the developement team seems to understand the meaning of what hardcore gamers want. If what they are saying is true, the game might be fucking hard, and IMO that's what gaming is all about. I have not played sc2 for 1 year and a half because the game is amazing (I think there is some really obvious gameplay flaws and interface flaws), thus I had a fucking blast, I will never forget the joy I had when I achieve master(starting from silver), I will never forget my first match versus a pro.
I hope that d3 will gives me that passion that I lost, I hope to feel like a fucking boss upon killing the last boss on inferno, I hope to scream like a madman when I drop some super rare loot. At last, the teamplay in D3 might also be a great aspect that sc2 lacked.
TL;DR If the game is as hard as I think, it should be enjoyable.
5/5. There are a few small tweaks they could make to make the game a bit less clunky. But not enough to make my lower my rating to 4/5.
Best example I can think of is the screen where you choose your skills. I would much prefer to have the 6 skill slots on the left and to be able to see all the available skills (As a list or even buttons with mouseover text) on the right and drag them to they skill tabs. I really feel that being limited to only seeing 4 skills at a time and tabbing between the types of skills limits my ability to see the class as a whole for no real gain. They could still keep all the spells grouped with little subheadings like 'defensive' etc if they want. I just don't want to have to tab between them all to read them. Especially when some classes (ie monk) even have 2 separate tabs of skills which generate energy.
On April 19 2012 10:40 Mascherano wrote: 3 Stars. No pvp on launch? What joke.
What would make you happier, if they release without PvP or wait to release until they consider it ready?
5 stars for me. The only game I can think of that might pull me away from it is Guild Wars 2. I'm looking forward to playing either of them while watching sc2 :D
Having not played it but pre-orderded, I'm a little disappointed in recent announcments but I'll reserve judgement until it's out and properly patched.
I've not played the beta, but D2 is my favourite game of all time, and I'd be blasphemous not to blindly assume that D3 will be of similar quality, so I have to rate it 5/5 just by my own hopes and dreams
5/5 I can't give any lower. I have waited this game for years and this is probably the one game that I will play hundreds of hours just within the first month. I have never been this excited for a games release. NEVER.
On April 19 2012 10:40 Mascherano wrote: 3 Stars. No pvp on launch? What joke.
What would make you happier, if they release without PvP or wait to release until they consider it ready?
5 stars for me. The only game I can think of that might pull me away from it is Guild Wars 2. I'm looking forward to playing either of them while watching sc2 :D
Well they said they won't balance much or at all for pvp so what was the reasoning of removing it in the first place? And like it would be balanced when they patched it in lol.
Wondering if i'll end up motivated enough to slash npcs for many many hours like in d2, but that is so long ago :|.
Just buying it for the plot i guess - guild wars 2 is for pvp
Not gonna rate cause I havnt played the beta. However I am a bit concerned that there is no ladder. Ladder kept D2 popular and alive for ages. I would also like runes to come back. However I am glad that there is no pvp just yet. When that shit gets introduced all the whines will start and the game will be dumped down just like what happened to WoW.
I cant understand why people would want PvP at release, first you need to get to 60 and get some gears. Maybe even go through hell. Not to generalize, but through all my years playing WoW the PvPers took forever leveling. Also this is not a PvP game, eventho they added arenas to keep the PvPers happy.
I think this game will most likely be the best game of 2012 and will keep me occupied for the next few years. Im biased though since i played Diablo 2 a ton and love the genre.
I am alright with not having PvP if that means to get the game faster. I also am excited to just play Diablo III played it at Blizzcon it was so much fun. Never got into the beta but I will just be more excited when I get the game in my hands .
A lot of people pointing out the lack of pvp and TBH it was the last thing on my mind. I didn't start actually start dueling until I reached the low 90's on my characters and even then it was a small portion of the game for me. FYI you could still duel so its not that big of a deal anyway.
On April 19 2012 03:42 zJayy962 wrote: On the other hand, being a huge fan of LoD, this game just doesn't give me the same satisfaction.
How can you say this? Of course a beta with one hour of gameplay won't give you the same satisfaction as a full game, years after it's release with an expansion and multiple patches.
The game is gonna be the most awesome game of all game...However, when it will be finished only!
-B.net 2.0 is horrible even 2 years after sc2 beta release... -No PvP on launch... -Less class than in D2 (they normally improve the game in between releases no?) -Only 4 players per game (used to be 8 same argument as the point before). -System that feels made to avoid rushes through the game (I loved that in d2 to be able to start a char and get it lvl90 in the same day). -Lvl60 cap (same as before, they normally improve the game...why regressing? this is not WoW...they want a lower number to open a door for an expansion obviously...money money money) -No confirmed Secret Cow Level! GODDD that was epic! or anything as funny... -Crafting system...that is pure crap...The fun part of d2 was to work hard for your gear...not just get it easily with time...You needed skills back in d2 in trading to get good gear...or an extreme lucky time!
But still, after playing the beta many times, there will still be tons of fun! So 4.5 stars (voted 5)
Why cant I rank it a 2, and still say will buy? Or rank it a 5 and say won't buy (not saying I rank it a 2, but just because a game sucks doesnt meant it won't be bought, or jsut because it is good doesn't mean it will).
This poll is kind of flawed and doesn't give useful information
On April 20 2012 04:09 pure_protoss wrote: The game is gonna be the most awesome game of all game...However, when it will be finished only!
-B.net 2.0 is horrible even 2 years after sc2 beta release... -No PvP on launch... -Less class than in D2 (they normally improve the game in between releases no?) -Only 4 players per game (used to be 8 same argument as the point before). -System that feels made to avoid rushes through the game (I loved that in d2 to be able to start a char and get it lvl90 in the same day). -Lvl60 cap (same as before, they normally improve the game...why regressing? this is not WoW...they want a lower number to open a door for an expansion obviously...money money money) -No confirmed Secret Cow Level! GODDD that was epic! or anything as funny... -Crafting system...that is pure crap...The fun part of d2 was to work hard for your gear...not just get it easily with time...You needed skills back in d2 in trading to get good gear...or an extreme lucky time!
But still, after playing the beta many times, there will still be tons of fun! So 4.5 stars (voted 5)
1.- Bnet 0.2 is probably going to be different for D3 on release in comparison to SC2 2.- I can live without PvP for a few months, Killing monsters is fucking fun 3.- D2 actually had 5 classes at release (Paladin, Amazon, Necromancer, Barbarian, Sorceress) 4.- Who says 8 players is better than 4? 5.- Growing a character to full boss is a bit more significant when you have to work your ass for it 6.- Why is lvl 90 better than 60?, more numbers doesn't make it have more content. 7.- OFC there will be a Cow level wtf are you thinking 8.- Crafting materials will probably be as hard to farm as getting awesome items in D2, otherwise, crafting will not have the best items possible.
On April 20 2012 04:19 mordk wrote: 7.- OFC there will be a Cow level wtf are you thinking
No cow level this time around, but access to Greed's domain instead. You heard it here first!
EDIT: Actually no you didn't, turns out it's a widespread theory. In one of the loading screen texts it says "There is no cow level", somehow I feel this is a truthful statement.
4. There are a few things that I don't agree with (skill system for example). It gets 4 mostly because diablo 2 was such a great game so this gets the benefit of doubt. The beta doesn't give much insight but the questing also feels more like WoW for some odd reason.
anything under 4 is unfair considering the amount of polish it has, even if it's an updown version of wow when a lot of us expected some things to be quite different. I'm hugely dissappointed that I cant throw 5 skill points into a random stat at each level, I loved that.
Nonetheless the game looks exceedingly good even when I have differing expectations, so I guess i'll give it a 4.
I will be buying it for sure. To the people who are saying the game doesn't fit your style, or you don't think it will be a hit, just remember that you have played enough of the game to be equivilent to killing blood raven in diablo 2, don't complain until you've played it all.
On April 20 2012 04:19 mordk wrote: 7.- OFC there will be a Cow level wtf are you thinking
No cow level this time around, but access to Greed's domain instead. You heard it here first!
EDIT: Actually no you didn't, turns out it's a widespread theory. In one of the loading screen texts it says "There is no cow level", somehow I feel this is a truthful statement.
There is probably some sort of cow level. The craft item Staff of Herding has a version for every dificulties (Inferno = Infernal Staff of Herding).
It also has "Only one bovine in all of sanctuary could possibly have a use for this" written on it.
Played the beta and i'm not impressed. They simplified this game so much, even babies can play this. D3 is catering too hard for casuals. Gonna still play though to prove myself right or wrong. We shall see.
On April 20 2012 08:26 zergtossy wrote: Just too bad it doesn't feel like D2
I get a similar impression from playing the beta, but I'm optimistic that the later parts of the game will have a more hack/slash feel with the mob count going way up later into it.
Has a lot potential for end-game content. More so than Diablo 2. The skill system will feel slow at first, but it will allow a lot more freedom and non-linear skills unlike Diablo 2. I am looking forward to it a lot and hopefully it will live up to my expectations. Also bought the CE.
-5. I'm glad they make such an effort to make this game a horrific embarrassment that looks like a Warcraft III UMS, with bouncy movement and WoW-y graphics, otherwise I would have sunk 100-200 hours on this easy. As it happens, I won't even bat an eyelid when it's released. Phew.
On April 20 2012 15:13 Chriscras wrote: 6 STARS FOR SURPRISE OPEN BETA WEEKEND <3<3<3
I'd be excited with you if I haven't played the beta already. I've decided to not play the rest of the beta and have everything surprise me when the game launches.
I don't care for the direction it's going, everything is too limited and it looks and plays like something released in 2004, main reason I sold off my beta accounts.
On April 20 2012 15:23 NotSorry wrote: I don't care for the direction it's going, everything is too limited and it looks and plays like something released in 2004, main reason I sold off my beta accounts.
Honestly if you played diablo 2 you'd realise that the game was much more limiting than diablo 3. I could only name a couple viable ways to build each character in diablo 2 but I can imagine a lot more ways to build the characters in diablo 3.
On April 20 2012 15:23 NotSorry wrote: I don't care for the direction it's going, everything is too limited and it looks and plays like something released in 2004, main reason I sold off my beta accounts.
Honestly if you played diablo 2 you'd realise that the game was much more limiting than diablo 3. I could only name a couple viable ways to build each character in diablo 2 but I can imagine a lot more ways to build the characters in diablo 3.
just because you played d2 wrong doesn't mean the rest of us did
You're comparing popular builds only of d2, to random combos you thought of while reading text of d3 and jumped to some conclusion where everything will work just the way you picture in your head without ever seeing half the abilities...
You've played ~3hours, I've had it since September. So you got what 1 lvl 13 character and just assumed every spell/rune was going to be useful or not completely overshadowed by more effective combos?
Don't get me wrong, I want this game to succeed and become massive. I want a game I can enjoy and sink countless hours into, I want them to have millions of players so that I can make money off of them, but as the game is I think anything more than a 3rating is just being a fanboi based on the information we have at hand. Now who knows maybe act2 and up is fucking amazing and blows us all away, honest I hope it does, but thats just hopes and assumptions, not anything realistic based on what has been given and shown so far.
I've played the beta. I've played and enjoyed D1/2, but that was before I started playing MMOs of any kind. I personally can't help but feel that this series is dead for me. I feel gaming has just changed so much that this series, if originally launched today, would probably not get the praise that it has now from loyal fans. That being said, It's still going to be an enjoyable experience for those that do play it, especially once it gets more difficult. There are just sooo many games that I want to play, so I have to be more picky. Asides from SC2, I'm playing Tribes on the side and am excited for GW2/Planetside2 to take the mainstage of my gaming.
I am in no way saying don't buy this game. I think it's good but just not for me during these times. I am sure it will be fun! That being said I don't know what score to give it, but my explanation should be good enough.
On April 19 2012 10:40 Mascherano wrote: 3 Stars. No pvp on launch? What joke.
Ya because, you're going to want to do PvP as soon as possible with no items or real long term game play yet? Have no idea what the late game classes will be like.
On April 20 2012 08:26 zergtossy wrote: Just too bad it doesn't feel like D2
I think it will feel like D2 to a sufficient extent. I'm currently doing a solo run to kill Baal on Hell with a hammerdin, recalling those days of botting and running mephisto on hell all night with a sorc 2 days after the ladder reset. It is obvious to me that it is not the "feel" that we should be worried about, but the end-game gameplay and the combat system. You probably won't even pay attention to the settings of the game at all, let alone the feel of darkness. All you will see is "unique", "set", "ring", "ring", "magic find", "perfect unique"! *jizz all over*!.
4/5 It has some little things that need improvement. You have to manually hover the cursor over the health and resource globes to check their values, like one guy pointed out. Some interface tweaks, probably world pvp is missing which I dislike. Some more affixes that can be added with patches,and probably some other things that are worth mentioning. But overall I'm 10/10 excited for this game !
While I will buy it mainly to play with friends. I don't think ill put much time into it like i did for D2. Maybe its because I am getting older and would rather spend money on other things? Or maybe Its just I am not interested in this type of RPG anymore. W/e it is I am more excitied for a "good" final fantasy game lol
On April 20 2012 15:10 sc4k wrote: -5. I'm glad they make such an effort to make this game a horrific embarrassment that looks like a Warcraft III UMS, with bouncy movement and WoW-y graphics, otherwise I would have sunk 100-200 hours on this easy. As it happens, I won't even bat an eyelid when it's released. Phew.
My stepfather always told my mother that one of her problems while raising me and my sisters was that she overexaggerated to the point we didn't believe her threats of hanging us by our genitals in the cloth drier. You're doing that, I think you'll buy the game.
On April 20 2012 13:21 Protocon wrote: 3 Stars.
Played the beta and i'm not impressed. They simplified this game so much, even babies can play this. D3 is catering too hard for casuals. Gonna still play though to prove myself right or wrong. We shall see.
Hate to point out the obvious, but your first real threat in d2normal is duriel. But it is casual indeed, hopefully inferno is what they promised.
4 or so, I love diablo 2 and I am definitely going to spend a lot of time going through the game. I feel like i've lost a great deal of anticipation for this game because it has been in beta for so long and we have almost no information on how the game is going to play in hell/inferno difficulties.
pretty much everyone in this thread is admitting the game looks super causal but putting all hopes that inferno will be something special...why should you have to beat the game 3 times and get to lvl 60 just to not be on my little pony island?
On April 20 2012 23:42 NotSorry wrote: pretty much everyone in this thread is admitting the game looks super causal but putting all hopes that inferno will be something special...why should you have to beat the game 3 times and get to lvl 60 just to not be on my little pony island?
For me its a 5. Its really addictive tbh. After the first 10 minutes I wasn't really impressed, but the beta grew rapidly on me. I put like 50+ hours into the beta as of now, and I cant wait for the release. 50+ hours is for me personally a huge amount (there are actually only a handful of games, where I invested an equal amount of time (Tie fighter, Wing Commander 3,4,5,BG2 SC,SC2, D2, WoW, BF3, RO2, EvE) especially considering its only 2 hours worth of content, but yeah I felt constantly encouraged to try new characters, level to max beta level, group up with people, trying to get all the achievments etc. I think I will put a considerable amount of playtime into it.
For now the only thing I don't really like is the wizard. When I came into the beta it flowed really well, the abilities were just right. But now they have screwed around with the order in which you get the skills and it feels a bit off. Frostbeam is especially disappointing and the class didnt feel that good at 13 neither. Maybe it will get better with a higher level, but for now the wizard is at then end of my list to play.
Hmm, I'm actually way more excited for this game that I was for D2. But then D2 surprised me and it was better than expected. Hopefully the inverse doesn't happen this time around.
I also want to say that as someone who played D1 when it first came out, I am saddened by the ever increasing cartoonishness of the diablo series. This is more of a stylistic preference than a gameplay one, so its minor. D3 does look to have a decent amount of gore, I just hope Hell is as nightmarish as it should be, and not filled with silly WoW monsters.
On April 20 2012 23:42 NotSorry wrote: pretty much everyone in this thread is admitting the game looks super causal but putting all hopes that inferno will be something special...why should you have to beat the game 3 times and get to lvl 60 just to not be on my little pony island?
I like watching waves of monsters go boom.
I find that everyone who complains about the design did not pay attention to the beautifully done Grotesque.
On April 20 2012 23:42 NotSorry wrote: pretty much everyone in this thread is admitting the game looks super causal but putting all hopes that inferno will be something special...why should you have to beat the game 3 times and get to lvl 60 just to not be on my little pony island?
I'm pretty sure people hope the game gets somewhat challenging before Inferno. Not impossible but something like D2 at the very least. D2 was easy especially normal and nightmare but still I agree D3 beta is really super easy.
On April 21 2012 02:10 {ToT}ColmA wrote: so the game goes to what....end of act 1?! and people can talk about what it will be in other difficulties? O.o
d1 / d2 were so easy but oh well, at least there is something to complain about lolz
It's not even the end of act 1. I'm not sure how far into the act it goes but the end boss is not the skeleton king .
4. This is a game I would not play alone (I got a beta invite the other day and have not killed the skeleton king. meh). However, I think that playing with a few friends will be alot of fun!
On April 21 2012 03:44 Vilonis wrote: 4. This is a game I would not play alone (I got a beta invite the other day and have not killed the skeleton king. meh). However, I think that playing with a few friends will be alot of fun!
I don't get how you could give a game a 4 out of 5, then go on to say I would never play this, but if my friends or playing I wouldn't mind the game so much as long as I get to spend time with them? Isn't that much more of a 2-3 average at best? A 4 out of 5 generally means this game is really fucking good with a few slight flaws that could be easily fixed.
On April 21 2012 03:44 Vilonis wrote: 4. This is a game I would not play alone (I got a beta invite the other day and have not killed the skeleton king. meh). However, I think that playing with a few friends will be alot of fun!
I don't get how you could give a game a 4 out of 5, then go on to say I would never play this, but if my friends or playing I wouldn't mind the game so much as long as I get to spend time with them? Isn't that much more of a 2-3 average at best? A 4 out of 5 generally means this game is really fucking good with a few slight flaws that could be easily fixed.
Depends on the person IMO. An example would be if he could only play games that are 5's without the need of company
As a "hardcore" (not the game option) PvPer in Diablo 2, this game looks fun as a Dungeon Crawler (Improved Diablo 1), but it still needs major changes from the BETA to satisfy me. I'm hoping on release the game will look much different.
On April 21 2012 03:44 Vilonis wrote: 4. This is a game I would not play alone (I got a beta invite the other day and have not killed the skeleton king. meh). However, I think that playing with a few friends will be alot of fun!
I don't get how you could give a game a 4 out of 5, then go on to say I would never play this, but if my friends or playing I wouldn't mind the game so much as long as I get to spend time with them? Isn't that much more of a 2-3 average at best? A 4 out of 5 generally means this game is really fucking good with a few slight flaws that could be easily fixed.
Because I feel that the game gets more than double as fun when you get a second person playing with you. I think that it will have a rating of a 4 playing with a friend.
On April 21 2012 01:08 Solai wrote: For me its a 5. Its really addictive tbh. After the first 10 minutes I wasn't really impressed, but the beta grew rapidly on me. I put like 50+ hours into the beta as of now, and I cant wait for the release. 50+ hours is for me personally a huge amount (there are actually only a handful of games, where I invested an equal amount of time (Tie fighter, Wing Commander 3,4,5,BG2 SC,SC2, D2, WoW, BF3, RO2, EvE) especially considering its only 2 hours worth of content, but yeah I felt constantly encouraged to try new characters, level to max beta level, group up with people, trying to get all the achievments etc. I think I will put a considerable amount of playtime into it.
For now the only thing I don't really like is the wizard. When I came into the beta it flowed really well, the abilities were just right. But now they have screwed around with the order in which you get the skills and it feels a bit off. Frostbeam is especially disappointing and the class didnt feel that good at 13 neither. Maybe it will get better with a higher level, but for now the wizard is at then end of my list to play.
Frost Beam is as unispired as humanly possible, and remarkably similar to a skill in Torchlight (where it was actually useful).
I find that the Diablo 3 characters miss that badass aspect of their Diablo 2 counterparts. I mean, when you selected a paladin in the loading screen in diablo 2 and saw him swing his sword an kneel, you know he meant business. Same with the other classes. I remember the first time I got to use the sorceress' Lightning-spell. I just effortlessly laid waste to whole groups of enemies. It looked and felt absolutely bad-ass! Hell, even the spell effects and sound effects were badass, even on lower levels. Diablo 3 is a bit underwhelming in that department.
I give it three stars, but I don't know whether I'll be buying it.
It was pretty akward, considering the balance it kinda ruined the experience for me, not being in danger of dying once or using my own health potions throughout the beta was just silly and lame to be honest. In diablo 2 even blood raven was difficult at times because of how gimp your char was at fighting mass mobs and a kiting amazon.
I understand its beta, but one of the purposes of beta is to get the balance right.. so yeah, why not do it now?
On April 21 2012 10:58 Senx wrote: It was pretty akward, considering the balance it kinda ruined the experience for me, not being in danger of dying once or using my own health potions throughout the beta was just silly and lame to be honest. In diablo 2 even blood raven was difficult at times because of how gimp your char was at fighting mass mobs and a kiting amazon.
I understand its beta, but one of the purposes of beta is to get the balance right.. so yeah, why not do it now?
They think the balance is right.
I agree the beginning of D2 even if really easy was still a bit harder but I understand why it's like this. Really in terms of content its a demo, like a rts giving you only the first missions that's why its easy. I know I have no idea if the challenge will be there but I'm faithful.
On the other hand if you fear too much for the difficulty why not not buying the game at release, wait one or 2 days and hear the comments of players that will have reach nightmare/hell ?
On April 21 2012 10:58 Senx wrote: It was pretty akward, considering the balance it kinda ruined the experience for me, not being in danger of dying once or using my own health potions throughout the beta was just silly and lame to be honest. In diablo 2 even blood raven was difficult at times because of how gimp your char was at fighting mass mobs and a kiting amazon.
I understand its beta, but one of the purposes of beta is to get the balance right.. so yeah, why not do it now?
They think the balance is right.
I agree the beginning of D2 even if really easy was still a bit harder but I understand why it's like this. Really in terms of content its a demo, like a rts giving you only the first missions that's why its easy. I know I have no idea if the challenge will be there but I'm faithful.
On the other hand if you fear too much for the difficulty why not not buying the game at release, wait one or 2 days and hear the comments of players that will have reach nightmare/hell ?
That worries me alot.
I was also kinda dissapointed at the lack of choice, no individually chosen stat gains, no abilities to choose from. It was like "hey here's a new ability we forcefully unlocked for you, just click here, have fun!". The feeling of choice was almost non existant :/(
Which led me to feel like I didn't gave a shit about my own char, which is the opposite of d2 :I
Can't say I'm in love with it, but it's not bad. Maybe it's because I'm old as fuck now and remember D2 as actually being me against hellspawns in epic battles, but it just doesn't bring that nostalgia feeling. I feel like I'm playing a more mature Torchlight and I got bored of that game real quick, Hopefully I don't regret paying the collector's edition.
On April 21 2012 10:58 Senx wrote: It was pretty akward, considering the balance it kinda ruined the experience for me, not being in danger of dying once or using my own health potions throughout the beta was just silly and lame to be honest. In diablo 2 even blood raven was difficult at times because of how gimp your char was at fighting mass mobs and a kiting amazon.
I understand its beta, but one of the purposes of beta is to get the balance right.. so yeah, why not do it now?
They think the balance is right.
I agree the beginning of D2 even if really easy was still a bit harder but I understand why it's like this. Really in terms of content its a demo, like a rts giving you only the first missions that's why its easy. I know I have no idea if the challenge will be there but I'm faithful.
On the other hand if you fear too much for the difficulty why not not buying the game at release, wait one or 2 days and hear the comments of players that will have reach nightmare/hell ?
That worries me alot.
I was also kinda dissapointed at the lack of choice, no individually chosen stat gains, no abilities to choose from. It was like "hey here's a new ability we forcefully unlocked for you, just click here, have fun!". The feeling of choice was almost non existant :/(
Which led me to feel like I didn't gave a shit about my own char, which is the opposite of d2 :I
Yeah I can understand.
If you want my perspective, the attachment to a character comes for me first with how much time I play with it and second its customization. I won't get into the debate as to whether or not there is customization, every arguments have already been made by both sides. But don't forget the beta is small, I can personally say that when the reset of betas happened losing my lvl 13 character that I spent time trying to achieve a very high dps through gear, crafting and AH, was a bitter feeling. A lot more than the lvl 8 characters that I played only to see whats new in the game.
I think, and you may disagree, that attachment comes through investment, thoughts about what to wear or what to use. I can see some potential for that later, there are a lot of choices for skills and even though everybody has access to everything I will most probably use a set that I'm familiar with while another player will use another. Spending time leveling, gearing up etc will make me invested. If the content is hard enough, I will have to perfect my style of play and give more thoughts to what I will use. All this for me should be enough to create this sentiment of attachement.
Dont forget I can be all wrong, these are just my thoughts and hopes.
As for the difficulty, my bet is just that I would not believe Blizzard to be so stupid as to hype a game as being hard for it to end up easy. They already have room for casual players in normal, they know imo they got to make this right. If the game is a boring faceroll, the expansions wont sell. The expansions are bought by the hardcore community first. They got to make this right. They also don't have any PvP yet, so everyone will focus on the PvE.
On April 21 2012 10:58 Senx wrote: It was pretty akward, considering the balance it kinda ruined the experience for me, not being in danger of dying once or using my own health potions throughout the beta was just silly and lame to be honest. In diablo 2 even blood raven was difficult at times because of how gimp your char was at fighting mass mobs and a kiting amazon.
I understand its beta, but one of the purposes of beta is to get the balance right.. so yeah, why not do it now?
They think the balance is right.
I agree the beginning of D2 even if really easy was still a bit harder but I understand why it's like this. Really in terms of content its a demo, like a rts giving you only the first missions that's why its easy. I know I have no idea if the challenge will be there but I'm faithful.
On the other hand if you fear too much for the difficulty why not not buying the game at release, wait one or 2 days and hear the comments of players that will have reach nightmare/hell ?
That worries me alot.
I was also kinda dissapointed at the lack of choice, no individually chosen stat gains, no abilities to choose from. It was like "hey here's a new ability we forcefully unlocked for you, just click here, have fun!". The feeling of choice was almost non existant :/(
Which led me to feel like I didn't gave a shit about my own char, which is the opposite of d2 :I
You can always choose how to gear, MF, Gold Find, DPS etc, I really care about having the higher DPS possible in my DH.
Yes the game should be harder, hardest fight I had was me and a friend level 7 and 8 against SK, I had to actually pop my first potion ^_^ . I really hope it gets exponentially harder and I have a theory to hope it will. You could die in Act 1 D2 and well in terms of the new age of gaming dying at the beginning just doesn't happen anymore, it is not how games work nowadays, if they're hard at some point it is 0% of the time at the beginning. I don't like this but is modern game-making I guess. Hopefully we'll hit some difficulty walls even in ACT 1 when game goes live. I know one thing, if I die before finishing Act 2..ooh..I'll start to get excited.
On April 21 2012 01:08 Solai wrote: For me its a 5. Its really addictive tbh. After the first 10 minutes I wasn't really impressed, but the beta grew rapidly on me. I put like 50+ hours into the beta as of now, and I cant wait for the release. 50+ hours is for me personally a huge amount (there are actually only a handful of games, where I invested an equal amount of time (Tie fighter, Wing Commander 3,4,5,BG2 SC,SC2, D2, WoW, BF3, RO2, EvE) especially considering its only 2 hours worth of content, but yeah I felt constantly encouraged to try new characters, level to max beta level, group up with people, trying to get all the achievments etc. I think I will put a considerable amount of playtime into it.
For now the only thing I don't really like is the wizard. When I came into the beta it flowed really well, the abilities were just right. But now they have screwed around with the order in which you get the skills and it feels a bit off. Frostbeam is especially disappointing and the class didnt feel that good at 13 neither. Maybe it will get better with a higher level, but for now the wizard is at then end of my list to play.
Frost Beam is as unispired as humanly possible, and remarkably similar to a skill in Torchlight (where it was actually useful).
I find that the Diablo 3 characters miss that badass aspect of their Diablo 2 counterparts. I mean, when you selected a paladin in the loading screen in diablo 2 and saw him swing his sword an kneel, you know he meant business. Same with the other classes. I remember the first time I got to use the sorceress' Lightning-spell. I just effortlessly laid waste to whole groups of enemies. It looked and felt absolutely bad-ass! Hell, even the spell effects and sound effects were badass, even on lower levels. Diablo 3 is a bit underwhelming in that department.
I give it three stars, but I don't know whether I'll be buying it.
I really don't get what you mean with the D2 things you said, it is in every way possible the exact contrary. Sorry but the D2 classes never look really badass, they just look less ugly when you get better gear, and the skills, don't even get me started if you compare beginning skills(d2) with beginning skills(d3)..you can't compare witch doctor grasp with that skill animation necro begins with...I don't even comprehend how you'd come up with that, seriously, compare a assassin's kick to one of those Monk fire-shoryukens which knockback monsters literally to the other side of the screen, you can't even compare, and effortlessly lay waste to group of enemies, hell go get that motherfucking jar of souls with a cleave barb and you'll effortless lay waste to literally 100+ enemies. I thought people didn't like feeling like gods, that's how D3 makes you feel, you just blow everything away, you are 100x the badass you were, and I thought this was the problem for some people...
I havent watched movies, streams, forums, anything just because i didnt want to live life waiting. Now when i have played some part of it i am amazed how lame it is! I wouldnt believe how much fail this game would be if someone told me, but now actually playing it i feel so sad about the Diablo title. It looks and feels like a low budget cloning game. If it was year 2001 would probably rate it high. As for now rate it 1.
Cons: Automatic skill leveling with no choices for you, automatic stat distribution, clicky-shiny-colourfully charge up attacks replace autoattacks, do more damage, some (all?) even AoE and dont even cost anything, weapons that would block this skill-auto from use are still equipable (hunter can wield sword but not swing...), no auto-attack with equipped weapons (monk removes weapon and shield when attacking but attacks for XX % of "weapon damage", uh-huh...), Controls not crisp enough compared to Diablo 1/2, Teleport autoattacks can go off without teleporting you, Too easy, Sounds are tinny, Textured 3d looks too clean compared to D1/2, DPS stat. Not generally a con, i just hate DPS openly stated instead of plain Damage per hit + Speed + figuring stuff out by yourself. Linear. No, really. D2 didnt force you to complete quests, you could just run through to the endbosses from the very start of act1. Merchants have just about nothing for sale, let alone anything useful. All characters are sort of ok-ish, good-ish types. Wheres my Necromancer, Assassin?
Pros: Has Diablo soundtrack, The indian/arabian sounding guy doing some of the lore speech, ... err i really cant think of another thing. Ok, maybe that the female monk reminds me the slightest bit of the assassin.
Small things that could be improved in little time: Add indicators for skill charges (stuff that procs on 3rd hit, when the teleport of teleport hit stuff is ready again...) Show a timer for item destruction and monster kill chains
just killed leoric. i missed a lot stuff from diablo2 but some things were cool. however no active switching between skills was crap and i'm still not liking that you can't do much when you level up but everything is given (i didn't even mention leveling up at some point). runes seemed fun though. graphics etc seemed almost like torchlight, which makes me hope that torchlight 2 is gonna be better than torchlight 1 as i liked a lot of things at torchlight more, except that it had no real story and multiplayer.
i'll rate it a 3,5 so far. i'll go back playing d2 with median mod again which is plenty fun as well, however i'll definitely buy d3.
@ the guy above me: agree on most things. haven't played it twice but do the dungeons differ at least?
On April 21 2012 20:07 snow2.0 wrote: Controls not crisp enough compared to Diablo 1/2,
Sometimes on the internet, some posts just stick so far out that you are forced, by divine gods in the sky to comment on them. They are so wrong that it shakes the foundations of our very being
Controls in Diablo 2 were awful, they often felt laggy, unresponsive and just plain unintuitive. If there is one thing Diablo 3 does a million times better its the control of your own character, its so spot on that going back to Diablo 2 or any other clone is impossible at this point.
Id rate Diablo 3 a 10/10, its the best Blizzard game since Brood War, both Diablo 2 and SC2 were great, Warcraft 3 was merely good and WoW is a acquired taste.
1 star, this game is so 90's and doesnt contribute anything new except 3D and killing monsters with the enviroment minus the individualization u could do in diablo 1/2
On April 21 2012 21:20 oni_link wrote: 1 star, this game is so 90's and doesnt contribute anything new except 3D and killing monsters with the enviroment minus the individualization u could do in diablo 1/2
On April 21 2012 20:07 snow2.0 wrote: Controls not crisp enough compared to Diablo 1/2,
Sometimes on the internet, some posts just stick so far out that you are forced, by divine gods in the sky to comment on them. They are so wrong that it shakes the foundations of our very being
Controls in Diablo 2 were awful, they often felt laggy, unresponsive and just plain unintuitive. If there is one thing Diablo 3 does a million times better its the control of your own character, its so spot on that going back to Diablo 2 or any other clone is impossible at this point.
Id rate Diablo 3 a 10/10, its the best Blizzard game since Brood War, both Diablo 2 and SC2 were great, Warcraft 3 was merely good and WoW is a acquired taste.
How do you switch between abilities on the fly in Diablo 3 ?
On April 21 2012 21:51 terranu1 wrote: The skill system is just...not even close to that of d2's and auto stats assignment ? Witchdoctor ??? no paladin ...so sad !
Im actually really sad about the no paladin It was so badass to hit at the speed of light in D2.
I have rather fixed feeling after playing the game for about 5-6 hours. The graphics are decent, not top notch but very atmospheric. Also it is awesome that I can run the game on a pretty old laptop and with a high resolution with no problems. What I am really missing is the possibility to individualize your character. All skills are 'forced' on you and you can't assign stats for your hero individually. I can't imagine that individualizing your character with weapons and runes will be able to give me the same entertainment. So sadly my character feels quite 'generic' to me. Pure individualisation by items only won't satisfy me.
I give 5 stars. The beta is really enjoyable overall besides few things. It's too easy, games nowadays are way way too easy. The graphics are very climatic and stuff but textures and models are not good, it looks like from 2009. Last thing, armors and weapons look bad also, there are too few of them and they barely differs. I know Sacred and its sequel were not so awesome but Blizzard should honestly learn from them how armors and weapons should be done.
It's tough to gauge from the beta but I voted 3 stars. I've tried most of the classes and just don't see anything NEW being done to the action RPG. I've been a long time fan of the Diablo series since D1. (I even played hellfire, which was hilarious and awesome.) What made it good then was that no-one else could come close to even copying it. The games were visceral and exploratory. Then there was Dungeon Siege and other knock offs. It feels now that D3 is trying to emulate what made the first two Diablo games good. I don't think with story alone you can make up for a dull or bland game. It could be like going to a famed restaurant and getting presentation and prestige but no taste, sensation, or satisfaction out of it. I'm worried that my friends are going to buy into this game hard, and I am going to be shaking my head thinking, yea, this would have been cool 5 years ago. It feels like I've been waiting for a good action fantasy RPG and there hasn't been anything promising until now. I just don't want to be disappointed again.
On April 19 2012 05:29 Krowser wrote: Taking a week off from work to set up the most epic LAN.
I'll make a thread with pics once everything is done.
I'd do this if LAN actually meant something. But as the game is now, LAN means nothing.
I have taken the week off as well. Lan does mean something in this sense, it means a bunch of mates and an esky full of beer instead of skype I know what you mean though.
From what I've played so far, the game is fun, but I hate the skill system. Feels like almost every class will be exactly the same, which removes the incentive to replay the game and try out new combinations, something which made D2 a lot of fun and added to the replay value. As it is now, I would probably only make 1-2 runs through the game since I wouldn't be able to customize my character enough, which is very low considering how many times I ran through D2 on all difficulties. Combat is a bit annoying as well, can't switch between skills the same way as in D2 making the combat segments more repetive than they should be.
Might buy it since there's few other games I play right now, but so far it's not more than 3/5 from me.
I tested all the classes and played through the beta with barbarian and to be honest, the game lacks the overall feel that made me love diablo 2 so much. Some might say the game is good, but it just doesn't appeal to me at a level that I would actually consider buying it.
On April 22 2012 00:05 Masq wrote: The game is way too easy, I tried hardcore expecting it to be a little harder but its the exact same.
You played the first two hours of the first act, on normal difficulty. It's not intended to be difficult at all. Go play D2 on normal up until Blood Raven, the difficulty is about the same.
On April 22 2012 00:05 dD3s wrote: I give 5 stars. The beta is really enjoyable overall besides few things. It's too easy, games nowadays are way way too easy. The graphics are very climatic and stuff but textures and models are not good, it looks like from 2009. Last thing, armors and weapons look bad also, there are too few of them and they barely differs. I know Sacred and its sequel were not so awesome but Blizzard should honestly learn from them how armors and weapons should be done.
We do not have all the items yet. From what Blizzard mentioned, there will be more items in Diablo III than with Diablo II, including the runes. So you will get your item fix, that is for sure. Will just have to wait till the actual release though.
It's a very good game, but not great from what little I have played at least. Was it worth the 12 years it took to make it? No. Will it be worth 60 dollars more than Path of Exile, or other action RPG games out there? I don't think so. I'm thinking I will buy it eventually, when I have a good gaming comp, but for now and the near future i will be perfectly content with other games out there.
voted 4 stars, I think they're releasing a product not normally to standard (bnet still lacking, no pvp at launch, etc), but it's Diablo, and I love the storyline and the dark character of the franchise. Hopefully it's challenging enough and not watered down.
I really wasn't planning on buying it until after PvP had been added, but seeing as how Blizzard game price drops are few and far between, it really doesn't matter when I buy so I went ahead and purchased it. Playing in the Open Beta, it looked and felt exactly like all the footage I've previously watched. Not impressed really, was very bored and easy, I really just hope the PvP is fun. Hope I'm not setting myself up for disappointment because PvP is all I'm looking forward to.
Game will certainly be worth it solely for the story, art, and music. Its really hard to judge the gameplay; d2 gets a lot more involved as you progress and I'm sure d3 will be no exception. It seems really simple/boring so far. A lot of my opinion will be based on how fun and balanced pvp ends up being. Will just running around beating people up/fighting in the arena be something you can do without a severe handicap once you're near max level? Or will doing a whole bunch of boss runs and collecting items/trading still be a big part of the game for people who just want to pvp? If it's the latter, I probably won't play it as much. I mean I'll definitely play through it once and probably do a little bit on the higher difficulties, but it won't have a lot of lasting value for me.
rated 4.0/5 but would rate 4.5 if it were an option. Just from the demo it carries the same feel, atmosphere, visuals, and style that made diablo 2 a really special experience. I'm really looking forward to dimming the lights, putting on the 5.1, and playing through the campaign on normal for the first time by myself without any of the social aspects.
I said I wasn't very interested in the beta, and then it became open. So I played it, and my conclusion was that it wasn't spectacular. The fact that you upgrade your blacksmith (don't know if there was any other stand you could, I didn't really explore the town, I wanted to get a feel for the combat, even if it's really low level, and then the server turned shit on me) was very cool. I feel like it's a good idea, I don't know how useful it will be though. However, I feel the way it's implemented makes it really dull. It's just like dumed down profession leveling in any mmo out there. And this isn't supposed to be an mmo, is it?
Anyway the combat felt rather good, I think. I enjoyed it a lot. I felt it lacked any real punch, but I don't know if that's just now and will get better at higher levels or if that's just my character, I played a witch doctor. The hits felt really seemless, though. Like, the firebat-thingy (aoe-breath) was really.. I didn't notice barely any effect on the actual enemies, beside the numbers popping up.
Also, the fact that everyone get every spell everytime you play a character is awful. AWFUL. The diablo genre is, to me, all about making choices that will severely limit you in other areas. Albeit, in diablo 2 some builds was and are just amazingly good in every aspect, but the point is that you can't have it all. Granted, you can't have it ALL here either, but every spell, as far as I can tell. The runes are what seperate you from other players? I don't even need to create another witch doctor. Ever. I don't know, it feels like bullshit. That's the biggest problem I got with it. I want to have to make a couple of the same class in order to fully experience it. I don't have A LOT of free time so it would take me quite some time to get all the characters sorted but I feel that would be more satisfying than having a copy of everyone else's character. I mean, the runes even got blatantly better as you leveled up. I don't know, perhaps I've missed something.
On April 22 2012 08:25 sirkyan wrote: I said I wasn't very interested in the beta, and then it became open. So I played it, and my conclusion was that it wasn't spectacular. The fact that you upgrade your blacksmith (don't know if there was any other stand you could, I didn't really explore the town, I wanted to get a feel for the combat, even if it's really low level, and then the server turned shit on me) was very cool. I feel like it's a good idea, I don't know how useful it will be though. However, I feel the way it's implemented makes it really dull. It's just like dumed down profession leveling in any mmo out there. And this isn't supposed to be an mmo, is it?
Anyway the combat felt rather good, I think. I enjoyed it a lot. I felt it lacked any real punch, but I don't know if that's just now and will get better at higher levels or if that's just my character, I played a witch doctor. The hits felt really seemless, though. Like, the firebat-thingy (aoe-breath) was really.. I didn't notice barely any effect on the actual enemies, beside the numbers popping up.
Also, the fact that everyone get every spell everytime you play a character is awful. AWFUL. The diablo genre is, to me, all about making choices that will severely limit you in other areas. Albeit, in diablo 2 some builds was and are just amazingly good in every aspect, but the point is that you can't have it all. Granted, you can't have it ALL here either, but every spell, as far as I can tell. The runes are what seperate you from other players? I don't even need to create another witch doctor. Ever. I don't know, it feels like bullshit. That's the biggest problem I got with it. I want to have to make a couple of the same class in order to fully experience it. I don't have A LOT of free time so it would take me quite some time to get all the characters sorted but I feel that would be more satisfying than having a copy of everyone else's character. I mean, the runes even got blatantly better as you leveled up. I don't know, perhaps I've missed something.
So far; not impressed.
my thoughts exactly.... before in D2 certain builds work in certain areas for certain bosses... now in D3... i used this set up in this area... then change set up (1 min) now i can farm effectly in another area.... everyone will have one character for each class and thats it... everyone will be the same... end of story no need to find that magical build or your own unique one... or replay the game.
dont get me started on the new rune system... 6 runes that unlock with levels... some of those runes dont even add anything special to a skill and most rune effects are reused on lots of different skills.... they got lazy with the rune system and went with the easy way out. some runes for skills are just place holders it seems because they couldnt think of 6 unique or special effect for all the skills.
On April 21 2012 10:58 Senx wrote: It was pretty akward, considering the balance it kinda ruined the experience for me, not being in danger of dying once or using my own health potions throughout the beta was just silly and lame to be honest. In diablo 2 even blood raven was difficult at times because of how gimp your char was at fighting mass mobs and a kiting amazon.
I understand its beta, but one of the purposes of beta is to get the balance right.. so yeah, why not do it now?
They think the balance is right.
I agree the beginning of D2 even if really easy was still a bit harder but I understand why it's like this. Really in terms of content its a demo, like a rts giving you only the first missions that's why its easy. I know I have no idea if the challenge will be there but I'm faithful.
On the other hand if you fear too much for the difficulty why not not buying the game at release, wait one or 2 days and hear the comments of players that will have reach nightmare/hell ?
That worries me alot.
I was also kinda dissapointed at the lack of choice, no individually chosen stat gains, no abilities to choose from. It was like "hey here's a new ability we forcefully unlocked for you, just click here, have fun!". The feeling of choice was almost non existant :/(
Which led me to feel like I didn't gave a shit about my own char, which is the opposite of d2 :I
I respectfully disagree. Sure the stat gains are automated, but you can buy or craft gear that boosts the other stats. I actually like what they did with abilities. You can swap out abilities based on preference or based on what enemies you are fighting. It gives you the freedom to play around with all the abilities rather than being stuck with a certain skill path for the rest of the game.
If there's truly no skill/stat customization then it's a pretty awful Diablo game, but it can still be a great different type of game. Beta simply wasn't enough to tell at this point.
Okay so as someone who was totally addicted to diablo 2 for many years, I must say that diablo 3 does not look as spectacular as diablo 2 when it first came out - that being said, I think diablo 3 is not worthy of a 5/5 - and I give it a 4/5 at most.
On April 22 2012 10:41 holdthephone wrote: Neither game was impressive looking for its time. Good color scheme and death animations are what make Diablo games work.
speak for yourself in 2000 D2 was very impressive looking
Just finished the beta with a wizard. Mixed reactions. The plot seems pretty uninspired and recycled from what I've seen so far. Hopefully it gets better as the game goes on. The gameplay is decent, but I don't really like the skill tree. It's just so linear. The only choice I had to make in getting to level 10 was which passive skill I wanted out of 2 options. THAT'S IT. The crafting thing at the blacksmith looks interesting, but felt too simple. You salvage magic items to get ingredients and use them to craft from a list, and that list is expanded by training with money. That's it right? The combat itself was pretty good. And I liked the little conversations with my companion on the field. That was a nice touch.
I'm still on the fence about whether I should get it or not. Not really convinced it's going to deliver what I want from D2's successor. I'll probably wait a few months and see how things turn out.
when they first anounced the game they teased us with this wonderful customizable rune system, each rune would add a unique effect to the spell and you could upgrade the runes. Today I finally played the beta and to my dissapointment the system was replaced with a bland lvl up system with no upgrades and you can't even get some runes until you hit lvl 5x, so it's bassically the same as lvling the skill but with a different name. I really don't know why blizzard announced the game so early and promised so many things that didnt make it to the final version, the game still looks great but it's not what it could've been and certainly not what i expected.
On April 22 2012 10:41 holdthephone wrote: Neither game was impressive looking for its time. Good color scheme and death animations are what make Diablo games work.
speak for yourself in 2000 D2 was very impressive looking
hmmm I may disagree on that, I remember having a meh feeling back in 2000 in regards to its graphics. The ambiance was fine but the quality wasn't impressive, LoD made it better giving 800x600 and A5 having better models/areas though. If you dig up reviews at the time they may agree. Im a bit lazy to find english reviews of the past with a note for graphics, the only thing Ive found is from a french website (being french myself). It states graphics are the weakness to the game, especially the fact it is in 640x480.
On April 22 2012 11:11 holdthephone wrote: Oh so they took out Runes as random drops completely? I thought that would have been more exciting.
Yeah, I have meh feelings on that. In fact I dont care for runes as drops but I'd like a system where instead of giving me a set rune I can chose which to unlock first. Ending with all unlocked at 60 but choosing how.
This game right now after 2 play through has me really disappointed. You are forced to use 20 different abilities with no way to power them up as you see fit. So no ice mage no fire mage sure later you can add runes but you also no 30 useless abilities you do not want and really how far do runes get you? Then there's the matter of no auto attack which means it cuts out builds like melee wizards which means even less customization sure there might be 1 or 2 weapons but nothing like D2. Also Idk if this is just cuz its beta but why is my mana basically unlimited? Right now I just feel like I'm playing Dynasty Warriors 69 with magic. This is really pissing me off because the game requires no thought processes it has become even more so a hack and slash and you can't even rotate through your 20 different powers with out stopping and bringing up your screen and waiting 20 seconds. At this point I am so disappointed I am really questioning buying a game that 2 weeks ago I was slathering at the mouth for. The game seems boring and like they smashed WOW and Dynasty Warriors together and said yea that'll do. I will now probably only be getting this for the story after the hundreds of hours spent on D2.
Fuck you Blizzard for killing my childhood dreams of D3.
I never considered how the hardcore gamers might take the change to the skills, but I guess they're right in that it does make it harder to identify with your character when every character gains the same skills and can combine them in the same ways (especially for pvp).
But at the same time I'm pretty sure there was a reset stats/skills option in Diablo 2 with the latest patches (in the rogue camp with Akara), and I remember feeling thankful that that existed. So in case you ever made a mistake, you could edit that - and if you wanted to try out a new sorceress build, like trying to find out whether frozen orb was better than blizzard, you could just edit that.
I feel like that's basically the same thing they're going for here, except its just extended in that you can always change it, if you want to, but at the same time if there is a particular branch of magic that you particularly enjoy using, you can stick to that branch while others favour their particular branches.
In the end, I think the only meaningful difference is that the skill tree isn't as detailed as it was in Diablo 2 - where every point gave you the ability to fine tune individual skills, enhancing the variability of characters. That is something that I feel should be added. But playing the beta for the first time, I found it to be (at first) kind of simplistic and not really amazing. But gradually it became more and more fun as the player leveled up their skills and abilities - such as learning the explosive bolts rune for the primary lightning attack. All of a sudden it felt similar to how awesome chain lightning is, or blizzard (but of course not at the same level, because those spells were much higher level).
Anyways the game is definitely fun. I think there'll be enough variability and good storyline to keep me interested - I liked all of the diaries, and loved the addition of being able to talk to your companion and level them up as well. The artisan is also very interesting, in addition to the auction house system.
On April 22 2012 11:16 CajunMan wrote: This game right now after 2 play through has me really disappointed. You are forced to use 20 different abilities with no way to power them up as you see fit. So no ice mage no fire mage sure later you can add runes but you also no 30 useless abilities you do not want and really how far do runes get you? Then there's the matter of no auto attack which means it cuts out builds like melee wizards which means even less customization sure there might be 1 or 2 weapons but nothing like D2. Also Idk if this is just cuz its beta but why is my mana basically unlimited? Right now I just feel like I'm playing Dynasty Warriors 69 with magic. This is really pissing me off because the game requires no thought processes it has become even more so a hack and slash and you can't even rotate through your 20 different powers with out stopping and bringing up your screen and waiting 20 seconds. At this point I am so disappointed I am really questioning buying a game that 2 weeks ago I was slathering at the mouth for. The game seems boring and like they smashed WOW and Dynasty Warriors together and said yea that'll do. I will now probably only be getting this for the story after the hundreds of hours spent on D2.
Fuck you Blizzard for killing my childhood dreams of D3.
I want to disagree with any part of this, but I can't. No successful excuse can justify not re-implementing these features.
Aside, I think the game is quite aesthetically pretty and atmospheric, all the more reason the lack of customization options is a wasted opportunity. You described the almost unanimous #1 complaint among critics, and nothing was done about it. Diablo 2 was a fantastic game of builds. Why wouldn't they do everything to still cater to that individuality?
Yeah if there's one thing I'm sure about, it's that Blizzard did a fantastic job on the visuals. Just hope there are cooler enemies to lay waste to in the full game. Nothing was more satisfying than seeing the minotaur creatures in D2 act 1 choke on their own blood as they fell to the floor. There wasn't anything quite near that in the beta.
On April 22 2012 12:17 holdthephone wrote: Yeah if there's one thing I'm sure about, it's that Blizzard did a fantastic job on the visuals. Just hope there are cooler enemies to lay waste to in the full game. Nothing was more satisfying than seeing the minotaur creatures in D2 act 1 choke on their own blood as they fell to the floor. There wasn't anything quite near that in the beta.
I really like the maggot explosion, and the fact that the explosion kill enemies as well. If there is one little detail I like in D3 is when I kill a lot of enemes in one blow with the DH, he says some exciting stuff, it gets me in the atmosphere of the game.
And yeah the game would be much better if we could choose what rune to level, I don't get why they'd make us have only one way to level up our char. Still I'm very excited to play the whole thing.
The beta only is not enough to know if the game will worth 5 stars, i mean the beta have about 0.05 tough parts, zero mayor epic battles/waves and the UI have a LOT to improve that will not be changed at the release, so will see.
On April 22 2012 11:16 CajunMan wrote: This game right now after 2 play through has me really disappointed. You are forced to use 20 different abilities with no way to power them up as you see fit. So no ice mage no fire mage sure later you can add runes but you also no 30 useless abilities you do not want and really how far do runes get you? Then there's the matter of no auto attack which means it cuts out builds like melee wizards which means even less customization sure there might be 1 or 2 weapons but nothing like D2. Also Idk if this is just cuz its beta but why is my mana basically unlimited? Right now I just feel like I'm playing Dynasty Warriors 69 with magic. This is really pissing me off because the game requires no thought processes it has become even more so a hack and slash and you can't even rotate through your 20 different powers with out stopping and bringing up your screen and waiting 20 seconds. At this point I am so disappointed I am really questioning buying a game that 2 weeks ago I was slathering at the mouth for. The game seems boring and like they smashed WOW and Dynasty Warriors together and said yea that'll do. I will now probably only be getting this for the story after the hundreds of hours spent on D2.
Fuck you Blizzard for killing my childhood dreams of D3.
Agree so much on the totally diminished customization potential (hell, every d2 character have like 5 builds), plus thought process close to zero (WHY NO POWER ROTATION, OMFG), and wtf, why we have unlimited mana?!!
On April 22 2012 11:16 CajunMan wrote: This game right now after 2 play through has me really disappointed. You are forced to use 20 different abilities with no way to power them up as you see fit. So no ice mage no fire mage sure later you can add runes but you also no 30 useless abilities you do not want and really how far do runes get you? Then there's the matter of no auto attack which means it cuts out builds like melee wizards which means even less customization sure there might be 1 or 2 weapons but nothing like D2. Also Idk if this is just cuz its beta but why is my mana basically unlimited? Right now I just feel like I'm playing Dynasty Warriors 69 with magic. This is really pissing me off because the game requires no thought processes it has become even more so a hack and slash and you can't even rotate through your 20 different powers with out stopping and bringing up your screen and waiting 20 seconds. At this point I am so disappointed I am really questioning buying a game that 2 weeks ago I was slathering at the mouth for. The game seems boring and like they smashed WOW and Dynasty Warriors together and said yea that'll do. I will now probably only be getting this for the story after the hundreds of hours spent on D2.
Fuck you Blizzard for killing my childhood dreams of D3.
Agree so much on the totally diminished customization potential (hell, every d2 character have like 5 builds), plus thought process close to zero (WHY NO POWER ROTATION, OMFG), and wtf, why we have unlimited mana?!!
Because its the start of the game? If youre new to Action RPGs or computer games in general then its better to be eased into things. Thought processes are like how do I move around? What are items? What is mana? Etc.
On April 22 2012 11:16 CajunMan wrote: This game right now after 2 play through has me really disappointed. You are forced to use 20 different abilities with no way to power them up as you see fit. So no ice mage no fire mage sure later you can add runes but you also no 30 useless abilities you do not want and really how far do runes get you? Then there's the matter of no auto attack which means it cuts out builds like melee wizards which means even less customization sure there might be 1 or 2 weapons but nothing like D2. Also Idk if this is just cuz its beta but why is my mana basically unlimited? Right now I just feel like I'm playing Dynasty Warriors 69 with magic. This is really pissing me off because the game requires no thought processes it has become even more so a hack and slash and you can't even rotate through your 20 different powers with out stopping and bringing up your screen and waiting 20 seconds. At this point I am so disappointed I am really questioning buying a game that 2 weeks ago I was slathering at the mouth for. The game seems boring and like they smashed WOW and Dynasty Warriors together and said yea that'll do. I will now probably only be getting this for the story after the hundreds of hours spent on D2.
Fuck you Blizzard for killing my childhood dreams of D3.
Agree so much on the totally diminished customization potential (hell, every d2 character have like 5 builds), plus thought process close to zero (WHY NO POWER ROTATION, OMFG), and wtf, why we have unlimited mana?!!
Every time I play D2 without having nice gear right away I want to tear my hair out from having to use a mana potion every 5 seconds. Having nearly unlimited mana is good, imo. Diablo is about killing stuff, not standing around autoattacking while waiting for mana to regen.
I don't understand all the hate for the skill system and lack of real skill trees. Do people really want to have to create new characters every time that they want to respec their characters? I sure don't.
On April 22 2012 13:46 xDaunt wrote: I don't understand all the hate for the skill system and lack of real skill trees. Do people really want to have to create new characters every time that they want to respec their characters? I sure don't.
No, people want real options to customize their character, not having every single person having the exact same skill set
People who complain should looked at others computer games nowadays before posting. Really, Blizzard is one of a few that still take their time to make a proper game, unlike the majority of others companies that release a full game at a beta build and force you to buy DLC later on.
The only issue that I have with the game is that you cant freely rotate abilities around without a long cooldown.
For example, with a barbarian I might want my primary ability as cleave while running through the dungeon then switch to bash when a boss comes or if there is an elite mob that I want to focus down. But, I cant do that without going to the ability screen and picking bash and waiting 10 seconds or w/e.
Or as a wizard I cant switch from freezing people with the ice beam, then switch to the arcane orb.
As a witch doctor I cant snare the ground then firebat people.
If they change it so no cooldown, that alone is an improvement. If they give us more hotkeys to use so that I dont have to go to that ability screen every time I change, even better.
On April 22 2012 13:46 xDaunt wrote: I don't understand all the hate for the skill system and lack of real skill trees. Do people really want to have to create new characters every time that they want to respec their characters? I sure don't.
No, people want real options to customize their character, not having every single person having the exact same skill set
That's the point. The customization is still there. The only real difference between D2 and D3 is that in D2 you have to reroll your character if you want to run a different build, whereas in D3 you just have to select six skills and 3 passives.
On April 22 2012 13:54 TheRabidDeer wrote: The only issue that I have with the game is that you cant freely rotate abilities around without a long cooldown.
For example, with a barbarian I might want my primary ability as cleave while running through the dungeon then switch to bash when a boss comes or if there is an elite mob that I want to focus down. But, I cant do that without going to the ability screen and picking bash and waiting 10 seconds or w/e.
Or as a wizard I cant switch from freezing people with the ice beam, then switch to the arcane orb.
As a witch doctor I cant snare the ground then firebat people.
If they change it so no cooldown, that alone is an improvement. If they give us more hotkeys to use so that I dont have to go to that ability screen every time I change, even better.
Everything else about the game, I like.
You can go into options and check elective mode so you can have any combination of 6 skills that you want. It's dumb that it's not like that by default, but it is possible.
On April 22 2012 13:46 xDaunt wrote: I don't understand all the hate for the skill system and lack of real skill trees. Do people really want to have to create new characters every time that they want to respec their characters? I sure don't.
No, people want real options to customize their character, not having every single person having the exact same skill set
That's the point. The customization is still there. The only real difference between D2 and D3 is that in D2 you have to reroll your character if you want to run a different build, whereas in D3 you just have to select six skills and 3 passives.
This pretty much.
If you wanted to do a Blizz sorc for example it was pretty obvious which skill you had to chose. You chose the Blizz synergy, the mastery and I dont remember what else. The difference from one blizz sorc to another was just like one had one skill at 15 while the other had it at 20.
They both play exactly the same. The fact that spell have ranks, some of the requirement for Blizzard sucked and you wouldn't use them. You ended up with a very underwhelming number of skills to use for the whole game (at least before respecs), especially not counting passives. If someone loves that kind of customization, putting point in one skill to make it 3% better each level, PoE is great for this. The whole skill system is about small passives to unlock active skills with HUGE trees to satisfy the need for planned development.
The only real difference is that you can chose to play a Blizz sorc then instantly respec and be a Meteorb sorc. While D2 each character was very restricted (and I respect if for some it means unique), D3 characters can change without leveling again. That's pretty much all there is to it: being locked in a build (D2) or not (D3). Then, if you really want to specialize into one sort of build in D3 you have the option to gather +skill affixes for the skills you play with.
Hey maybe we are at a breaking point where some RPGs/MMORPGs will follow this idea for skills, while others will keep the old system of trees. I personally welcome this change because I like variety with a single character. I feel that I have much more choices along my playthrough, in D2 your first skills dictate the whole playthrough.
All the people bitching about skill customization obviously didn't play Diablo 2. Every class had 2 or 3 set optimal builds. With the current diablo 3 system I can see a lot more skill combos/customization.
On April 22 2012 15:28 zJayy962 wrote: All the people bitching about skill customization obviously didn't play Diablo 2. Every class had 2 or 3 set optimal builds. With the current diablo 3 system I can see a lot more skill combos/customization.
again your just assuming they will all be viable, there were countless specs in D2, the issue was people used the most optimized ones after awhile, you honestly think it will be longer than 1week into D3 that everyone hasn't already figured out the most efficient combos? There will be 1-2 builds that will out class the rest and will be the used by 99% of players and because of free respecs they will lose absolutely nothing switching over to these optimized specs as they are figured out. You had more options in D2.
On April 22 2012 15:28 zJayy962 wrote: All the people bitching about skill customization obviously didn't play Diablo 2. Every class had 2 or 3 set optimal builds. With the current diablo 3 system I can see a lot more skill combos/customization.
again your just assuming they will all be viable, there were countless specs in D2, the issue was people used the most optimized ones after awhile, you honestly think it will be longer than 1week into D3 that everyone hasn't already figured out the most efficient combos? There will be 1-2 builds that will out class the rest and will be the used by 99% of players and because of free respecs they will lose absolutely nothing switching over to these optimized specs as they are figured out. You had more options in D2.
Hmm on the other hand I feel having trees which creates requisite skills and limit the potential of selection, plus the synergy system quickly limit the choice. Diablo 3 skills have a lot less synergy between them making them independent enough so that I'm willing to bet there won't be 1-2 build that will outclass the rest.
Also, when you don't have the option to respec, a lot of player just tend to go for optimized/common-build rather than experimental. This quickly don't make things very unique but for a few people willing to start another character just to try crazy stuff.
I'm not a fool thinking every build among the 1345151251 possibilities will be available either. Well made build, polyvalent will likely prevail. And if you think about it, for Diablo 2, you have the very strong builds like 1-2 per class and then you have the only decent ones. I have trouble imagining how D3 system would make this worse. With no requirements, the diversity of how players play, the vast number of combinations, the diminution of correlation between selections, trying to make every skill useful, there is very low probability imo we would end up with only 3 builds.
Maybe people will copy the first level 60, and I agree it will happen since you can do it. But does it mean even them will slowly change their own set to adapt to their own feelings ? Yes I think.
On April 22 2012 13:46 xDaunt wrote: I don't understand all the hate for the skill system and lack of real skill trees. Do people really want to have to create new characters every time that they want to respec their characters? I sure don't.
No, people want real options to customize their character, not having every single person having the exact same skill set
And this system will do exactly that.
How many do you think will pick the same 6 skills, and put exactly the same runes in them?
Alot fewer then if u had a skilltree.
People complaining about not enough customization really havent researched diablo 3 enough.
Just finished 1st run of the beta, I am satisfied. This is a 5/5 for sure, the only complain is why didn't they keep the old class name. I meant Monk, WD seems kind of cheesy name that come out of Warcraft universe.
I wanted to buy this game so bad, but after playing the beta I realized my pc can't handle it T.T;;;;;;;;;;;;
By myself I was dropping down to 6-10 fps regularly, and with my friend in game with me it was completely unplayable. Such a sad sad day for me because I was really blown away by everything I saw.
If you take just the game its really good and quite enjoyable while I don't like the fact you cant purely customise your skills and are locked into one of 4 for each button the actual game is really fun.
On the other hand we have the fact that you must be constantly connected to the internet and for me minimum of 250 ping while playing the game. the removal of old style mutliplayer that d2 had with pure co-op and the fact that when people complained about it requiring online the response was this isnt the game for you.
even with all that i have collectors edition pre ordered and will play this game a lot still its dissapointing to see how blizzard has changed
On April 22 2012 18:25 andy186 wrote: If you take just the game its really good and quite enjoyable while I don't like the fact you cant purely customise your skills and are locked into one of 4 for each button the actual game is really fun.
On the other hand we have the fact that you must be constantly connected to the internet and for me minimum of 250 ping while playing the game. the removal of old style mutliplayer that d2 had with pure co-op and the fact that when people complained about it requiring online the response was this isnt the game for you.
even with all that i have collectors edition pre ordered and will play this game a lot still its dissapointing to see how blizzard has changed
Activate "Elective Mode", you are not locked into one of four for each button.
On April 22 2012 13:49 Caphe wrote: /fanboy 5 STARS.
People who complain should looked at others computer games nowadays before posting. Really, Blizzard is one of a few that still take their time to make a proper game, unlike the majority of others companies that release a full game at a beta build and force you to buy DLC later on.
On April 22 2012 13:49 Caphe wrote: /fanboy 5 STARS.
People who complain should looked at others computer games nowadays before posting. Really, Blizzard is one of a few that still take their time to make a proper game, unlike the majority of others companies that release a full game at a beta build and force you to buy DLC later on.
pvp won't be ready at release
It's actually on the disk but we are going to have to pay to unlock it...
Im just wondering why elective and advanced tooltips weren't on by default. I still have Barbarian and Demon Hunter to cap, will probably play WD or Monk at release partially depending on what my friends are going to roll.
After playing through it a few times I'm massively underwhelmed.
The first act is easy to the point of being boring. It's like an optional tutorial stage stretched out over 2 hours, where nothing feels even remotely challenging or, as a result, interesting.
The interface is horrendous, which, after also playing SC2, makes me think Blizzard are assigning 1 random intern to design their games' interface while a team of hundreds work on the core gameplay. In particular the skill system smacks of Blizzard treating their customers like idiots by dumbing things down to the extreme and fixing something that was never broken to begin with (kind of like the custom game system in SC2).
The game also seems a lot less dark and gritty than it's predecessor and the story reminded me a more of SC2's, which was fucking atrocious and less of D2/SC1/WC3, which were all good. I'm picturing cheesy Michael Bay-esque speeches and painfully unfunny comic relief but I guess we'll have to wait and see on that one.
There are also minor gripes like putting a leather hood on my Barbarian and having it look like a helmet; putting a sword on my Monk and having him punch shit; endless streams of useless shit being dropped due to an excessively high drop rate etc.
After playing the beta for a few hours I'd probably rate it around 3/5 and say that I'm now unsure whether I'll buy the game or not when previously it was looking like a definite purchase.
just finished the open beta. THIS GAME IS TERRIBLE. gameplay is (click, click, click, oh loot!, click, click, etc).. absolutely no depth of gameplay. no strategic encounters, no actual worrying about enemies at all (even bosses). i ken that difficulty can be scaled up by tweaking stats, but i remember actual death from D1 and D2 even in the early stages and difficulties
The promised skill/rune system is turned into a WoW-esque talent tree where everyone gets everything (WRT class of course).
then there is the enviroment. i like the fact that there is some interaction with it. its neat that i can drop a wall on someone, but that is all it is. neat. not meaningful in any way. it also fails to put me in the diablo world completely. way too bright, monsters are too cutesy (comparatively),
for everyone saying that D3 isnt D2 and blah blah blah, This steaming pile of code called Diablo 3 is just selling copies based on the name.
I remember a time when blizz sold games based on gameplay, not just the name
On April 22 2012 22:57 Brutland wrote: just finished the open beta. THIS GAME IS TERRIBLE. gameplay is (click, click, click, oh loot!, click, click, etc).. absolutely no depth of gameplay. no strategic encounters, no actual worrying about enemies at all (even bosses).
Well, that pretty much describes all of D2 except for a handful of Hell bosses and Uber-Tristram.
sure, the gear customization may be deeper, but character choice isnt. As someone posted earlier, your templar companion has more choice than your main char. I played the beta to see if I would like to buy D3. based on the beta alone I am most emphatically against purchasing it. Sure, there may be the Enhanced toolbar mode, and deep meaningful posts about true variety on the deep forums, but, if I cant get that from PLAYING the GAME, there is a serious flaw. edit* oh almost forgot the wretched 0.2 interface. Blizzard is developing a trend of removing all functionality from the previous games to replace it with crap in the sequals
My first impression of the game is quite positive. Finished the beta once on The demon hunter and now running it with barbarian. The game is quite easy on normal difficulty, but it's a pleasant change from all those tryhard 100% focus games I usually play.
On April 22 2012 22:57 Brutland wrote: just finished the open beta. THIS GAME IS TERRIBLE. gameplay is (click, click, click, oh loot!, click, click, etc).. absolutely no depth of gameplay. no strategic encounters, no actual worrying about enemies at all (even bosses). i ken that difficulty can be scaled up by tweaking stats, but i remember actual death from D1 and D2 even in the early stages and difficulties
The promised skill/rune system is turned into a WoW-esque talent tree where everyone gets everything (WRT class of course).
then there is the enviroment. i like the fact that there is some interaction with it. its neat that i can drop a wall on someone, but that is all it is. neat. not meaningful in any way. it also fails to put me in the diablo world completely. way too bright, monsters are too cutesy (comparatively),
for everyone saying that D3 isnt D2 and blah blah blah, This steaming pile of code called Diablo 3 is just selling copies based on the name.
I remember a time when blizz sold games based on gameplay, not just the name
There never was strategic encounters in diablo you town portal and try and fucking kill the boss even if you died 10 times.
On April 22 2012 22:57 Brutland wrote: just finished the open beta. THIS GAME IS TERRIBLE. gameplay is (click, click, click, oh loot!, click, click, etc).. absolutely no depth of gameplay. no strategic encounters, no actual worrying about enemies at all (even bosses). i ken that difficulty can be scaled up by tweaking stats, but i remember actual death from D1 and D2 even in the early stages and difficulties
The promised skill/rune system is turned into a WoW-esque talent tree where everyone gets everything (WRT class of course).
then there is the enviroment. i like the fact that there is some interaction with it. its neat that i can drop a wall on someone, but that is all it is. neat. not meaningful in any way. it also fails to put me in the diablo world completely. way too bright, monsters are too cutesy (comparatively),
for everyone saying that D3 isnt D2 and blah blah blah, This steaming pile of code called Diablo 3 is just selling copies based on the name.
I remember a time when blizz sold games based on gameplay, not just the name
There never was strategic encounters in diablo you town portal and try and fucking kill the boss even if you died 10 times.
The most strategy you needed in D2 was pulling small groups of enemies and running around corners to avoid getting instagibbed by 300 claw vipers.
On April 22 2012 22:57 Brutland wrote: just finished the open beta. THIS GAME IS TERRIBLE. gameplay is (click, click, click, oh loot!, click, click, etc).. absolutely no depth of gameplay. no strategic encounters, no actual worrying about enemies at all (even bosses).
Well, that pretty much describes all of D2 except for a handful of Hell bosses and Uber-Tristram.
On April 22 2012 22:57 Brutland wrote: just finished the open beta. THIS GAME IS TERRIBLE. gameplay is (click, click, click, oh loot!, click, click, etc).. absolutely no depth of gameplay. no strategic encounters, no actual worrying about enemies at all (even bosses). i ken that difficulty can be scaled up by tweaking stats, but i remember actual death from D1 and D2 even in the early stages and difficulties
The promised skill/rune system is turned into a WoW-esque talent tree where everyone gets everything (WRT class of course).
then there is the enviroment. i like the fact that there is some interaction with it. its neat that i can drop a wall on someone, but that is all it is. neat. not meaningful in any way. it also fails to put me in the diablo world completely. way too bright, monsters are too cutesy (comparatively),
for everyone saying that D3 isnt D2 and blah blah blah, This steaming pile of code called Diablo 3 is just selling copies based on the name.
I remember a time when blizz sold games based on gameplay, not just the name
There never was strategic encounters in diablo you town portal and try and fucking kill the boss even if you died 10 times.
The most strategy you needed in D2 was pulling small groups of enemies and running around corners to avoid getting instagibbed by 300 claw vipers.
Or stepping into Duriel and pray that he didn't target you first before the load in
On April 22 2012 22:57 Brutland wrote: just finished the open beta. THIS GAME IS TERRIBLE. gameplay is (click, click, click, oh loot!, click, click, etc).. absolutely no depth of gameplay. no strategic encounters, no actual worrying about enemies at all (even bosses). i ken that difficulty can be scaled up by tweaking stats, but i remember actual death from D1 and D2 even in the early stages and difficulties
The promised skill/rune system is turned into a WoW-esque talent tree where everyone gets everything (WRT class of course).
then there is the enviroment. i like the fact that there is some interaction with it. its neat that i can drop a wall on someone, but that is all it is. neat. not meaningful in any way. it also fails to put me in the diablo world completely. way too bright, monsters are too cutesy (comparatively),
for everyone saying that D3 isnt D2 and blah blah blah, This steaming pile of code called Diablo 3 is just selling copies based on the name.
I remember a time when blizz sold games based on gameplay, not just the name
probably a troll... but uhm.. well constructed post there bubs... if this game isn't up to your standards of quality.. what is?
5/5. The gameplay feels extremely good and polished, the art is great and the music is great.
The game looks AMAZING imo. It's a visual style that relies on art rather than polygons, so it will still look good years down the line. The only issue is the character/gear textures, but you don't see those while you're playing. I seriously don't get why some people complain about the graphics... buyer's remorse over their expensive graphics cards maybe.
On April 22 2012 22:57 Brutland wrote: just finished the open beta. THIS GAME IS TERRIBLE. gameplay is (click, click, click, oh loot!, click, click, etc).. absolutely no depth of gameplay. no strategic encounters, no actual worrying about enemies at all (even bosses). i ken that difficulty can be scaled up by tweaking stats, but i remember actual death from D1 and D2 even in the early stages and difficulties
The promised skill/rune system is turned into a WoW-esque talent tree where everyone gets everything (WRT class of course).
then there is the enviroment. i like the fact that there is some interaction with it. its neat that i can drop a wall on someone, but that is all it is. neat. not meaningful in any way. it also fails to put me in the diablo world completely. way too bright, monsters are too cutesy (comparatively),
for everyone saying that D3 isnt D2 and blah blah blah, This steaming pile of code called Diablo 3 is just selling copies based on the name.
I remember a time when blizz sold games based on gameplay, not just the name
You should look into Grim Dawn, Torch Light 2, Path of Exile, they might be a little more your speed. More focused towards customization and challenging/interactive game play.
On April 22 2012 22:57 Brutland wrote: just finished the open beta. THIS GAME IS TERRIBLE. gameplay is (click, click, click, oh loot!, click, click, etc).. absolutely no depth of gameplay. no strategic encounters, no actual worrying about enemies at all (even bosses). i ken that difficulty can be scaled up by tweaking stats, but i remember actual death from D1 and D2 even in the early stages and difficulties
The promised skill/rune system is turned into a WoW-esque talent tree where everyone gets everything (WRT class of course).
then there is the enviroment. i like the fact that there is some interaction with it. its neat that i can drop a wall on someone, but that is all it is. neat. not meaningful in any way. it also fails to put me in the diablo world completely. way too bright, monsters are too cutesy (comparatively),
for everyone saying that D3 isnt D2 and blah blah blah, This steaming pile of code called Diablo 3 is just selling copies based on the name.
I remember a time when blizz sold games based on gameplay, not just the name
If you took a moment to research. you would find that this beta is 2% of the actuall game, and somewhat of an introduction to get to know some skills and game mechanics.
You say the skill system lets everyone have everything. There is more skill combinations in this game then any other mmorpg ever. They took away the skilltree so you can choose yourself what skills YOU want to mix and match,
Reading stupid posts like yours make me think blizzard should have released some more gameplay vids of the higher difficultys, because some people just dont understand what a beta is.
On April 22 2012 22:57 Brutland wrote: just finished the open beta. THIS GAME IS TERRIBLE. gameplay is (click, click, click, oh loot!, click, click, etc).. absolutely no depth of gameplay. no strategic encounters, no actual worrying about enemies at all (even bosses). i ken that difficulty can be scaled up by tweaking stats, but i remember actual death from D1 and D2 even in the early stages and difficulties
The promised skill/rune system is turned into a WoW-esque talent tree where everyone gets everything (WRT class of course).
then there is the enviroment. i like the fact that there is some interaction with it. its neat that i can drop a wall on someone, but that is all it is. neat. not meaningful in any way. it also fails to put me in the diablo world completely. way too bright, monsters are too cutesy (comparatively),
for everyone saying that D3 isnt D2 and blah blah blah, This steaming pile of code called Diablo 3 is just selling copies based on the name.
I remember a time when blizz sold games based on gameplay, not just the name
You should look into Grim Dawn, Torch Light 2, Path of Exile, they might be a little more your speed. More focused towards customization and challenging/interactive game play.
Sorry I don't really know those games and I did only see Trump's D3 stream, but what is D3 focusing on if not on customization and challenging/interactive gameplay?
Visual : Game looked kinda bad at begining, don't realy like this blue fog. after that, and specialy in indoor environement, it was great. Visual effexts on skills look great also, i like how you have a sensation of power.
Gameplay : I for one, like the skill system. it's cool to try things on the flt without having to read forums and take hours to do a single choice. But skills trees are horribly incomprhensibles (yeah i knwo they're not realy tree you understood me). i'm often lost while looking for a skill or just for what i have just unlocked. not having to invest in stats is a lack for me. you level up and... well unlock a (sometimes) useless skill and thats it... not realy fun.
Classes : i love the sorceress and the wich doctor (when i used it to cast skills, not summon puppets). The WD is particulary OP for me. i used the inteligence buff from a skill, and with my gear and the buff lvl 5 i shoot past 250 int and was doiing like 250 damage with my runned firebat. i basicaly oneshoted everything, even in P4.
Demon hunter is kinda weak, but damn he fire fast i like it. discipline skills where useless for me as i never realy wanted to slow ennemie or be far from them, more like rushing in, you can't die in d3 anyway.
Barbarian and monk are less interesting for me. Barbarian is particulary weak against bosses, but kinda cool for his leap. Monk is more fun, more powerfull, but not as fun as magic classes for me. What particulary kill the fun in melee is the monster's fear. i mean damn it's annoying, your goiing to one or two shot them but they keeep fearing you. Are we a warrior or a weeping virgin in front of monsters ? :/
overall the game is far too easy at the moment. i only died once, when i was playing with one hand and eating mi pizza withe the other while chatting on skype.... never been close to die past lvl 8. i don't realy see the reason to go hardcore when you must mean to die to actualy die... or have huge beta lag :p
The AH is pretty confusing. you can't even choose to display only "buyoutable" items ? just max buyout ?
Rare weapons are kinda lame also, often have weaker stats than blues, it lack in coolness here for me.
edit : so for me between 3 and 4. i did already preorder it, but need some difficulty tweek, and i mean some serious ones :/ (well lets hope night,hell and infe are harder...)
I have the misfortune of not being able to play the open beta and finding out for myself how great (or not) the game feels. But from the rampant posts I have seen, there seems to be something inherently wrong with the game. It puts me on the edge a bit about buying it but I will still most likely get it. I spent days playing D2 and will probably do the same in D3. It's surprising how many people have complaints about the game. Granted some of them I don't really find valid (this game is too easy/short/mindless clicking). And I laugh at the ones saying D2 involved skill and D3 doesn't (clicking on monsters doesn't constitute skill in my book). But there are those valid complaints I read about talking about the lack of customization. That is my largest concern for this game so far. Battlenet 0.2 is a concern as well.
I only hope I will have as much fun playing it as I did Diablo 2.
I think a lot of the complaints about a lack of customization compared to D2 are incorrect. When I remember back to when I played D2, my stat points were allocated simply: I met the bare minimum for the items I knew I was eventually going to use, and everything else went into vitality (unless I wanted to max block). Anything else would result in a sub par character. The stats provide different bonuses than in D2, and with no more chance to hit it's not really a big deal.
Also, there are no gems in the beta, so we are not able to look at a massive aspect of customization that will be in the actual game.
So far, maybe a 3.5. Graphics are nice (but then again I still find d2 graphics to be good), new style of dungeons is really cool, classes seem alright...
I'm just really unsure about the whole new rune/skill/whatever its called now system. I know we've only played a little with it so it might get better but man, the way they did it in d2 was great, why make such huge changes?
On April 19 2012 03:42 zJayy962 wrote: On the other hand, being a huge fan of LoD, this game just doesn't give me the same satisfaction. How would you rate the game right now as it stands since this is the product (expecting no major changes) we will be getting for release?
I myself would rank it a 3. Now if someone asked me this question when Diablo 2 was about to launch, it would've been an easy 5 for how excited I was. Maybe I'm just no longer in middle school? What are your opinions
The middle school argument is true. If you were 14 now like you were back with D2, you would absolutely love this game. It's fluid, it has lots of monster killing, finding and picking up items is absolutely addictive for salvaging and crafting and the presentation is top notch. I too miss the RPG elements, few that they were, but on its own Diablo 3 is a blast to play and offers a great amount of enjoyable playtime for its cost.
On April 19 2012 03:42 zJayy962 wrote: On the other hand, being a huge fan of LoD, this game just doesn't give me the same satisfaction. How would you rate the game right now as it stands since this is the product (expecting no major changes) we will be getting for release?
I myself would rank it a 3. Now if someone asked me this question when Diablo 2 was about to launch, it would've been an easy 5 for how excited I was. Maybe I'm just no longer in middle school? What are your opinions
The middle school argument is true. If you were 14 now like you were back with D2, you would absolutely love this game. It's fluid, it has lots of monster killing, finding and picking up items is absolutely addictive for salvaging and crafting and the presentation is top notch. I too miss the RPG elements, few that they were, but on its own Diablo 3 is a blast to play and offers a great amount of enjoyable playtime for its cost.
I'm super excited, diablo2 was my fav. game of all time.
I wasn't disappointed at all after finaly playing the beta, loved the graphics - i read that it wasnt dark enough to be diablo, totaly wrong, atmosphere got me in the first minutes and felt the need to farm better gear/crafting..
I'm not 100% sure about the skill system at the moment.. but when i think back to diablo2 i leveld like 10 sorcs to have everything perfect, now i level one wizard and have all the speccs.. im not sure how i think about that, but to be honest, in diablo2 u didnt realy 'level' ur chars, maybee first 20-30 lvls then it was carrying and join/leave baal/cow runs until 90/99, given the fact that i'm now 12 years older i think the new system might fit me realy well.. but like i try to write - im not sure have to see in the long run
This is only a rating of the beta. I was annoyed with the wipes that happened and erased all my heroes after three consecutive patches, i therefore stopped playing the beta as the experience was ruined. I was wanting to enjoy the new game + option, though never got that far.
I cannot wait to play the full version. Until then, how can I rate it?
P.S. - Moderator, this thread is absurd. It should be retitled, "how would you rate the diablo 3 beta!". Please edit, for the need of clarification.
On April 23 2012 04:26 1Eris1 wrote: So far, maybe a 3.5. Graphics are nice (but then again I still find d2 graphics to be good), new style of dungeons is really cool, classes seem alright...
I'm just really unsure about the whole new rune/skill/whatever its called now system. I know we've only played a little with it so it might get better but man, the way they did it in d2 was great, why make such huge changes?
Because the skill system in D2 was dumb and bloated. Level 10 of the same class just to play with builds? No thanks. Get to end game to find you messed up by not stacking vit? No thanks.
I thought the beta was pretty cool. The melee classes definately feel very visceral and had a nice feel to them. Wiz was decent and I liked how it seems like the Demon Hunter has a nice amount of skills to aid mobility along with bringing the pain.
The resource system is also much more interesting as are the environment seen so far. Loving the account wide stash, gold and crafting.
Downsides are I don't quite dig all the spell effects, but its just as aesthetic thing.
On April 23 2012 04:26 1Eris1 wrote: So far, maybe a 3.5. Graphics are nice (but then again I still find d2 graphics to be good), new style of dungeons is really cool, classes seem alright...
I'm just really unsure about the whole new rune/skill/whatever its called now system. I know we've only played a little with it so it might get better but man, the way they did it in d2 was great, why make such huge changes?
Because the skill system in D2 was dumb and bloated. Level 10 of the same class just to play with builds? No thanks. Get to end game to find you messed up by not stacking vit? No thanks.
I thought the beta was pretty cool. The melee classes definately feel very visceral and had a nice feel to them. Wiz was decent and I liked how it seems like the Demon Hunter has a nice amount of skills to aid mobility along with bringing the pain.
The resource system is also much more interesting as are the environment seen so far. Loving the account wide stash, gold and crafting.
Downsides are I don't quite dig all the spell effects, but its just as aesthetic thing.
You can have a similar skill system but allow respecs...you know, kind of like how it is in D2 right now?
I genuinely wasn't particularly interested in D3 before this weekend. Playing it this weekend though has changed my mind. I really enjoyed it and will definitely be picking it up. Stupid Blizzard!
On April 23 2012 04:26 1Eris1 wrote: So far, maybe a 3.5. Graphics are nice (but then again I still find d2 graphics to be good), new style of dungeons is really cool, classes seem alright...
I'm just really unsure about the whole new rune/skill/whatever its called now system. I know we've only played a little with it so it might get better but man, the way they did it in d2 was great, why make such huge changes?
Because the skill system in D2 was dumb and bloated. Level 10 of the same class just to play with builds? No thanks. Get to end game to find you messed up by not stacking vit? No thanks.
I thought the beta was pretty cool. The melee classes definately feel very visceral and had a nice feel to them. Wiz was decent and I liked how it seems like the Demon Hunter has a nice amount of skills to aid mobility along with bringing the pain.
The resource system is also much more interesting as are the environment seen so far. Loving the account wide stash, gold and crafting.
Downsides are I don't quite dig all the spell effects, but its just as aesthetic thing.
You can have a similar skill system but allow respecs...you know, kind of like how it is in D2 right now?
You can still have the same in D3. I noticed that just with the barbarian, there are people using different secondary skills. Some prefer the hammer hit thing, I preferred the rending one for example. So you will still have some variety, just not the same way as D2. This is with the very limited skillset that we have at up to level 13 too. Just imagine with all of the skills and runes unlocked at level 60. You should still see quite a bit of variety.
On April 23 2012 04:26 1Eris1 wrote: So far, maybe a 3.5. Graphics are nice (but then again I still find d2 graphics to be good), new style of dungeons is really cool, classes seem alright...
I'm just really unsure about the whole new rune/skill/whatever its called now system. I know we've only played a little with it so it might get better but man, the way they did it in d2 was great, why make such huge changes?
Because the skill system in D2 was dumb and bloated. Level 10 of the same class just to play with builds? No thanks. Get to end game to find you messed up by not stacking vit? No thanks.
I thought the beta was pretty cool. The melee classes definately feel very visceral and had a nice feel to them. Wiz was decent and I liked how it seems like the Demon Hunter has a nice amount of skills to aid mobility along with bringing the pain.
The resource system is also much more interesting as are the environment seen so far. Loving the account wide stash, gold and crafting.
Downsides are I don't quite dig all the spell effects, but its just as aesthetic thing.
You can have a similar skill system but allow respecs...you know, kind of like how it is in D2 right now?
Or instead of synergies (which were really wasted skill points) and spending 20 points making a skill useable (also wasted skill points) you can make skills scale with level and gear and instead force variety by limiting the number of chosen skills to 6. Which is more than the number of active skills I remember using from D2 for the most part.
On April 23 2012 04:26 1Eris1 wrote: So far, maybe a 3.5. Graphics are nice (but then again I still find d2 graphics to be good), new style of dungeons is really cool, classes seem alright...
I'm just really unsure about the whole new rune/skill/whatever its called now system. I know we've only played a little with it so it might get better but man, the way they did it in d2 was great, why make such huge changes?
Because the skill system in D2 was dumb and bloated. Level 10 of the same class just to play with builds? No thanks. Get to end game to find you messed up by not stacking vit? No thanks.
I thought the beta was pretty cool. The melee classes definately feel very visceral and had a nice feel to them. Wiz was decent and I liked how it seems like the Demon Hunter has a nice amount of skills to aid mobility along with bringing the pain.
The resource system is also much more interesting as are the environment seen so far. Loving the account wide stash, gold and crafting.
Downsides are I don't quite dig all the spell effects, but its just as aesthetic thing.
You can have a similar skill system but allow respecs...you know, kind of like how it is in D2 right now?
Or instead of synergies (which were really wasted skill points) and spending 20 points making a skill useable (also wasted skill points) you can make skills scale with level and gear and instead force variety by limiting the number of chosen skills to 6. Which is more than the number of active skills I remember using from D2 for the most part.
I wasn't arguing that the D3 system is better or worse, just the only reasons that you gave for not liking the D2 system aren't even like that anymore in D2.
Anyone who thinks the game is too easy should watch their response, it actually makes a lot of sense:
Upon my initial play-through I would have rated it a 3/5 at best, but then I read a lot of their explanations behind the customizations and I kind of have to agree that D2 stat and skill system essentially came down to just a few 'mathematically' correct builds (i.e. fire synergy sorc with max number of fire runes), which although I loved building, wasn't completely necessary for me to enjoy the game. Anyways, the issues with the game that I currently have I believe can be solved through patches and maybe an expansion, so I'll give it a 4/5, with higher potential down the road depending on how much they listen to the community on the smaller issues.
I don't see why people don't like Diablo 3 because it's too dumbed down compared to D2/1. Diablo 1 and 2 weren't complex games to begin with, they just took the roguelikes and made it accessible.
Main reasons why I think people dont like D3 from the beta: Very limited ability set with the option of picking every active skill being disabled by default Tooltips being basic as default
When I could actually see what the abilities were doing with the full tooltip and being able to have any ability on one of the 4 keys, it was a lot better. And I imagine the full unlocked 6 abilities will be better still.
I gave it a 5...I don't think its a perfect game but its what I was expecting and had tons of fun with the short beta. Will definetly get it and play the shit out of it. The only complain I have is that they might've simplified customization a bit too much but its difficult to say based on just 13 levels so its not really much to complain about. The game definetly has the same feel as D2...people talking about difficulty and gameplay are really talking out of their ass and I seriously doubt how much Diablo they've actually played. The gameplay, map layout and flow of the game is very much in the Diablo spirit...if those are your main complaints then this just isn't the game for you period. About difficulty, judging difficulty of a game from playing like 5% of the content through normal mode is pretty much the most retarted thing I've ever seen. Diablo 2 normal was a joke too, the game didn't get hard until the higher difficulties -_-.
This has been THE game I have been waiting for for a long time.
After playing the beta on the weekend, I am so amped. I think they have done a real good job, the whole game (well beta at least) just seems to work. I like almost all the changes that they have introduce from runes, skills, removal of stats, skills etc. In fact I can't think of something I don't like at the moment. But there is probably something right?
Organised 1 week of annual leave for the week after release, scheduled all my appointments etc to happen before release. Now I just need to wait.
On April 23 2012 04:30 PhiliBiRD wrote: 4 for sure... its too "casual" of a game to be a 5, they dumbed it down to much.
It's something I hear a lot and I understand where it's coming from. But I feel that there is a whole lot of emmergent gameplay that has not been discovered yet near the high end levels. Basically WoW doesn't really start before you're max level either. Or so I'm told.
They said they put a lot of the complexity and skill in the control and the playing and I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. Putting a caltrops down vaulting back and ripping with Rapid Fire did feel quite nice. Same with soul harvesting for max, putting a Grasp of Death down and ripping with firebats...
4/5, after having played through all of the classes this weekend and having watched several videos / read several discussions on how the game will develop in later stages and higher difficulties.
I have no doubt that the gameplay will be amazing throughout the entire game and that Blizzard has thought up a lot of stuff to keep people hooked. The Beta showed that; it's still Diablo. Same goes for the art design, the music and the general atmosphere; it's a piece of art as well as a great piece of entertainment. The skill system and various means of customization we haven't experienced yet (sockets, gems, higher levels of crafting) also appear well thought out.
What I'm afraid of is the Battle.Net and the whole social experience. I hand't thought it possible but it's even worse than SC2 was. Of course that doesn't mean as much in a game that's entirely soloable, but in the end you're going to play with buddies, you're looking to trade and you'll always want to brag with your progress. Complete lack of proper public channels, chat lobbies or a decent interface to begin with will kill anything community-related off before it even has a chance to start.
SC2's horrible social features (or lack thereof) was what killed the game for me and why I stopped playing. DIII is a different beast but not entirely independet of social neccessities either. A 5/5 would be warranted if Blizzard had learned from their mistakes or the community feedback but apparently they don't deem it neccessary in their greater scheme of things.
5/5 For Me. it is really fun and i Like how the diablo feel was preserved. The graphics are also good and of course the new changes are awesome. I just hope there will be more classes in the future -_-
This game really feels great in every way. The only problem where that it was basically impossible to die unless you solo everything in 4 man games and even then the game weren't that hard. But considering that this game is roughly equivalent of getting to tristram in D2 I am confident that it will get harder. D2 was super easy that early except for Rakanishu which could kill you if you weren't familiar with his powers.
On April 23 2012 04:26 1Eris1 wrote: So far, maybe a 3.5. Graphics are nice (but then again I still find d2 graphics to be good), new style of dungeons is really cool, classes seem alright...
I'm just really unsure about the whole new rune/skill/whatever its called now system. I know we've only played a little with it so it might get better but man, the way they did it in d2 was great, why make such huge changes?
The tree system you had in D2 is an abomination I wouldn't want in any game I play. It was fine the first time I played D2, but after that a game having D2's abilities system were a complete dealbreaker to me since it is so worthless.
Why was the D2 system so bad? Because you had to choose between getting more skills and getting stronger skills. And that choice is a non choice. Who would want 5 weak skills instead of 1 skill 5 times as strong? All you get is an illusion of choice. Even D1's system with books is better because then the books you find tailor your playing experience while in D2 it is just a progression of sinking points into firebolt->sinking points into fireball->sinking points into meteor while only casting the spell with the most damage.
How can D2's system be improved? Many tried to limit your choices so that you couldn't sink all points into 1 skill like you do in D2. (Synergies is just another way of putting more points into the skill you want to max) But this is quite contrived, None would leave fireball at one point as soon as you can increase it to 2 etc. If you want to cast fireballs you will max it since it is the only way it scales. Level 1 fireballs aren't viable after a while. So why even allow more than one point in a skill if you are just going to sink more into it whenever you can to keep it viable? Thus diablo 3's system were born, you chose a set of skills and they scale with you.
To me the new skill system is what would make me want to play the game. In this game you will very rarely find characters with the same skill builds. Why? Because most choices are about preferences and not about strength so it doesn't matter that you can change on the fly since you will have different preferences than most other players. In D2 everyone had one of the ~3 viable builds for each character while in this game people will be choosing from millions of viable builds.
5/5 here too. Good old-fashioned demon-slaying fun and co-op with (only) 4 people feels better than I had anticipated. Tried 3 classes and liked them all, can't wait for more abilities and challenging environments tho!
4/5 The game is pretty fun and looks nice but needs some development. The skill trees need to come back for the sake of clarity. When I first played the game I had no idea what skills were and did what. The clarity in battles needs improvement also. Skills have over-the-top animations and coupled with enemies flying everywhere and explosions exploding, I often get lost in battle.
Maybe rack up the difficulty a bit. I understand it's 1/3rd of act 1 normal difficulty but I often caught myself playing with 1 hand having the other support my chin. Had to force myself to use skills 1-2 and healing (q). Make them more needed not just panic buttons.
On April 23 2012 19:31 Ace1123 wrote: 5/5 For Me. it is really fun and i Like how the diablo feel was preserved. The graphics are also good and of course the new changes are awesome. I just hope there will be more classes in the future -_-
3/5.
really? i felt the exact opposite. i felt like i was playing a tweeked dragonage/runescape game for 12 year olds. Where is the darkness/ raw feel of diablo 2? There is too much lighting, too little blood, and the items look like shit in the inventory. Diablo 2 from like a decade ago had better inventory graphics. It's retarded.
Also, people are saying that the game will be good because it's harder later on, but Is it going to be in the way that EVERYTHING is dependent on items (which blizzard wants to monopolize on) or because you'll need to plan out your character build? (shitty hdins/well planned casters could do well even w/ poor mans gear in d2). My guess is the former since every character will be exactly the same in that they are not specialized by skill trees. The only defining factor is your passives and your items.
I'm only hoping they fix these issues before destroying my childhood.
On April 23 2012 19:31 Ace1123 wrote: 5/5 For Me. it is really fun and i Like how the diablo feel was preserved. The graphics are also good and of course the new changes are awesome. I just hope there will be more classes in the future -_-
3/5.
really? i felt the exact opposite. i felt like i was playing a tweeked dragonage/runescape game for 12 year olds. Where is the darkness/ raw feel of diablo 2? There is too much lighting, too little blood, and the items look like shit in the inventory. Diablo 2 from like a decade ago had better inventory graphics. It's retarded.
Also, people are saying that the game will be good because it's harder later on, but Is it going to be in the way that EVERYTHING is dependent on items (which blizzard wants to monopolize on) or because you'll need to plan out your character build? (shitty hdins/well planned casters could do well even w/ poor mans gear in d2). My guess is the former since every character will be exactly the same in that they are not specialized by skill trees. The only defining factor is your passives and your items.
I'm only hoping they fix these issues before destroying my childhood.
Agreed. I wish I had read your post before posting in the other thread.
That's the real problem of the current skill system - end game will be 100% item dependent.
No build commitment means that either everyone will be viable in the endgame or only those with elite gear will be. I'm guessing with so much emphasis placed on things like crafting and RMAH, it'll be the latter.
On April 23 2012 19:31 Ace1123 wrote: 5/5 For Me. it is really fun and i Like how the diablo feel was preserved. The graphics are also good and of course the new changes are awesome. I just hope there will be more classes in the future -_-
3/5.
really? i felt the exact opposite. i felt like i was playing a tweeked dragonage/runescape game for 12 year olds. Where is the darkness/ raw feel of diablo 2? There is too much lighting, too little blood, and the items look like shit in the inventory. Diablo 2 from like a decade ago had better inventory graphics. It's retarded.
Also, people are saying that the game will be good because it's harder later on, but Is it going to be in the way that EVERYTHING is dependent on items (which blizzard wants to monopolize on) or because you'll need to plan out your character build? (shitty hdins/well planned casters could do well even w/ poor mans gear in d2). My guess is the former since every character will be exactly the same in that they are not specialized by skill trees. The only defining factor is your passives and your items.
I'm only hoping they fix these issues before destroying my childhood.
Im almost getting the impression you want D3 to look like D2, which has very obviously dated graphics. The reason D2 looked so 'dark' was because the dungeons were just very bland rooms and there was barely any lighting because the technology simply didn't allow for it.
On April 23 2012 19:31 Ace1123 wrote: 5/5 For Me. it is really fun and i Like how the diablo feel was preserved. The graphics are also good and of course the new changes are awesome. I just hope there will be more classes in the future -_-
3/5.
really? i felt the exact opposite. i felt like i was playing a tweeked dragonage/runescape game for 12 year olds. Where is the darkness/ raw feel of diablo 2? There is too much lighting, too little blood, and the items look like shit in the inventory. Diablo 2 from like a decade ago had better inventory graphics. It's retarded.
Also, people are saying that the game will be good because it's harder later on, but Is it going to be in the way that EVERYTHING is dependent on items (which blizzard wants to monopolize on) or because you'll need to plan out your character build? (shitty hdins/well planned casters could do well even w/ poor mans gear in d2). My guess is the former since every character will be exactly the same in that they are not specialized by skill trees. The only defining factor is your passives and your items.
I'm only hoping they fix these issues before destroying my childhood.
Agreed. I wish I had read your post before posting in the other thread.
That's the real problem of the current skill system - end game will be 100% item dependent.
No build commitment means that either everyone will be viable in the endgame or only those with elite gear will be. I'm guessing with so much emphasis placed on things like crafting and RMAH, it'll be the latter.
Just curious, did you guys play and enjoy diablo 2?
If you wanted to clear content alone, every character/build was extremely gear dependent. Hammerdins are probably the only exception but it'd be pretty hard to solo any boss as a Hammerdin in Hell with shitty gear which is what you needed to do to get gear in the first place.
On April 23 2012 19:31 Ace1123 wrote: 5/5 For Me. it is really fun and i Like how the diablo feel was preserved. The graphics are also good and of course the new changes are awesome. I just hope there will be more classes in the future -_-
3/5.
really? i felt the exact opposite. i felt like i was playing a tweeked dragonage/runescape game for 12 year olds. Where is the darkness/ raw feel of diablo 2? There is too much lighting, too little blood, and the items look like shit in the inventory. Diablo 2 from like a decade ago had better inventory graphics. It's retarded.
Also, people are saying that the game will be good because it's harder later on, but Is it going to be in the way that EVERYTHING is dependent on items (which blizzard wants to monopolize on) or because you'll need to plan out your character build? (shitty hdins/well planned casters could do well even w/ poor mans gear in d2). My guess is the former since every character will be exactly the same in that they are not specialized by skill trees. The only defining factor is your passives and your items.
I'm only hoping they fix these issues before destroying my childhood.
Agreed. I wish I had read your post before posting in the other thread.
That's the real problem of the current skill system - end game will be 100% item dependent.
No build commitment means that either everyone will be viable in the endgame or only those with elite gear will be. I'm guessing with so much emphasis placed on things like crafting and RMAH, it'll be the latter.
Instead of diablo 2 which was 99% item dependent? Seriously did you guys actually play diablo 2? You could stick runewords onto any char and every spec and destroy everything in hell mode. Spec only mattered for maximizing your char for pvp but it was irrelevant for pve.
On April 23 2012 19:31 Ace1123 wrote: 5/5 For Me. it is really fun and i Like how the diablo feel was preserved. The graphics are also good and of course the new changes are awesome. I just hope there will be more classes in the future -_-
3/5.
really? i felt the exact opposite. i felt like i was playing a tweeked dragonage/runescape game for 12 year olds. Where is the darkness/ raw feel of diablo 2? There is too much lighting, too little blood, and the items look like shit in the inventory. Diablo 2 from like a decade ago had better inventory graphics. It's retarded.
Also, people are saying that the game will be good because it's harder later on, but Is it going to be in the way that EVERYTHING is dependent on items (which blizzard wants to monopolize on) or because you'll need to plan out your character build? (shitty hdins/well planned casters could do well even w/ poor mans gear in d2).
Haven't you realized that having retarded builds like hammerdin that could easily kill everything in the game without any items hurts the game a lot? At least to me spamming a retardedly strong skill over and over all game long isn't fun and doing other things isn't fun when I know that it would all be 1000x easier if I went with what everyone else does.
In diablo 3 you need playerskill. Everyone will have their own style since each one choses their own skillset and there are so many skillsets that you will rarely see any two which are exactly alike, Identifying the best playingstyle will be much harder than identifying the diablo 2 build that deals the most damage. You need to chose skills that synergies well and that covers each others weaknesses, then you need to learn how to play with those skills properly and you need to build your gear to fit your playingstyle as well. In the process of leveling to 60 you will have found quite a lot of gear so you should have the basics.
On April 23 2012 19:34 Klockan3 wrote: This game really feels great in every way. The only problem where that it was basically impossible to die unless you solo everything in 4 man games and even then the game weren't that hard. But considering that this game is roughly equivalent of getting to tristram in D2 I am confident that it will get harder. D2 was super easy that early except for Rakanishu which could kill you if you weren't familiar with his powers.
On April 23 2012 04:26 1Eris1 wrote: So far, maybe a 3.5. Graphics are nice (but then again I still find d2 graphics to be good), new style of dungeons is really cool, classes seem alright...
I'm just really unsure about the whole new rune/skill/whatever its called now system. I know we've only played a little with it so it might get better but man, the way they did it in d2 was great, why make such huge changes?
The tree system you had in D2 is an abomination I wouldn't want in any game I play. It was fine the first time I played D2, but after that a game having D2's abilities system were a complete dealbreaker to me since it is so worthless.
Why was the D2 system so bad? Because you had to choose between getting more skills and getting stronger skills. And that choice is a non choice. Who would want 5 weak skills instead of 1 skill 5 times as strong? All you get is an illusion of choice. Even D1's system with books is better because then the books you find tailor your playing experience while in D2 it is just a progression of sinking points into firebolt->sinking points into fireball->sinking points into meteor while only casting the spell with the most damage.
How can D2's system be improved? Many tried to limit your choices so that you couldn't sink all points into 1 skill like you do in D2. (Synergies is just another way of putting more points into the skill you want to max) But this is quite contrived, None would leave fireball at one point as soon as you can increase it to 2 etc. If you want to cast fireballs you will max it since it is the only way it scales. Level 1 fireballs aren't viable after a while. So why even allow more than one point in a skill if you are just going to sink more into it whenever you can to keep it viable? Thus diablo 3's system were born, you chose a set of skills and they scale with you.
To me the new skill system is what would make me want to play the game. In this game you will very rarely find characters with the same skill builds. Why? Because most choices are about preferences and not about strength so it doesn't matter that you can change on the fly since you will have different preferences than most other players. In D2 everyone had one of the ~3 viable builds for each character while in this game people will be choosing from millions of viable builds.
I sort of agree, but it still seems to me like D2 and D3 are on complete different extremes. The problem with D2 was (as I understood you) that most skills were redundant once the better is available and therefor one would only set points on the best end-level skills. In Diablo 3 all spells are more and less equal since they scale with the damage and not with some spell-level and it is just about preference. But why not simply "remove" the level points, but let the player decide which skill tree he wants to skill. Sort of like the special units tech tree in starcraft 2 campaign. It would be very equal as it is now with the difference that my barbar would still be different then yours (most likely).
The same thing goes for the character points. If the main problem is that certain items require a special amout of char points (dexterity etc.) but you would rather have the points on lets say strength, then why not just removing the point requirements on the items. This way it would be still close to as it is now with the difference that one has to permanently decide wether he wants to play lets say with more damage or more life.
I think I understand most arguments against the Diablo II system (I btw have to played D2 much), but they are not targeting the PERMANENT decisions one has to make itself but the implementation of them in Diablo 2, but without the need for making permanent decisions it simply does not feel like you are "building" a character.
Results from the poll: (5*346+4*116+3*81+2*63+1*33)/(346+116+81+63+33) = 4.06/5 Which is like 8.12/10 Diablo II was rated 9/10 on gamespot. Therefore Diablo II ≈ Diablo III since TL is a place of hardcore bw gamers. Besides I assume most of us are RTS fans.
On April 24 2012 02:37 dD3s wrote: Results from the poll: (5*346+4*116+3*81+2*63+1*33)/(346+116+81+63+33) = 4.06/5 Which is like 8.12/10 Diablo II was rated 9/10 on gamespot. Therefore Diablo II ≈ Diablo III since TL is a place of hardcore bw gamers. Besides I assume most of us are RTS fans.
Thanks for this. I honestly thought it was going to be a lot lower judging from the comments in the thread.
On April 23 2012 19:31 Ace1123 wrote: 5/5 For Me. it is really fun and i Like how the diablo feel was preserved. The graphics are also good and of course the new changes are awesome. I just hope there will be more classes in the future -_-
3/5.
really? i felt the exact opposite. i felt like i was playing a tweeked dragonage/runescape game for 12 year olds. Where is the darkness/ raw feel of diablo 2? There is too much lighting, too little blood, and the items look like shit in the inventory. Diablo 2 from like a decade ago had better inventory graphics. It's retarded.
Also, people are saying that the game will be good because it's harder later on, but Is it going to be in the way that EVERYTHING is dependent on items (which blizzard wants to monopolize on) or because you'll need to plan out your character build? (shitty hdins/well planned casters could do well even w/ poor mans gear in d2). My guess is the former since every character will be exactly the same in that they are not specialized by skill trees. The only defining factor is your passives and your items.
I'm only hoping they fix these issues before destroying my childhood.
Agreed. I wish I had read your post before posting in the other thread.
That's the real problem of the current skill system - end game will be 100% item dependent.
No build commitment means that either everyone will be viable in the endgame or only those with elite gear will be. I'm guessing with so much emphasis placed on things like crafting and RMAH, it'll be the latter.
Just curious, did you guys play and enjoy diablo 2?
If you wanted to clear content alone, every character/build was extremely gear dependent. Hammerdins are probably the only exception but it'd be pretty hard to solo any boss as a Hammerdin in Hell with shitty gear which is what you needed to do to get gear in the first place.
I ll have to disagree on this.
Many builds in D2 were suited for playing untwinked e.g. Zookeeper Necromancer, Trap Sin, Meteor/Orb Sorc (haha this is a classic), Tesladin, Fireclaw Bear, etc. Of course all classes can be play untwinked, but those would be the easier ones. Hell, you could even clear Hell naked with a Zookeeper Necromancer (Diablo in all difficulties will provide some moderate challenge, but other parts of the game will be a breeze.
That said, i really liked the Beta for Diablo 3. I would give it a 4.8/5, given that there are a few things i am still unhappy about, but they clearly said that much more contents will be unlocked in the higher difficulties so i am keeping my hopes up. Of course, i am one of those that hope for a "Skill Lock" kind of feature at lvl 60 (maybe give people a +5% total dmg as incentive to do so), so that i actually have a good reason to make Multiple characters of the same Class. Though chances are i will anyway, swapping gears and skills just aint my thing.
I give it 4/5. My biggest gripe is that I cannot see total damage of my skills after all calculations (base weapon dps + xxx% of skill + xx% of primary stat). Also that some game mechanics like dual wielding are not clear for users without searching through forums and such.
Although I finished D2Lod on Hell diff with 2 different characters alone and 1 character in 2 man party and had 10+ other characters in different parts of the game I care more about the pure gameplay aspect of aRPG then "customization". This is why I gave it 4/5 although stat/skill system is kind of meh, but pure gameplay fun aspect is through the roof.
yeah, would be pretty nice if you could see the actual damage made by a certain skill, not only the primary damage. i can #archangel pretty much:4,5/5.
On April 24 2012 17:44 -Archangel- wrote: I give it 4/5. My biggest gripe is that I cannot see total damage of my skills after all calculations (base weapon dps + xxx% of skill + xx% of primary stat). Also that some game mechanics like dual wielding are not clear for users without searching through forums and such.
Although I finished D2Lod on Hell diff with 2 different characters alone and 1 character in 2 man party and had 10+ other characters in different parts of the game I care more about the pure gameplay aspect of aRPG then "customization". This is why I gave it 4/5 although stat/skill system is kind of meh, but pure gameplay fun aspect is through the roof.
To see total damage hit a mob and look at the number ?
And dual wielding seem clear to me. Equip 2 weapons, see total damage increased, done ? Or did i miss something?
As a D2 veteran I can say that D3 is 5/5. In fact, it is so good that it may get 4/5 for bearing a menace of addiction. It's similar to grading heroin 5/5 among painkillers.
I think D3 is crossing boundaries of a "game" with the RMAH integration.
On April 24 2012 17:44 -Archangel- wrote: I give it 4/5. My biggest gripe is that I cannot see total damage of my skills after all calculations (base weapon dps + xxx% of skill + xx% of primary stat). Also that some game mechanics like dual wielding are not clear for users without searching through forums and such.
Although I finished D2Lod on Hell diff with 2 different characters alone and 1 character in 2 man party and had 10+ other characters in different parts of the game I care more about the pure gameplay aspect of aRPG then "customization". This is why I gave it 4/5 although stat/skill system is kind of meh, but pure gameplay fun aspect is through the roof.
To see total damage hit a mob and look at the number ?
And dual wielding seem clear to me. Equip 2 weapons, see total damage increased, done ? Or did i miss something?
Hmm, i think you missed the fact that Dual-Wielding grant you a +15% IAS bonus naturally. Otherwise, i don't think it would have been possible for Dual-Wielding to match a big 2-hander. Anw that's good for me seeing as i have always preferred to DW in games.
On April 24 2012 17:44 -Archangel- wrote: I give it 4/5. My biggest gripe is that I cannot see total damage of my skills after all calculations (base weapon dps + xxx% of skill + xx% of primary stat). Also that some game mechanics like dual wielding are not clear for users without searching through forums and such.
Although I finished D2Lod on Hell diff with 2 different characters alone and 1 character in 2 man party and had 10+ other characters in different parts of the game I care more about the pure gameplay aspect of aRPG then "customization". This is why I gave it 4/5 although stat/skill system is kind of meh, but pure gameplay fun aspect is through the roof.
To see total damage hit a mob and look at the number ?
And dual wielding seem clear to me. Equip 2 weapons, see total damage increased, done ? Or did i miss something?
Ah, you mean the randomly generated number that is different each time I hit? And that depends on resistances and armor of my target? No, that number is not good enough.
As for dual wielding, I got different info in another thread so I guess it is not as simple as "more damage"
I really enjoyed the open beta as a D2 player, however it did not give much insight in the loot system late-game and that for me is what my enjoyment for D3 will hinge on (yes I am a lootwhore). For me, if the loot system is decent it will get 4/5, if it is as good or better then D2 then 5/5.
On April 24 2012 20:50 Bartuc wrote: I really enjoyed the open beta as a D2 player, however it did not give much insight in the loot system late-game and that for me is what my enjoyment for D3 will hinge on (yes I am a lootwhore). For me, if the loot system is decent it will get 4/5, if it is as good or better then D2 then 5/5.
I was just wondering what you meant with the post about the loot system possibly being different? Talking like TCs and how they are distributed and stuff?
On April 23 2012 19:31 Ace1123 wrote: 5/5 For Me. it is really fun and i Like how the diablo feel was preserved. The graphics are also good and of course the new changes are awesome. I just hope there will be more classes in the future -_-
3/5.
really? i felt the exact opposite. i felt like i was playing a tweeked dragonage/runescape game for 12 year olds. Where is the darkness/ raw feel of diablo 2? There is too much lighting, too little blood, and the items look like shit in the inventory. Diablo 2 from like a decade ago had better inventory graphics. It's retarded.
Also, people are saying that the game will be good because it's harder later on, but Is it going to be in the way that EVERYTHING is dependent on items (which blizzard wants to monopolize on) or because you'll need to plan out your character build? (shitty hdins/well planned casters could do well even w/ poor mans gear in d2). My guess is the former since every character will be exactly the same in that they are not specialized by skill trees. The only defining factor is your passives and your items.
I'm only hoping they fix these issues before destroying my childhood.
Agreed. I wish I had read your post before posting in the other thread.
That's the real problem of the current skill system - end game will be 100% item dependent.
No build commitment means that either everyone will be viable in the endgame or only those with elite gear will be. I'm guessing with so much emphasis placed on things like crafting and RMAH, it'll be the latter.
Just curious, did you guys play and enjoy diablo 2?
If you wanted to clear content alone, every character/build was extremely gear dependent. Hammerdins are probably the only exception but it'd be pretty hard to solo any boss as a Hammerdin in Hell with shitty gear which is what you needed to do to get gear in the first place.
Of course, i am one of those that hope for a "Skill Lock" kind of feature at lvl 60 (maybe give people a +5% total dmg as incentive to do so), so that i actually have a good reason to make Multiple characters of the same Class. Though chances are i will anyway, swapping gears and skills just aint my thing.
This is where the Nephalem Valor feature comes in. Basically, it provides a magic find and gold find buff for every champion mob, rare spawn, and boss you kill in a certain game, but persists only as long as you stay in that game without changing skills or runes. It's an incentive to stick with your chosen build because the additional magic find will likely be very crucial when gearing up for Inferno. Personally, I think this is a great way to approach some sort of skill lock without actually enforcing it.
On April 23 2012 19:31 Ace1123 wrote: 5/5 For Me. it is really fun and i Like how the diablo feel was preserved. The graphics are also good and of course the new changes are awesome. I just hope there will be more classes in the future -_-
3/5.
really? i felt the exact opposite. i felt like i was playing a tweeked dragonage/runescape game for 12 year olds. Where is the darkness/ raw feel of diablo 2? There is too much lighting, too little blood, and the items look like shit in the inventory. Diablo 2 from like a decade ago had better inventory graphics. It's retarded.
Also, people are saying that the game will be good because it's harder later on, but Is it going to be in the way that EVERYTHING is dependent on items (which blizzard wants to monopolize on) or because you'll need to plan out your character build? (shitty hdins/well planned casters could do well even w/ poor mans gear in d2). My guess is the former since every character will be exactly the same in that they are not specialized by skill trees. The only defining factor is your passives and your items.
I'm only hoping they fix these issues before destroying my childhood.
Agreed. I wish I had read your post before posting in the other thread.
That's the real problem of the current skill system - end game will be 100% item dependent.
No build commitment means that either everyone will be viable in the endgame or only those with elite gear will be. I'm guessing with so much emphasis placed on things like crafting and RMAH, it'll be the latter.
Just curious, did you guys play and enjoy diablo 2?
If you wanted to clear content alone, every character/build was extremely gear dependent. Hammerdins are probably the only exception but it'd be pretty hard to solo any boss as a Hammerdin in Hell with shitty gear which is what you needed to do to get gear in the first place.
Of course, i am one of those that hope for a "Skill Lock" kind of feature at lvl 60 (maybe give people a +5% total dmg as incentive to do so), so that i actually have a good reason to make Multiple characters of the same Class. Though chances are i will anyway, swapping gears and skills just aint my thing.
This is where the Nephalem Valor feature comes in. Basically, it provides a magic find and gold find buff for every champion mob, rare spawn, and boss you kill in a certain game, but persists only as long as you stay in that game without changing skills or runes. It's an incentive to stick with your chosen build because the additional magic find will likely be very crucial when gearing up for Inferno. Personally, I think this is a great way to approach some sort of skill lock without actually enforcing it.
Given how desirable magic find was in D2, I have no doubt that people are going to want the Nephalim buff, and want it bad
On April 23 2012 19:31 Ace1123 wrote: 5/5 For Me. it is really fun and i Like how the diablo feel was preserved. The graphics are also good and of course the new changes are awesome. I just hope there will be more classes in the future -_-
3/5.
really? i felt the exact opposite. i felt like i was playing a tweeked dragonage/runescape game for 12 year olds. Where is the darkness/ raw feel of diablo 2? There is too much lighting, too little blood, and the items look like shit in the inventory. Diablo 2 from like a decade ago had better inventory graphics. It's retarded.
Also, people are saying that the game will be good because it's harder later on, but Is it going to be in the way that EVERYTHING is dependent on items (which blizzard wants to monopolize on) or because you'll need to plan out your character build? (shitty hdins/well planned casters could do well even w/ poor mans gear in d2). My guess is the former since every character will be exactly the same in that they are not specialized by skill trees. The only defining factor is your passives and your items.
I'm only hoping they fix these issues before destroying my childhood.
Agreed. I wish I had read your post before posting in the other thread.
That's the real problem of the current skill system - end game will be 100% item dependent.
No build commitment means that either everyone will be viable in the endgame or only those with elite gear will be. I'm guessing with so much emphasis placed on things like crafting and RMAH, it'll be the latter.
Just curious, did you guys play and enjoy diablo 2?
If you wanted to clear content alone, every character/build was extremely gear dependent. Hammerdins are probably the only exception but it'd be pretty hard to solo any boss as a Hammerdin in Hell with shitty gear which is what you needed to do to get gear in the first place.
Of course, i am one of those that hope for a "Skill Lock" kind of feature at lvl 60 (maybe give people a +5% total dmg as incentive to do so), so that i actually have a good reason to make Multiple characters of the same Class. Though chances are i will anyway, swapping gears and skills just aint my thing.
This is where the Nephalem Valor feature comes in. Basically, it provides a magic find and gold find buff for every champion mob, rare spawn, and boss you kill in a certain game, but persists only as long as you stay in that game without changing skills or runes. It's an incentive to stick with your chosen build because the additional magic find will likely be very crucial when gearing up for Inferno. Personally, I think this is a great way to approach some sort of skill lock without actually enforcing it.
Hahaha of course i am aware of Nephalem Valor. But as you can see, it still doesn't give me a good reason to create multiple characters of the same class (which is what i was talking about). I simply need to swap gears and skills at the beginning of every sitting/run.
Now i am not complaining per se, i like the game. Just one of the minor gripes i have, a little something i would like to see, is all.
On April 23 2012 19:31 Ace1123 wrote: 5/5 For Me. it is really fun and i Like how the diablo feel was preserved. The graphics are also good and of course the new changes are awesome. I just hope there will be more classes in the future -_-
3/5.
really? i felt the exact opposite. i felt like i was playing a tweeked dragonage/runescape game for 12 year olds. Where is the darkness/ raw feel of diablo 2? There is too much lighting, too little blood, and the items look like shit in the inventory. Diablo 2 from like a decade ago had better inventory graphics. It's retarded.
Also, people are saying that the game will be good because it's harder later on, but Is it going to be in the way that EVERYTHING is dependent on items (which blizzard wants to monopolize on) or because you'll need to plan out your character build? (shitty hdins/well planned casters could do well even w/ poor mans gear in d2). My guess is the former since every character will be exactly the same in that they are not specialized by skill trees. The only defining factor is your passives and your items.
I'm only hoping they fix these issues before destroying my childhood.
Agreed. I wish I had read your post before posting in the other thread.
That's the real problem of the current skill system - end game will be 100% item dependent.
No build commitment means that either everyone will be viable in the endgame or only those with elite gear will be. I'm guessing with so much emphasis placed on things like crafting and RMAH, it'll be the latter.
Just curious, did you guys play and enjoy diablo 2?
If you wanted to clear content alone, every character/build was extremely gear dependent. Hammerdins are probably the only exception but it'd be pretty hard to solo any boss as a Hammerdin in Hell with shitty gear which is what you needed to do to get gear in the first place.
Of course, i am one of those that hope for a "Skill Lock" kind of feature at lvl 60 (maybe give people a +5% total dmg as incentive to do so), so that i actually have a good reason to make Multiple characters of the same Class. Though chances are i will anyway, swapping gears and skills just aint my thing.
This is where the Nephalem Valor feature comes in. Basically, it provides a magic find and gold find buff for every champion mob, rare spawn, and boss you kill in a certain game, but persists only as long as you stay in that game without changing skills or runes. It's an incentive to stick with your chosen build because the additional magic find will likely be very crucial when gearing up for Inferno. Personally, I think this is a great way to approach some sort of skill lock without actually enforcing it.
Hahaha of course i am aware of Nephalem Valor. But as you can see, it still doesn't give me a good reason to create multiple characters of the same class (which is what i was talking about). I simply need to swap gears and skills at the beginning of every sitting/run.
Now i am not complaining per se, i like the game. Just one of the minor gripes i have, a little something i would like to see, is all.
If you really like making new characters... just do it ? Force yourself to use different skills as you did the first time.
On a side note... there are only 10 character slots. And its for both hardcore + softcore, that doesn't leave that much room.
On April 23 2012 19:31 Ace1123 wrote: 5/5 For Me. it is really fun and i Like how the diablo feel was preserved. The graphics are also good and of course the new changes are awesome. I just hope there will be more classes in the future -_-
3/5.
really? i felt the exact opposite. i felt like i was playing a tweeked dragonage/runescape game for 12 year olds. Where is the darkness/ raw feel of diablo 2? There is too much lighting, too little blood, and the items look like shit in the inventory. Diablo 2 from like a decade ago had better inventory graphics. It's retarded.
Also, people are saying that the game will be good because it's harder later on, but Is it going to be in the way that EVERYTHING is dependent on items (which blizzard wants to monopolize on) or because you'll need to plan out your character build? (shitty hdins/well planned casters could do well even w/ poor mans gear in d2). My guess is the former since every character will be exactly the same in that they are not specialized by skill trees. The only defining factor is your passives and your items.
I'm only hoping they fix these issues before destroying my childhood.
Agreed. I wish I had read your post before posting in the other thread.
That's the real problem of the current skill system - end game will be 100% item dependent.
No build commitment means that either everyone will be viable in the endgame or only those with elite gear will be. I'm guessing with so much emphasis placed on things like crafting and RMAH, it'll be the latter.
Just curious, did you guys play and enjoy diablo 2?
If you wanted to clear content alone, every character/build was extremely gear dependent. Hammerdins are probably the only exception but it'd be pretty hard to solo any boss as a Hammerdin in Hell with shitty gear which is what you needed to do to get gear in the first place.
Of course, i am one of those that hope for a "Skill Lock" kind of feature at lvl 60 (maybe give people a +5% total dmg as incentive to do so), so that i actually have a good reason to make Multiple characters of the same Class. Though chances are i will anyway, swapping gears and skills just aint my thing.
This is where the Nephalem Valor feature comes in. Basically, it provides a magic find and gold find buff for every champion mob, rare spawn, and boss you kill in a certain game, but persists only as long as you stay in that game without changing skills or runes. It's an incentive to stick with your chosen build because the additional magic find will likely be very crucial when gearing up for Inferno. Personally, I think this is a great way to approach some sort of skill lock without actually enforcing it.
Hahaha of course i am aware of Nephalem Valor. But as you can see, it still doesn't give me a good reason to create multiple characters of the same class (which is what i was talking about). I simply need to swap gears and skills at the beginning of every sitting/run.
Now i am not complaining per se, i like the game. Just one of the minor gripes i have, a little something i would like to see, is all.
If you really like making new characters... just do it ? Force yourself to use different skills as you did the first time.
On a side note... there are only 10 character slots. And its for both hardcore + softcore, that doesn't leave that much room.
=.= you don't have to be so defensive you know? If you would bother reading the quote, i said that i would likely do it regardless. I said it was just a minor gripe, jeez.
I'd have to give it a 5/5, which isn't to say it's perfect (it's not) but it is everything I had could expect from the third in the Diablo series, it's a huge amount of fun and I really appreciate a lot of the new systems in place. Even my least favoure class was still fun, and the abilities feel powerful with a very different feel to the characters so far.
Some of the voice acting is a bit off and can get repetetive, and the game needs a couple of things fixed/added to it but realistically, this game is going to take up a serious amount of my time.
On April 23 2012 19:31 Ace1123 wrote: 5/5 For Me. it is really fun and i Like how the diablo feel was preserved. The graphics are also good and of course the new changes are awesome. I just hope there will be more classes in the future -_-
3/5.
really? i felt the exact opposite. i felt like i was playing a tweeked dragonage/runescape game for 12 year olds. Where is the darkness/ raw feel of diablo 2? There is too much lighting, too little blood, and the items look like shit in the inventory. Diablo 2 from like a decade ago had better inventory graphics. It's retarded.
Also, people are saying that the game will be good because it's harder later on, but Is it going to be in the way that EVERYTHING is dependent on items (which blizzard wants to monopolize on) or because you'll need to plan out your character build? (shitty hdins/well planned casters could do well even w/ poor mans gear in d2). My guess is the former since every character will be exactly the same in that they are not specialized by skill trees. The only defining factor is your passives and your items.
I'm only hoping they fix these issues before destroying my childhood.
Agreed. I wish I had read your post before posting in the other thread.
That's the real problem of the current skill system - end game will be 100% item dependent.
No build commitment means that either everyone will be viable in the endgame or only those with elite gear will be. I'm guessing with so much emphasis placed on things like crafting and RMAH, it'll be the latter.
Just curious, did you guys play and enjoy diablo 2?
If you wanted to clear content alone, every character/build was extremely gear dependent. Hammerdins are probably the only exception but it'd be pretty hard to solo any boss as a Hammerdin in Hell with shitty gear which is what you needed to do to get gear in the first place.
Of course, i am one of those that hope for a "Skill Lock" kind of feature at lvl 60 (maybe give people a +5% total dmg as incentive to do so), so that i actually have a good reason to make Multiple characters of the same Class. Though chances are i will anyway, swapping gears and skills just aint my thing.
This is where the Nephalem Valor feature comes in. Basically, it provides a magic find and gold find buff for every champion mob, rare spawn, and boss you kill in a certain game, but persists only as long as you stay in that game without changing skills or runes. It's an incentive to stick with your chosen build because the additional magic find will likely be very crucial when gearing up for Inferno. Personally, I think this is a great way to approach some sort of skill lock without actually enforcing it.
Hahaha of course i am aware of Nephalem Valor. But as you can see, it still doesn't give me a good reason to create multiple characters of the same class (which is what i was talking about). I simply need to swap gears and skills at the beginning of every sitting/run.
Now i am not complaining per se, i like the game. Just one of the minor gripes i have, a little something i would like to see, is all.
If you really like making new characters... just do it ? Force yourself to use different skills as you did the first time.
On a side note... there are only 10 character slots. And its for both hardcore + softcore, that doesn't leave that much room.
=.= you don't have to be so defensive you know? If you would bother reading the quote, i said that i would likely do it regardless. I said it was just a minor gripe, jeez.
Why do you desire to have multiple characters of every class? I have nothing against the idea, mostly just curious.
On April 24 2012 02:37 dD3s wrote: Results from the poll: (5*346+4*116+3*81+2*63+1*33)/(346+116+81+63+33) = 4.06/5 Which is like 8.12/10 Diablo II was rated 9/10 on gamespot. Therefore Diablo II ≈ Diablo III since TL is a place of hardcore bw gamers. Besides I assume most of us are RTS fans.
Thanks for this. I honestly thought it was going to be a lot lower judging from the comments in the thread.
Vocal minority problem, as always on the internet. For every 10 or 20 or even 500 people who shut up and have a good time, there's a whiner. The game is good and deserves to be rated highly.
Definitely can it's made by a lot of different people than diablo 3. I think visually the best part is the physics and smooth animations. Runes feel overrated and not nearly as game changing as I had imagined. Will probably only buy it after a couple of my friends do to play together. I'd give it a 3/5 right now, I'd like to be able to play pvp at release as well.
Runes are overrated? We only got some low level runes and I already felt they completely changed how spells worked. For instance the fire bats turning from a cloud into huge single bats.
On April 23 2012 19:31 Ace1123 wrote: 5/5 For Me. it is really fun and i Like how the diablo feel was preserved. The graphics are also good and of course the new changes are awesome. I just hope there will be more classes in the future -_-
3/5.
really? i felt the exact opposite. i felt like i was playing a tweeked dragonage/runescape game for 12 year olds. Where is the darkness/ raw feel of diablo 2? There is too much lighting, too little blood, and the items look like shit in the inventory. Diablo 2 from like a decade ago had better inventory graphics. It's retarded.
Also, people are saying that the game will be good because it's harder later on, but Is it going to be in the way that EVERYTHING is dependent on items (which blizzard wants to monopolize on) or because you'll need to plan out your character build? (shitty hdins/well planned casters could do well even w/ poor mans gear in d2). My guess is the former since every character will be exactly the same in that they are not specialized by skill trees. The only defining factor is your passives and your items.
I'm only hoping they fix these issues before destroying my childhood.
Agreed. I wish I had read your post before posting in the other thread.
That's the real problem of the current skill system - end game will be 100% item dependent.
No build commitment means that either everyone will be viable in the endgame or only those with elite gear will be. I'm guessing with so much emphasis placed on things like crafting and RMAH, it'll be the latter.
Just curious, did you guys play and enjoy diablo 2?
If you wanted to clear content alone, every character/build was extremely gear dependent. Hammerdins are probably the only exception but it'd be pretty hard to solo any boss as a Hammerdin in Hell with shitty gear which is what you needed to do to get gear in the first place.
Of course, i am one of those that hope for a "Skill Lock" kind of feature at lvl 60 (maybe give people a +5% total dmg as incentive to do so), so that i actually have a good reason to make Multiple characters of the same Class. Though chances are i will anyway, swapping gears and skills just aint my thing.
This is where the Nephalem Valor feature comes in. Basically, it provides a magic find and gold find buff for every champion mob, rare spawn, and boss you kill in a certain game, but persists only as long as you stay in that game without changing skills or runes. It's an incentive to stick with your chosen build because the additional magic find will likely be very crucial when gearing up for Inferno. Personally, I think this is a great way to approach some sort of skill lock without actually enforcing it.
Hahaha of course i am aware of Nephalem Valor. But as you can see, it still doesn't give me a good reason to create multiple characters of the same class (which is what i was talking about). I simply need to swap gears and skills at the beginning of every sitting/run.
Now i am not complaining per se, i like the game. Just one of the minor gripes i have, a little something i would like to see, is all.
If you really like making new characters... just do it ? Force yourself to use different skills as you did the first time.
On a side note... there are only 10 character slots. And its for both hardcore + softcore, that doesn't leave that much room.
=.= you don't have to be so defensive you know? If you would bother reading the quote, i said that i would likely do it regardless. I said it was just a minor gripe, jeez.
Why do you desire to have multiple characters of every class? I have nothing against the idea, mostly just curious.
I also would like to have multiple characters >p. It gives the char some personal note, sort of the tamagotchi-effect
On April 25 2012 03:25 rezoacken wrote: On a side note... there are only 10 character slots. And its for both hardcore + softcore, that doesn't leave that much room.
You don't really need more than one hardcore character at a time. You can try all classes in softcore already and the hardcore characters tend to die off allowing you to reroll.
On April 25 2012 03:25 rezoacken wrote: On a side note... there are only 10 character slots. And its for both hardcore + softcore, that doesn't leave that much room.
You don't really need more than one hardcore character at a time. You can try all classes in softcore already and the hardcore characters tend to die off allowing you to reroll.
On April 23 2012 19:31 Ace1123 wrote: 5/5 For Me. it is really fun and i Like how the diablo feel was preserved. The graphics are also good and of course the new changes are awesome. I just hope there will be more classes in the future -_-
3/5.
really? i felt the exact opposite. i felt like i was playing a tweeked dragonage/runescape game for 12 year olds. Where is the darkness/ raw feel of diablo 2? There is too much lighting, too little blood, and the items look like shit in the inventory. Diablo 2 from like a decade ago had better inventory graphics. It's retarded.
Also, people are saying that the game will be good because it's harder later on, but Is it going to be in the way that EVERYTHING is dependent on items (which blizzard wants to monopolize on) or because you'll need to plan out your character build? (shitty hdins/well planned casters could do well even w/ poor mans gear in d2). My guess is the former since every character will be exactly the same in that they are not specialized by skill trees. The only defining factor is your passives and your items.
I'm only hoping they fix these issues before destroying my childhood.
Agreed. I wish I had read your post before posting in the other thread.
That's the real problem of the current skill system - end game will be 100% item dependent.
No build commitment means that either everyone will be viable in the endgame or only those with elite gear will be. I'm guessing with so much emphasis placed on things like crafting and RMAH, it'll be the latter.
Just curious, did you guys play and enjoy diablo 2?
If you wanted to clear content alone, every character/build was extremely gear dependent. Hammerdins are probably the only exception but it'd be pretty hard to solo any boss as a Hammerdin in Hell with shitty gear which is what you needed to do to get gear in the first place.
Of course, i am one of those that hope for a "Skill Lock" kind of feature at lvl 60 (maybe give people a +5% total dmg as incentive to do so), so that i actually have a good reason to make Multiple characters of the same Class. Though chances are i will anyway, swapping gears and skills just aint my thing.
This is where the Nephalem Valor feature comes in. Basically, it provides a magic find and gold find buff for every champion mob, rare spawn, and boss you kill in a certain game, but persists only as long as you stay in that game without changing skills or runes. It's an incentive to stick with your chosen build because the additional magic find will likely be very crucial when gearing up for Inferno. Personally, I think this is a great way to approach some sort of skill lock without actually enforcing it.
Hahaha of course i am aware of Nephalem Valor. But as you can see, it still doesn't give me a good reason to create multiple characters of the same class (which is what i was talking about). I simply need to swap gears and skills at the beginning of every sitting/run.
Now i am not complaining per se, i like the game. Just one of the minor gripes i have, a little something i would like to see, is all.
If you really like making new characters... just do it ? Force yourself to use different skills as you did the first time.
On a side note... there are only 10 character slots. And its for both hardcore + softcore, that doesn't leave that much room.
=.= you don't have to be so defensive you know? If you would bother reading the quote, i said that i would likely do it regardless. I said it was just a minor gripe, jeez.
Why do you desire to have multiple characters of every class? I have nothing against the idea, mostly just curious.
It is like that other guy said. It gives my characters a sense of.. personality i guess? I just don't make fickle dudes that Dual-wield one day, Sword/Board the next, who changes clothes more often than a teenage girl you know? :3
Really got disappointed by the beta so much that i don't even know if i'm gonna buy it anymore.
PvP wont be in for release ? Neither will hardcore mode ? wtf have they been doing for 3 years ? The graphics are pretty sub-par aswell, looks like a game from a couple years ago.
On April 27 2012 01:55 Nizaris wrote: Really got disappointed by the beta so much that i don't even know if i'm gonna buy it anymore.
PvP wont be in for release ? Neither will hardcore mode ? wtf have they been doing for 3 years ? The graphics are pretty sub-par aswell, looks like a game from a couple years ago.
2/5. Was a huge d2 fan back in the day...
Hardcore will most certainly be in for the release, it was even included in the beta. Also, the graphics were intended to simulate a "moving painting" according to a recent blue post on the art of Diablo III. Even so, Blizzard has never pretended to offer state of the art graphics in their games, and D3 is no different. I'll spoiler the whole post for anyone who's interested.
We're not particularly interested in pushing graphical limits with Blizzard games. Our intent is always to provide a timeless stylized aesthetic, while allowing for a broad range of machines to view the game with similar results. The art style for Diablo III is specifically intended to appear as a moving painting, which in general avoids very crisp textures, hard lines, or graphical effects.
In addition we specifically separate background from foreground by using by using a visually unobtrusive canvas and sharper and more saturated enemies and spell effects in the foreground to elevate the gameplay. We actually specifically call it the 'canvas' because the foreground and midground elements and action are painted on top. With the screen full of enemies, spell effects, minions, and players you don't want a busy background with detailed textures and a bunch of visual effects making them look detailed, because it actually detracts from the ability to quickly and easily make important skilled choices during combat.
It's more important for us to serve the gameplay as well as design a timeless game. "Realism" in games is really only as real as the next version of DirectX or video card product cycle. By approaching with a stylized and painterly approach, we intend for Diablo III to be playable and visually appealing for as long as possible.
As a huge D2 fan from back in the day, I was pleasantly surprised at how enjoyable the beta was, and I'm eagerly looking forward to release. What is it from the beta that disappointed you, exactly?
On April 27 2012 01:55 Nizaris wrote: Really got disappointed by the beta so much that i don't even know if i'm gonna buy it anymore.
PvP wont be in for release ? Neither will hardcore mode ? wtf have they been doing for 3 years ? The graphics are pretty sub-par aswell, looks like a game from a couple years ago.
2/5. Was a huge d2 fan back in the day...
I like how you feel entitled to judge the game but apparently didn't even take the 20 seconds it'd have taken you ingame to realize that hardcore mode was, in fact, there and will obviously be there at release too.
On April 27 2012 01:55 Nizaris wrote: Really got disappointed by the beta so much that i don't even know if i'm gonna buy it anymore.
PvP wont be in for release ? Neither will hardcore mode ? wtf have they been doing for 3 years ? The graphics are pretty sub-par aswell, looks like a game from a couple years ago.
2/5. Was a huge d2 fan back in the day...
Hardcore will most certainly be in for the release, it was even included in the beta. Also, the graphics were intended to simulate a "moving painting" according to a recent blue post on the art of Diablo III. Even so, Blizzard has never pretended to offer state of the art graphics in their games, and D3 is no different. I'll spoiler the whole post for anyone who's interested.
We're not particularly interested in pushing graphical limits with Blizzard games. Our intent is always to provide a timeless stylized aesthetic, while allowing for a broad range of machines to view the game with similar results. The art style for Diablo III is specifically intended to appear as a moving painting, which in general avoids very crisp textures, hard lines, or graphical effects.
In addition we specifically separate background from foreground by using by using a visually unobtrusive canvas and sharper and more saturated enemies and spell effects in the foreground to elevate the gameplay. We actually specifically call it the 'canvas' because the foreground and midground elements and action are painted on top. With the screen full of enemies, spell effects, minions, and players you don't want a busy background with detailed textures and a bunch of visual effects making them look detailed, because it actually detracts from the ability to quickly and easily make important skilled choices during combat.
It's more important for us to serve the gameplay as well as design a timeless game. "Realism" in games is really only as real as the next version of DirectX or video card product cycle. By approaching with a stylized and painterly approach, we intend for Diablo III to be playable and visually appealing for as long as possible.
As a huge D2 fan from back in the day, I was pleasantly surprised at how enjoyable the beta was, and I'm eagerly looking forward to release. What is it from the beta that disappointed you, exactly?
I get the feeling some people just want to hate on Diablo 3 because it's not Diablo 2, meaning that any game that wasn't just Diablo 2 with new areas would be bad.
On April 27 2012 01:55 Nizaris wrote: Really got disappointed by the beta so much that i don't even know if i'm gonna buy it anymore.
PvP wont be in for release ? Neither will hardcore mode ? wtf have they been doing for 3 years ? The graphics are pretty sub-par aswell, looks like a game from a couple years ago.
2/5. Was a huge d2 fan back in the day...
Hardcore will most certainly be in for the release, it was even included in the beta. Also, the graphics were intended to simulate a "moving painting" according to a recent blue post on the art of Diablo III. Even so, Blizzard has never pretended to offer state of the art graphics in their games, and D3 is no different. I'll spoiler the whole post for anyone who's interested.
We're not particularly interested in pushing graphical limits with Blizzard games. Our intent is always to provide a timeless stylized aesthetic, while allowing for a broad range of machines to view the game with similar results. The art style for Diablo III is specifically intended to appear as a moving painting, which in general avoids very crisp textures, hard lines, or graphical effects.
In addition we specifically separate background from foreground by using by using a visually unobtrusive canvas and sharper and more saturated enemies and spell effects in the foreground to elevate the gameplay. We actually specifically call it the 'canvas' because the foreground and midground elements and action are painted on top. With the screen full of enemies, spell effects, minions, and players you don't want a busy background with detailed textures and a bunch of visual effects making them look detailed, because it actually detracts from the ability to quickly and easily make important skilled choices during combat.
It's more important for us to serve the gameplay as well as design a timeless game. "Realism" in games is really only as real as the next version of DirectX or video card product cycle. By approaching with a stylized and painterly approach, we intend for Diablo III to be playable and visually appealing for as long as possible.
As a huge D2 fan from back in the day, I was pleasantly surprised at how enjoyable the beta was, and I'm eagerly looking forward to release. What is it from the beta that disappointed you, exactly?
I get the feeling some people just want to hate on Diablo 3 because it's not Diablo 2, meaning that any game that wasn't just Diablo 2 with new areas would be bad.
Well it was exactly like this with SC2(although with BW people have more right to feel like that imo ^^) so no suprises there...
I'm hesitating between 4 and 5, diablo 2 was sure a great game I would rate 2, but I don't know that much how diablo 3 will play since I didn't play the beta or read about it that much. Plus I'm really into sc2 right now, so not gonna really play it a ton. I'll give it a 4 for now, perhaps I'll change my mind when I play the game.
As it turns out, I probably shouldn't have tried the beta last weekend. Since then, my life has been a nightmare, each day a endless mind-numbing trudge through life.
I can barely get out of bed in the morning. Every minute spent at work goes by excruciatingly slowly. In my free time, my friends ask me why I look so listless; I can only stare at them emptily, unable to respond except with an unintelligible moan of longing. Food tastes like ashes in my mouth. Other games, normally so entertaining, have lost their charms. Even while lying with my sweet love, indeed every minute, every second, only one thought drives me: "I must play Diablo III".
I probably give the beta a 4. I had some issues with the interface, how it displayed quests and skills as well as some minor issues with the gameplay but overall I found myself playing through the beta more times than I had planned when I started which naturally is a positive.
There's still a lot of unknowns so the rating for the final game is still up in the air though. I'm especially hoping that the boss fights are a bit more exciting than the skeleton king but it was pretty much the same in D2 where the act bosses were what everything was leading up to.
On April 27 2012 11:22 Baobab wrote: As it turns out, I probably shouldn't have tried the beta last weekend. Since then, my life has been a nightmare, each day a endless mind-numbing trudge through life.
I can barely get out of bed in the morning. Every minute spent at work goes by excruciatingly slowly. In my free time, my friends ask me why I look so listless; I can only stare at them emptily, unable to respond except with an unintelligible moan of longing. Food tastes like ashes in my mouth. Other games, normally so entertaining, have lost their charms. Even while lying with my sweet love, indeed every minute, every second, only one thought drives me: "I must play Diablo III".
10/10 even if you just look at the speed at which they fixed every single issue they were made aware of pretty much. Every patch I found an issue with, it was guaranteed fixed by the next, I was pretty shocked. Been following the game for years and only imagine the best coming from it.
On April 23 2012 19:31 Ace1123 wrote: 5/5 For Me. it is really fun and i Like how the diablo feel was preserved. The graphics are also good and of course the new changes are awesome. I just hope there will be more classes in the future -_-
3/5.
really? i felt the exact opposite. i felt like i was playing a tweeked dragonage/runescape game for 12 year olds. Where is the darkness/ raw feel of diablo 2? There is too much lighting, too little blood, and the items look like shit in the inventory. Diablo 2 from like a decade ago had better inventory graphics. It's retarded.
Also, people are saying that the game will be good because it's harder later on, but Is it going to be in the way that EVERYTHING is dependent on items (which blizzard wants to monopolize on) or because you'll need to plan out your character build? (shitty hdins/well planned casters could do well even w/ poor mans gear in d2). My guess is the former since every character will be exactly the same in that they are not specialized by skill trees. The only defining factor is your passives and your items.
I'm only hoping they fix these issues before destroying my childhood.
Agreed. I wish I had read your post before posting in the other thread.
That's the real problem of the current skill system - end game will be 100% item dependent.
No build commitment means that either everyone will be viable in the endgame or only those with elite gear will be. I'm guessing with so much emphasis placed on things like crafting and RMAH, it'll be the latter.
Just curious, did you guys play and enjoy diablo 2?
If you wanted to clear content alone, every character/build was extremely gear dependent. Hammerdins are probably the only exception but it'd be pretty hard to solo any boss as a Hammerdin in Hell with shitty gear which is what you needed to do to get gear in the first place.
Just because you couldn't solo hell bosses naked that doesn't mean gear was extremely important,at least not for casters. I remember several times dying in hell and being able to kill several monsters using magic without my gear on just to reach my body. In D3, you are completely powerless without gear. Even magic relies solely on your weapon damage to determine how much damage you'll do. If you have a shitty weapon(or none at all), then it doesn't matter if you're using your end game spells or early game spells, you'll do shit all for damage either way.
Personally I don't think I'll get the game anymore, or at the very least I'm going to wait until a few weeks after it's release to make my final decision. I was able to play in the open beta weekend and it just felt....aimless.
I mean, I won't praise the D2 skill system as being awesome, but at the very least it gave you something to look forward to with each level. Each level you either gained a new skill, or you improved an old one. In D3, you get a predetermined skill or rune-skill. Often times I would level up in the beta, look at what it gave me, and be like.....meh, I don't want that, and just ignore the new skill. I just didn't feel excited or even happy like when I leveled up in D2. Not too mention the fact that due to you always getting the same skills, there's no need for you two make a second character of the same class.
There's also the stat allocation. Granted, I don't really care that they took that away too much, but at the very least my level 9 wizard shouldn't have identical health to my level 9 barbarian. It's just odd that each character gets the same vitality; two points every level, and 10 health per point, for every class.
I played the demon hunter, barb, and wizard for the beta. Demon hunter I had fun with, and felt was pretty strong. Wizard was pretty meh, and I didn't like the barb (died too often with him). Then again I rarely like melee characters.
Finally there's the complete dependency on equipment. I enjoyed the fact that in D2 I could get along fine as a caster without a decent weapon. It made sense, after all casters use magic, not weapons, to hurt their enemies. But in D3 you need a good weapon, otherwise your magic is useless. Furthermore it can be any weapon, which just feels weird. Why would my wizard carrying a club make an ice beam that does more damage than her having no weapon? What would the amount of damage that club is supposed to do when you bash someone with it have to do with the amount of damage that your ice beam does?
Also a bit disappointed that resistances seem to be taking a backseat now. You can only see them by opening up that advanced tab, and with blizzard wanting to make as many builds as possible work, I think we won't be seeing many creatures be completely resistant to certain types of magic, and we won't be needing resistances like we needed previously. Though this is mainly speculation as it was pretty early in the game.
Game does look good, and the production value of it is clearly high. I just don't think I would enjoy it.
On April 23 2012 19:31 Ace1123 wrote: 5/5 For Me. it is really fun and i Like how the diablo feel was preserved. The graphics are also good and of course the new changes are awesome. I just hope there will be more classes in the future -_-
3/5.
really? i felt the exact opposite. i felt like i was playing a tweeked dragonage/runescape game for 12 year olds. Where is the darkness/ raw feel of diablo 2? There is too much lighting, too little blood, and the items look like shit in the inventory. Diablo 2 from like a decade ago had better inventory graphics. It's retarded.
Also, people are saying that the game will be good because it's harder later on, but Is it going to be in the way that EVERYTHING is dependent on items (which blizzard wants to monopolize on) or because you'll need to plan out your character build? (shitty hdins/well planned casters could do well even w/ poor mans gear in d2). My guess is the former since every character will be exactly the same in that they are not specialized by skill trees. The only defining factor is your passives and your items.
I'm only hoping they fix these issues before destroying my childhood.
Agreed. I wish I had read your post before posting in the other thread.
That's the real problem of the current skill system - end game will be 100% item dependent.
No build commitment means that either everyone will be viable in the endgame or only those with elite gear will be. I'm guessing with so much emphasis placed on things like crafting and RMAH, it'll be the latter.
Just curious, did you guys play and enjoy diablo 2?
If you wanted to clear content alone, every character/build was extremely gear dependent. Hammerdins are probably the only exception but it'd be pretty hard to solo any boss as a Hammerdin in Hell with shitty gear which is what you needed to do to get gear in the first place.
Just because you couldn't solo hell bosses naked that doesn't mean gear was extremely important,at least not for casters. I remember several times dying in hell and being able to kill several monsters using magic without my gear on just to reach my body. In D3, you are completely powerless without gear. Even magic relies solely on your weapon damage to determine how much damage you'll do. If you have a shitty weapon(or none at all), then it doesn't matter if you're using your end game spells or early game spells, you'll do shit all for damage either way.
Personally I don't think I'll get the game anymore, or at the very least I'm going to wait until a few weeks after it's release to make my final decision. I was able to play in the open beta weekend and it just felt....aimless.
I mean, I won't praise the D2 skill system as being awesome, but at the very least it gave you something to look forward to with each level. Each level you either gained a new skill, or you improved an old one. In D3, you get a predetermined skill or rune-skill. Often times I would level up in the beta, look at what it gave me, and be like.....meh, I don't want that, and just ignore the new skill. I just didn't feel excited or even happy like when I leveled up in D2. Not too mention the fact that due to you always getting the same skills, there's no need for you two make a second character of the same class.
There's also the stat allocation. Granted, I don't really care that they took that away too much, but at the very least my level 9 wizard shouldn't have identical health to my level 9 barbarian. It's just odd that each character gets the same vitality; two points every level, and 10 health per point, for every class.
I played the demon hunter, barb, and wizard for the beta. Demon hunter I had fun with, and felt was pretty strong. Wizard was pretty meh, and I didn't like the barb (died too often with him). Then again I rarely like melee characters.
Finally there's the complete dependency on equipment. I enjoyed the fact that in D2 I could get along fine as a caster without a decent weapon. It made sense, after all casters use magic, not weapons, to hurt their enemies. But in D3 you need a good weapon, otherwise your magic is useless. Furthermore it can be any weapon, which just feels weird. Why would my wizard carrying a club make an ice beam that does more damage than her having no weapon? What would the amount of damage that club is supposed to do when you bash someone with it have to do with the amount of damage that your ice beam does?
Also a bit disappointed that resistances seem to be taking a backseat now. You can only see them by opening up that advanced tab, and with blizzard wanting to make as many builds as possible work, I think we won't be seeing many creatures be completely resistant to certain types of magic, and we won't be needing resistances like we needed previously. Though this is mainly speculation as it was pretty early in the game.
Game does look good, and the production value of it is clearly high. I just don't think I would enjoy it.
Hmm..
You said you died too many times with a Barb in Beta. I take it you are a casual player then, and won't go in-depth into the more subtle differences.
What skill did you improve and/or look forward to from level 1 to 23 when you played Lightning Fury Amazon again? lvl 1-29 for Whirlwind Barb? lvl 1-29 Fury Druid? the list could go on.
See, with the new system, you get a new Skill every level (which is more than you can say for Diablo 2). Now you may or may not choose to use it, but the option is there. And you say it as if it was better in Diablo 2: "w00t level 6, now what skills did i get? Double Swing, Taunt?.. meh, back to basic attacks " (and let's not forget that the next time you get something new is lvl 12)
The new system improves our strength with your gear. And what's difficult to understand about how your magical weapons empower the skills that you use?
Most of your concern (how you cant do dmg w/o items, etc) seem to basically converge to 1 point: "This game is different from Diablo 2", and yes it is. However, you don't see to point out how those differences are bad.
In Diablo 3, more than just your skills, more gears define your build (especially at higher levels). So I believe that point is rather moot, about how one need only switch skills and he has a new character. If you switch gears too, then it's about the same for every game (in Diablo 2, you can switch your skills in 10 minutes, in the past, it used to take ~3 hours).
And lol at the guy you quoted. Hammerdin the only class to be able to clear Hell without good gear? Evidently one of those guys who reads a few forums posts on the internet, seeing "Hammerdin OP" here and there, and proceed to talk like a master of the game. For the record, Zookeeper Nec can clear Hell naked, Trapsin, most Sorcs, Tesladin, Fireclaw Bear, and many more classes can clear Hell just as effectively, if not even more so than Hammerdin.
On May 01 2012 17:27 killa_robot wrote: Finally there's the complete dependency on equipment. I enjoyed the fact that in D2 I could get along fine as a caster without a decent weapon.
And the melee characters hated that. Why should they get punished so much more than you for dying in a tricky spot?
On May 01 2012 17:27 killa_robot wrote:What would the amount of damage that club is supposed to do when you bash someone with it have to do with the amount of damage that your ice beam does?
How does holding a glowing ball on a stick have anything to do with making all a Sorc's skills more powerful? The old mechanic is just as ridiculous as the new one. Doesn't make it better or worse.
On May 01 2012 17:27 killa_robot wrote: Also a bit disappointed that resistances seem to be taking a backseat now. You can only see them by opening up that advanced tab, and with blizzard wanting to make as many builds as possible work, I think we won't be seeing many creatures be completely resistant to certain types of magic, and we won't be needing resistances like we needed previously. Though this is mainly speculation as it was pretty early in the game.
You can also only see physical damage reduction by opening up the advanced tab, and that's gonna be pretty important.
They've stated that they don't want players in normal worrying about resistances, to the point where many resistance affixes don't even drop in normal. That doesn't mean it's not going to be incredibly important later on.
On May 01 2012 17:27 killa_robot wrote: Also a bit disappointed that resistances seem to be taking a backseat now. You can only see them by opening up that advanced tab, and with blizzard wanting to make as many builds as possible work, I think we won't be seeing many creatures be completely resistant to certain types of magic, and we won't be needing resistances like we needed previously. Though this is mainly speculation as it was pretty early in the game.
You can also only see physical damage reduction by opening up the advanced tab, and that's gonna be pretty important.
They've stated that they don't want players in normal worrying about resistances, to the point where many resistance affixes don't even drop in normal. That doesn't mean it's not going to be incredibly important later on.
IIRC there won't be any complete monster immunities.
On May 01 2012 17:27 killa_robot wrote: Also a bit disappointed that resistances seem to be taking a backseat now. You can only see them by opening up that advanced tab, and with blizzard wanting to make as many builds as possible work, I think we won't be seeing many creatures be completely resistant to certain types of magic, and we won't be needing resistances like we needed previously. Though this is mainly speculation as it was pretty early in the game.
You can also only see physical damage reduction by opening up the advanced tab, and that's gonna be pretty important.
They've stated that they don't want players in normal worrying about resistances, to the point where many resistance affixes don't even drop in normal. That doesn't mean it's not going to be incredibly important later on.
IIRC there won't be any complete monster immunities.
In D2 that was important since characters did so much damage that it didn't matter that much if you did 100% or 10% damage, the monsters died anyway. Try play D3 without getting a better weapon than the starterweapon. You wont be able to kill anything at all with that after a few levels even though you do more than 10% of your max dps.
On May 01 2012 17:27 killa_robot wrote: Also a bit disappointed that resistances seem to be taking a backseat now. You can only see them by opening up that advanced tab, and with blizzard wanting to make as many builds as possible work, I think we won't be seeing many creatures be completely resistant to certain types of magic, and we won't be needing resistances like we needed previously. Though this is mainly speculation as it was pretty early in the game.
You can also only see physical damage reduction by opening up the advanced tab, and that's gonna be pretty important.
They've stated that they don't want players in normal worrying about resistances, to the point where many resistance affixes don't even drop in normal. That doesn't mean it's not going to be incredibly important later on.
IIRC there won't be any complete monster immunities.
Which is not necessary a bad thing. Monster immunities were artifical barriers to make the game harder. Without this, it means they've figured other ways of making the game harder and hopefully more fun to play at higher difficulties/
Resistances aren't flat % based anymore, they're rating based, which means having 50 resists to lightning at level 15 is a lot different than at level 60.
I love how people make d3 sound all casual and easy when it's only 1/3 of a1 on NORMAL we get to play. Just please don't bitch about things getting too hard later on bnet forums, it'll make life much better for the rest of us.
On May 01 2012 17:27 killa_robot wrote: Also a bit disappointed that resistances seem to be taking a backseat now. You can only see them by opening up that advanced tab, and with blizzard wanting to make as many builds as possible work, I think we won't be seeing many creatures be completely resistant to certain types of magic, and we won't be needing resistances like we needed previously. Though this is mainly speculation as it was pretty early in the game.
You can also only see physical damage reduction by opening up the advanced tab, and that's gonna be pretty important.
They've stated that they don't want players in normal worrying about resistances, to the point where many resistance affixes don't even drop in normal. That doesn't mean it's not going to be incredibly important later on.
IIRC there won't be any complete monster immunities.
Which is not necessary a bad thing. Monster immunities were artifical barriers to make the game harder. Without this, it means they've figured other ways of making the game harder and hopefully more fun to play at higher difficulties/
Resistances aren't flat % based anymore, they're rating based, which means having 50 resists to lightning at level 15 is a lot different than at level 60.
I love how people make d3 sound all casual and easy when it's only 1/3 of a1 on NORMAL we get to play. Just please don't bitch about things getting too hard later on bnet forums, it'll make life much better for the rest of us.
Tbh, most of the time immunities didn't make things harder at all, they just made them less fun.
It didn't prevent builds with a single damage type like most sorcs or druids, so if it was supposed to encourage build diversity it kinda failed hard at that. It just meant that when you found an immune monster, you ran away from it/went AFK while your merc killed it.
I will play this really only because it is free with my annual WoW subscription. I doubt I would have been willing to spend any money on it otherwise. Will probably play it through once or twice and then I'm back to WoW/SC2.
On April 23 2012 19:31 Ace1123 wrote: 5/5 For Me. it is really fun and i Like how the diablo feel was preserved. The graphics are also good and of course the new changes are awesome. I just hope there will be more classes in the future -_-
3/5.
really? i felt the exact opposite. i felt like i was playing a tweeked dragonage/runescape game for 12 year olds. Where is the darkness/ raw feel of diablo 2? There is too much lighting, too little blood, and the items look like shit in the inventory. Diablo 2 from like a decade ago had better inventory graphics. It's retarded.
Also, people are saying that the game will be good because it's harder later on, but Is it going to be in the way that EVERYTHING is dependent on items (which blizzard wants to monopolize on) or because you'll need to plan out your character build? (shitty hdins/well planned casters could do well even w/ poor mans gear in d2). My guess is the former since every character will be exactly the same in that they are not specialized by skill trees. The only defining factor is your passives and your items.
I'm only hoping they fix these issues before destroying my childhood.
Agreed. I wish I had read your post before posting in the other thread.
That's the real problem of the current skill system - end game will be 100% item dependent.
No build commitment means that either everyone will be viable in the endgame or only those with elite gear will be. I'm guessing with so much emphasis placed on things like crafting and RMAH, it'll be the latter.
Just curious, did you guys play and enjoy diablo 2?
If you wanted to clear content alone, every character/build was extremely gear dependent. Hammerdins are probably the only exception but it'd be pretty hard to solo any boss as a Hammerdin in Hell with shitty gear which is what you needed to do to get gear in the first place.
Just because you couldn't solo hell bosses naked that doesn't mean gear was extremely important,at least not for casters. I remember several times dying in hell and being able to kill several monsters using magic without my gear on just to reach my body. In D3, you are completely powerless without gear. Even magic relies solely on your weapon damage to determine how much damage you'll do. If you have a shitty weapon(or none at all), then it doesn't matter if you're using your end game spells or early game spells, you'll do shit all for damage either way.
Personally I don't think I'll get the game anymore, or at the very least I'm going to wait until a few weeks after it's release to make my final decision. I was able to play in the open beta weekend and it just felt....aimless.
I mean, I won't praise the D2 skill system as being awesome, but at the very least it gave you something to look forward to with each level. Each level you either gained a new skill, or you improved an old one. In D3, you get a predetermined skill or rune-skill. Often times I would level up in the beta, look at what it gave me, and be like.....meh, I don't want that, and just ignore the new skill. I just didn't feel excited or even happy like when I leveled up in D2. Not too mention the fact that due to you always getting the same skills, there's no need for you two make a second character of the same class.
There's also the stat allocation. Granted, I don't really care that they took that away too much, but at the very least my level 9 wizard shouldn't have identical health to my level 9 barbarian. It's just odd that each character gets the same vitality; two points every level, and 10 health per point, for every class.
I played the demon hunter, barb, and wizard for the beta. Demon hunter I had fun with, and felt was pretty strong. Wizard was pretty meh, and I didn't like the barb (died too often with him). Then again I rarely like melee characters.
Finally there's the complete dependency on equipment. I enjoyed the fact that in D2 I could get along fine as a caster without a decent weapon. It made sense, after all casters use magic, not weapons, to hurt their enemies. But in D3 you need a good weapon, otherwise your magic is useless. Furthermore it can be any weapon, which just feels weird. Why would my wizard carrying a club make an ice beam that does more damage than her having no weapon? What would the amount of damage that club is supposed to do when you bash someone with it have to do with the amount of damage that your ice beam does?
Also a bit disappointed that resistances seem to be taking a backseat now. You can only see them by opening up that advanced tab, and with blizzard wanting to make as many builds as possible work, I think we won't be seeing many creatures be completely resistant to certain types of magic, and we won't be needing resistances like we needed previously. Though this is mainly speculation as it was pretty early in the game.
Game does look good, and the production value of it is clearly high. I just don't think I would enjoy it.
Hmm..
You said you died too many times with a Barb in Beta. I take it you are a casual player then, and won't go in-depth into the more subtle differences.
What skill did you improve and/or look forward to from level 1 to 23 when you played Lightning Fury Amazon again? lvl 1-29 for Whirlwind Barb? lvl 1-29 Fury Druid? the list could go on.
See, with the new system, you get a new Skill every level (which is more than you can say for Diablo 2). Now you may or may not choose to use it, but the option is there. And you say it as if it was better in Diablo 2: "w00t level 6, now what skills did i get? Double Swing, Taunt?.. meh, back to basic attacks " (and let's not forget that the next time you get something new is lvl 12)
The new system improves our strength with your gear. And what's difficult to understand about how your magical weapons empower the skills that you use?
Most of your concern (how you cant do dmg w/o items, etc) seem to basically converge to 1 point: "This game is different from Diablo 2", and yes it is. However, you don't see to point out how those differences are bad.
In Diablo 3, more than just your skills, more gears define your build (especially at higher levels). So I believe that point is rather moot, about how one need only switch skills and he has a new character. If you switch gears too, then it's about the same for every game (in Diablo 2, you can switch your skills in 10 minutes, in the past, it used to take ~3 hours).
And lol at the guy you quoted. Hammerdin the only class to be able to clear Hell without good gear? Evidently one of those guys who reads a few forums posts on the internet, seeing "Hammerdin OP" here and there, and proceed to talk like a master of the game. For the record, Zookeeper Nec can clear Hell naked, Trapsin, most Sorcs, Tesladin, Fireclaw Bear, and many more classes can clear Hell just as effectively, if not even more so than Hammerdin.
Actually he mostly does point out why they are bad, and i have to agree with him. I want my games to offer me as many options as possible be they pointless or not. That includes stat allocation (even if it all ends up in vit ... or well you know we could just make the other stats have more use) and talent trees with synergies.(And please dont argue that the current system allows for as much diversity, repeating it simply wont make it true) Yes D3 is different but that is not why i dont like it. I dont like it because it takes away options i had before instead of improving upon them. I dont like it because in the end it will pretty much boil down the entire equipment to a single same stat for all classes (which is weapon damage). I dont like it because i want my fingers to race over more than just a handfull of hotkeys to get the most out of my char. And i dont like it because i will never be able to get a group of friends together for a completely naked hardcore run through all difficulties like in D2 (everyone who never tried that should really give it a taste) That i will only be able to play it with a running connection doesnt help either, even though thats by far not the most important point. That D3 will ever be truely difficult is something i still doubt as well, although i admit i cant know that yet for certain. It just a feeling iam having from reading what blizzard tells us.
On April 23 2012 19:31 Ace1123 wrote: 5/5 For Me. it is really fun and i Like how the diablo feel was preserved. The graphics are also good and of course the new changes are awesome. I just hope there will be more classes in the future -_-
3/5.
really? i felt the exact opposite. i felt like i was playing a tweeked dragonage/runescape game for 12 year olds. Where is the darkness/ raw feel of diablo 2? There is too much lighting, too little blood, and the items look like shit in the inventory. Diablo 2 from like a decade ago had better inventory graphics. It's retarded.
Also, people are saying that the game will be good because it's harder later on, but Is it going to be in the way that EVERYTHING is dependent on items (which blizzard wants to monopolize on) or because you'll need to plan out your character build? (shitty hdins/well planned casters could do well even w/ poor mans gear in d2). My guess is the former since every character will be exactly the same in that they are not specialized by skill trees. The only defining factor is your passives and your items.
I'm only hoping they fix these issues before destroying my childhood.
Agreed. I wish I had read your post before posting in the other thread.
That's the real problem of the current skill system - end game will be 100% item dependent.
No build commitment means that either everyone will be viable in the endgame or only those with elite gear will be. I'm guessing with so much emphasis placed on things like crafting and RMAH, it'll be the latter.
Just curious, did you guys play and enjoy diablo 2?
If you wanted to clear content alone, every character/build was extremely gear dependent. Hammerdins are probably the only exception but it'd be pretty hard to solo any boss as a Hammerdin in Hell with shitty gear which is what you needed to do to get gear in the first place.
Just because you couldn't solo hell bosses naked that doesn't mean gear was extremely important,at least not for casters. I remember several times dying in hell and being able to kill several monsters using magic without my gear on just to reach my body. In D3, you are completely powerless without gear. Even magic relies solely on your weapon damage to determine how much damage you'll do. If you have a shitty weapon(or none at all), then it doesn't matter if you're using your end game spells or early game spells, you'll do shit all for damage either way.
Personally I don't think I'll get the game anymore, or at the very least I'm going to wait until a few weeks after it's release to make my final decision. I was able to play in the open beta weekend and it just felt....aimless.
I mean, I won't praise the D2 skill system as being awesome, but at the very least it gave you something to look forward to with each level. Each level you either gained a new skill, or you improved an old one. In D3, you get a predetermined skill or rune-skill. Often times I would level up in the beta, look at what it gave me, and be like.....meh, I don't want that, and just ignore the new skill. I just didn't feel excited or even happy like when I leveled up in D2. Not too mention the fact that due to you always getting the same skills, there's no need for you two make a second character of the same class.
There's also the stat allocation. Granted, I don't really care that they took that away too much, but at the very least my level 9 wizard shouldn't have identical health to my level 9 barbarian. It's just odd that each character gets the same vitality; two points every level, and 10 health per point, for every class.
I played the demon hunter, barb, and wizard for the beta. Demon hunter I had fun with, and felt was pretty strong. Wizard was pretty meh, and I didn't like the barb (died too often with him). Then again I rarely like melee characters.
Finally there's the complete dependency on equipment. I enjoyed the fact that in D2 I could get along fine as a caster without a decent weapon. It made sense, after all casters use magic, not weapons, to hurt their enemies. But in D3 you need a good weapon, otherwise your magic is useless. Furthermore it can be any weapon, which just feels weird. Why would my wizard carrying a club make an ice beam that does more damage than her having no weapon? What would the amount of damage that club is supposed to do when you bash someone with it have to do with the amount of damage that your ice beam does?
Also a bit disappointed that resistances seem to be taking a backseat now. You can only see them by opening up that advanced tab, and with blizzard wanting to make as many builds as possible work, I think we won't be seeing many creatures be completely resistant to certain types of magic, and we won't be needing resistances like we needed previously. Though this is mainly speculation as it was pretty early in the game.
Game does look good, and the production value of it is clearly high. I just don't think I would enjoy it.
Hmm..
You said you died too many times with a Barb in Beta. I take it you are a casual player then, and won't go in-depth into the more subtle differences.
What skill did you improve and/or look forward to from level 1 to 23 when you played Lightning Fury Amazon again? lvl 1-29 for Whirlwind Barb? lvl 1-29 Fury Druid? the list could go on.
See, with the new system, you get a new Skill every level (which is more than you can say for Diablo 2). Now you may or may not choose to use it, but the option is there. And you say it as if it was better in Diablo 2: "w00t level 6, now what skills did i get? Double Swing, Taunt?.. meh, back to basic attacks " (and let's not forget that the next time you get something new is lvl 12)
The new system improves our strength with your gear. And what's difficult to understand about how your magical weapons empower the skills that you use?
Most of your concern (how you cant do dmg w/o items, etc) seem to basically converge to 1 point: "This game is different from Diablo 2", and yes it is. However, you don't see to point out how those differences are bad.
In Diablo 3, more than just your skills, more gears define your build (especially at higher levels). So I believe that point is rather moot, about how one need only switch skills and he has a new character. If you switch gears too, then it's about the same for every game (in Diablo 2, you can switch your skills in 10 minutes, in the past, it used to take ~3 hours).
And lol at the guy you quoted. Hammerdin the only class to be able to clear Hell without good gear? Evidently one of those guys who reads a few forums posts on the internet, seeing "Hammerdin OP" here and there, and proceed to talk like a master of the game. For the record, Zookeeper Nec can clear Hell naked, Trapsin, most Sorcs, Tesladin, Fireclaw Bear, and many more classes can clear Hell just as effectively, if not even more so than Hammerdin.
Actually he mostly does point out why they are bad, and i have to agree with him. I want my games to offer me as many options as possible be they pointless or not. That includes stat allocation (even if it all ends up in vit ... or well you know we could just make the other stats have more use) and talent trees with synergies.(And please dont argue that the current system allows for as much diversity, repeating it simply wont make it true) Yes D3 is different but that is not why i dont like it. I dont like it because it takes away options i had before instead of improving upon them. I dont like it because in the end it will pretty much boil down the entire equipment to a single same stat for all classes (which is weapon damage). I dont like it because i want my fingers to race over more than just a handfull of hotkeys to get the most out of my char. And i dont like it because i will never be able to get a group of friends together for a completely naked hardcore run through all difficulties like in D2 (everyone who never tried that should really give it a taste) That i will only be able to play it with a running connection doesnt help either, even though thats by far not the most important point. That D3 will ever be truely difficult is something i still doubt as well, although i admit i cant know that yet for certain. It just a feeling iam having from reading what blizzard tells us.
I actually completely disagree with you on your game play points.
Yes D3 is different but that is not why i dont like it. I dont like it because it takes away options i had before instead of improving upon them.
The game didn't take any options away. The way I see it, they made the with fewer options but made many more paths viable then Diablo 2 will ever have.
I dont like it because i want my fingers to race over more than just a handfull of hotkeys to get the most out of my char.
I played a paladin, sorc, and amazon all to the low 90s when leveling was actually hard (read 1.08 - 1.09) and most of the time it was spamming a single skill or using other skills to get around or recharge buffs. I don't think I ever needed to use 6 skills all at once. Not sure if you are talking about D2 here, but you never had to make use of a lot of skills to be good at D2.
That D3 will ever be truely difficult is something i still doubt as well, although i admit i cant know that yet for certain. It just a feeling iam having from reading what blizzard tells us.
If you still doubt this part, I don't think you've read or watched enough of the developer content that Blizz releases. For me, as long as the game is as hard as it is in Diablo 2, I think thats good enough for me. So most people clear nightmare and a smaller percentage clear Hell at the beginning of ladder resets (before you can be rushed).
I played the beta and really loved it. I´m okay with the new skill and runesystem and even the attribute points. Also the crafting systems seems really enjoyable.
The only thing that annoyed me was the stats interface. It only displayed 1 dps number. Wtf was that number telling me? My auto hit dps? I don´t now but I really want to see how much min and max dmg my spells and skills do. It would be great if they had at least 2 fields in the status box to display the dmg of left and right click so you can compare your skill dmg easier. Till the end of the beta i couldn´t figur out if weapon speed affected my casting speed so i couldn´t check if a high dmg but low dps weapon would do greater dmg for a caster overall or not.
On May 02 2012 02:16 007Kain wrote: I played the beta and really loved it. I´m okay with the new skill and runesystem and even the attribute points. Also the crafting systems seems really enjoyable.
The only thing that annoyed me was the stats interface. It only displayed 1 dps number. Wtf was that number telling me? My auto hit dps? I don´t now but I really want to see how much min and max dmg my spells and skills do. It would be great if they had at least 2 fields in the status box to display the dmg of left and right click so you can compare your skill dmg easier. Till the end of the beta i couldn´t figur out if weapon speed affected my casting speed so i couldn´t check if a high dmg but low dps weapon would do greater dmg for a caster overall or not.
You need to turn on advanced tool tips. The dps number tells you your auto attack. All your skills' damages are based on that number (usually a percentage of that number). With advanced tooltips turned on the game allows you to see the damage of your skills.
Weapon speed DOES affect your casting speed but the other important stat of an item is the "DPS" of the weapon. That "DPS" number takes into account speed and damage per attack to calculate how much damage you can do over time.
On April 23 2012 19:31 Ace1123 wrote: 5/5 For Me. it is really fun and i Like how the diablo feel was preserved. The graphics are also good and of course the new changes are awesome. I just hope there will be more classes in the future -_-
3/5.
really? i felt the exact opposite. i felt like i was playing a tweeked dragonage/runescape game for 12 year olds. Where is the darkness/ raw feel of diablo 2? There is too much lighting, too little blood, and the items look like shit in the inventory. Diablo 2 from like a decade ago had better inventory graphics. It's retarded.
Also, people are saying that the game will be good because it's harder later on, but Is it going to be in the way that EVERYTHING is dependent on items (which blizzard wants to monopolize on) or because you'll need to plan out your character build? (shitty hdins/well planned casters could do well even w/ poor mans gear in d2). My guess is the former since every character will be exactly the same in that they are not specialized by skill trees. The only defining factor is your passives and your items.
I'm only hoping they fix these issues before destroying my childhood.
Agreed. I wish I had read your post before posting in the other thread.
That's the real problem of the current skill system - end game will be 100% item dependent.
No build commitment means that either everyone will be viable in the endgame or only those with elite gear will be. I'm guessing with so much emphasis placed on things like crafting and RMAH, it'll be the latter.
Just curious, did you guys play and enjoy diablo 2?
If you wanted to clear content alone, every character/build was extremely gear dependent. Hammerdins are probably the only exception but it'd be pretty hard to solo any boss as a Hammerdin in Hell with shitty gear which is what you needed to do to get gear in the first place.
Just because you couldn't solo hell bosses naked that doesn't mean gear was extremely important,at least not for casters. I remember several times dying in hell and being able to kill several monsters using magic without my gear on just to reach my body. In D3, you are completely powerless without gear. Even magic relies solely on your weapon damage to determine how much damage you'll do. If you have a shitty weapon(or none at all), then it doesn't matter if you're using your end game spells or early game spells, you'll do shit all for damage either way.
Personally I don't think I'll get the game anymore, or at the very least I'm going to wait until a few weeks after it's release to make my final decision. I was able to play in the open beta weekend and it just felt....aimless.
I mean, I won't praise the D2 skill system as being awesome, but at the very least it gave you something to look forward to with each level. Each level you either gained a new skill, or you improved an old one. In D3, you get a predetermined skill or rune-skill. Often times I would level up in the beta, look at what it gave me, and be like.....meh, I don't want that, and just ignore the new skill. I just didn't feel excited or even happy like when I leveled up in D2. Not too mention the fact that due to you always getting the same skills, there's no need for you two make a second character of the same class.
There's also the stat allocation. Granted, I don't really care that they took that away too much, but at the very least my level 9 wizard shouldn't have identical health to my level 9 barbarian. It's just odd that each character gets the same vitality; two points every level, and 10 health per point, for every class.
I played the demon hunter, barb, and wizard for the beta. Demon hunter I had fun with, and felt was pretty strong. Wizard was pretty meh, and I didn't like the barb (died too often with him). Then again I rarely like melee characters.
Finally there's the complete dependency on equipment. I enjoyed the fact that in D2 I could get along fine as a caster without a decent weapon. It made sense, after all casters use magic, not weapons, to hurt their enemies. But in D3 you need a good weapon, otherwise your magic is useless. Furthermore it can be any weapon, which just feels weird. Why would my wizard carrying a club make an ice beam that does more damage than her having no weapon? What would the amount of damage that club is supposed to do when you bash someone with it have to do with the amount of damage that your ice beam does?
Also a bit disappointed that resistances seem to be taking a backseat now. You can only see them by opening up that advanced tab, and with blizzard wanting to make as many builds as possible work, I think we won't be seeing many creatures be completely resistant to certain types of magic, and we won't be needing resistances like we needed previously. Though this is mainly speculation as it was pretty early in the game.
Game does look good, and the production value of it is clearly high. I just don't think I would enjoy it.
Hmm..
You said you died too many times with a Barb in Beta. I take it you are a casual player then, and won't go in-depth into the more subtle differences.
What skill did you improve and/or look forward to from level 1 to 23 when you played Lightning Fury Amazon again? lvl 1-29 for Whirlwind Barb? lvl 1-29 Fury Druid? the list could go on.
See, with the new system, you get a new Skill every level (which is more than you can say for Diablo 2). Now you may or may not choose to use it, but the option is there. And you say it as if it was better in Diablo 2: "w00t level 6, now what skills did i get? Double Swing, Taunt?.. meh, back to basic attacks " (and let's not forget that the next time you get something new is lvl 12)
The new system improves our strength with your gear. And what's difficult to understand about how your magical weapons empower the skills that you use?
Most of your concern (how you cant do dmg w/o items, etc) seem to basically converge to 1 point: "This game is different from Diablo 2", and yes it is. However, you don't see to point out how those differences are bad.
In Diablo 3, more than just your skills, more gears define your build (especially at higher levels). So I believe that point is rather moot, about how one need only switch skills and he has a new character. If you switch gears too, then it's about the same for every game (in Diablo 2, you can switch your skills in 10 minutes, in the past, it used to take ~3 hours).
And lol at the guy you quoted. Hammerdin the only class to be able to clear Hell without good gear? Evidently one of those guys who reads a few forums posts on the internet, seeing "Hammerdin OP" here and there, and proceed to talk like a master of the game. For the record, Zookeeper Nec can clear Hell naked, Trapsin, most Sorcs, Tesladin, Fireclaw Bear, and many more classes can clear Hell just as effectively, if not even more so than Hammerdin.
Actually he mostly does point out why they are bad, and i have to agree with him. I want my games to offer me as many options as possible be they pointless or not. That includes stat allocation (even if it all ends up in vit ... or well you know we could just make the other stats have more use) and talent trees with synergies.(And please dont argue that the current system allows for as much diversity, repeating it simply wont make it true) Yes D3 is different but that is not why i dont like it. I dont like it because it takes away options i had before instead of improving upon them. I dont like it because in the end it will pretty much boil down the entire equipment to a single same stat for all classes (which is weapon damage). I dont like it because i want my fingers to race over more than just a handfull of hotkeys to get the most out of my char. And i dont like it because i will never be able to get a group of friends together for a completely naked hardcore run through all difficulties like in D2 (everyone who never tried that should really give it a taste) That i will only be able to play it with a running connection doesnt help either, even though thats by far not the most important point. That D3 will ever be truely difficult is something i still doubt as well, although i admit i cant know that yet for certain. It just a feeling iam having from reading what blizzard tells us.
Your fingers raced over what? o.O Which class did you play?
Other than PvP, which _might_ involve more buttons for some classes (even in this case, most of them are pre-buffs, and aren't used at all through out the duel), PvE absolutely doesn't involve any class that employ 6 active skills (pre-buffing every few minutes out-of-combat isn't considered "active").
You are allowed to customize stat points in Diablo 3 by the way, you just have to do that via Gems.
You said the only stats right now is "weapon damage". What happen to Armor? Resistance? Dodge? If we are talking "damage stats", Diablo 2 was the same. Either 100% dmg from skill, or 100% dmg from weapon.
As far as build diversity goes, I guess we won't be convincing one another. (For your info, the sentence "repeating it simply wont make it true" can be thrown right back at you .. ).
Gahh. It seems like people keep thinking this is going to be anything like WoW. Its not like WoW.
1. you are not supposed to be able to have 20 different skill buttons to press per class. Using the right skill at the right time is not the point of diablo - its about using mana and resources effectively using limited options against overwhelming forces of enemies. 2. You have Many, Many character customization/stat customization options in Diablo. Unlike WoW, your equipment is not standardized for your class. you also have many different stats and magical properties on items which allow you to customize. 3. You actually have many MORE viable options in diablo than you ever did in WoW, or even most other games of its kind. 4. The original Diablo was developed as a SINGLE PLAYER game, not an MMO, and it should retain this feel. Grouping up is allowed, but is not necessary to conquer the game. 5. Go back and play the original Diablo 1 - its a pretty freakin hard game. I think (hope) D3 will be true to this spirit and Inferno will actually be quite tough. 6. They keep talking about "tier" items, which is a misnomer. Itemization in Diablo is much much more random than WoW. Even if you get High tier armor, there might be the exact same piece of armor floating around with slightly better stats on it. Its always about getting slighty better stuff, not beating the new boss and going up a tier.
On April 23 2012 19:31 Ace1123 wrote: 5/5 For Me. it is really fun and i Like how the diablo feel was preserved. The graphics are also good and of course the new changes are awesome. I just hope there will be more classes in the future -_-
3/5.
really? i felt the exact opposite. i felt like i was playing a tweeked dragonage/runescape game for 12 year olds. Where is the darkness/ raw feel of diablo 2? There is too much lighting, too little blood, and the items look like shit in the inventory. Diablo 2 from like a decade ago had better inventory graphics. It's retarded.
Also, people are saying that the game will be good because it's harder later on, but Is it going to be in the way that EVERYTHING is dependent on items (which blizzard wants to monopolize on) or because you'll need to plan out your character build? (shitty hdins/well planned casters could do well even w/ poor mans gear in d2). My guess is the former since every character will be exactly the same in that they are not specialized by skill trees. The only defining factor is your passives and your items.
I'm only hoping they fix these issues before destroying my childhood.
Agreed. I wish I had read your post before posting in the other thread.
That's the real problem of the current skill system - end game will be 100% item dependent.
No build commitment means that either everyone will be viable in the endgame or only those with elite gear will be. I'm guessing with so much emphasis placed on things like crafting and RMAH, it'll be the latter.
Just curious, did you guys play and enjoy diablo 2?
If you wanted to clear content alone, every character/build was extremely gear dependent. Hammerdins are probably the only exception but it'd be pretty hard to solo any boss as a Hammerdin in Hell with shitty gear which is what you needed to do to get gear in the first place.
Just because you couldn't solo hell bosses naked that doesn't mean gear was extremely important,at least not for casters. I remember several times dying in hell and being able to kill several monsters using magic without my gear on just to reach my body. In D3, you are completely powerless without gear. Even magic relies solely on your weapon damage to determine how much damage you'll do. If you have a shitty weapon(or none at all), then it doesn't matter if you're using your end game spells or early game spells, you'll do shit all for damage either way.
Personally I don't think I'll get the game anymore, or at the very least I'm going to wait until a few weeks after it's release to make my final decision. I was able to play in the open beta weekend and it just felt....aimless.
I mean, I won't praise the D2 skill system as being awesome, but at the very least it gave you something to look forward to with each level. Each level you either gained a new skill, or you improved an old one. In D3, you get a predetermined skill or rune-skill. Often times I would level up in the beta, look at what it gave me, and be like.....meh, I don't want that, and just ignore the new skill. I just didn't feel excited or even happy like when I leveled up in D2. Not too mention the fact that due to you always getting the same skills, there's no need for you two make a second character of the same class.
There's also the stat allocation. Granted, I don't really care that they took that away too much, but at the very least my level 9 wizard shouldn't have identical health to my level 9 barbarian. It's just odd that each character gets the same vitality; two points every level, and 10 health per point, for every class.
I played the demon hunter, barb, and wizard for the beta. Demon hunter I had fun with, and felt was pretty strong. Wizard was pretty meh, and I didn't like the barb (died too often with him). Then again I rarely like melee characters.
Finally there's the complete dependency on equipment. I enjoyed the fact that in D2 I could get along fine as a caster without a decent weapon. It made sense, after all casters use magic, not weapons, to hurt their enemies. But in D3 you need a good weapon, otherwise your magic is useless. Furthermore it can be any weapon, which just feels weird. Why would my wizard carrying a club make an ice beam that does more damage than her having no weapon? What would the amount of damage that club is supposed to do when you bash someone with it have to do with the amount of damage that your ice beam does?
Also a bit disappointed that resistances seem to be taking a backseat now. You can only see them by opening up that advanced tab, and with blizzard wanting to make as many builds as possible work, I think we won't be seeing many creatures be completely resistant to certain types of magic, and we won't be needing resistances like we needed previously. Though this is mainly speculation as it was pretty early in the game.
Game does look good, and the production value of it is clearly high. I just don't think I would enjoy it.
Hmm..
You said you died too many times with a Barb in Beta. I take it you are a casual player then, and won't go in-depth into the more subtle differences.
What skill did you improve and/or look forward to from level 1 to 23 when you played Lightning Fury Amazon again? lvl 1-29 for Whirlwind Barb? lvl 1-29 Fury Druid? the list could go on.
See, with the new system, you get a new Skill every level (which is more than you can say for Diablo 2). Now you may or may not choose to use it, but the option is there. And you say it as if it was better in Diablo 2: "w00t level 6, now what skills did i get? Double Swing, Taunt?.. meh, back to basic attacks " (and let's not forget that the next time you get something new is lvl 12)
The new system improves our strength with your gear. And what's difficult to understand about how your magical weapons empower the skills that you use?
Most of your concern (how you cant do dmg w/o items, etc) seem to basically converge to 1 point: "This game is different from Diablo 2", and yes it is. However, you don't see to point out how those differences are bad.
In Diablo 3, more than just your skills, more gears define your build (especially at higher levels). So I believe that point is rather moot, about how one need only switch skills and he has a new character. If you switch gears too, then it's about the same for every game (in Diablo 2, you can switch your skills in 10 minutes, in the past, it used to take ~3 hours).
And lol at the guy you quoted. Hammerdin the only class to be able to clear Hell without good gear? Evidently one of those guys who reads a few forums posts on the internet, seeing "Hammerdin OP" here and there, and proceed to talk like a master of the game. For the record, Zookeeper Nec can clear Hell naked, Trapsin, most Sorcs, Tesladin, Fireclaw Bear, and many more classes can clear Hell just as effectively, if not even more so than Hammerdin.
I like how you arbitrarily determine I'm a casual player because I died with the barb lol.
You forgot to mention the poison necro, who was almost completely useless until you got poison nova. A couple of builds being different doesn't change the meaning of my point. You could just stick to other builds if you didn't want to play like that.
I know you get a new skill every level (not every level actually, but close), I pointed it out in my post. I said it was better in D2 because every level mattered, whether you were improving an old skill, gaining a new skill, or hell, even just hording your points until later levels. Every time you level'd up you had the potential to improve yourself however you wanted to. Apparently you don't see the difference between that, and being handed a new pre-determined skill every level. You next point isn't even a point at all, as you're just implying that getting a new random skill every level is better than getting a skill you actually want every 6+ levels, which is baseless.
You can use any weapon to improve your magic, not just magical ones, which removes that uniqueness to casters which was you don't need a weapon to hurt someone. Wands/staves helping makes sense, because we've been told they help in their own world. That's their purpose. The purpose of a club or sword is to hit someone, not to help with magic. This is something that we already expect, and something that is re-enforced in the game. There's been no connection between how good a sword is and how effective your magic is, so why should I believe there's any connection at all?
No, most of my points say something along the lines of: D3 has done things which I don't like. I make the comparison to D2 because I liked how it did it more. I specifically stated I wasn't praising D2 as being great in those areas. Apparently you're only reading what you want to see. I said I didn't like the differences. Them being bad is my subjective opinion on them, I can't prove they're actually bad changes any more than you can prove they're good ones.
In D3 your gear is entirely what makes your character. Builds don't even really exist, as the entire idea of a build is that your character ends up different from other characters based on your choices when improving that character. Given that every character gets the same skills and stats in the end, your choices are entirely based on which skills you actually use and which gear you wear. Granted builds tend to have pre-selected best armour for them, but they're only end-game and not actually part of the building.
I agree, because Hammerdin was one of the strongest character everyone always goes "OMG you couldn't do anything unless you were a hammerdin!". It's pretty annoying.
On April 23 2012 19:31 Ace1123 wrote: 5/5 For Me. it is really fun and i Like how the diablo feel was preserved. The graphics are also good and of course the new changes are awesome. I just hope there will be more classes in the future -_-
3/5.
really? i felt the exact opposite. i felt like i was playing a tweeked dragonage/runescape game for 12 year olds. Where is the darkness/ raw feel of diablo 2? There is too much lighting, too little blood, and the items look like shit in the inventory. Diablo 2 from like a decade ago had better inventory graphics. It's retarded.
Also, people are saying that the game will be good because it's harder later on, but Is it going to be in the way that EVERYTHING is dependent on items (which blizzard wants to monopolize on) or because you'll need to plan out your character build? (shitty hdins/well planned casters could do well even w/ poor mans gear in d2). My guess is the former since every character will be exactly the same in that they are not specialized by skill trees. The only defining factor is your passives and your items.
I'm only hoping they fix these issues before destroying my childhood.
Agreed. I wish I had read your post before posting in the other thread.
That's the real problem of the current skill system - end game will be 100% item dependent.
No build commitment means that either everyone will be viable in the endgame or only those with elite gear will be. I'm guessing with so much emphasis placed on things like crafting and RMAH, it'll be the latter.
Just curious, did you guys play and enjoy diablo 2?
If you wanted to clear content alone, every character/build was extremely gear dependent. Hammerdins are probably the only exception but it'd be pretty hard to solo any boss as a Hammerdin in Hell with shitty gear which is what you needed to do to get gear in the first place.
Just because you couldn't solo hell bosses naked that doesn't mean gear was extremely important,at least not for casters. I remember several times dying in hell and being able to kill several monsters using magic without my gear on just to reach my body. In D3, you are completely powerless without gear. Even magic relies solely on your weapon damage to determine how much damage you'll do. If you have a shitty weapon(or none at all), then it doesn't matter if you're using your end game spells or early game spells, you'll do shit all for damage either way.
Personally I don't think I'll get the game anymore, or at the very least I'm going to wait until a few weeks after it's release to make my final decision. I was able to play in the open beta weekend and it just felt....aimless.
I mean, I won't praise the D2 skill system as being awesome, but at the very least it gave you something to look forward to with each level. Each level you either gained a new skill, or you improved an old one. In D3, you get a predetermined skill or rune-skill. Often times I would level up in the beta, look at what it gave me, and be like.....meh, I don't want that, and just ignore the new skill. I just didn't feel excited or even happy like when I leveled up in D2. Not too mention the fact that due to you always getting the same skills, there's no need for you two make a second character of the same class.
There's also the stat allocation. Granted, I don't really care that they took that away too much, but at the very least my level 9 wizard shouldn't have identical health to my level 9 barbarian. It's just odd that each character gets the same vitality; two points every level, and 10 health per point, for every class.
I played the demon hunter, barb, and wizard for the beta. Demon hunter I had fun with, and felt was pretty strong. Wizard was pretty meh, and I didn't like the barb (died too often with him). Then again I rarely like melee characters.
Finally there's the complete dependency on equipment. I enjoyed the fact that in D2 I could get along fine as a caster without a decent weapon. It made sense, after all casters use magic, not weapons, to hurt their enemies. But in D3 you need a good weapon, otherwise your magic is useless. Furthermore it can be any weapon, which just feels weird. Why would my wizard carrying a club make an ice beam that does more damage than her having no weapon? What would the amount of damage that club is supposed to do when you bash someone with it have to do with the amount of damage that your ice beam does?
Also a bit disappointed that resistances seem to be taking a backseat now. You can only see them by opening up that advanced tab, and with blizzard wanting to make as many builds as possible work, I think we won't be seeing many creatures be completely resistant to certain types of magic, and we won't be needing resistances like we needed previously. Though this is mainly speculation as it was pretty early in the game.
Game does look good, and the production value of it is clearly high. I just don't think I would enjoy it.
Hmm..
You said you died too many times with a Barb in Beta. I take it you are a casual player then, and won't go in-depth into the more subtle differences.
What skill did you improve and/or look forward to from level 1 to 23 when you played Lightning Fury Amazon again? lvl 1-29 for Whirlwind Barb? lvl 1-29 Fury Druid? the list could go on.
See, with the new system, you get a new Skill every level (which is more than you can say for Diablo 2). Now you may or may not choose to use it, but the option is there. And you say it as if it was better in Diablo 2: "w00t level 6, now what skills did i get? Double Swing, Taunt?.. meh, back to basic attacks " (and let's not forget that the next time you get something new is lvl 12)
The new system improves our strength with your gear. And what's difficult to understand about how your magical weapons empower the skills that you use?
Most of your concern (how you cant do dmg w/o items, etc) seem to basically converge to 1 point: "This game is different from Diablo 2", and yes it is. However, you don't see to point out how those differences are bad.
In Diablo 3, more than just your skills, more gears define your build (especially at higher levels). So I believe that point is rather moot, about how one need only switch skills and he has a new character. If you switch gears too, then it's about the same for every game (in Diablo 2, you can switch your skills in 10 minutes, in the past, it used to take ~3 hours).
And lol at the guy you quoted. Hammerdin the only class to be able to clear Hell without good gear? Evidently one of those guys who reads a few forums posts on the internet, seeing "Hammerdin OP" here and there, and proceed to talk like a master of the game. For the record, Zookeeper Nec can clear Hell naked, Trapsin, most Sorcs, Tesladin, Fireclaw Bear, and many more classes can clear Hell just as effectively, if not even more so than Hammerdin.
I like how you arbitrarily determine I'm a casual player because I died with the barb lol.
You forgot to mention the poison necro, who was almost completely useless until you got poison nova. A couple of builds being different doesn't change the meaning of my point. You could just stick to other builds if you didn't want to play like that.
I know you get a new skill every level (not every level actually, but close), I pointed it out in my post. I said it was better in D2 because every level mattered, whether you were improving an old skill, gaining a new skill, or hell, even just hording your points until later levels. Every time you level'd up you had the potential to improve yourself however you wanted to. Apparently you don't see the difference between that, and being handed a new pre-determined skill every level. You next point isn't even a point at all, as you're just implying that getting a new random skill every level is better than getting a skill you actually want every 6+ levels, which is baseless.
You can use any weapon to improve your magic, not just magical ones, which removes that uniqueness to casters which was you don't need a weapon to hurt someone. Wands/staves helping makes sense, because we've been told they help in their own world. That's their purpose. The purpose of a club or sword is to hit someone, not to help with magic. This is something that we already expect, and something that is re-enforced in the game. There's been no connection between how good a sword is and how effective your magic is, so why should I believe there's any connection at all?
No, most of my points say something along the lines of: D3 has done things which I don't like. I make the comparison to D2 because I liked how it did it more. I specifically stated I wasn't praising D2 as being great in those areas. Apparently you're only reading what you want to see. I said I didn't like the differences. Them being bad is my subjective opinion on them, I can't prove they're actually bad changes any more than you can prove they're good ones.
In D3 your gear is entirely what makes your character. Builds don't even really exist, as the entire idea of a build is that your character ends up different from other characters based on your choices when improving that character. Given that every character gets the same skills and stats in the end, your choices are entirely based on which skills you actually use and which gear you wear. Granted builds tend to have pre-selected best armour for them, but they're only end-game and not actually part of the building.
I agree, because Hammerdin was one of the strongest character everyone always goes "OMG you couldn't do anything unless you were a hammerdin!". It's pretty annoying.
See.. You said you died too often with the Barb during Beta. If some guy loses too often in Bronze League, i am inclined to believe him to be a casual too, until solidly proven otherwise of course.
Agree to disagree on everything else, looks like neither of us will be changing the other person's mind.
A few facts though
I know you get a new skill every level (not every level actually, but close)
This statement is false. You get at least one new skill every level. At later levels, you even get 4 skills per level (most of the time too).
And no, adding the Poisonmancer doesn't even make the list, not even half, or a third. MOST classes in Diablo uses a signature skill that's not from the early levels, and you have no choice but to slap people around w standard Physical hits till then.
Gave 5 stars, but not sure if Im going to buy it because of personal reasons. Wasted like 5 years of my life playing D2 - and problem with Diablo is that with my nature you cant really play it casually... And Im starting to consider myself too old for more than 5 hours/week gaming. So I might get stuck with SC2, despite huge sandness in my heart.
Definitely going to "rent it" somewhere and spend one nice week(end) playing just to see it all.
On May 02 2012 05:45 Sek-Kuar wrote: Gave 5 stars, but not sure if Im going to buy it because of personal reasons. Wasted like 5 years of my life playing D2 - and problem with Diablo is that with my nature you cant really play it casually... And Im starting to consider myself too old for more than 5 hours/week gaming. So I might get stuck with SC2, despite huge sandness in my heart.
Definitely going to "rent it" somewhere and spend one nice week(end) playing just to see it all.
I don't think you can rent it, since blizzard uses account bound games. All you're gonna get is problaby a trial version.
On May 02 2012 05:45 Sek-Kuar wrote: Gave 5 stars, but not sure if Im going to buy it because of personal reasons. Wasted like 5 years of my life playing D2 - and problem with Diablo is that with my nature you cant really play it casually... And Im starting to consider myself too old for more than 5 hours/week gaming. So I might get stuck with SC2, despite huge sandness in my heart.
Definitely going to "rent it" somewhere and spend one nice week(end) playing just to see it all.
I don't think you can rent it, since blizzard uses account bound games. All you're gonna get is problaby a trial version.
I think he meant pirating, or maybe borrowing a friends copy.
We only think of things like staffs as "caster items" because Blizzard happened to itemise the uniques that way (and even then they weren't consistent with it - see Ribcracker).
If rares had been the focus in D2 (rather than uniques), there's no reason you couldn't have had casters running around with polearms, giant axes, hammers, etc. Yes staves and wands had a small extra bonus of random +skills, but guess what - so do class-specific items in D3, which are sure to satisfy any "CASTERS MUST USE WANDS" cravings you may have.
Also the system in D2 where some skills scaled from weapon damage and some didn't just created a massive balancing nightmare, and an unintuitive mess. The simple fact that many characters had skills that didn't scale in the same way all but prevented them both being used in the same build.
Making a barb? War cry is right out since it doesn't scale with weapon damage Making a trapper? Blade fury/sentinel/shield are severely hampered because they scale with weapon damage not +skills (and only usable by losing a lot of trap damage by taking Bartucs)
Before 1.10 and its ridiculous runewords, it also led to massive imbalances between casters and any weapon damage based class not named WW barb, because of scaling issues.
Having some builds scale with weapon damage and others scale with +skills will almost by definition result in 1 gear level where their damage output is balanced, and imbalance at all higher and lower gear levels.
On May 02 2012 09:12 dmfg wrote: We only think of things like staffs as "caster items" because Blizzard happened to itemise the uniques that way (and even then they weren't consistent with it - see Ribcracker).
If rares had been the focus in D2 (rather than uniques), there's no reason you couldn't have had casters running around with polearms, giant axes, hammers, etc. Yes staves and wands had a small extra bonus of random +skills, but guess what - so do class-specific items in D3, which are sure to satisfy any "CASTERS MUST USE WANDS" cravings you may have.
The issue I have is the direct relationship between the damage a weapon does and the damage your spell does. I said that quite a few times. A caster simply carrying a weapon for it's +X to spell or resistance or magic find or whatever is fine, because those are the magical effects of that weapon. It's when Blizzard decided that spells would be reliant on the damage that the weapon does that I disagreed.
I could accept spell damage being dependent on the damage of wands/staves, because those are meant for spellcasters, but the damage of swords/clubs/polearms/etc should have no relation to the damage of a magical spell.
On May 02 2012 09:12 dmfg wrote: We only think of things like staffs as "caster items" because Blizzard happened to itemise the uniques that way (and even then they weren't consistent with it - see Ribcracker).
If rares had been the focus in D2 (rather than uniques), there's no reason you couldn't have had casters running around with polearms, giant axes, hammers, etc. Yes staves and wands had a small extra bonus of random +skills, but guess what - so do class-specific items in D3, which are sure to satisfy any "CASTERS MUST USE WANDS" cravings you may have.
The issue I have is the direct relationship between the damage a weapon does and the damage your spell does. I said that quite a few times. A caster simply carrying a weapon for it's +X to spell or resistance or magic find or whatever is fine, because those are the magical effects of that weapon. It's when Blizzard decided that spells would be reliant on the damage that the weapon does that I disagreed.
I could accept spell damage being dependent on the damage of wands/staves, because those are meant for spellcasters, but the damage of swords/clubs/polearms/etc should have no relation to the damage of a magical spell.
These are some interesting points but we have yet to see any of the weapon stats later on in the game. It is very possible that later on in the game, some stats that come from class specific weapons are just better for their respective classes. I guess only time will tell if this is actually an issue. It would be quite sad to see casters with fist weapons or 2h weapons on or other classes that just look weird wielding a different class' weapons.
I'd rate it somewhere between 2 and 3. At this point I don't think I'm going to buy it, despite having logged hundreds of hours on D1 and D2/LoD.
I HATE how cookie-cutter the characters are due to automatic skill unlocks and the ability to re-spec. I know that in D2 there were optimized ways to allocate skills, but you didn't have to play that way. While I had a few optimized characters, I also had a 3-element Sorc that could rush hell, a hybrid shape/elemental Druid that contributed to ubers, and so on. Overall it just seems like the game is catering to bad players so that nobody feels like they messed up their character by not thinking about what they're doing. It's really unfortunate because it's going to make everyone's character essentially the same.
I think the general art style is a little bit off, though I love some of the flourishes they put in like having enemies crawling up cliffs to get to you.
On May 02 2012 09:12 dmfg wrote: We only think of things like staffs as "caster items" because Blizzard happened to itemise the uniques that way (and even then they weren't consistent with it - see Ribcracker).
If rares had been the focus in D2 (rather than uniques), there's no reason you couldn't have had casters running around with polearms, giant axes, hammers, etc. Yes staves and wands had a small extra bonus of random +skills, but guess what - so do class-specific items in D3, which are sure to satisfy any "CASTERS MUST USE WANDS" cravings you may have.
The issue I have is the direct relationship between the damage a weapon does and the damage your spell does. I said that quite a few times. A caster simply carrying a weapon for it's +X to spell or resistance or magic find or whatever is fine, because those are the magical effects of that weapon. It's when Blizzard decided that spells would be reliant on the damage that the weapon does that I disagreed.
I could accept spell damage being dependent on the damage of wands/staves, because those are meant for spellcasters, but the damage of swords/clubs/polearms/etc should have no relation to the damage of a magical spell.
Yeah, and again I don't really understand why you think the damage of swords/clubs/polearms/etc should have no relation to the damage of a magical spell (compared to why wand/staff damage would be ok).
The only reasons I can think of are - it wasn't that way in d2 (which is pretty arbitrary), or - it looks weird on the character (which is unlikely to happen late game, because the class specific bonuses will make them a little better, without making them mandatory)
If it makes you better, you can think of "enhanced weapon damage" mods as being general "more powerful" mods, much like +all skills was in D2.
On May 03 2012 04:26 yakitate304 wrote: I'd rate it somewhere between 2 and 3. At this point I don't think I'm going to buy it, despite having logged hundreds of hours on D1 and D2/LoD.
I HATE how cookie-cutter the characters are due to automatic skill unlocks and the ability to re-spec. I know that in D2 there were optimized ways to allocate skills, but you didn't have to play that way. While I had a few optimized characters, I also had a 3-element Sorc that could rush hell, a hybrid shape/elemental Druid that contributed to ubers, and so on. Overall it just seems like the game is catering to bad players so that nobody feels like they messed up their character by not thinking about what they're doing. It's really unfortunate because it's going to make everyone's character essentially the same.
I think the general art style is a little bit off, though I love some of the flourishes they put in like having enemies crawling up cliffs to get to you.
Sigh.. I guess it's natural for every1 to continually bring issues like this up without knowing that it's been discussed to death many times before in the same thread.
If we are talking any garbage builds, Blizz gave the number of 11 trillion builds / class in Diablo 3.
Just because people all have access to the same (~130-140) skills, doesn't mean that they will make the same selection of 6 active skills and 3 passives.
In fact, the current system is very much similar to Guild Wars, which allows free respec, and access to all skills (albeit some needed to be found.. not many though).
Bah.. I typed it out again (though much shorter :3).. But not like the next guy will bother to read before he complains T_T
On May 03 2012 04:26 yakitate304 wrote: I'd rate it somewhere between 2 and 3. At this point I don't think I'm going to buy it, despite having logged hundreds of hours on D1 and D2/LoD.
I HATE how cookie-cutter the characters are due to automatic skill unlocks and the ability to re-spec. I know that in D2 there were optimized ways to allocate skills, but you didn't have to play that way. While I had a few optimized characters, I also had a 3-element Sorc that could rush hell, a hybrid shape/elemental Druid that contributed to ubers, and so on. Overall it just seems like the game is catering to bad players so that nobody feels like they messed up their character by not thinking about what they're doing. It's really unfortunate because it's going to make everyone's character essentially the same.
I think the general art style is a little bit off, though I love some of the flourishes they put in like having enemies crawling up cliffs to get to you.
Sigh.. I guess it's natural for every1 to continually bring issues like this up without knowing that it's been discussed to death many times before in the same thread.
If we are talking any garbage builds, Blizz gave the number of 11 trillion builds / class in Diablo 3.
Just because people all have access to the same (~130-140) skills, doesn't mean that they will make the same selection of 6 active skills and 3 passives.
In fact, the current system is very much similar to Guild Wars, which allows free respec, and access to all skills (albeit some needed to be found.. not many though).
Bah.. I typed it out again (though much shorter :3).. But not like the next guy will bother to read before he complains T_T
Also, people see Diablo 2 through rose tinted glasses. Don't get me wrong, I played it a lot and I love the game, but some of the statements being thrown around here are just plain false. Every class had let's say 2 builds that were totally viable (with at least mediocre equips). Other stuff people are talking about are wacky, off the wall builds that only worked with insane gear (dual-dream pally or sorc for example), or builds where you intentionally gimp yourself to be "different". And yes, rerolling toons was "fun" indeed. EDIT: this is more replying to the spoilered quote, and agreeing with the visible post, if that makes any sense
On April 23 2012 19:31 Ace1123 wrote: 5/5 For Me. it is really fun and i Like how the diablo feel was preserved. The graphics are also good and of course the new changes are awesome. I just hope there will be more classes in the future -_-
3/5.
really? i felt the exact opposite. i felt like i was playing a tweeked dragonage/runescape game for 12 year olds. Where is the darkness/ raw feel of diablo 2? There is too much lighting, too little blood, and the items look like shit in the inventory. Diablo 2 from like a decade ago had better inventory graphics. It's retarded.
Also, people are saying that the game will be good because it's harder later on, but Is it going to be in the way that EVERYTHING is dependent on items (which blizzard wants to monopolize on) or because you'll need to plan out your character build? (shitty hdins/well planned casters could do well even w/ poor mans gear in d2). My guess is the former since every character will be exactly the same in that they are not specialized by skill trees. The only defining factor is your passives and your items.
I'm only hoping they fix these issues before destroying my childhood.
Agreed. I wish I had read your post before posting in the other thread.
That's the real problem of the current skill system - end game will be 100% item dependent.
No build commitment means that either everyone will be viable in the endgame or only those with elite gear will be. I'm guessing with so much emphasis placed on things like crafting and RMAH, it'll be the latter.
Just curious, did you guys play and enjoy diablo 2?
If you wanted to clear content alone, every character/build was extremely gear dependent. Hammerdins are probably the only exception but it'd be pretty hard to solo any boss as a Hammerdin in Hell with shitty gear which is what you needed to do to get gear in the first place.
Just because you couldn't solo hell bosses naked that doesn't mean gear was extremely important,at least not for casters. I remember several times dying in hell and being able to kill several monsters using magic without my gear on just to reach my body. In D3, you are completely powerless without gear. Even magic relies solely on your weapon damage to determine how much damage you'll do. If you have a shitty weapon(or none at all), then it doesn't matter if you're using your end game spells or early game spells, you'll do shit all for damage either way.
Personally I don't think I'll get the game anymore, or at the very least I'm going to wait until a few weeks after it's release to make my final decision. I was able to play in the open beta weekend and it just felt....aimless.
I mean, I won't praise the D2 skill system as being awesome, but at the very least it gave you something to look forward to with each level. Each level you either gained a new skill, or you improved an old one. In D3, you get a predetermined skill or rune-skill. Often times I would level up in the beta, look at what it gave me, and be like.....meh, I don't want that, and just ignore the new skill. I just didn't feel excited or even happy like when I leveled up in D2. Not too mention the fact that due to you always getting the same skills, there's no need for you two make a second character of the same class.
There's also the stat allocation. Granted, I don't really care that they took that away too much, but at the very least my level 9 wizard shouldn't have identical health to my level 9 barbarian. It's just odd that each character gets the same vitality; two points every level, and 10 health per point, for every class.
I played the demon hunter, barb, and wizard for the beta. Demon hunter I had fun with, and felt was pretty strong. Wizard was pretty meh, and I didn't like the barb (died too often with him). Then again I rarely like melee characters.
Finally there's the complete dependency on equipment. I enjoyed the fact that in D2 I could get along fine as a caster without a decent weapon. It made sense, after all casters use magic, not weapons, to hurt their enemies. But in D3 you need a good weapon, otherwise your magic is useless. Furthermore it can be any weapon, which just feels weird. Why would my wizard carrying a club make an ice beam that does more damage than her having no weapon? What would the amount of damage that club is supposed to do when you bash someone with it have to do with the amount of damage that your ice beam does?
Also a bit disappointed that resistances seem to be taking a backseat now. You can only see them by opening up that advanced tab, and with blizzard wanting to make as many builds as possible work, I think we won't be seeing many creatures be completely resistant to certain types of magic, and we won't be needing resistances like we needed previously. Though this is mainly speculation as it was pretty early in the game.
Game does look good, and the production value of it is clearly high. I just don't think I would enjoy it.
Hmm..
You said you died too many times with a Barb in Beta. I take it you are a casual player then, and won't go in-depth into the more subtle differences.
What skill did you improve and/or look forward to from level 1 to 23 when you played Lightning Fury Amazon again? lvl 1-29 for Whirlwind Barb? lvl 1-29 Fury Druid? the list could go on.
See, with the new system, you get a new Skill every level (which is more than you can say for Diablo 2). Now you may or may not choose to use it, but the option is there. And you say it as if it was better in Diablo 2: "w00t level 6, now what skills did i get? Double Swing, Taunt?.. meh, back to basic attacks " (and let's not forget that the next time you get something new is lvl 12)
The new system improves our strength with your gear. And what's difficult to understand about how your magical weapons empower the skills that you use?
Most of your concern (how you cant do dmg w/o items, etc) seem to basically converge to 1 point: "This game is different from Diablo 2", and yes it is. However, you don't see to point out how those differences are bad.
In Diablo 3, more than just your skills, more gears define your build (especially at higher levels). So I believe that point is rather moot, about how one need only switch skills and he has a new character. If you switch gears too, then it's about the same for every game (in Diablo 2, you can switch your skills in 10 minutes, in the past, it used to take ~3 hours).
And lol at the guy you quoted. Hammerdin the only class to be able to clear Hell without good gear? Evidently one of those guys who reads a few forums posts on the internet, seeing "Hammerdin OP" here and there, and proceed to talk like a master of the game. For the record, Zookeeper Nec can clear Hell naked, Trapsin, most Sorcs, Tesladin, Fireclaw Bear, and many more classes can clear Hell just as effectively, if not even more so than Hammerdin.
Actually he mostly does point out why they are bad, and i have to agree with him. I want my games to offer me as many options as possible be they pointless or not. That includes stat allocation (even if it all ends up in vit ... or well you know we could just make the other stats have more use) and talent trees with synergies.(And please dont argue that the current system allows for as much diversity, repeating it simply wont make it true) Yes D3 is different but that is not why i dont like it. I dont like it because it takes away options i had before instead of improving upon them. I dont like it because in the end it will pretty much boil down the entire equipment to a single same stat for all classes (which is weapon damage). I dont like it because i want my fingers to race over more than just a handfull of hotkeys to get the most out of my char. And i dont like it because i will never be able to get a group of friends together for a completely naked hardcore run through all difficulties like in D2 (everyone who never tried that should really give it a taste) That i will only be able to play it with a running connection doesnt help either, even though thats by far not the most important point. That D3 will ever be truely difficult is something i still doubt as well, although i admit i cant know that yet for certain. It just a feeling iam having from reading what blizzard tells us.
This explains, quite thoroughly, how you are pretty much dead wrong. There is just as much customization (and almost definitely far more) in D3 than there is in D2. It's just in different places.
Also, for those of you who are so short-sighted and/or biased that you are saying the game is too easy...
If you're really lazy, just watch from about 2.20. The main point - D2 is pathetically easy throughout the entirety of normal, not even just the first hour or so. Those you going on and on about how hard D2 was, well, you're just straight up wrong.
So far i would rate it 9/10. The beta was too short to see more things in action and the game guide on battle.net forums isn't complete yet either. Can't wait to play D3... 9 days remaining guys!!!
Why do the OP put words in the poll voters mouths with the parenthesis? What if someone wants to vote a 2 but not because of bnet 0.2? That kind of stuff is stupid.
On May 07 2012 06:32 parkin wrote: Why do the OP put words in the poll voters mouths with the parenthesis? What if someone wants to vote a 2 but not because of bnet 0.2? That kind of stuff is stupid.
Notice it says "i.e" as in for example. The parentheses are just a benchmark for people to vote instead of an arbitrary 1-5 stars.
On May 06 2012 23:12 Dralin wrote: i will rate diablo 3 a 2/10 in case the ending involves switches and/or colors
This post is incomprehensible. What are you actually sayin?...
He is trying to make a mass effect 3 joke.
Yeah. Too bad anyone that actually feels they're justified to play over 80 hours of a game, fall in love with the series, and then complain that the developers are lazy, incoherent, and unaware of their own world they created by the end is just asinine. ME3 was amazing and the ending was more effective than anyone could have imagined. I'd say they knew what they were doing.
EPT
I know what you mean though.
