|
On August 09 2011 06:00 DannyJ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2011 05:55 TheGlassface wrote:On August 09 2011 05:43 jimmyjingle wrote:
honestly I think people are getting far too excited about the beta. it's likely still a month or so off from what we've heard. There were beta tournaments with money for SCII. Beta's are taken wayyyy too seriously. huh. How is a competitive RTS beta similar?
Lol, not to mention is only an hour of content (of course I will stretch that our 20 fold at least). It's 10 levels and not even half of act 1.
|
On August 09 2011 04:29 Deadlyhazard wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2011 0345 cz wrote:
I'll say this now: Blizzard has never made a less than "great" game before, or at least not with it's major titles since like 1997. I think Diablo III is going to break that - it's going to be a dumbed down game with cartoonish graphics. Worst of all, it won't even have the depth of Diablo II, a game that came out on 3 CD-ROMS in 2001. I think StarCraft 2 is less than great. It's essentially everything SC1 had with nothing that couldn't be added in that game. WC3 was a much more innovative game than SC2 in everyway concerning singleplayer and custom maps. The custom stuff in SC2 hasn't got anywhere near the caliber of WC3's stuff quite yet, so I can hardly call it 'great.' It's a very small game -- not much content. The singleplayer was poorly written and nothing innovative to speak of. It was also very linear. I would also argue that WoTLK and Cataclysm are bad WoW expansions.Honestly, Blizzard has gone down hill since '08. I really don't enjoy any of their new products, even though I had high hopes for each. I don't think Activision is to blame either. That's just me. I don't expect Diablo 3 will be a very good game. It might be 'good' like SC2 is, but definitely not great.
Chalk another in line for being "jaded," then.
I feel exactly the same way.
Some of us are not happy with Blizzard, and that's a fair view to have. I dislike how we keep hearing things like, "You're going to play it anyway!" just because Blizzard made it. I tried SCII. I do *not* play it. I tried WotLK. I quit WoW.
It's ok to look at what's coming, have high hopes and still also feel a little apprehensive after past "burns."
Can someone explain to a noob here what was so bad about WotLK and Cataclysm?
I hear people bitch about them all the time but I've never heard a single reason as to why they're so terrible that it was worth quitting the game.
Just wondering...
|
On August 09 2011 06:22 Mjolnir wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2011 04:29 Deadlyhazard wrote:On August 09 2011 0345 cz wrote:
I'll say this now: Blizzard has never made a less than "great" game before, or at least not with it's major titles since like 1997. I think Diablo III is going to break that - it's going to be a dumbed down game with cartoonish graphics. Worst of all, it won't even have the depth of Diablo II, a game that came out on 3 CD-ROMS in 2001. I think StarCraft 2 is less than great. It's essentially everything SC1 had with nothing that couldn't be added in that game. WC3 was a much more innovative game than SC2 in everyway concerning singleplayer and custom maps. The custom stuff in SC2 hasn't got anywhere near the caliber of WC3's stuff quite yet, so I can hardly call it 'great.' It's a very small game -- not much content. The singleplayer was poorly written and nothing innovative to speak of. It was also very linear. I would also argue that WoTLK and Cataclysm are bad WoW expansions.Honestly, Blizzard has gone down hill since '08. I really don't enjoy any of their new products, even though I had high hopes for each. I don't think Activision is to blame either. That's just me. I don't expect Diablo 3 will be a very good game. It might be 'good' like SC2 is, but definitely not great. Show nested quote +Chalk another in line for being "jaded," then.
I feel exactly the same way.
Some of us are not happy with Blizzard, and that's a fair view to have. I dislike how we keep hearing things like, "You're going to play it anyway!" just because Blizzard made it. I tried SCII. I do *not* play it. I tried WotLK. I quit WoW.
It's ok to look at what's coming, have high hopes and still also feel a little apprehensive after past "burns." Can someone explain to a noob here what was so bad about WotLK and Cataclysm? I hear people bitch about them all the time but I've never heard a single reason as to why they're so terrible that it was worth quitting the game. Just wondering...
The game was a lot easier in wrath and every class is basically the exact same in cataclysm for both pve and pvp. Also the death of 25 man raids and attunements.
|
On August 09 2011 06:00 DannyJ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2011 05:55 TheGlassface wrote:On August 09 2011 05:43 jimmyjingle wrote:
honestly I think people are getting far too excited about the beta. it's likely still a month or so off from what we've heard. There were beta tournaments with money for SCII. Beta's are taken wayyyy too seriously. huh. How is a competitive RTS beta similar?
Just the beta bit. I meant to say that it seems (to me, mind you) that a lot of Betas these days are being played and looked at as if it were a finished project.
There's juts a lot of hype and exchange talked about now, since most betas are including the player base more often.
As jimmy had said before me, people are getting far too excited about the beta.
|
WoW Rant
+ Show Spoiler +On August 09 2011 06:22 Mjolnir wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2011 04:29 Deadlyhazard wrote:On August 09 2011 0345 cz wrote:
I'll say this now: Blizzard has never made a less than "great" game before, or at least not with it's major titles since like 1997. I think Diablo III is going to break that - it's going to be a dumbed down game with cartoonish graphics. Worst of all, it won't even have the depth of Diablo II, a game that came out on 3 CD-ROMS in 2001. I think StarCraft 2 is less than great. It's essentially everything SC1 had with nothing that couldn't be added in that game. WC3 was a much more innovative game than SC2 in everyway concerning singleplayer and custom maps. The custom stuff in SC2 hasn't got anywhere near the caliber of WC3's stuff quite yet, so I can hardly call it 'great.' It's a very small game -- not much content. The singleplayer was poorly written and nothing innovative to speak of. It was also very linear. I would also argue that WoTLK and Cataclysm are bad WoW expansions.Honestly, Blizzard has gone down hill since '08. I really don't enjoy any of their new products, even though I had high hopes for each. I don't think Activision is to blame either. That's just me. I don't expect Diablo 3 will be a very good game. It might be 'good' like SC2 is, but definitely not great. Show nested quote +Chalk another in line for being "jaded," then.
I feel exactly the same way.
Some of us are not happy with Blizzard, and that's a fair view to have. I dislike how we keep hearing things like, "You're going to play it anyway!" just because Blizzard made it. I tried SCII. I do *not* play it. I tried WotLK. I quit WoW.
It's ok to look at what's coming, have high hopes and still also feel a little apprehensive after past "burns." Can someone explain to a noob here what was so bad about WotLK and Cataclysm? I hear people bitch about them all the time but I've never heard a single reason as to why they're so terrible that it was worth quitting the game. Just wondering... Because they are whiners who like to whine. Somehow they equate 'pointless and time consuming tasks' with badassery. All of their arguments are full of holes though. If you talk about how great 40 man raids are, then I guess you can't like TBC since 40 mans weren't in there either. Somehow they like TBC though. If you talk about how you didn't like WotLK raids, then I invite you to go back to Vanilla, where frankly the raid designs sucked. MC was not a good raid by any stretch. 40 mans in Vanilla were 25 mouth breathers and 15 people who knew what they were doing. There was only one competitive healing class (I really do mean competitive), one tank class and 3 dps classes. Everyone else was there for buffs and utility. TBC was better in terms of overall class balance, but you still had periods where one class was head and shoulders above or below the others (rogues and locks OP, mages UP, etc.). If you want to talk about 'how easy' is, kindly link me all your world firsts.
|
On August 09 2011 04:31 Playguuu wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2011 04:29 Deadlyhazard wrote:On August 09 2011 0345 cz wrote:
I'll say this now: Blizzard has never made a less than "great" game before, or at least not with it's major titles since like 1997. I think Diablo III is going to break that - it's going to be a dumbed down game with cartoonish graphics. Worst of all, it won't even have the depth of Diablo II, a game that came out on 3 CD-ROMS in 2001. I think StarCraft 2 is less than great. It's essentially everything SC1 had with nothing that couldn't be added in that game. WC3 was a much more innovative game than SC2 in everyway concerning singleplayer and custom maps. The custom stuff in SC2 hasn't got anywhere near the caliber of WC3's stuff quite yet, so I can hardly call it 'great.' It's a very small game -- not much content. The singleplayer was poorly written and nothing innovative to speak of. It was also very linear. I would also argue that WoTLK and Cataclysm are bad WoW expansions. Honestly, Blizzard has gone down hill since '08. I really don't enjoy any of their new products, even though I had high hopes for each. I don't think Activision is to blame either. That's just me. I don't expect Diablo 3 will be a very good game. It might be 'good' like SC2 is, but definitely not great. Wow that's an extremely jaded view.
I'm sorry, but Blizzard was my favorite gaming company of all time for a decade straight, starting with WC2. I loved them all the way up to The Burning Crusade in WoW. And I loved them for their quality and care in their games, their push to at the very least add newness and freshness into each release they gave.
That is not the Blizzard of today. They're more concerning with microtransactions than with providing content (if WoW is any case -- Diablo 3 I assume will be similar what-with all the gameplay simplifications). No talents beyond level 30? What!
|
On August 09 2011 06:22 Mjolnir wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2011 04:29 Deadlyhazard wrote:On August 09 2011 0345 cz wrote:
I'll say this now: Blizzard has never made a less than "great" game before, or at least not with it's major titles since like 1997. I think Diablo III is going to break that - it's going to be a dumbed down game with cartoonish graphics. Worst of all, it won't even have the depth of Diablo II, a game that came out on 3 CD-ROMS in 2001. I think StarCraft 2 is less than great. It's essentially everything SC1 had with nothing that couldn't be added in that game. WC3 was a much more innovative game than SC2 in everyway concerning singleplayer and custom maps. The custom stuff in SC2 hasn't got anywhere near the caliber of WC3's stuff quite yet, so I can hardly call it 'great.' It's a very small game -- not much content. The singleplayer was poorly written and nothing innovative to speak of. It was also very linear. I would also argue that WoTLK and Cataclysm are bad WoW expansions.Honestly, Blizzard has gone down hill since '08. I really don't enjoy any of their new products, even though I had high hopes for each. I don't think Activision is to blame either. That's just me. I don't expect Diablo 3 will be a very good game. It might be 'good' like SC2 is, but definitely not great. Show nested quote +Chalk another in line for being "jaded," then.
I feel exactly the same way.
Some of us are not happy with Blizzard, and that's a fair view to have. I dislike how we keep hearing things like, "You're going to play it anyway!" just because Blizzard made it. I tried SCII. I do *not* play it. I tried WotLK. I quit WoW.
It's ok to look at what's coming, have high hopes and still also feel a little apprehensive after past "burns." Can someone explain to a noob here what was so bad about WotLK and Cataclysm? I hear people bitch about them all the time but I've never heard a single reason as to why they're so terrible that it was worth quitting the game. Just wondering...
wow is very complex and ambitious in form, even compared to other blizzard titles... so it's hard to say "this is why the game is bad" or "this is why the game is good."
as previously mentioned, the pace of combat was drastically altered, every ability of every class was entirely reworked (like every expansion) [with extensive ui adjustments], understandably it's not the same game as before.
other gripes are pretty specific to being an MMO and why they're not particularly relevant to a D3 thread... sorry if i get too abstract but;
so first, let me say that in BC and classic, a marginal percentage of the people who played wow, were able to beat bosses within the endgame raids, in wotlk the content became so easy that one no longer needed a guild, and could easily assemble his own group from random people.
this change is huge in itself, then you consider that being a member of a close-knit guild is no longer a requirement to attempt such raids. the game attracted a new demographic at this point, and the atmosphere that existed between guild-ed people and guildless shifted.
going back to the raids themselves... with the prime motivator to raid at this point simply being "to get gear," optimism did not prevail. whether a consequence or a catalyst, blizzard made "raid gear" obtainable from much easier and less involving methods.
these as i see it, are the root of a lot of contention towards wotlk.
|
so yeah, my previous post is not relevant to d3, because its about things specific to an MMO.
|
On August 09 2011 06:22 Mjolnir wrote:
Can someone explain to a noob here what was so bad about WotLK and Cataclysm?
I hear people bitch about them all the time but I've never heard a single reason as to why they're so terrible that it was worth quitting the game.
Just wondering...
Blizzard changed classes and how raiding works and so on so much each expansion. people always try to fight against changes. You can see it clearly by the amount of cry to get lurkers to SC2. If you read this very thread, you find out that people wants D3 to be nothing more than D2 with improved graphics and maybe new class or 2.
Also if you think, some 6 years is quite long time to play a game. Some people just... lets say "grow out" from playing the game. Especially something like WoW, where whole idea is to do same thing over and over again in hope of getting new items. When someone finally gets to point of saying to himself "this is no longer fun it used to be" they try to find a reason why its no longer fun. And most of the times very first reason is not that you are 6 years older, have full time job, maybe a child or 2 and lots of other stuff to do. First difference you find is, that newest expansion changed how the game works, so you think it must be the reason.
|
On August 09 2011 06:55 Deadlyhazard wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2011 04:31 Playguuu wrote:On August 09 2011 04:29 Deadlyhazard wrote:On August 09 2011 0345 cz wrote:
I'll say this now: Blizzard has never made a less than "great" game before, or at least not with it's major titles since like 1997. I think Diablo III is going to break that - it's going to be a dumbed down game with cartoonish graphics. Worst of all, it won't even have the depth of Diablo II, a game that came out on 3 CD-ROMS in 2001. I think StarCraft 2 is less than great. It's essentially everything SC1 had with nothing that couldn't be added in that game. WC3 was a much more innovative game than SC2 in everyway concerning singleplayer and custom maps. The custom stuff in SC2 hasn't got anywhere near the caliber of WC3's stuff quite yet, so I can hardly call it 'great.' It's a very small game -- not much content. The singleplayer was poorly written and nothing innovative to speak of. It was also very linear. I would also argue that WoTLK and Cataclysm are bad WoW expansions. Honestly, Blizzard has gone down hill since '08. I really don't enjoy any of their new products, even though I had high hopes for each. I don't think Activision is to blame either. That's just me. I don't expect Diablo 3 will be a very good game. It might be 'good' like SC2 is, but definitely not great. Wow that's an extremely jaded view. I'm sorry, but Blizzard was my favorite gaming company of all time for a decade straight, starting with WC2. I loved them all the way up to The Burning Crusade in WoW. And I loved them for their quality and care in their games, their push to at the very least add newness and freshness into each release they gave. That is not the Blizzard of today. They're more concerning with microtransactions than with providing content (if WoW is any case -- Diablo 3 I assume will be similar what-with all the gameplay simplifications). No talents beyond level 30? What!
You didn't get any new spells after level 30 in Diablo 2, either, so what's the problem? Do you want it to be like WoW where you get 5 new spells in the closing levels, and the game is completely different at the end-game?
Diablo 2's entire talent system was about saving the vast majority of your talent points while you slogged through the first 30 levels with rank 1 pre-req spells until you hit certain milestones in the tree and you could finally start pumping up the things you wanted to use for your build. This was, of course, the system you graduated to after you'd levelled your first character, did whatever the fuck you felt would be good at the time, turned out it sucked intergalactic space donkey balls, your character was made of crapstick and ass, and so you started over with a more long-term goal. Indeed, this could also not be accomplished until you either experimented yourself until you had an understanding of how good each spell was going to be (making assumptions of 'if a spell is strong at rank 1, it must be strong at rank 20!') or you went to the internet and read about how good each spell was, leeching off others' experience.
Do you want that back? If so, you're shit out of luck, because one of the devs flat-out said the system was crappy and they're going to change it. From the dev chats, they're quite acutely aware of how just plain terrible Diablo 2 was at a lot of things and they're making changes, not to make things simple, but to have you spend more time in the game blowing shit up, instead of waiting, and waiting, and waiting, until you can finally enjoy your build.
|
Lol is this a diablo or a wow thread????
Did blizzard mention a release date?
|
I would imagine they'll release somewhere around christmas.
|
I think they'll release some info tomorrow since last Tuesday they said beta announcment or something. If they don't release any info tomorrow since its Tuesday... I feel like their beta test 2 weeks ago went horribly bad
|
Yeah, Christmas season means a LOT of shipped product. I'm pretty confident that the Blizzard of today will push this game out before year's end.
|
On August 09 2011 07:22 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2011 06:55 Deadlyhazard wrote:On August 09 2011 04:31 Playguuu wrote:On August 09 2011 04:29 Deadlyhazard wrote:On August 09 2011 0345 cz wrote:
I'll say this now: Blizzard has never made a less than "great" game before, or at least not with it's major titles since like 1997. I think Diablo III is going to break that - it's going to be a dumbed down game with cartoonish graphics. Worst of all, it won't even have the depth of Diablo II, a game that came out on 3 CD-ROMS in 2001. I think StarCraft 2 is less than great. It's essentially everything SC1 had with nothing that couldn't be added in that game. WC3 was a much more innovative game than SC2 in everyway concerning singleplayer and custom maps. The custom stuff in SC2 hasn't got anywhere near the caliber of WC3's stuff quite yet, so I can hardly call it 'great.' It's a very small game -- not much content. The singleplayer was poorly written and nothing innovative to speak of. It was also very linear. I would also argue that WoTLK and Cataclysm are bad WoW expansions. Honestly, Blizzard has gone down hill since '08. I really don't enjoy any of their new products, even though I had high hopes for each. I don't think Activision is to blame either. That's just me. I don't expect Diablo 3 will be a very good game. It might be 'good' like SC2 is, but definitely not great. Wow that's an extremely jaded view. I'm sorry, but Blizzard was my favorite gaming company of all time for a decade straight, starting with WC2. I loved them all the way up to The Burning Crusade in WoW. And I loved them for their quality and care in their games, their push to at the very least add newness and freshness into each release they gave. That is not the Blizzard of today. They're more concerning with microtransactions than with providing content (if WoW is any case -- Diablo 3 I assume will be similar what-with all the gameplay simplifications). No talents beyond level 30? What! You didn't get any new spells after level 30 in Diablo 2, either, so what's the problem? Do you want it to be like WoW where you get 5 new spells in the closing levels, and the game is completely different at the end-game? Diablo 2's entire talent system was about saving the vast majority of your talent points while you slogged through the first 30 levels with rank 1 pre-req spells until you hit certain milestones in the tree and you could finally start pumping up the things you wanted to use for your build. This was, of course, the system you graduated to after you'd levelled your first character, did whatever the fuck you felt would be good at the time, turned out it sucked intergalactic space donkey balls, your character was made of crapstick and ass, and so you started over with a more long-term goal. Indeed, this could also not be accomplished until you either experimented yourself until you had an understanding of how good each spell was going to be (making assumptions of 'if a spell is strong at rank 1, it must be strong at rank 20!') or you went to the internet and read about how good each spell was, leeching off others' experience. Do you want that back? If so, you're shit out of luck, because one of the devs flat-out said the system was crappy and they're going to change it. From the dev chats, they're quite acutely aware of how just plain terrible Diablo 2 was at a lot of things and they're making changes, not to make things simple, but to have you spend more time in the game blowing shit up, instead of waiting, and waiting, and waiting, until you can finally enjoy your build.
It really isn't better than Diablo 2's system, both suck. There should be a lot more in the way of spells past level 30, for nightmare and hell mode (and inferno?). If they're doing it for balance reasons....well lol @ balance in a Blizzard game with RPG mechanics. I think they need to redo a ton of things altogether, but they shouldn't simplify what Diablo 2 did...
|
WoW people GTFO to your own THREADS !!
This is thread about D3 T_T ;o
|
On August 09 2011 09:01 Deadlyhazard wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2011 07:22 Bibdy wrote:On August 09 2011 06:55 Deadlyhazard wrote:On August 09 2011 04:31 Playguuu wrote:On August 09 2011 04:29 Deadlyhazard wrote:On August 09 2011 0345 cz wrote:
I'll say this now: Blizzard has never made a less than "great" game before, or at least not with it's major titles since like 1997. I think Diablo III is going to break that - it's going to be a dumbed down game with cartoonish graphics. Worst of all, it won't even have the depth of Diablo II, a game that came out on 3 CD-ROMS in 2001. I think StarCraft 2 is less than great. It's essentially everything SC1 had with nothing that couldn't be added in that game. WC3 was a much more innovative game than SC2 in everyway concerning singleplayer and custom maps. The custom stuff in SC2 hasn't got anywhere near the caliber of WC3's stuff quite yet, so I can hardly call it 'great.' It's a very small game -- not much content. The singleplayer was poorly written and nothing innovative to speak of. It was also very linear. I would also argue that WoTLK and Cataclysm are bad WoW expansions. Honestly, Blizzard has gone down hill since '08. I really don't enjoy any of their new products, even though I had high hopes for each. I don't think Activision is to blame either. That's just me. I don't expect Diablo 3 will be a very good game. It might be 'good' like SC2 is, but definitely not great. Wow that's an extremely jaded view. I'm sorry, but Blizzard was my favorite gaming company of all time for a decade straight, starting with WC2. I loved them all the way up to The Burning Crusade in WoW. And I loved them for their quality and care in their games, their push to at the very least add newness and freshness into each release they gave. That is not the Blizzard of today. They're more concerning with microtransactions than with providing content (if WoW is any case -- Diablo 3 I assume will be similar what-with all the gameplay simplifications). No talents beyond level 30? What! You didn't get any new spells after level 30 in Diablo 2, either, so what's the problem? Do you want it to be like WoW where you get 5 new spells in the closing levels, and the game is completely different at the end-game? Diablo 2's entire talent system was about saving the vast majority of your talent points while you slogged through the first 30 levels with rank 1 pre-req spells until you hit certain milestones in the tree and you could finally start pumping up the things you wanted to use for your build. This was, of course, the system you graduated to after you'd levelled your first character, did whatever the fuck you felt would be good at the time, turned out it sucked intergalactic space donkey balls, your character was made of crapstick and ass, and so you started over with a more long-term goal. Indeed, this could also not be accomplished until you either experimented yourself until you had an understanding of how good each spell was going to be (making assumptions of 'if a spell is strong at rank 1, it must be strong at rank 20!') or you went to the internet and read about how good each spell was, leeching off others' experience. Do you want that back? If so, you're shit out of luck, because one of the devs flat-out said the system was crappy and they're going to change it. From the dev chats, they're quite acutely aware of how just plain terrible Diablo 2 was at a lot of things and they're making changes, not to make things simple, but to have you spend more time in the game blowing shit up, instead of waiting, and waiting, and waiting, until you can finally enjoy your build. It really isn't better than Diablo 2's system, both suck. There should be a lot more in the way of spells past level 30, for nightmare and hell mode (and inferno?). If they're doing it for balance reasons....well lol @ balance in a Blizzard game with RPG mechanics. I think they need to redo a ton of things altogether, but they shouldn't simplify what Diablo 2 did...
The thing is, you haven't seen this one in action for 10 years. Nor did Diablo 2 have a Rune system which will keep the realm of abilities plenty interesting beyond level 30. They obviously want people to play beyond that stage, and its up to them to create the incentive. Loot with better stats, was enough for us to go through two more difficulty levels of Diablo 2, witnessing the exact same content, but with a few minor changes (multiple boss effects, resistances, damage types etc.) but I think it's pretty clear that they realize the old fans want something more than that this time.
|
On August 09 2011 09:01 Deadlyhazard wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2011 07:22 Bibdy wrote:On August 09 2011 06:55 Deadlyhazard wrote:On August 09 2011 04:31 Playguuu wrote:On August 09 2011 04:29 Deadlyhazard wrote:On August 09 2011 0345 cz wrote:
I'll say this now: Blizzard has never made a less than "great" game before, or at least not with it's major titles since like 1997. I think Diablo III is going to break that - it's going to be a dumbed down game with cartoonish graphics. Worst of all, it won't even have the depth of Diablo II, a game that came out on 3 CD-ROMS in 2001. I think StarCraft 2 is less than great. It's essentially everything SC1 had with nothing that couldn't be added in that game. WC3 was a much more innovative game than SC2 in everyway concerning singleplayer and custom maps. The custom stuff in SC2 hasn't got anywhere near the caliber of WC3's stuff quite yet, so I can hardly call it 'great.' It's a very small game -- not much content. The singleplayer was poorly written and nothing innovative to speak of. It was also very linear. I would also argue that WoTLK and Cataclysm are bad WoW expansions. Honestly, Blizzard has gone down hill since '08. I really don't enjoy any of their new products, even though I had high hopes for each. I don't think Activision is to blame either. That's just me. I don't expect Diablo 3 will be a very good game. It might be 'good' like SC2 is, but definitely not great. Wow that's an extremely jaded view. I'm sorry, but Blizzard was my favorite gaming company of all time for a decade straight, starting with WC2. I loved them all the way up to The Burning Crusade in WoW. And I loved them for their quality and care in their games, their push to at the very least add newness and freshness into each release they gave. That is not the Blizzard of today. They're more concerning with microtransactions than with providing content (if WoW is any case -- Diablo 3 I assume will be similar what-with all the gameplay simplifications). No talents beyond level 30? What! You didn't get any new spells after level 30 in Diablo 2, either, so what's the problem? Do you want it to be like WoW where you get 5 new spells in the closing levels, and the game is completely different at the end-game? Diablo 2's entire talent system was about saving the vast majority of your talent points while you slogged through the first 30 levels with rank 1 pre-req spells until you hit certain milestones in the tree and you could finally start pumping up the things you wanted to use for your build. This was, of course, the system you graduated to after you'd levelled your first character, did whatever the fuck you felt would be good at the time, turned out it sucked intergalactic space donkey balls, your character was made of crapstick and ass, and so you started over with a more long-term goal. Indeed, this could also not be accomplished until you either experimented yourself until you had an understanding of how good each spell was going to be (making assumptions of 'if a spell is strong at rank 1, it must be strong at rank 20!') or you went to the internet and read about how good each spell was, leeching off others' experience. Do you want that back? If so, you're shit out of luck, because one of the devs flat-out said the system was crappy and they're going to change it. From the dev chats, they're quite acutely aware of how just plain terrible Diablo 2 was at a lot of things and they're making changes, not to make things simple, but to have you spend more time in the game blowing shit up, instead of waiting, and waiting, and waiting, until you can finally enjoy your build. It really isn't better than Diablo 2's system, both suck. There should be a lot more in the way of spells past level 30, for nightmare and hell mode (and inferno?). If they're doing it for balance reasons....well lol @ balance in a Blizzard game with RPG mechanics. I think they need to redo a ton of things altogether, but they shouldn't simplify what Diablo 2 did...
It's much better than D2's system. I don't want so many skills that homogenize the classes, and the Guild Wars skill system makes it so you'll see a lot of variation at the end game besides the three builds people deem good enough to waste your time on in D2. I don't see how you think they're doing it for balance reasons, as having less skills would make it harder to balance each class. You really aren't giving your arguments enough thought.
|
On August 09 2011 09:21 NotJack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2011 09:01 Deadlyhazard wrote:On August 09 2011 07:22 Bibdy wrote:On August 09 2011 06:55 Deadlyhazard wrote:On August 09 2011 04:31 Playguuu wrote:On August 09 2011 04:29 Deadlyhazard wrote:On August 09 2011 0345 cz wrote:
I'll say this now: Blizzard has never made a less than "great" game before, or at least not with it's major titles since like 1997. I think Diablo III is going to break that - it's going to be a dumbed down game with cartoonish graphics. Worst of all, it won't even have the depth of Diablo II, a game that came out on 3 CD-ROMS in 2001. I think StarCraft 2 is less than great. It's essentially everything SC1 had with nothing that couldn't be added in that game. WC3 was a much more innovative game than SC2 in everyway concerning singleplayer and custom maps. The custom stuff in SC2 hasn't got anywhere near the caliber of WC3's stuff quite yet, so I can hardly call it 'great.' It's a very small game -- not much content. The singleplayer was poorly written and nothing innovative to speak of. It was also very linear. I would also argue that WoTLK and Cataclysm are bad WoW expansions. Honestly, Blizzard has gone down hill since '08. I really don't enjoy any of their new products, even though I had high hopes for each. I don't think Activision is to blame either. That's just me. I don't expect Diablo 3 will be a very good game. It might be 'good' like SC2 is, but definitely not great. Wow that's an extremely jaded view. I'm sorry, but Blizzard was my favorite gaming company of all time for a decade straight, starting with WC2. I loved them all the way up to The Burning Crusade in WoW. And I loved them for their quality and care in their games, their push to at the very least add newness and freshness into each release they gave. That is not the Blizzard of today. They're more concerning with microtransactions than with providing content (if WoW is any case -- Diablo 3 I assume will be similar what-with all the gameplay simplifications). No talents beyond level 30? What! You didn't get any new spells after level 30 in Diablo 2, either, so what's the problem? Do you want it to be like WoW where you get 5 new spells in the closing levels, and the game is completely different at the end-game? Diablo 2's entire talent system was about saving the vast majority of your talent points while you slogged through the first 30 levels with rank 1 pre-req spells until you hit certain milestones in the tree and you could finally start pumping up the things you wanted to use for your build. This was, of course, the system you graduated to after you'd levelled your first character, did whatever the fuck you felt would be good at the time, turned out it sucked intergalactic space donkey balls, your character was made of crapstick and ass, and so you started over with a more long-term goal. Indeed, this could also not be accomplished until you either experimented yourself until you had an understanding of how good each spell was going to be (making assumptions of 'if a spell is strong at rank 1, it must be strong at rank 20!') or you went to the internet and read about how good each spell was, leeching off others' experience. Do you want that back? If so, you're shit out of luck, because one of the devs flat-out said the system was crappy and they're going to change it. From the dev chats, they're quite acutely aware of how just plain terrible Diablo 2 was at a lot of things and they're making changes, not to make things simple, but to have you spend more time in the game blowing shit up, instead of waiting, and waiting, and waiting, until you can finally enjoy your build. It really isn't better than Diablo 2's system, both suck. There should be a lot more in the way of spells past level 30, for nightmare and hell mode (and inferno?). If they're doing it for balance reasons....well lol @ balance in a Blizzard game with RPG mechanics. I think they need to redo a ton of things altogether, but they shouldn't simplify what Diablo 2 did... It's much better than D2's system. I don't want so many skills that homogenize the classes, and the Guild Wars skill system makes it so you'll see a lot of variation at the end game besides the three builds people deem good enough to waste your time on in D2. I don't see how you think they're doing it for balance reasons, as having less skills would make it harder to balance each class. You really aren't giving your arguments enough thought.
what?
|
On August 09 2011 09:34 Serpico wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2011 09:21 NotJack wrote:On August 09 2011 09:01 Deadlyhazard wrote:On August 09 2011 07:22 Bibdy wrote:On August 09 2011 06:55 Deadlyhazard wrote:On August 09 2011 04:31 Playguuu wrote:On August 09 2011 04:29 Deadlyhazard wrote:On August 09 2011 0345 cz wrote:
I'll say this now: Blizzard has never made a less than "great" game before, or at least not with it's major titles since like 1997. I think Diablo III is going to break that - it's going to be a dumbed down game with cartoonish graphics. Worst of all, it won't even have the depth of Diablo II, a game that came out on 3 CD-ROMS in 2001. I think StarCraft 2 is less than great. It's essentially everything SC1 had with nothing that couldn't be added in that game. WC3 was a much more innovative game than SC2 in everyway concerning singleplayer and custom maps. The custom stuff in SC2 hasn't got anywhere near the caliber of WC3's stuff quite yet, so I can hardly call it 'great.' It's a very small game -- not much content. The singleplayer was poorly written and nothing innovative to speak of. It was also very linear. I would also argue that WoTLK and Cataclysm are bad WoW expansions. Honestly, Blizzard has gone down hill since '08. I really don't enjoy any of their new products, even though I had high hopes for each. I don't think Activision is to blame either. That's just me. I don't expect Diablo 3 will be a very good game. It might be 'good' like SC2 is, but definitely not great. Wow that's an extremely jaded view. I'm sorry, but Blizzard was my favorite gaming company of all time for a decade straight, starting with WC2. I loved them all the way up to The Burning Crusade in WoW. And I loved them for their quality and care in their games, their push to at the very least add newness and freshness into each release they gave. That is not the Blizzard of today. They're more concerning with microtransactions than with providing content (if WoW is any case -- Diablo 3 I assume will be similar what-with all the gameplay simplifications). No talents beyond level 30? What! You didn't get any new spells after level 30 in Diablo 2, either, so what's the problem? Do you want it to be like WoW where you get 5 new spells in the closing levels, and the game is completely different at the end-game? Diablo 2's entire talent system was about saving the vast majority of your talent points while you slogged through the first 30 levels with rank 1 pre-req spells until you hit certain milestones in the tree and you could finally start pumping up the things you wanted to use for your build. This was, of course, the system you graduated to after you'd levelled your first character, did whatever the fuck you felt would be good at the time, turned out it sucked intergalactic space donkey balls, your character was made of crapstick and ass, and so you started over with a more long-term goal. Indeed, this could also not be accomplished until you either experimented yourself until you had an understanding of how good each spell was going to be (making assumptions of 'if a spell is strong at rank 1, it must be strong at rank 20!') or you went to the internet and read about how good each spell was, leeching off others' experience. Do you want that back? If so, you're shit out of luck, because one of the devs flat-out said the system was crappy and they're going to change it. From the dev chats, they're quite acutely aware of how just plain terrible Diablo 2 was at a lot of things and they're making changes, not to make things simple, but to have you spend more time in the game blowing shit up, instead of waiting, and waiting, and waiting, until you can finally enjoy your build. It really isn't better than Diablo 2's system, both suck. There should be a lot more in the way of spells past level 30, for nightmare and hell mode (and inferno?). If they're doing it for balance reasons....well lol @ balance in a Blizzard game with RPG mechanics. I think they need to redo a ton of things altogether, but they shouldn't simplify what Diablo 2 did... It's much better than D2's system. I don't want so many skills that homogenize the classes, and the Guild Wars skill system makes it so you'll see a lot of variation at the end game besides the three builds people deem good enough to waste your time on in D2. I don't see how you think they're doing it for balance reasons, as having less skills would make it harder to balance each class. You really aren't giving your arguments enough thought. what?
I like how you weren't confused with me saying more skills makes everything the same, but were with less skills makes it harder to balance.
I don't know how to respond to such an eloquent counter-point, but yeah, less skills makes classes harder to balance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
