|
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...
Played from vanilla-cat (both mains up to 85) never took a break till mid wotlk, and now stopped entirely so here is a small portion of my long list of how that game got fucked up
-Paid server xfers
-Paid faction xfers
-Paid name change
-Token system
- Pugable raids (This is where u were suppose to be able to separate the boys from the men so to speak, not anymore)
I will however say, the story has improved dramtically (whereas in vanilla their was more or less zero story line save the books) But once you get to 85 its the same old drib drab only worth playing 1x a week to rape the main raid then be bored for 6 more days. I have many more woes about wow, but I will say that since I completely quit I feel much better as a person and a gamer.
As far as the OP's "views" on sc2, it's a very subjective one. Which he is most definitely allowed to have. But I would respectfully disagree with him. The story is only 1/3rd done, if WC3 only had the human campaign you would say the same. The optional objectives are wayyyyyyyyyy more diverse and far more fun in SC2 than WC3. Not to mention the main objectives are way more diverse as well. I'll give it to you on the custom maps, but honestly, this game is a year old. 90% of the customs that came during the ROC days were total garbage save DOTA. So i think you are A) Jaded, the guy who hates things for the sake of hating things. or B) Assuming to much that Diablo 3 will be shit, a game you haven't even played 1 second of. Optimism ftw.
|
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.
3 builds...that people deem good enough? Non-viable builds? It's fucking PvE, do whatever you please. The only time non-viability comes into play is when you have an immune mob in Hell difficulty, and even then it doesn't make for an impossible situation. Barbs could berserk physical immune mobs, Sorcs could teleport past or invest just ONE point in another element as a backup plan.
If you're talking about PvP: the game was never balanced around it, will never be balanced around it, and there was still way more variety than you give it credit for. Off the top of my head
Pally, Sorc, Druid, Assy, Necro, Barb, Zon
Pally: Hammerdin, Vindi/templar, FoH, Charge, Zealot, Smiter
Sorc: Blizz, Fireball, Lightning, all of which could be built for stormshield or blockless (~135 str req. iirc)
Druid: Wind was the only real way to go with druids
Assassin: WWsin, Trapper, KickSin
Necro: Summoner, Nova, Bone, with variations for block/blockless like the Sorc
Barb: WW, Zerk, Leaper
Zon: Java, Bowa
And this is discounting that there's tons of flexibility in a lot of the builds depending on whether or not it's a mirror, or like barb builds, where a lot of them change drastically depending on whether or not you intend to mostly mirror, BvCaster, or BvAll; Enigma vs Valor/Other chest, Widowmaker on the alt weapon slot, etc.
|
On August 09 2011 09:49 Scribble 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. 3 builds...that people deem good enough? Non-viable builds? It's fucking PvE, do whatever you please. The only time non-viability comes into play is when you have an immune mob in Hell difficulty, and even then it doesn't make for an impossible situation. Barbs could berserk physical immune mobs, Sorcs could teleport past or invest just ONE point in another element as a backup plan.
Well any PvE build is only viable if your char is extremely twinked, which is bad for more casual players. Otherwise there's really only a couple un-twinked builds that can get you through hell without being a complete pain in the ass(even with the good builds, hell is a pain as is. I hope that's fixed for D3)
|
Hell is meant for twinked characters, it's the reason to twink them. If it were easy it would be pointless. They went overboard eventually though, I remember returning to the game after 1.11 or something and found an Eaglehorn for my Amazon, but it was too shit to solo Hell properly. Only way to do it properly is with duped runewords on your self and on your merc. So strange to balance the game around cheating.
|
On August 09 2011 09:38 NotJack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2011 09:34 Serpico wrote: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.
Any reason for the heavy handed passive aggressiveness? The less skills you have the more you can focus on those in particular to balance. Having more doesnt magically homogenize things unless you go overboard. It's also quite ironic how pretty much everything D2 devs implemented gets criticized greatly by the D3 team and everything they put in is god's gift to gaming.
Hell is meant for twinked characters, it's the reason to twink them. If it were easy it would be pointless. They went overboard eventually though, I remember returning to the game after 1.11 or something and found an Eaglehorn for my Amazon, but it was too shit to solo Hell properly. Only way to do it properly is with duped runewords on your self and on your merc. So strange to balance the game around cheating.
You dont need runewords to solo hell at all.
|
On August 09 2011 10:15 Serpico wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2011 09:38 NotJack wrote:On August 09 2011 09:34 Serpico wrote: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. Any reason for the heavy handed passive aggressiveness? The less skills you have the more you can focus on those in particular to balance. Having more doesnt magically homogenize things unless you go overboard. It's also quite ironic how pretty much everything D2 devs implemented gets criticized greatly by the D3 team and everything they put in is god's gift to gaming. Show nested quote +Hell is meant for twinked characters, it's the reason to twink them. If it were easy it would be pointless. They went overboard eventually though, I remember returning to the game after 1.11 or something and found an Eaglehorn for my Amazon, but it was too shit to solo Hell properly. Only way to do it properly is with duped runewords on your self and on your merc. So strange to balance the game around cheating. You dont need runewords to solo hell at all.
I was aggressive because you said simply what in response, no reason to just post that. Also that's not ironic, pet peeve of mine =D
There is a sweet spot in the middle with skills, if you only have 1 skill each it's impossible to balance, then the more you get the more nuances each role has up to a certain point where they naturally overlap with other classes. WoW devs admitted to going overboard with skills, so I'm sure the company has a good foundation to work off of.
No one's saying anything is god's gift to gaming, we're just using our brains to realize that it's a smart move. As shocking as it may be, I believe this billion dollar company has improved upon some of the mechanics of this game.
On August 09 2011 09:49 Scribble wrote:
3 builds...that people deem good enough? Non-viable builds? It's fucking PvE, do whatever you please. The only time non-viability comes into play is when you have an immune mob in Hell difficulty, and even then it doesn't make for an impossible situation. Barbs could berserk physical immune mobs, Sorcs could teleport past or invest just ONE point in another element as a backup plan.
If you're talking about PvP: the game was never balanced around it, will never be balanced around it, and there was still way more variety than you give it credit for. Off the top of my head
Pally, Sorc, Druid, Assy, Necro, Barb, Zon
Pally: Hammerdin, Vindi/templar, FoH, Charge, Zealot, Smiter
Sorc: Blizz, Fireball, Lightning, all of which could be built for stormshield or blockless (~135 str req. iirc)
Druid: Wind was the only real way to go with druids
Assassin: WWsin, Trapper, KickSin
Necro: Summoner, Nova, Bone, with variations for block/blockless like the Sorc
Barb: WW, Zerk, Leaper
Zon: Java, Bowa
And this is discounting that there's tons of flexibility in a lot of the builds depending on whether or not it's a mirror, or like barb builds, where a lot of them change drastically depending on whether or not you intend to mostly mirror, BvCaster, or BvAll; Enigma vs Valor/Other chest, Widowmaker on the alt weapon slot, etc.
Oh sorry, I should've said 2, 3, 3, 3, 1, 3, 5 skills for the individual classes XP. No matter how many you can list, the experimentation and potential will be more fun and greater in this new system.
|
Jesus. I just read through that entire quote chain happyness quoted.. Did any of you even play D2?
-Bitch about D3 being sellout for having the same feature as D2
-Conveniently forget how Hell gear works. A Sorc without LCR in Hell? Lol.
-Do whatever you please approach where every class in fact did have only 3 different builds that worked past Nightmare.
I'm just going to move the hell on and get out of this thread. I accept now that the people posting have played very little D2.
|
Onto a new subject, what style of PvE do you guys want to see? Personally, I think D2 had potential for a good PvE, but it wasn't great outside bosses and uber trist. When mobs were too tough to handle, all you had to do was patiently kite. I hope that there are a lot of times in D3 where enemies surround you, or you walk into a room and the door shuts behind you. That way you are forced to use strategy and team coordination.
Oh yeah and I also didn't like rejuv potions. It took a long time to collect a full belt of them, and once you did, it was an instant win ticket provided you don't get one hit. Even though I had the option to use them or not, I would rather not be tempted.
What do you guys think?
|
On August 09 2011 11:09 Chairman Ray wrote:
Onto a new subject, what style of PvE do you guys want to see? Personally, I think D2 had potential for a good PvE, but it wasn't great outside bosses and uber trist. When mobs were too tough to handle, all you had to do was patiently kite. I hope that there are a lot of times in D3 where enemies surround you, or you walk into a room and the door shuts behind you. That way you are forced to use strategy and team coordination.
Oh yeah and I also didn't like rejuv potions. It took a long time to collect a full belt of them, and once you did, it was an instant win ticket provided you don't get one hit. Even though I had the option to use them or not, I would rather not be tempted.
What do you guys think?
I want to see areas MERGE into eachother rather than teleport (ie. entering the den of evil you teleport into the new area). This will prevent enemies spawn camping the entrance and naked killing you.
|
On August 09 2011 11:19 Assault_1 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2011 11:09 Chairman Ray wrote:
Onto a new subject, what style of PvE do you guys want to see? Personally, I think D2 had potential for a good PvE, but it wasn't great outside bosses and uber trist. When mobs were too tough to handle, all you had to do was patiently kite. I hope that there are a lot of times in D3 where enemies surround you, or you walk into a room and the door shuts behind you. That way you are forced to use strategy and team coordination.
Oh yeah and I also didn't like rejuv potions. It took a long time to collect a full belt of them, and once you did, it was an instant win ticket provided you don't get one hit. Even though I had the option to use them or not, I would rather not be tempted.
What do you guys think? I want to see areas MERGE into eachother rather than teleport (ie. entering the den of evil you teleport into the new area). This will prevent enemies spawn camping the entrance and naked killing you.
Oh yeah I had some bad memories about that as well. So many times I resorted to going into a cave, firing off a blizzard or hammer, then going right back up, pot to full, and repeat.
|
On August 09 2011 11:23 Chairman Ray wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2011 11:19 Assault_1 wrote:On August 09 2011 11:09 Chairman Ray wrote:
Onto a new subject, what style of PvE do you guys want to see? Personally, I think D2 had potential for a good PvE, but it wasn't great outside bosses and uber trist. When mobs were too tough to handle, all you had to do was patiently kite. I hope that there are a lot of times in D3 where enemies surround you, or you walk into a room and the door shuts behind you. That way you are forced to use strategy and team coordination.
Oh yeah and I also didn't like rejuv potions. It took a long time to collect a full belt of them, and once you did, it was an instant win ticket provided you don't get one hit. Even though I had the option to use them or not, I would rather not be tempted.
What do you guys think? I want to see areas MERGE into eachother rather than teleport (ie. entering the den of evil you teleport into the new area). This will prevent enemies spawn camping the entrance and naked killing you. Oh yeah I had some bad memories about that as well. So many times I resorted to going into a cave, firing off a blizzard or hammer, then going right back up, pot to full, and repeat.
for me it was usually a screen full of death knights with fanat or lightning souls with conviction, we'd get about 5 people to go in at once and we all die instantly
|
Wow with all the complaining:
- Even the worst of Blizzard games have been worth $50. Compare that to spending $50 on Sonic the Hedgehog Wii, or ... you know, whatever other games exist out there. You definitely get $50 worth from blizzard games.
I hope this game doesn't suck, as someone who was a big TPPKer and hacker in d2x, I think they'd ruin this game if arena was the only way to PvP. Diablo was great because it was so cutthroat, with dueling, partying, hostiling, hunting... Pking was always a big part of Diablo, and everyone loved it (except when it happened to them!). I think they'd take a lot from the game if they made the game 'friendly'. This should be the cutthroat world of diablo, not the fantasy epic-style we-need-to-work-together-to-survive WoW.
That said, I'm sure it'll still be worth $50.
|
On August 09 2011 11:36 Belial88 wrote:
Wow with all the complaining:
- Even the worst of Blizzard games have been worth $50. Compare that to spending $50 on Sonic the Hedgehog Wii, or ... you know, whatever other games exist out there. You definitely get $50 worth from blizzard games.
I hope this game doesn't suck, as someone who was a big TPPKer and hacker in d2x, I think they'd ruin this game if arena was the only way to PvP. Diablo was great because it was so cutthroat, with dueling, partying, hostiling, hunting... Pking was always a big part of Diablo, and everyone loved it (except when it happened to them!). I think they'd take a lot from the game if they made the game 'friendly'. This should be the cutthroat world of diablo, not the fantasy epic-style we-need-to-work-together-to-survive WoW.
That said, I'm sure it'll still be worth $50.
Aren't all blizzard games sold for the premium 59.99 now right? I thought that was how much starcraft 2 cost if I recall.
|
Yeah pretty sure it will be $60.
|
On August 09 2011 11:44 howerpower wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2011 11:36 Belial88 wrote:
Wow with all the complaining:
- Even the worst of Blizzard games have been worth $50. Compare that to spending $50 on Sonic the Hedgehog Wii, or ... you know, whatever other games exist out there. You definitely get $50 worth from blizzard games.
I hope this game doesn't suck, as someone who was a big TPPKer and hacker in d2x, I think they'd ruin this game if arena was the only way to PvP. Diablo was great because it was so cutthroat, with dueling, partying, hostiling, hunting... Pking was always a big part of Diablo, and everyone loved it (except when it happened to them!). I think they'd take a lot from the game if they made the game 'friendly'. This should be the cutthroat world of diablo, not the fantasy epic-style we-need-to-work-together-to-survive WoW.
That said, I'm sure it'll still be worth $50. Aren't all blizzard games sold for the premium 59.99 now right? I thought that was how much starcraft 2 cost if I recall.
Good point, they're amazing deals for 50 dollars, but not worth 60.
|
They said $50 in one of the interviews. I still think it will be $60 though.
|
On August 09 2011 11:51 NotJack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2011 11:44 howerpower wrote:On August 09 2011 11:36 Belial88 wrote:
Wow with all the complaining:
- Even the worst of Blizzard games have been worth $50. Compare that to spending $50 on Sonic the Hedgehog Wii, or ... you know, whatever other games exist out there. You definitely get $50 worth from blizzard games.
I hope this game doesn't suck, as someone who was a big TPPKer and hacker in d2x, I think they'd ruin this game if arena was the only way to PvP. Diablo was great because it was so cutthroat, with dueling, partying, hostiling, hunting... Pking was always a big part of Diablo, and everyone loved it (except when it happened to them!). I think they'd take a lot from the game if they made the game 'friendly'. This should be the cutthroat world of diablo, not the fantasy epic-style we-need-to-work-together-to-survive WoW.
That said, I'm sure it'll still be worth $50. Aren't all blizzard games sold for the premium 59.99 now right? I thought that was how much starcraft 2 cost if I recall. Good point, they're amazing deals for 50 dollars, but not worth 60.
This is sarcasm, right?
|
On August 09 2011 11:58 Maynarde wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2011 11:51 NotJack wrote:On August 09 2011 11:44 howerpower wrote:On August 09 2011 11:36 Belial88 wrote:
Wow with all the complaining:
- Even the worst of Blizzard games have been worth $50. Compare that to spending $50 on Sonic the Hedgehog Wii, or ... you know, whatever other games exist out there. You definitely get $50 worth from blizzard games.
I hope this game doesn't suck, as someone who was a big TPPKer and hacker in d2x, I think they'd ruin this game if arena was the only way to PvP. Diablo was great because it was so cutthroat, with dueling, partying, hostiling, hunting... Pking was always a big part of Diablo, and everyone loved it (except when it happened to them!). I think they'd take a lot from the game if they made the game 'friendly'. This should be the cutthroat world of diablo, not the fantasy epic-style we-need-to-work-together-to-survive WoW.
That said, I'm sure it'll still be worth $50. Aren't all blizzard games sold for the premium 59.99 now right? I thought that was how much starcraft 2 cost if I recall. Good point, they're amazing deals for 50 dollars, but not worth 60. This is sarcasm, right?
............yes
|
On August 09 2011 11:51 NotJack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2011 11:44 howerpower wrote:On August 09 2011 11:36 Belial88 wrote:
Wow with all the complaining:
- Even the worst of Blizzard games have been worth $50. Compare that to spending $50 on Sonic the Hedgehog Wii, or ... you know, whatever other games exist out there. You definitely get $50 worth from blizzard games.
I hope this game doesn't suck, as someone who was a big TPPKer and hacker in d2x, I think they'd ruin this game if arena was the only way to PvP. Diablo was great because it was so cutthroat, with dueling, partying, hostiling, hunting... Pking was always a big part of Diablo, and everyone loved it (except when it happened to them!). I think they'd take a lot from the game if they made the game 'friendly'. This should be the cutthroat world of diablo, not the fantasy epic-style we-need-to-work-together-to-survive WoW.
That said, I'm sure it'll still be worth $50. Aren't all blizzard games sold for the premium 59.99 now right? I thought that was how much starcraft 2 cost if I recall. Good point, they're amazing deals for 50 dollars, but not worth 60.
Think he was just trying to get the facts straight, not make a point.
|
I can't wait to play each character in the beta in order to decide which one is worthy of me and my diabolic perfectionist grind
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
