On November 03 2019 21:58 smr wrote: Can't get excited. Sadly. Gameplay looked slow, world events that require a group, meeting people in open world (possibly meaning that I'm playing a diablo game that has me waiting for respawn?). We have seen neither a shield nor a bow class yet and I doubt they would leave those archetypes out. So to follow that biblical theme we'll have something like pala/crusader/cleric (lore could possibly say that the order or paladins, crusaders whatever is down to two people, they're rebuilding, coming in an expansion?) and as the fifth class ama/demon hunter/ranger. - leaving us with the druid and 4 classes that we could play for years. Can only imagine that they integrate the trap part of the assassin into the ranged class as a different skill path. Traps weren't big in d3 so that could feel "new" in sanctuary.
In the end everything screamed: ok you guys like poe so we do poe but we'll have an open world. most likely they have no idea where they want to go and "not even blizzard soon" sounds like 2022 or later.
mounts scare me because in this genre i want to kill stuff nonstop and mounts say: ride 5 minutes, clear something in 30 sec, ride somewhere else etc
I do firmly believe that 1 of the 2 unannounced classes is the Crusader (or paladin, but I think they established that the Order of Paladins is tainted and warped by Mephisto, and won't retcon that now...) Last, 5th class is most likely Assassin as you said, double handbow or Xbow or bow specialization, traps and kicks/fists (a la Monk). It would fit the theme of remaking Lord of Destruction classes.
I'm personally more interested in how they'll make Necromancer, if at all. You KNOW people will cry for a necro from day 1 of release and not a shitty replacement like Witch Doctor with pocket frogs. On the other hand China having its hand so far up Blizzard's asshole to wear them like a puppet, they might not want to make a class that uses straight-up undead to kill demons. It's one thing to remove a few skulls and bones from level decor, its a whole 'nother beast to censor a whole class that revolves around using them as weapons.
On November 03 2019 21:58 smr wrote: Can't get excited. Sadly. Gameplay looked slow, world events that require a group, meeting people in open world (possibly meaning that I'm playing a diablo game that has me waiting for respawn?). We have seen neither a shield nor a bow class yet and I doubt they would leave those archetypes out. So to follow that biblical theme we'll have something like pala/crusader/cleric (lore could possibly say that the order or paladins, crusaders whatever is down to two people, they're rebuilding, coming in an expansion?) and as the fifth class ama/demon hunter/ranger. - leaving us with the druid and 4 classes that we could play for years. Can only imagine that they integrate the trap part of the assassin into the ranged class as a different skill path. Traps weren't big in d3 so that could feel "new" in sanctuary.
In the end everything screamed: ok you guys like poe so we do poe but we'll have an open world. most likely they have no idea where they want to go and "not even blizzard soon" sounds like 2022 or later.
mounts scare me because in this genre i want to kill stuff nonstop and mounts say: ride 5 minutes, clear something in 30 sec, ride somewhere else etc
I do firmly believe that 1 of the 2 unannounced classes is the Crusader (or paladin, but I think they established that the Order of Paladins is tainted and warped by Mephisto, and won't retcon that now...) Last, 5th class is most likely Assassin as you said, double handbow or Xbow or bow specialization, traps and kicks/fists (a la Monk). It would fit the theme of remaking Lord of Destruction classes.
I'm personally more interested in how they'll make Necromancer, if at all. You KNOW people will cry for a necro from day 1 of release and not a shitty replacement like Witch Doctor with pocket frogs. On the other hand China having its hand so far up Blizzard's asshole to wear them like a puppet, they might not want to make a class that uses straight-up undead to kill demons. It's one thing to remove a few skulls and bones from level decor, its a whole 'nother beast to censor a whole class that revolves around using them as weapons.
wait are you saying the Chinese don't want there to be a Necromancer class? i'm afraid i'm not really following
On November 03 2019 21:58 smr wrote: Can't get excited. Sadly. Gameplay looked slow, world events that require a group, meeting people in open world (possibly meaning that I'm playing a diablo game that has me waiting for respawn?). We have seen neither a shield nor a bow class yet and I doubt they would leave those archetypes out. So to follow that biblical theme we'll have something like pala/crusader/cleric (lore could possibly say that the order or paladins, crusaders whatever is down to two people, they're rebuilding, coming in an expansion?) and as the fifth class ama/demon hunter/ranger. - leaving us with the druid and 4 classes that we could play for years. Can only imagine that they integrate the trap part of the assassin into the ranged class as a different skill path. Traps weren't big in d3 so that could feel "new" in sanctuary.
In the end everything screamed: ok you guys like poe so we do poe but we'll have an open world. most likely they have no idea where they want to go and "not even blizzard soon" sounds like 2022 or later.
mounts scare me because in this genre i want to kill stuff nonstop and mounts say: ride 5 minutes, clear something in 30 sec, ride somewhere else etc
I do firmly believe that 1 of the 2 unannounced classes is the Crusader (or paladin, but I think they established that the Order of Paladins is tainted and warped by Mephisto, and won't retcon that now...) Last, 5th class is most likely Assassin as you said, double handbow or Xbow or bow specialization, traps and kicks/fists (a la Monk). It would fit the theme of remaking Lord of Destruction classes.
I'm personally more interested in how they'll make Necromancer, if at all. You KNOW people will cry for a necro from day 1 of release and not a shitty replacement like Witch Doctor with pocket frogs. On the other hand China having its hand so far up Blizzard's asshole to wear them like a puppet, they might not want to make a class that uses straight-up undead to kill demons. It's one thing to remove a few skulls and bones from level decor, its a whole 'nother beast to censor a whole class that revolves around using them as weapons.
wait are you saying the Chinese don't want there to be a Necromancer class? i'm afraid i'm not really following
China has issues with showing bones and skeletons. Lots of games have to make modifications when released in China because of it.
On November 03 2019 21:58 smr wrote: Can't get excited. Sadly. Gameplay looked slow, world events that require a group, meeting people in open world (possibly meaning that I'm playing a diablo game that has me waiting for respawn?). We have seen neither a shield nor a bow class yet and I doubt they would leave those archetypes out. So to follow that biblical theme we'll have something like pala/crusader/cleric (lore could possibly say that the order or paladins, crusaders whatever is down to two people, they're rebuilding, coming in an expansion?) and as the fifth class ama/demon hunter/ranger. - leaving us with the druid and 4 classes that we could play for years. Can only imagine that they integrate the trap part of the assassin into the ranged class as a different skill path. Traps weren't big in d3 so that could feel "new" in sanctuary.
In the end everything screamed: ok you guys like poe so we do poe but we'll have an open world. most likely they have no idea where they want to go and "not even blizzard soon" sounds like 2022 or later.
mounts scare me because in this genre i want to kill stuff nonstop and mounts say: ride 5 minutes, clear something in 30 sec, ride somewhere else etc
I do firmly believe that 1 of the 2 unannounced classes is the Crusader (or paladin, but I think they established that the Order of Paladins is tainted and warped by Mephisto, and won't retcon that now...) Last, 5th class is most likely Assassin as you said, double handbow or Xbow or bow specialization, traps and kicks/fists (a la Monk). It would fit the theme of remaking Lord of Destruction classes.
I'm personally more interested in how they'll make Necromancer, if at all. You KNOW people will cry for a necro from day 1 of release and not a shitty replacement like Witch Doctor with pocket frogs. On the other hand China having its hand so far up Blizzard's asshole to wear them like a puppet, they might not want to make a class that uses straight-up undead to kill demons. It's one thing to remove a few skulls and bones from level decor, its a whole 'nother beast to censor a whole class that revolves around using them as weapons.
wait are you saying the Chinese don't want there to be a Necromancer class? i'm afraid i'm not really following
China has issues with showing bones and skeletons. Lots of games have to make modifications when released in China because of it.
On November 03 2019 21:58 smr wrote: Can't get excited. Sadly. Gameplay looked slow, world events that require a group, meeting people in open world (possibly meaning that I'm playing a diablo game that has me waiting for respawn?). We have seen neither a shield nor a bow class yet and I doubt they would leave those archetypes out. So to follow that biblical theme we'll have something like pala/crusader/cleric (lore could possibly say that the order or paladins, crusaders whatever is down to two people, they're rebuilding, coming in an expansion?) and as the fifth class ama/demon hunter/ranger. - leaving us with the druid and 4 classes that we could play for years. Can only imagine that they integrate the trap part of the assassin into the ranged class as a different skill path. Traps weren't big in d3 so that could feel "new" in sanctuary.
In the end everything screamed: ok you guys like poe so we do poe but we'll have an open world. most likely they have no idea where they want to go and "not even blizzard soon" sounds like 2022 or later.
mounts scare me because in this genre i want to kill stuff nonstop and mounts say: ride 5 minutes, clear something in 30 sec, ride somewhere else etc
I do firmly believe that 1 of the 2 unannounced classes is the Crusader (or paladin, but I think they established that the Order of Paladins is tainted and warped by Mephisto, and won't retcon that now...) Last, 5th class is most likely Assassin as you said, double handbow or Xbow or bow specialization, traps and kicks/fists (a la Monk). It would fit the theme of remaking Lord of Destruction classes.
I'm personally more interested in how they'll make Necromancer, if at all. You KNOW people will cry for a necro from day 1 of release and not a shitty replacement like Witch Doctor with pocket frogs. On the other hand China having its hand so far up Blizzard's asshole to wear them like a puppet, they might not want to make a class that uses straight-up undead to kill demons. It's one thing to remove a few skulls and bones from level decor, its a whole 'nother beast to censor a whole class that revolves around using them as weapons.
wait are you saying the Chinese don't want there to be a Necromancer class? i'm afraid i'm not really following
China has issues with showing bones and skeletons. Lots of games have to make modifications when released in China because of it.
huh, interesting, thanks for telling me. are there cultural reasons for that?
On November 03 2019 21:58 smr wrote: Can't get excited. Sadly. Gameplay looked slow, world events that require a group, meeting people in open world (possibly meaning that I'm playing a diablo game that has me waiting for respawn?). We have seen neither a shield nor a bow class yet and I doubt they would leave those archetypes out. So to follow that biblical theme we'll have something like pala/crusader/cleric (lore could possibly say that the order or paladins, crusaders whatever is down to two people, they're rebuilding, coming in an expansion?) and as the fifth class ama/demon hunter/ranger. - leaving us with the druid and 4 classes that we could play for years. Can only imagine that they integrate the trap part of the assassin into the ranged class as a different skill path. Traps weren't big in d3 so that could feel "new" in sanctuary.
In the end everything screamed: ok you guys like poe so we do poe but we'll have an open world. most likely they have no idea where they want to go and "not even blizzard soon" sounds like 2022 or later.
mounts scare me because in this genre i want to kill stuff nonstop and mounts say: ride 5 minutes, clear something in 30 sec, ride somewhere else etc
I do firmly believe that 1 of the 2 unannounced classes is the Crusader (or paladin, but I think they established that the Order of Paladins is tainted and warped by Mephisto, and won't retcon that now...) Last, 5th class is most likely Assassin as you said, double handbow or Xbow or bow specialization, traps and kicks/fists (a la Monk). It would fit the theme of remaking Lord of Destruction classes.
I'm personally more interested in how they'll make Necromancer, if at all. You KNOW people will cry for a necro from day 1 of release and not a shitty replacement like Witch Doctor with pocket frogs. On the other hand China having its hand so far up Blizzard's asshole to wear them like a puppet, they might not want to make a class that uses straight-up undead to kill demons. It's one thing to remove a few skulls and bones from level decor, its a whole 'nother beast to censor a whole class that revolves around using them as weapons.
wait are you saying the Chinese don't want there to be a Necromancer class? i'm afraid i'm not really following
China has issues with showing bones and skeletons. Lots of games have to make modifications when released in China because of it.
huh, interesting, thanks for telling me. are there cultural reasons for that?
On November 03 2019 21:58 smr wrote: Can't get excited. Sadly. Gameplay looked slow, world events that require a group, meeting people in open world (possibly meaning that I'm playing a diablo game that has me waiting for respawn?). We have seen neither a shield nor a bow class yet and I doubt they would leave those archetypes out. So to follow that biblical theme we'll have something like pala/crusader/cleric (lore could possibly say that the order or paladins, crusaders whatever is down to two people, they're rebuilding, coming in an expansion?) and as the fifth class ama/demon hunter/ranger. - leaving us with the druid and 4 classes that we could play for years. Can only imagine that they integrate the trap part of the assassin into the ranged class as a different skill path. Traps weren't big in d3 so that could feel "new" in sanctuary.
In the end everything screamed: ok you guys like poe so we do poe but we'll have an open world. most likely they have no idea where they want to go and "not even blizzard soon" sounds like 2022 or later.
mounts scare me because in this genre i want to kill stuff nonstop and mounts say: ride 5 minutes, clear something in 30 sec, ride somewhere else etc
I do firmly believe that 1 of the 2 unannounced classes is the Crusader (or paladin, but I think they established that the Order of Paladins is tainted and warped by Mephisto, and won't retcon that now...) Last, 5th class is most likely Assassin as you said, double handbow or Xbow or bow specialization, traps and kicks/fists (a la Monk). It would fit the theme of remaking Lord of Destruction classes.
I'm personally more interested in how they'll make Necromancer, if at all. You KNOW people will cry for a necro from day 1 of release and not a shitty replacement like Witch Doctor with pocket frogs. On the other hand China having its hand so far up Blizzard's asshole to wear them like a puppet, they might not want to make a class that uses straight-up undead to kill demons. It's one thing to remove a few skulls and bones from level decor, its a whole 'nother beast to censor a whole class that revolves around using them as weapons.
wait are you saying the Chinese don't want there to be a Necromancer class? i'm afraid i'm not really following
China has issues with showing bones and skeletons. Lots of games have to make modifications when released in China because of it.
huh, interesting, thanks for telling me. are there cultural reasons for that?
It's the problem with super-vague Chinese censorship laws. Big companies tend to err on the safe side and remove the skeletons (that's why Skeleton King became the Wraith King in DotA2 for example).
We're not releasing any specific timing. But I will tell you that while we've been working on Diablo IV for several years, we still have a ways to go. So we do want to set proper expectations. It's a big, beautiful, contiguous open world. It's packed full of creatures. It's really grounded in the quests and the content that are an order of magnitude beyond anything we've done before. Yeah, it's going to take some time for us to get it right. You know, at Blizzard we don't compromise on quality.
They are going to add Raids to this game... watch.
Is it a challenge to integrate these raid-style experiences in a game where sometimes combat can be distilled into spamming one button and watching everything die?
That speaks to really a broad challenge for Diablo IV given the long history we have with Diablo 1, 2, and 3 and all the many amazing things we've done with the franchise, how do you take that and push to the next level while staying true to your roots? And so one of the answers to that was bigger world bosses. We have an encounter team and the sole purpose of this team is to make the world boss encounters amazing. And so you see Ashava. It's new for our team to think in that way. So that adds to the complexity to these big bosses, but they're coming up with some pretty amazing ideas. One of them is the stagger bar, where if you crowd control repeatedly a large boss rather than just either allow it to go through or block it, you build up stagger over time. After a certain amount of time, if everybody is sort of crowd controlling these world bosses, then something special happens, either their mode changes or some piece breaks off or things like that. I think there is an opportunity for us to make them really mechanically interesting and that's one of the challenges that you know, sort of rising to push Diablo IV beyond anything we've done before.
The game is now open-world. Does that mean we're not using the traditional Act structure and that you could theoretically walk from the beginning of the game to the end? Assuming nothing killed you of course.
That's right. It's an open-world game. We're delivering the story nonlinear, you can choose to follow kind of the main questline or you can choose to walk in a totally different direction. So yeah, it's a pretty different, pretty interesting take on it. We think it's really fresh, and people will be able to then interact with the game kind of how they prefer.
On November 02 2019 05:43 Manit0u wrote: I only wish they would make it a bit more tactical and not just pew-pew lazors like D3 where all you do is mindlessly blast through the same few zones over and over, destroying everything in 1 or 2 hits only to find gear that boosts your numbers so you can do exactly the same thing but on a higher difficulty... It wouldn't be so bad if not for the fact that the new gear you're looking for is just a better version of the gear you already have and that there's very little to the actual combat at that point as you just find the difficulty sweet spot when you one-shot most of the things so you can do it quickly over and over. I'd rather have less difficulty levels but for them to actually be difficult and give you a sense of accomplishment other than "I've finally ground enough to have gear with just the right stats for the last difficulty." I want some actual tactical challenge to this and not just gear dependency and quick reflexes.
Do any of you remember the challenge of D2 ironman mode? Where people were trying to beat the game in hell difficulty on hardcore with only using self-found non-magical broken gear? That's right, you weren't even allowed to use normal stuff that wasn't broken. But that was for extreme freaks. For regular folk just finishing the game on hell difficulty was ultra hard and doing it in hardcore mode was actually a badge of honor that garnered much respect.
I've played every single Diablo game pretty extensively and to this day I believe I've sunk the most hours into D1 (and it's the only one that I still have installed).
I feel like this encapsulates a lot of the rose-tinted glasses people are using to look back at D1/D2.
Both D1 and D2 were not hard. As long as you used the correct build you could plow all the way through Hell difficulty without too much of a struggle. The core of the game play was very similar between all games in the series and was exactly how you described D3's gameplay to be; fast-paced slaughtering of hundreds of monsters. It wasn't any more "tactical" and any semblance of "tactical" requirements were entirely due to player-enforced limitations as you described. The gearing process was also very similar (i.e. grind out the same crap countless times to get some loot).
Based on this reveal I am quite optimistic. It reminds me much more of D2 than D3, but the major differences between the two were aesthetic and writing as opposed to gameplay. The only major reservation I have is the itemization (I liked D2's system much more than D3's), but even that isn't the end of the world. The end game is tedious regardless. Also not a fan of the big multiplayer bosses or the online-only bullshit.
People forget that D3 is actually a very, very, very good game. After they got through the RMAH mess and released RoS + some patches, it turned into a worthy successor to D2. Yea, it's not as good as D2, but it's far from bad anymore. The biggest improvements they could make would be to bring back the atmosphere from D2 and axe the trash, comic book-esque writing, which I am optimistic for.
On November 02 2019 05:43 Manit0u wrote: I only wish they would make it a bit more tactical and not just pew-pew lazors like D3 where all you do is mindlessly blast through the same few zones over and over, destroying everything in 1 or 2 hits only to find gear that boosts your numbers so you can do exactly the same thing but on a higher difficulty... It wouldn't be so bad if not for the fact that the new gear you're looking for is just a better version of the gear you already have and that there's very little to the actual combat at that point as you just find the difficulty sweet spot when you one-shot most of the things so you can do it quickly over and over. I'd rather have less difficulty levels but for them to actually be difficult and give you a sense of accomplishment other than "I've finally ground enough to have gear with just the right stats for the last difficulty." I want some actual tactical challenge to this and not just gear dependency and quick reflexes.
Do any of you remember the challenge of D2 ironman mode? Where people were trying to beat the game in hell difficulty on hardcore with only using self-found non-magical broken gear? That's right, you weren't even allowed to use normal stuff that wasn't broken. But that was for extreme freaks. For regular folk just finishing the game on hell difficulty was ultra hard and doing it in hardcore mode was actually a badge of honor that garnered much respect.
I've played every single Diablo game pretty extensively and to this day I believe I've sunk the most hours into D1 (and it's the only one that I still have installed).
I feel like this encapsulates a lot of the rose-tinted glasses people are using to look back at D1/D2.
Both D1 and D2 were not hard. As long as you used the correct build you could plow all the way through Hell difficulty without too much of a struggle. The core of the game play was very similar between all games in the series and was exactly how you described D3's gameplay to be; fast-paced slaughtering of hundreds of monsters. It wasn't any more "tactical" and any semblance of "tactical" requirements were entirely due to player-enforced limitations as you described. The gearing process was also very similar (i.e. grind out the same crap countless times to get some loot).
Based on this reveal I am quite optimistic. It reminds me much more of D2 than D3, but the major differences between the two were aesthetic and writing as opposed to gameplay. The only major reservation I have is the itemization (I liked D2's system much more than D3's), but even that isn't the end of the world. The end game is tedious regardless. Also not a fan of the big multiplayer bosses or the online-only bullshit.
People forget that D3 is actually a very, very, very good game. After they got through the RMAH mess and released RoS + some patches, it turned into a worthy successor to D2. Yea, it's not as good as D2, but it's far from bad anymore. The biggest improvements they could make would be to bring back the atmosphere from D2 and axe the trash, comic book-esque writing, which I am optimistic for.
I think you're kinda wrong here. Sure, you didn't have that much strategy and tactics in D1/D2 but it was there. You had to use different tactics against different opponents, luring some out if they were in too big of a group, utilizing the doors, chokepoints and terrain, using different skills for different enemies etc. In D3 it's just dodging stuff some of the mobs drop on the ground with completely anticlimactic graphical effects of spinning orbs of light with lazors coming out of them etc.
Gearing process will be mostly the same in any ARPG, the biggest difference is that in D3 it is your gear that dictates your build and not your skill choices and such. I prefer it being the other way around (and they actually hint at it a bit for D4 but it's too early to tell).
Also, I find the entire idea of greater rifts, infinitely scaling difficulty and seasons ludicrous. I've never liked that and never will. Another thing that's bothering me is the open world multiplayer. Why can't we get a proper single player game from Blizzard any more? I know it's probably less lucrative but it's also much easier to make and cheaper to maintain since you don't need all the extra features for it, servers and whatnot. You don't have to worry about the power creep so much (because gotta keep them peeps playing every season). I hate the idea of expansions adding new levels and such...
Basically, there were very few things I actually liked about this gameplay reveal and interviews. I like the art style, which is dark, gritty and mature. I don't mind simplifying the stats on items and such (but I don't need it either). I generally liked character designs and animations (and that there's more than just male/female versions of each class). I like the celtic setting.
What I really don't like is forcibly doing the multiplayer stuff in a game whose genre is primarily focused on singleplayer and PvE.
Trying to keep an open mind here but I'm rather skeptical of this title.
On November 02 2019 05:43 Manit0u wrote: I only wish they would make it a bit more tactical and not just pew-pew lazors like D3 where all you do is mindlessly blast through the same few zones over and over, destroying everything in 1 or 2 hits only to find gear that boosts your numbers so you can do exactly the same thing but on a higher difficulty... It wouldn't be so bad if not for the fact that the new gear you're looking for is just a better version of the gear you already have and that there's very little to the actual combat at that point as you just find the difficulty sweet spot when you one-shot most of the things so you can do it quickly over and over. I'd rather have less difficulty levels but for them to actually be difficult and give you a sense of accomplishment other than "I've finally ground enough to have gear with just the right stats for the last difficulty." I want some actual tactical challenge to this and not just gear dependency and quick reflexes.
Do any of you remember the challenge of D2 ironman mode? Where people were trying to beat the game in hell difficulty on hardcore with only using self-found non-magical broken gear? That's right, you weren't even allowed to use normal stuff that wasn't broken. But that was for extreme freaks. For regular folk just finishing the game on hell difficulty was ultra hard and doing it in hardcore mode was actually a badge of honor that garnered much respect.
I've played every single Diablo game pretty extensively and to this day I believe I've sunk the most hours into D1 (and it's the only one that I still have installed).
I feel like this encapsulates a lot of the rose-tinted glasses people are using to look back at D1/D2.
Both D1 and D2 were not hard. As long as you used the correct build you could plow all the way through Hell difficulty without too much of a struggle. The core of the game play was very similar between all games in the series and was exactly how you described D3's gameplay to be; fast-paced slaughtering of hundreds of monsters. It wasn't any more "tactical" and any semblance of "tactical" requirements were entirely due to player-enforced limitations as you described. The gearing process was also very similar (i.e. grind out the same crap countless times to get some loot).
Based on this reveal I am quite optimistic. It reminds me much more of D2 than D3, but the major differences between the two were aesthetic and writing as opposed to gameplay. The only major reservation I have is the itemization (I liked D2's system much more than D3's), but even that isn't the end of the world. The end game is tedious regardless. Also not a fan of the big multiplayer bosses or the online-only bullshit.
People forget that D3 is actually a very, very, very good game. After they got through the RMAH mess and released RoS + some patches, it turned into a worthy successor to D2. Yea, it's not as good as D2, but it's far from bad anymore. The biggest improvements they could make would be to bring back the atmosphere from D2 and axe the trash, comic book-esque writing, which I am optimistic for.
I think you're kinda wrong here. Sure, you didn't have that much strategy and tactics in D1/D2 but it was there. You had to use different tactics against different opponents, luring some out if they were in too big of a group, utilizing the doors, chokepoints and terrain, using different skills for different enemies etc. In D3 it's just dodging stuff some of the mobs drop on the ground with completely anticlimactic graphical effects of spinning orbs of light with lazors coming out of them etc.
Gearing process will be mostly the same in any ARPG, the biggest difference is that in D3 it is your gear that dictates your build and not your skill choices and such. I prefer it being the other way around (and they actually hint at it a bit for D4 but it's too early to tell).
Also, I find the entire idea of greater rifts, infinitely scaling difficulty and seasons ludicrous. I've never liked that and never will. Another thing that's bothering me is the open world multiplayer. Why can't we get a proper single player game from Blizzard any more? I know it's probably less lucrative but it's also much easier to make and cheaper to maintain since you don't need all the extra features for it, servers and whatnot. You don't have to worry about the power creep so much (because gotta keep them peeps playing every season). I hate the idea of expansions adding new levels and such...
Basically, there were very few things I actually liked about this gameplay reveal and interviews. I like the art style, which is dark, gritty and mature. I don't mind simplifying the stats on items and such (but I don't need it either). I generally liked character designs and animations (and that there's more than just male/female versions of each class). I like the celtic setting.
What I really don't like is forcibly doing the multiplayer stuff in a game whose genre is primarily focused on singleplayer and PvE.
Trying to keep an open mind here but I'm rather skeptical of this title.
I've played D1 and D2 far more than I care to admit and yes, you absolutely can do the same thing in those games (i.e. just dodge stuff and kill shit). You still only need a handful of spells in both D1 and D2 to face all enemies, the only difference is that you have more spells bound at a time in D3 so you need to do less switching.
Basically all of the gripes in that department are actually aesthetic problems. Gameplay doesn't feel as satisfying in D3 because of the art direction and style; as you mentioned, it just seems way over-the-top with spell effects everywhere that all blend and look like the same generic lasers.
While I agree that D3's endgame is pretty lame, D2's wasn't any better. There really isn't a meaningful end game in either game.
As for gear, your gear dictates your build in pretty much any gear-based game. If you don't find the correct gear to make a build work, you simply can't run the build. This was also true for D2. The itemization just feels less satisfying in D3 because sets are pretty much the end-all, you just spam Rifts to get them, and items feel like they have even less meaning due to the copious amounts of legendaries, no real uniqueness in gear between classes, etc.
I'll wait to pass judgment on these pseudo-multiplayer aspects until we see if you can just privatize your game and play single player like you can in D3.
Also SC2 was a quality single player game. The campaign was fantastically designed for an RTS and makes other RTS campaigns look like a joke. Too bad the writing/story was so awful that you probably just need to put the dialogue on mute to survive it.
On November 04 2019 09:37 Stratos_speAr wrote: While I agree that D3's endgame is pretty lame, D2's wasn't any better. There really isn't a meaningful end game in either game.
But do you really need a real "end-game"? For me the end-game in D2 was a couple of things: 1) Beating the game on hell (not an easy task) 2) Getting your char to max level (which in itself was hard to do) 3) Finding the gear you want for your char (SSF is hard yo) 4) Creating new chars and repeating points 1-3 for other classes and different builds
I didn't really need any new seasons dropping on you every month or so to keep playing the game for years, over and over again. Judging by the massive fanbase the game has it was the same for many others.
All those seasons and stuff introduced in D3 (like useless borders and other cosmetics of which half doesn't fit the universe and only ruin immersion) seem like those annoying mechanics used in mobile games to keep the players hooked. Log in every day for x days to get a reward! Don't miss the season or you'll never get this cool but ultimately useless thing that you'll exchange for something else next season!
To me those are signs of a weak game. Good games don't need any artificial incentives to get you to play it. What's even worse is such mechanics really piss me off from the completionist perspective because they force me to do stuff not at my own pace but the pace dictated by release schedule. Seriously, such things often make you play the game just to complete some objective even if you don't want to because you're on a clock all the time and it actually feels awful. That's why I've stopped playing D3. Fuck that kind of shit.
I bet that if they did D4 without all that crap and only very simple multiplayer (and not always online) it would probably require 40% less resources and 60% less development time than it does now and would most likely end up being a better game in the end.
D2 was superior to D3 not because of flashy art, but because of core mechanics. D3 is vastly simplified in that way. You also get to make almost no meaningful decisions that have long term consequence. I made many a 'Only Walk Baal' or Chaos+Baal games. Yes, I eventually made a few Enigmas (legit ones...no trading for runes), and used them in said walks...It was funny to watch 'good players' with 'elite gear' face palm at the first sign of Souls +Conviction. Or instagib on melee because they refused to not use their main skill. They then wanted to tele passed it all...well that was grounds for declaring hostility, and then wiping the floor with them.
Yes D2's end game was limited to running the hard areas, and then the Uber events. That is almost wholly due to the amount of computation power we had at that time.
D3's difficulty was a joke. The most dangerous point in the game for the first 20+ hours was the first big magic pack that you encounter a few minutes after leaving act1 town. I did a good number of HC runs on low torment, and it was a snooze fest. (This was not end of season runs, these were the early toons, and season starting toons).
D2 was so 'easy' that they took away Iron Maiden from Oblivion Knights in what...1.13? The patch I quit due to this and respec. They also left the ObK AI totally borked as a result. Modders knew, and still know more than anyone making that patch, and the current iteration. People cried about Halls of Nihlitahk and the Pit Vipers there...'working as intended', Micah). They refused to get out of their 'elite gear' and ffs put on some integer damage reduction, and stand still.
D2 took a lot more knowledge of underlying mechanics to stay alive above 90+ (really about 93 became rougher due to length of time, or number of clean runs).
After reading on D4, they purposefully slowed things down so I can look at the scenery. Nope. Not for me. I will stick with PoE, where they have movement skills, and a decent difficulty curve (especially in deeper Delve dives).
D2 had an atmosphere. I look at that game, and I remember how brutal it was and how many bosses slaughtered me in single player. You eventually figure them out, because we figure out everything, and that's fine, you don't want a single player boss to surprise you for the 50th time as well. But D3 was a cakewalk, because it treated me like a disabled person both gameplay and story-wise. In Diablo 2, as a newbie you had many moments where you wanted to start again, because you feltl ike your build (or items) sucked. DIablo 3 cleaned the puke from the side of my mouth then spoonfed me. A travesty really.
Now, when I say DIablo 3, I mean RoS of course, though the normal campaign was extremely easy even in the original. DIablo 3 became the Telltale Games version of Diablo 2. The game was playing itself and it just needed some basic input from you. Diablo 3 was like a fighting game where you press one button and it executes a whole combo for you. A very cool casual experience, and I sinked a few seasons into it, but that's it. Everything was so arbitrary it hurts to even think back! Difficulty, crafting, trading, even the combat... they were all bandaid versions of a real game. You want to craft? Here, reroll this bow until you have max discipline. Got it? Great, you are very strong now, bravo. Want to use some skills? Here are the sets for the skills we allow you to use. For. Years. To. Come. Monsters are too easy to kill? Okay, we double their health. Still? All right, we double it again I guess.
The only aspect of D4 I am kinda looking forward is the open-world. Diablo 3 made you feel like the loneliest person ever. Forced to play an ARPG online. You see some movement in the general chat, you see the leaderboards, you know there are other players playing right now... but you are alone. You can't see them, you can't trade with them and you can't fight them. I'm not a fan of random people clearing MY map, but I am willing to risk that nuisance, if the game will feel alive, with lively hub worlds across a huge ass region. Maybe even have main towns for each classes, luring them there by class-specific NPCs. I doubt any of these will happen, but at least there's a chance, and there's a possibly vision from the developers.
Everything else is Diablo 3.5. Not even the developers want to hype this up. I don't even understand the hype from people. Oh my god, there's a barbarian who can jump and go berserk!!!!! Diablo 4 is L E G I T!!!!! And did you see that wizard casting Meteor??? D2 is back baby!!!!! Yeah, no.
On November 03 2019 21:58 smr wrote: Can't get excited. Sadly. Gameplay looked slow, world events that require a group, meeting people in open world (possibly meaning that I'm playing a diablo game that has me waiting for respawn?). We have seen neither a shield nor a bow class yet and I doubt they would leave those archetypes out. So to follow that biblical theme we'll have something like pala/crusader/cleric (lore could possibly say that the order or paladins, crusaders whatever is down to two people, they're rebuilding, coming in an expansion?) and as the fifth class ama/demon hunter/ranger. - leaving us with the druid and 4 classes that we could play for years. Can only imagine that they integrate the trap part of the assassin into the ranged class as a different skill path. Traps weren't big in d3 so that could feel "new" in sanctuary.
In the end everything screamed: ok you guys like poe so we do poe but we'll have an open world. most likely they have no idea where they want to go and "not even blizzard soon" sounds like 2022 or later.
mounts scare me because in this genre i want to kill stuff nonstop and mounts say: ride 5 minutes, clear something in 30 sec, ride somewhere else etc
I do firmly believe that 1 of the 2 unannounced classes is the Crusader (or paladin, but I think they established that the Order of Paladins is tainted and warped by Mephisto, and won't retcon that now...) Last, 5th class is most likely Assassin as you said, double handbow or Xbow or bow specialization, traps and kicks/fists (a la Monk). It would fit the theme of remaking Lord of Destruction classes.
I'm personally more interested in how they'll make Necromancer, if at all. You KNOW people will cry for a necro from day 1 of release and not a shitty replacement like Witch Doctor with pocket frogs. On the other hand China having its hand so far up Blizzard's asshole to wear them like a puppet, they might not want to make a class that uses straight-up undead to kill demons. It's one thing to remove a few skulls and bones from level decor, its a whole 'nother beast to censor a whole class that revolves around using them as weapons.
wait are you saying the Chinese don't want there to be a Necromancer class? i'm afraid i'm not really following
China has issues with showing bones and skeletons. Lots of games have to make modifications when released in China because of it.
huh, interesting, thanks for telling me. are there cultural reasons for that?
Basically the nonexistent rating system plus everlasting controversy on games "addiction" make the gov censor games very strictly. I'm mentally prepared to play D4 on Asia server instead of waiting for it on CN.
On November 03 2019 21:58 smr wrote: Can't get excited. Sadly. Gameplay looked slow, world events that require a group, meeting people in open world (possibly meaning that I'm playing a diablo game that has me waiting for respawn?). We have seen neither a shield nor a bow class yet and I doubt they would leave those archetypes out. So to follow that biblical theme we'll have something like pala/crusader/cleric (lore could possibly say that the order or paladins, crusaders whatever is down to two people, they're rebuilding, coming in an expansion?) and as the fifth class ama/demon hunter/ranger. - leaving us with the druid and 4 classes that we could play for years. Can only imagine that they integrate the trap part of the assassin into the ranged class as a different skill path. Traps weren't big in d3 so that could feel "new" in sanctuary.
In the end everything screamed: ok you guys like poe so we do poe but we'll have an open world. most likely they have no idea where they want to go and "not even blizzard soon" sounds like 2022 or later.
mounts scare me because in this genre i want to kill stuff nonstop and mounts say: ride 5 minutes, clear something in 30 sec, ride somewhere else etc
I do firmly believe that 1 of the 2 unannounced classes is the Crusader (or paladin, but I think they established that the Order of Paladins is tainted and warped by Mephisto, and won't retcon that now...) Last, 5th class is most likely Assassin as you said, double handbow or Xbow or bow specialization, traps and kicks/fists (a la Monk). It would fit the theme of remaking Lord of Destruction classes.
I'm personally more interested in how they'll make Necromancer, if at all. You KNOW people will cry for a necro from day 1 of release and not a shitty replacement like Witch Doctor with pocket frogs. On the other hand China having its hand so far up Blizzard's asshole to wear them like a puppet, they might not want to make a class that uses straight-up undead to kill demons. It's one thing to remove a few skulls and bones from level decor, its a whole 'nother beast to censor a whole class that revolves around using them as weapons.
wait are you saying the Chinese don't want there to be a Necromancer class? i'm afraid i'm not really following
China has issues with showing bones and skeletons. Lots of games have to make modifications when released in China because of it.
Necromancer was released in China just fine, sure some visuals are changed but nothing dealbreaking, and I say that as someone who hate how Netease changed certain graphical features in WoW, SC2 and D3.
On November 03 2019 21:58 smr wrote: Can't get excited. Sadly. Gameplay looked slow, world events that require a group, meeting people in open world (possibly meaning that I'm playing a diablo game that has me waiting for respawn?). We have seen neither a shield nor a bow class yet and I doubt they would leave those archetypes out. So to follow that biblical theme we'll have something like pala/crusader/cleric (lore could possibly say that the order or paladins, crusaders whatever is down to two people, they're rebuilding, coming in an expansion?) and as the fifth class ama/demon hunter/ranger. - leaving us with the druid and 4 classes that we could play for years. Can only imagine that they integrate the trap part of the assassin into the ranged class as a different skill path. Traps weren't big in d3 so that could feel "new" in sanctuary.
In the end everything screamed: ok you guys like poe so we do poe but we'll have an open world. most likely they have no idea where they want to go and "not even blizzard soon" sounds like 2022 or later.
mounts scare me because in this genre i want to kill stuff nonstop and mounts say: ride 5 minutes, clear something in 30 sec, ride somewhere else etc
I do firmly believe that 1 of the 2 unannounced classes is the Crusader (or paladin, but I think they established that the Order of Paladins is tainted and warped by Mephisto, and won't retcon that now...) Last, 5th class is most likely Assassin as you said, double handbow or Xbow or bow specialization, traps and kicks/fists (a la Monk). It would fit the theme of remaking Lord of Destruction classes.
I'm personally more interested in how they'll make Necromancer, if at all. You KNOW people will cry for a necro from day 1 of release and not a shitty replacement like Witch Doctor with pocket frogs. On the other hand China having its hand so far up Blizzard's asshole to wear them like a puppet, they might not want to make a class that uses straight-up undead to kill demons. It's one thing to remove a few skulls and bones from level decor, its a whole 'nother beast to censor a whole class that revolves around using them as weapons.
wait are you saying the Chinese don't want there to be a Necromancer class? i'm afraid i'm not really following
China has issues with showing bones and skeletons. Lots of games have to make modifications when released in China because of it.
Necromancer was released in China just fine, sure some visuals are changed but nothing dealbreaking, and I say that as someone who hate how Netease changed certain graphical features in WoW, SC2 and D3.
idk what they made the D3 Necro look like in China, but the thing is he's not really a Necromancer. he's a DPS spellcastaer where some of the spell damage is made to look like ghastly skeletons for a few seconds. if that's their vision for Necro in D4, they can keep him. i want a Necro that actually makes a fucking army, like in D2.
On November 04 2019 09:37 Stratos_speAr wrote: While I agree that D3's endgame is pretty lame, D2's wasn't any better. There really isn't a meaningful end game in either game.
But do you really need a real "end-game"? For me the end-game in D2 was a couple of things: 1) Beating the game on hell (not an easy task) 2) Getting your char to max level (which in itself was hard to do) 3) Finding the gear you want for your char (SSF is hard yo) 4) Creating new chars and repeating points 1-3 for other classes and different builds
I didn't really need any new seasons dropping on you every month or so to keep playing the game for years, over and over again. Judging by the massive fanbase the game has it was the same for many others.
All those seasons and stuff introduced in D3 (like useless borders and other cosmetics of which half doesn't fit the universe and only ruin immersion) seem like those annoying mechanics used in mobile games to keep the players hooked. Log in every day for x days to get a reward! Don't miss the season or you'll never get this cool but ultimately useless thing that you'll exchange for something else next season!
To me those are signs of a weak game. Good games don't need any artificial incentives to get you to play it. What's even worse is such mechanics really piss me off from the completionist perspective because they force me to do stuff not at my own pace but the pace dictated by release schedule. Seriously, such things often make you play the game just to complete some objective even if you don't want to because you're on a clock all the time and it actually feels awful. That's why I've stopped playing D3. Fuck that kind of shit.
I bet that if they did D4 without all that crap and only very simple multiplayer (and not always online) it would probably require 40% less resources and 60% less development time than it does now and would most likely end up being a better game in the end.
We remember that D2 had seasons, right?
Sure, I get the annoyance with all the additional bells and whistles around seasons in D3. They do make the game feel a little cheaper in some ways. But again, that has nothing to do with the core mechanics, and a lot of the problem is player-induced (i.e. you can just ignore seasons in D3, which is what many people do). As I said, the core mechanics of the games are very similar. D2 was not hard. Even beating Hell wasn't that difficult if you knew the game. The same can be said for D3; beating the campaign on high difficulties can be hard unless you know the game mechanics and gear appropriately. Then it becomes easy.
The vast majority of the problems with D3 are not things wrong with the core mechanics of the game because they are so similar. Problems with everything from difficulty levels feeling meaningless (due to bloat), endgame feeling tedious (due to bland repetition), seasons feeling cheap, combat not being satisfying, etc. are all due presentation, either graphically/aesthetically or in how you present certain aspects of the game (endgame being repetitive and boring rifts vs. actually in the world, tying rewards to seasons, etc.).
I guess the biggest complaint you could have between the two are how specs work (i.e. committing to skills in D2 vs. D3). Even then, that is a big argument that transcends any one game, and clearly is an issue seeing as they introduced respec into D2.
idk what they made the D3 Necro look like in China, but the thing is he's not really a Necromancer. he's a DPS spellcastaer where some of the spell damage is made to look like ghastly skeletons for a few seconds. if that's their vision for Necro in D4, they can keep him. i want a Necro that actually makes a fucking army, like in D2.
...Well he is a Necromancer, just not the type that you like I guess?
There are a hundred different ways to conceptualize a Necromancer in a given game.
I do have to agree that constantly summoning things like Revive and Skeleton Mages is an incredible pain-in-the-ass. I'd much rather have them be more permanent, at least like the Witch Doctor's stuff.
EPT
