Support NeoGAF

[Boken]

That change has the boken tick of approval.

(does that mean even later release date? anooooo)

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I'm glad that Blizzard is taking the beta seriously for actively developing and testing the game, not just as a glorified free-play period like most MMOG betas.

And like I said before, I'm in no hurry for Blizzard to release this. Get it right, then get it out the door. In that order.

 

[SteveWD40]

One thing I really love: the voice work.

From the "Academic" that does some of the lore with his snidy posh twat voice to the frankly awesome, thick as a brick Leeds accent the Templar has, it's great.

 

[aliencowz7]

While i'm still not in the beta much to my disapointment, it's a little suprising seeing people complain that the graphics aren't cutting edge. I cant remember the last blizzard game that was cutting edge in technical graphics for its time of release, but what i can remember is how long blizzard games have lasted each in there own right without people turning away in disgust 10 years later. Alot of times cutting edge graphics simply don't age well and for a game like diablo that is a big concern

 

[Boken]

What random obscure thing do I really want for D3?

A beastiary. With the voiced lore, monster model, abilitys + animation, sketch like artwork thats commonly seen in Diablo. Have each component unlock as you kill more of them.

Wow, what a good idea. Blizzard, hire me.

 

[Fallout-NL]

While i'm still not in the beta much to my disapointment, it's a little suprising seeing people complain that the graphics aren't cutting edge. I cant remember the last blizzard game that was cutting edge in technical graphics for its time of release, but what i can remember is how long blizzard games have lasted each in there own right without people turning away in disgust 10 years later. Alot of times cutting edge graphics simply don't age well and for a game like diablo that is a big concern

Yeah, it's a weird to hear complaints over the game's graphics from people who should know better.

Again, apart from the fact that I personally don't like the more 'cartoony' direction the art has taken (sorry, I keep saying this), it looks good objectively. Not cutting edge, but neither did Diablo 2 or WoW or Starcraft at launch. All of them aged wonderfully though.

You can fault Diablo III for a lot of things, but I bet its graphics have as good a chance of lasting for a decade (or longer) as any Blizzard game.

 

[aliencowz7]

Yeah, I don't want to make it seem like i'm against opinions on either the good or bad side but blizzard using good but not amazing graphics for it's games has been pretty much the norm for as long as i can remember.

The art direction i can understand, while i'm ok with the change it is rather different from diablo 2 and I can see it not being favorable for alot of people

 

[Littlegator]

What random obscure thing do I really want for D3?

A beastiary. With the voiced lore, monster model, abilitys + animation, sketch like artwork thats commonly seen in Diablo. Have each component unlock as you kill more of them.

Wow, what a good idea. Blizzard, hire me.

It seems like a lot of the monsters already have a brief voiced lore by Deckard.

 

[Fallout-NL]

Maybe not really news, but it appears that the signs pointing at the announcement of a release date were a bit premature:

Jay Wilson: No D3 Release Date Announcement from GDC

Jay Wilson replied to a bunch of tweets tonight with some info about his travel plans and they’re bad news for anyone still hoping for an imminent release date announcement.

[Wilson's tweet:] Looking forward to #ME3. Unfortunately I’m off to GDC tomorrow. No, not to announce anything, and not sign of release.

There were some very promising signs and hints a week and a half ago, but plans change all the time, especially when tumultuous events intercede, and for all the the rumors flying, I don’t have any confidence we’ll get that magical announcement any time soon.

Check your calendar to be depressed; Q2 doesn’t begin for weeks yet, and over the years Blizzard has shown a strong preference for the later portions of release date windows. I don’t keep making “June 32nd” jokes on the podcast for nothing, you know. Thanks to Signal and Lorderan for the twitter tip.

Update: Azzure and others in comments point out that Jay only said no D3 release date announcement from GDC: this doesn’t rule out an announcement via their normal Bliz Irvine PR channels, and that could happen any day. Personally, I’m not holding my breath, but you guys certainly can if you think it’ll help.

Update #2: Amazon Italy has removed the April 17th date for Diablo 3 they had posted until news of it broke widely yesterday. (They now say simply “2012&#8243 Were they contacted by Activision/Blizzard and asked to remove it? Note that we’ve seen fake release dates for years that Blizzard has never bothered to tell retailers to correct.

 

[aliencowz7]

That kind of seems like a way to dodge the question without a yes or no answer, i didn't think anything would come out of gdc itself anyways. If anything we will see a totally random announcement that blindsides us.

 

[CarbonatedFalcon]

One thing I really love: the voice work.

From the "Academic" that does some of the lore with his snidy posh twat voice to the frankly awesome, thick as a brick Leeds accent the Templar has, it's great.

The academic guy I find kind of annoying, but I think it's supposed to be like that. Doesn't help that there's just a few clips in the beta and I've listened to them all at least a couple times.

Speaking of the voice work though, one other small thing I love is the 2D character portraits that appear when you're having a "major" conversation. Really beautiful, small pieces of art. It's interesting to think about that the conversations were originally much more elaborately framed though, if you look at the premiere video from 2008.

 

[Kenaras]

While i'm still not in the beta much to my disapointment, it's a little suprising seeing people complain that the graphics aren't cutting edge. I cant remember the last blizzard game that was cutting edge in technical graphics for its time of release, but what i can remember is how long blizzard games have lasted each in there own right without people turning away in disgust 10 years later. Alot of times cutting edge graphics simply don't age well and for a game like diablo that is a big concern

WarCraft II was top-notch at the time it was released, but nothing Blizzard has released since has been cutting-edge. In fact, I'd say Diablo III in 2012 is more impressive than Diablo II was in 2000. Diablo II has aged well, but it came out over six months after games like Quake III Arena, Unreal Tournament, and SoulCalibur. On a technical level, the graphics just didn't compare.

 

[maharg]

WarCraft II was top-notch at the time it was released, but nothing Blizzard has released since has been cutting-edge. In fact, I'd say Diablo III in 2012 is more impressive than Diablo II was in 2000. Diablo II has aged well, but it came out over six months after games like Quake III Arena, Unreal Tournament, and SoulCalibur. On a technical level, the graphics just didn't compare.

What weird comparisons. Diablo II was a 2d game.

 

[John_B]

I bothered to play Diablo 3 on the Panasonic 42" plasma in the living room today. Adjusted the gama, and the game looked awesome. Very clean and detailed compared to my Dell IPS panel. It looked overly bright and sharp on the monitor.

I don't think Diablo 3 looks anything like World of Warcraft. It does not look like Diablo 1/2 either though. It looks very soft compared to both.

The later acts will make it shine. Act 1 has some bad use of green and blue colors.

 

[Loto]

Thanks to everyone who is posting links with Beta contests. I have no idea where to find out what sites are giving them out.. so it's appreciated.

 

[Zzoram]

I bothered to play Diablo 3 on the Panasonic 42" plasma in the living room today. Adjusted the gama, and the game looked awesome. Very clean and detailed compared to my Dell IPS panel. It looked overly bright and sharp on the monitor.

I don't think Diablo 3 looks anything like World of Warcraft. It does not look like Diablo 1/2 either though. It looks very soft compared to both.

The later acts will make it shine. Act 1 has some bad use of green and blue colors.

Maybe that's because the brightness is defaulting to the console setting

 

[John_B]

No, it's very likely because PC monitors have shitty contrast.

 

[Baron Aloha]

Maybe not really news, but it appears that the signs pointing at the announcement of a release date were a bit premature:

Jay Wilson: No D3 Release Date Announcement from GDC

That's because they will announce it from CeBIT.

Spoiler

I wish

 

[Acidote]

Hm, I don't see how can I make the "resurrect all classes" achievement. Nobody dies in the beta.

 

[Hazaro]

Hm, I don't see how can I make the "resurrect all classes" achievement. Nobody dies in the beta.

Group up, take off armor at a waypoint.

Or you can NOT GIVE A SHIT BECAUSE IT ADDS NOTHING TO THE GAME.

 

[lordy88]

I bothered to play Diablo 3 on the Panasonic 42" plasma in the living room today. Adjusted the gama, and the game looked awesome. Very clean and detailed compared to my Dell IPS panel. It looked overly bright and sharp on the monitor.

I don't think Diablo 3 looks anything like World of Warcraft. It does not look like Diablo 1/2 either though. It looks very soft compared to both.

The later acts will make it shine. Act 1 has some bad use of green and blue colors.

WHERE DID YOU GET THESE IMAGES FROM.

 

[John_B]

WHERE DID YOU GET THESE IMAGES FROM.

Last year at Blizzcon the showed bits from Act 2.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fyi0YwcEN3k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quA0_k-GM1Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ey1awWsuDgI

 

[spcd]

I really hope the game becomes more challenging after skeleton king. I tried doing a 2nd playthrough, but I can't because I get so very bored halfway through.

And then I launch up Diablo 2, and suddenly I have played 4 hours.

I am not objective ofcourse. The full game will be great. I just don't like the beta


edit: The current skill system makes low level very boring. I believe the skill system will be very fun when you are lvl 20+, but when you create a new character there is not enough choice...

 

[lordy88]

Last year at Blizzcon the showed bits from Act 2.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fyi0YwcEN3k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quA0_k-GM1Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ey1awWsuDgI

I'm shocked I missed it. I watched Blizzcon religiously. Maybe I just forgot about it.

Regardless, thanks a lot! Definitely added more helium to my hype balloon.

 

[forrest]

I'm shocked I missed it. I watched Blizzcon religiously. Maybe I just forgot about it.

Regardless, thanks a lot! Definitely added more helium to my hype balloon.

Yeah man, I just can't wait to see the game in its entirety. It just looks soo good!

 

[CarbonatedFalcon]

Last year at Blizzcon the showed bits from Act 2.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fyi0YwcEN3k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quA0_k-GM1Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ey1awWsuDgI

I bought the Blizzcon Virtual Ticket and I don't remember seeing this. Any idea what panel it was from? Though I could have easily overlooked it due to the focus being on Mists of Panderia stuff as that was the new shit. Diablo 3 and Heart of the Swarm already being known quantities at that point.

 

[TylerD]

Diablo 3 now showing as "active" or the WoW year pass subscribers. Can't download it yet but maybe a sign of things to come "soon"?

http://diablo.incgamers.com/blog/comments/diablo-3-now-active-for-wow-annual-pass-accounts

 

[helloresolven]

It'd be amazing if they just released it one day, without a release date announcement.

Press Release: "Diablo 3 available now for digital download; Available in stores next week."

 

[Vodh]

That would actually be pretty amazing, something people would talk about for ages. Could even be a viable marketing move.

 

[lordy88]

edit: The current skill system makes low level very boring. I believe the skill system will be very fun when you are lvl 20+, but when you create a new character there is not enough choice...

Really? REALLY?! I find it hard to fathom that it would be ideal NOT to have skill restrictions in the beginning of an ARPG. It makes zero sense to me. You need something to aim for! You need to have the carrot on the stick to keep you moving.

 

[Vodh]

Really? REALLY?! I find it hard to fathom that it would be ideal NOT to have skill restrictions in the beginning of an ARPG. It makes zero sense to me. You need something to aim for! You need to have the carrot on the stick to keep you moving.

Exactly. And in about 20 minutes you've got enough skills to play around, making for a really fun game all while you're fighting your way to the dream build.

The only thing I could see improved with the skills/runes system would be some more customizability in rune choices for hardcore characters. But I think it's good enough as it is, and having everything available at the start would get old really fast and destroy this delicious sense of achievement associated with getting to the next level.

 

[forrest]

+Skill Modifiers Confirmed

I can't remember if we knew this was coming or not. I know some affixes were datamined, but this just further proves there will be individual customization to abilities based on high end gear.

 

[Rentahamster]

Really? REALLY?! I find it hard to fathom that it would be ideal NOT to have skill restrictions in the beginning of an ARPG. It makes zero sense to me. You need something to aim for! You need to have the carrot on the stick to keep you moving.

This wasn't a problem in Diablo 2 when you can get all available skills by the end of Normal. After that you work to refine your character and get loot.

Besides, it's not like you get absolutely everything at the beginning of the game. If you had the freedom to choose runes, you still wouldn't have all of them unlocked until level 60 anyway.

 

[CarbonatedFalcon]

It'd be amazing if they just released it one day, without a release date announcement.

Press Release: "Diablo 3 available now for digital download; Available in stores next week."

That would make creating the OT for this game much harder than I anticipate.

D:

 

[John_B]

Is anyone keeping an eye on GDC? There should be a few Diablo conferences popping up around now or a few days.

 

[lordy88]

This wasn't a problem in Diablo 2 when you can get all available skills by the end of Normal. After that you work to refine your character and get loot.

Besides, it's not like you get absolutely everything at the beginning of the game. If you had the freedom to choose runes, you still wouldn't have all of them unlocked until level 60 anyway.

You will get all available skills by the end of Normal in Diablo 3 as well. No difference there, except that you will also have some skill runes available from previous skills before you hit level 30, so you will actually have MORE skills available to you at the end of Normal in Diablo 3 than in Diablo 2. Not to mention all of these skills are still viable at the end of normal unlike Diablo 2.

Oh, and then there are 120 more skills to unlock for the next 30 levels too. I don't see what the problem is here guys. You are getting skills at a faster rate than Diablo 2, and you have 5x the amount of skills, all of which are viable given certain builds. This is bad?

 

[Rentahamster]

You will get all available skills by the end of Normal in Diablo 3 as well.

Oh, and then there are 120 more skills to unlock for the next 30 levels too.

I think you can see the contradiction here.

 

[Wolfie5]

+Skill Modifiers Confirmed

I can't remember if we knew this was coming or not. I know some affixes were datamined, but this just further proves there will be individual customization to abilities based on high end gear.

Good news if this ends up in the final game. Some skill modification through items at least.

 

[lordy88]

I think you can see the contradiction here.

Okay. I think I'm getting at the root of the problem here.

It isn't the number of skills that you have at the end of Normal that is bothering you. If this is not the case, and you're arguing based solely on the number, I'd be quite frustrated given it's an ignorant statement (30 skills in Diablo 2, 30 skills + skill runes in Diablo 3). You have a problem with the fact that there is still more to obtain when you finish Normal in Diablo 3, while in Diablo 2, you were all set after Normal.

I strongly disagree with your opinion, as granting us more stuff to do for the next THIRTY LEVELS is a plus, and only adds to the experience where Diablo 2 left off. Would you rather us get all 150 skills before we hit level 30? That just seems silly to me.

 

[aliencowz7]

Honestly Diablo 2 had very very little customization, if you wanted to be competitive at whatever it was you were doing you were locked into certain skills with a certain amount of points into them and nothing else. Your stats were all in vit minus whatever you needed to equip gear and even gear sets were pretty close to set in stone with maybe one or 2 pieces that could vary. On top of these issues in order to get to these builds you had to hold onto skill points for many levels in succession to put them all in the right skills which is really crappy for the player.

Diablo 3 on the other hand is taking that outdated design and improving in just about every way, You now get something new every level that you can play around with right away. You have far more skills you can use on a normal basis and you don't feel like your being punished for trying something outside the norm for a setup. Add in the fact that once everyone gets to inferno all skills will be at a somewhat even level of viability which allows the developers to better balance and offer more tailor made experiences and challenges.

 

[Rentahamster]

You have a problem with the fact that there is still more to obtain when you finish Normal in Diablo 3, while in Diablo 2, you were all set after Normal.

No, that's not it.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=35341339&postcount=7175

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=35402593&postcount=7281

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=35479333&postcount=7401

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=35482129&postcount=7406

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=35484056&postcount=7415

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=35531796&postcount=7533

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=35549665&postcount=7599

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=35549973&postcount=7610

 

[Rentahamster]

All the relevant posts in one handy bite sized morsel.

Old System

PRO: Character progression tied to loot drops in a way that is separate and unique from gear

PRO: All possible builds and rune combinations are possible at level 30

PRO: Rune strength progresses as you do, so there is a big impact in a players mind as he compares his level 10 wizard who only shot out 2 magic missiles at one time vs his fully leveled level 60 wizard, who can shoot out 8 magic missiles at once. Dynamism! Character progression!

con: Inventory bloat

con: 7 rune levels means that each rune level doesn't pack much of a punch relative to the one before it.

con: Keeping track of all the runes for all your characters would be a horror of micromanagement.
​

Current System (As of beta patch 13)

PRO: Runes impact a player more, since there's only one level.

PRO: You get to unlock something every time you level up, all the way to level 60 (carrot/stick).

con: Character progression relies on unlocking new skill runes (which you might not even want) rather than increasing the power of a particular skill rune that you are interested in. Unlocking additional skill runes for a skill doesn't necessarily make you stronger if you aren't going to use it anyway. Leveling up should be associated with increasing a characters power.

con: Certain builds will not be testable until a player reaches level 55+, when the last skill runes are unlocked.

con: No dynamic rune levels. Once you unlock a rune, that rune effect is going to look the same for the rest of your life. You can't make it any better looking.

con: A player's skill advancement will be exactly the same as another player's play experience from level 1-60 because skill progression is on rails and is already decided beforehand. Player is robbed of the freedom to choose his own path.

Design conflicts: While the new system is supposed to be easier for casual players, if they ever want to experience every possible build, they are forced to level all the way into late Hell difficulty (which isn't casual-friendly. Nor should it be. But if you want Hand of Ytar, the only way you're ever gonna see it is if you level your monk to 51, putting you right in Hell).​

And if that player is so brilliant as to see that his pre-planned build is viable all the way to Inferno, then good for him. I don't see why we should have arbitrarily put up roadblocks in his path that make his early progression too similar to everyone else's and robs him of a lot of the personal say in how he wants his own character to evolve.

Even so, in Diablo II, you had your main build down pat by Nightmare, and the game was still good even though you no longer gained any new skills.

I would argue that most people won't get a solid build down with their very first rune choices, so that they would choose to use other runes as a matter of course. There's no downside to do so, so why wouldn't they?


The purpose is to give the player a choice and to make them feel in control. This is my character, made from my choices, not from Blizzard's predetermined "build-a-bear" class.

I think runes is basically the breaking point for me in terms of how much I'm willing to tolerate as "okay" in terms of totally streamlining the game. But at this point, it is basically indefensible that Diablo 3 is a game where there are literally zero character growth choices. The only choices any player can make is in what skills to equip at a given time, and what equipment they can find and wear.

I'm sure there are players who are okay with this, but it is pretty disappointing to me the amount of "streamlining" they are doing, which is in reality simply removing options instead of improving them. When they said that you cannot assign stats, some people were upset, but the majority said "well everyone in Diablo 2 just built the same characters for each class anyway in terms of min/max!" which was true. But instead of improving that system by making choices in stat delegation more meaningful to building different but equally effective sort of sub-class builds, they just removed that assignment feature completely. Still, not a big deal.

Then it became clear that there was no skill tree at all. Instead you get skills unlocked as you level up, and you can choose to equip a limited number of skills at a given time. This was pretty bad because it means there is no specialization at all. As you progress you cannot put a preference or priority to a certain direction in terms of what skills you want to learn. The game just decides that you learn [x] at [y] level, and that's it. But then they said that since you can only change skills in town, at altars placed late within larger dungeons, the choice of what skills you have to equip would be meaningful. Fair enough, sounds like a different sort of focus.

Now there aren't even altars anymore. Instead you can swap skills in and out whenever you want, and the only penalty is a cool down. Sure it CAN be argued that it's not a huge change, because previously you could just town portal back to town, change shit, and then come back, so now they're just removing hassle! But the hassle -is- part of what makes the decisions you pick more meaningful. By removing every single barrier, it makes the tactical decisions even more meaningless, since there is minimal penalty to making any possible bad decision.

Now finally we get to runes. A system fans have been looking forward to for a long time and it hasn't been in the beta. We've heard from people who played it at Blizzcon how fun runes were, and getting drops meant you get expanded customization functions to augment your character. Finally, they implement it into the beta and it is now a totally streamlined skill augmentation system. No drops, no choices, nothing. You are forced to keep leveling to unlock each rune, as Blizzard babysits everyone to ensure that there are NO bad choices ever made, because that might offend someone to stop playing the game, and that might be one less player who would spend money on the auction house!!!!!

Seriously, fuck this shit and fuck the mindset behind it.

They could have just saved the trouble and went with the original system from 6 months ago without all the "unattuned rune" BS that lead to the inventory bloat problem that made them scrap the whole system. Why throw the baby out with the bathwater? They had a working system ages ago...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2hZxhXCBP8#t=05m20s

"this one thing we still want to try with that system. If it works (the unattuned, random rune attribute system), we'll keep it. If it doesn't, then the system works pretty good as it is".

And at the very end of the video:

"The nice thing is, the system is already cool, so if it doesn't work, we'll just leave it the way it is".


It's stuff like this that makes he hesitant to fully agree with their reasons that the change is a good thing.


I still think my idea is a good compromise that promotes all the good points of both systems.

There are different types of choices in game design. Some are more meaningful in certain ways than others. Equipment choice and the choice of what attacks to use out of those you already have, are reactive choices which are made to manage challenges you encounter in the game. Character building choices are decisions which allow the player to communicate to the game what sort of character he/she wants to develop, and in doing so open up or limit reactive choices they have throughout the game.

Here, the design seems to be entirely shifted towards reactive choices, with the claim that character building choices either do not matter, should not matter, or are simply something they are not interested in making matter in this game they are making. That is a bad thing for people who are actually interested in that sort of gameplay and are invested in forming connections with characters by developing them as they level up.

The problem here is that you're arguing against something that I would think most people are not really saying. This is not about "no respec + crappy skills which can fuck you up if you choose poorly" vs "instant skill choosing + tons of good skills and variations to pick from".

If you compare it take way, one is definitely better than the other because when it comes down to it Diablo 2 had many poorly designed skills which you can continue to put points into at no benefit. Is that bad design? YES. It also meant that if you wanted to fix that, you would basically have to run through a new character again just to farm skill points to respec. Is that bad design? Probably, mostly because of the way it was implemented.

But that's not the main beef people have with the implementation with Diablo 3. Let's take the Wizard for example. 25 skills across 6 categories. In each category, the 3-5 skills in them are not better or worse than each other. Instead they each serve a different sort of gameplay style. Why not let the player choose which skill in each category to learn in the order they want as they level up? The same goes for runes. The runes for each category are unlocked bit by bit with each level, but you are level able to choose which runes to unlock in a given category. One is not better than another, so why?

Since they are different, there isn't really a balance issue. Why force players into a guided Blizzard Tour for the first 30 levels for skills and first 60 levels for runes? It seems that simply building the game around giving casual players an auto-level option, and more experienced players a way to craft their journey through the first 60 levels of a class, would end up pleasing pretty much both sides as far as the existing skill system supports.

Seriously, is there any reason to argue AGAINST this?


Edit: Also, you might not want to insult people by going "they should just ignore the fanbase because they know better and everyone will be owned". That is rude and it is not an argument. It is dismissive and non-contributive.

The problem is that you are perceiving that anyone who is saying anything negative is some bitter person who wants to complain for the sake of complaining. It sounds more like you are somehow deathly afraid that if someone has an opinion which is different from yours gets hurt, you will have to suffer some terrible fate of a game that is improved for someone else.

Your example here is totally flawed. If the skills and rune effects in Diablo 3 were designed to be a completely linear experience where later skills are clearly stronger and more powerful than lower level ones, then I think people would simply see it as a very different sort of design, and be more accepting that is it a linear progression where you get stronger skills as you level up.

BUT DIABLO 3 IS NOT DESIGNED LIKE THIS. It is designed such that skills in each category are equal and comparable with each other, and there are trade offs and draw backs for each type of skill. A skill you learn at lvl11 is not better than the one you learn at lvl3, it simply has a different application. Depending on your play style, the lvl11 skill that unlocks right now might actually be less effective. The rune you unlock for your lvl1 skill at lvl26 is not automatically better than the rune you unlock for your lvl1 skill at lvl6 either. It simply offers different effects and properties.

This is why people are frustrated, because the skill design favors equal importance, while the level progression design is guided.



You seem very, very sure of this. Yet unless you are a Blizzard employee who has been playing the full game for months, how can you even make such a definitive statement? You are basically dismissing the opinions of others by hand waving and saying "haters going to hate, whatever you'll buy it and end up loving it".

But without having played anything more than an hour long beta, how can you be so sure that everyone is going to play all the way to lvl60 in a matter of weeks and be fine with how the game is designed? It sounds more like you don't want to dislike the game no matter what, and want others to agree. Yet there are valid complains being discussed here which you don't seem to want to tackle head on.

And you still do not see the contradictions and conflicts in the game design that we are pointing out?

Conflict 1

Assuming all runes are balanced with each other so that no rune effect is significantly better than another one

Unlocking skills as you level implies that the later skills are "stronger/better" than the early ones. For example, Acid Cloud (level 22) is "stronger/better" than Poison Dart (level 1).

Unlocking runes as you level implies that the later runes are "stronger/better" than the early runes.

If it is true that all runes are balanced with each other, then it conflicts with the popular notion that you learn better skills as you level up higher. If all runes are balanced with each other, then you do not actually learn "better" skills, you just learn "different" skills.

Therefore, it is more consistent with this design that the player is able to choose for himself which rune to unlock since they are all of equal "power" anyway. Furthermore, it adds to player choice, player attachment, and early game diversity.



Conflict 2

Assuming all runes are not balanced with each other and that the high level runes are "better" than the low rank ones

This matches up with the design of unlocking bigger and better rune effects as you level up.

However, this does not promote diversity at end game. Diversity is supposed to be one of Blizzard's important design goals.

If all the late level rune skills are that much "better", players will tend to use those and ignore the early runes, and there is less diversity in builds.

 

[lordy88]

No, that's not it.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=35341339&postcount=7175

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=35402593&postcount=7281

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=35479333&postcount=7401

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=35482129&postcount=7406

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=35484056&postcount=7415

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=35531796&postcount=7533

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=35549665&postcount=7599

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=35549973&postcount=7610

Freedom of choice is still there, a lot more so than Diablo 2. Less options doesn't mean you don't have any freedom.

You see it as a restriction opening up gradually. I see it as a free system that gets more free.

 

[aliencowz7]

Now i respect that people have differing opinions and what not, but quoting that huge wall of text after linking it all is kind of excessive, specially when alot of said quoted text is kind of silly

 

[maharg]

Honestly Diablo 2 had very very little customization, if you wanted to be competitive at whatever it was you were doing you were locked into certain skills with a certain amount of points into them and nothing else.

...

Here's the thing, though: Most people didn't play like that. Most people never had a level 90 character that was min/maxed, nor did they really care to. Diablo II was a mass-market game and people had fun with the choices they had even at low levels.

This myth that everyone was a hardcore player who played a hammerdin is just nonsense.

Also, all points to vitality isn't a good build for, say, a bowazon (all points to dex). Though it might be for a jabazon. It certainly was for a barbarian. Even if the choices weren't all that effectively used, that's not a good reason to take them out. It's a reason to make them *matter*.

 

[aliencowz7]

I don't even mean to say choices are bad, but i also don't see how the way it is now is taking away all choice of the player. You may not be able to have exactly the build you want to have at level 13 or 27 but blizzard now knows what skills are available to every class at every level and can design accordingly which is a pretty big benefit to all. Not to mention the fact that all theorycraft for any system including the one currently implemented is only able to be applyed by us to a absolutely tiny portion of the game.

I get what you mean with not everyone min maxing end game characters but those same people are the ones that benefit most by the new system, I just don't think alot of the critique of the new system is all that warrented just yet i guess. Its hard to articulate exactly what i'm trying to say without getting in to a really long winded discussion.

edit: The bowazon thing is kind of along the same line as my vit point though, all bowazons that wanted to be relatively effective ended up going dex glass cannon, sure alot of people either didn't know to do that or didn't care did whatever they wanted but they were still being punished for there choices whether they realized it or not. Same general idea for other specialized builds like energy shield pvp sorcs going high energy for giant mana pools, there just wasnt much variability for builds if you wanted to really be effective.

 

[forrest]

Well, I will say this much. Even at level 13, with very limited skills, whenever I get into a group with another DH, they are always using a different build. Sure there are similarities, but they are usually using either a different hate generator or a different hate spender as their main abilities.

This is at lvl 13 in beta. So toss in 5 more abilities, 5 more runes and one more hotkey. Do you think you will see more similarities or less? To say people are limited in their choices is true, it's just not as narrow as some of the argument in this thread would lead you to believe. The options for variety will ramp up very quickly.

 

[maharg]

What I'm saying is that it's really popular to slam D2 for lack of build diversity, but in reality I think there was a huge amount of build diversity purely by virtue of the game giving you those choices. If you never got to Hell, or even Nightmare, you can get by with some choices that to the hardcore players seem incredibly stupid.

I'm really not buying that D3's system will lead to any increase in build diversity, though. I just don't see it. At least in D2 you *could* make a glass canon character, and there's a huge amount of fun in doing so. I can only see this path leading to less build diversity as Blizzard has basically explicitly chosen min/maxes for you.

 

[aliencowz7]

You may be right regarding something like a glass cannon build since stats are auto distributed now, but i do feel that we will see more skill builds then you would see if you were to play online in d2. I mean i cant speak for people that played offline mostly or who stuck to themselves and close friends online, but joining random games / exp runs showed a extreme lack of build diversity

My main issue with alot of the gripes in the thread lately is just that its really impossible to tell how stuff will play out in the full game at this point, normal is so different then nightmare and hell and we've never even seen anything like inferno before. Even act 1 normal was vastly different then act 5 normal in d2.

 

[maharg]

Well, I think there are a lot of people who played D2 offline or only in friendly games. I've pointed this out before, but D2 is a game that must still sell enough to justify having boxed copies on store shelves 12 years later. I'm not sure I'd even buy that a sizeable percentage of those players could even name one of the top builds of the game, let alone tell you how to build one.

But those players really *liked* D2 as well. And I think they liked that they got to make choices about their characters. It was low barrier-to-entry roleplaying in a way that D3 doesn't seem like it will be.