Support NeoGAF

[aliencowz7]

Yeah, I mean i totally want the game to be the best possible game it can be and i know that nitpicking and gripes help it get there. I also want as many people as possible to enjoy the game as much as possible, It's just one of those things where you can't please everyone. The thing that's really thrown me off a little is how extensive and passionate some of the posts have been over it though considering how little we know of the overall experience that will be provided on launch day.

 

[Mengy]

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.

If Blizzard does their job correctly and all skills and runes are relatively equal in power and viable at endgame, then I think we will see a ton of different builds running around. The freedom of skill choice in the game (at level 60) would encourage that greatly. BUT, if they are holding our hand while leveling because later skills and runes are simply better, well then the majority will gravitate to the best builds only. That would suck.

I hope Blizzards guided leveling tour is not an indication of exactly that.

 

[Rentahamster]

The thing that's really thrown me off a little is how extensive and passionate some of the posts have been over it though considering how little we know of the overall experience that will be provided on launch day.

If it's a given that we know little of the overall experience, the certainty of those saying that the design decisions will not bear the negative attributes that some of us worry about should be equally baffling to you.

 

[aliencowz7]

Anyone saying either side while painting it as an absolute is baffling to me, the more recent stuff has just been more on the negative side. I encourage opinions and discussion I just think it should be taken in stride with how much we actually know about the full product

 

[CarbonatedFalcon]

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.

Personally, I don't mind, as I definitely intend to have multiple level 60 characters and spend most of my time at cap, like an MMO, so it ultimately doesn't have an effect on me. However, I was watching some older developer videos, mostly from Blizzcon this year, and the stratification of all the skills and runes seems at least a bit antithetical to what they were preaching back then. When they talk about difficulty, they talk about how hard Hell and Inferno are going to be (if not Nightmare as well), and how they're there for the core/hardcore user base.

I think it's a real blow to the casual player though, not having access to all abilities/runes by the end of normal. Some people just aren't going to play through more than normal, and they lose out. They stuff that comes after normal may be there to entice, but for some people, since they finished the story, they're done with the game. And it's hard to say how many people will be converted from normal only players to nightmare and above players due to the carrots.

Now I don't know how many people would play like this, as it's generally against the spirit of the game. It may in fact be a very small percentage or larger than we might think, but I'm positive that it exists.

For example, I played the Starcraft 2 campaign on normal or one notch above, and only played about dozen multiplayer matches (though I have watched many hours of pro player streams and tournaments).

 

[V_Arnold]

You are seriously underestimating the casual players, man.
Did you see casual players on World of Warcraft who did not reach 85? I did not.
Or those that felt bad when they did not have access to the best skills before 85? I did not.

These are personal issues projected out like a prediction.
But casual players will enjoy gaining access to new abilities and new runes constantly, and that is about it. I have yet to encounter a viewpoint that really is hurt by this other than the one where someone wants to have a lv30 that already got all its custom runes prepared for it and wanted to breeze through with only using his favored skill all the way to lv60. And the irony is that this is the kind of player that will reach to lv60 faster than those who actually have no issues with not accessing the full skill/runeset.

 

[IceMarker]

THE MASSIVE UNOFFICIAL NEOGAF BATTLETAG LIST

Gonna repost every 100 posts/per page when I can. Updated whenever I see new Battletags in the thread.

NEW PAGE

 

[maharg]

You are seriously underestimating the casual players, man.
Did you see casual players on World of Warcraft who did not reach 85? I did not.
Or those that felt bad when they did not have access to the best skills before 85? I did not.
.

You do realize WoW isn't a Diablo game, right?

 

[SteveWD40]

Settled on Demon Hunter (Main) and Barbarian and Wizard as alts.

Wizard: Dear god they are bad-ass, started a bit slow, magic missiles are meh, arcane orb is boringly OP, but once I got Spectral Blades, Force push and the Ice blast...I was a fucking BEAST.

 

[V_Arnold]

You do realize WoW isn't a Diablo game, right?

What makes you think I do not realize it?
But with the Diablo and mount for 12 month WoW Subscription deal, they made it pretty obvious that they are seeing their own WoW players as one of the main target audiences.

Also, I still do not see what WoW not being a Diablo game would change about the way "casual" players will approach Diablo III.

Settled on Demon Hunter (Main) and Barbarian and Wizard as alts.

Wizard: Dear god they are bad-ass, started a bit slow, magic missiles are meh, arcane orb is boringly OP, but once I got Spectral Blades, Force push and the Ice blast...I was a fucking BEAST.

I was pretty sure that I will main a monk, but after the beta...eh. I will get to around lv30 with all five classes first, I think, and THEN I will decide. It wont take long anyway.

 

[Valnen]

Items that make particular skills more powerful are apparently in, this will add to the personalization in end game.

 

[maharg]

What makes you think I do not realize it?

Well maybe the fact that you made an entire argument predicated entirely on using WoW as an example for what casual Diablo players are like.

 

[V_Arnold]

Well maybe the fact that you made an entire argument predicated entirely on using WoW as an example for what casual Diablo players are like.

So tell me then, what will casual Diablo III(!) players be like. Because obviously you feel that my argument is invalid - even though Blizzard made it pretty obvious that WoW players are amongst the main target audiences for DIII as well -. Tell me how casual players only make an exception for World of Warcraft by enduring not being able to use any skills after a few hours, and still going on till the endgame.

 

[Castor Krieg]

So tell me then, what will casual Diablo III(!) players be like. Because obviously you feel that my argument is invalid - even though Blizzard made it pretty obvious that WoW players are amongst the main target audiences for DIII as well -. Tell me how casual players only make an exception for World of Warcraft by enduring not being able to use any skills after a few hours, and still going on till the endgame.

There are casual Diablo players?

Besides, I doubt the audience is the same, the development of MMO content is very different. Not to mention Diablo III has no way the amount of social interaction of WoW.

 

[V_Arnold]

There are casual Diablo players?

Besides, I doubt the audience is the same, the development of MMO content is very different. Not to mention Diablo III has no way the amount of social interaction of WoW.

Well, I replied to a post where there was this "I think it's a real blow to the casual player though, not having access to all abilities/runes by the end of normal. Some people just aren't going to play through more than normal, and they lose out. ", so there must be some kind of expectation of casual players going into the game.

I strongly believe that the way Blizzard handled this game and the way it is played out, yes, there will be casual players, unlike in 2000 where that was not even a term that one just spit out: you either played D2 - and then you played it for months, or years - or you were just not an ARPG player, but if you were a player (pc gamer) already, you DID have genres that you invested heavily in, be it ARPG, simulators, FPS games, RTS or something else.

 

[Castor Krieg]

Well, I replied to a post where there was this "I think it's a real blow to the casual player though, not having access to all abilities/runes by the end of normal. Some people just aren't going to play through more than normal, and they lose out. ", so there must be some kind of expectation of casual players going into the game.

I don't agree. If you play once, you don't lose out on anything, you still experience the story. That's like saying RPGs shouldn't have any optional sidequests, because people doing only the MQ "lose out" on additional background stories for other characters, etc.

Also, it's good they give you skills past Normal, makes you look forward to doing higher difficulty runs.

 

[V_Arnold]

I don't agree. If you play once, you don't lose out on anything, you still experience the story. That's like saying RPGs shouldn't have any optional sidequests, because people doing only the MQ "lose out" on additional background stories for other characters, etc.

Also, it's good they give you skills past Normal, makes you look forward to doing higher difficulty runs.

I agree with you completely. My argument was that not only that they will be not left out of the best skills, but if they enjoy the game, they WILL continue playing through the endgame, even if their skills wont allow anything further than, let us say, mid-hell, or early Inferno.

 

[maharg]

There are casual Diablo players?

Of course there are.

I strongly believe that the way Blizzard handled this game and the way it is played out, yes, there will be casual players, unlike in 2000 where that was not even a term that one just spit out: you either played D2 - and then you played it for months, or years - or you were just not an ARPG player, but if you were a player (pc gamer) already, you DID have genres that you invested heavily in, be it ARPG, simulators, FPS games, RTS or something else.

I don't even understand what you're saying here. You think no one played games casually in 2000? Were you born in 1995 or something? Of course they did. And they played Diablo because, *again*, Diablo was actually a really casual friendly rpg. There's some kind of weird history rewrite going on here and I don't get it at all. Diablo 2 had a great story, a strong sense of character creation, and plenty of people played it offline only all the way through normal and then stopped. They were more likely to do a new character of another class at that point than push it through Nightmare, let alone Hell.

Hell, when LoD came out it was actually a *problem* that some people didn't have characters who'd gotten through Act 4 yet even though they had their original install lying around.

Seriously guys, can we get over this nonsense that Diablo II, which probably sold somewhere upwards of 10 million copies (last public number was like 7 million in 2004, and it's still on shelves), was only played by people who dedicated their lives to it for months at a time?

 

[V_Arnold]

Maharg, can you clarify what you are arguing for or against here?
Cause you are not even trying to refute my point, which is: yes, there will be casuals playing D3 and they will not be disappointed if they unlock new skills all the way to lv60.

And no, I was not born in 95, and surprise, was quite active in my local scene at the time D2 got released, not that it matters, cause you can just push it away freely, as demonstrated above.

 

[maharg]

There's this sense that casuals don't want/like or can't deal with making active choices about their characters' development. Diablo 2's success belies that claim.

And I still find it confusing that you think that people didn't play games casually in 2000.

 

[Castor Krieg]

And I still find it confusing that you think that people didn't play games casually in 2000.

I'm sorry, for me playing Diablo 2 in 2000 has nothing to do with casual gaming, at least by today's standards. Last couple of years we had lots of new people playing due to smartphones, I think vast majority would've never played a game like D2.

 

[V_Arnold]

There's this sense that casuals don't want/like or can't deal with making active choices about their characters' development. Diablo 2's success belies that claim.

And I still find it confusing that you think that people didn't play games casually in 2000.

You might find it confusing, but that was the reality of our -ofc, local- gaming scene in 2000. No one played D2 casually. What you described was either "buy it, dislike it, sell it ASAP", or "download it/pirate it/borrow it from a friend, play it for some time, forget it". If I had met someone who played it casually (the way we describe it now, at least), I would say it so. Anecdotal evidence it might be, it is the basis of my view on this matter.

 

[maharg]

I think that says more about the people you hung out with than anything about the market as a whole. I knew lots of people who popped D2 in to play for a couple of weeks at a time. Diablo 1 too, for that matter.

Anecdotal evidence is dismissed for a reason. It's highly selective. However, my claim that there are people who played it casually is better supported by my anecdotal evidence than your claim that there aren't is by yours.

Wait, do you think by casual I mean people who play Wii Fit? Because a) those people did exist then too, they played Tetris and Minesweeper and bought a copy of Myst to use as a coaster, b) that's not what I meant at all, and I think that should be fairly obvious from the fact we're talking about Diablo, not a dance game.

 

[AdventureRacing]

You don't sell 10 million copies of a game without appealing to casuals. That's without taking into account the fact that D2 was heavily pirated and probably played by a lot more people than it actually sold to.

I knew plenty of people who only played it casually.

 

[Castor Krieg]

You don't sell 10 million copies of a game without appealing to casuals. That's without taking into account the fact that D2 was heavily pirated and probably played by a lot more people than it actually sold to.

I knew plenty of people who only played it casually.

Casually being what? Not online? 2-3 hours per week? More info please.

Yes, you can sell 10 million copies without appealing to casuals, when D2 came out PC gaming was a behemoth.

 

[helloresolven]

I think we just have to come to the realization that this is no longer an ARPG, but almost purely an action game.

 

[maharg]

I think we just have to come to the realization that this is no longer an ARPG, but almost purely an action game.

This is what I've been saying. There really doesn't seem to be much roleplaying to it in the traditional sense at all anymore. And whether or not I like the final product (I LIKE action games), I will mourn the fact that they filled that niche with something awesome and now they've chosen to retreat entirely from that genre.

 

[ParityBit]

I think we just have to come to the realization that this is no longer an ARPG, but almost purely an action game.

This is immensely sad, but unfortunately very true (in my mind)

It almost feels at the same level that you can get a level 80 character in WoW to start. There is no longer a journey in characters and their developments. Obviously there is in loot, but loot was not everything with Diablo. Skill trees, rune words, the hunt and feeling that for the most part your character was different than that of someone else.

The good thing is now that my expectations are so low, I may enjoy the game for a while. I know it will not have the staying power for D2 for me [Unless there are some major changes in patches down the road]

 

[V_Arnold]

I think that says more about the people you hung out with than anything about the market as a whole. I knew lots of people who popped D2 in to play for a couple of weeks at a time. Diablo 1 too, for that matter.

Anecdotal evidence is dismissed for a reason. It's highly selective. However, my claim that there are people who played it casually is better supported by my anecdotal evidence than your claim that there aren't is by yours.

Wait, do you think by casual I mean people who play Wii Fit? Because a) those people did exist then too, they played Tetris and Minesweeper and bought a copy of Myst to use as a coaster, b) that's not what I meant at all, and I think that should be fairly obvious from the fact we're talking about Diablo, not a dance game.

So basically your anecdotal evidence is better than my anecdotal evidence? Alright, I do not really care about that e-peen measurement, as my point was not even whether D2 was played by casuals worldwide or not. My initial point was that D3 really looks like something that will in fact see casuals playing it,and they will, by all means, enjoy that they have access to a growing and expanding skillset, not the other way around.

Also, I never felt like I was ever playing an RPG with Diablo. RPG was Planescape Torment, Baldur's Gate, Might and Magic VI/VII/VIII, never D2 for me

 

[Mengy]

There's this sense that casuals don't want/like or can't deal with making active choices about their characters' development. Diablo 2's success belies that claim.

And I still find it confusing that you think that people didn't play games casually in 2000.

Most of my real life friends who played D2 didn't play much past normal at all. They would play through with a new character to the end of normal, play until they had all of the skills they wanted, and then feel like they were done with the character. Nightmare was too difficult for them, so they didn't bother. And I don't think any of them have ever stepped a single foot into hell difficulty. When they had a character "done" with the game (meaning beating normal all the way through) they would start a new character and play with different builds and skills.

The more I tell my real life D2 "crew" about D3, the less they want to play it:

1. I tell them they have to play all the way to level 60 to get all the skills, they balk at that
2. I tell them the classes have gone from 7 to 5, they balk at that, lol
3. I tell them the druid is gone, they really balk at that (all of them loved the druid for some odd reason..)
4. I tell them they can only have 10 characters max, they REALLY balk at that


I think some of you underestimate the size and scope of the casual crowd that made D2 the monster selling game that it still is to this day. And I have to wonder if some of Blizzards changes lately that piss off us "hardcore" players were more geared towards pleasing the casual crowd.

I really wonder how many of the 10 million owners of D2 have never seen Nightmare or Hell Baal...

 

[Deadly]

I haven't been following the argument much so I'm wondering what's the big factor that makes D3 less like D2 and more of an "action game" as you are all saying?

 

[aliencowz7]

I never even saw diablo 2 as an ARPG, always seen loot games as there own seperate genre really. I mean i don't think i ever actually ran into anyone in diablo 2 that actually did any role playing and the character building aspect of diablo 2 was extremely light at best. There was a very minimalist storyline that left alot to player interpretation.

I do get the argument about casual players, but i do have to wonder just how much they are really going to be offput by the new system, I get the feeling it will be more of a sticking point for medium to hardcore players then casuals are really going to even notice it beyond the initial oh hey this is different.

edit: The 10 million sold number also has to be taken with a grain of salt, a lot of those sold are people with multiple copies like myself, bot accounts, item sellers, spam bots etc. I without a doubt believe there are alot of casual players I just dont know how much some of these chages will actually upset them like people think

 

[ParityBit]

4. I tell them they can only have 10 characters max, they REALLY balk at that.

Why would you need more than 5 character slots? One for each class. There is no longer a need for a spearazon and bowazon for example. Equipment is the only difference maker [i.e not skills]

The whole thing is going to be interesting. I just want them to release so I can play and wait for patches! One thing I wonder is what is going to happen if some super item is bought on the store for lots of cash, and then Blizzard nerfs it.

 

[aliencowz7]

considering stuff like enigma and botd didn't get nerfed in diablo 2 i cant see a possible scenario where they would need to nerf any items. I mean those were about as overpowered and game changing as an item can get.

 

[V_Arnold]

considering stuff like enigma and botd didn't get nerfed in diablo 2 i cant see a possible scenario where they would need to nerf any items. I mean those were about as overpowered and game changing as an item can get.

They will adjust this time. This is not Blizzard North. Enigma is the antithesis of build variety, a situation when something is so powerful that only one percent of the builds can actually neglect it.

 

[aliencowz7]

I hope so, maybe with there no longer being runewords we wont run into issues like that again. Although i would be curious how the runeword system would have worked out had there been no bots and duping online. The amount of enigmas and other items that required high runes would of gone down dramatically.

 

[Lothars]

I think we just have to come to the realization that this is no longer an ARPG, but almost purely an action game.

I don't believe that for a second, It's still an ARPG especially from what I've played of it, it reminds me alot of Diablo 2 other than no skill points.

I don't think that having no skill points or attribute points doesn't make it an ARPG.

 

[todahawk]

nvm

 

[forrest]

Well I bought Diablo 2 at release, played through normal on a necro and never went through it again. I thought it was awesome, but I was a bit ignorant at the time. I didn't know that you actually kept progressing past normal. I just thought they were static difficulty changes like every other game. And as far as online goes, I had no clue there was such a huge community of ppl playing. I never even tried online.

I was also swept into the Quake 3 Arena scene and was spending much more time playing it as opposed to investigating what I was missing in Diablo 2. But...

This time. This time will be different. The demons shall know my name...

 

[Rentahamster]

And whether or not I like the final product (I LIKE action games), I will mourn the fact that they filled that niche with something awesome and now they've chosen to retreat entirely from that genre.

While I'm still optimistic for the final product and know I'm going to play the hell out of it, I can't help but think that some of the more recent decisions they've made to cater towards a wider audience are not even necessary and that they're hurting the overall experience as a result. I don't think they need to turn Diablo III into WoW as much as they think they need to.

I don't believe that for a second, It's still an ARPG especially from what I've played of it, it reminds me alot of Diablo 2 other than no skill points.

I don't think that having no skill points or attribute points doesn't make it an ARPG.

A lot of the RPG elements regarding character building and player choice are now gone and those decisions are for the most part automatically set for you. This leaves the player to now have to only deal with the action part of the game.



If all the things I'm worrying about turn out to be not so bad after all, then terrific. If they're not, however, I'm still going to play it a lot just to try my hand at making money on the RMAH. This is the thing that troubles me - that we will be playing the game a lot despite bad game mechanics, not because of it, and the only reason we play more is because we want to make money - and that some might say, "look at all these people playing, the game design is perfect!", when all that was really there is the perfect way to harness people's desire for loot and their inclination to profit from it.

Not that profiting from a game is a bad thing, no. I think it's genius.

 

[Barack Lesnar]

This is immensely sad, but unfortunately very true (in my mind)

It almost feels at the same level that you can get a level 80 character in WoW to start. There is no longer a journey in characters and their developments. Obviously there is in loot, but loot was not everything with Diablo. Skill trees, rune words, the hunt and feeling that for the most part your character was different than that of someone else.

The good thing is now that my expectations are so low, I may enjoy the game for a while. I know it will not have the staying power for D2 for me [Unless there are some major changes in patches down the road]

The bolded part of your post just isn't true.

1. Rune words are loot. You need runes, which are loot, to create them. You need base items to create them (also loot).

2. Not true at all about "for the most part your character was different than others"... actually couldn't be farther from the truth. Diablo 2 was filled with cookie cutter builds that everyone used. Occasionally you'd see a more unique build based on less used skills (like a Poison nova necro, for example) but the vast majority of the player base used cookie cutter builds because very few non-cookie cutter builds were viable end-game. You just max out a handful of skills and ignore all the rest because only certain skills per class were truly end-game viable, both in terms of PVE and PVP. This is what Blizzard is trying to fix with Diablo 3 and from what I've played of the beta and read about the game, it looks like they're doing a good job.

On top of that, Diablo 2's unbalanced stat system (stats as in STR, DEX, VIT, ENG) resulted in a huge lack of customization. Barbs would put just enough into STR (many times none at all if your equip had enough +STR and you had a good anni+torch) and ALL the rest into Vitality or enough into Dex for max block of 75% then the rest into Vitality. Bowazons would dump points into Dex and some vita. Non-energy shield Sorcs would put just enough into STR and all the rest into vita (ES sorcs would just put it into energy instead of vita). Paladins would put just enough into STR and all the rest into vita. Necros just enough into STR, all the rest into vita unless you go max block (PVP only) which would be enough in dex for 75% block, then the rest in vita. You see a trend here? Anyone who believes the stat allocation system provided lots of customization simply doesn't know much about the game (I'm speaking in general, not referring to the guy I'm replying to).

Diablo 3 is not an action game. It's an ARPG through and through and will have just as much customization, if not more, than its predecessor. Just the fact that the lower level skills are actually viable end game is enough to put it over the top. People who say otherwise are duped into thinking D2 had this incredible amount of customization when in reality it was incredibly unbalanced leading to the opposite, as explained above.

I'm not trying to come off as an expert (lol) or whatever, but know that I played this game on and off for a decade. Thousands of hours in both PVE and top-tier PVP. Some of my characters + inventory were worth several hundreds of dollars in real money. I knew (and still know) the game inside and out. Many of the things that are said in this thread simply aren't an accurate assessment of what Diablo 2 was and what Diablo 3 is going to be in comparison. I'm not going to go through each and every post to correct people so that's all I'll say on the matter.

 

[ParityBit]

The bolded part of your post just isn't true.

1. Rune words are loot. You need runes, which are loot, to create them. You need base items to create them (also loot).

2. Not true at all about "for the most part your character was different than others"... actually couldn't be farther from the truth. Diablo 2 was filled with cookie cutter builds that everyone used.

1) Although true that it was loot, it dynamically changed your characters abilities and skills which one may or may not have had. Without skill trees in addition to this, character development is 100% non existent.

2) Actually, I am very much describing the truth. Just because a majority of people wanted a "best" or "power" build does not take away from the fact you had many options and decisions to make. I never made a cookie cutter build but now there is no real reason not to. I have no decisions to make. They are catering to the WoW causal crowd [I don't mean the whole WoW community! Just the casuals which spawned at a super rate with WoW]

I believe that if there is a time for another company to take over the crown of the best ARPG away from the Diablo series, now is the time. At least until Blizzard "patches" in new changes in the system. Unfortunately I love my Diablo and have been talking about D3 for years so I am too much invested.

 

[aliencowz7]

Skill modifications on gear has already been confirmed to be in the full release which is likely to do what the old dropped runes used to do since there are no skill levels anymore and how is choosing what skills to use and what runes to use with them NOT a choice the player makes?

 

[hobart]

One thing I wonder is what is going to happen if some super item is bought on the store for lots of cash, and then Blizzard nerfs it.

Buyers beware.

Stocks fall. Real estate values plummet...... etc. etc. No difference, IMO.

 

[Barack Lesnar]

1) Although true that it was loot, it dynamically changed your characters abilities and skills which one may or may not have had. Without skill trees in addition to this, character development is 100% non existent.

2) Actually, I am very much describing the truth. Just because a majority of people wanted a "best" or "power" build does not take away from the fact you had many options and decisions to make. I never made a cookie cutter build but now there is no real reason not to. I have no decisions to make. They are catering to the WoW causal crowd [I don't mean the whole WoW community! Just the casuals which spawned at a super rate with WoW]

I believe that if there is a time for another company to take over the crown of the best ARPG away from the Diablo series, now is the time. At least until Blizzard "patches" in new changes in the system. Unfortunately I love my Diablo and have been talking about D3 for years so I am too much invested.

1. Like aliencowz said, skill modifiers on items is already confirmed, which means you're wrong.

2. If you didn't create cookie cutter builds or a variation of them you killed at an alarmingly slow pace in hell difficulty and were destroyed in PVP. Show me an example of a build or two.

And you also completely ignored my stat (attribute) points paragraph, most likely because you don't even know what I'm talking about.

 

[Kalnos]

I really wonder how many of the 10 million owners of D2 have never seen Nightmare or Hell Baal...

I bought D2 and LOD the day they were released and I have never seen Hell Baal (hell, I have never even played online with others). I didn't play D2 for an extended periods like WoW or anything either. I would instead just power a character through the game and then shelf it for a year when I felt satisfied, which was usually after beating normal/nightmare. I definitely didn't plan my build or bother to look up min-maxing guides.

 

[Lothars]

A lot of the RPG elements regarding character building and player choice are now gone and those decisions are for the most part automatically set for you. This leaves the player to now have to only deal with the action part of the game.

I disagree because now there seems to be so many more skills to choose from which is part of the character building and player choices with the runes being part of the skills process that means even more.

To me that still makes it an ARPG than just an action game.

 

[Rentahamster]

how is choosing what skills to use and what runes to use with them NOT a choice the player makes?

No one said that that is not a choice that players make. We've all acknowledged that that part of player choice is still there. We're actually talking about something else.

Go over this again, it's all there.

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

I disagree because now there seems to be so many more skills to choose from which is part of the character building and player choices with the runes being part of the skills process that means even more.

To me that still makes it an ARPG than just an action game.

I've mentioned many times in this thread about how that is still a large part of the game. The point I was making in the part you quoted was that many of the traditional "RPG" aspects of the game have been removed or altered regardless of whether you think it mattered or not.

 

[ParityBit]

1. Like aliencowz said, skill modifiers on items is already confirmed, which means you're wrong.

2. If you didn't create cookie cutter builds or a variation of them you killed at an alarmingly slow pace in hell difficulty and were destroyed in PVP. Show me an example of a build or two.

And you also completely ignored my stat (attribute) points paragraph, most likely because you don't even know what I'm talking about.

Skill modifiers on items is fine. But then that takes a power spot on the item. Rather than a bunch of powers in one slot [Like 7 from Principle] you would instead get +2 to a skill. You can defend the decision all you want, it doesn't change the fact that a good majority of people do not like it.

I did not play PvP. Don't need an e-peen like some others. I played the game for fun with friends. Not sure if I will tryPvP this time around, it sounds like it was well thought out and designed well though.

The stat points I agreed with, so I did not comment. I don't care about those. I do however care about the lack of skill trees and points for the individual skills. So you can make an account with 5 characters, all level 60, sell and profit.

 

[erragal]

I've mentioned many times in this thread about how that is still a large part of the game. The point I was making in the part you quoted was that many of the traditional "RPG" aspects of the game have been removed or altered regardless of whether you think it mattered or not.

RPG elements are greater than previous entries in all aspects.

You have two sides to what are commonly attributed design elements for RPG games. First is an abstracted combat system where the in game character's numerical values have a significant impact on encounter resolution. Overall superior skill balance in D3 actually magnifies the impact your numerical attributes have in comparison with D3.

A lack of permanent choice doesn't make a game less of an RPG. It may not be a design decision you care for but it has zero bearing on how encounters play out. Not being able to choose the order of your abilities doesn't make them less dependent on numerical factors.

Assigning state points in d3 was an illusionary.choice because there wasn't any tradeoffs or well formulated values. Resources didn't even matter in that game! It amazes me that D3's emphasis on dynamic resource management is completely under the radar even though its purely numerical RPG system. In fact the decisions regarding resources alone will exceed the value of any decisions anyone made on their D3 characters.

From a narrative perspective the use of audio lore tidbits to illuminate the world blows away any of the 'role' playing aspects of d2. There's so much more density of expository and thematic information while keeping you in the flow of gameplay.

Not liking the lack of decisions at level up is understandable. Saying it's not an RPG because it lacks level up choices is absurd and shows a complete lack of understanding of those elements; the genre is filled with games where the important decisions had nothing to do with permanent level choices at all.