New user registration temporarily disabled because of SPAM.
Diablo III
-
Way back in the day I played Diablo 2 more than I should have. The reason was that it was one of the only games that worked online with my dial-up modem.
If Diablo 3 is anything like 2, I recommend people stay far away. I would actually say that Diablo 2 is worse than World of Warcraft, but at least it has an ending. All you do in these games, literally, is point and click your mouse on the bad guys until they die. If you are about to die, you return to town to freshen up. Sometimes you do things in town to make your equipment better, and choose skills when you level up. However, no matter what skills you choose, you always have a "best move", so you just click that move on the bad guys until they die. Oh, you also click to pick up loots.
If you like repeatedly clicking on monsters until they die, Diablo is a winner. If you want a game where you actually have to, uh, do something, steer clear.
Still, it does remain to be seen how different Diablo 3 will be from Diablo 2. My guess is it will be very similar to WoW, only it will be a single player and co-op experience as opposed to an MMO experience. If it is, that will be slightly better, because at least the game will end and have no monthly fee. -
I'm sad to say I still play Diablo 2 . . . for some reason we like to LAN while collectively clicking on monsters until they die. We do it in the same room though so there's a bit more of a social aspect. I predict that Diablo 3 will take over a solid 2-3 months of our weekly LAN whenever it comes out.
-
If you're in the same room play a board game or tabletop RPG.cosmicenema said:We do it in the same room though so there's a bit more of a social aspect.
-
What difference does that make? Being in the same room means you shouldn't be playing videogames?
Playing games on my couch with a friend is awesome. PixelJunk Monsters on the PS3 multiplayer has been one of my favorite things to do. It's super fun playing games with someone beside you. -
I am a big fan of the Diablo series, but I think I may have grown out of this type of gameplay. The new one doesnt seem as attractive as the first 2 were. Also, this genre of gaming has been heavily overdone since Diablo 2 and I dont think it will be as popular as the first 2 were. However, I am and will always be a Blizzard whore and will get it regardless.
-
I'm excited. I didn't play Diablo II enough to look back on it as a "waste of time," and I've been looking for a game with co-op gameplay like WoW, but with less grinding/time demands.
For everyone worried that this will be just like Diablo II, I have a gut feeling they're going to retool things. I'm sure Bliz realizes they can't just repackage the same game ten years later, especially when WoW borrowed so heavily from Diablo. -
Yes, I'm sure they will put an extensive amount of polish on the game, as they have always done. Too bad the flaws in the game are in the core, not the surface. For it to be good they would have to make a game that is fundamentally different from past Diablo games.Socha, just Socha said:For everyone worried that this will be just like Diablo II, I have a gut feeling they're going to retool things. I'm sure Bliz realizes they can't just repackage the same game ten years later, especially when WoW borrowed so heavily from Diablo.
-
As I recall, Diablo was grinding and clicking, grinding and clicking, and was utterly mindless and without merit. (Yes, I played it, and I hated it even then). Diablo II was no better. They were awful, awful, semi-fantasy isometric Whack-A-Mole with leveling.iruul said:The new one doesnt seem as attractive as the first 2 were
Diablo III is going to be WoW Lite at best. -
Looking at it it seems cool, but it doesn't seem like its actually a big enough improvement from Diablo II. I was disappointed to see that the hud is basically the same, and that it has the same camera angle. I guess I was hoping for more of an overhaul to the series since it's been so long.
-
Hm. I probably won't play it, but the weekly LAN might. They've all started playing some MMORPG, and are touting it as fantastic. One of their points is that "There isn't a lot of grind!" I really want some kind of persistent world Burning Wheel more and more.
-
Statistics? Give me a break. It's basic min-maxing. It's obvious which equipment you have is the best, so that is the equipment you equip.Jason said:Diablo is an inventory control and statistics manipulation game. In that regard, I don't see it being any different than an airport simulation game :D
Also, the key difference is that in an airport simulation game and Diablo is that in the airport game, you can set the values at any number you want. Your options aren't limited to which equipment happened to be dropped by monsters you killed, or happens to be available in the store. Also, it is non-obvious what the optimal settings are. In Diablo, more damage per unit time is better. In Aerobiz should you make fares on this route higher to attract more customers or lower to get more money? You're free to change those values every turn. Should you? If so, how? -
Well, there's also the fact that Airport Simulation Games were fun when I was in middle school, much as MMOs were when I was in high school. I'm past that now. ^_~Apreche said:Also, the key difference is that in an airport simulation game and Diablo is that in the airport game, you can set the values at any number you want.
-
I also hate Aerobiz, but it's definitely better than Diablo.Rym said:
Well, there's also the fact that Airport Simulation Games were fun when I was in middle school, much as MMOs were when I was in high school. I'm past that now. ^_~Apreche said:Also, the key difference is that in an airport simulation game and Diablo is that in the airport game, you can set the values at any number you want.
-
I could just as well say "In Aerobiz, more profit per unit time is better".Apreche said:In Diablo, more damage per unit time is better. In Aerobiz should you make fares on this route higher to attract more customers or lower to get more money? You're free to change those values every turn. Should you? If so, how?
But I'm not really particularly eager to support either game ;) -
This is true, but it is much more difficult, nay impossible, to figure out the best way to set the numbers for maximum profit per unit time. Figuring that out is what makes the game good. As soon as you figure it out, actually playing the game becomes work, and you don't need to play it anymore.lackofcheese said:I could just as well say "In Aerobiz, more profit per unit time is better".
But I'm not really particularly eager to support either game ;) -
No one's going to argue that Diablo 2 was a simple game, but I feel like the mechanic would improve dramatically with a focus on multiplayer. Now that Blizzard can expect gamers to have headsets, broadband, and other current online play necessities, they can improve the basic formula and focus on cooperation and communication between the classes. The comparison to Gauntlet is perfect: if the game is done ideally, it could mimic arcade-y hack and slash local multiplayer better than any other online game...Rym said:
As I recall, Diablo was grinding and clicking, grinding and clicking, and was utterly mindless and without merit. (Yes, I played it, and I hated it even then). Diablo II was no better. They were awful, awful, semi-fantasy isometric Whack-A-Mole with leveling.iruul said:The new one doesnt seem as attractive as the first 2 were
Diablo III is going to be WoW Lite at best.
...or maybe I'm being a stupid optimist about this game. All I know is, Blizzard is a high quality developer, and I'm confident they'll make it right. (And I'd be content with a less demanding version of WoW)
As for the Aerobiz analogy, devoid of its (AI related) flaws, Aerobiz is a game where the maximum profit may be slightly different with each game, depending on both selected variables and a given situation (one game you may be stuck with domestic flights, the next time you may capitalize on an early opportunity). In Diablo, there is no opposing variable: there is one (or a few) optimal versions of each class. Once again, I feel like with some good co-op and gameplay improvements, people may need to consider how best to optimize their role in a group. (Please note that my opinions of Aerobiz are based on a few days of playing on a borrowed SNES and game following the episode of the show) -
How so? If you're a healer, you do as much damage as you can, but heal when necessary. Also, cast your most powerful buff spells on the most appropriate person. If you are a fighter, just do as much damage as possible. What other job is there besides damage dealer or healer? Not much. It's fantasy whack-a-mole.Socha, just Socha said:I feel like with some good co-op and gameplay improvements, people may need to consider how best to optimize their role in a group.
-
Well, another common role is "tank" (tank has high armour & resistances & HP and attempts to attract as much enemy fire as possible so that his allies don't get it).
Then there's the distinction between single-target and AoE damage; Is it better if one person focuses on each, or everyone does a bit of both (The answer is almost always the former, of course)? -
Diablo I and II were fun back when I was in middle school, I think I may have grown out of it by now though. At that time, the Genre of Diablo was still relatively new so it was very attractive for me on my 56k modem. To be fair though, so far all of the "flaws" mentioned are from the first two games, it wouldnt be hard for Blizzard to remedy this in the next one. They could make it so that a little bit of strategy would be required instead of mindless clicking. Also, instead of just having a "best" spell, there could be spells strategically useful in certain situation.
-
Some people seem to think that just because there are multiple choices of action that are better in different situations that that somehow means the game is strategic and tactical. What they need to realize is that just having multiple options doesn't make strategy. Using cold spells on the fire enemies or using slow spells on the fast enemies is not strategy, it's obvious. In terms of games, if a decision is obvious, it effectively doesn't even exist. To have strategy or tactics you need to present players with meaningful decisions that are non-obvious and non-arbitrary.iruul said:Also, instead of just having a "best" spell, there could be spells strategically useful in certain situation.
-
I would make a distinction between tactics and strategy here, Scott.
I think these things may class as "tactics", though I agree the term "strategy" most certainly does not apply.
For example, read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_tactics -
If you honestly have to think about whether or not to cast the fire spell on the ice monster, as opposed to the ice spell, then these games are clearly up your alley. ;^)lackofcheese said:I think these things may class as "tactics", though I agree the term "strategy" most certainly does not apply.
-
Y'know, honestly, while I liked the Diablo games, this trailer didn't excite me that much. It looks cool, sure, and every now and again I feel that need to play an old hack 'n slash, but it really seemed like just the same old stuff again.
And this is coming from a WoW player.
Seriously. -
Well, I wasn't really taking Scott's example directly; you could pull a better one out, but I have to say that the way I (and, I think, I am not alone here) interpret the term "tactics", a game consisting solely of tactics is likely not one I'd play...Rym said:If you honestly have to think about whether or not to cast the fire spell on the ice monster, as opposed to the ice spell, then these games are clearly up your alley. ;^)
Some things that are completely straightforward are often still called tactics; the page on chess tactics corroborates such a meaning. -
In case you haven't heard it there is interesting Diablo III news:
1) Game cannot be played offline, it can only be played while player is constantly connected to the internet.
2) Mods are prohibited.
3) There will be an in-game auction house where players can buy items from other players using in-game currency or real world currency.
In the news bits I've seen they've tried to explain away #1 as a player ease of use thing. Saying that if you'd played offline they couldn't let you take that character online because they couldn't guarantee you hadn't used a mod or cheated, so if you wanted to play online you'd have to make a new character and start from scratch. But really #1 exists for two reason: to prevent piracy, and because of #3. Additionally mods being prohibited also exists because of #3, because they need to make sure that players are not cheating to make fake items, or to farm really good items to sell in the store, so they can make money.
Now what they should be doing is letting you play offline, but not being able to port that character over to online, and throwing up a lot of warnings saying that you aren't able to use any of the online features, blah blah blah.
Now I guess I'll get to the big one, which is #3. Which I don't see as a bad thing at all, because (how soon we forget) Diablo II had a black market on eBay where players sold items for real money, and you couldn't exactly guarantee that you would either get the item you bought, or if it wasn't just created by the seller using a hack. So what they are doing is taking something that existed, legitimizing it and controlling it so that the average player can use it (and not have to worry about getting cheat out of their money, or getting a fake item.)
Blizzard is also going to be taking a little bit on each transaction (which eBay/Paypal would be doing too,) but my hope is that with this alternate revenue source that perhaps they will release the game for like $40 or less (I think $20 would be ideal,) but I wouldn't hold my breath on that. -
Dear Runic Games: Please make Torchlight 2 just a tad scarier and a little less cartoonish, then give it a nice gothic gloss. Then you can replace Diablo altogether. I will give you moneys.
-
Also goldfarmers can now flood the market selling their gear cheaper than ever. If they were going to do something, they should have just had an official gold selling service instead.Kiey said:Which I don't see as a bad thing at all, because (how soon we forget) Diablo II had a black market on eBay where players sold items for real money, and you couldn't exactly guarantee that you would either get the item you bought, or if it wasn't just created by the seller using a hack. So what they are doing is taking something that existed, legitimizing it and controlling it so that the average player can use it (and not have to worry about getting cheat out of their money, or getting a fake item.)
-
I predict Torchlight 2 will probably do as well as Diablo III simply because it won't have that kind of bullshit in it.
-
How exactly is it bullshit? It's not like you have to use the auction house, and it's not like you can only spend real money in the auction house. Additionally it is first and foremost a single player/co-operative game, so it's not like it will somehow ruin the competitive balance of the single player game.Apreche said:I predict Torchlight 2 will probably do as well as Diablo III simply because it won't have that kind of bullshit in it.
-
Imagine going to the store to buy a sudoku puzzle book. There's a guy standing there who will solve half of every puzzle for you for $5. That's some fucked up shit right there.Kiey said:How exactly is it bullshit? It's not like you have to use the auction house, and it's not like you can only spend real money in the auction house. Additionally it is first and foremost a single player/co-operative game, so it's not like it will somehow ruin the competitive balance of the single player game.
Now it gets even crazier. You buy a big sudoku book, and you and your friend are going to work on it together during your long road trip. He pays an extra $10, and now his half of the book is already solved. WTF?
Now you see some other guy with no job. He buys the sudoku book, solves the whole thing with extreme time and effort. Then he sells the already completed puzzle book to someone else for $50! Then the company that makes the books takes a cut and he's left with $40!
That kind of environment changes the psychology of everyone involved. Everyone ends up in a fucked up crazy land where nothing makes sense. I'll be really interested to see how the player community behaves over time compared to Torchlight community.
And all that is for some games where all you do is click repeatedly on monsters as numbers go up. There's even less going on in Diablo than in WoW. I can't even imagine a game where you do less other than Progress Quest. At least the other games where you walk around and hit things might have some action elements, like Bastion with it's timed blocking, or Magicka with its creative spell casting and humor.
I'm just waiting for some game company to actually release a skinner box without any disguise on it. It will just be a vending machine. You put in a dollar and a random candy comes out. Come on Jolly Rancher! -
So, if I get the Most Epic Boots of Whale, the "rarest item in the game", do I have to file that on my tax return?
-
Well you did just "create" wealth ... kinda ... If you sell it one would have to say yes.Andrew said:So, if I get the Most Epic Boots of Whale, the "rarest item in the game", do I have to file that on my tax return?
If I build a car in my backyard I don't have to tell anyone about it unless I sell it or I try to drive it on public roads. -
Scott, your analogies are a little weird. Regardless while I agree that from a game balance/design stand point it's completely nutso bonkers. However I think that there is something to be said for what the player wants to do. If a person doesn't have time to level up their character to level 100, and get all the gear, but they want to experience that part of the game should we say "No, you didn't put in the time like everyone else did." Or do you come up with a way to let them play that part of the game.
While initially I was more on the side of they should put in their time like everyone else, as I've actually started to make games, I've begun to shift the other way. Why punish someone who wants to play your game, but doesn't have the time to? Granted that using real money is perhaps not the most elegant solution to this, but I think it's intent is try to prevent too much abuse of the system by tying it to a real cost to the player. Such that only those who don't wish to put in the time can spend money to accomplish the same thing.
League of Legends does this rather well, where you can purchase new characters for you to be able to play as. You can purchase them either with real money, or by playing the game you earn in game currency that you can use to unlock them. -
Paying to get items isn't playing the game at all. Why do they even get the game if they don't have time (or will) to actually play it?Kiey said:If a person doesn't have time to level up their character to level 100, and get all the gear, but they want to experience that part of the game should we say "No, you didn't put in the time like everyone else did." Or do you come up with a way to let them play that part of the game.
EDIT: Also, doesn't this make Diabo III officially online gambling? Tying real world value to stochastic based functions (item drops) makes Diablo III a themed casino. -
Why does it matter? If someone wants to pay money rather then spend time, and them doing that has absolutely no effect on anyone else's experience playing the game, then what's the problem?Andrew said:
Paying to get items isn't playing the game at all. Why do they even get the game if they don't have time (or will) to actually play it?Kiey said:If a person doesn't have time to level up their character to level 100, and get all the gear, but they want to experience that part of the game should we say "No, you didn't put in the time like everyone else did." Or do you come up with a way to let them play that part of the game.
Perhaps they shouldn't be buying the game in the first place, but they have, and maybe we should accommodate them so that maybe the next time they buy a game maybe they put in the time. Instead of scaring them off by making the barrier to entry for them (seemingly) too high. -
Because it eventually effects the players who don't want to spend for items. Drops will be balanced in different ways, they aren't going to be able to reset ladders because "ZOMG they got rid of my $20 character", and eventually certain items will only be available for those who pay. It's nice to say this money system won't effect those who don't want to pay, but I have yet to see it actually come true.Kiey said:Why does it matter? If someone wants to pay money rather then spend time, and them doing that has absolutely no effect on anyone else's experience playing the game, then what's the problem?
-
I don't like real money transactions in games that are not free to play. The game is also going to have some kind of pvp ranked mode which means I hope you are ready to spend some cash to be the best. :|
-
If you want to make the most moneys possible, absolutely do what Blizzard is doing. There is no question they are maximizing profits.
You do bring up a good point though. Someone paid for your game. Let's say you don't want to be an asshole and charge them real money for items, DLC, etc. They paid for a game, they should have a right to experience the entire game that they paid for, regardless of their time investment. What do you do? If it's a multiplayer game it would be unfair to give out advantages to different players. But in a single player game, what does it matter?
What does it matter indeed. If I buy a DVD I can skip to the end and watch the last five minutes. If I buy a book, I can read the words in any order. Nothing at all forces me to experience it in any particular order. So why don't single player video games, where it doesn't fucking matter, let you cheat? Civilization 2 let you cheat. It had a cheat menu, but your final score didn't count if you used it. Everyone could experience the entire game with minimal time investment. You could see every wonder video and use every unit no matter your skill level. Doom and Doom 2 also let you cheat. Even if you sucked and couldn't take out a cacodemon with a shotgun, you could still see the entire game with god mode, all weapons, unlimited ammo. You could even see every secret in the game with IDCLIP. What was wrong with that in a single player game? Even Valve has sv_cheat if you want to use it when VAC is not in effect.
What if in a purely single player game, such as Bastion (on my mind since I just beat it), everything was unlocked from the get go? I had the option to go through the game normally if I so desired, but I also had the option to cheat. I could set my level to any level. I could get all the items immediately. I could turn on invincible mode. I could go to any stage in any order, and watch any part of the plot. What would be the harm in that? It would take relatively little development effort. I paid for the game. It's not multiplayer, so why can't I play it how I want? Why don't single player JRPGs let me turn off the random encounters? It's a single player game.
Sudoku books were my example because they have solution tables in the back. It's stupid to pay someone to solve them for you because you can just look in the back. The point is that you are then just cheating yourself. But how many people who buy Sudoku books actually just copy from the back to the front without trying to solve the puzzles? I'm sure some might get a hint or two when the going gets tough, but I imagine most do the puzzles legitimately or not at all. Yet, a puzzle book that charged an extra fee for the solutions would be very unpopular. You need those to check to make sure your solution is correct. After I beat a game legitimately, I might want to beat it again while cheating to quickly see all the secrets I missed.
How about Nintendo with their Donkey Kong auto-win thing? Remember that? It was quite controversial when it first came out. If someone uses that you would definitely look down on them, just as you look down on someone who just copies from the back of the puzzle book. That doesn't mean it's wrong for that to be an option.
Also, if more games did this, GameFAQs would disappear. -
Andrew said:
Paying to get items isn't playing the game at all. Why do they even get the game if they don't have time (or will) to actually play it?
I would have asked the same question until about 3 years when when i began working at Blizzard. Now, please do not tie anything I say here to Blizzard. This is all personal opinion.
There is a subset of gamer who wants to have the best gear at *any* cost. Be it paying some Chinese gold farmer/item seller, building a bot to "grind" for you, having a family member play your account for you, the list goes on. Those people exist. As much as I personally loathe the microtransaction model, I'm slowly coming to accept is powers as both a lure for players into your game and a money maker for companies. All any company with microtransactions is doing is opening up a revenue stream and illegitimizing the assholes who want to ride for free.
What I don't agree with is some other "company" riding coat tails of others work (a la WoW gold sellers) to create their own "industry". That's equivalent to what Scott has said about phone apps. Do something cool and the makers of the device crush your app and then incorporate it into the device as basic UI. I think the die is cast with WoW. I don't see the companies stance on real world currencies for in game items changing. Moving forward, though? Why not. More money for us, better experiences for the customers who are willing to pay. I'm not so myopic as so say these things shouldn't exist. It's clear they do and aren't going away. Why not enjoy the ride and make a lil more profit? -
Going along with the comment I just made. If it's a single player game, and you let people cheat, there would also be no room for gold farmers. How could they sell items to people who could get them just by cheating?Dromaro said:What I don't agree with is some other "company" riding coat tails of others work (a la WoW gold sellers) to create their own "industry". That's equivalent to what Scott has said about phone apps. Do something cool and the makers of the device crush your app and then incorporate it into the device as basic UI. I think the die is cast with WoW. I don't see the companies stance on real world currencies for in game items to change. Moving forward, though? Why not. More money for us, better experiences for the customers who are willing to pay. I'm not so myopic as so say these things shouldn't exist. It's clear they do and aren't going away. Why not enjoy the ride and make a lil more profit?
Also, I would like to point out that gold farming only works in games of no skill. If you have a game of skill, like Counter-Strike, what can someone possibly sell you? Blizzard doesn't have these problems in their skill game, which is Starcraft. They only have these problems of gold farming and micro-transactions in their no-skill skinner boxes. It's a game where victory IS time investment. The real real solution is to not make that kind of game in the first place. Of course, then you wouldn't get mad rich, which is their primary goal. -
Completely anonymous real money transfer via video game items: Ultimate money laundering system?
-
It's not anonymous though. Your Battle.net account is tied to a real person. It would also be really hard to make it completely anonymous. At some point you have to put the dirty money into the system, which comes from a bank account or credit card that is not anonymous.Andrew said:Completely anonymous real money transfer via video game items: Ultimate money laundering system?
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Discussions8,433
- Anime378
- Art!137
- Board Games134
- Contests10
- Conventions201
- Everything Else3,434
- Flamewars209
- Forum Game59
- Forum Stuff88
- GeekNights670
- Manga/Comics189
- Movies174
- News141
- Politics302
- Role Playing Games78
- Science36
- Suggestions72
- Technology1,122
- Video Games999