Time Capsule from PoE Closed Beta -- a classic PoE vs D3 thread circa 2012
|
Diablo 3 did a lot of thing wrong.
One of biggest is that it's not fun anymore to lvl. After you get skills you need you are done. Nothing more to wait for, all is automatically done by computer becouse it thinks you're too stupid to do it yourself (or is it maybe blizzard that thinks that). They succeeded to kill one of the funniest part for me in any rpg game. Its just boring. Also replayability from d2 comes from trying different build, and finding items for that build. Now, there are no builds you just change them on fly. WTF? And they call it it a diablo 3...boring. Good that killing is fun... for some time, when you can see what is hapening on screen if you have 2 players playing together. No wonder there is limit of only 4 players with no mercenaries. |
|
|
Talk about "putting your money where your mouth is"! You wrote a very compelling post and then followed it up buy purchasing the $1000 support package. That's some pretty concrete belief in this game.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. |
|
|
THIS game has alot more POTENTIAL then Diablo III, but for now Diablo III is alot better ( NOT LOOKING AT BETA ).
What I really like about Diablo III that dieing in hardcore really means dieing, not reviving as jesus. And that the endgame is really hard, unlike "oneshoteverythinginwithaof" XD Think about the adreline when you are a level 60 hardcore character fighting another level 60 hardcore character in arena :) ( They said that dieing in pvp in hardcore will be the same as dieing in pve in hardcore ) |
|
" Dying in Hardcore gets you sent to Default league, it's the same as dying and it's worse than dying for some. More leagues are planned in which you will have effective character death. |
|
|
Don't mind my ramblings, but I wish to express my discontent with Blizzard and D3 as a whole...
First off, my first spiral of disappointment with Blizzard was with WC3. I liked it at first but felt it was not of that same excellence that WC2 and WC1 had. Now yes, they were very primitive RTS' and WC3 tried to expand/innovate on a formula. I just felt that the "war" part was lost due to the discouragement of massing a lot of units and having huge clashes. Some people love that and saw it as more skill-based. I saw WC3 as the first glimpse of what Blizzard had been trying to turn the WC name into ever since my Diablo 1 game catalogue had the cancelled "Warcraft: Lord of the Clans"; a more adventure-style game so they aren't directly competing with Starcraft/themselves. That's fine and good and WoW was Blizzard's star killer app. I applaud them for really shaping the MMO genre in their own way. I played WoW for a number of years and I never liked the art style too much but also tolerated it due to them wanting everyone on every computer able to play it and to be friendly for the whole family. That, again, is fine. Diablo was the franchise with the burning inverted Crosses and blood-red pentagrams anyways. Fast forward to '08-now, and you can imagine my disappointment with D3 as a whole. I think that for many people now, D3 is going to be the first mark of disappointment for Blizzard and they may slowly descend further. Many people see Mists of Pandaria or Cataclysm as disappointments from WoW expansion greatness (then again, how can you follow up the highly followed and hyped Lich King storyline? Blizzard blew their finale on their third chapter, pretty much) but will now see from Diablo 3's existence that they're beginning to lose their Midas touch. There are more complaints than usual. More causes for concern than what is usual for a Blizzard game. While many Blizzard supporters will attempt to sway doubters to their faith in the company I simply cannot do so until I see it all unfold before me and until I am proven wrong I will likely keep to my viewpoints. I already posted earlier here about how the RMAH could cause a lot of trouble if Blizzard goes patch happy. Everybody has their say on how tame the game's art direction/world feels now. We get that, I'm sure. What I'm more concerned with right now is how there seems to be conflictions in design ideology. The past month there has been huge hyping from Blizzard representatives about how Inferno - the successor to Hell - is going to be absolutely grueling to beat. The difficulty will completely ramp up in the later acts to where the game feels like it hates you. I'm fine with that, I love that idea. This sense of progression, coexisting with the addictive quality of item gathering, is ideal. I applaud that. What I hate, is that I don't need to play Inferno. At all. In fact, there's little reason to play the game much at all. Why? The RMAH. I ask you, what the point is of having this highly difficult setting when I could play the patient man, play only on Normal or Nightmare, and simply buy Inferno-tier items through the RMAH and then blow through the entire game? I removed what Blizzard is pushing for and that progression is completely invalidated because I have the power of the dollar being my deciding factor towards getting the best in slot item for a Barbarian or not. Where before I felt that sensation of, "If I run Baal just ONE more time, I may get that item. I may even get an item that is of high value I can trade for." That feels removed since I can have the rest of the community do that for me and simply list it on Blizzard's D2Legit interface. Whoops, RMAH, I mean. Blizzard loves interaction amongst players. They push it. Inferno looks to reward teamwork more than agonizing through it alone and you all share MF now for your own separate loot tables when a boss or whatnot dies. Why they would enforce this RMAH system and take away what was one of the most core ways of interaction in Diablo 1/2 is beyond me. The game won't even release with a PVP system intact or PVP allowed in duel form. This all feels like it is stripping away one of those vital organs that made Diablo the decade-long success it is. Now we have something artificial in place, to keep it going, but it is not as good. It disheartens me to see that one of my absolute favourite gaming franchises is having a once highly-anticipated sequel reduced to this empty and void feeling to those in my position. It feels like by Blizzard appealing to a more grand audience they took away what Diablo has always been about, and anybody that has the Prima Diablo 1 guide can back this up: a rogue-like given greater RPG elements, while having fast-paced, Doom-like action. In other words, it's a game for geeky guys that love to spend Saturday nights at home quietly and be rewarded for their dedication by having fantastic items drop. Now it is a game that if you have a credit card, you can just buy your way to victory. A lot of people would say I'm asking for Diablo 2.5 or an "HD Remix." I'm simply asking for Diablo 3. I am looking for Diablo 3 to do what Diablo 2 did and take what Diablo 1 laid the foundation for and improve upon it. Diablo 2 laid out a lot of foundation of its own with Lord of Destruction, Diablo 3 could easily embellish the positives and rid of the negatives and then add greater positives overall. Many of this comes down to this generation's gamer and I hope not to sound elitist but many people cannot fathom why I'd enjoy re-rolling the same class for only going down a different skill tree. I do it because I genuinely enjoy the game in its entirety: from aesthetics of art direction, to the under the hood stuff of the unseen complexity and variables that many people would not get when taking a "point and click" game at face value. Some people cannot grasp this and I hold no sense of superiority over them but I do become (pardon the pun with my name) disillusioned when it is becoming increasingly harder and harder to find games in genres I really like become simplified and in many ways stupified. I say stupified because Blizzard has changed the classic Diablo font to a more "Arial" style since... well, "players got confused between 5 and 6." And that just speaks volumes about the hand-holding I am fed up with as an old-school gamer. Last edited by Disillusioned#1893 on Apr 10, 2012, 8:29:29 PM
|
|
|
Let's see if Diablo 3 ends up on 360/PS3 and that's why they simplified so much during the course of the beta...
| |
" Sorry but people that say this are perhaps the most ignorant of all. They didn't change jack diddly squat when it comes to the gameplay. You can make a 213819381298319823 point skilltree on console just as you can on pc. The only difference from console to pc is the actual gameplay mechanics, and they didn't change those at all. (In fact, given that a lot of skills require specific targets, it's going to be very hard for them to do a good console port) So really, speculate about stuff as much as you want, but not this. ''Stand amongst the ashes of a trillion dead souls and ask the ghosts if honor matters. The silence is your answer.'' IGN: Vaeralyse Last edited by Tagek#6585 on Apr 11, 2012, 2:49:27 AM
|
|
" Diablo 2's replay value never came from rerolling. Unless you consider spending about 5 hours boosting a character 'fun'. The real replayability came from actually using different builds, which diablo 3 actually has more of than D2, and the item hunting. ''Stand amongst the ashes of a trillion dead souls and ask the ghosts if honor matters. The silence is your answer.'' IGN: Vaeralyse Last edited by Tagek#6585 on Apr 11, 2012, 2:51:13 AM
|
|
|
To be fair, PS1 had Diablo 1.
|
|
|
are you guys blind?
D2 skills had lvl requirement just like D3, D2 had runes too, in D3 runes are used to give different enchaments/variations of skills, in D2 all skills at lvl 30 were open and you could potentialy assign 1 skill point to any skill like D3, if D2 had the D3 skill system we could have had build like: A Bash barb A Barb leap A Barb All Masteries fill the list with all the remaing Barb skills and do the same with all the other chars, this is called variation not the 3-4 usual builds |
|
