So i dont get why Diablo 3 "failed"

[Baracuda]

You were scared in D2 since you was just a little nubcake, a 20+ year old player wasn't scared in D2 neither as you now in D3. You grown up, no game can make you be little toad again, atleast not in this genre.

Amnesia could For a while at least.

[Deleted]

For me it was the fact that they promised:
'Inferno mode will only be for a select few, we expect only a few very dedicated players to actually make it through this difficulty'.

1 month later:
'Inferno is too hard, not enough people can reach it, let's nerf the shit out of it'

I don't necessarily mean that this is bad for the game, I just hate it when they don't follow up promises (so kind of just a stupid personal thing). I liked Diablo for a bit. Finished it a couple of times. But when you see lame-ass achievements like: level up TWO sorceresses to level 60 (even though you can just change your skilltree all the time), I was kind of done with it.

[Darksoldierr]

Amnesia could For a while at least.

Yes, but Amnesia is not an action RPG but a horror game, ment to scare you :P

[Damax]

DIablo 3's failure: skills

Diablo 2 skills vs diablo 3

quantity: diablo 2 had more different active skills but no way to alter them slightly (rune)
Diablo 3 has more passive skills but you can only chose 3 while in diablo you could get them all (at a low level skill point)

quality: Diablo 2 leap/charge/teleport feels much more smoother and quick while diablo 3 feels laggy

choice: in diablo 3 you don't make any choice about anything

Diablo 2 had stats, stats requirement for gear. diablo 3 dictate stats while leveling and gearing. leveling up made you feel stronger because of the level increase of your skill and also for your extra stat. in diablo 3 you ding, can't tell a difference from last level and gained a crappy rune for a crappy skill you don't need to think about what to choose you don't have any choice all you have are items which mostlikely sucks if you ain't lucky or rich.


Progress: in diablo 3 I didn't care about leveling up, after lv like 20 you've got skills you plan to use forever and the runes make only a minor change or quality of life but its the same ability. you are limited to 6 while in d2 you were able to have 4 maxed skills and all the others at lv 1 avaible at all time.

Cooldowns: fuck cooldowns really diablo should be about mashing your attack/skills till monsters bite the dust.

no mana for everyone = no skill spamming for everyone you can't just equip a 2% mana leach and bash/guiding arrow all day

only good thing about diablo 3 is the no arrow required for bows imo rest is just garbage. play the story once in normal and stop it there because the rest is just boring without that feel of getting stronger through leveling.

[Jayded1]

In what way was it a fail? By all measurements its was a nearly unparalleled success.

---------- Post added 2013-04-06 at 02:50 PM ----------

For me it was the fact that they promised:
'Inferno mode will only be for a select few, we expect only a few very dedicated players to actually make it through this difficulty'.

1 month later:
'Inferno is too hard, not enough people can reach it, let's nerf the shit out of it'

I don't necessarily mean that this is bad for the game, I just hate it when they don't follow up promises (so kind of just a stupid personal thing). I liked Diablo for a bit. Finished it a couple of times. But when you see lame-ass achievements like: level up TWO sorceresses to level 60 (even though you can just change your skilltree all the time), I was kind of done with it.

They gace more then enough time for the good players to beat it. if you didnt by the time nerfs came, you needed the nerfs.

[Deleted]

In what way was it a fail? By all measurements its was a nearly unparalleled success.

---------- Post added 2013-04-06 at 02:50 PM ----------



They gace more then enough time for the good players to beat it. if you didnt by the time nerfs came, you needed the nerfs.

Congratulations on missing the point entirely. The IDEA was that NOT everyone could beat it, and then they changed their mind saying...aaaaaaaaaaaah well, considering not the WHOLE WORLD can beat the HIGHEST difficulty level...let's nerf it.

If you can't beat a difficulty:
- improve
- play a lower difficulty and stop whining

I'm the first one to admit that I didn't beat inferno at the beginning, but I also don't care, because I realised two things:
- I can only play 1/2h a day, so I don't have time to farm enough gear, allthough I was making progress, slowly
- I'm not a good enough player.

Does that mean I want to be able to beat inferno? Of course I'd like to beat it...but it should still be hard! That's why difficulty levels are there in the first place.

[Redblade]

Where did I say it differed? The guy I initially replied to said that the new D3 class and skill balance is crap, suggesting that the initial D2 balance wasn't, which is false. That was the original discussion.

And yes, it differs, because in D2 in some builds you had literally 1 button to press (conc barb for instance). At least now you have several XD

My Archon Wizard really only wanted 1, the rest was out of necessity. Besides, no one forced you to play those specs, they might have been the most efficient but no one held a gun to your head...

That kind of "depth" means that someone will calculate the optimal graph for skills and everyone and his mum will use it. Some depth.

That some one will make cookie cutter specs does not change the fact that it has depth, but hey, if you know so well do tell what's the best class and spec in PoE...

They gace more then enough time for the good players to beat it. if you didnt by the time nerfs came, you needed the nerfs.

If you needed the nerfs the content wasn't for you in the first place hence there was no need for a nerf, why should the good players lose out on their end game content just so others can be helped through it?

The inability to beat something is what motivates people to get better at it in an attempt to eventually beat the unbeatable, Blizzard has proven time and time again that we don't need to be ambitious with their products any more, with time they will herd us through the "difficulty levels" as if it was content.

[Deleted]

.



If you needed the nerfs the content wasn't for you in the first place hence there was no need for a nerf, why should the good players lose out on their end game content just so others can be helped through it?

The inability to beat something is what motivates people to get better at it in an attempt to eventually beat the unbeatable, Blizzard has proven time and time again that we don't need to be ambitious with their products any more, with time they will herd us through the "difficulty levels" as if it was content.

You managed to say in 4 lines what I tried to say in 10+ in the post above you. Awesome
So, @Jayded1, this is exactly what I meant.

[Grummgug]

I'm sorry I don't get you here. The problem of the old talent system was a) that you couldn't change it before patch 1.12 (?) and b) that because of synergies, you ended up with one main skills and 3 or 4 more maxed to support it. Exceptions were few and far between. Now if THAT is not broken, I don't know what is.

The FASTEST way to lose credibility is to suggest D2 was broken. D2 will go down as one of the most wildly successful PC games of all time. Just don't go there.

[icedwarrior]

The FASTEST way to lose credibility is to suggest D2 was broken. D2 will go down as one of the most wildly successful PC games of all time. Just don't go there.

He wasn't saying the entire game was broken, and "success" doesn't necessarily reflect how "broken" / good / whatever a game is.

[winterfox72]

The reason it failed was because it was basiclly just boring. You can find a hundred other free to play games on line that are way more interesting. Blizzard knew it was boring and sad thats why they gave it away with the annual pass for WOW. The graphics were to boring to be bad, they were just kinda there. The game play was like playing a crappy gameboy color game. The auction house was a load of crap. They stats were jumbled, pointless and so random you couldnt find anything to suit You on the AH even if it was there. I didnt rage quit or slowly get bored. I just logged out and went to bed..Then forgot I even had the game installed.

[Ovacor]

It "failed" to many people because it was NOT what they were expecting it to be. Many people who purchased Diablo 3 had never even touched the Diablo series. I am fairly confident in saying this because of the overall perspective of the game. Of course I am not saying EVERYONE who played Diablo 3 NEVER touched Diablo 1 or 2; however, when you have a large portion of the community finishing the first difficulty and saying, "WAIT! So it's just the same game with three different difficulties? WUT?!", it leads me to believe that these particular people never even bothered researching the game they spent $60 on, let alone played the prequels.

Because of the massive success of World of Warcraft people, for whatever reason, were expecting World of Diablocraft. A massive, interactive world where you can leave the "main city" and find your friends killing demons out in the wilds. Of course this was not the case. Many people had a difficult time understanding the whole concept of the game servers. Which, in all fairness, the way public games are setup are completely stupid. As ancient as it was, if they would have just kept Diablo 2's server selection screen I believe the game would have been a little less confusing to some people, and a little more helpful to the veteran players. Honestly what's easier than logging in and finding a game pertaining to the goal that YOU had when you just logged in?

In my opinion the above is what lead to the overall poor reception of the game. Those, in my opinion, are the reasons as to why the game didn't have the same success as a game like...World of Warcraft. This is because it's not World of Warcraft. It was never meant to be World of Warcraft. Yet people expected it to be World of Warcraft...and here we are.

As someone who played the living hell (pun intended) out of Diablo 2 what killed the game for me was the currency and the Auction House. Honest to god if it wasn't for Gold being such a ridiculously BIG factor in Diablo 3 I would be playing the game right now. The fact of the matter is that Diablo 3 is a game where you are given two choices: spend A LOT...A LOT of time grinding for items that will not sell for much on the auction house, and eventually get a piece of gear. Or you could drop $10 and buy your way through Inferno. That right there is massively unappealing to me and many others who were dedicated to the Diablo franchise.

These are just my opinions, I still enjoy the game in moderation. I have trouble calling it a failure considering I do thoroughly enjoy playing it, but this is after a year or so of it being released. They have made some extremely good changes to the game...changes that should have been a part of the game from the beginning. At the end of the day you either like the game because of what it is, a hack and slash dungeon crawler that is purely grind based. Or you absolutely hate it. I think both opinions are justified in their own way.

[Xerra]

I would have liked a story that was about my character instead of just being the story 'helper' Marius from D2 got more screen time then all the d3 chars combined. Not to mention the story for me was sadly predictable and boring. Yeah seeing Diablo pop out of Leah was sorta cool but overall as much of a die hard fan of D2 I am I really don't see myself purchasing the D3 expansion ever.

[Tomana]

The FASTEST way to lose credibility is to suggest D2 was broken. D2 will go down as one of the most wildly successful PC games of all time. Just don't go there.

D2 was not broken, but it had several flaws. People just forget that it took one expansion and several patches to produce a top notch game in 1.10+
And the tree system was one of those flaws. By the way, synergies were not there at first, and had to be introduced in 1.10 as a bandaid to correct another flaw.

[Deleted]

Many of the things that people liked about D2 didn't come before expansion years after... people just forgot it or didn't care because then it was a good game

you need to remember that D3 isn't supposed to be another D2 it's supposed to be a completely new Diablo game

They tried out some new stuff like the AH etc. and it didn't work out.. but they know that now for other games they will produce in there future, the game was a huge success and still have 1 mil regular players which i think is a lot since most "populare" games today isn't even close

[Redblade]

you need to remember that D3 isn't supposed to be another D2 it's supposed to be a completely new Diablo game

Source for that...

If it wasn't supposed to be an evolution on D2 then perhaps they shouldn't have called it D3, just sayin'.

[Deleted]

My Archon Wizard really only wanted 1, the rest was out of necessity. Besides, no one forced you to play those specs, they might have been the most efficient but no one held a gun to your head...



That some one will make cookie cutter specs does not change the fact that it has depth, but hey, if you know so well do tell what's the best class and spec in PoE...



If you needed the nerfs the content wasn't for you in the first place hence there was no need for a nerf, why should the good players lose out on their end game content just so others can be helped through it?

The inability to beat something is what motivates people to get better at it in an attempt to eventually beat the unbeatable, Blizzard has proven time and time again that we don't need to be ambitious with their products any more, with time they will herd us through the "difficulty levels" as if it was content.

But in todays world there isn't many hardcore players left but tons and tons of casual players.. would you make a game that sells 12 million copies but only 2% of these players will ever complete inferno?? the other 98% will in most cases just quit the game since it's "too hard" and that will just ruin the game for the company who made it

---------- Post added 2013-04-07 at 05:48 PM ----------

Source for that...

If it wasn't supposed to be an evolution on D2 then perhaps they shouldn't have called it D3, just sayin'.

Jay wilson and other have said this often.. it's not another Diablo 2 game but a new game in the diablo universe why they called it D3 i do not know

[Redblade]

But in todays world there isn't many hardcore players left but tons and tons of casual players.. would you make a game that sells 12 million copies but only 2% of these players will ever complete inferno?? the other 98% will in most cases just quit the game since it's "too hard" and that will just ruin the game for the company who made it

There is just as many hardcore players as there ever was, probably more as the whole gaming audience has increased over the years.

And to answer your question, I wouldn't make a difficulty setting aimed for one group of my customers to later take it away from them to use as hand me down to another group no. Same as if I was designing WoW I'd make heroic raiding remain heroic, it's not content, it's a difficulty setting of the same content as LFR and Normal, but then again I'm the guy who would rather make a awesome game for 500k people and make ends meet, than a mediocre game for 12 million and make a huge profit with my core player base despising me for it. The former would serve me better in the long run anyway, something Blizzard forgot along the way as they turned their backs on the players that made them what they are.

Jay wilson and other have said this often.. it's not another Diablo 2 game but a new game in the diablo universe why they called it D3 i do not know

My point still stands, if what you're saying is true.

[Leeroyjgibbs]

Diablo 3 isn't a fail for me, I got it for free. Granted there were some glaring issues at launch that eventually made me stop playing. However, all the changes they've made have really changed the game for me and I'm almost as hooked as I first was.

I still enjoy Torchlight 2 more but D3 is much, much better and I look forward to playing it every day.

[xenogear3]

The game "forces" you to play 3 times to reach level 50.
Then you have to play 1 more time to finish Inferno.

Don't you feel it is odd?