For those who say D3 has no end game

[traen]

Can you tell me what was the end game in D2. And how is it different?

I think that you should read people's posts more carefully.

There are people who say that there is no end game in d3. And they are obviously correct.
And there are people who say that d2 was cool. And obviously they are correct as well.

But they are different people.
Or maybe they are writing it in different posts about different things.

What you wrote - "D3 has no end game but d2 had" does not make any sense. And I doubt that there actually was someone who wrote something as stupid as that. You just made it up.

[waddlez]

I would love to see you killing meph 10 times in 15 minutes. As it took about 5 minutes to find him. Unless you used a map hack?

even without MH you can tele to meph from wp in under a min and killing him took under a min...

[Angarin]

I don't know how people say pvp doesn't exist in d3 compared to d2.

The dueling is the exact same, you can still retreat like a coward through a portal in d2, just differently in d3. Its in a secluded location, you both have to agree to PvP, so its not ganking. If you want ganking, roll a 90 on WoW and go to duskwood.

The PvP between the 2 is practically the same unless I'm not aware of some pvp channel or tournaments that were held. I thought they were adding some arena's similar to wow arena's in d3? The end game right now is pretty bleh to most, but thats an arpg for you unless you play PoE. RoS will have alot of end-game though by the looks of it.

[Coldkil]

a perpetual grind for greater stats.

That's the reason i played the hell out of D2 and bought D3.

[traen]

I don't know how people say pvp doesn't exist in d3 compared to d2.

Well, ofc it does not exist in d3 compared to d2.

PvP in d2 was actually a viable gameplay.
In d3... pvp builds? pvp gear? Never heard about it. Take this subforum. Was there even a topic "which class is the best for pvp?" No one cares, you know.


You can't compare d2 gameplay with d3 gameplay directly. The world changed. Thousands of games were released since then.
D2 pvp was well.. bad, but it was all we had, there were no alternatives but mortal combat and tekken.
It's 2013 now. Thousands of new games were released. With new graphics, new game mechanics, new gameplay. We have wow arena for 8 years. Pretty balanced and interesting. A good example of how d3 pvp could look like if developers put some effort into it. We had d3 pvp arena demo. Pretty cool one, everyone liked it. Where is it now?

Yes, d3 pvp is as bad as d2 pvp. But people just don't want to play the 13-years old pvp. Why to waste time if you have games with better pvp available?
That's why pvp in d3 does not exist(is not popular), while in d2 it was pretty common.

Imagine if intel released a single core 450MHz processor in 2013 after 13 years break.
And fun boys were saying "But hey, it's exactly the same as the one I had back in 1999, even slightly better!" Yes. It is exactly the same and maybe even better. But who would buy it nowadays?

[Coldkil]

PvP in d2 was actually a viable gameplay.

Gameplay for sure (had quite a lot of fun with it), but what do you intend for "viable"? just out of curiosity.

[Frozen Death Knight]

Well, ofc it does not exist in d3 compared to d2.

PvP in d2 was actually a viable gameplay.
In d3... pvp builds? pvp gear? Never heard about it. Take this subforum. Was there even a topic "which class is the best for pvp?" No one cares, you know.

Things have changed from what is expected from a PvP mode than what exists in Diablo 2. Diablo 3 and Diablo 2 duelling are pretty much equal, with some exceptions being the non-ganking policy in D3. D2's PvP mode simply does not cut it today if the game got released in this day and age, so the only reason why D2's PvP still works is because the people who still play D2 have the right mindset for it.

Pretty sad when thinking about it, but what can you do. There are a lot of decent PvP games out there, as you said.

[Skorpionss]

Lol @ people saying pvp in diablo 2 was viable... if by viable you mean broken then yeah I guess I agree...

And I don't really understand people that were expecting any endgame... name me 1 single ARPG with endgame content that isn't an MMO. It's the same everywhere, grind gear... At least diablo has Ubers now so that's 1 form of endgame... since it's not available at lower levels, Paragon farming is also a form of endgame... it's like people expected raid bosses and shit ...

[Angarin]

PvP in diablo 2 from my memory was someone camping the entrance or the waypoint.

Then after that it was just...

Hammerdin spamming hammers

Or...sorc spamming blizz

Or necro spamming bone spirit/spear

I could go on, PvP hasn't really changed between the games, the only thing different is that now in d3 both players have to willingly commit to the session now.


You can't expect everything to be the same, its been a decade.


When WoW first came out, nobody would've guessed we'd have arenas.

[Beazy]

There was dueling, D3 has no PvP whatsoever.

I dont think you know what youre talking about. PvP has been in D3 for like 6 months. Its not team death match, but its the same PvP D2 had.

[Zdrasti]

My question is why people focus on end game as opposed to the game? The journey is more important than the destination.

[Angarin]

My question is why people focus on end game as opposed to the game? The journey is more important than the destination.

Alot would argue different, but most people came from WoW and WoW literally is about the end-game. Thats what they produce more content for than anything else.

End-game in arpgs are a little different though.

[Kelimbror]

End-game in arpgs are a little different though.

People just think they are. In terms of progression it's the exact same. You kill things repetitively in order to get better gear. The diversity of activities that it is framed in isn't present in most ARPGs, which Diablo obviously has struggled with and seems to be headed in a good direction.

If anything, MMO's have just trained players to expect a diverse array of activities to continue playing their game of choice. I don't think that is a concept that should be limited to MMOs, so it is good to see it affecting other genres.

[Bigbamboozal]

Exactly, it's not an MMO - you do the storyline, kill the big bad guy - the end.

---------- Post added 2012-08-21 at 05:58 PM ----------



Me neither honestly.

Given the longevity of diablo in general, and the expanse of warcraft and wow, I guess I was just plain old hoping for more.
I dunno what, but just...a bit more, more length, more intricate design, I dunno, I guess I've been spoiled by mmo's in a sense, and although I DO understand d3 isn't an mmo, I had hoped it would lean a little harder to pure win like wow as the evolution of warcraft was.
And yah, I know, that is a LOT to ask.

And on that note, anyone know if 'garden warfare' will come to pc and other platforms other then suxbox eleventy-seven?

I only mention in b/c it looks like it might deliver that 'more' on plants vs zombies, much in the way wow delivered mass 'moreness' coming out of warcraft, if you follow.

[mvaliz]

They didn't build on anything in 12 years of development time. It's an inferior version of a game that came out 12 years ago. That IS the problem.

This is something I've been saying for a while now.

There's a 12 year gap between D2 and D3

There's an 11 year gap between Castlevania 1 (NES) and Castlevania: Symphony of the Night (PS1).

Standards seriously shift in games with each new generation of gamers (there are 12 year olds today playing games who weren't even sperm when D2 was at its height), and the older generation expect their sequels to evolve.

You're trying to pitch an outdated idea for "endgame" (Try hard mode! Repeat the linear game over and over again) for an audience who grew up on Elder Scrolls and Grand Theft Auto. That's NOT "Endgame" they've come to know and love.

D3's endgame probably would be considered a masterpiece... 12 years ago. =/

[Deleted]

Can you tell me what was the end game in D2. And how is it different?

There wasn't any end game in Diablo 2, you just had to keep killing bosses to get better. Diablo 3 plays pretty much the same.

HOWEVER, Diablo 3 is a new game and came out in 2013, not 2000. Gaming as a whole has changed, people's expectations have changed. Releasing Diablo 2 with updated graphics today wouldn't make it a popular game. If the players expect end game and Blizzard agrees then there should be end game. There's no need to to get snappy at people for having this expectation.

- - - Updated - - -

D3's gameplay probably would be considered a masterpiece... 12 years ago. =/

Yeah, that's basically the point. Just because Diablo 2 didn't have end game doesn't mean Diablo 3 shouldn't have it either. It should, times have changed.

[Tekkommo]

End game is a gear grind and it's boring as hell, since the step up in difficulty brings nothing new but harder hitting abilities and more hp.

It was fun at first, but I had to force myself to finish it on Inferno when I played it.

Can't speak for the PVP side, not tried it.

[Video Games]

This thread was made over a year ago. Funnily enough, diablo 3 is still shitty. Good times.

[Abysal]

People just think they are. In terms of progression it's the exact same. You kill things repetitively in order to get better gear. The diversity of activities that it is framed in isn't present in most ARPGs, which Diablo obviously has struggled with and seems to be headed in a good direction.

If anything, MMO's have just trained players to expect a diverse array of activities to continue playing their game of choice. I don't think that is a concept that should be limited to MMOs, so it is good to see it affecting other genres.

It's not just that really.

WoW is small loot table. Upgrades guaranteed.

D3 is enormous loot table can kill the same things 5000 times and not see real upgrades.

It's a question of motivation and time investment. If your main enjoyment in playing D3 is progressing your character, you are a glutton for punishment unless you want to play the auction house.

You have to get pleasure out of repeatedly killing the same things over and over and over again, thousands of times, if D3 is going to be the game for you. Getting a lucky gear upgrade needs to be nothing more than a nice added perk, not your motivation for playing the game or you'll pull your hair out.

[Kelimbror]

It's not just that really.

WoW is small loot table. Upgrades guaranteed.

D3 is enormous loot table can kill the same things 5000 times and not see real upgrades.

D3 functions the same since it has an AH. Additionally the time required to get loot is comparable since you have it dropping every step you take as opposed to WoW where you get one shot a week and still can come up empty. To match the situation, you would need to be playing on a self found character and not looking for the upgradiest of upgrades. You start off with whatever gear you leveled with, get a few drops, get a few more, etc, etc.

WoW functions primarily the same. Granted there are avenues where it has diversified currency towards guaranteed gear, but this is what gold functions for in D3. It's just not what people like to hear, even though it's the same situation. Again, it's the diversity of the activities that presents the real problems.

D3 needed more variety of things to do. It has gotten some and will be getting more. It looks awfully good on paper, so we'll see how it pans out.

PS - though I don't disagree with you fundamentally, as ARPGs are designed more towards people who want to grind by killing mobs. That's the historic view, but fortunately/unfortunately not going to be the lone principle going forward. While it will be a core tenet of gameplay, the audience for those games today aren't satisfied with generic and invariable experiences.