How would you rather see content added to the game?

[Lysah]

I think the issue with D3 is that Blizzard is no longer invested in titles that cannot give them returns. At this point, they are probably well aware that they can sell expansions with the promise of fixing all your problems and making your dreams come true, even if the actual content is shallow. Their marketing team is that good and their fans are still that loyal. So, why put out effort on a game that doesn't have a sub or a cash shop? They tried the RMAH and it sucked, and as surprised as I am that they removed it, they have no reason to continue to support the game now.

Let's not forget that they are the stepchild of the famous Kotick now, a man who has made a legacy out of remaking games with very little changes to re-sell to fans over and over again. He has explicitly stated he has no interest in titles that cannot be manipulated for long term gains, and his ideology has very obviously seeped into the management of Blizzard, in my opinion. D3 gets minimal effort because it gives Blizzard minimal profits, that just makes business sense and Blizzard's job really is not to make a great game, it's to make a great profit. While we'd like to think those go hand in hand, minimizing cost is part of the equation as well.

Call me skeptical, but you can look at the other titles in the genre and see how popular it is, overall. PoE has a fair amount of players but still boasts player records that are well under 10% of the supposed Diablo player base, and I would assume D3 isn't any better after this long. I would honestly love to pay a sub for D3 and see it become half as good as D2 was, but I just don't think this genre is big enough for anyone to care. Despite how good they make the game, I think Blizzard knows their fans will get bored of it in two months anyway and go back to WoW or their other 20 little games they're spitting out.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

Kotick doesn't really have much to do with Blizzard's games though. I think it's just bitter D2 fans. Look D3 in it's current iteration isn't perfect by any means. It needs fixes. Fel I think it needs some customization stuff and added features.

[Deleted]

More frequent patches would be better. Just because I like getting new stuff fast

[Fencers]

Scaling difficulty existed since D1.

One can not freely select the difficulty of their choice and have the game scale to meet their level relative to difficulty mode in Diablo 1.

Show me how this worked in D1. It is unknown to me and what you might be speaking on is not analogous to the method of difficulty selection in D3 currently.

Hotjoin Multiplayer existed since D1.

Not in the clean, drop-in/drop-out manner of D3 attached to all secondary systems that support it- toasts, notifications, global FL, in-game chat functionality, etc.

Linear campaign existed since D1.

Linear/free exploratory modes. I was grouping them together. I don't know of any ARPG pre-D3 that had a linear story driven campaign mode that opened to a tiered exploration mode.

For example, in Path of Exile you have to play the campaign every single time. Through each difficulty in a tiered fashion. In Torchlight there is no free exploration mode, only post-completion activities in the same game mode.

Personalized looting was torchlight.

Which had no multiplayer. All loot is personalized in single player.

D3 was first to market with a personalized looting system relevant to multiplayer. In particular hotjoin, easily executable MP with any desperate number of players.

Since then games like the aforementioned Path of Exile implemented similar secondary systems.

Compact skill bars.... uh.... whats not compact about all the skill bars in all the ARPGs out there?

Titan Quest had like an MMO hotbar. Grim Dawn has a 1-12 bar. D2 used a clumsy F1-X system, Torchlight 1 and 2 used greater than 10 hotbar slots, etc.

D3's design is focused on an immediate small set of skills at any given point. Most ARPGs from D1 to Dungeon Siege to modern titles like Torchlight have comparatively larger skill bars without any design emphasis on a limited slot skill bar. D3 does currently.

[Lysah]

Hell, what did you do in D2? Hit max level and then chain run Mephisto/Baal umpteen times to get some drops so you could run them even faster? At least D3 has the Adventure Mode thing and Greater Rift progression.

It's not about what you did, it's about how you did it. The depth of D2's character customization compared to D3 is just a joke, I can't even begin to explain the differences because I wouldn't know where to start. And, in spite of everything D2 did better, and the fact that the D3 devs CONTINUE to REPEATEDLY copy all of the features of D2 they should've had from the start, they still have the guts to say that items like Enigma were bad design and not fun.

Kotick doesn't really have much to do with Blizzard's games though.

Can you prove this?

[Deleted]

More than 1 legit build for high level Demon hunters.

[Yriel]

D3's design is focused on an immediate small set of skills at any given point. Most ARPGs from D1 to Dungeon Siege to modern titles like Torchlight have comparatively larger skill bars without any design emphasis on a limited slot skill bar. D3 does currently.

Yes, thank you playstation.
I don't see what is positive about that.

[Orange Joe]

It's not about what you did, it's about how you did it. The depth of D2's character customization compared to D3 is just a joke, I can't even begin to explain the differences because I wouldn't know where to start. And, in spite of everything D2 did better, and the fact that the D3 devs CONTINUE to REPEATEDLY copy all of the features of D2 they should've had from the start, they still have the guts to say that items like Enigma were bad design and not fun.


Can you prove this?

Everyone I know that played D2 went to websites and copied the best builds.

[Fencers]

Everyone I know that played D2 went to websites and copied the best builds.

That is no slight against D2 or any game's depth of character customization.

[Deleted]

Everyone I know that played D2 went to websites and copied the best builds.

Thats because there is always a best build which people will copy, problem is D3 has very few viable high level builds, D2, didn't have loads but you had choices at least.

[Fencers]

Viability isn't even a concern. "Viability" is a player creation. Unless the mechanics of the game strictly disallow a certain build from operating &/or completing the goals and expression of gameplay; what is "viable" is utterly irrelevant to the game design.

[Orange Joe]

Thats because there is always a best build which people will copy, problem is D3 has very few viable high level builds, D2, didn't have loads but you had choices at least.

D2 had very few high lvl builds... Maybe 1-2 per class.

Not every build could just go and solo ubers, in fact most couldn't.

[Deleted]

Viability isn't even a concern. "Viability" is a player creation. Unless the mechanics of the game strictly disallow a certain build from operating &/or completing the goals and expression of gameplay; what is "viable" is utterly irrelevant to the game design.

That doesn't make any sense.

There is only 1 build that can be used for high level demon hunters, which is the sentry build - no expections. Which is everything to do with game design and frankly its poor game design.

[zito]

That doesn't make any sense.

There is only 1 build that can be used for high level demon hunters, which is the sentry build - no expections. Which is everything to do with game design and frankly its poor game design.

You are confusing viable and optimal. You are talking about optimal which is only going to be 1 or 2 builds which is true in any game. Viable is a set player limit. Some people think their build isn't viable if it can't clear 30+grift. Others think their build is viable if they can just farm T6.

Fencers point is viable is subjective to each person.

[Deleted]

You are confusing viable and optimal. You are talking about optimal which is only going to be 1 or 2 builds which is true in any game. Viable is a set player limit. Some people think their build isn't viable if it can't clear 30+grift. Others think their build is viable if they can just farm T6.

Fencers point is viable is subjective to each person.

But there is only 1 viable higher level build, i understand the point you are making and i think there may be some confusion about the point i make trying to make.

Demon hunters have 1 viable build for higher level greater rifts, which i think is poor design. Optimal isn't even the point because it is not possible with other builds, now if it was still possible to do high level content with other builds but much more difficult then there would be 2 viable builds (viable means that something is possible) which would be fine, but that isn't the case, annoyingly.

[zito]

But there is only 1 viable higher level build

Then that would be become the optimal build. Viable is subjective. 2 different words, 2 different meanings.

There are plenty of viable builds but there is only 1 optimal build to reach the highest grift possible.

[Fencers]

That doesn't make any sense.

So there is only one possible assembly of skills in which to play the game as Demon Hunter? The game rules prohibit them from interacting or being playable in any way?

That's not bad design. That would be a non functioning product.

[Joey Ray III]

Which had no multiplayer. All loot is personalized in single player.

T2 has perfectly functional multiplayer mode (with personal loot).

anyway, personally i don't believe a game like Diablo should *need* any content updates in-between expansions. not that I mind new content but D2 didn't have nothing added in patches from what I remember (not until ubers very late in the lifecycle).

and I agree with Puffler, the build variety in D3 is freakin' atrocious. this is my major beef I have with this game right now and the fact that they take eternity to fix it. instead they add systems that makes matters even worse (fucking Grifts, I hate everything about them), grrrr.

Then that would be become the optimal build. Viable is subjective. 2 different words, 2 different meanings.

There are plenty of viable builds but there is only 1 optimal build to reach the highest grift possible.

for me viable should be at least semi-competitive at end-game (highest difficulty). but there's too big of a gap between (the very few) 'optimal' builds and the rest making the rest not viable. ;p

they seem to be going in the right direction with the new sets/set updates but fuck, it's taking them long.

[Deleted]

So there is only one possible assembly of skills in which to play the game as Demon Hunter? The game rules prohibit them from interacting or being playable in any way?

That's not bad design. That would be a non functioning product.

" capable of working successfully; feasible. " - The Oxford Dictionary.

Educate yourself please.

[Fencers]

T2 has perfectly functional multiplayer mode (with personal loot).

I was talking about Torchlight 1. Though Diablo 3 predates Torchlight 2 as well.

Torchlight 2, Platform: Microsoft Windows, September 20th 2012
Diablo 3, Platform: Microsoft Windows & OSX, May 15th 2012

First to market. Largest market share of the genre.

" capable of working successfully; feasible. " - The Oxford Dictionary.

Please read and think carefully.

Viability is a player concern. Unless the game rules disallow any play or interaction the relative viability of a game strategy is irrelevant.

How a video game operates is totally objective and separate to any and all player concern, enjoyment, interaction and expectation. Gameplay is the composite rules of operation. What one may personally think about those rules and operation is not germane to conversation or commentary on the operation of rules & operation objectively.

What you like, others might not. All arguments are utterly pointless where subjectivity is involved.