Diablo 4 is bad.

[Mamut]

It's nothing to do with game vs. game; it's to do with the fact that D4 fundamentally is far too simplistic compared to other games in the space to be relevant.

Do you consider D2 complex or irrelevant?
Do you consider Last Epoch complex or irrelevant?
Do you think every game should be complex as PoE when most people just copy builds from streamers and PoE ninja and their whole build planing comes to copypaste PoB string?

You complain that D4 is not complex like PoE but for most people that wait for D4 its a good thing. Because you know, If I wanna play PoE like game I play PoE and not Diablo serie.

[rhorle]

D2 was massively complex

This is copium because a lot that D2 did is present in Diablo 4 yet you are saying the game is simple. The biggest different was back then game design had a lot of terrible stuff that gave the illusion of complexity. Just because there are no other simple games, in your opinion, does not mean that there is anything wrong with a "simple" game. It just means that other developers wanted to do something else and either found success or failure in the process. The only thing that has changed is your view of the games and developer. You see the newer ones as different so they must be different.

[kenn9530]

snip

the point is all ARPGs only have one choice in the most optimal builds, you incorrectly believe there is one when there is not.

Even D4 there will be only one set path to the most ideal builds for each class, its no different to any other ARPG.

There is a unique in D4 that gives a plus 4 to all skills, it gives D4 more flexibility in creating builds than most other ARPGs on the market without having to actually reroll another class completely.

[Fencers]

the point is all ARPGs only have one choice in the most optimal builds, you incorrectly believe there is one when there is not.

That isn't a point. You have not made it. What is optimal, and who is defining this? Is this a measurable metric of gameplay or game design? Is it your personal feeling? An opinion based on common usage?

What you are saying with regard to the game design of Path of Exile specifically is contradictory. It can not exist if the gameplay systems of POE exist currently. The latter does exist as a measurable and demonstratable object action.

There is no opinion in this post. I am telling you a fact. You can not have a game that contradicts its own operation. It would not be wholly playable.

Diablo 4 is a limited linear design. Path of Exile is not.

[Delekii]

This is copium because a lot that D2 did is present in Diablo 4 yet you are saying the game is simple. The biggest different was back then game design had a lot of terrible stuff that gave the illusion of complexity. Just because there are no other simple games, in your opinion, does not mean that there is anything wrong with a "simple" game. It just means that other developers wanted to do something else and either found success or failure in the process. The only thing that has changed is your view of the games and developer. You see the newer ones as different so they must be different.

What is it with you guys and saying just flat out wrong things as if they aren't?

What parts of D2 do you think are present in D4 from a systems perspective?

I didn't say there is anything wrong with simple games. I think I even said a couple of times that it's fine to enjoy simple games. It's not fine to pretend it is anything like other games in the genre, or make wild nonsensical reductions of those games because you feel maligned that someone bashed D4.

It is an objective fact that every major ARPG released since D2 has had significantly more mechanical depth than what D4 currently displays. I'm not even sure why anyone would argue this; the Devs tempered expectations themselves by stating it is aimed at a more casual crowd.

I'm not saying this is wrong or problematic; it's their game to do with as they please. It is also objectively not moving the genre forward in any innovative way. There is not a single new or interesting thing about D4. That doesn't mean it's a bad game, or that I'm saying you're wrong to enjoy it. It is a statement of fact about the position of the game in the genre. Nobody will take mechanics from D4 and say "oh that's cool, I'm going to adapt that for my game", because there aren't any mechanics so far that didn't already come from elsewhere.

- - - Updated - - -

Do you consider D2 complex or irrelevant?
Do you consider Last Epoch complex or irrelevant?
Do you think every game should be complex as PoE when most people just copy builds from streamers and PoE ninja and their whole build planing comes to copypaste PoB string?

You complain that D4 is not complex like PoE but for most people that wait for D4 its a good thing. Because you know, If I wanna play PoE like game I play PoE and not Diablo serie.

Both D2 and Last Epoch are much, much more complex than D4.

D2 basically defined the genre, and D4 is nothing like it mechanically. Tonally they nailed it, the art style is spot on, but the mechanics are not.

Last Epoch is extremely complex, and there are a massive number of interactions between skills and trees and items that are not immediately obvious. That said, it is also extremely approachable, which is a big point of difference from Poe. Nothing about a game having depth means it cannot also be approachable by a new player; that is a choice that Poe makes that I think is a downside.

Poe is complex with no inherent simple answer, so people copy from others.
Last Epoch is complex but approachable, people succeed playing what they want but vastly improve with knowledge.
D2 is complex but appears simple; it's easy to play the game forever and never learn about breakpoints or other mechanical nuances that drastically improve performance.
D4 is just simply not complex.

[Edge-]

D2 is complex but appears simple; it's easy to play the game forever and never learn about breakpoints or other mechanical nuances that drastically improve performance.
D4 is just simply not complex.

I mean, from a pure design perspective this is fundamentally untrue. Even at low level there are more complex interactions going on in D4 than were technically possible back in the D2 era. Not to mention the additional depth and options at max level with more legendary gear etc.

Beyond that is there anything suggesting that D4 won't feature breakpoints for various skill and their related stats? Other mechanical nuances that might not yet be obvious given the fact that those nuances aren't present at low level in the same way that the breakpoints you mention aren't present in the first like 20 levels of D2?

[rhorle]

What parts of D2 do you think are present in D4 from a systems perspective?

It would be easier for you to list what you don't see from D2 in Diablo 4. Skills are present and built upon in Diablo 4. Stats are built upon. Boss mechanics are built upon. End game is built upon. It isn't a statement of fact that there is nothing new or interesting in Diablo 4. That is your subjective opinion of the game. It is you that thinks no one will take mechanics to adapt to their game.

I believed I mentioned it before but it isn't the games that have changed but your opinions of them. You clearly have a bias against Diablo 4 and/or Blizzard that wasn't present back then. Those rose tinted glasses.

[Delekii]

It would be easier for you to list what you don't see from D2 in Diablo 4. Skills are present and built upon in Diablo 4. Stats are built upon. Boss mechanics are built upon. End game is built upon. It isn't a statement of fact that there is nothing new or interesting in Diablo 4. That is your subjective opinion of the game. It is you that thinks no one will take mechanics to adapt to their game.

I believed I mentioned it before but it isn't the games that have changed but your opinions of them. You clearly have a bias against Diablo 4 and/or Blizzard that wasn't present back then. Those rose tinted glasses.

You're confusing mechanics with optics. The only relevant one you mentioned there is endgame, which we have yet to see. Like I said, tonally the game is great. It is a very clear successor to D2 in a way that D3 was not. Mechanically, not so.

To be clear here, I didn't even particularly like D2 - I personally enjoy Poe, grim dawn and last Epoch a lot more than I ever liked D2. There is nothing rose tinted about my view.

I mean, from a pure design perspective this is fundamentally untrue. Even at low level there are more complex interactions going on in D4 than were technically possible back in the D2 era. Not to mention the additional depth and options at max level with more legendary gear etc.

Beyond that is there anything suggesting that D4 won't feature breakpoints for various skill and their related stats? Other mechanical nuances that might not yet be obvious given the fact that those nuances aren't present at low level in the same way that the breakpoints you mention aren't present in the first like 20 levels of D2?

Those nuances are present in early D2, that's half the point. You're right though, we don't know enough about D4 endgame and I'll happily eat my hat if I'm wrong. I hope to be wrong; I'd love for D4 to be great.

[rhorle]

You're confusing mechanics with optics. The only relevant one you mentioned there is endgame, which we have yet to see. Like I said, tonally the game is great. It is a very clear successor to D2 in a way that D3 was not. Mechanically, not so.

So skills, fights, and stats are not relevant? Funny how you can dismiss comparisons to Diablo 2 at your whim. We've seen what end game will be but have not played it. We know what end game was for Diablo 2 and can make a comparison that objectively there is more in Diablo 4. How can you even mechanically say it is not when you've dismissed most of the mechanics as not being relevant? Lol.

[Biomega]

Both D2 and Last Epoch are much, much more complex than D4.

D2 basically defined the genre, and D4 is nothing like it mechanically. Tonally they nailed it, the art style is spot on, but the mechanics are not.
[...]
D2 is complex but appears simple

Let's be clear here - don't confuse opacity with complexity. D2 isn't complex at all - it just has terribly opaque game mechanics that don't work at all how you intuitively expect. Something says "+20% attack speed" you expect you'll now be attacking 20% faster - and nothing could be further from the truth in D2, because this could literally be 0, or it could 12.5% or whatever else depending on frame counts and breakpoints. It nixes intuitive gameplay, and homogenizes gear choices around specific values. It's not complexity, it's just cumbersome.

And even going beyond those weird mechanical quirks, D2's often-touted "complexity" is largely an illusion - builds consist of picking a skill and spamming its synergies; gear is largely dominated by the same gear pieces (usually RWs) that straight-up outclass 99% of alternatives with no chance of competition; farming locations are repetitive and linear with little to no variety, change, or true choice; and so on.

D2 is deep as a puddle, saved only by the fact that puddle is pretty fun and was pretty great for its time. But it's nothing to measure a modern game against, because even the most basic, surface-level stuff in D4 absolutely blows this "complexity" of D2 out of the water. It's not even close.

I'd argue the main problem people have in the D2 vs. D4 comparison is that nothing can ever stack up against nostalgia. The game you played for hours on end when you were 12-16 years old will have a place in most people's hearts that has nothing to do with how complex it truly was, or how polished, or anything else, because what REALLY cements its outstanding character is first and foremost your personal history. D2 was a great game, but its shadow is looming far larger than it has any right to be despite its quality.

[Delekii]

So skills, fights, and stats are not relevant? Funny how you can dismiss comparisons to Diablo 2 at your whim. We've seen what end game will be but have not played it. We know what end game was for Diablo 2 and can make a comparison that objectively there is more in Diablo 4. How can you even mechanically say it is not when you've dismissed most of the mechanics as not being relevant? Lol.

I didn't say they aren't relevant; I said they aren't mechanically more complicated than D2, and they certainly aren't 30 years of development more complicated. The fact that D4 has hydra and D2 has hydra isn't the point - heck even d3s hydra has more depth than D4. The fact that D2 has crit chance and D4 has crit chance isn't the point.

I already conceeded that D4 endgame is likely to have more depth than D2, but that is just as much because functionally didn't have an endgame at all.

I'm going to stop replying to you because you keep saying the same thing, and it shows you're either fundamentally misunderstanding, or intentionally misrepresenting the point.

I dont want D4 to fail, I don't wish you ill will or malign you for liking D4. I sincerely hope I'm wrong. All the evidence we have points to the contrary as it currently stands.

[rhorle]

I didn't say they aren't relevant

You're confusing mechanics with optics. The only relevant one you mentioned there is endgame, which we have yet to see.

You sure you didn't say that? No one has said that sharing the same skill name or similar function is the point. D4 has the same things that D2 and builds upon them. If that isn't the point then how can you say that D4 has nothing of D2? I'm pretty sure you don't actually know what your point is. What is 30 years of development more complicated even mean? Things don't need to be complex just because they came out 30 years later. Lol.

Of course I keep saying the same thing because it keeps countering what you are saying. I'm not misunderstanding or misrepresenting anything of the point you are making. You just aren't making a very good point at all because it is based on your subjective views while trying state it as an objective thing.

[Flame6]

The low level gameplay is exceptionally shallow and boring. The graphics and art style are just amazing, but the gameplay is so freaking slow it's hard to imagine it getting better, even though it certainly must.

The concept of builds prior to legendaries is just laughable, the one choice that you make in any given skill is generally either a foregone conclusion or a shallow choice; the legendaries have an absurd amount of heavy lifting to do.

I hope to be wrong, I really do. I find the graphical style incredibly good and in the usual Blizzard style the mechanical performance of the game seems great. It's just not at ALL a stimulating game. It's all well and good to cater to the casual player but casual doesn't mean stupid, and the skill tree seems to be made with extremely slow, stupid individuals in mind.

You're not wrong about the first 20 levels being boring. Thats pretty typical in an ARPG and I can only hope it gets better. I have my doubts about it with how restrictive energy is.

I still think it'll be a great game, but it'd play a lot better with a way bigger energy pool.

[XDurionX]

None of the Diablo games have been complex and have always been relevant.

It's almost like those are polar opposites of each other. *laughsincandycrush*

[Kumorii]

I mean, from a pure design perspective this is fundamentally untrue. Even at low level there are more complex interactions going on in D4 than were technically possible back in the D2 era. Not to mention the additional depth and options at max level with more legendary gear etc.

Beyond that is there anything suggesting that D4 won't feature breakpoints for various skill and their related stats? Other mechanical nuances that might not yet be obvious given the fact that those nuances aren't present at low level in the same way that the breakpoints you mention aren't present in the first like 20 levels of D2?

They have shown paragon boards including breakpoints for various runes and effects, which is why we choose stats when working through the board. To get those stats to get new effects.

--------

@Delekii
You keep saying D2's are far more complex yet I can't find one post where you show that's true.

Stats, basic.
Skills, basic.
Combat rotation, basic.
End-game, basic.

D4 got D2 beat in all of these categories.
Doesn't mean it isn't fun though... complex/simple can both be fun. And something being more complex certainly doesn't mean it's more fun than something that is simple.

Affixes is the only thing that has some complexity to it, but even that isn't as deep as you think. Just like Biomega mentions. Most items, even with 20affixes you are often only interested in 4 of them. Ofc when you start playing you want lots of affixes, then you learn you don't so when you find items and can distinguish good items from bad, which is quite simple but people didn't know, it feels like it has more depth to it than for real.

You keep talking about systems not being present in D4 that's present in D2... What system would that be?

[Nymrohd]

I'm not knocking on D2, it's fucking great... but yeah, there's little complexity in both skills and stats in that game. Affixes is where it's at.

Plus tbh I did not really feel like the complexity from itemization was even intentional.

[yasiru]

None of the Diablo games have been complex and have always been relevant.

In other words, not much depth?

[Kumorii]

Plus tbh I did not really feel like the complexity from itemization was even intentional.

For sure, it was adding as many affixes as possible.
Then LoD came and RW became more tailored to desired affixes.

[Hibiki]

Thx to necro nerf I will not but D4 at all. I want play minion class, and now this is huge pain. I don't want resummon minions on each boss 300x times. In fact I don't want resummon they at all. Blizzard overreaction on necro strength and killing all joy of this class, while Kripparian shows true power of sorc. This is incompetence.

[rhorle]

In other words, not much depth?

Right. I've never said they have had a ton of depth. There is a difference between no depth and some depth however.