PDA

View Full Version : Developers: Diablo 3 real money auction houses hurt the game



Alex Mars
03-29-2013, 04:33 PM
No shit.

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/398584/diablo-3-auction-houses-really-hurt-the-game-director/

VKhaun
03-29-2013, 05:32 PM
I disagree wholeheartedly. People like me who bought the game for the campaign and action were disappointed in the shitty job he did and the MMORPG themed excuses he made. That everyone playing is playing for money and the AH means normal gamers left or thought that was the whole idea. Plenty of people still playing Planetside 2 and GW2 without spending cash, and plenty of people played all kinds of other ARPG's without making any money. Plenty of online games have people being given hand-me-down gold that lets them buy whatever they want, and people buying gold from asian farmers. Being able to buy what the game lets you use doesn't hurt the game unless the game lets it, which ultimately would be blamed on... right... yeah...

In this day and age he's probably right in context. With everyone making shit games where you just chase items it's probably a bad idea to remove the game's carrot and sell it directly on the AH, but that's a stupid line of thought. You need to make a good game in the first place, not figure out a way to make a shit game work. if you are going to sit down and design a game to be fun to play, interesting to explore, and balance for continually replayable PvP, trading or selling any number of items shouldn't matter.

Norska
03-29-2013, 05:33 PM
Huh.

Well, apparently they are porting it to PS3 (and xbox?) Would be kind of funny if they fixed the games for consoles. Got rid of the always online requirement, got rid of real money auction houses. Hell, I played the original Diablo almost exclusively on PS with a friend sitting in the same room.

Sillywilly
03-29-2013, 06:13 PM
Huh.

Well, apparently they are porting it to PS3 (and xbox?) Would be kind of funny if they fixed the games for consoles. Got rid of the always online requirement, got rid of real money auction houses. Hell, I played the original Diablo almost exclusively on PS with a friend sitting in the same room.

lol if they don't have online only servers like they currently do it won't be worth playing on Xbox 360. That shit is so hacked already, games like Kingdom Under Fire: Circle of Doom have rings that will take you from lvl 1 to max level in 1 kill, kill the final boss on hardest mode in like 1 hit, etc. It's stupid.

No secure servers for console means it's useless beyond single player.

Norska
03-29-2013, 08:30 PM
lol if they don't have online only servers like they currently do it won't be worth playing on Xbox 360. That shit is so hacked already, games like Kingdom Under Fire: Circle of Doom have rings that will take you from lvl 1 to max level in 1 kill, kill the final boss on hardest mode in like 1 hit, etc. It's stupid.

No secure servers for console means it's useless beyond single player.

I wouldn't mind secure servers, but also an offline co-op option, hell if you need to keep the characters separate ala diablo 2 to do it then right on, but my shitty ass internet connection up here would mean i'd probably not be able to play if I was required to only play on secure online servers.

Sillywilly
03-29-2013, 08:37 PM
I wouldn't mind secure servers, but also an offline co-op option, hell if you need to keep the characters separate ala diablo 2 to do it then right on, but my shitty ass internet connection up here would mean i'd probably not be able to play if I was required to only play on secure online servers.

Yeah that's exactly what I meant to state. It should operate like Diablo 2, NOT like Diablo 3. Not having a single player option is ballz and having nothing but "open battle.net" as an option for multiplayer is also ballz. Diablo 2 will probably go down as the best of that series not only for the game itself but the DRM and real money AH but also because it had all 3 options for single and multiplayer.

ofrm1
03-30-2013, 02:10 AM
Considering that Diablo III somehow managed to make me feel more alone than being in deep space by myself and that when I did group with people they might as well have been NPC's because they never talked, I don't see a problem for having the multiplayer amount to system link and that's it. There were huge gaps of time (when I wasn't being disconnected continuously) that I forgot the game was an online multiplayer. That NEVER happened in Diablo II. So what's the point? You're not really losing anything. I'm glad they're removing the online-only requirement and auction houses. It partially redeems the miserable failure of the pc release.

Goddamn just thinking about that abortion pisses me off.

Boxy Brown
03-30-2013, 02:41 AM
I have a buddy that made tens of thousands of dollars botting D3 and selling gold + items. For most people it was a shitshow of a terrible game, but for the select few that were equipped to take advantage of the system, the game was a MASSIVE cash cow.

Zavon
03-30-2013, 07:37 AM
Considering that Diablo III somehow managed to make me feel more alone than being in deep space by myself and that when I did group with people they might as well have been NPC's because they never talked, I don't see a problem for having the multiplayer amount to system link and that's it. There were huge gaps of time (when I wasn't being disconnected continuously) that I forgot the game was an online multiplayer. That NEVER happened in Diablo II. So what's the point? You're not really losing anything. I'm glad they're removing the online-only requirement and auction houses. It partially redeems the miserable failure of the pc release.

Goddamn just thinking about that abortion pisses me off.

100% Agree. Maybe if they get rid of all that stupidity (I mean really, it should have never even been considered in the first place), and release a few expacs for it, it will be salvaged.

Andile™
03-30-2013, 08:54 AM
... Diablo III somehow managed to make me feel more alone than being in deep space by myself...

1,000 times this. I got to the point where putting something on sale at the AH and seeing it being sold gave me a feeling that maybe, only maybe, someone was playing the game elsewhere.

The builds and unlocking of skills were retarded too... I don't see myself playing D3 again.

Alex Mars
03-30-2013, 11:43 AM
I only ever played the diablo games with friends, never with unwashed masses. Never bothered with D3 though.

Norska
03-30-2013, 01:47 PM
I also haven't played it yet, I figured given Blizzards track record I'd just avoid it like the plague, but D/D2 have a permanent place in my gaming heart, so I was still sad when it was as shitty as I'd feared. I'm cautiously optimistic they'll do something good with the PS3 version and then I'll give it a shot. But I'll still wait a few weeks/months after it's release and see what others say before I make the leap. Some games/companies I'm fine with taking blind leaps of faith with when a new game comes out (Bioshock Infinite, Skyrim etc) but when a company has released crap in the past I'll walk very cautiously.

VKhaun
03-30-2013, 03:03 PM
Every time I go back to read patch notes they are undoing more of the dumb shit they did and putting in more end-game at the same time. Higher tier this, more rare that. I'm hopeful but skeptical. I'm super broke right now, but I'm thinking about the 19.99 closed beta pack for Marvel Heroes. I think I'll download D3 and play it for a while again, then compare to the Marvel game when I can.

Esfires
03-30-2013, 04:35 PM
The problem is that a big part of the "dumb shit" is the skill system. They would have to remake the entire progression system and the skills themselves to fix one of the game's biggest problems.

Sillywilly
03-30-2013, 04:54 PM
The problem is that a big part of the "dumb shit" is the skill system. They would have to remake the entire progression system and the skills themselves to fix one of the game's biggest problems.

Agreed. I did not like how the skill system worked at all.

I was also disappointed in the lack of customization of your character. I mean as simple as that game is, could they not have added I dunno, hair color or hair styles or maybe a dye system? They didn't really expand anything else about the game except allowing you to choose a gender. They should have done something a little more in that regard IMO.

Zoobi
03-30-2013, 08:26 PM
Well they did have a dye system. Diablo 3 is as far as you can get away from the diablo series while still technically being a diablo game/arpg.

VKhaun
03-30-2013, 08:41 PM
The skill system is still brilliant in my eyes. Letting people have fun and experiment with builds all through the leveling process without getting stuck, then forcing builds at the end game to keep NV going... always made perfect sense to me. It terrifies me that the same gaming community at large that demands respecs in every game, loathes having to jump through hoops to get them, and rants and raves about being stuck with underpowered abilities finally gets a system that solves every problem imaginable while keeping end game builds intact and somehow sees this it a bad idea.

ofrm1
03-30-2013, 10:51 PM
The skill system is still brilliant in my eyes. Letting people have fun and experiment with builds all through the leveling process without getting stuck, then forcing builds at the end game to keep NV going... always made perfect sense to me. It terrifies me that the same gaming community at large that demands respecs in every game, loathes having to jump through hoops to get them, and rants and raves about being stuck with underpowered abilities finally gets a system that solves every problem imaginable while keeping end game builds intact and somehow sees this it a bad idea.

That gaming community isn't the faction that hates the game, it's the faction that was furiously defending it on the Blizzard forums against the traditionalists who were ranting and raving about how this kills every bit of replayability for the game. The reason why I still to this day will log onto battlenet for diablo 2 is precisely because of how the skill system was set up. It rewards you for coming up with interesting builds without giving the game away to you in one run through. In order to see the entire class's skills in action you would have to make multiple characters and level them up appropriately to see whether it was a success or a failure. In this, a fully leveled demonhunter can achieve that same result five times over in 20 seconds each.

Respecs were a stupid idea in D2 that saturated the item economy and they're a stupid idea here. People play diablo 2 because it takes a long time to see success and that it isn't bestowed upon you immediately.

Zoobi
03-30-2013, 11:27 PM
Not to mention the fact that you not only make skill builds, but item/rune builds as well. And you can make llvl duel characters in hardcore and have fun playing in level 30 duel games. The game is just overall better in every way imaginable.

ofrm1
03-31-2013, 02:31 AM
The truly sad thing about this is that not only is this system here to stay for this game, but will likely become the status quo for games to come.

Ero Elohim
03-31-2013, 09:04 AM
Respecs were a stupid idea in D2 that saturated the item economy and they're a stupid idea here. People play diablo 2 because it takes a long time to see success and that it isn't bestowed upon you immediately.

Did we play the same Diablo II? You can log in, make a new character, and be level 80 in a matter of hours. You can enter charity games and get handed a ton of medium-level rares and uniques constantly. Everything about Diablo II has been turned into seeing instant success.

In fact, what everyone hated about Diablo III is that it took such a long time to see success. Inferno at release was a punishing slog where you had to grind and farm for days to see an upgrade, all the while the AH is reminding you that your gear sucks.

Sillywilly
03-31-2013, 12:36 PM
Did we play the same Diablo II? You can log in, make a new character, and be level 80 in a matter of hours. You can enter charity games and get handed a ton of medium-level rares and uniques constantly. Everything about Diablo II has been turned into seeing instant success.

In fact, what everyone hated about Diablo III is that it took such a long time to see success. Inferno at release was a punishing slog where you had to grind and farm for days to see an upgrade, all the while the AH is reminding you that your gear sucks.

How do you get to lvl 80 in Diablo II in a matter of hours?


That gaming community isn't the faction that hates the game, it's the faction that was furiously defending it on the Blizzard forums against the traditionalists who were ranting and raving about how this kills every bit of replayability for the game. The reason why I still to this day will log onto battlenet for diablo 2 is precisely because of how the skill system was set up. It rewards you for coming up with interesting builds without giving the game away to you in one run through. In order to see the entire class's skills in action you would have to make multiple characters and level them up appropriately to see whether it was a success or a failure. In this, a fully leveled demonhunter can achieve that same result five times over in 20 seconds each.

Respecs were a stupid idea in D2 that saturated the item economy and they're a stupid idea here. People play diablo 2 because it takes a long time to see success and that it isn't bestowed upon you immediately.

100% agree. I also extend this to my MMOs as well. Easy respecs kills alt-itus. Alt-itus is the cure for not being able to roll out a new epic raid every week upon week. MMO developers are shooting themselves in the foot with quick and easy lately. I had at least 2 of every DAoC to some level or another just to play a different spec. I even had this one armsman that was a blast. Made as short as possible Saracen, got as big a shield as possible, put everything into dex and quickness and con at creation, then Focused on those stats and putting all my skill points into parry and block and the rest into slash. It took me forever to kill anything that didn't wear cloth but damn I could stand in the middle of just about any crowd and get whacked on forever without anything getting through and when it did, hey, plate.

Was a very fun novelty character in the BGs.

Zoobi
03-31-2013, 01:27 PM
You can get to 80 in a matter of minutes, not hours. Get glitched run to hell and go to ubers and get 80 in the first couple pulls. While this is an option, not one that many people take. I for one always leveled my character legit(while doing baal runs to level up when I got to them in normal/nightmare.) The mid-level uniques don't really do anything for your final item build. They just allow you to level high enough to where you can do MF runs in hell.

ofrm1
03-31-2013, 02:49 PM
Did we play the same Diablo II? You can log in, make a new character, and be level 80 in a matter of hours. You can enter charity games and get handed a ton of medium-level rares and uniques constantly. Everything about Diablo II has been turned into seeing instant success.

All of those issues are due to player exploits of the system that have been left un-fixed due to blizzard's unwillingness to care about the game since 2006. They're all surface problems that would require small fixes like slight tweaking of exp rewards or banning bot accounts permanently. None of the issues with diablo 2 are with core design choices. None of the major issues with diablo 3 are surface problems. They're all core design choices within the game that were likely made early in the design concept for the game. To fix them would require massive reworking of the game, not to mention effectively erasing what is probably years of development time into the current system which translates to millions of dollars wasted.

In short, Diablo II at its core is a solid game that has gone downhill because the developers don't care about it but could be fixed. Diablo III is a heavily flawed game that effectively cannot be fixed without pouring massive amounts of time and manhours to fixing it, of which there is no financial incentive to do so.

VKhaun
03-31-2013, 03:28 PM
How do you get to lvl 80 in Diablo II in a matter of hours?

By restarting the whole game so many times you know exactly what level ranges to level where, exactly what to do on the story, and exactly how strong you need to be to WTFPWN the enemies in the next area so it takes zero skill. That's these people's idea of what an ARPG should be. Screw game play, screw experimentation, they want to become strong enough to own the game without skill at every step of the way, by such extensive trial and error of shit builds they can't undo that in the end the game is completely formulaic.

D2 was out so long and I played it so much that I can do Lv80 with a friend's help in an evening if I really waned to, but that's no more fun than cleaning dishes or sharpening knives and far less productive. All you end up with is a character that's finished the game already :facepalm:. It's stupid. Mind numbing stupid. I will never understand the draw to be fucked by the game and have to start over again and again.

Sillywilly
03-31-2013, 07:30 PM
By restarting the whole game so many times you know exactly what level ranges to level where, exactly what to do on the story, and exactly how strong you need to be to WTFPWN the enemies in the next area so it takes zero skill. That's these people's idea of what an ARPG should be. Screw game play, screw experimentation, they want to become strong enough to own the game without skill at every step of the way, by such extensive trial and error of shit builds they can't undo that in the end the game is completely formulaic.

D2 was out so long and I played it so much that I can do Lv80 with a friend's help in an evening if I really waned to, but that's no more fun than cleaning dishes or sharpening knives and far less productive. All you end up with is a character that's finished the game already :facepalm:. It's stupid. Mind numbing stupid. I will never understand the draw to be fucked by the game and have to start over again and again.

I would agree that getting "fucked" by skill choices would suck. But the idea of being able to mix and match builds and get a different experience from making two different builds of the same class? Freaking awesome sauce. But the truth is if you give people casual respecs there's zero incentive/reason to do that. But it is true that each build type has to be effective at something. If you can end up making your character useless then that is indeed no fun.

VKhaun
03-31-2013, 08:14 PM
I would agree that getting "fucked" by skill choices would suck. But the idea of being able to mix and match builds and get a different experience from making two different builds of the same class? Freaking awesome sauce. But the truth is if you give people casual respecs there's zero incentive/reason to do that. But it is true that each build type has to be effective at something. If you can end up making your character useless then that is indeed no fun.

You are completely correct, but you're just not seeing the whole conversation.

What D3 did was let people experiment all the way to max level with 'casual respecs'. The end of the game however was flattened out and you were expected to reach and play through the whole difficulty at max level. At that point the only way to gain strength was to find, craft, or buy (gold or $) new items from that difficulty, so they introduced a system that passively buffed your item and gold find as you defeated enemies. If you change your build, that effect would reset taking away your accumulated item/gold find buffs... since you could no longer out-level the content and it was mostly gear checks, you still had to make a solid build and play it well. It was the best of both worlds and solved all the problems.

The hardcore 'level 80 in hours' people should never have cared about the casual respecs because they would get to inferno, make a build that works, and start MF'ing just like they did for years on D2, but they got their panties in a bunch over nothing and Blizz folded to them. Now they're going back and systematically nerfing all the enemies, buffing all the skills, nerfing the OP utility skills so people have to use damage/defense, and they put in another kind of leveling so people can out-level the content.

As an actual fan of what an ARPG could be, I think it's just sad.

Zoobi
03-31-2013, 08:32 PM
You are completely correct, but you're just not seeing the whole conversation.

What D3 did was let people experiment all the way to max level with 'casual respecs'. The end of the game however was flattened out and you were expected to reach and play through the whole difficulty at max level. At that point the only way to gain strength was to find, craft, or buy (gold or $) new items from that difficulty, so they introduced a system that passively buffed your item and gold find as you defeated enemies. If you change your build, that effect would reset taking away your accumulated item/gold find buffs... since you could no longer out-level the content and it was mostly gear checks, you still had to make a solid build and play it well. It was the best of both worlds and solved all the problems.

The hardcore 'level 80 in hours' people should never have cared about the casual respecs because they would get to inferno, make a build that works, and start MF'ing just like they did for years on D2, but they got their panties in a bunch over nothing and Blizz folded to them. Now they're going back and systematically nerfing all the enemies, buffing all the skills, nerfing the OP utility skills so people have to use damage/defense, and they put in another kind of leveling so people can out-level the content.

As an actual fan of what an ARPG could be, I think it's just sad.

You're really generalizing what people who were fans of diablo 2 want.

VKhaun
03-31-2013, 09:02 PM
You're really generalizing what people who were fans of diablo 2 want.

When it comes down to 'good' or 'bad' I have no problem generalizing. THOUSANDS of people raged about this skill system as being bad, when it solved every problem imaginable. THOUSANDS of ARPG players had no concept of what the A stood for when D2 was big before the expansion came out and just wanted to crush everything. Remember the guys who would cast iron maiden on you? THOUSANDS of players got on D2, powered through the game hardly playing any of it to make a lv80 whatever on hell difficulty, just to farm the same handfull of areas over and over again and they think that's preferable to act-by-act build requirements for NV buffs and being able to play through the base game adjusting your build at will.

I don't generalize their reasons but I do generalize their demands and positions, and rightfully so.

Marou
04-01-2013, 08:53 AM
When it comes down to 'good' or 'bad' I have no problem generalizing. THOUSANDS of people raged about this skill system as being bad, when it solved every problem imaginable. THOUSANDS of ARPG players had no concept of what the A stood for when D2 was big before the expansion came out and just wanted to crush everything. Remember the guys who would cast iron maiden on you? THOUSANDS of players got on D2, powered through the game hardly playing any of it to make a lv80 whatever on hell difficulty, just to farm the same handfull of areas over and over again and they think that's preferable to act-by-act build requirements for NV buffs and being able to play through the base game adjusting your build at will.

I don't generalize their reasons but I do generalize their demands and positions, and rightfully so.

I have an innate dislike of item based progression systems. I doubt I'm alone. Games like Diablo II, Torchlight 1-2, etc are based about 60% on skill and attribute build, and 40% on equipment, unless you pursue some esoteric build based on a certain piece of equipment. Modern MMO's and Diablo III are like 15/85. Most all effectiveness springs from the quality of your gear. This has an interesting effect. A character built perfectly for a sub-optimal set of gear in one of the older style games is maybe 10-20% less effective than an optimal fully itemized character. In the MMO style they are 100X less effective. This makes me bored; because I'd rather play a half dozen characters at 80-90% performance potential than 1 character at 9X%, which is what MMO style carrot chases cause me to do. With older style ARPGs I end up getting whatever character to where I am happy with them, and try new ones (while regularly revisiting old favorites), with the MMO style I just run out of energy somewhere around 92% attempting to put the perfect set of gear together, and never play the game again.

I avoided Diablo III because I didn't like anything they were doing with it. I don't regret the decision.

/tldr? In older games it was great to find new stuff because it'd make your already enjoyable character *even better*. In mmo-style games your character sucks until you cross various gear thresholds.

VKhaun
04-01-2013, 09:34 AM
/tldr? In older games it was great to find new stuff because it'd make your already enjoyable character *even better*. In mmo-style games your character sucks until you cross various gear thresholds.

Once again, you completely leave out the A in ARPG and talk about it like it's just supposed to be an RPG. If all we were doing is building characters and having RPG combat you would be 100% right but the action itself is supposed to be compelling just like old school arcade ARPG's and similar games, which had no stats no gear and no levels.

Skill isn't just supposed to be another number or a balance point in how effective an ability is, it's supposed to be a REASON to enjoy playing it that is equal to or above the item and stats carrots, and these games are not doing that. If we could make an ARPG with fun combat an item grind would be the perfect end game. D3 launched with that intent, clearly, but they failed miserably and are now making it MMO style instead of fixing the action JUST LIKE THEY DID WITH D2 adding cooldowns and items that made enemies trivially easy and nerfing the nastiest stuff and adding respecs.

(Not that I dislike respecs, but it was an example of them abandoning their original intent to make, first and foremost, an action RPG game and instead going towards MMO'itude.)



As I type this I know it looks like we're saying the same thing, but we're really not. If action can compel the player on it's own, the whole idea of what's acceptable for an end game changes completely.

Marou
04-01-2013, 09:39 AM
Once again, you completely leave out the A in ARPG and talk about it like it's just supposed to be an RPG. If all we were doing is building characters and having RPG combat you would be 100% right but the action itself is supposed to be compelling just like old school arcade ARPG's and similar games, which had no stats no gear and no levels.

Skill isn't just supposed to be another number, it's supposed to be a REASON to enjoy playing it that is equal to or above the item and stats carrots, and these games are not doing that.

I didn't mention it, because it stems from the same evil. You can't emphasize play/skill with gear based progression; when gear equates to great power differences between characters it is the gear that matters, not so much the players skill. It doesn't matter whether we're talking about a turn based strategic combat system or twitch fps style combat, it doesn't matter whether you have active block or not. If a "geared" character at near or at max character progression can murder a "fresh" character near or at max character progression with a stray fart, skill ceases to become a factor in the equation regardless of what the combat system looks like.

Gear progression in a system which emphasizes gear as the heaviest factor in character progression, is incompatible with skill-based gameplay.

VKhaun
04-01-2013, 10:07 AM
No. You're assuming anything with a gear system makes gear the biggest difference and that's obviously false on every level. If action is compelling enough to make a person WANT to keep playing, then a gear system is perfect to make minor changes to the action like different aesthetics, one less hit to kill a certain enemy type, crit vs dependable, etc. Overpowered gear being bad because it's overpowered gear is just helplessly circular.


The only problem with D3's gear system is the sheer number of gear variables. The devs can't just balance glass cannon vs middle vs tank, they have a million shades of grey depending on many affixes multiplied by many item slots.

Marou
04-01-2013, 10:15 AM
No. You're assuming anything with a gear system makes gear the biggest difference and that's obviously false on every level. If action is compelling enough to make a person WANT to keep playing, then a gear system is perfect to make minor changes to the action like different aesthetics, one less hit to kill a certain enemy type, crit vs dependable, etc. Overpowered gear being bad because it's overpowered gear is just helplessly circular.


The only problem with D3's gear system is the sheer number of gear variables. The devs can't just balance glass cannon vs middle vs tank, they have a million shades of grey depending on many affixes multiplied by many item slots.

No, you're making assumptions. You can have a gear system, it can be meaningful, just the gap between commonly accessible gear at character progression end/near end and extraordinarily rare gear cannot exceed 20-40%, or it all goes south.

Eg, the geared player kills the ungeared player in 4 hits, versus 5. Not 1 hit versus 15. This isn't just from a PvP perspective, it sucks the life out of PvE too.

VKhaun
04-01-2013, 11:03 AM
Eg, the geared player kills the ungeared player in 4 hits, versus 5. Not 1 hit versus 15. This isn't just from a PvP perspective, it sucks the life out of PvE too.No. That's just being helpless and circular again. The devs control who can PvP and who can use what gear and how strong it is. You're still just assuming they'll do a bad job of it and make gear OP available at bad times.


No, you're making assumptions. You can have a gear system, it can be meaningful, just the gap between commonly accessible gear at character progression end/near end and extraordinarily rare gear cannot exceed 20-40%, or it all goes south.What assumption did I make? You're still assuming it WILL go south even as you say how it can work in the same breath, I'm saying it can be a fine end game for minor changes to the action if the action itself is compelling. There's no assumption in that. There's tons of precedent in the shooter and action game genres for action first and gear being a bump that still won't save you if you get owned.


D3 was headed for doing it well. They had an end game that was challenging to max gear available from the base game, and you could play a character one time and fully understand all their skills and runes but still had to make builds you were skilled at playing and applying the strengths of. They botched it because the action wasn't compelling and they added additional ways to progress and get stronger besides the gear, which was already hard to balance due to complexity, so now it's turning into a top down MMORPG.

Zoobi
04-01-2013, 02:43 PM
D3 endgame was never challenging in the slightest. Everything was simply a gear check. For monks/barbs it was whether or not you had the resistances/health to progress. For Wizard/Demon hunters it was whether or not you had the dps to one shot shit when it entered the screen so that you didn't get one shot. There was very little skill involved. Diablo 3 is flawed at its core because they not only had gear checks when you got to inferno, but the way stats work in the game blows chunks. There were no interesting and unique item builds, you stacked your main stat to as high as it could go and then pump either crit/crit damage as a wizard/demonhunter/witchdoctor or you stacked health/resistances as a barb/monk. Games bad, and Blizzard should feel bad for releasing it under the name Diablo and botched the series.

VKhaun
04-01-2013, 03:25 PM
D3 endgame was never challenging in the slightest. Everything was simply a gear check. For monks/barbs it was whether or not you had the resistances/health to progress. For Wizard/Demon hunters it was whether or not you had the dps to one shot shit when it entered the screen so that you didn't get one shot. There was very little skill involved. Diablo 3 is flawed at its core because they not only had gear checks when you got to inferno, but the way stats work in the game blows chunks. There were no interesting and unique item builds, you stacked your main stat to as high as it could go and then pump either crit/crit damage as a wizard/demonhunter/witchdoctor or you stacked health/resistances as a barb/monk. Games bad, and Blizzard should feel bad for releasing it under the name Diablo and botched the series.

But that has nothing to do with gear... it was a gear check because they failed at making the action game. Mobs balanced to be slow and dangerous got 'extra fast'. Mobs meant to be tiny glass cannons and require reaction time got tank affixes. And stagger was just botched horribly from the word go. If it wasn't a gear check it would have been a level check or a build check or some other RPG check. The action has to work for ANY system in an ARPG to be meaningful.