Diablo 3 - Blizzard tries to censor David Brevik's (Diablo creator's) opinion

[Libra]

I am glad I don't have to level two different sorcs just to use different spells. Gray/white/blue items (unless they were armor, then you could sell it for lots of gold) are all useless in d2. Gems are mostly useless as well. Runes were mostly useless unless they were a runeword. Skills in d3 are more responsive then in d2. A barb is lot more fun to play in d3 then d2.

you need to take of the rose tinted glasses.

Gems = crafting
Runes = crafting/runewords.
eth/white/blue items = runewords/runewords/crafting, also weapons are still wanted. (esp with %ED)
Skills are fewer and duller than the previous.

Rose tinted glasses only apply if you stopped playing and reminisce. Is HoMM 6 better than HoMM3? No it is not. There is a reason why I still have these games installed.

You can talk all you want but D3 is an abomination that shouldn't have been out for another 2/3 years until it was ready.

[[TECH]Gorb]

In your opinion, of course.

[Apostate]

Normal was perfect in my opinion, very well done. From there I think they made quite a few mistakes that even small amounts of playtesting should have fixed. The auction house was the main problem as it messed with regular item grinding and progression. Also, nightmare was not difficult enough, which made everyone think that they didn't need to grind previous modes to beat new ones.

[Libra]

In your opinion, of course.

What else would it be? Do you believe people are that dumb they cannot tell the difference between an opinion from a fact?

It is a fact D3 is horrible though and needs lots and lots of fixing. Are you saying it is fine, just like FFXIV was when it released? You are free to believe whatever you want I don't hate on religion.* :>


(*User might make fun of you for it)

[lol_u_mad]

What else would it be? Do you believe people are that dumb they cannot tell the difference between an opinion from a fact?

It is a fact D3 is horrible though and needs lots and lots of fixing.

Is this irony or hypocracy? I can't quite tell.

[[TECH]Gorb]

What else would it be? Do you believe people are that dumb they cannot tell the difference between an opinion from a fact?

It is a fact D3 is horrible though and needs lots and lots of fixing. Are you saying it is fine, just like FFXIV was when it released? You are free to believe whatever you want I don't hate on religion.* :>


(*User might make fun of you for it)

You act incredulous, you imply that people, if they make a mistake, are then dumb . . . and then you present your opinion as fact again.

Your opinion is not fact. You should, perhaps, stop treating it as such.

[Libra]

You act incredulous, you imply that people, if they make a mistake, are then dumb . . . and then you present your opinion as fact again.

Your opinion is not fact. You should, perhaps, stop treating it as such.

Then persuade me that D3 is a as good as a game as its predecessor.

[[GnJA]Good_Apollo]

You act incredulous, you imply that people, if they make a mistake, are then dumb . . . and then you present your opinion as fact again.

Your opinion is not fact. You should, perhaps, stop treating it as such.

Objectively Diablo 3 is a failure when considering its goals and intentions. That, however, doesn't really stop it from being enjoyed for what it is. I believe that is his argument and it has some sensibilities and truths rather than mere opinion.

[Apostate]

Then persuade me that D3 is a as good as a game as its predecessor.

It isn't. It doesn't have to be for you to be persuaded to stop using bad arguments.


I think Diablo 3 does a lot of stuff better than Diablo 2 did, but it doesn't make you want to keep playing as well. Hopefully they fix that, and they already are. Calling it a pile of trash is silly, because it's not. It's a respectably solid game in many ways that fails to deliver in long term fun.

[[TECH]Gorb]

EDIT: ninja'd by Apostate.

Then persuade me that D3 is a as good as a game as its predecessor.

The notion that a game not being as good/being better than it's predecessor does in no way mean that the game/it's predecessor is automatically a failure of an "abomination" or "horrible".

Your challenge is inherently flawed, I'm afraid.

@Good_Apollo: I'm not a Diablo gamer, if you have the time would you be able to make a quick summary of the goal(s) of the game (bullet points or whatever, perhaps even backed up by a Blizzard article(s) on the subject) and how it failed to meet that goal(s)?

I know the Real Money Auction House was a hugely controversial move and I'm not sure from a design perspective if it's at all a good idea (not going to even get started on the economics of it), however would you be able to evaluate the game from the perspective of both a long-time Diablo player and (/alternatively) as someone who is new to the franchise. Or perhaps even someone who disliked certain (perhaps) key elements of the previous iterations (with regards to inventory management, skill tree usage/redundancy, or whatever)?

Because honestly all I see is massive raging hate everywhere, barely backed up with substantial rhetoric beyond "I played the earlier Diablos and they were so much better because NOSTALGIA". There are small islands (bastions?) of objective discussion backed up with disappointment where Blizzard failed to meet expectations (or justified rage where Blizzard account management screw access to the game because the dude flies international a lot and tries in log in somewhere else), but those are few and far between.

You may have guessed, but I don't care if people don't like something. I do care when they sit in threads and insult other people for their opinions (especially while presenting their opinion as something it is not).

[[Loli]Loli]

It's not a very solid game honestly.
It's sub par, especially for a triple A title.

[Apostate]

It's not a very solid game honestly.
It's sub par, especially for a triple A title.

It has some solid parts and some bad parts.

Things it did right:
-Skill system
-Gameplay (not progression)
-Graphics/Animations
-Voice Acting
-Follower Dialogue

Things it did wrong:
-Progression to endgame
-lack of interesting items
-Narrative
-Atmosphere
-Game released without critical components like PvP and server stability


The distinction I'm making between gameplay and endgame progression is that the game completely amazing when you first start a character. When you're still getting new abilities and building your skillset you feel like a god, you love the game, you love how powerful your giant AOE abilities are. In Hell and Inferno especially when the challenge is much harder you no longer experience that same level of enjoyment.

Most of the things that are wrong with the game are being fixed. I doubt we'll see a rework of the story or atmosphere at all, unfortunately, but that's life.



I think most people who played it and only beat Normal before stopping are happy with the game and think they spent a solid 60 bucks. The people like us who want a game we can dump 500 hours into are disappointed.

[Libra]

EDIT: ninja'd by Apostate.


The notion that a game not being as good/being better than it's predecessor does in no way mean that the game/it's predecessor is automatically a failure of an "abomination" or "horrible".

Your challenge is inherently flawed, I'm afraid.

I'm not a Diablo gamer,

Sorry but when you make a successor, or try to, you will do well to improve upon the predecessor. What if HoN was worse than DotA, like from the start.

I mean no stats, no reconnect, no servers, no matchmaking, and no GFX options. Why would you play it? You could've just played dota, not paying money, which in terms is "better" for you. (financial wise that is)

Also you are not a diablo gamer, does that mean you never played it? If so, you don't know what you are talking about.

So I'm sorry but your "insight" is flawed even more so than mine, and I just read the first line. You make such a grave mistake just within the start of your reply.

"Nostalgia" does not apply, like I said before, if you still play it because it is good it is not nostalgia.

You may have guessed, but I don't care if people don't like something. I do care when they sit in threads and insult other people for their opinions (especially while presenting their opinion as something it is not).

However when you do not know ANYTHING about it you sit back and watch. You don't know if my reasons are wrong or right, besides you are a mod and when things go out of line you have your resources.

As Loli said with lesser "harsh" words:

It's not a very solid game honestly.
It's sub par, especially for a triple A title.

Things it did right:
-Skill system
-Gameplay (not progression)
-Graphics/Animations
-Voice Acting
-Follower Dialogue

Skill system? Why is it better? Everything is automated and done for you, removing "human mistakes" from the game. But it also removed replayability. Like I said before, why level 2 barbs? There is no reason.

Gameplay? Debatable. Less skills = less replayability = bad. Now this might seen unfair to some but if they only had the "end game" D2 had it would be better because D3's is ****.

-GFX: Better no doubt.
-Voice: better no doubt.
-Follower dialogue: DuH.

-Game released without critical components like PvP and server stability

PvP/testing/polish. I didn't really have that much a problem with server stability. I mean whenever WoW launched(launches) a new addon it is the same thing. You cannot buy servers for a "moment" everyone wants to play.

[[TECH]Gorb]

Sorry but when you make a successor, or try to, you will do well to improve upon the predecessor. What if HoN was worse than DotA, like from the start.

I mean no stats, no reconnect, no servers, no matchmaking, and no GFX options. Why would you play it? You could've just played dota, not paying money, which in terms is "better" for you. (financial wise that is)

Also you are not a diablo gamer, does that mean you never played it? If so, you don't know what you are talking about.

So I'm sorry but your "insight" is flawed even more so than mine, and I just read the first line. You make such a grave mistake just within the start of your reply.

"Nostalgia" does not apply, like I said before, if you still play it because it is good it is not nostalgia.


However when you do not know ANYTHING about it you sit back and watch. You don't know if my reasons are wrong or right, besides you are a mod and when things go out of line you have your resources.

Of course you try to improve upon the predecessor.

However, that again does not mean that Diablo 3 is "horrible" if it falls short of any area that either of it's predecessors is known for. Hyperbole is never good for making an objective point.

Your analogy with HoN is flawed, because all of those things you mentioned DotA generally lacks (barring limited Battle.net stats and whatever GFX options WC3 can provide). I would purchase HoN (as I did) with the notion that future support would improve the state of the game. Or I may not; though I consider anything I can pick up for < £20 something of a bargain (especially considering the hours I can get out of such games).

I am not commenting on Diablo, nor am I commenting on it's state. I asked Good_Apollo if he could bring something constructive to the table, because he gave me a perfectly rational and objective response. You are resorting to personal attacks and diversion of the thread topic because you cannot grasp that I took you to task for insulting someone else simply because his opinion differed from yours.

Diablo 3 is not objectively horrible by any stretch of the imagination. Horrible is generally a subjective descriptor and the sales the game has generated imply it has been a commercial (albeit not critical) success.

Please try to read the posts you are quoting before you respond to them in future. I am sorry for derailing this thread due to your lack of understanding and I hope Good_Apollo responds so that I can learn more about the state of the game from an unbiased point of view (though Apostate is doing a good job).

[[Loli]Loli]

My problems:
-The skill system in general was poorly made. There is always one skill "upgrade" the trumps the rest. No reason to use the other. Many abilities were also useless overall.
-The game was glitchy and unbalanced. Certain classes were useless, certain were gods. Instead of buffing the bad, they just nerfed everything.
-The game is extremely dumbed down. There is little customization in your build other than just damage unless you're a barbarian or monk.
-The item system is poorly done. The way things are rolled caused blues to be better than Legendaries often. You also shouldn't be able to roll a Witch Doctor only effect on a Monk only weapon. It's idiotic.
-There is no content. The game is a few hours, then repeats itself 4 times. There is no PvP, nothing to do but grind gear they keep changing.
-The game is not hard like they claimed. I beat it within a few days on the hardest difficulty. It was a joke. Bosses are 20x easier than normal enemies. It should be the other way around, grinding enemies for bosses, have the bosses be checkpoints to pass, not enemies you can just run around.
-There were enormous server problems on launch, especially for U.S., and many that still continue to happen. My friend has died twice on Hardcore in ACT III because of random server instability.

They took a multiplayer action RPG and made it all about the story. The gameplay is boring and repetitive, not because of the combat, but because of how item drops work.

For a game this hyped, for a game following D2, for a game 12 years in the making, for a game done but a large and professional studio, this was one of the biggest letdowns I've ever seen in gaming.

D3 was, and still is, a very sub-par game that people glorify with because of nostalgia. The only friends I have that played it regularly past the first 2 weeks only do it because they're making money from the real money AH, and want to have a decent character incase ​the game is fixed. They all agree it's really bad.

[Apostate]

I definitely prefer the new skill system, simply because in D2 you were so much more limited in choices. There were a few builds you could use that were good and everything else sucked, and if you were inexperienced it was even worse because you didn't know what to level up and then you had to start a new character entirely. It was very poor design, and it definitely wasn't "replayability". Having to make a new Amazon just to switch from bows to spears is ridiculous. In Diablo 3 you had something like 12 skills with 6 customizations each, the end result being way more customizability for your character.

Loli's assertion that certain skills and runes are completely superior to others is probably true to some extent, but it's DEFINITELY not as true as it was in D2. I imagine with more tweaking and balancing more runes and skills will become worth using for specific acts/builds/etc. Give them a year to balance and tweak the game and I'm sure end game won't be a problem.


I think the biggest problem is that the Diablo games are just not what we want from a game anymore. The whole premise of the endgame is idiotic and time wasting to me as an adult, even though I loved it when I was a kid. You want me to beat endless waves of monsters in the hopes of finding a good weapon, okay. What's the point of the good weapon? There is no point. It just lets you kill things slightly faster. The whole end game is designed around optimizing your ability to do what you've already mindlessly been doing for a hundred hours, which is not engaging enough for me anymore.


Imagine how fun and hard D3 would be to you if you were 12. The game looks amazing, the monsters are badass and scary looking, and Hell difficulty is super hard. One of your friends is in Inferno already and you want to get there, but you can only play two hours a day. You're simple so you don't notice how cheesy the story is. That's the problem with D3 for us. It's just not an intellectually stimulating game.


One thing I really dislike about MMOs is the whole idea of creating an experience that can only be obtained by dumping hundreds of hours into it. It's socially irresponsible, creates obesity and game addicts, and pulls people away from their families and friends, from their productive hobbies, from their jobs. It's not that different than making cigarettes, in my opinion.

[Gipp]

logged on today for the new patch.
played around on the inferno barb. switched characters to try to get my demon hunter through hell.
logged off and havent felt like playing :/

it just doesnt feel rewarding to me. nothing makes me want to complete act 3 and 4 in inferno. its the same game 4 times in a row. i think inferno difficulty was a bad decision especially since normal is faceroll easy and nightmare just feels out of place.

they keep promising this update on making nightmare and hell bosses drop rares on first kill but for some reason it just hasnt happened yet. so that kills my incentive even more to level characters up.

[[Loli]Loli]

"In Diablo 3 you had something like 12 skills with 6 customizations each, the end result being way more customizability for your character. "

Except only one is worth it in each, so you have 12 skills, and half of those are useless. So you have 5-6 and pick 4.



Woo.

[Apostate]

"In Diablo 3 you had something like 12 skills with 6 customizations each, the end result being way more customizability for your character. "

Except only one is worth it in each, so you have 12 skills, and half of those are useless. So you have 5-6 and pick 4.



Woo.

That's just not true. There are definitely certain limitations but you are way exaggerating. I even admitted that two lines down myself.

[[S2]ElementUser]

My problems:
-The skill system in general was poorly made. There is always one skill "upgrade" the trumps the rest. No reason to use the other. Many abilities were also useless overall.

I never understood the point of some runes (ie, Diamond Skin's final rune which does AoE damage on-expiration. Like it's only 155% damage. Even with the upcoming buff to 215%, the other runes trump it in terms of usefulness).