Diablo 4 comming?

Yeah, there are rumors that they will announce Diablo animated series that is coming to Netflix.
If that happens I will literally spam bomb Blizzard.
There is no game out there I'm looking forward to as much as I look forward to Diablo 4.
Cyberpunk is pretty close, but not quite there :p
 
So in August they go out of their way to say this:



And now follow it up with this:
BlizzCon 2018 is almost here and we’ve seen a lot of rumors flying around about our plans for Diablo at the show. These are very exciting times—we currently have multiple teams working on different Diablo projects and we can’t wait to tell you all about them . . . when the time is right.

We know what many of you are hoping for and we can only say that “good things come to those who wait,” but evil things often take longer. We appreciate your patience as our teams work tirelessly to create nightmarish experiences worthy of the Lord of Terror.

While we won’t be ready to announce all of our projects, we do intend to share some Diablo-related news with you at the show.

November 2 will be an especially diabolical date—not only is it the first day of BlizzCon, it’s also when Diablo III arrives on the Nintendo Switch. If you’re planning to pick up the game (the digital download will be available starting at midnight on launch day) and are joining us in Anaheim, be sure to bring your console. We’d love to slay some demons with you on the show floor.

Again, we want to thank you for your patience and support. We are eternally grateful to you and the millions of other Diablo fans around the world whose passion for this franchise inspires us and keeps our fires burning.

We’ll see you in hell . . . and at BlizzCon!
Click to expand...

At best I would guess it will be a D2 remastered announcement. If they allocated this much Blizzcon time to simply talk about D3 on Switch then they are fucking idiots over there.
 
I wish very strongly, that this leak is wrong. I would have no qualms with a d2 remaster. I would quit PoE for it.. but how much per month? Is there a AH? Can I play solo self found? I want good content, God dammit. If it's D2 or a new game, so be it, I don't care.
 
TheToE! said:
It doesn't inspire confidence when I see some butch millennial that prolly wasn't even around when Diablo released talking about the future of the series..
Click to expand...

Diablo was released November 24th 1997, which would mean every millennial was born before that with current age range being from 22 to 38.

Do you even know what you're complaining about? Go back to yelling at the sky.
 
Blizzard is a victim of their own success. They have been responsible for pushing forward genres or creating them.
As a result it's hard for them to take the chances necessary without facing a huge amount of fan backlash or the rallying cry of "this new thing isn't like the old thing".

Diablo 3 for all its problems really did attempt a lot of new mechanics to try and shake up ARPG mechanics. A lot of people hated them because they would rather have "perceived choice" than "actual choice" in things like skilltrees and stat points versus the D3 skill build system.
If they were to remake D2 without any major changes, most people probably wouldn't enjoy it nearly as much as they think they would. As they would be met with a lot of old hard mechanics such as having a shared loot pool versus individual loot pools. Remember how fun it was to do Baal runs in a group and have to rely on pickup bots to actually get any drops? Or get loot drops that aren't even for your class? Or that rares or keyworded weapons are often better than legendaries? How about unkillable monsters because they are immune to every damage type your character is capable of dealing (I realize Immunity came later with LOD and patches, but it's still now an integral part of the game)? What fun!

If they are going to make a remaster, are they going to change the things that D3 fixed, or is it going to be a game for 5% of Diablo players? Because if it's a straight remaster, there isn't enough people willing or even currently playing D2 or D1 to warrant it.
And D1 would be a complete nightmare for newplayers. In D1 there weren't even skill trees. It completely relied on a tome system and stat points to gain spells (of which any of the 3 classes could have, but INT was required to learn upper level spells making Rogues and Warriors incapable of getting or using "Apocalypse" as an example). The maps were clearly all generated from squares (making the maze like quality of the maps and doors with some cages very repetitive). As well as only having 3 dungeon tile types in the entire game with 100% linear progression down down down the labyrinth (and incredibly limited enemy variation).

For what it's worth, the nostalgia factor is high with D2, but there are a huge amount of problems and hurdles for modern players. And I think a lot of people also don't accurately remember a lot of the problems with the game and the original landscape the game was in.
Personally I'd rather play a D4. And I'd rather have a fresh experience even if the game play and mechanics are really different than the previous 3. For all of D3's problems, it did more right than wrong. If they build the game from the ground up without an AH or loot box based system (that is to say a clearly designed and well built progression system without "outside" meddling) then it could deliver the best of both worlds experience: the fun grindy loot based gameplay, with much better progression, skills, loot, maps, and monster variation than any previous title. That's the dream. I just don't think we'll get that by going backwards (unless extreme reworks are involved). Only by going forwards.
 
UnknownSouljer said:
Blizzard is a victim of their own success. They have been responsible for pushing forward genres or creating them.
As a result it's hard for them to take the chances necessary without facing a huge amount of fan backlash or the rallying cry of "this new thing isn't like the old thing".

Diablo 3 for all its problems really did attempt a lot of new mechanics to try and shake up ARPG mechanics. A lot of people hated them because they would rather have "perceived choice" than "actual choice" in things like skilltrees and stat points versus the D3 skill build system.
If they were to remake D2 without any major changes, most people probably wouldn't enjoy it nearly as much as they think they would. As they would be met with a lot of old hard mechanics such as having a shared loot pool versus individual loot pools. Remember how fun it was to do Baal runs in a group and have to rely on pickup bots to actually get any drops? Or get loot drops that aren't even for your class? Or that rares or keyworded weapons are often better than legendaries? How about unkillable monsters because they are immune to every damage type your character is capable of dealing (I realize Immunity came later with LOD and patches, but it's still now an integral part of the game)? What fun!

If they are going to make a remaster, are they going to change the things that D3 fixed, or is it going to be a game for 5% of Diablo players? Because if it's a straight remaster, there isn't enough people willing or even currently playing D2 or D1 to warrant it.
And D1 would be a complete nightmare for newplayers. In D1 there weren't even skill trees. It completely relied on a tome system and stat points to gain spells (of which any of the 3 classes could have, but INT was required to learn upper level spells making Rogues and Warriors incapable of getting or using "Apocalypse" as an example). The maps were clearly all generated from squares (making the maze like quality of the maps and doors with some cages very repetitive). As well as only having 3 dungeon tile types in the entire game with 100% linear progression down down down the labyrinth (and incredibly limited enemy variation).

For what it's worth, the nostalgia factor is high with D2, but there are a huge amount of problems and hurdles for modern players. And I think a lot of people also don't accurately remember a lot of the problems with the game and the original landscape the game was in.
Personally I'd rather play a D4. And I'd rather have a fresh experience even if the game play and mechanics are really different than the previous 3. For all of D3's problems, it did more right than wrong. If they build the game from the ground up without an AH or loot box based system (that is to say a clearly designed and well built progression system without "outside" meddling) then it could deliver the best of both worlds experience: the fun grindy loot based gameplay, with much better progression, skills, loot, maps, and monster variation than any previous title. That's the dream. I just don't think we'll get that by going backwards (unless extreme reworks are involved). Only by going forwards.
Click to expand...
3oz8xIroX3rtDKV1sY.gif
 
Armenius said:
View attachment 113997
Click to expand...

Go back and play D1 and D2. Ironically like mister Trump, you have no memory of the past and your one word conclusion shows your ignorance on it.
Not to mention multiple subject topics were discussed. So certain things I said about the community about them hating specific mechanics you're blanket stating are wrong (even though that is empirically true), as well as D3 having problems (you're stating as wrong so I guess you think D3 was the perfect game?) as well as opinions from myself about preferring D4 versus a remake which my personal opinion can be disagreed with but in this case cannot be "wrong" outside of a lowbrow attempt at using irony. Tome based system in D1, empirically true. Grid based map generation, empirically true. Few enemy types, empirically true.

This is a discussion forum. How about you discuss something instead of troll?
 
Last edited:
"Blizzard" doesn't even really exist anymore, it just a brand name put on content made by different people.
David Brevik himself (lead designer on D2) seems to think so. (60 second clip)

UnknownSouljer said:
A lot of people hated them because they would rather have "perceived choice" than "actual choice" in things like skilltrees and stat points versus the D3 skill build system.
Click to expand...
This does not sound accurate, PoE (path of exile) does exactly that - provide choice via a complex skill tree/stats, and it currently has more than 50 times the playerbase of D3 and is very successful.

UnknownSouljer said:
Or that rares or keyworded weapons are often better than legendaries?
Click to expand...
This is not necessarily a bad thing, in fact it is a key aspect of PoE that rare items have better stats than 'legendary' (unique) items. The developer's vision is that legendary items should provide a unique feature that enables or assists a build, and not just be some insane high stat item. So you have a situation where most uniques are vendor crap to most players, but there might be some quirky/meme/fun build that it enables when used.

UnknownSouljer said:
If they were to remake D2 without any major changes, most people probably wouldn't enjoy it nearly as much as they think they would.
Click to expand...
Years ago after I got over the shininess aspect of D3 to only realise what a shallow game it was, I re-installed D2 and had the time of my life. It wasn't nostalgia, it was just a better game even with it's sprite animations and 800x600 resolution. (and oh god the atmosphere in that game was truly amazing, compared to D3's "WoW-ification")

I wasn't the only one to be sure, as I remember a news article saying that D2 playerbase had exceeded the D3 playerbase in size. Alkaizer was world first paragon 100 in D3, here is his 30 second summary of D3 vs PoE.

I've got nothing but best wishes toward the current teams working on Diablo 4, I'd love for D4 to come out and be an amazing game. They just need to accept they fucked up during D3's development - if they don't accept the mistakes they made in the past then the future doesn't look bright.
 
Drexion said:
"Blizzard" doesn't even really exist anymore, it just a brand name put on content made by different people.
David Brevik himself (lead designer on D2) seems to think so. (60 second clip)
Click to expand...

There is a lot of doom and gloom surrounding Blizzard as its own entity under its own control. Certainly many of the major players that made Blizzard, Blizzard have left within the past several years. Whether this means eventually full Activision will happen to Blizzard (that is to say they get stripped out, create a cynical cash grab based on current IPs and eventually cause a multi-billion dollar series of franchises to crash) is yet to be seen.


Drexion said:
This does not sound accurate, PoE (path of exile) does exactly that - provide choice via a complex skill tree/stats, and it currently has more than 50 times the playerbase of D3 and is very successful.
Click to expand...

D2 was also "really successful" at this. But Blizzard had the data on what was actually occurring in game. Basically the long and the short is, stat points and allocation was "solved". So you had two choices: either go with the best stat allocation for your class and build or be objectively playing a worse build. The only third option was that you were goofing off and playing some strange build for kicks (of which there is some merit to allowing players to do this).

So if the entire player base just does the same thing anyway, why bother to have the system? This is what I mean by "perceived choice". Granted this argument could still be made now for how D3 operates, as there is definitely merit in discussing "what builds are the best" and running those builds ad nauseam for competitive play. But at least there are more viable builds than were ever possible in D2 for top level solo play (enough to have over 30 or so listed every season by streamers like Rhykker).

Then it becomes a question of: "is stat allocation fun?" I guess some people think that it is. Even if it's inconsequential because you're making the same build as everyone else. Blizzard didn't think so. It was a choice that obviously has proven unpopular. However I actually appreciate their line of thinking of trying to draw players to make choices and decisions that were more relevant (like having a skill system that could be changed at any time so that players could try builds at any time) rather than having stat points or D2's skill tree..

Unfortunately even that system didn't ultimately end up how they intended as of course the best skills in the game with the best gear in the game also "got solved". So, from a game development standpoint how do you make these systems actually fun? And also, how do you make these systems actually relevant (as opposed to just using a "solved" build)?


Drexion said:
This is not necessarily a bad thing, in fact it is a key aspect of PoE that rare items have better stats than 'legendary' (unique) items. The developer's vision is that legendary items should provide a unique feature that enables or assists a build, and not just be some insane high stat item. So you have a situation where most uniques are vendor crap to most players, but there might be some quirky/meme/fun build that it enables when used.
Click to expand...

I don't necessarily disagree either. Itemization being what it is. However clearly the loot systems that have interlocking loot, feel more cohesive to players than finding the highest damage ethereal weapon and putting a ZOD in it.
Perhaps there is some way to make "Legendaries" be a more randomized system, but then that increases the slot machine nature of the game and some people will have significantly better random stats (whatever those stats may be). That makes the game feel more swingy and then less like the players can be the best by any level of skill versus just pure chance.


Drexion said:
Years ago after I got over the shininess aspect of D3 to only realise what a shallow game it was, I re-installed D2 and had the time of my life. It wasn't nostalgia, it was just a better game even with it's sprite animations and 800x600 resolution. (and oh god the atmosphere in that game was truly amazing, compared to D3's "WoW-ification")
Click to expand...

D3 is by no means a perfect game, but there are a lot of QOL improvements over D2 that took away a lot of headaches.
I played every class to death at the highest level in D2. I still to this day probably have more hours logged in D2 than D3, as I probably played 12 hours a day at one point. And when you do that, you eventually have every class geared if all you do is Meph and Pindle runs (with some cows thrown in the middle).

I say this all to say that there are a lot of pains in the game that D3 definitely cured. Even things as simple as individualized loot that was class specific for your class. Having a shared storage space between characters (I remember losing plenty of things due to needing to transfer). Having maps that weren't just gigantic squares with a few changes in the middle. It made finding games and queing them easier. It removed the ability to cheese the game (at least to the same degrees). It also became a lot less grindy for better or worse. D2 required a lot more time to gear out a character as you may not get loot for your class AND you might not be a fast enough clicker to get anything at all.

It was insanely addictive though and despite having less of an endgame (just grind to 100 the fastest and the rest of it is looting) had a lot of fun elements. I don't deny any of those things. But even with your foray back into D2, I think you'd realize if you did spend the 100 hours back in, that there is a huge amount of repetition that does not get any more interesting with age.


Drexion said:
I wasn't the only one to be sure, as I remember a news article saying that D2 playerbase had exceeded the D3 playerbase in size. Alkaizer was world first paragon 100 in D3, here is his 30 second summary of D3 vs PoE.
Click to expand...

I can't comment on player base. But certainly a lot of people play POE due to it's incredibly low entry cost. That is to say: free. As for Alkaizer's comments, he doesn't really say anything about any form of mechanics. Just snide remarks. And I think there is a lot more depth to be discussed despite all of the issues D3 has. Not to mention that video is a minimum of 2 years old (what it states in that twitch recap).
Let's be clear, I think my remarks are balanced because I don't have nostalgia and I don't try to state that D3 doesn't have flaws. My statements purely come from a place of just wanting to play good games now and in the future. So I have a hopeful tone about what D4 could be if made correctly. I also just don't happen to think that making a remake will be as great as people remember it unless they overhaul the systems quite a bit.



Drexion said:
I've got nothing but best wishes toward the current teams working on Diablo 4, I'd love for D4 to come out and be an amazing game. They just need to accept they fucked up during D3's development - if they don't accept the mistakes they made in the past then the future doesn't look bright.
Click to expand...

I 100% agree. D3 was definitely broken at launch. And even after numerous fixes couldn't ever be fully fixed because of the foundations it was built on. Which is why I said what I said: it has to not have an AH or any form of lootboxes or paid outside interference or the game will be doomed to fail before it even launches. And to reiterate that is because it will be built on a foundation that doesn't give the best player experience.


Edit: grammar, spelling.
 
Last edited:
UnknownSouljer said:
I don't necessarily disagree either. Itemization being what it is. However clearly the loot systems that have interlocking loot, feel more cohesive to players than finding the highest damage ethereal weapon and putting a ZOD in it.
Perhaps there is some way to make "Legendaries" be a more randomized system, but then that increases the slot machine nature of the game and some people will have significantly better random stats (whatever those stats may be). That makes the game feel more swingy and then less like the players can be the best by any level of skill versus just pure chance.
Click to expand...

This is a strange point to make when the D3 developers doomed the entire game from the get-go by making all skill damage based on your weapon damage. All balance changes became hamfisted % tweaks and, from a design and lore perspective, it made no sense whatsoever. Why would a Witch Doctor carry a huge 2H axe to use a blow dart skill? And why is the damage and attack speed of the dart based on the axe? And what's the point of rolling different elemental damage values on my weapon if the skill is just going to override the damage type? The itemization was done by people who didn't know what the fuck they were doing and it only got patched up along the way to make it acceptable if still uninteresting.

Jay Wilson tried that same "you didn't really like D2" bullshit too and used it as his license to mess with the formula, as though D2 wasn't actually fun just because Baal runs existed or because the drop rates sucked, etc. He removed skill trees because he thought he knew better than everyone else, and then implemented a skill system that didn't allow for any customization, but also didn't address any of the "problems" he identified with skill trees in the first place.

D2 is still fun even if it could benefit from some modernization in both the graphics and game design areas; it's when you discount the entire game "because Hammerdins existed" or "because Baal runs" that everything goes to shit. Okay, so fix that shit like Blizzard should have originally, and don't let bots run wild. Maybe tweak some drop rates. Get someone like Brother Laz to help and it could be awesome.
 
Aix. said:
This is a strange point to make when the D3 developers doomed the entire game from the get-go by making all skill damage based on your weapon damage. All balance changes became hamfisted % tweaks and, from a design and lore perspective, it made no sense whatsoever. Why would a Witch Doctor carry a huge 2H axe to use a blow dart skill? And why is the damage and attack speed of the dart based on the axe? And what's the point of rolling different elemental damage values on my weapon if the skill is just going to override the damage type? The itemization was done by people who didn't know what the fuck they were doing and it only got patched up along the way to make it acceptable if still uninteresting.
Click to expand...

All weapon types are represented in the end product. And what I mean by that is that all weapon types are viable, if for specific builds. 2H weapons aren't used or required or even good for every class. And the fixes as you call them have allowed all weapon types to be relevant inside their respective builds. But finally, in every single game there has been the "OP stat". The thing you stack to give the biggest boost to performance. I don't see how having base weapon damage is any different than making something like attack % or critical hit %/dmg be the top stat. Something had to be.

But I find it a very boring argument to discuss weapons having to represent certain skills rather than just allowing the skill to be fun and not necessarily interlocking the two. You mention hammerdins further down in this post, and similarly it would be ridiculous if they needed a hammer to make hammers. They don't, it's a game. And not a realistic game. I don't have that requirement. Did you honestly want or need WD's to have a blowdart weapon type? Seriously, who cares. Maybe you should then address how using a weapon makes fetishes with blowdarts appear out of your butt. If that's your biggest complaint with D3 then I feel like you missed a huge stack of problems the game has.

Okay, elemental damage on weps doesn't make sense. I'll give you that. But they could have just as easily patched the game to make all weapon damage flat "black" damage. Once again, if this is a sticking point for you, great, but I find it one that isn't worth arguing about. Once again in the face of much bigger D3 problems.

I'd rather talk about how many actual gameplay elements of D3 just aren't fun. And how the end game isn't really an endgame but an endless grind. And how the solution of creating enchanting just to extend the endgame itemization grind isn't fun. Or the necessity to create groups for "Rat Runs" meaning you more or less must play Necro to be competitive isn't fun. So if for whatever reason you've got this mistaken belief that I think D3 is the golden child, you're wrong. But is it more playable, has better QOL, easier to pick up and putdown than D2? It absolutely is.



Aix. said:
Jay Wilson tried that same "you didn't really like D2" bullshit too and used it as his license to mess with the formula, as though D2 wasn't actually fun just because Baal runs existed or because the drop rates sucked, etc. He removed skill trees because he thought he knew better than everyone else, and then implemented a skill system that didn't allow for any customization, but also didn't address any of the "problems" he identified with skill trees in the first place.
Click to expand...

If you're going to attack what I've said, at least be accurate. Like I've said before, I have probably played more D2 than D3 (And yes, I have quite a few 100 hours in D3. Some chars I think I have over 600 hours, not that that is particularly impressive). I clearly didn't play D2 all that time because I hated it. But at the same time I don't have this idolized version of what it was. It was the best of its time. But its time now is clearly over. If it wasn't then people would be playing D2 at the same level that they play POE or D3. But they don't because nostalgia isn't as powerful a mechanism as pure gameplay. And if you even try and counter with "well the graphics are old" and "the resolution is low" until SC got a remaster it was still getting played like crazy and even more than the modern SC2 (necessitating the desire, want, and need for a remake of a 20 year old title). And I could also bring up rogue-likes and modern pixel games. So clearly people not playing D2 has nothing to do with graphics level.

To pretend D2 doesn't have a bunch of problems that prevent people from playing it (the least of which are graphics) is ignoring an awful lot. So, if I'm the one that's ignorant on this, then you'd have to come up with a pretty incredible reason why people aren't playing the game. And if they're just "bored with it" then that already says enough. At that point why make a direct remake at all? Unless like I say they do a huge amount of QOL improvements and give the game an endgame past just doing Baal/Mephisto/Pindleskin and getting to level 100, it frankly doesn't have a future.



Aix. said:
D2 is still fun even if it could benefit from some modernization in both the graphics and game design areas; it's when you discount the entire game "because Hammerdins existed" or "because Baal runs" that everything goes to shit. Okay, so fix that shit like Blizzard should have originally, and don't let bots run wild. Maybe tweak some drop rates. Get someone like Brother Laz to help and it could be awesome.
Click to expand...

Fun is in the eye of the beholder. If it's still fun for you, awesome. But despite what "everyone" says, in terms of how "fun it is" they aren't playing it. That is the absolute bottom line. You can argue with me about the reasons why something is good or bad, but at the end of the day, you have to address the numbers. At least with being open to criticize the past, I'm willing to give an honest take. The truth is the ARPG world has moved past D2, by a lot. This is why people are playing POE or D3, or are waiting for other new ARPGs to come out.

D2 got a lot of things right, especially for the time. I still think that Barb and Sorceress were far more fun to play than their D3 counterparts. D2 also made you feel awesome and like a God at the endgame whereas D3's endgame eventually makes you feel pathetic. But that is of course due to creating escalating challenge. That to me is an example of something I definitely don't have a solution for. But again, I don't idealize these issues. They are what they are. They need fixes. Not fanboys waxing on about how great it is.

EDIT: Also, I didn't bring up Hammerdins once. I actually played 'em, even in D2 Classic.

EDITS: Spelling, Grammar... I'm always catching dumb mistakes.
 
Last edited:
The majority of people who want to bash D3 have never even played the game since the expansion which essentially has changed everything. Not that D3 is anywhere near perfect, but its current state fixed a lot of the original gripes that people had in D3's early days.

I don't know why any of you think there will be a D4 announcement at Blizzcon let alone think that Blizzard is capable of releasing a game opposite of D3 that appeases all the D2 fans at the same time. Blizzard will not make a D4. They're just now making D3 for the switch. They have caused irreparable damage to the franchise since the negative reception around D3 and would struggle to be a profitable investment.
 
UnknownSouljer said:
All weapon types are represented in the end product. And what I mean by that is that all weapon types are viable, if for specific builds. 2H weapons aren't used or required or even good for every class. And the fixes as you call them have allowed all weapon types to be relevant inside their respective builds. But finally, in every single game there has been the "OP stat". The thing you stack to give the biggest boost to performance. I don't see how having base weapon damage is any different than making something like attack % or critical hit %/dmg be the top stat. Something had to be.

But I find it a very boring argument to discuss weapons having to represent certain skills rather than just allowing the skill to be fun and not necessarily interlocking the two. You mention hammerdins further down in this post, and similarly it would be ridiculous if they needed a hammer to make hammers. They don't, it's a game. And not a realistic game. I don't have that requirement. Did you honestly want or need WD's to have a blowdart weapon type? Seriously, who cares. If that's your biggest complaint with D3 then I feel like you missed a huge stack of problems the game has.





If you're going to attack what I've said, at least be accurate. Like I've said before, I have probably played more D2 than D3 (And yes, I have quite a few 100 hours in D3. Some chars I think I have over 600 hours, not that that is particularly impressive). I clearly didn't play D2 all that time because I hated it. But at the same time I don't have this idolized version of what it was. It was the best of its time. But its time now is clearly over. If it wasn't then people would be playing D2 at the same level that they play POE or D3. But they don't because nostalgia isn't as powerful a mechanism as pure gameplay. And if you even try and counter with "well the graphics are old" and "the resolution is low" until SC got a remaster it was still getting played like crazy and even more than the modern SC2 (necessitating the desire, want, and need for a remake). And I could also bring up rogue-likes and modern pixel games. So clearly people not playing D2 has nothing to do with graphics level.

To pretend D2 doesn't have a bunch of problems that prevent people from playing it (the least of which are graphics) is ignoring an awful lot. So, if I'm the one that's ignorant on this, then you'd have to come up with a pretty incredible reason why people aren't playing the game. And if they're just "bored with it" then that already says enough. At that point why make a direct remake at all? Unless like I say they do a huge amount of QOL improvements and give the game an endgame past just doing Baal/Mephisto/Pindleskin and getting to level 100, it frankly doesn't have a future.





Fun is in the eye of the beholder. If it's still fun for you, awesome. But despite what "everyone" says, in terms of how "fun it is" they aren't playing it. That is the absolute bottom line. You can argue with me about the reasons why something is good or bad, but at the end of the day, you have to address the numbers. At least with being open to criticize the past, I'm willing to give an honest take. The truth is the ARPG world has moved past D2, by a lot. This is why people are playing POE or D3, or are waiting for other new ARPGs to come out.

D2 got a lot of things right, especially for the time. I still think that Barb and Sorceress were far more fun to play than their D3 counterparts. D2 also made you feel awesome and like a God at the endgame whereas D3's endgame eventually makes you feel pathetic. But that is of course due to creating escalating challenge. That to me is an example of something I definitely don't have a solution for.

EDIT: Also, I didn't bring up Hammerdins once. I actually played 'em, even in D2 Classic.
Click to expand...

Sorry, you're far from the first person to say what you've said about D2 so by the end of my post I was using a more general "you" - not you specifically with regard to Hammerdins. But yeah, if you can't understand why your character holding a battle axe should not affect your blow dart damage then there's nothing to discuss because you aren't willing to look at it from a game design perspective. For instance, Hammerdins in D2 used "Magic Hammer" which was a spell, which would not have required a weapon at all. D3 didn't differentiate between spells and attacks, which is a very important distinction.

"Did you honestly want or need WD's to have a blowdart weapon type? Seriously, who cares." From what I can tell, that's basically what someone on the D3 team said during development, and it's a major complaint because it affected all other elements of skill and item design and balance. The design team should have cared, because itemization was the most widely criticized element of the entire game.

And yeah, running 800x600 on a 1080p monitor is bad enough let alone higher resolutions, plus the game runs like ass in Direct3D and I think even the Glide wrapper is fubar'd at this point. The netcode is meant for like 56K modems and the online realms were overrun with bots and maphackers since Blizz barely cared...these are all absolutely factors that cause former players to return, and those factors would also keep newer generations from even trying the game.
 
FlawleZ said:
The majority of people who want to bash D3 have never even played the game since the expansion which essentially has changed everything. Not that D3 is anywhere near perfect, but its current state fixed a lot of the original gripes that people had in D3's early days.

I don't know why any of you think there will be a D4 announcement at Blizzcon let alone think that Blizzard is capable of releasing a game opposite of D3 that appeases all the D2 fans at the same time. Blizzard will not make a D4. They're just now making D3 for the switch. They have caused irreparable damage to the franchise since the negative reception around D3 and would struggle to be a profitable investment.
Click to expand...

D3 + RoS has sold 30 million copies across all platforms; the IP is fine and a sequel would easily be profitable. The switch port comes out November 2nd so that's already done, not in the works. We very likely will not see a D4 announcement at Blizzcon though, based on their recent news posts.
 
Aix. said:
Sorry, you're far from the first person to say what you've said about D2 so by the end of my post I was using a more general "you" - not you specifically with regard to Hammerdins. But yeah, if you can't understand why your character holding a battle axe should not affect your blow dart damage then there's nothing to discuss because you aren't willing to look at it from a game design perspective. For instance, Hammerdins in D2 used "Magic Hammer" which was a spell, which would not have required a weapon at all. D3 didn't differentiate between spells and attacks, which is a very important distinction.
Click to expand...

It really isn't. This is an ARPG. The whole game is killing things. There are only two things in the game from a skills perspective: defensive stuff that keeps you alive, and offensive stuff that kills things. D2 and D3 both work from that same place. You have created a designation with no functional distinction. If you're going to argue the need for a resource, or have a resource be the difference between spells and attacks that exists in D3. If it is a really important distinction you're going to have to break it down. But really, there isn't.


Aix. said:
"Did you honestly want or need WD's to have a blowdart weapon type? Seriously, who cares." From what I can tell, that's basically what someone on the D3 team said during development, and it's a major complaint because it affected all other elements of skill and item design and balance. The design team should have cared, because itemization was the most widely criticized element of the entire game.
Click to expand...

You can discuss itemization, that's fine, but arguing that a blowdart weapon is necessary is absurd. If you're going to argue that hammers from hammerdin are fine because they're "magical" I could say the same thing about the blowdart. Or argue that hey, if you're a WD you must by nature and by discipline carry a blowdart because you need it to represent yourself tribally. Like ANY REASON explains this. If you think I'm being obtuse, you're pointing out a "flaw" in a game in which every character more or less conjures things and/or shapeshifts. Where did all the Assassin traps come from? Did you need them to carry a "trap" offhand just so they could have that series of skills or abilities? Complain about that D2 loophole too while you're at it.

They wanted WD's to have a few skills in which they could attack with a projectile. They didn't want "blowdarts" to define the entire class. If you can't see how making WD's being forced into having an entire skillsets and equipment into blowdarts doesn't hamper game design then I don't know what to tell you. They wanted a fun cool looking skill that would allow WD's to have a basic ranged attack. They didn't want WD's to be the "blowdart class". Did you also need WD to have a jar weapon to throw jars of spiders? Fine, would it have been better for you if instead of blowdarts WD's could throw any weapon they had equipped and it would return to them as their primary skill? Or how about they don't use blowdarts and just throw their class weapon Daggers instead? Are you so dense as to see that all you're doing at that point is changing the graphics and it has LITERALLY ZERO functional difference? Once again this is a game with magical characters where literally they can do anything. If you're looking for that kind of logic for itemization you're going to have to dig real deep.

Blowdarts then were picked for graphical reasons only. Any weapon could functionally do anything. Only the graphics get changed. What you're actually arguing with me about isn't itemization it's that you don't like the graphics they choose to have line up with specific attacks and with specific weapons. If the hammerdins graphic instead got changed from a magical hammer to whatever weapon the hammerdin was holding and for some reason was "just capable of spawning more weapons" would you then get mad about it? Once again: seriously, who cares. You're basically someone trying to argue "logic" and "technicalities" rather than looking at the real design decisions which were once again: trying to have a fun looking basic projectile attack for Witch Doctors that would "fit the theme".




Aix. said:
And yeah, running 800x600 on a 1080p monitor is bad enough let alone higher resolutions, plus the game runs like ass in Direct3D and I think even the Glide wrapper is fubar'd at this point. The netcode is meant for like 56K modems and the online realms were overrun with bots and maphackers since Blizz barely cared...these are all absolutely factors that cause former players to return, and those factors would also keep newer generations from even trying the game.
Click to expand...

You clearly haven't played D2 recently then. D2 has a vintage game team that keeps it up to date. From a netcode perspective it runs just fine. Not that it needs a huge amount of bandwidth for literally just sprites being generated. Lag has never been an issue the game has had (outside of slow connection speed from the players end, and of course old school servers getting overwhelmed from time to time, but nothing out of the ordinary. None of the server side issues are a problem anymore). D2 still has server resets and seasons.
If you care that much about bots then you are capable of playing by yourself or with friends or with friends you get through playing the game. One of the big things that every major D2 fan touts as being part of the superior gameplay experience of D2 over D3 is playing by yourself. Your reasons for people not playing the game are weak. You didn't even address the comparison to pixel art games or why StarCraft is/was still so popular after 20 years and D2 isn't (and also, Broodwar came out in 1998. D2 wasn't released until 2000. LOD 2001, so D2 is newer than SC).

EDIT: Also just looked this fun tidbit up, Diablo 2's most recent patch came out in 2016. Soooo yeah. They still work on it. It plays just fine. DX works just fine. In 1.14b they kept the Glide wrapper up to date. And they even continually work on the Mac client. You can read the version history yourself.
In 1.13c as an example, made in 2010, they did a massive overhaul in the game adding a bunch of free content. Like Uber bosses.
http://diablo.wikia.com/wiki/Diablo_II_version_history
So there you go, those excuses debunked. People don't play the game because it hasn't aged well. Either in single player or in multiplayer.
 
Last edited:
UnknownSouljer said:
Are you so dense as to see that all you're doing at that point is changing the graphics and it has LITERALLY ZERO functional difference?
Click to expand...

LOL that was the point I was making. In a genre with all sorts of flavors of weapons and armor and skills and spells, D3 boiled down to "equip weapon -> do skill" and there was little depth beyond that from a gearing perspective. The distinction between weapon-based attacks and spell-based damage is present in most other ARPGs, and it directly ties into the gear that you find and equip. So when the weapon types don't matter, and the elemental damage types don't matter, all you're really left with is DPS stat sticks that you gotta design the whole game around. That's not progress over D2.
 
Aix. said:
LOL that was the point I was making. In a genre with all sorts of flavors of weapons and armor and skills and spells, D3 boiled down to "equip weapon -> do skill" and there was little depth beyond that from a gearing perspective. The distinction between weapon-based attacks and spell-based damage is present in most other ARPGs, and it directly ties into the gear that you find and equip. So when the weapon types don't matter, and the elemental damage types don't matter, all you're really left with is DPS stat sticks that you gotta design the whole game around. That's not progress over D2.
Click to expand...

Every ARPG is functionally the same. Equip weapon => Do attack.
If you're impressed that certain games coordinated graphics with their attacks I don't know what to tell you. But if in every ARPG game you equipped a sheep and then for some reason a shark came out and bit your enemy and that was the attack it would be functionally NO DIFFERENT than any other set of graphics. If that was your whole point to begin with, then sure we're on the same page. But you haven't made even a single case on why that matters as every ARPG (as I just noted) operates this way. Or why D3 should be singled out for doing the same thing. I'm sure I get what you're trying to say, you want specific weapons to be limited to specific attack types. But if that's your problem then you're also functionally creating needless differences that functionally do not affect gameplay except forcing the player to use a weapon and weapon type. And then it still becomes: equip weapon => do attack.
If you think barbs having an entire skill tree more or less devoted to forcing players to gain flat damage from equipping specific weapons makes D2 superior to D3 then you have a very different view on what actually is important to playing these games and why.
If you think it's fun to not allow players to easily use any weapon they want and still progress because they need specific weapons to do certain skills. Then I also think we disagree. You may not appreciate that design decision, but creating the design decision your way does nothing but complicate what players can use and not really create a functional difference to gameplay outside of being incredibly frustrating.

And also for reference, I don't really want to play and RPG that requires me to eat food either. If you don't get how that relates to "needless mechanics that aren't particularly fun" then I don't know what to tell you.

EDIT: And who said anything about progress? Most of these games are using the exact same mechanics presented in different games. Don't be mistaken, once again I didn't say D3 is the end all be all. I've said the exact opposite multiple times. I just think it's ridiculous that you're singling the game out for THIS reason. "Wizards can conjure anything they want or use any spell type because they're wizards. But if you have a 2 handed mace equipped you'd better not be able to use a blowdart attack." Okay... so change the graphic to throwing a hammer. "Well that's the problem it's all just stats". Yes.... that is... the game. You're talking about a game that isn't about friends, bosses, challenges, or hell even story. D2 has always been about the loot. So yeah. Just raw stat sticks. If you have a problem with that, in general I'd recommend against any ARPG.
 
Last edited:
UnknownSouljer said:
Every ARPG is functionally the same. Equip weapon => Do attack.
If you're impressed that certain games coordinated graphics with their attacks I don't know what to tell you. But if in every ARPG game you equipped a sheep and then for some reason a shark came out and bit your enemy and that was the attack it would be functionally NO DIFFERENT than any other set of graphics. If that was your whole point to begin with, then sure we're on the same page. But you haven't made even a single case on why that matters as every ARPG (as I just noted) operates this way. Or why D3 should be singled out for doing the same thing. I'm sure I get what you're trying to say, you want specific weapons to be limited to specific attack types. But if that's your problem then you're also functionally creating needless differences that functionally do not affect gameplay except forcing the player to use a weapon and weapon type. And then it still becomes: equip weapon => do attack.
If you think barbs having an entire skill tree more or less devoted to forcing players to gain flat damage from equipping specific weapons makes D2 superior to D3 then you have a very different view on what actually is important to playing these games and why.
If you think it's fun to not allow players to easily use any weapon they want and still progress because they need specific weapons to do certain skills. Then I also think we disagree. You may not appreciate that design decision, but creating the design decision your way does nothing but complicate what players can use and not really create a functional difference to gameplay outside of being incredibly frustrating.

And also for reference, I don't really want to play and RPG that requires me to eat food either. If you don't get how that relates to "needless mechanics that aren't particularly fun" then I don't know what to tell you.

EDIT: And who said anything about progress? Most of these games are using the exact same mechanics presented in different games. Don't be mistaken, once again I didn't say D3 is the end all be all. I've said the exact opposite multiple times. I just think it's ridiculous that you're singling the game out for THIS reason. "Wizards can conjure anything they want or use any spell type because they're wizards. But if you have a 2 handed mace equipped you'd better not be able to use a blowdart attack." Okay... so change the graphic to throwing a hammer. "Well that's the problem it's all just stats". Yes.... that is... the game. You're talking about a game that isn't about friends, bosses, challenges, or hell even story. D2 has always been about the loot. So yeah. Just raw stat sticks. If you have a problem with that, in general I'd recommend against any ARPG.
Click to expand...

Keeping attacks and spells separate is not a needless thing. Attacks are generally affected by your weapon's damage, while spells are generally based on their own innate damage values. At no time did I suggest that I wanted blow dart skills to require blow dart items, or anything like that. As a past example of that though, I don't think it would be an improvement on D2 if the Amazon could use her javelin skills with a 1H mace equipped and get DPS based on the mace's base damage...why would it work that way? It makes no sense. That is a direct example - care to suggest that it shouldn't matter?

In D3, without that one "+1300-1500 poison damage" stat on the weapon the character is essentially useless. Remember when the itemization was so bad that weapons could drop with no or very low added damage even though your skills were entirely reliant on that one stat to do anything useful? It makes the itemization completely uninteresting and it removes all skill progression and investment.

It's fine if we agree to disagree on this, but it's a fundamental difference in design from D2, Path of Exile, Grim Dawn, etc. - games lauded for their itemization. D3 has never been lauded for its itemization and it's my opinion that this is a big reason why, yet you say that it's ridiculous to single out D3 for something that clearly sets it apart from other ARPGs...
 
Aix. said:
Keeping attacks and spells separate is not a needless thing. Attacks are generally affected by your weapon's damage, while spells are generally based on their own innate damage values. At no time did I suggest that I wanted blow dart skills to require blow dart items, or anything like that. As a past example of that though, I don't think it would be an improvement on D2 if the Amazon could use her javelin skills with a 1H mace equipped and get DPS based on the mace's base damage...why would it work that way? It makes no sense. That is a direct example - care to suggest that it shouldn't matter?
Click to expand...

Having the skill damage unrelated to weapon damage would defeat the purpose of weapon damage for classes like Wizards, Witch Doc, and Necro as they aren't melee or physical attacking classes.


Not sure what you're talking about here:
Aix. said:
In D3, without that one "+1300-1500 poison damage" stat on the weapon the character is essentially useless. Remember when the itemization was so bad that weapons could drop with no or very low added damage even though your skills were entirely reliant on that one stat to do anything useful? It makes the itemization completely uninteresting and it removes all skill progression and investment.
Click to expand...

In D3, the damage type does not change the amount of damage output. Whether its poison, lightning, Fire, Holy, etc.
 
Aix. said:
Keeping attacks and spells separate is not a needless thing. Attacks are generally affected by your weapon's damage, while spells are generally based on their own innate damage values. At no time did I suggest that I wanted blow dart skills to require blow dart items, or anything like that. As a past example of that though, I don't think it would be an improvement on D2 if the Amazon could use her javelin skills with a 1H mace equipped and get DPS based on the mace's base damage...why would it work that way? It makes no sense. That is a direct example - care to suggest that it shouldn't matter?
Click to expand...

It is indeed a direct example. But for more D2 examples you can look at the Barbarian skilltree and see their weapon mastery skills. None of the weapon mastery skills that barbarian has has and meaningful impact on any of the attacks that a barbarian does. But it will lock you into either only ever using polearms or swords (or yes indeed any of the other 4 weapon types). The trouble with that system, especially as one in an ARPG is: "is that fun" and can each individual weapon type be used in a meaningful way?

To that end, D3 still has most of this right. You can't do bow attacks without a bow. Monks use fist weapons. Wizard's have wands. And on down the line. In fact looking at a class like the WD using a two handed weapon is more an exception than a rule. But it's more about defining a class than forcing a weapon type.
There are certain types of games where this really matters. Sure, we could point to Skyrim or some other "deeper" RPG. But none of these games features an in-depth system in which the actual attacks are all completely different weapon to weapon. Functionally they still operate the same and reason for having a leveling system for those weapons is primarily for role playing reasons far more than for attack system reasons.
So the point being, is what you're suggesting actually fun? Does it actually lead to more diverse play or does it simply force players to be locked into a weapon system removing choice? Especially considering we are talking about games in which literally for most classes you're jamming the right and/or left mouse button as quickly and as often as possible. It's also not like these ARPGs are player skill-intensive.

This is why Blizzard didn't design the skills in that way. It's a bit unfair that a class like Wizard can use every skill and spell they want, but then a class like Amazon only get access to a small subset of skills (in the case of D2, effectively removing one entire trees worth of options). Perhaps having less freedom and choice is fun. But I'll tell you I remember being at least a bit frustrated that I had to have two amazons to have a Javazon and a Bowazon if I wanted them. And indeed, Amazon was really one of the only classes in the game that had this forced on it.

(And also in a game like D3 and even D2, attacks and spells are functionally the same thing. Need a D2 example? Why does Whirwind cost a resource? You can argue that it's a spell, but then we could ask the question of why does weapon damage and weapon mastery affect it then? If you're a physical based class like Amazon, Barbarian, etc, you're still functionally casting spells all the time, it's just being looked at as a resource instead of "magic", but mechanically there is no difference then between casting a spell and using a physical attack. But this is what I'm talking about. Think of this from a game design perspective. Is placing a constraint on certain things actually a meaningful choice or even actually fun?)



Aix. said:
In D3, without that one "+1300-1500 poison damage" stat on the weapon the character is essentially useless. Remember when the itemization was so bad that weapons could drop with no or very low added damage even though your skills were entirely reliant on that one stat to do anything useful? It makes the itemization completely uninteresting and it removes all skill progression and investment.
Click to expand...

It depends once again on the mechanics underlying the game. Not every game has to have weapons that use elemental damage in a meaningful way. They probably should have eliminated the various types of elemental damage from weapons for that reason. We went over that.



Aix. said:
It's fine if we agree to disagree on this, but it's a fundamental difference in design from D2, Path of Exile, Grim Dawn, etc. - games lauded for their itemization. D3 has never been lauded for its itemization and it's my opinion that this is a big reason why, yet you say that it's ridiculous to single out D3 for something that clearly sets it apart from other ARPGs...
Click to expand...

I think there are other issues with the way Diablo 3 handles equipment. But that is interlocked with the way that skills work in the game. Clearly those two systems are interlocked. Otherwise it wouldn't be possible for 6-piece sets to essentially make your character feel like it's playing an entirely different way. And also, to be clear, I don't have a problem with how POE or some of these other games have decided to work their weapon systems. However, I think that each game should be weighed on its own merit and not necessarily compared to everything else. This game has to stand or fall on its own and I'd say that's true of every-game.

Maybe having a game that plays differently is meaningless to you. But I don't want every game to have the same mechanics. Otherwise, why would I play anything new at all (and graphics aren't remotely a good enough justification)? Otherwise you might as well play the old stuff. So I definitely reject the notion that we should be pushing game designers to make things the same way as everyone else has. Does that mean that there can possibly be more blunders and missteps? Absolutely. But it also means that there can be more interesting games and gameplay.

In a hack and slash style ARPG where literally you mouse over things and click a bunch of times as the primary mechanic, I would say that it's foolish at the very least to limit what other things they can do with game design just because that is what some other games have done. Even if you disagree with them. And to that end, you have the option to play POE or Grim Dawn instead of Diablo 3. Which you probably do and or have. So why does Diablo 3 have to copy those mechanics? You already have 2 or more games that work the way you want them to work.

Once again, this is coming from a D3 critic. I don't love each of these things or even remotely every aspect of D3. But to be a devils advocate if for no other reason you can see why making every game the same is also a problem right?
 
FlawleZ said:
Having the skill damage unrelated to weapon damage would defeat the purpose of weapon damage for classes like Wizards, Witch Doc, and Necro as they aren't melee or physical attacking classes.
Click to expand...

Correct, sir, that's generally how it works for spell casters in all other ARPGs. In D2 it was mainly +skill stats along with cast speed; in PoE it's a combination of +skills, %damage type, %spell damage, %ailment damage, cast speed, + x-y added damage, etc.; in Grim Dawn it's a combination of +skills, %damage type, + x-y damage(s), various other buffs, etc. There's generally not much of a reason for a spell caster to use a high-dps weapon in those other games outside of melee builds.
 
UnknownSouljer said:
Even if you disagree with them. And to that end, you have the option to play POE or Grim Dawn instead of Diablo 3. Which you probably do and or have. So why does Diablo 3 have to copy those mechanics? You already have 2 or more games that work the way you want them to work.

Once again, this is coming from a D3 critic. I don't love each of these things or even remotely every aspect of D3. But to be a devils advocate if for no other reason you can see why making every game the same is also a problem right?
Click to expand...

Well we are talking about a direct sequel to one of those games, not a game by some upstart developer with no connection to the genre. Since D2 was widely regarded as the GOAT it's disingenuous to suggest D3 would be "copying" those other games when its predecessor set most of the standards for the genre. To me, the proof is in the pudding: the itemization in the game is not good and lacks depth. Has it been tweaked into some semblance of a fun system with all the sets, legendary effects and focusing on cooldown reduction? Sure, but I believe the reliance on weapon DPS for all skill damage is the heart of the itemization issue, and everything afterward was bandaid fixes making the best of a bad situation. Clearly you disagree with me on that point, but do you simply think that D3 itemization is good as-is?
 
Aix. said:
Well we are talking about a direct sequel to one of those games, not a game by some upstart developer with no connection to the genre. Since D2 was widely regarded as the GOAT it's disingenuous to suggest D3 would be "copying" those other games when its predecessor set most of the standards for the genre. To me, the proof is in the pudding: the itemization in the game is not good and lacks depth. Has it been tweaked into some semblance of a fun system with all the sets, legendary effects and focusing on cooldown reduction? Sure, but I believe the reliance on weapon DPS for all skill damage is the heart of the itemization issue, and everything afterward was bandaid fixes making the best of a bad situation. Clearly you disagree with me on that point, but do you simply think that D3 itemization is good as-is?
Click to expand...

D1 and D2 were vastly different games in terms of mechanics. And that is relevant because if your goal was about setting precedence, Blizzard has actively been trying to do things that are different to expand or grow genres. I don't see any reason why the mechanics of D2 should be like D1 anymore than I do the mechanics of D3 needing to be like D2. I think all we're really discussing at this point is where the failures are.

To me, the failure mostly comes in the form of having a bunch of skills that don't feel useful, important or powerful (each skill has 6 rune choices, but often only 1 or maybe 2 is actually playable. And then there are certain garbage mechanics that no one uses period). They created a bunch of systems that were "intended" to give choice, but then ultimately removed a lot of those choices by making the endgame very gear oriented. And there isn't a problem with simply having a gear check (like most RPG's including Blizzards own WoW). However what makes any of the skills worth using is the gear. So to me the balance between what the gear does and what your skills do is the point of failure to me. There isn't the openness of true choice. Nor is there a chance to truly try and experiment with builds. Because, for clarity, if you don't have a 6 piece set bonus, you aren't playing anything endgame. So, to me, they failed at the thing they were trying to accomplish when they developed all of these systems in the first place.

If that's what you mean by itemization, then I suppose we agree. But I care far less about what animation is tied to what skill (our conversation about weapon types) or even how damage calculation is done. I realize from a math and theorycraft standpoint that can be a big deal. But those sorts of issues can all be solved via balance and patches. The way damage is done has changed a lot from Classic until now and the same can be said also for damage reduction. I care far more about the feel of the thing. And so I'd rather talk about the problems with the skills.

I personally don't fine the removal of the skill tree to be a problem. I find a much bigger problem to be how fun or unfun certain skills are in the game. Like Necromancer as an example has no fun endgame mechanics to me. Creating any CDr based build where literally all you do is run around and gather things up for 2 minutes so you can kill everything instantly over the next 10 seconds isn't a fun way to play a game. It's literally the opposite of an "action" RPG. And the Crusader Thorns/AS/Meteor build operates much the same way. D3 does have way more in-depth attacks as compared to D2, but D2 made the skills that were presented feel fun and powerful despite their very limited variety (I mean, D2 Barb for all intents and purposes was just Warcry's and Whirlwind). So, I appreciate the attempt at variety. But then they just slammed that door closed due to the six piece set problem.

They also should have removed every "skill" that basically is just a damage buff. There have been plenty of Mage builds that basically have skills in the skills bar (like familiar) that are just a flat damage increase. They are far too necessary for far too many builds. They figured out that having a skill in the skilltree like D2 barb for weapons was a waste, but they ended up developing the same things in D3. I also feel the same way about flat damage increases for the passives. Passives could have been far more interesting if by nature the characters already had parity in damage, so that all the passives could be used for different effects (instead of flat damage increases such as Archery).

One way that they could more cohesively have weapon type be a part of the skills is by having each weapon type be a different rune. But that would vastly change the way the skills would have to work in conjunction with one another. Obviously that wouldn't work in the current D3 iteration as picking very specific runes for skills matters a lot. But I suppose that would be a meaningful mechanic in a world where you want the weapon to be tied to the set of skills, whereas I can see the point and purpose in trying to allow the players to have as many options and openness as possible regarding skills.

===

As a side note, thanks for posting thoughtful replies. I realize we won't necessarily see eye to eye and I'm posting huge paragraphs. But being able to actually discuss things on the board rationally is a breath of fresh air. So I appreciate that and you as a result.
 
Last edited:
UnknownSouljer said:
snip
Click to expand...
You present some valid points when reconsidering the classes, skills, and gameplay aspects that many criticize for D3. I think, and this is my opinion of course, that Blizzard had a lot of the same discussions and ideas that many have stated in this thread. I think the reason they settled with the existing system in D3 is they had already agreed on the end game idea of creating a competitive type system which we know today as Greater Rifts. I feel that the existing skill mechanics and itemization was always going to be limited when the end game experience was already decided.
 
i just wish diablo 3 had some form of real pvp. hopefully we get that when diablo 4 comes out
 
I think someone here summed it up best. Diablo 1 & 2 were Action RPG's , Diablo 3 was an arcade game.

Whatever Diablo 4 will be, I hope they learned from their shortcomings in D3.
 
Another great option would be if they made a World of Diablo, Similar mmoprg style of World of Wacraft but with the Diablo lore.
 
alexraw said:
Another great option would be if they made a World of Diablo, Similar mmoprg style of World of Wacraft but with the Diablo lore.
Click to expand...

Problem with that is, they would put even less mature content in it than they did with Diablo 3. Do you really want a Diablo MMO like World of Warcaft? You think you do but you really don't (if you're a Diablo fan).
 
Krenum said:
Problem with that is, they would put even less mature content in it that they did with Diablo 3. Do you really want a Diablo MMO like World of Warcaft? You think you do but you really don't (if you're a Diablo fan).
Click to expand...
Now that it is risen from the dead, I think if they made a proper game out of Hellgate in the Diablo universe it would be good. But I really don't think the Diablo universe as it is now would be appropriate in a MMO-type setting. Maybe looking deep into the past of the lore they could do it, or make the Nephalem return in great numbers.
 
Armenius said:
Now that it is risen from the dead, I think if they made a proper game out of Hellgate in the Diablo universe it would be good. But I really don't think the Diablo universe as it is now would be appropriate in a MMO-type setting. Maybe looking deep into the past of the lore they could do it, or make the Nephalem return in great numbers.
Click to expand...

Hellgate was basically Diablo in 3rd/1st person with guns, it was developed by the old Blizzard North team which formed Flagship Studios to make the game.
 
Krenum said:
Hellgate was basically Diablo in 3rd/1st person with guns, it was developed by the old Blizzard North team which formed Flagship Studios to make the game.
Click to expand...

Played the fuck out of that game until it was shutdown....

It's truly an awesome game. The management and EA really fucked it up in the end.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top