• 🏆 Texturing Contest #33 is OPEN! Contestants must re-texture a SD unit model found in-game (Warcraft 3 Classic), recreating the unit into a peaceful NPC version. 🔗Click here to enter!
  • 🏆 Hive's 6th HD Modeling Contest: Mechanical is now open! Design and model a mechanical creature, mechanized animal, a futuristic robotic being, or anything else your imagination can tinker with! 📅 Submissions close on June 30, 2024. Don't miss this opportunity to let your creativity shine! Enter now and show us your mechanical masterpiece! 🔗 Click here to enter!

Why Diablo III Sucks

Status
Not open for further replies.
First of all I'll start off by saying I'm a huge fan of Diablo I and Diablo II, though I did not play them as seriously as I have Diablo III, simply for the fact that I was much younger when those two games were around. Nowadays it's just too difficult to get into a game like that with the graphics it has, etc, plus the small community it has in comparison.. with say.. Diablo III.

With that aside.. let's get into detail as to why Diablo III is a massive let-down, and why I think David Brevik should have voiced his true opinion in this interview instead of censoring.

Edit: Throughout this post I get rather heated about my opinions on this game. In an attempt to appease both the lovers and haters of this game, I've edited them out and changed them to a slightly less bias version

While reading below please try to point out all small details that are forcing players to go to the Auction House.. which we will talk about much later.

One: Talents / Spec

Let's start off by stating that in Diablo II the big thing that separated your Paladin from the next chump beside you was your Talent (or build) / spec. Let's face it; Aura paladins didnt do shit while a Hammerdin would simply pwn face in any pvp scenario. In order to build diversity and prevent everything from being straight-forward (people hate cookie cutter bullshit) and one of the biggest reasons that game did well at all was simply because you had so much customization on how your character played out.

Now let's compare that to the Diablo III model.
I understand the game creators think they were doing the community justice by giving them things like runes to modify abilities; they're easy to swap though you are deterred from doing so (you'll lose stacks) which is nice because you can explore all content of your character easily and freely, giving you massive customization simply because you can fine-tune your character until you find something you like.

But let's face it for what it really is: another fucking money grab. Why? Because after you spend the 5 to 6 minutes to figure out what ability is better than the other, you're faced with one very simple issue: all damage done by every ability and every rune is 100% dependant on your weapon. This leads me straight to the biggest Auction House problem.. which I will not cover just yet (I dont want people who know about all the problems with the AH to be forced to read it just yet).. and so I'll continue.

In the end the new system they've used has created nothing but more problems, because everything is still very cookie-cutter. And don't try to defend against it by saying "oh they didnt focus on balancing stuff until 1.0.4 because they were busy with other things! like fixing the game!" well that doesnt fuckin matter. A Paladin will always be best as a Hammerdin, a Barbarian will always be the best sword and board (or until they release a gay version of the Paladin in the expo and revamp Barbs to do what they were ment to; dps) and a Witch Doctor will always be a frail POS. It just is what it is and there isn't a whole lot you can do to fix that.

Sorry I lied. There is something you can do; you can completely balance everything making the game extremely fucking gay.. just like what you've done to WoW. But before I get anymore haters.. lets move on.

Talents rating: 4/10

Two: Combat

I have two 60s.. both in Inf, and I've had both well geared since about a week after release. Since then I havn't really done much to improve them at all cause I no longer give any fucks. At the point of making this post my Wizard has roughly 20m in gear (notice how I dont say oh he has this tier.. I'm forced to actually value it in gold) and my Barb has about 5m in gear.. and I'm EXTREMELY disappointed with both classes' style of combat.

Keep in mind I'm talking about Inferno progression here.. not leveling 1-60 (to all you damn scrubs reading).

With the Barbarian it's pretty much just run knee deep into a vast array of buttfuckery and hope to God I can click my right mouse button enough times to immediately get Revenge when it procs, and again pray that it procs enough to keep me alive. Diablo III's combat lacks serious originality, which is fine.. if used properly.. I still love D2 combat, but it takes it to an extreme.

The same applies to my Wizard. I would love to say I've tried every build possible on my Barb because maybe it was just my build that was wrong.. but we all know the only goddamn build that's viable is sword and board (and I dont want a 50 million word comment about all you 2h crit barbs out there. your build just blows. nobody wants you in their games. go die).
As for the Wizard.. though.. that is a completely different story. There are many viable builds with the Wizard that can all work quite well. When I first hit 60 I was using a Ray of Frost crit build with a 2h wep (please notice how I'm constantly referring to weapons) that was essentially pure glass cannon (I was, obviously, broke when I first hit 60 so I couldnt afford to be survivability). But it worked out fairly well; I'd just lay down a Blizzard and hold down the left mouse until shit started blowing up. This was all fun and well until I hit Act 2 (pre-nerf) where shit obviously needed to change.
So I switched to a survivability kite build, which at this point is the only viable option if you have any hopes in hell of making it past Act 2. Even with 36k health, 800 to 1000 resists in all and a fairly high armor I still get bent over and taken to brown town by pretty much any rare mob that happens to stop in and say hi. Sure I have my sparkly-fag shield that absorbs a few blows but in the depths of hell where that are billions of things wanting to snack on your face it really doesn't do much. So I'm forced to go with extremes on defence just to not get one hit and pay STUPID repair bills.. and do exactly what a Wizard ISN'T supposed to do by rule of RPG thumb; play part tank.

Anyways I'll jump out of class-specific and move straight to general problems with combat;

White minions are too easy, rares / champions are too difficult.
I don't even need to explain to you guys why. If you've played this game in Inferno then you know exactly what the hell I'm talking about.
Trash mobs are basically just a knife through butter.. to the point of sheer dread of even going to the next area because you know you're just going to have to either spam click the fuck out of everything or kite around half the map while using the same 2 abilities over and over to clear the packs.. which would be fine if..
The rare / champions weren't so fucking IMPOSSIBLY difficult. And I'm not talking about the one of two per game you get that have a completely garbage combination and you just roll all over them.. I'm talking about the average pack.. like mortar, fire chains, extra health, fast or some shit like that. The kind of combination that makes you either A) want to rip out your hair and cry yourself to sleep, B) skip them by massing movement abilities (leap, charge, etc, all the while losing your stacks) , or C) Dying about 50 times (yay 1m in repairs) trying to actually progress through the things. No matter which road you take the end result is always the same; the combat is always on an extreme and never has any middle ground which leaves it extremely dry and dull.

Also to anyone who would say "well just farm A1 until you can afford to go to A2". Yeah.. because I spent $67.61 on Diablo III cause I want to repeat the SAME FUCKING THING for days on end just to grind out some shitty gear that doesnt do anything for me at all, instead I sell it on the AH (hint hint) for some mediocre amount and buy some over-priced piece of crap that just happened to have dropped for some guy in Hell mode (or get scammed because Blizz took almost no stance towards preventing that.. not like they havnt had a fucking DECADE to prepare for that one).

Lets move on before this post gets any longer.

Combat rating: 2/10

Three: Boss Encounters

Nothing pleases me more than a grand cinematic where you leap an incredible amount of distance into the air and drive your blade into the thick skull of some shadow loving scum fuck from hell to finish off an impressive boss fight that you've been lead up to. Your blood gets pumping as it comes down to small decisions meaning life or death.. your mind gets racing as you try to make quick decisions to take the boss down just a little bit more.

All exactly how I felt my first time around on pretty much all the bosses (except for the spider bitch..) until about the third or fourth time fighting them when I finally realized just how dull these fights really are. It seems to amount to nothing in the end of the story and provide no better loot than that rare pack you dropped a few minutes back, and a few minutes before that, etc. There's just no tension or compulsion to even fight bosses. Infact many of my friends go to the last quest then just teleport to the first area and run through the game simply so they can avoid fighting the bosses.. as they're just a drag on time and provide nothing satisfactory both in the loot department or enjoyability department.

All in all the boss encounters were just a massive let-down. Seems a lot in D3 is pointing in the let-down area.

Boss Encounters rating: 3/10

Four: Loot, Auction House

Here we go. All those minor hints pointing to the following paragraph. The very fucking REASON Diablo III is even on the shelves, why Blizzard made the game, and what you will most likely end up spending half your time playing this game in. The Auction House.

Let's do a very quick recap of things listed before: all of your main abilities (and thus spec / talents) are reliant on your main weapon, all combat is reliant on your gear as a whole (which is to be expected, but still fuels the issue), and 98% of gear that drops is not good for you but rather another class / spec.

So let me get this straight.. 80% of the game relies on items.. and the only place to find good items is on the Auction House? That's really strange.. why would Blizzard design their entire game (no soulbound items or nothing!) around an Auction House feature?
Hmm.. oh wait.. I know why! Cause they make motherfucking COLD HARD CASH ON EVERYTHING YOU DO when you're forced to use their Auction House.

Oh, and don't forget PayPal if you actually decide to sell items for IRL$! They get their cut too! I'm sure PayPal let loose a load when Blizzard came to them with that proposition. Hell I wouldnt be surprised if PayPal is paying Blizzard just to keep them as their soul player-accountants!

So effectively what Blizzard-Activision has done between the change from D2 to D3 is take everything you knew and loved and completely warped it into a steaming pile of shit for them to make money on.

And I'm 100% sure it's not the fault of the designers or programmers. I'm sure if they had their way the loot system would follow a model closer to World of Warcraft (had a decade to perfect that too!) where everything just seems to mould better together.. and you feel that if you do manage to actually kill that boss he has about a 1/3 chance of dropping something that will actually benefit you.. so you can get better gear (not while paying millions in repair bills) and progress to another, harder boss! WOW! What a crazy FUCKING IDEA!

All in all, my final review for the Diablo franchise:

D1: 7/10
D2: 9/10
D3: 3/10

Eat my fucking chode Activision. I want my money $67.61 back too while you're at it.

Sincerely, an ex-fanboy.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, you notice this more in newer games. Everything is so balanced, that every choice is "wise". Well, screw that. Not every choice is wise. I remember very well, that if you put points into wrong talents in D2, you were screwed for good. If you put all your points in lower tier abilities, and then tried to finish the game early, there is no balance that would save you from the fact that you suck at playing a game.
 
Yeah, you notice this more in newer games. Everything is so balanced, that every choice is "wise". Well, screw that. Not every choice is wise. I remember very well, that if you put points into wrong talents in D2, you were screwed for good. If you put all your points in lower tier abilities, and then tried to finish the game early, there is no balance that would save you from the fact that you suck at playing a game.

Which always caused your first character to get deleted forcing you to make a new one and learn a proper build.. lol which kinda sucked
 

Dr Super Good

Spell Reviewer
Level 64
Joined
Jan 18, 2005
Messages
27,232
Diablo I 1/10 - Completly unplayable unless you were some game nut who likes wiping themselves regually (like most old games).
Diablo II 7/10 - Adictive but rather poorly done. Faults and bugs everywhere.
Diablo III 10/10 - Everything has so much thought placed into it. I find myself constantly seeing people use skills in ways I never imagined. The game is just so fun compared to the others.

Rispetto, you have no idea what you are talking about. Please play Diablo I and II again now and honestly say they are better than Diablo III.
 
Diablo I 1/10 - Completly unplayable unless you were some game nut who likes wiping themselves regually (like most old games).
Diablo II 7/10 - Adictive but rather poorly done. Faults and bugs everywhere.
Diablo III 10/10 - Everything has so much thought placed into it. I find myself constantly seeing people use skills in ways I never imagined. The game is just so fun compared to the others.

Rispetto, you have no idea what you are talking about. Please play Diablo I and II again now and honestly say they are better than Diablo III.

Diablo I for it's time was 10x better than D3 is now for its time.
Same as D2.

Comparatively.. obviously D3 is better but its also had 15 years of technological advances.
 
Level 14
Joined
Jan 2, 2007
Messages
1,449
Diablo I 1/10 - Completly unplayable unless you were some game nut who likes wiping themselves regually (like most old games).
Diablo II 7/10 - Adictive but rather poorly done. Faults and bugs everywhere.
Diablo III 10/10 - Everything has so much thought placed into it. I find myself constantly seeing people use skills in ways I never imagined. The game is just so fun compared to the others.

Rispetto, you have no idea what you are talking about. Please play Diablo I and II again now and honestly say they are better than Diablo III.

Actually, what Rispetto is repulsed by, is the fact that the game and it's elements are mostly built around the Auction House.

I didn't play D3 to be precise, but I watched a lot of content. As before, melee classes have a harder time fighting than ranged ones.

But the main reason why I am not attracted to D3 is because it resembles WoW too much, and a lot of hand holding.
 

Dr Super Good

Spell Reviewer
Level 64
Joined
Jan 18, 2005
Messages
27,232
As before, melee classes have a harder time fighting than ranged ones.
Try playing the game before making such a statement. Leveling up my Barbarian and Monk was much easier than my Witch Doctor, Demon Hunter or Wizard.

Let us look at these shallow argumenets...
With the Barbarian it's pretty much just run knee deep into a vast array of buttfuckery and hope to God I can click my right mouse button enough times to immediately get Revenge when it procs, and again pray that it procs enough to keep me alive.
Or he could use WW and sprint with mini-tornados and good LoH to become prety much immortal. All you need then is good damage and your Barbarian can do Act 3 with minimal problems.

(and I dont want a 50 million word comment about all you 2h crit barbs out there. your build just blows. nobody wants you in their games. go die).
Everyone wants them. Have you seen the crazy numbers on 2H weapons recently? 1800 DPS, 300% crit damage, 1600 LoH...

and do exactly what a Wizard ISN'T supposed to do by rule of RPG thumb; play part tank.
He is the Wizard and he can do whatever he wants. Someone who can disintigrate enemies with his hands or summon metors from space can surly summon some defensive stuff to let him tank. Stop stereo typing.



Trash mobs are basically just a knife through butter.. to the point of sheer dread of even going to the next area because you know you're just going to have to either spam click the fuck out of everything or kite around half the map while using the same 2 abilities over and over to clear the packs.. which would be fine if..
The rare / champions weren't so fucking IMPOSSIBLY difficult. And I'm not talking about the one of two per game you get that have a completely garbage combination and you just roll all over them.. I'm talking about the average pack.. like mortar, fire chains, extra health, fast or some shit like that. The kind of combination that makes you either A) want to rip out your hair and cry yourself to sleep, B) skip them by massing movement abilities (leap, charge, etc, all the while losing your stacks) , or C) Dying about 50 times (yay 1m in repairs) trying to actually progress through the things. No matter which road you take the end result is always the same; the combat is always on an extreme and never has any middle ground which leaves it extremely dry and dull.
BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH...........
Played 1.0.4 yet? Elites are a lot easier now and whites slightly harder.

as they're just a drag on time and provide nothing satisfactory both in the loot department or enjoyability department.
Their loot is great...
I get about 3+ rare and 7 magical items each boss (2-3 elite packs).
 

Em!

Em!

Model Reviewer
Level 27
Joined
Jan 9, 2004
Messages
698
Opinions, opinions
I liked all diablos
Diablo 1 is great, felt more like a horror story than any other diablo.
Diablo 2 is great, felt more like an adventure than diablo 1
Diablo 3 is great, i have never used the auction house and i rarely play alone without a friend or family and i have finished the game several times, the difficulty can get annoying in your second run but you learn to dance around enemies much better.

Also love hardcore mode, got a barbarian on hardcore. I would probably be dead without jump, sprint or revenge :) but i like the challenge. I got nothing bad to say about the game except how the difficulty changes dramatically.
 
Try playing the game before making such a statement. Leveling up my Barbarian and Monk was much easier than my Witch Doctor, Demon Hunter or Wizard.

Let us look at these shallow argumenets...

Or he could use WW and sprint with mini-tornados and good LoH to become prety much immortal. All you need then is good damage and your Barbarian can do Act 3 with minimal problems.


Everyone wants them. Have you seen the crazy numbers on 2H weapons recently? 1800 DPS, 300% crit damage, 1600 LoH...


He is the Wizard and he can do whatever he wants. Someone who can disintigrate enemies with his hands or summon metors from space can surly summon some defensive stuff to let him tank. Stop stereo typing.




BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH...........
Played 1.0.4 yet? Elites are a lot easier now and whites slightly harder.


Their loot is great...
I get about 3+ rare and 7 magical items each boss (2-3 elite packs).

Sorry DSG I respect you insanely but your opinions are just as bias as mine but for the opposite team.

1.0.4 helped the situation but the game is still shit

In reality it didnt do a whole lot.

I'm still fuckin pissed that the game is fundamentally designed around you using their auction house.

Blizzard north would have never produced such complete shit.

So in reality I'm not even mad at Blizzard, I'm mad at Activision.

The group of assholes who produced Call of Duty.

They create a whole new meaning to rinse, wash, repeat.

Seriously I bet their Cntrl V keys have been used so much theres nothing left but some faded, rubbed off lettering.

EVERYTHING Blizzard has produced since being purchased by them has been completely ruined by their new business model of "MORE CELL SHADERS, LESS IN-DEPTH CONTENT, MORE FLASHYNESS. WE NEED TO SELL COPIES NOT KEEP CUSTOMERS".

I'm not here to play Call of fucking Diablo alright? I'm here to enjoy vanilla-WoW type shit. The kinda stuff that blows your mind and you have the option of getting completely emerged in it.

Do some research and you'll discover that the design team themselves know there there is a serious lack of end-game content. That's because they didnt care about endgame. They want..

"MORE CELL SHADERS, LESS IN-DEPTH CONTENT, MORE FLASHYNESS. WE NEED TO SELL COPIES NOT KEEP CUSTOMERS"

And you think a hotfix of Paragons is going to matter? Or that arena will? Give me a break. I'm done wasting my money on their shit and I'm deeply saddened by the loss of the true Blizzard.
 
Blizzard has been owned by Activision for a while now. If they really wanted them to "rinse wash and repeat" we'd be on Diablo 4 by now. Despite the fact that they're huge assholes, Activision is actually run by some really smart people.

The Auction House will reap them far more benefits then pumping out another one. Plus it eliminates 3rd party item selling (if you didn't notice that happening in Diablo 2 you are blind), making it far safer for your credit card. It's a necessary evil for the game, but I don't mind.

I agree MOSTLY with what DSG said. I'd also like to add that having all the skills available is a HUGE increase over D2. You were trapped into whatever 5 skills you took 20 points into. It stagnated gameplay, just taking zeal and fanatacism and left clicking for 3 difficulties. The skill system in D3 gives large amounts of flexibility, and allows you to try new comboes all the time. And basing damage as a percentage of weapon damage was incredibly smart, it meant that low level skills would automatically scale later into the game.

I will say though, Diablo 1 is my personal favorite. Before you get all butthurt about it having shitty graphics, I don't really care. I love old games, no matter what they look like. Hell, I bought the old Baldur's Gate a few weeks ago to replace a copy that broke, and just purchased a handful of PS1 games on Tuesday. It isn't what it looks like, it's the quality of the gameplay. And in that regard, I believe Diablo 1 is the most fun, and has the best gameplay. Diablo 2 is useless, shitty grinding, to the point of it actually being no fun. Diablo 3 is refreshing, and an incredibly fun continuation of the series. I honestly expected a fuck up from Actiblizzard, but I'm happy with it.

As far as losing Blizzard, Activision has done a good job of not destroying Blizzard. Look at it from their perspective, Blizzard was taking in about $105 mil A MONTH from WoW, and every title they release is a huge seller. Why change what works? They might pressure them into more regular release dates, and into continuing series (SC2 anyone?).
 
Lol ^
D2 being a grind?
Buddy: paragons.
Blizzard: "yeah lets give them a huge grind from nightmare +, give no content at endgame.. but a few months later throw in another massive grind (at least this time you feel like you're accomplishing something!) so people will stop bitching about no content"

D3 being a horrible grind doesn't make D2 any less of a god-awful, miserable grind.

You've probably never gotten a character to lvl 99 in D2. It requires weeks of time invested.

Also: The game is exactly the same in nightmare and hell difficulties. There aren't unique or special things about it, it's just every creature has an immunity and the creatures are harder to kill. Seeing as you can only level 5 abilities to max, you're pretty much stuck with a single build, meaning you have to grind and grind away the exact same way for weeks on end. That is a god-awful grind. At least in D3 there are monsters + monster abilities only available in the higher difficulties. Plus you can change your playstyle whenever the fuck you want because IT ALLOWS YOU TO. D3 was built for flexibility, and it does that wonderfully.
 
The funny part is that there are still people that defend that ridiculous endgame grind, the comment arguments being "you have to be pro", and "stop crying and play the game".

Fanboys.
I'm just being a critic here.
I'm playing GW2 not this bullshit lol

For the EXACT same price I get an MMORPG that is designed around end-game content.

Compare D3 and GW2 under a microscope and you'll see the fucking disaster Blizzard has produced.

MAYBE if D3 was like $30~$40 it'd be worth it.

And the only reason it's worth any more than that is because of it's name.

Take a look at all the content you have. You can basically consider the entire game (acts 1 through 4) around 4~ instances of 5 man dungeons (like in WoW).

Now for the same price I get Gw2 which has a fuck of a lot more.
 
2-P said:
I'm a critic everyone who disagrees with me is a fanboy. XDDDDDDDD

^

I don't think you understand that he was actually making fun of you here.

Except that it's not really 400h of gameplay.

It's 4h of content, copy&pasted several times over with higher numbers on creeps and items, to produce the remaining 396 hours of grind.

As is Diablo 2. Can you honestly say that nightmare and hell difficulties in Diablo 2 had anything different in them except the difficulty? And no items don't count because the items obviously have to scale with the game, I'm talking about any new monsters or spells or quests. All the toughies in D2 are simply beefed versions of monsters you can find in normal difficulty.
 
Level 25
Joined
Jul 10, 2006
Messages
3,315
That's why I only played Diablo 2 up until beating normal mode for the first time, and then once more with a different character.

So I suppose in that regard I'm mocking Diablo as a whole.

To be honest I'm not completely qualified to speak on the subject of Diablo 3; all I've played of it was the starter version (up until SK), so I'm mainly just repeating arguments I've read.

And from what I've read, the difficulty (in terms of numbers) scaling in Diablo 3 is ridiculous at the higher levels.

Now for me personally that doesn't really matter; I'd play it only until the end of normal mode and be done with it... that is, if normal mode wasn't so damned easy.
 

Dr Super Good

Spell Reviewer
Level 64
Joined
Jan 18, 2005
Messages
27,232
And from what I've read, the difficulty (in terms of numbers) scaling in Diablo 3 is ridiculous at the higher levels.
Not really. You only ever end up with atmost 80K HP (focusing on Vitality and +Life which few do). Considering you can have 30K HP when you enter hell that is not much more. Most people in A4 have about 47K to 60K HP.

Damage does scale insanly, but so does monster HP so it evens out.
 
That's why I only played Diablo 2 up until beating normal mode for the first time, and then once more with a different character.

So I suppose in that regard I'm mocking Diablo as a whole.

To be honest I'm not completely qualified to speak on the subject of Diablo 3; all I've played of it was the starter version (up until SK), so I'm mainly just repeating arguments I've read.

And from what I've read, the difficulty (in terms of numbers) scaling in Diablo 3 is ridiculous at the higher levels.

Now for me personally that doesn't really matter; I'd play it only until the end of normal mode and be done with it... that is, if normal mode wasn't so damned easy.

That would be like a critic writing a review on a movie after reading the reviews of other critics.

You're throwing out your opinion on something you haven't played from start to finish, or even played very far. Nice.
 
Level 25
Joined
Jul 10, 2006
Messages
3,315
That would be like a critic writing a review on a movie after reading the reviews of other critics.

You're throwing out your opinion on something you haven't played from start to finish, or even played very far. Nice.

Am I not allowed to throw out my opinion?

Yes I played very little (and I actually enjoyed the controls and interface), but I could see where it was going. Before making the silly decision to buy the game, I did some research. Read many threads on the Battle.net forums, read reviews from various sites, even found this little gem: Why Diablo 3 is less addictive than Diablo 2. Wisely, I bided my time and watched as many of my friends bought the game. The first few weeks they were of course very excited and enjoyed it greatly, but today not a single one of them plays it, often stating: it's too difficult. And this was in the difficulty before the last one, which I've read is ridiculous with the one-shotting. The Diablo 3 fad has since passed, and only blinded fans and casuals still play. You could think of my posts here as a community service, warding people away from buying something that'll ruin their Diablo experience.

As a parting gift, I present this youtube video.
 
Am I not allowed to throw out my opinion?

Yes I played very little (and I actually enjoyed the controls and interface), but I could see where it was going. Before making the silly decision to buy the game, I did some research. Read many threads on the Battle.net forums, read reviews from various sites, even found this little gem: Why Diablo 3 is less addictive than Diablo 2. Wisely, I bided my time and watched as many of my friends bought the game. The first few weeks they were of course very excited and enjoyed it greatly, but today not a single one of them plays it, often stating: it's too difficult. And this was in the difficulty before the last one, which I've read is ridiculous with the one-shotting. The Diablo 3 fad has since passed, and only blinded fans and casuals still play. You could think of my posts here as a community service, warding people away from buying something that'll ruin their Diablo experience.

As a parting gift, I present this youtube video.

I read the back cover of The Great Gatsby and didn't like it, it's obviously a shitty book and overrated.

That's what you sound like. (And btw The Great Gatsby is fantastic)

As far as your link goes, there are a few point's I'd like to make. Look at the curves in the enjoyment charts. They literally fucking show you the game is equally as enjoyable as the peaks of diablo 2 most of the time, except when it spikes downwards. Diablo 2 on the otherhand, is an unenjoyable experience punctuated by finding another bitchin piece of equipment. I know which game I'd rather play hearing those descriptions.

You should also read his follow up post [self=http://www.alexc.me/why-diablo-3-is-less-addictive-blizzard-responds/441/]here[/self]

I realize after talking to people that my post probably came across much more negative than I intended. I focused on one aspect of the game I find fascinating, but I very much enjoy the game overall. In fact I’d be playing right now if I weren’t writing this post… Act 2 Inferno won’t beat itself!

In specific response to the graphs

Wyatt is working on a longer answer, but I will say, while I’m not dismissing his conclusions, if you want to prove something with science you need data, not just a theory. The graphs created are based off memory and perception, and so this isn’t very ’scientific’. /pushesnerdglassesupnose

These two quotes are perhaps the most important

Alright so I’m going to take a stab at this question.

As mentioned in a different thread, the drop rates were carefully tuned for a single player playing through from 1 to 60 without ever using the AH.

All of our items are randomly generated, and so follow a distribution curve in power. Let’s say for the sake of argument that you were to somehow distill an item down to it’s “power level” and created a distribution graph of drop rate vs. power level. This graph would probably be normally distributed with outliers at high power levels dropping at a lower rate.

Looking at this graph, an average item drops every 5 minutes, a higher power item drops every 15 minutes, even higher power drops every hour. etc. As you move up the curve to ever more powerful items, the amount of time it takes to find such an item increases. This is what makes certain items more desirable, this is how things worked in D2.

What happens for a standard player who is playing solo when they first hit level 60 is they see an item upgrade every 30 minutes or so. Pretty quickly it becomes every hour, then every 2 hours. The higher the power level of your gear, the longer it takes to find your next upgrade, that’s just the underlying math of this distribution. It’s not really anything we set either. If we magically made all drops rates 10x higher, all it would do is shift the power curve left or right, it would not change the fundamental property that the higher up in power you go, the longer (statistically) it is going to take until you find your next drop.

So then let’s say you visit the Auction House and get infusion of power that hurls you forward on that power curve. So whereas at one point your gear may be at a point that you are statistically speaking probably going to get an upgrade every 2 hours. After visiting the Auction House you hurl yourself forward on the power curve so far that now you are statistically going to get a drop every 8 hours.

To further illustrate the point, let’s talk about the coming changes in 1.0.3. In 1.0.3 we’re going to start dropping level 63 items in Act I of Inferno. We’re also reducing incoming damage. What do I expect to happen? I expect that there will be a rapid increase in power across the entire community as all of these items become more widely accessible. It’s like we took the distribution curve of items and made everything drop more. That item that used to take 10 hours to find is now a 2 hour item. An item that used to be a 2 day item is now an 8 hour item. After the initial frenzy of power increase, things are just going to settle again. People who think drop rates are too low now will probably still think drop rates are too low a week later when they move to the new point on the curve. I’ve spent a long time on this question so I’m going to move on but hopefully somebody who gets what I’m saying will be able to expand on it more, maybe draw some graphs to better illustrate the point.

tl;dr we could make drops 100x what they are now and it would just cause everybody to settle at a new equilibrium point. Anything you can farm in a few hours you’ll already have, anything that takes longer you’ll wish you could get faster.

Thank you, Wyatt, for a very thoughtful response. I hadn’t really considered this: the effect of buying powerful gear from the Auction House is really to skip a lot of the “reward spikes” from Diablo 2, which makes it feel like they’re not really there at all. I think it provides a great explanation for why the reward pacing feels so different from Diablo 2, even if the mechanism behind it may not have changed.
 
Level 25
Joined
Jul 10, 2006
Messages
3,315
I read the back cover of The Great Gatsby and didn't like it, it's obviously a shitty book and overrated.

That's what you sound like. (And btw The Great Gatsby is fantastic)

No, that's way off.

A more accurate description would be to say I
  • read several paid reviews of The Great Gatsby,
  • read a few hundred forum posts on a forum dedicated to discussing the book but is instead filled with unhappy readers that would prefer to return the book seeing as they are unable to finish the last few pages,
  • heard from many friends that read the book and didn't enjoy it,
all of which, summed up, would equate to The Great Gatsby being a shitty book.

That part was a silly argument simply for argument's sake, but fortunately you redeemed your post with an analysis of the link I provided. Please do note, however, that I included that merely as an interesting, if not completely relevant, little read. I would have mentioned if I took that article as seriously as you suggested I have.
 

Dr Super Good

Spell Reviewer
Level 64
Joined
Jan 18, 2005
Messages
27,232
read several paid reviews of The Great Gatsby,
You see software has something called "revisions" that books generally do not. All reviews are of the first version of the game which had horrible problems such as impossible server performance and game breaking bugs. Most of the negative paid reviews were due to initial server difficulties which were fixed completely within 3-4 days.

In book terms this would be writing a paid review on a book that the copy the reviewer received was in a language he could not understand so instead of admitting he "could not read it due to a mistake" he instead makes up rubbish that the book was "total gibberish and made no sense" and gives it a bad review. Days later he gets the correct language of the book but he has already published his negative review.

read a few hundred forum posts on a forum dedicated to discussing the book but is instead filled with unhappy readers that would prefer to return the book seeing as they are unable to finish the last few pages,
This is not reliable. You see, people who like it (the majority) are so busy reading it they do not bother posting their positive opinions about the game on forums. Instead 90% of the people who post their opinions on the forums are the small minority (a few % of buyers) who disliked it and are willing to waste their time saying how much they hated it rather than reading it.

Of the hundreds of thousands of players you meet online most of them will give you very positive opines of Diablo III. The people on the forums are the games "haters" who are few in number but have so much time to spare not playing the game they spam the forums with their complaints. Notice how since Guild Wars II has come out the number of complaints about Diablo III has dropped massively while the number of complaints on Guild Wars II is sky-rocketing.
heard from many friends that read the book and didn't enjoy it,
Which often base their opinions on the above saying they "have read the book" so are not reliable. Additionally your friends might not be able to read so their opinions on books are worthless.

Most of the game hatters fall into the following categories.
Those that hate hack and slash games now but used to like them in the past (the Diablo II is better than Diablo III people) but are too stupid to admit to themselves that they do. Instead they blame the developers for not fulfilling their impossible demands.
Those that only played the game for a short time as they do not like repetitive "grinding" and blame the game for being "bad and unplayable" and not just being "not their taste".
Those that like the game but are quitters so the slightest thing that weakens them causes them to explode in hatred for illogical reasons. A lot of HC players and top gear players fall into this category as they played HC but died or their gear lost value for some reason so instead of blaming themselves for their mistake they blame Blizzard and the game.
Those that never played the game but think it is bad because of what they read so spread news that the game is bad even though they are in no position to voice any opinion.

Until you actively play a game you have no right to review over whether it is fun or not to play. You can say "it does not look or sound like it is my game" but you cannot say "the game is rubbish". You can fault things like plot, visuals and other non-interactive aspects but actual gameplay can only be faulted once you have played the game. Furthermore to be considered as having played the game you need to have explored the majority of game content (all classes in all acts of all difficulties) and not just the trial version.
 
Level 25
Joined
Jul 10, 2006
Messages
3,315
You see software has something called "revisions" that books generally do not. All reviews are of the first version of the game which had horrible problems such as impossible server performance and game breaking bugs. Most of the negative paid reviews were due to initial server difficulties which were fixed completely within 3-4 days.

Oh dear, I forgot to include the technical difficulties in my complaint about the game! Thanks for reminding me.

A game with as much single player content as Diablo 3 (that's the whole thing sans PvP and balance changes), should, in my opinion, by playable offline. Instead, your ability to play is based on: your internet's reliability (before you dispute this, be aware that internet quality varies around the world), and Blizzard's servers reliability. This, for a (arguably) single player game, is simply unacceptable. And it's not like it was only during the first day - you are also unable to play while the servers undergo maintenance.

In book terms this would be writing a paid review on a book that the copy the reviewer received was in a language he could not understand so instead of admitting he "could not read it due to a mistake" he instead makes up rubbish that the book was "total gibberish and made no sense" and gives it a bad review. Days later he gets the correct language of the book but he has already published his negative review.

When I said paid reviews, I was referring to the larger game review websites hailing the game as a great success with 90%+ ratings, while the "vocal minority" listed - quite verbosely - the massive flaws that the game has.

This is not reliable. You see, people who like it (the majority) are so busy reading it they do not bother posting their positive opinions about the game on forums. Instead 90% of the people who post their opinions on the forums are the small minority (a few % of buyers) who disliked it and are willing to waste their time saying how much they hated it rather than reading it.

A very good point you make, that is indeed true. In fact more to your point, many of the threads I read on the aforementioned forums usually started by praising the game and the developers.

Of the hundreds of thousands of players you meet online most of them will give you very positive opines of Diablo III. The people on the forums are the games "haters" who are few in number but have so much time to spare not playing the game they spam the forums with their complaints. Notice how since Guild Wars II has come out the number of complaints about Diablo III has dropped massively while the number of complaints on Guild Wars II is sky-rocketing.

I don't have enough information to argue either of these points, I'll do some more reading. Several of my friends that played Diablo 3 intently have now moved over the GW2, so I'll monitor their opinions on this subject closely over the next few weeks/months.

Which often base their opinions on the above saying they "have read the book" so are not reliable. Additionally your friends might not be able to read so their opinions on books are worthless.

Haha, well said @ "might not be able to read". One of said friends definitely falls into that category, although since it would appear that Diablo 3's endgame balance is the way it is, I'm sure anyone would be able to finish it eventually with enough farm and/or transactions at the AH.

Most of the game hatters fall into the following categories.
Those that hate hack and slash games now but used to like them in the past (the Diablo II is better than Diablo III people) but are too stupid to admit to themselves that they do. Instead they blame the developers for not fulfilling their impossible demands.
Those that only played the game for a short time as they do not like repetitive "grinding" and blame the game for being "bad and unplayable" and not just being "not their taste".
Those that like the game but are quitters so the slightest thing that weakens them causes them to explode in hatred for illogical reasons. A lot of HC players and top gear players fall into this category as they played HC but died or their gear lost value for some reason so instead of blaming themselves for their mistake they blame Blizzard and the game.
Those that never played the game but think it is bad because of what they read so spread news that the game is bad even though they are in no position to voice any opinion.

Well no. The haters are all hardcore Diablo 2 players. All of them. A casual gamer playing Diablo 3 for the first time would absolutely love it - it is a very well-made game. The problem, at least for the D2 fans, is that Diablo 3 isn't nearly as good as it could have been. So much wasted potential, a franchise "ruined" for many previous fans. I had a similar experience myself with Starcraft 2. Although I was never much of a Starcraft fan, I saw Starcraft 2 as the replacement for Warcraft 3 and mapmaking - an amazing editor and promises of a superior online interface. Starcraft 2 was far from it, and since then, my love affair with Blizzard broken, I am much more wary with regards to Blizzard's products.

Until you actively play a game you have no right to review over whether it is fun or not to play. You can say "it does not look or sound like it is my game" but you cannot say "the game is rubbish". You can fault things like plot, visuals and other non-interactive aspects but actual gameplay can only be faulted once you have played the game. Furthermore to be considered as having played the game you need to have explored the majority of game content (all classes in all acts of all difficulties) and not just the trial version.

Let me reiterate one of my previous statements in this thread: the gameplay is good. The seamless integration of Diablo-style click-for-everything, WoW's hotkey system, and Warcraft 3's targeting make Diablo 3 a joy to play, at least technically. But control interface is not enough - balance is the other half. And the balance at the game start (and this I can say with certainty, since I've played it) - is too easy. And - once again from what I've read - the endgame balance is terrible, but the other way round.

Understandably, Normal mode is easy to accommodate new players, but I believe new players should rather have been given an Easy mode, and allow the experienced players to start at Normal.
 
Level 25
Joined
Jun 5, 2008
Messages
2,572
Why are you guys debating?
For me, nothing beats the Diablo franchise, you can argue with your opinions and whatnot but it comes down to the fact not everyone likes the same genre of games.

I could argue COD genre is a fail, it's a repetitive gameplay also and i had no fun playing what so ever, same with Counter Strike and most of today first person shooter games.

The thrill of item hunt is the fun for me, you might not like it but i do.

Or we could argue all MMO's are repetitive in gaming, i mean you kill mobs > level up > gear up > kill mobs > level up > gear up.
Every game can be generalized as repetitive.

You count gameplay time as the time you had FUN playing the game. If i have fun playing 400h of diablo 2, then it's a 400h of content for me.

Edit2:

Also, what about Dota? Every match is presented on the same principle, same story and same conditions to win/lose. You don't see anyone crying about content because they found out every match is basically the same thing in a different package.
 

Dr Super Good

Spell Reviewer
Level 64
Joined
Jan 18, 2005
Messages
27,232
A game with as much single player content as Diablo 3 (that's the whole thing sans PvP and balance changes), should, in my opinion, by playable offline. Instead, your ability to play is based on: your internet's reliability (before you dispute this, be aware that internet quality varies around the world), and Blizzard's servers reliability. This, for a (arguably) single player game, is simply unacceptable. And it's not like it was only during the first day - you are also unable to play while the servers undergo maintenance.
If you are studying any Computer Science degree you will instantly realise why they have made it online only. In case you are not, the main reason is due to remove the ability for hackers to White Box test server code. There is also a commercial reason and that is to improve the game economy (as you can never allow single player to share content with online due to content being hacked) and to stop third party pirate servers which would probably make money from the game using a custom RMAH.

When I said paid reviews, I was referring to the larger game review websites hailing the game as a great success with 90%+ ratings, while the "vocal minority" listed - quite verbosely - the massive flaws that the game has.
That is becase the game does not have massive flaws.

The haters are all hardcore Diablo 2 players. All of them.
Correction, they "were all hardcore Diablo 2 players". Peoples tastes change over time and you may find that many of them do not game much anymore but thought they would try Diablo III for old time sake. If they were given Diablo II now (without ever playing it before) they probably would have the same hate filled comments complaining about rubber banding, server crashes, rigged monsters etc. To put it in other terms they worked themselves into such a state over Diablo III that no matter what they were given (total junk or even a game made by the exact same team as made Diablo II) they still would have called it nothing like Diablo II. Even if they were given a exact remake of Diablo II they would still have complained it is boring, nothing new added, old etc.

Some people need to learn to move on from games and not blame their own change in taste on the developers.

And the balance at the game start (and this I can say with certainty, since I've played it) - is too easy.
Tell that to all the HC players that die in Act 1 normal (aka most of them).

the endgame balance is terrible
But still light years ahead of Diablo II. In Diablo III all classes can do Inferno with little difficulties with similar priced gear. In Diablo II for a Barbarian to do Hell mode you required insane gear which most casual players would never afford due to the impossible rarity of HRs. In Diablo III most skills are usable and can be incorporated into some skill set with varying success. In Diablo II most skills were useless and many had "fake usefulness" added by synergies.

I never did manage to get a Barbarian character in Diablo II that could survive Hell mode on most situations. I did for all other classes but not barbarian. I even tried throw barbarian with two very powerful weapons but the result was damage that was pathetic compared to the other classes.

Off the top of my head I cannot give a completely useless Diablo III skill.

Here is a list of totally useless skills from Diablo II of the top of my head.
Polearm mastery (and most of the other layer 2 masteries).
Fire golem
Iron Maiden (and all curses except decertify, life tap, amplify damage and lower resistances).
Frost Nova (outside of that early A1 period before you get better frost skills)
Impale
Sacrifice
All Amazon elemental arrow skills
Jab (Amazon skill, not A2 merc skill)
Thunder Storm (the cast and discard skill for Sorceress)
Druid pets like wolves and bear (outside of nightmare).
Skeletal mages (skill not useless but unusable due to server crashes).
Most martial art skills on Assassin.

Understandably, Normal mode is easy to accommodate new players, but I believe new players should rather have been given an Easy mode, and allow the experienced players to start at Normal.
Strange as a lot of players starting out do not find it so... Most people I know have died many times in normal mode when starting out. Are you sure you are not reading the old beta complaint nonsense saying "the game is too easy"?

Obviously once you are playing Inferno with few deaths and start new characters such as HC ones it is easy, but then again so is playing a nintend-hard game after you have won it 100 times.
 
Level 25
Joined
Jul 10, 2006
Messages
3,315
If you are studying any ~ using a custom RMAH.

As a player, I'm not really interested in what Blizzard must do to keep the cash flowing. What I am interested in, is being able to play a game when I want to, and with less prerequisites.

That is becase the game does not have massive flaws.

Right, so let's leave this one at we each have our own opinion. For me, the online requirement is a major flaw. The lack of challenge at the start of the game was also a major flaw.

Correction, they "were all hardcore Diablo 2 players". Peoples tastes change over time ~ on the developers.

I think the main point here is that Diablo 3 was made by the same guys that made WoW, and oldschool Diablo 2 players wanted Diablo, not Wow.

-

I'll leave this debate now as per Kingz' wise words.
 

Dr Super Good

Spell Reviewer
Level 64
Joined
Jan 18, 2005
Messages
27,232
Please read all of what I posted and not just the beginning and the end.

Online requirement is to stop white box testing for hacks and thus improve the quality of the online service.

If online only requirement is a major problem for you then you probably are in the category of people who should not game.

The person who made Diablo II was a noob, he had no idea what he was doing and that is why Diablo II was so broken. Blizzard North was closed for a reason and that reason was they could not make games reliably. Diablo II was the Lion King of Blizzard, it could have so easily turned out to be a total failure but it did not. Blizzard was not willing to take such risk so instead decided to close them and focus on less risky projects. This was long before Activision Blizzard when they were still fully owned by the French.

A lot of complaints people have about Diablo III existed in Diablo II, they have just forgotten or are used to the patched versions.

A common stupidity is "Why only 4 acts?". Diablo II had only 4 acts and it was the Expansion Lords of Destruction that made it 5.
 
If online only requirement is a major problem for you then you probably are in the category of people who should not game.

If issues Diablo 2 had were a major problem for you then YOU are probably in the category of people who should not game. I am never going to get D3 because of the online requirement, because I won't allow self-righteous fucks to dictate me when I am able to play the game I PURCHASED, to play SINGLEPLAYER. The End.
 
Level 25
Joined
Jun 5, 2008
Messages
2,572
They did so mostly because of piracy. Note that Diablo 3 is PC exclusive, and as such was highly susceptable for quick piracy.

And even now there isn't a good working version of a cracked diablo 3, meaning their method has proven effective.

But yes, the always online thing is a thing i do not like also, even tho it is diablo.
 

Dr Super Good

Spell Reviewer
Level 64
Joined
Jan 18, 2005
Messages
27,232
If issues Diablo 2 had were a major problem for you then YOU are probably in the category of people who should not game.
I was younger back then and used to computers failing all the time. Now I do not expect to be kicked from the server every time there is more than 20 things happening which is what Diablo III provides but Diablo II did not.

I could also argue what sad people would want to play alone... I mean do you not get bored stiff?
 
I could also argue what sad people would want to play alone... I mean do you not get bored stiff?

Now, I am a sad person because I prefer to play alone? What kind of a fucked up logic is that? It is a problem with modern society, where we are all supposed to 'socialize' all the time, without actually socializing. That's the problem with modern games too, more and more games are simply 'MULTIPLAYER'. Don't you realize that the most awkward and compulsive gamers are actually MMO players, that is, those who play multiplayer-only games? Doesn't it tell you anything? People who have a dire need to socialize through a video game are actually socially awkward, and they try to cover by making it seem that those games are simply more fun.
 
Level 34
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
8,873
I skipped everything after the first post, but I'll write my opinion anyways! Woooo

I'm disappointed that D3 (and SC2 for that matter) wasn't revolutionary. It's almost as if they tried to make some substantial changes to the, Action-RPG-Whatever-the-hell-sub-genre-you call-it, but they just don't seem all that revolutionary. Hard to explain.

Overall I'm enjoying the game. I definitely think the core mechanics are better than D2, like not getting stuck with a bad build because you didn't look up online how to properly build your character, being able to use more than two skills, the health globes (although I'm not sure how much I like them), timed potions, and Valor stacks.

I'm disappointed that you have no customization to your character that's permanent or at least semi-permanent (WoW for example). I'm also not impressed with the difficulty scaling in the game. It's laughably easy until Hell. Hell is still pretty easy but you'll die to some elite packs with ownage affixes. Then Inferno face-rolled me until I could afford some decent gear. After that I've been pretty happy with the difficulty.

The auction house is a pretty cool idea (not the real money side). It's definitely where I spend a lot of time these days, but I enjoy it for the most part. The economy is pretty messed up with the best items being impossible to buy, and decent items becoming dirt cheap now. I don't like how to level a new character you simply buy them gear every so often from the AH, instead of having found good gear yourself and keeping it for future characters. So overall I actually think the game would be better without the AH, although they'd have to make changes to gear drops or the difficulty.

That's getting long... so I'll stop. I definitely have a lot more opinions though...
 

Dr Super Good

Spell Reviewer
Level 64
Joined
Jan 18, 2005
Messages
27,232
The economy is pretty messed up with the best items being impossible to buy, and decent items becoming dirt cheap now.
The prices are not as impossible as finding the item. If you look at weapons you think "How on earth can a good weapon cost 40m?" however if you actually try finding one you realise "I have just earned 40m yet still no good weapon has dropped..." they are just that rare.

I don't like how to level a new character you simply buy them gear every so often from the AH, instead of having found good gear yourself and keeping it for future characters.
It is an interesting part of economics shown there. Developing your first character is the hardest as you have no money and huge expenditures. However, once you have one to drag your others forward you realise how cheap stuff is at low level. At level 50 you can buy weapons for only 100K that will literally make you a god in Hell mode. This is much like a country developing where the first city is always the hardest but once it occurs the rest of the country can easily follow.

So overall I actually think the game would be better without the AH
There would always be one which is the problem. If Blizzard did not provide one official, third party sites would just like what happened with Diablo II.

It's laughably easy until Hell.
Tell that to the monk I saw die in Nightmare HC against an elite pack... Or the Demon Hunter who died against normal mode Skeleton King in HC. Most Hardcore characters die in normal mode.

Hell is still pretty easy but you'll die to some elite packs with ownage affixes.
Only if you are drunk/tired. It is impossible to die in Hell with any reasonably geared class. Without one you can die as easily as all other difficulties.

The main reason why normal and nightmare are so easy is people use Hell and Inferno mode gems which provide affixes far beyond the level available on the gear. Flawless Squares are cheap and effective. That said you will have to fork out 16k per FS Amethyst in Hardcore.

Then Inferno face-rolled me until I could afford some decent gear.
Working as intended. Being able to coast through A3 and A4 Inferno is meant to be near impossible and only a few people will ever reach that stage (outside of the odd exploit that is found).
 
Off the top of my head I cannot give a completely useless Diablo III skill.

Here is a list of totally useless skills from Diablo II of the top of my head.
Polearm mastery (and most of the other layer 2 masteries).
Fire golem
Iron Maiden (and all curses except decertify, life tap, amplify damage and lower resistances).
Frost Nova (outside of that early A1 period before you get better frost skills)
Impale
Sacrifice
All Amazon elemental arrow skills
Jab (Amazon skill, not A2 merc skill)
Thunder Storm (the cast and discard skill for Sorceress)
Druid pets like wolves and bear (outside of nightmare).
Skeletal mages (skill not useless but unusable due to server crashes).
Most martial art skills on Assassin.

Hope you're joking here. Iron Maiden is the single most useful curse in Hell. Plus you need amazon arrow skills to dea with resistances/immunities. Druid pets are retardedly useful, in late nightmare/early hell the druid has piss hp, and bear provides large damage early. Skeletal mages cause way fewer server crashes then revives do :p

Also, what about Dota? Every match is presented on the same principle, same story and same conditions to win/lose. You don't see anyone crying about content because they found out every match is basically the same thing in a different package.

It's because with over a hundred heroes you always get unique match ups, you could play over 10,000 games without running into a duplicate match up of heroes, then throw in item builds and skill builds and the game is incredibly varied. That's what draws me back to it time and again.

I never did manage to get a Barbarian character in Diablo II that could survive Hell mode on most situations. I did for all other classes but not barbarian. I even tried throw barbarian with two very powerful weapons but the result was damage that was pathetic compared to the other classes.

Get mace mastery, skill bash high. Whirlwind is broken and doesn't work anymore (doesn't phase through enemies, and DPS was lowered to retard point) so don't skill. You have to take a proper blend of shouts, and don't skill anything in the find potion/item branch. Leap/leap attack are also pretty useless.

Barbarians like the easiest class lol. Blizzard just nerfed whirlwind to uselessness and that made it a tiny bit harder.

If issues Diablo 2 had were a major problem for you then YOU are probably in the category of people who should not game. I am never going to get D3 because of the online requirement, because I won't allow self-righteous fucks to dictate me when I am able to play the game I PURCHASED, to play SINGLEPLAYER. The End.

All Valve games require an internet connection to register. You won't be able to play without registering and that's their attempt to combat piracy. Most people game someplace where they can be connected to the internet, because most games have multiplayer nowadays. Maybe I am a self-righteous fuck moderator, but you shouldn't bitch and moan because something requires an internet connection.

Now, I am a sad person because I prefer to play alone? What kind of a fucked up logic is that? It is a problem with modern society, where we are all supposed to 'socialize' all the time, without actually socializing. That's the problem with modern games too, more and more games are simply 'MULTIPLAYER'. Don't you realize that the most awkward and compulsive gamers are actually MMO players, that is, those who play multiplayer-only games? Doesn't it tell you anything? People who have a dire need to socialize through a video game are actually socially awkward, and they try to cover by making it seem that those games are simply more fun.

You're derailing the thread. And yes when my friends live half a continent away and get go play some xbox, or shoot some bad boys in TF2, I do feel like im socializing. I'm catching up with my friends and maintaining my friendships, why does it matter if the medium is electronic? The cases of people who play MMORPG's simply to socialize are rarities.
 
Level 25
Joined
Jun 5, 2008
Messages
2,572
All Valve games require an internet connection to register. You won't be able to play without registering and that's their attempt to combat piracy.

And i can tell you... it's easy to bypass.
I played one of their games which costed i think $40 for free over the internet with other people due to a loophole in security that existed, not sure if it exists anymore.

It's because with over a hundred heroes you always get unique match ups, you could play over 10,000 games without running into a duplicate match up of heroes, then throw in item builds and skill builds and the game is incredibly varied. That's what draws me back to it time and again.

And diablo mobs and items are dynamically generated, clearing a map is never the same also, never, it's always a unique experience.
 
All Valve games require an internet connection to register. You won't be able to play without registering and that's their attempt to combat piracy.
Woah, you really need a giant ass to pull that argument out of it. Not saying it is big, but shitty. Internet connection requirement is a great idea when it comes to registering - as a way to combat piracy. However, D3 has a singleplayer option that REQUIRES YOU TO BE CONNECTED TO THE INTERNET. All the time while you play. That is completely retarded. And I don't know why Blizzard is butthurt about piracy, like they aren't making millions, it is enough of a limitation that you can't play a pirated game online.
Most people game someplace where they can be connected to the internet, because most games have multiplayer nowadays.
This doesn't have to be true, and some countries have such shitty internet you can't imagine.
Maybe I am a self-righteous fuck moderator, but you shouldn't bitch and moan because something requires an internet connection.
I can't believe people think it is okay to have to be connected to the internet to play a SINGLEPLAYER ASPECT of the game. It is not the industry that is the problem, it is morons who support this. Soon they will have us chipped with the data of which games we have purchased, and as soon as we try to open a game we haven't, it will send 'pain' signals to the brain. And then people are going to support their argument with 'IT IS A GREAT PROTECTION AGAINST PIRACY".

You're derailing the thread. And yes when my friends live half a continent away and get go play some xbox, or shoot some bad boys in TF2, I do feel like im socializing. I'm catching up with my friends and maintaining my friendships, why does it matter if the medium is electronic?
Great for you, but most people play with random other people they have never met and they don't really socialize.

The cases of people who play MMORPG's simply to socialize are rarities.
Or, you mean, those people will never admit it and try not to act needy?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top