Why the love for Diablo 3?

[Hobonicus]

The OP simply sounds like someone who doesn't appreciate the random loot oriented type of games. As he said, and I can completely agree, Diablo is like a more complex slot machine. I have a question. So? Why is that dated at all? People do actually play slot machines to this day, do they not? How and why should the formula be changed? Killing monsters and getting loot is as much a genre as shooting stuff behind chest-high walls, and a much deeper one at that.

You're right, not everything the OP mentioned is exclusive to the genre. Those things are complete non-sequiturs. I see no reason for procedurally generated terrain to even be brought up. If anything, it's good that they've put in the effort to make the game less boring on replay runs, considering 3-D environments are harder to create.

What changes did I accept as positive?

On the graphics point, you misread me. I said they have barely anything in common with the game's predecessors. And yes, during times when everything is gradually going the cartoony route, sticking to the franchise's unique style would've been more innovative. A heck of a lot more.

My main point was that the OP brought up some decent, mostly subjective, points and you straight up told him he was wrong and insinuated that he was not as smart as you. This isn't a logic based debate but you seem to be treating it as one.

People still play slot machines but you wouldn't buy a game to play slots for dozens of hours. There's a lot to it that I feel could benefit from some more modern innovation. Sure, it's as much a genre as shooters are, but that doesn't automatically give it immunity from feeling dated.

Without trying to logically compare to a different situation, think of these ideas:

-Point and click combat feels dated these days.
-The art style is familiar and boring.
-Many have become jaded to the phat lewt carrot.
-Graphical updates don't mean much in terms of gameplay.

I think these are all valid points. People are getting excited because of Diablo 2, not because Diablo 3 looks spectacular. Imagine if this was a standalone game? Torchlight sold okay, but even that was in a large part attributed to Diablo 2 fans. I don't understand being excited at the prospect of getting your Diablo 2 fix. That's not to say they shouldn't like it, hell I still enjoyed Starcraft 2 but was not the least bit excited for it's release because it looked exactly the same as the first. Enjoying more of the same is fine, but not to this extent. Diablo 3 has so much hype generated purely from the title.

And by "accepting minor changes", I meant you seem to accept Diablo 3's extreme likeness to Diablo 2 as an actual strong point in the argument. The OP says Diablo 3's weakness is relying on decade old mechanics, you seem to say Diablo 3's strength relies on decade old mechanics, with only minor changes.

 

[Continuity]

...

Most of us haven't played this sort of game for years, the last diabloesque hack n'slash I played was divine divinity (excellent game BTW).

I think its just that we're ready for more.

 

[superdavo]

Because I remember talking my dad into buying me the original when I was about 11 years old, and absolutely loving it (although I was genuinely terrified of The Butcher).

Because I remember buying a whole new computer with hard earned money when I was about 15 just so I could play Diablo II at launch; and sitting on my bedroom floor with a case-off rig just so I could get my fix. My first thought being "Wow, how freakin' awesome does quilted armour look now!"

Because the minute Diablo III is released I shall be rushing home from work, leaving my girlfriend with some takeaway and a book, sitting down with baited breath and hoping to all seven hells that the first words I hear from this game are "Stay awhile, and listen..."

Because I've grown up with this franchise and still remember the childlike excitement I felt when playing the first two instalments that has so far been unmatched by anything else the genre has to offer.

 

[superdavo]

Because I remember talking my dad into buying me the original when I was about 11 years old, and absolutely loving it (although I was genuinely terrified of The Butcher).

Because I remember buying a whole new computer with hard earned money when I was about 15 just so I could play Diablo II at launch; and sitting on my bedroom floor with a case-off rig just so I could get my fix. My first thought being "Wow, how freakin' awesome does quilted armour look now!"

Because the minute Diablo III is released I shall be rushing home from work, leaving my girlfriend with some takeaway and a book, sitting down with baited breath and hoping to all seven hells that the first words I hear from this game are "Stay awhile, and listen..."

Because I've grown up with this franchise and still remember the childlike excitement I felt when playing the first two instalments that has so far been unmatched by anything else the genre has to offer. So. Fingers crossed that Blizzard are onto another winner and that I shall be spending many an hour keeping shift and LMB depressed whilst happily caving in skulls left right and center.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

Problem is, neither of the games came out. Until we get to play both of them (and not just look at trailers or gamplay), we shouldn't even be talking. For now, the only thing we can do is compare the previous games.

Firstly, there's the points of DRM and price. As in, Torchlight 2 will have none and Diablo 3 will require you to be online at all times. Diablo will cost $100 while Torchlight 2 will cost $20. Then there's the question of the multiplayer of each game. Torchlight's max number of players hasn't been announced, but the devs have mentioned playing games with upwards of 16 people. Whether or not this will be in the game remains to be seen, but still. Blizzard is still considering this as well but stated it will probably be set at 4.

So let's break it down:

Torchlight 2:
Maybe around 16 people at a time.
1/5 of the price of Diablo 3.
No DRM.

Diablo 3:
Probably 4 people.
One hundred fucking dollars.
Always-on DRM.

Hmm...

Also, saying "Why do you love Diablo 3?!" and saying "FORGET ABOUT DIABLO 2" makes no sense. Diablo 2 is probably in my top 3 best games ever made. How, in any possible way, would that NOT influence my opinion about the sequel? If I look forward to another book from a series, it's not because of the book itself - but because the first book was great and I expect the sequel to be as good or better.

What the fuck are you on about? Not only did I never ask that first question, I never mentioned Diablo 2 except to say that I wasn't factoring previous games in. I'm just going off announcements of the two games in question.

 

[Galite]

That's easy, Sequels very rarely make ground breaking innovations particularly if they have as strong a fan base as Diablo does. Think Call of Duty, barely anything has changed since COD4:MW aside from the story and balancing. Also if it ain't broken don't fix it, Diablo 3 is releasing new classes, a new story and keeping it's legendary game play.

Will it appeal to everyone? No, but for fans of the genre they are at the very least guaranteed to not be disappointed by a horrible decision to try to make it appeal to the newer generation (read regenerating health bars).

 

[Elijah Newton]

Reading through this discussion has been great. Again, thanks to everyone who's chimed in. A couple specific shout-outs, in no particular order :

A debate is a debate only as long as there's logic involved.

Goodness no, sir. A debate is requires only opposing viewpoints. Aesthetic debates can be about entirely subjective things, wholly free from logic. "That picture looks better on the wall by the bookcase than it does by the window."

I didn't actually create this thread to instigate a debate the way I think you are thinking of it, either. I announced my position (D3 not doing much for me) and invited people to say why they liked it. There is no contest between the opposing viewpoints.

You wouldn't remake the original Doom and still refuse to add a vertical axis.

You win the "I wish I said it" award. I nodded at a lot of what you wrote.

Because I've grown up with this franchise and still remember the childlike excitement I felt when playing the first two installments that has so far been unmatched by anything else the genre has to offer.

To you and everyone else who basically said, "Because it's fun," rock on. I hope the game is everything you want it to be and then some. (the Butcher scared the carp outta me, too.)

 

[Elijah Newton]

"A debate is requires" >> "A debate requires"

*facepalm*

 

[Hobonicus]

A debate is a debate only as long as there's logic involved.

Despite this being only semantics, I'm gonna point out that that's absolutely incorrect. And the logical arguments I was referring to you using were the "if A then B" fallacies that come with the broad analogies you use.

And I'd also like to point out that these are my opinions, my perspective. You simply cannot keep claiming that I'm "wrong" in this regard because I'm merely explaining my point of view.

Let's get one thing straight before the term dated is ever used again. Old does not mean dated. Something that's dated is something that can be entirely replaced or improved dramatically. We can easily say, for instance, that dice rolls (a la Baldur's Gate) are a completely outdated gameplay mechanic, because they can easily be replaced by straight-up values/value ranges without losing anything, indeed gaining simplicity and flexibility.

Yeah, I agree that old doesn't equal dated. But I think Diablo 2 is dated. The loot system definitely still works today, but the rest is not up to par with modern standards.

I'm waiting for suggestions on how the Diablo formula can be improved. Until then, the assumption is that the genre doesn't appeal to you. Or the OP, or whoever. Simple as that.

I'm not a designer so I haven't been thinking up improvements, but the biggest one for me - and it's big enough for you not to respond with "that's all?" - is point and click combat. Why not add support for WASD with the mouse as a mobile target? I loved Diablo 2, but now that it's in full 3D, I'd like the ability for better direct control, more tactile and precise combat which flows better than madly clicking everything that moves.

Also, maybe add some little environmental puzzles like that recent co-op Tomb Raider game. Or more support abilities to enhance teamwork. Constant mindless click-fighting is a dated design, no matter what people say. It can still be fun for sure, but I've come to expect more. But again, I'm not a designer, and the only time recently I've really thought about this game is in these responses.

Seeing how phat lewt is easily and absolutely the biggest selling point the Diablo series ever had, you are completely and utterly wrong and are operating on a wrong assumption. One may have become jaded towards the notion of phat lewt, but that does not mean everyone has. On the contrary, as the fidelity increased over the past couple of years, it would only make sense to assume that people are more titilated by new and better gear for their characters, because on top of increasing your numbers, it also looks better than ever before.

Yeah I'm aware "that does not mean everyone has", thanks for the insight though. I have become somewhat tired of the emphasis on loot, and I know others have too. You're still treating this like there's some sort of correct answer. My opinions, my perspective, you don't get to tell me I'm wrong. Loot is still Diablo's biggest selling point, but it won't affect me as much as it did before. WoW, Dawn of War, Borderlands, etc, have all made me tired of the superficial desire for loot. I'll still be excited when I find something new, but not nearly as much as in Diablo 2. It's lost its edge. The auction house doesn't help any.

And before you say it, don't tell me I'm just "not the right audience", because that's a ridiculously weak and dismissive argument.

Torchlight sold okay because the genre is stagnant as fuck. There have been maybe what, one or two passable hack'n'slash games since Diablo 2. Being the mediocre game that it is, if the market was any more saturated, it would've bombed. Your "Enjoying more of the same is fine, but not to this extent." makes no god damn sense seeing this fact. There have barely been any good games in the genre, what extent are you even talking about? Go troll CoD threads with comments like that.

People are already claiming Diablo 3 will be game of the year. That's the extent I'm referring to. Lack of competition can make something more desirable, but doesn't automatically increase it's quality. I get what you're saying, and I defend Zelda titles being similar because there's not much else like it. But if the original Legend of Zelda was the only title made, I wouldn't defend a remake of it today without asking for more improvements.

No shit it's like Diablo 2 in its essence (bar the visuals), it's supposed to be a sequel.

Near-sightedness and consistency doesn't make something good. If Diablo 3 were to stand on it's own, it wouldn't be getting nearly as much praise. The only real connection it has to Diablo 2 is the story, and we all know what a story from Blizzard is worth. Not letting it evolve does the entire genre a disservice. I expect Diablo 3 to be fun, but I think it has the potential to be much better.

 

[Yearlongjester]

I've found a reason for it not to be Awesome, the goddamn story. Yes, I'm predicting that the point of the game (telling a story through an interactive medium) will be utter shit. Why? This fucking anomaly is in charge:

This fucking asshole can have a contest with George Lucas in buttfucking his own work so that only a little grey pulp of awful remains.

With two fucking games, yes, TWO, this asshole ruined two of Blizzards three franchises beyond repair, and now he's coming for Diablo.

Edit: Sorry, I just get a little emotional when I see this smug asshole turning Warcraft into some kidn of cartoony childish shit.

You might need a break my friend. While I will admit I was a little disapointed when Metzen made that Lore oops, it allowed us to have the Draenei. And I think the Draenei are the most interesting race in WoW, mainly because they aren't being expositioned to death every expansion. Besides if you hate that minor mistake never read comic books, the amount of lore retcons is ridiculous.

On the note of what the OP said, well this might not be the game for you. The hack-n-slash gameplay is fun and combat has gotten a major retooling to allow better flow, just about every system that was in place in D2 has been drastically altered to allow for a better gameplay experience. Evolution is natural, and necessary. Whatever the average gamer may think I DON'T want to play the samething for ten years. I'd like to play a new game that reminds me of the old. D2 and I have had our fun, and while I look back on fondly reminisce I don't want to play a game exactly like it with only slightly better graphics. D3 has captured the soul of its predecessors, that's what's most important.

 

[Gyrohelix]

You don't need to innovate every time you make a new game in a series

 

[Yearlongjester]

@Gryohelix

Why not? I can understand keeping the forumula the same, even the gameplay. That's part of why Halo of GoW are so popular. But I fail to see why innovation should be discouraged. Innovation is a beautiful thing, yes sometimes it gets a bit messy and we end up with Mirror's Edge but it was an interesting idea. Designers stretching out their arms and trying to do something original and compelling is the manner in which games should be made.

Allow me to pose a question to you. AC1 was a decent game, but nothing great outside of a good concept and story. Subsequently ACII came out and drastically changed the story whilst keeping the same feel. Since then we've had Brotherhood, a short game designed to cash in on ACII and give us a pretty decent multiplayer but ultimately did little to the actual gameplay aside from adding the Crossbow (Which was needed I'll add) and having assassin recruits kill things for you. Now we have Revelations, which is doing more to change itself but underneath these slight alterations it's still the same.

You can only milk the same cow for so long, you need to move on and realize that as good as that cow's milk was it did have issues and you should go out and look for a better, creamier cow. (I know next to nothing on farming so excuse that analogy) Point being, Innovation keeps things fresh. I don't want to play ACII & 1/2 or ACII & 3/4. I want to play ACIII, and I'm ok with them taking as long as they need to do so as long as it is fresh and interesting and has kept in mind the mistakes of the past.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

This looks like the same gameplay, very lightly twiddled, as the original Diablo had a decade and a half ago - essentially a gussied up slot machine.

You put the answer to you question right there. I want a slightly different version of Diablo that looks pretty that a significant portion of the gaming population play. It doesn't have to be Diablo. I'd take muliplayer torchlight. The reason? Because I am enormously susceptible to the psychological trickery behind the one armed bandit's success.

 

[Stall]

It's a sequel to Diablo 2-- one of the single greatest PC games OF ALL FUCKING TIME.

That is all you need to know.

 

[Zanaxal]

More and bigger diablo, I mean Diablo 2 had 4 acts, barely anything in rpg standards, LOD added quite a bit to the game but it still was relatively compact, The act 5 being almost half the size of original 4 put together. Unique and Deep character building with massive item lists which is the biggest draw.

 

[Hobonicus]

You're telling me the exact same thing I'm telling you in different wording, and disagreeing.

Yeah I noticed that too, which is why I mentioned multiple times that I simply have a different perspective, and there's no easy correct answer. The target audience isn't just whoever accepts it, that'd be ridiculous. Getting tired of the loot carrot doesn't mean I'll hate that part of the game, I just won't enjoy it as much as before. Diablo 3 hasn't changed enough for other mechanics to pick up the slack of a decade old formula. I'm still allowed to voice my complaints with as much validity as anyone else. As you've noticed, we understand each other, but completely disagree. But you're basically saying "If you don't like it then you don't get to complain, because if you understood, you'd obviously like it."

You think Diablo 3 is fine, I think it hasn't evolved enough from a decade ago to simply accept it as is. Genres don't exist to define what a game can or cannot do. Half your argument seems to be about constraining Diablo 3 within the genre defined by Diablo 2. For people who just want that, totally fine, as the OP also said. But I'm not all that excited about it. I'm not trying to objectively argue why other people shouldn't be excited (anything to that respect was in response to you), only how it looks for me. You're treating this like we're debating the bigger picture of right and wrong but skewing everything in your favor with a "gtfo if you aren't one of us" attitude. My purpose in this thread is to state my opinion, your purpose seems to be to shit on everything I say because I see it as a personal viewpoint and you see it as some sort of big picture logical debate.

You're also inferring a lot of extremes from my comments. I never said Diablo 2 or 3 was/is of bad quality. That doesn't mean it'll be amazing though. You think I don't understand enough about the games and about the genre as you do so my opinion isn't worth as much as yours. I guess I respect the tenacity in consistently saying my perspective is misguided because the majority disagrees. But it really comes down to me believing the game could be better with more risks taken, and you implying that the greater good of the Diablo 2 fanbase makes me wrong.

 

[Hobonicus]

No, the target audience is (in a perfect world) the audience who actively wants it. And people are clamoring to bash demon skulls in and collect bigger maces to bash skulls in with. No, I'm not basically saying that. I'm basically saying that what you're asking for is not reasonable, and then I say why.

I don't think Diablo 3 is fine, as I said in the very beginning, I have many problems with it. However, you're asking for a sequel to be something entirely different than its predecessor, without any real specifics either, just because you got tired of the genre. Drop the "woe is me" shtick. You're the one who quoted me, all I did was pick apart your poor defense of the OP's post.

I'm not inferring extremes. Not intentionally, anyway. You implied that Diablo 3 is of worse quality than it appears. That's a perfectly reasonable thing to say, seeing how stagnant the genre is, as long as you're talking about something specific. You did not bring any examples, just threw that vague expression in and expected me to go "You're correct!". Damn right I'm going to shit all over that kind of rhetoric.

Oh, poor you, all alone against hordes of Diablo fans who don't want change. All you have under your sleeve is "This genre is old". Even discarding the logic gap of other genres, namely fighters, that are twice as old and tens of times as saturated, and rarely do half as much in terms of change as Diablo 3 is doing, do not get these sort of whines, you fail to bring anything to the table that points out why the formula doesn't work.

Alright, clearly this has been difficult to grasp over three pages as you've been completely avoiding it in favor of the public defender role, so I'm gonna bold it for you.

My opinion. My perspective. This is how I feel about Diablo 3.

I can't tell if you're intentionally only reading half of what I say because it makes a better argument or what. I'm aware that what I would want isn't considered reasonable on a larger scale because of what sells best. It's still what I would want, and it still fits within Diablo. This whole time you've been a defender of the people, do you even have your own opinion on this game? Or are you just hellbent on representing the collective fanbase and choosing arbitrary reasons whether my perspective is objectively correct or not?

Before you say it, I'm not pushing the opinion thing thinking it absolves me of criticism, but you've been arguing an entirely different thing and expecting it to fit. I'm telling you I like chocolate on my toast and you're saying that preference is incorrect because most toast lovers think that'll ruin it. I get no say because if I truly understood toast I wouldn't want chocolate with it. And they apparently define what's right and wrong with toast. Wow, why doesn't every game get a 10/10 if those who love it for exactly what it is are the only ones who matter?

And I gave you your precious examples. Unintuitive controls, graphics and physics that do nothing to enhance the gameplay, a loot system that got boring ten years ago, been done to death by MMORPGs since, and will be quickly trivialized by the auction house, other bits of variety that apparently ruin your suffocating holy grail of specific genres. How are these reasons too vague for you? This even started as a conceptual debate in the first place. I'm not tired of the genre, I'm just saying it hasn't reached its full potential for me. I would enjoy it more if it evolved therefore I say this stuff. Do you get it? And then you push for specifics while moving your argument above the game itself to the concept of it's genre. Is this about specifics, or are we going back to concepts, or will you just switch on a whim depending on which one I didn't address in the quote?

As you said before, we've been saying much the same thing, only disagreeing. It's cool if you don't agree, a lot of people obviously do. It means little to me how much some stranger ends up liking a game, so I don't care if my opinions conflict with what others want. But I would like something better than what I've seen. The story will the the same one Blizzard tells for every game, the loot is superficial and almost independent of actual gameplay. That leaves the spammy clickfest that is the character's interaction with the world. That part is no longer enough to hold up the others.

Also, I do think most fighting games (racing to a lesser extent, they've gotten better) are shallow and dated as hell, but you only bring that up because you still seem think this is an argument of whether or not members gaming community are allowed to be justified in their skepticism. I mentioned the original Doom before, if it was remade exactly the same but in cartoony 3D would it be that ridiculous to ask for a little more?

 

[DracoSuave]

Look, if it confuses you, I'll explain it very simply.


Every time some new dungroncrawly hack and slasher comes out, it either has some 'brand new system!' or it has a diablo-esque system. Sometimes it has procedurally generated maps, and sometimes it has one static map.

And every time a fan of the genre picks one up, they always have the same impression... good, bad, indifferent, all reviews end up comparing the game to Diablo.

Every. Single. One.

The prevailing opinion of each game is it inevitably gets compared to what a mythical Diablo 3 would be like. Because people have wanted Diablo 3 for years.

Why is Diablo 3 so like Diablo 2? Because that's what people actually want... a successor to Diablo 2, not some new thing that's kinda like Diablo 2. We've had enough of those in the market. I'm tired of playing the Sacreds and the Dungeon Siege 2s of the world. It's time for a new Diablo 2. It's time for Diablo 3.

 

[Zeh Don]

Is Chris Metzen still employed at Blizzard? Then Diablo III is going to be laughably bad in the story department. And I do mean laughably bad. And this is coming from someone who still considers Diablo II to be one of the best games ever made, a good part of the reason for that being the story.