Post em here. No doubt this could be one of the biggest pc games this year. So, what are your thoughts? Not so much on the beta, after all beta means problems, but on the game itself.
Yes we all know this build was prolly slightly older, and we only saw a portion of the game. but that is enough to form the bases of at least an idea of where the game is and where it aiming to be.
I will give my impressions in the am.
I'm pretty much where I started. Cautiously optimistic.
The kicker for me is that it's very hard to tell what's final and what isn't in terms of the build. If anyone has a blue post or something like that to establish what is and what isn't, that would be really interesting.
The music can barely be heard, and even if you turn it up to maximum, it sounds a lot like a placeholder to me.
I also have a really hard time figuring out the levelling system. Last time I played the beta it worked and looked in a different way, with several options in each tier on level-up, whereas this time it was obviously completely locked, and the abilities were divided into various categories, rather than level tiers.
I think it's pretty clear that it's not really a singleplayer game. I played with viralshag a bit, and that really made it stand out. We should definitely have turned the difficulty up though.
I managed to try out all the classes this time around, and while I would like to see more added, especially assassins and paladins, I think there's something for just about everybody. I didn't hate playing any of them, but I was drawn to the Wizard and the Monk. The Monk was a bit crazier than the Barbarian and the Wizard had a pacing that appealed to me more than the Demon Hunter.
I'm guessing there are gonna be a lot of Witch Doctors though. It's potent, and the spells are really unique.
So yeah, how I feel about the game is based on the beta, and based on the beta, I'm wondering how much of it is representative. Looking purely at the mechanics, I think it's looking good, I had fun playing it, and I'll definitely be very interested to see how it really opens up on release.
Although I do hope it will open up with a lot more style and depth than we saw in this beta. They need to wrap those mechanics in a proper world. I'm gonna be looking out for the music, since that was easily one of the best things about Diablo 2.
Not blown away, nor scared away. I want to play the real thing.
Face it, if you enjoyed Diablo, your getting the 3rd. The Beta would of have to have been all kinds of shit to change your minds... Minds that were made up as soon as Diablo 3 was announced.
The greatest trick Blizzard could pull, would be to change the mechanics enough to give the veterans a thrill, but still keep enough, so the nostalgic twinge is their also. I hope they get it right... Because I really do not want this site bogged down with I hate Diablo 3 threads!!
Though why you weirdo's want this when you could be playing the subliminal Dragon Age 2, boggles my mind... Arf!! ;-)
I thought the game itself had potential but I was really put off by the progression system in this particular beta. Overall my overriding feeling was I'd rather go back to Torchlight and max out my Vanquisher than play that restrictive system 5 times with different abilities.
I liked the design of the levels, and the randomised dungeons meant playing the same dungeons as different classes wasn't quite so "here we go again".
Given the amount of irrelevant or unusable loot I acquired (I found more and better bows as the Monk who can't even use them than I did for the Demon Hunter) I figure they intend people to play a decent amount of co-op and encourage trading that way.
I wasn't really planning to get D3 early on anyway and this Beta has done nothing to expedite matters. It would have to have been pretty amazing to lift my scorn on Activisions misguided ultra-premium pricing strategy, especially with Torchlight II releasing later in the year which I fully believe will be bigger and better while costing far less.
I enjoyed it. After getting some MP done with themadjock, DSB and my other mates I have to say the MP is really where the game shines for me. If it works like that in the final game, that's great. Any MP game where I can drop-in/out, change toon, and rejoin the game within about a minutes is doing something right in my eyes. It was so seamless and didn't really impact my game or the other person in any negative way so that's good.
Like DSB said, I think it could do with a little more difficulty but that could purely be down to it being the beta. From this beta I didn't even get the feeling that this was a particular section of the whole, it felt like a very condensed demo just trying to show as much as it could with as little as possible.
I think my favourite classes have to be the Barbarian and Monk. The Wizard probably next and the Witch Doctor and Demon Hunter a join last. The last two really didn't do much for me and that's more of a personal taste of getting up close and personal. The Barbarian plays brutally and I had the most fun with his abilities.
There are definitely hints of the WoW "talent system" in that the % increases have been done away with. I've never really had a problem with this so I can't really complain about it. I enjoyed being able to essentially change my "spec" on the fly. I think it's hard to judge the level of customisation of the specs and builds because we had so few abilities to work with.
Overall, as you can see, I came away from the beta with high hopes. May be foolish but either way, I'm definitely looking forward to the full game now.
@freedoms_stain Besides Blizzard and Activision being old hat, what do you base that on? I haven't been looking at Runics website or forums, but based on what they've shown so far, I haven't really been blown away by that either.
I liked Torchlight more than any other hack and slash out there, but that was a budget title. So far a lot of the gameplay they've shown has looked like an alpha build and while I like the pets, that's not really a selling point.
What am I missing?
I have the game already purchased.
I bought it as part of Blizzards promotion of Annual Pass for Wow. I spent around 150usd and it includes 12mounths of wow and a full digital copy of Diablo III. Thats important because the price of wow far less then it would be normaly. A deal in and of itself.
I loved Diablo and Diablo II. And I have been a long time fan of hack and slash. So getting Diablo III was a no brainer.
The promotion was good for Blizzard. If I had played Diablo III before putting money down on it, I wouldn't have purchased the game.
It isn't so much that is a bad game, it is more that it isn't a great one.
I think it has to do with the fact that this is one of the biggest and most anticipated releases on PC, certianly this year, but maybe even in the past few. This is a storied franchise from one of the best/biggest PC developers. Peoples expectations are a mile high.
I think that will cause some people to be cautiously optimistic and others to be disapointed. Some gamers will go easy on it and some will be tuff on it, both for the same reasons.
If I examine the game based on what I have seen, and that is all I can do at this point, the thing that stands out most to me is missed opertunity. This game could have been so much more.
Thus far in the hack and slash genere the best char development to date was been found in Titan Quest: Immortal Throne. With Diablo III they had a chance to exclipse that. Instead of building layers of depth the devs choice to simplify.
The game offers a small selection of classes. No doubt more will be offered in DLC through the Diablo III Store. Thats another missed opertunity for value. And think about the classes offered. Why would you abandon long time fan favs? Would you make a Mario game w/o Mario, Yoshi, or the other staples that fans have enjoyed? I can see adding aditional classes. But where is the Paladen at least? Again, i am guessing he will be offered in some form of DLC. I also want the Druid and the Necro, both possible additions down the line.
The opening of the game takes you by the hand, leads you down the story in a very real and literal sense. Even the map is tight, narrow and restrictive. Lacking is a sense of exploring. Its not discovery when its the only damn pathway you can travel down. Even the dungeons, rooms, caves, and near everything of importance is lit right up. No fear of missing something here. To the point that playing it feels a bit like a mechanical chore.
At several times it seems the game goes out of its way to limit and control your experience. You have very little choices building your char and your funneled from one qst/zone to the next. Where as other games say "there is the world and here are your quests, go get them", Diablo III says "hey we will take you there and show you where they are".
Acti/blizz want us all online. All of the time. I believe it is less to do with the game experience and more foster a sense of being offered a "service". Why? A game is something you buy once. A service is something you continue to pay for. We will be shown a steady stream of things we can buy at the Diablo III store. Some of the services we can spend money on will include in game gold, crafting matts, potions, gear, and there is little doubt we will see stuff like double xp pots. Who knows what else. But for sure none of it would be purchased by single players, playing offline. So, we have an online service. Thanks Acti/Bliz login to play single player is great! Server issues, even better.
I can't be the only one that doesn't want to play online with randoms droping in and out of my games. I played DII for years, like many of us. But I played on my in house lan with friends/family. Never over Battlenet. Handling the sp portions of the game in the fashion that they are could be seen as forcing control over the gamers. At the very least it is taking away more choices. What if you wanna load the game up on a laptop and take a trip? Unless your on a relyable isp, not going to happen.
Its just another form of DRM.
Now the game isn't all bad.
The actual gameplay mechanics are solid. Graphics are decent enough. And it has that Diablo atmosphere. The multiplayer elements are handled well. Droping in to a friends game is painless enough. I enjoy a couple of the new classes. The story we have seen thus far isn't terrible.
I can't recall a game where the forums were so full of gamers with so much anger. When I visted there were of course the "defender" crowd. You would think these people made the game or had some sort of vested interest in it, and maybe some of then did have a hand in it. But you had a flood of people expressing everything from mild disapointment to sheer shock.
The biggest complaints mirrior my own. The game lacks satisfying char development and plays too linear. To me it feels like a polished arcade game you might find on PSN or XBLA.
I will play the game. I already own it. I think sales of the game will be high enough, initialy. Their promotion and preorder push has been strong. And the fact that it is a Diablo game will move copies. The question for me is how long will I keep playing? I played DII for years. I can't imagine that this time around.
All of the disclaimers apply. Its an early build. It was beta. It could get better. etc. But those sound like excuses to me tbh. I put in Titan Quest and was blown away instantly. Same with diablo II.
I guess we will see what happens.
There is always Tourchlight II, and that has been shaping up very nicely.
DSB, I think the love for Tourchlight comes from two points.
One you hit solidly on the head. It was a budget title. Where as Diablo III runs 60usd, Tourchlight could be had for 10usd. So I think that matters alot.
Next up would be that it is NOT a Diablo game. Meaning that people don't have the same lofty expectations regaurding Tourchlight. There is room to be suprised by the quality, instead of feeling disapointed by whats not there.
Tourchlght II is going to be a big test for that franchise. People now have expectations going into the game.
You know a hack and slash game I miss?
Champions of Norath. Not so much because it was a steller game, but because it was a couch co-op MP experience. It was servicable at best. But me and my family got a lot of miles out of it. Too bad they don't make more of those, evolving them as they go. I believe there is a market for them.
I hope both torchlight II and Diablo III will eventually come at some point in time to consoles too, i did love torchlight on my 360
Thanks OG, good points all around.
And I agree with about 90% of it.
First, Titan Quest.
My focus is just somewhere else. Personally I found Titan Quests character system fairly laborious, and I think it's more interesting to look at games like Din's Curse, whose focus is a lot more in actually making the world come alive.
That's what I'm missing.
For all these hack and slash games and talk of character systems, there really isn't a lot of life in these games. You're walking around these big empty plains chopping up packs of monsters, and that goes whether you're playing Titan Quest, Diablo or Torchlight. In Din's Curse, failing a quest could mean that monsters ascend from the dungeons to take over the nearest town. The game is far from perfect, and the developers are obviously even more budget and indie than Runic ever was, but that focus, of actually breathing life into the world is just amazing.
Even in singleplayer games you have a ton of NPC "adventurers" running around. It may look like crap, it may be extremely basic, but they're actually creating a tiny, imperfect eco system, complete with dynamic monsters, who unleash on the towns around them if given the opportunity.
When I think of what these games could be like, the levelling system isn't the prize for me, which is probably why the beta doesn't discourage me as it does you. What about a world that's alive and worth exploring? That's something I'm dying to see.
Secondly, the percieved animosity towards D3
Ever since WoW and maybe even before then, the Blizzard forums have been all about bitching. Maybe it's because people get more invested in games they continually pay for, maybe it's because they spend so much time on it, but there's nothing new in Blizzard patrons "hating daddy". This has been the case for as long as I can remember, and if you imposed the same standard on WoW, you'd think it was the worst game in the history of the world, maybe the universe, every time a patch rolled around.
Yet, this is a game that has millions of people paying for it. They aren't unhappy, they're just like that. They were like that 5 years ago when I was playing WoW too. Hell, I was one of those people. When they took fist weapons away from Rogues, I probably would've slapped a Blizzard dev if I ran into one.
Thirdly, Torchlight
I loved the first one too, but as a 12 euro game. They're gonna have to close the gap to make it a real full length title. I still haven't seen the amazing footage that makes me buy it, though. The stuff I've seen has looked like alpha footage and there wasn't really anything in the gameplay that made me go "Wow, this is amazing".
I'm just wondering why it seems to be a foregone conclusion for some people. I understand protesting D3 and the "Imperium Blizzard", but does that really make Torchlight 2 a better game?
Fourthly,
You're right on the money, Blizzard wants their games to be services and they obviously don't mind the "unintended" DRM aspect of that either (which is 100% intentional).
I'm more worried about my own connections than Blizzards infrastructure though. I don't think I've ever seen a company with as much uptime, and focus on enabling live maintenance and updating as Blizzard, during my time in WoW.
They didn't have to work on that, they could've kept the money, but they actually invested quite a bit in letting people play for as much and as long as they cared to. Not every company would spend money to do that.
The always-on system is crap, and it shouldn't be there, but you're still a far cry from Ubisoft, who can barely keep theirs up for 24 hours at a time.
@DSB
Runic are pretty honest about why Torchlight came out the way it did: they ran out of money, so they released a small scale game at a budget price point.
Torchlight was such a success across PC and console they've got a much bigger pot for TL2, they're expanding their world outside of the mines with a much deeper variety of locations to explore with multiple towns and dungeons.
I suppose when I say "bigger and better" then I mean over Torchlight 1 as opposed to better than D3, because obviously I can't know that for sure. In my mind if TL2 was just a longer version of TL I'd be fine by me (and tbh, that'd be better than what I saw in the D3 beta).
@Manu
You might be waiting quite a while for that console port, from the RUnic forums FAQ:
"I heard that Torchlight 2 won't be ported to the XBox360/XBLA?
To try to keep a technical explanation simple, Torchlight 1 for the PC required 512 MB of RAM and 64 MB of dedicated Graphics memory. This is less memory than exists on either the XBox 360 or the Playstation 3. For the XBLA port of Torchlight 1 they had to seriously revamp the game to optimize it to the point so that it could just barely fit under the system's hardware limits. In Torchlight 2's case, which has those optimizations built in already, it is already using more RAM than Torchlight 1, and because of that Runic Games has stated that if they were to port the game to any console it would require a lot of work to even attempt to get it to work.
However, by the time the next generation consoles are released it may once again be feasible to port Torchlight 2, so we'll probably get a final word around that time."
I gotta say the recent BETA left me with some mixed feelings. I dunno what happened to the system, but i don't like how restricted it is. I'd even say i was pretty confused. I could equip the Demon Hunter with a sword, but i couldn't use it. Apparently i didn't choose the right skill, for the left mouse button, problem was i didn't figure out a way to change the skill, so i had to use bows/crossbows.
Did i mess something up?
I was really blown away about how much i liked the art-direction. I though it would disappoint me, but no such thing.
The Monk became quickly my favorite. Hitting enemies with him is pretty satisfying and i liked what he'd to say ... that i until i met the Paladin in the cathedral. What weird conversation those two had.
"Oh, you're so awesome."
"No, you sir, are awesome."
I have to say i didn't like the presentation of the story. I know, it's Diablo, i shouldn't expect much, but still. I would've loved to see a better way to show of the (kind of) boring dialogs. By the time i finished the BETA, i had totally forgotten why i had to destroy the mad king. The BETA got boring pretty fast.
I didn't bother to try the multiplayer, i never played the multiplayer in Diablo 2, so i have no idea what i'm missing.
I had no plans to buy the game any way, since i do not like being restricted to play a singleplayer game online.
How could i protest the likes of Ubisoft and their DRM when i turn around and buy Diablo 3?
Interesting viewpoints guys all I can say is I love the beta and have played it through many times already. I find the randomisation just enough to be familiar with the level layout but varied enough to keep you guessing were to go.
I have become quite obsessed with Diablo 3's development and a lot of the issues people raise are ones which Blizzard have justified in their blogs for right or wrong. They are never going to please everyone when making radical changes to some gameplay mechanics but all I feel they still have in abundance what makes Diablo fun to me which is:
Great Atmosphere
Engaging characters and story told through Pixar quality cinematics
Satisfying combat and skills
Amazing sound design
Huge randomisation and customisation - maybe not in the beta but in the later acts and difficulty settings
Fantastic social gaming aspects in part thanks to Battle.net 2.0 (Thanks to viral for the game the other day). I never bothered with multiplayer in Diablo or Diablo 2.
I see the always on connection requirement as a necessary evil due to the real money auction house and rampant piracy. It's a shame activision seem to have done the pricing of the digital copy but you can still get a cheap retail copy then throw away the DVD if you like...
Being 34 I've waited a long time for this sequel and I remember thinking it took them a long time to make Diablo 2 after Diablo, lol. I'm glad I'm finally going to get to play the conclusion to the Diablo storyline.
I just hope my ageing reflexes can cope with the higher difficulty settings as apparently Hell and inferno difficulty is ridiculous :).
Check out the witch doctor preview:
I dunno how much u guys played it, but I suspect it wasn't beyond the Skeleton King cause for the most part it was up until this part as far as I know available too public and CBT. You can't really judge the entirety of the game based on the limited content that were available to you. Even the random events weren't fully there. Based on what they shown, I'm really optimistic about how Diablo 3 will be. Yes, Necromancer and some other beloved classes aren't there but you should judge each class by themselves not comparing them with the supposedly similar ones. Don't get me wrong I loved Diablo II because I enjoyed the Necromancer and Barbarian. it was hell of a fun. Necromancer was a huge challenge in higher difficulties and I couldn't really solo beyond nightmare. I like the general feeling of each class, played monk, witch docter and barbarian only through the public test and had massive fun with them.
Skills weren't all there because it has been said they'll be unlocked more often after level 13 of character progress. Each of them offer a variety of runes that can suite your play-style, instead of allocating points in this tree or that you have more option to choose from through different skills and how you'd decide to rune them. I can accept that. Titan Quest had a fairly good skill progression sure but it was still very limiting compared to what we'll have in Diablo 3. I can't really understand why people would object about the new skill system, would it have been more fun if we had categories them into 3 separate talent trees and you should've follow through a certain tree or trees when you progress each level? or having like 6 abilities at you disposal to play defensive or offensive or in between any time you want instead of putting points in them, and instead of putting points in things that make your abilities more efficient you rune them so. To me the talent system doesn't really look much different than the traditional way, certainly simplifies the understanding and utilizing the abilities and spells but it's still practical in my opinion. It adds variety, makes every class more fluid on the go, and more effective when playing in parties. You can change you're build at will now which is a very good thing imo when playing with others. In diablo 2 at least me, I had builds with more survivalability and because I used to play mostly on my own and when I was going with others I was not that efficient when we had more utilized classes for damage taking or healing. I can now change it at will to offer more to group I play with.
All in all I like what I saw and I hope the final output surpass my expectations and hopes for another Diablo game. BTW, with each expansions certainly will come better content and more classes.
Interesting blue post below
http://www.diablofans.com/blizz-tracker/topic/221423-diablo-iii-the-customizability-story/
Does anyone play Kefflings?
Its a cute little game. You use your xb360 avatar, he/she is a giant in a world filled with small humans. You can tell the humans to mine rescources, and you use these rescources to build buildings for these little humans. It has charm, and is well done.
The problem and reason I bring it up is because in Kefflings your only ever building buildings with blueprints. The buildings are built the way the game wants them. Even the towns have blueprints. Each building is going in the same basic spot everytime. So this charming game turns very quickly into a a boring task oriented experience where your just following instuctions.
Its fine for some. But compare that to something like a civilization game. Or a Sim City game.
That is a lot like what we have with Diablo. The direction of how and what to build is taken away from you. You going to "unlock" skills at certian levels. Your going to be stuck using those skills. It really reminds me of a console experience.
I would love the chance to try and talk some sense into the blue poster.
But I doubt he would see it.
He comes across as arogant. Take a look:
"People have seen skill trees before, they know what they are, and a diversion away from them is jarring. People like clicking a + button to spend attribute points, any systems attempting to make that more interesting or engaging is met with skepticism. I get it. It's tough to really understand how this is all going to play out together. I just constantly wish people took an approach of wanting to understand something before deeming it bad or wrong. Not to get preachy, but it's a nature that certainly extends beyond video games."
Lets break that down.
First he says people like skill trees. People enjoy powering up their toons by allocating atribute points. He knows that. Blizz knows that. Thats what people want.
And yet:
"any systems attempting to make that more interesting or engaging is met with skepticism. I get it."
He thinks he has/blizz has a way to make something better then what people want.
If you want your fav dinner at a resturant, your not interested in having someone elses fav dinner instead. Or even one that said someone else thinks you will like more, instead. You want what you want.
For me to tell you that you will like what I have better then what you want to have is aragont. And misguaded. Esp when I would be asking you to pay for it.
First rule of making a video game is give the people what they want.
Want more viable choices? Build a better skill tree. But you have costly repecs in games with skill trees? Remove the cost, allow two specs to be saved and allow players to toggle back and forth at anytime. But you have weak skills that need to be unlocked before getting to more powerful ones? Balance your tree.
Don't force me to only have the skills you want me to have.
I don't buy any of the reasons I have heard as to why to justify doing away with player selected, player powered up skill trees. None. They are all copouts.
Bliz simplified. And they have been trying to sell it.
What if you wanted to use two defensive skills in Diablo III? Or you don't like the first choice or two of skills from one catagory? Your limited and stuck. I had that problem several times. The versions of skills offered were worthless. Like the Wizards electric one were little exlectric shards slowly move out in front of the caster. I could see it being good if/when I could power it up, but as was, completly worthless. And that is exactly the type of thing that is being used to justify why skill trees are bad.
The talent that bliz curently has is lacking. That is honestly my opinion. Some of the talent that made past diablo games is now at Runic(Tourchlight), as well as other studios. The last couple of wow expacs have stunk, again some of the former wow talent moved on to Trion(Rift).
I think Bliz has peaked. Creativly speaking, maybe they just got too big.
I would say maybe it is just me, but I know it isn't.
I understand OG, but in the end all game force you to choose from what they put in the game not what you want to be there. Skill trees are exactly like that. You can choose to spare pints here and there, and in my experience it's rarely to your preference cause in a long run that might prove unreliable. You can choose as many as the same school of skills as you want, the game writes there that this is slot for defensive skill or whatever, but it doesn't restrict you to use only defensive skills. In the end all RPG games will have cookie cutter builds which will narrow the players choice to a very few viable options, I wont use WoW as an example because IMO they dropped the ball when they introduced Cataclysm's talent tree, it was basically tasteless and devoid of effort to make it better than what it was pre-Cataclysm. But, look at all other games how many games you ever played that had the perfect talent system? Which one ideal build that you yourself came up with worked through every aspect of a game through variety of difficulty levels in that game?
I certainly didn't find anything better than was publicly believed was the perfect build for that game, through people who invested time to calculate, simulate and put into practice. I don't say that this is a good thing to rely on other to cut the better half of your game for you but in the end it always come to that if you want to play a game more seriously for long term, like the fact that I play WoW, it began casually and now I play to raid and have fun with the challenges that the PvE aspect of the game provides.
But that's just me, people are entitled to their opinion they can feel let down if the game that they're anticipating for so long can't live up to their expectations.
I can't really judge about the talent migration cause I don't those who left or laid off were in charge of what aspect of the game design itself but people come and go in every industry, today Stephany Nunneley is part of the VG247, tomorrow she might be in IGN, people move on with their careers it might impact a portion of a development course in gaming industry but it rarely affects the mentality and policy of the company as a whole, mergers would but people are always replaceable. Simplifying and making things more accessible is the mentality of publishing firms, they want to sell more and create more revenue that will affect the game design, in this generation it always have been for the worse.
OG, I really couldn't disagree more with the sentiment of your post and the idea that the "First rule of making a video game is give the people what they want."
I never understood the flak Blizz got for "simplifying" WoW and it seems, Diablo's skill trees. Just because you make it simpler doesn't mean it's worse.
And this:
"What if you wanted to use two defensive skills in Diablo III? Or you don't like the first choice or two of skills from one catagory?"
You're just wrong about... you can do that... I did it myself. You just tick the "elective mode" box or what ever in the options and you can use whatever skills in whatever hotkey you want.
What elective mode box thingie?
I saw several boxes for skills, and each one had four, I think, choices. You could assign one of those choices and that was it. You could rune only one of those choices.
Unless I missed something, and it is entirely possible that I did.
No, I think you can rune all the active skills you have. I mean I did it with several runes I unlocked for WD and Monok also Barb. Also from what I read when you hit lvl 30 you have a wide range of skills that you can choose from according to this post that Bashiok responded with an appreciation comment.
"A Diablo 2 Barbarian will finish Normal difficulty with 20 different skills to choose from.
A Diablo 3 Barbarian will finish Normal difficulty (level 30, per Bashiok's confirmation) with 59 (FIFTY-NINE) different skills to choose from. He will continue gaining skills after level 30 all the way up to level 60 at the rate of about 2 new runes to try per level, for another 72 (SEVENTY-TWO) skills left to be earned by the end of Normal, or a total of 131 different skills to select by the time he's just about to start Inferno difficulty."
OG, Elective mode is enabled in the options and it allows you to drag and drop the skills you want to use in the hotkeys and left and right clicks. This is from patch 13 but it hasn't changed since:
http://www.diablofans.com/topic/35676-elective-mode-tutorial-and-feedback/
I just double checked the beta(I didn't just have the beta for the weekend). In this current build, you can only have one primary, one secondary, one whatever the rest of the names are like focus, etc skill selected at a time. And that is what I meant.
Each box(primary, secondary, etc) comes with four selectable skills. You can select one of those skill to have active at a time. Thats it. For example if you wanted to use the monks lighteng punch and his attack that goes through enimies and have bopt skill active on your action bar at the same time...you can't.
You can select one skill per box, and you can attach a rune to that skill.
You can only have active at one time one primary, secondary, focus, defensive, etc skill. You get to have active at any one time 6 skills. But you can never have two defensive skills active at the same time, for example.
I am going to again use TQ:IT as my example(because it has the best char dev I have every seen in a game like this). The skill trees in that game don't start with a single root. At level one you can select from two, three or four(depending on the class) skill to pick. And at say level 4, you have selected to power up two level one skills, you could have them both active on your action bar at the same time. You don't have to pick one or the other. At level 7(I think), in TQ:IT you can even pick a second class to fuse with your first choice. You could pick a storm class and fuse it a nature class to make a druid class. You would retain skills from both classes and can mix, match, and use them together. At the same time. The building possibilities were plentiful.
I picked an earth class(powered up a summoned Core Dweller(towering elemental), fused it with a nature class, into a summoner class. I used the Core Dweller to tank, used fire shields and aoes from earth class, and used nature magic to heal and buff the dweller. Played like a EQ style Magician, sorta.
Thats choice. Thats freedom. Nothing like that in Diablo. What good is 72 skills if you can only use 6 at a time? Prolly a bulk of them will be improved versions of lower level skills.
Look I am not going to keep going on about this. Its is one of those things that we have to agree to disagree I guess.
OG, you are incorrect, you need to enable elective mode in the options then you can put whatever skills you like whereever you like, it makes a huge difference and it should arguably be set as default.
Remember in previous Diablo's you could only use two skills at a time, there were no hotkeys as I recall
@OG Compare that to WoW for a second. There was no way you were ever using more than 6 abilities in the same rotation.
Why is it purely a question of quantity all of the sudden?
I totally agree that the levelling should be more interesting than what I've seen in the beta, but what are you actually losing? Diablo 3 isn't Titan Quest, and neither was Diablo or Diablo II.
If you want Titan Quest, then you're better off looking at Grim Dawn, by the old Iron Lore guys.
I can't follow the one-tracked view that more is neccesarily better. It's all in the design and the engineering - How you actually apply those things.
Diablo 3 is going to be a coop game. If everybody has to learn how to use 20 abilities at any one time, it's not going to be fun to play. The noobs will be lost, they'll be constantly discouraged by the vets, and I don't see how that's preferable to having a game that's easier to understand.
And easier to understand does not mean easier to play, or less fun for that matter.
I'd use raiding in WoW as an example. It's easy to understand tactics, it's easy to read stuff on the internet and copy that, but none of that is a challenge. The challenge is in the flawless execution and applying your intuition to use those abilities as effectively as possible, and actually improvising.
I see no reason why D3 wouldn't provide that sort of entertainment. If Titan Quest is the ultimate hack and slash for you, that's cool, but I don't see how that makes D3 a worse game. It makes it a different game, and personally I was expecting it to be.
@themadjock, I will go look again.
And your right, it should be default. I will bet a lot of folks have no idea they can do that. I was looking for it, and couldn't find it.
But do me a favor, stop comparing D3 just to other Diablo games. Those games are old. In every genere mechanics get improved. Really, it isn't a choice between Diablo II and Diablo III. It isn't one way or the other only possible way.
It isn't as if to say if Diablo III wasn't the way it is, then we would be stuck with Diablo II.
My point is that there should be a better, more evolved way.
@DSB
More doesn't always mean better. I didn't mean to imply that. But if you look at (and I am giving a couple wide ranging examples), Gaurdian Hereos(sega saturn/xbla), Gauntlet Dark Legacy, and Castle Crashers.
In each of those games each class has a couple of different ways to attack. Your skills are very limited. Because of that your ways to attack a situation are also limited. It works in those games. They are simple be design. Enimies come straight at you and it creates this tunnel like effect where you just open up and let it rip. It is fun and it works.
But those games completly lack depth(and even they have stats for the player to increase, lol - sorry had to take the jab :) ) There is a difference between adding crap just to bulk a game up with choices you don't need or aren't useful and adding actual depth the gameplay.
Maybe there is depth in there(D3). we have only seen a small portion of the game thus far. But that didn't come across in the beta. I think for Bliz that is a problem. Either the game is better then we think it is, and the showing it off in thebeta didn't do the game justice. Bad. Or the game is what we see and lacks everything we hope it has. If this is the case Bliz is doing damge control and trying hard to convince people they won't miss those choices. Bad.
I think companies need to stop using Beta builds as marketing tools. Three weeks ago i was pumped for Diablo III. Today I whish I didn't already buy it. People are going to judge your game based on what they play of it. Beta or not. If what your putting out there doesn't reflect well on your final product, you could be hurting the game.
I had the same problem with Battlefield 3 on xbox360.
I should say that I have a long history of testing. I fully understand alpha builds, beta testing and the lot. But what open public beta has turned into is more of a preorder marketing push. "Buy a year of wow, get Diablo III(this is where i got the beta invite), and a beta invite to WoW: MoP". That is just pure marketing.
I have tested alot of stuff from Meridan 59(first graphic MMORPG, in 1996) to being in Trions Alpha and Beta for Rift. And a whole lot in between. Trust me, I get beta.
With D3 it isn't that. Its the actual game itself. It just reminds me more of a console experience then a deep and complex diablo game(which is what I wanted).
Maybe the experience will be better with the full game. I put near 400hours in BF3 when it came out, and didn't enjoy its beta at all.
I don't question the validity of your opinions, I think they're totally sound, but I don't think this was marketing. If it was marketing they would've shown you the game itself. This was a stress test to make sure their servers could handle the load. I think Blizzard are past the point where they need to hype things.
In terms of depth, I've rarely seen much of that in any of these games. It's not something I expect from them. Like I say above, depth to me would be something like a living world, such as the one in Din's Curse. That's a serious attempt at expanding their scope.
And once again, I'd refer you to two of Blizzards own games, like Starcraft 2 and WoW. Starcraft 2 wasn't my kind of game, but it is certainly also a game that looks incredibly simple... Until you play it. Watching how some of the freaks out there play it, it's like watching chess on speed. It takes a lot of brains, and a lot of intuition, in spite of the game itself being incredibly simple.
I'm not saying the same will be the case with D3, I really have no idea, but depending on how you look at it, chess could also seem extremely simple. Every piece in a chess game - except for maybe the queen - are extremely limited. That doesn't hurt the game, it makes the game. It's not about the limitations themselves, it's how those limitations dictate for you to use them.
That's really my point. I think D3 is aimed less at how you think it, and more at how you play it.
You may well be right DSB. We will find out a lot more on May15th and beyond. Maybe we should get some MP going?
I'm totally game! Plus I'm in the US now, so I probably wouldn't lag you out too bad.
TigerbloodDK#1865
What a huge difference selecting the skills you actualy want can make. How did I miss this? Thnx themadjock for showing me how to do that. They had better make this default or explain it to people better. Much better now.
AnOlderGamer#1471
Thanks to themadjock!
He helped shed some light lite on the game.
I stand by my comments for the most part. You can't hate a game for what it isn't, you have to look at at what it is.
Diablo III is a good game. And very MP-centric.
I had a great time playing today with themadjock. I also had the wife sit down and play, she is going to be upgrading her wow account to get the game for free too. She loves the Witch Docter lol.
You must log in to post.
© videogaming247 Ltd.
