Diablo 3 is fundamentally broken

[BellaStrega]

One of the act I waypoints was actually trapped with a named quill beast boss. I think it was the inner cloister, but I am not sure. They removed that early on.

Stairway and door traps did happen. If you didn't encounter many or any, you were fairly fortunate.

[Archon_Wing]

Well, I basically didn't play D2 Classic-- started with LoD, so there's a good chance I never enjoyed such excitement, but let's say I wouldn't be very happy with that either-- perhaps it was better that way. The ones that everyone was to be ready for before advancing was Worldstone keep level 3 and the +20 health quest. More of the former though. I've recalled some sticky situations with the later, but never noted anyone dying outright.

Then again D2 was guilty of Iron Madien in the CS, and that was truly broken

[BellaStrega]

Iron Maiden in the CS was the worst thing... My first character to finish nightmare was a jabazon. I spent most of nightmare difficulty leveling up the chain lightning javelin skills just for Chaos Sanctuary. Was happy to see they removed that.

[Mavfin]

Well, I basically didn't play D2 Classic--

This would make quite a difference in what you remember. You saw a game that had been out a year or more already and had the worst stuff fixed. Things that were quite as broken as some things are now, if not more.

D3 is a new game. It's only been out a month as of yesterday, but people are talking like it should have been all patched up and all errors out of it already. Didn't happen in D2, and won't happen here. Doesn't matter how long it's been in development, doesn't matter if they had used 100K beta testers to test all the way through Inferno. No amount of QA or beta can predict the things multiple millions of players will do, and, I submit that a lot of the exploits for gold and experience might not have surfaced in beta anyway, because it wasn't 'for real' then.

Yes, I know there are issues with the DH class especially, and with Inferno. I still think Inferno was made too hard on purpose, and they'll tune it to how people are playing, rather than risk 'too easy' out of the gate again. The tuning is on the way, and class stuff is in the first 1.x.0 patch. It's coming.

Of course, I love that if I criticize you at all, you tell me I'm pulling up a strawman, but, you can say that D3 is horribly broken and you're not doing that at all. <shrug>

[ViralSpiral]

Yeah, Inner Cloister used to have Flamespike the Crawler, who was MULTISHOT CURSED (yes, on a Quill Rat base which already multishots...) and he wasn't removed from that waypoint until the expansion, either. Note that at this time, Multishot still had the bugged interaction with LEB. Flamespike showing up with Extra Strong, LEB, or Fanaticism enchanted was pretty much a "let's skip this waypoint" situation. It was basically a worthless waypoint in Hell anyhow.

[Archon_Wing]

Well, I basically didn't play D2 Classic--

This would make quite a difference in what you remember. You saw a game that had been out a year or more already and had the worst stuff fixed. Things that were quite as broken as some things are now, if not more.

D3 is a new game. It's only been out a month as of yesterday, but people are talking like it should have been all patched up and all errors out of it already. Didn't happen in D2, and won't happen here. Doesn't matter how long it's been in development, doesn't matter if they had used 100K beta testers to test all the way through Inferno. No amount of QA or beta can predict the things multiple millions of players will do, and, I submit that a lot of the exploits for gold and experience might not have surfaced in beta anyway, because it wasn't 'for real' then.

Oy, I know that is true, but I also said something that you sorta left out. Which is a bit annoying, but we'll get to that in a moment.

Was Diablo 2 a good game at release? Answers may vary. Except why are we comparing it to that? Shouldn't we compare it to where the franchise left off and not go back to square one to reinvent the wheel?

So I'm not here to glorify d2 at all. I just expect higher standards than a 1999 game.

So I made a certain point. First, we should not pretend that D2X doesn't exist and compare d3 to d2 vanilla. We should hone our expectations on D2x and start from there.

I am not going after Blizzard for having bugs. That is fair and expected. What I am against are gameplay concepts that I feel are just conceptually wrong and should be common sense to anyone that's played the series.

Yes, I know there are issues with the DH class especially, and with Inferno. I still think Inferno was made too hard on purpose, and they'll tune it to how people are playing, rather than risk 'too easy' out of the gate again. The tuning is on the way, and class stuff is in the first 1.x.0 patch. It's coming.

No complaints there either. Balance is something that I know is impossible to achieve at this point. I know this takes time. Inferno being too hard is kind of a slight, but as you might note, my previous complaints have to deal with the very concepts of what I perceive as fake difficulty that goes beyond giving monsters overly boosted stats.

I also promised to never bring up much about the cheating and the botting as I know that it is out of their hands and they need to put more effort into dealing with it. That's fine. Balance and outside exploits are outside of their control. But some things were in their control and that's where I am bopping them on the head with.

I've been reading up on a lot about D3, and trying all kinds of skills and builds in an attempt to eliminate the "l2p" factor. That doesn't mean I'm good at the game, but as you might have seen in the Melee failure thread, I was the one saying that one shouldn't judge so quickly.

Of course, I love that if I criticize you at all, you tell me I'm pulling up a strawman, but, you can say that D3 is horribly broken and you're not doing that at all. <shrug>

Actually, I wouldn't be regardless of how wrong I am. A strawman is... *summons wiki*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman

A straw man is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.

If I say "D3 is broken" (which I didn't, I just said parts of the game is broken), I post with the knowledge that this is merely part of the mad ravings of a 28 year old with too much time on these hands. Unlike the battle.net forums or sometimes teamliquid.net, I live with the realization that it is merely an opinion that pertains exclusively as me. Yes, I tend to use loads of hyperbole, but I can only speak for myself and haven't really tried to put words in other people's mouths, so it's fine if you want to criticize me, but I feel like you haven't been representing the opposition's arguments very fairly. The last response from you, for example, I just felt cut out a large part of my post.

So it's fine if you think I'm wrong. It's boring if we all agree. But I'd just like to be given credit for being wrong, when it's deserved. When Viralspiral denied my claim that stair/waypoint traps were not common in d2, that was part of a discussion. I claimed something, and he refuted it, and then I realized that I just might be wrong. And yea, I'm wrong a lot, ya know. But meaningful ideas were exchanged, creating something known as a discussion.

But when you posted, it seems that you just had an opinion about other people's opinions. And that just doesn't lead to fruitful discussion, me thinks.

Anyhow, it's nice you enjoy Diablo 3. I do too.

[Jester]

I just expect higher standards than a 1999 game.

This right here is the key. Player expectations rise quickly, and are benchmarked at whatever the last good game they played was. Developer skill rises slowly, if at all, and as costs increase, development cycles get shorter, and balance testing is reduced.

It only takes a very small delta between these variables to generate very large gaps in expectations over time.

-Jester

[Elric of Grans]

I would argue that no game in the hack-and-slash genre has met the standard set by the original Diablo. In my opinion, this is the most stagnant genre ever, as while others have grown stagnant, they at least had titles that beat their originators. Before anyone calls it, Roguelikes are different to Diablo in the fundamental real-time aspect Use the FPS genre as an example. Few would disagree that a whole lot of crap comes out these days, but it was not always like that. Doom was way better than Wolfenstein 3D. Quake had it all over Doom. Half-Life redefined the genre. There were many new benchmarks. What has stood up tall and taken the title from Diablo?

Diablo II arguably redefined the standard, but can you really say it was a better game? Diablo III has had an arguably smoother release than Diablo II (ignoring the server issues on launch), but only time will tell if it is remembered as a better or worse game.

[FoxBat]

Diablo II arguably redefined the standard, but can you really say it was a better game?

IMO, yes. Not that I didn't miss some things from D1, nor deny that D2 was way more imbalanced. But I certainly played it longer and had more fun with it.

Of course, you might disagree, but that's neither here nor there. The only thing we can point to is that D2 did redefine the genre and everyone tried to clone it, much as you can point to the effects quake and half-life had. (Unfortunately, Halo and maybe Call of Duty share those honors now..)

There have been a number of cool variants on the Diablo setup, but most of them are lacking in longevity. These days I don't think there is much incentive for most companies to create long-term games unless they can monetize it via subs/microtransactions. Maybe once the industry is convinced to stop investing in WoW clones, we will see some other kinds of online games emerge, including some higher-budget (D3 clone) ARPGs.

[Athenau]

I agree with Max Schaefer. Action RPG's are really, really hard to do right, which is why we don't see a lot of them. Innovation is nice and all, but execution is king when it comes to this genre. Nailing the combat and loot pinata aspects is difficult enough as it is.

[Jester]

I would argue that no game in the hack-and-slash genre has met the standard set by the original Diablo. ... What has stood up tall and taken the title from Diablo?

I'm a big fan of the original Diablo. (Although for this site, probably well below average.) However, the game had *serious* issues. The standard we are using here, that every ability be in balance, that every skill make sense as part of a coherent whole? Diablo didn't even come close. Entire skills were borderline useless. Stats made no sense. The classes were way out of line with one another. The tooltips had all the reliability of horroscopes.

The game is still amazing despite the flaws. But the problems were large and obvious.

-Jester

[ViralSpiral]

If they want the genre not to stagnate they ought to take heed of their forebears. One of the greatest lures of Roguelikes was the character variation - choosing between race AND class. Actually, just as a list of all the things that were highly appealing in the genre; race/class, variety of tactics, random levels, good quests with memorable rewards, the difficult level, the very sharp difference in how even two similar classes could play from each other, the viability of melee classes, resource management...so much stuff, and almost all of it could be translated to a real-time environment. Some of it has. Heck, the random levels was such a big deal it practically defined Diablo compared to other RPGs of the time.

[Elric of Grans]

Yeah, I have to say that the decreased randomness is one of my biggest disappointments in Diablo III. Zones get boring quickly when you can anticipate every curve and half the spawns.

[FireIceTalon]

Diablo II arguably redefined the standard, but can you really say it was a better game?

IMO, yes. Not that I didn't miss some things from D1, nor deny that D2 was way more imbalanced. But I certainly played it longer and had more fun with it.

Of course, you might disagree, but that's neither here nor there. The only thing we can point to is that D2 did redefine the genre and everyone tried to clone it, much as you can point to the effects quake and half-life had. (Unfortunately, Halo and maybe Call of Duty share those honors now..)

There have been a number of cool variants on the Diablo setup, but most of them are lacking in longevity. These days I don't think there is much incentive for most companies to create long-term games unless they can monetize it via subs/microtransactions. Maybe once the industry is convinced to stop investing in WoW clones, we will see some other kinds of online games emerge, including some higher-budget (D3 clone) ARPGs.

No, it was D1, not D2, that redefined the genre. D2 was amazingly successful, but that was due to the huge success and revolutionary aspect that D1 brought....in terms of the actual game itself, D2 COULD have been the better game than D1, but as it turned it, it wasn't. Balance is a very important factor, and D1 was head and shoulders superior in this department. We can all agree that in environment and overall charm, it is no contest, D1 is hands down superior. D2 had some of the right ideas to do what the original did and be even better, but it came up short as I saw it. Waaaaay too many changes that were not for the better. I played D1 for many years, never got into D2 for more than a month cause I anticipated it so much only to be utterly disappointed.

D3, IMO, is the game D2 SHOULD have been. Of course, D3 has its own problems, but I think what the game is trying to achieve and the overall concept of it is very well done. The skill system is light years beyond D2's, the classes are better overall (except maybe in the case of the DH vs Amazon), better graphics, and it is more challenging overall (even in normal-hell).

[Elric of Grans]

No, it was D1, not D2, that redefined the genre.

Diablo started the genre; there was nothing for it to redefine No, Diablo II did redefine the genre because all subsequent games were heavily influenced by it. Whether or not it was more revolutionary is secondary: Diablo defined the genre, then Diablo II heavily influenced the direction the genre went and therefore redefined it.

[Archon_Wing]

Yeah, I have to say that the decreased randomness is one of my biggest disappointments in Diablo III. Zones get boring quickly when you can anticipate every curve and half the spawns.

I'm a bit mixed on this. The lack of randomization leads to frustration free features that allow casual players to just quickly go through areas that they don't care about. I have to admit, this is a godsend in act 2. They could have kept the layouts highly randomized but be more free with the guide arrows.

However, there should be more randomized, non-quest vital, caves/dungeons that provide a guaranteed elite pack and a nice chest at the end to compensate for those that want to do a full clear. D2 had many, D3 has a few, but there could be more extra areas for those that don't want to run past everything. Perhaps some could be inferno-only content; that would be something special.

[FoxBat]

However, there should be more randomized, non-quest vital, caves/dungeons that provide a guaranteed elite pack and a nice chest at the end to compensate for those that want to do a full clear. D2 had many, D3 has a few, but there could be more extra areas for those that don't want to run past everything.

D3 actually has a ton of such areas. (Check out the dungeon map achievements.) The only problem is that most of them don't spawn in a single game.

[Chesspiece_face]

D3 actually has a ton of such areas. (Check out the dungeon map achievements.) The only problem is that most of them don't spawn in a single game.

I'm actually quite hyped about this feature of the game. It seems to me that it will be a good way to release content between expansions. "1.14: Fifteen new random events added to the game! Go out and explore!"

Hopefully they will capitalize on this and expand it out more. I love some of the stuff in act II like the timed dungeon and the Wheel of Destiny events. More like that please!

[smegged]

Diablo II arguably redefined the standard, but can you really say it was a better game?

IMO, yes. Not that I didn't miss some things from D1, nor deny that D2 was way more imbalanced. But I certainly played it longer and had more fun with it.

Of course, you might disagree, but that's neither here nor there. The only thing we can point to is that D2 did redefine the genre and everyone tried to clone it, much as you can point to the effects quake and half-life had. (Unfortunately, Halo and maybe Call of Duty share those honors now..)

There have been a number of cool variants on the Diablo setup, but most of them are lacking in longevity. These days I don't think there is much incentive for most companies to create long-term games unless they can monetize it via subs/microtransactions. Maybe once the industry is convinced to stop investing in WoW clones, we will see some other kinds of online games emerge, including some higher-budget (D3 clone) ARPGs.

No, it was D1, not D2, that redefined the genre. D2 was amazingly successful, but that was due to the huge success and revolutionary aspect that D1 brought....in terms of the actual game itself, D2 COULD have been the better game than D1, but as it turned it, it wasn't. Balance is a very important factor, and D1 was head and shoulders superior in this department. We can all agree that in environment and overall charm, it is no contest, D1 is hands down superior. D2 had some of the right ideas to do what the original did and be even better, but it came up short as I saw it. Waaaaay too many changes that were not for the better. I played D1 for many years, never got into D2 for more than a month cause I anticipated it so much only to be utterly disappointed.

D3, IMO, is the game D2 SHOULD have been. Of course, D3 has its own problems, but I think what the game is trying to achieve and the overall concept of it is very well done. The skill system is light years beyond D2's, the classes are better overall (except maybe in the case of the DH vs Amazon), better graphics, and it is more challenging overall (even in normal-hell).

The skill system in Diablo 2 was by far the greatest aspect of it. It encouraged you to create unique characters. The skill system in diablo 3 is bland, dull and uninteresting. Not only that, but I much prefered the left/right mouse button firing of skills. The skills in diablo 3 might be more balanced (seriously though, who really cares about balance?) but the skill system in diablo 2 was a lot more fun and that's the barometer I use for determining how good something is in a game.

The attribute system in Diablo 3 is superior - or rather would be superior if it were customisable - to Diablo 2's attribute system because all four stats have secondary abilities which are useful to all character classes. Dexterity is still the worst "vanilla" stat, but the extra dodge is nice enough. In Diablo 2, strength and dexterity were both largely useless stats for the majority of characters, outside what was required to wear the gear you wanted.

Diablo 3 gets a lot right, but it also gets a lot wrong. Ending the game (or turning it into a farming exercise) at level 60 is a huge design flaw. In Diablo 2 I had so much fun building characters that used different skillsets (though running through normal difficulty to get to level 30 and into nightmare was a real PITA at times). I loved my charged bolt sorcerous. Not because charged bolt was overpowered (it was actually the most balanced skill IMO in the expansion), but because the mechanics of the skill and the way to play the character offered a very different flavour when compared to playing a trapassin or a frenzy barb or an orb/hydra sorc.

[Bolty]

If you mostly play solo, you can be generally immune from that. But then you'll get to some point in progression (say, Inferno Act II, where there's a gigantic jump in difficulty), and realize that you can only progress through hundreds of hours of farming gear. You will either like this setup, or you won't. To each their own.

Just posting an update now. I wrote that on June 6th. It's now June 18th, and I have acquired the gear to handle Act II - to an extent. I've adopted a mobile-Barbarian mindset, using both Leap and Furious Charge due to the necessity of running away from Act II mobs constantly. I have almost 900 resist all with War Cry and roughly 8500 armor, and can still get 3-shot by certain champion/rare mobs (spiders especially), leading to guerrilla-style tactics of leaping in, tanking something for 5-6 seconds, and charging out.

I've defeated Belial in groups a number of times, but there are still champion packs that, depending on the abilities, are simply parked and ignored for being unkillable. I recall one that made me laugh - Invulnerable Minions, Illusionist, Arcane, Frozen. Just completely impossible. Upon any engagement, the screen would be littered with arcane orbs and frozen spikes.

White mobs in Act III destroy me with ease - I have to use the hit-and-run tactics that I use on Act II champions/rares. And thus the cycle begins anew...