DII vs. Titan Quest

[Hammerskjold]

>A similar effect can be achieved in Diablo II by actually shopping at merchants. It's just that next to no one does this, so progressively better (but still terrible) weapon drops are picked up until the usable one comes along. Perhaps not as strong, but the effect is definitely still there.

Most players that gives up looking at merchants window do so for a very good reason. Probably for exactly the reason you just stated. That isn't to say it's totally useless, I sometimes shop at merchants to get some crafting materials, or just to look for mostly the humour value.

Under the current standard d2 patch system (read: runewords), I'd say if anyone wants to make merchants more attractive turn the clock back to the before time, in the long long ago. Make them sell normal quality items again. That includes exceptional\elite respective of the difficulty modes. I'm not saying ethereal\superior grade. Just plain white grade gear. (Obviously the chance of this happening in the next official patch is probably nil to less than zero.)

>The only real way to prevent this is to either
-make everything usable

Yeah, to some degree the 1.10 cube recipes addresses this, but it still ignores the bigger problem. Usability is not the only point, being useful is another. Not to mention imo there are too many affixes (and affix range) in D2 that are simply worse than negative, they're boring and doesn't really do anything meaningful. +1 mana??

They're usable in the sense that sure you can re-roll them, but with those kind of affix the ingredients needed to re-roll can be more valuable than the charm itself. (What are you giving up really by re-rolling a +1 mana charm?) It might be more interesting if that charm was useful like say it provides a substantial fire resistance, but by re-rolling you might get lightning resistance. It's not a jump of bad to good outright, rather it depends on the context. If you faced a large group of fire using enemy that previously useful res-fire charm is no longer so. But if you survived the inferno it's still useful against lightning using critters. I'm not saying it should be done like this literally, but you get the general idea.

Adding more content is not the only solution, adding context is also another way. Speaking of context although there are builds that relies more on character skills than items, I think it's fair to say a large part of D2 is very much item-centric.


-provide a large-scale customization/upgrade system

Again, this would be great if, it was done in a meaningful way.


>The other route is to make obscenely powerful items common, which doesn't seem to work very well unless the enemies have a scaling factor the likes of which I've never seen.

A potential side effect that I see is a spiral*. You know, kind of like D2 sometimes.;) I need powerful items to defeat monsters to get to higher areas, so I can obtain more powerful items to defeat stronger monsters in order to get to....zzzzzzzz.

Though done right, it would be close to the perfect never-ending game. Done not so right, it's just something else I do to cure my insomnia.


>Balance is difficult. I wouldn't be too hard on the programmers for not getting there, especially if you have to factor in some randomization.

I don't doubt it's difficulty, (and in the larger picture I actually think D2 came somewhat close, or at least good enough for what it is.) But I don't point the fault at the programming side. Many of the things discussed here to me falls under the design side of things. Many of the things here don't even need computers to be worked out on. It would definitely help, but not immediately necessary.

Let's take randomization of some maps. It's not totally random, since D2 does use a pattern in their level generation. But I'd hazard a guess that even by just looking at say, a map list, some grid paper, and some conceptual sketches the things Thecla mentioned would start to pop up. You don't need D2 to be fully programmed to realize that hmmm, maybe after a player goes through numerous grass fields in Act 1 all grass fields may start to look alike. And the Catacomb and Jail level looks so similar they start to blur into one after a while.

It was about a week ago that one of my Assasin was readying a fight against the Ancients, only to realize she stepped out into, the Frozen Tundra instead! Now that probably means 2 things:

1) Time for sleep. (but not before getting that damn waypoint)

2) Act 5 has snowy caverns, I get it. Yet they're all unique like a snowflake. Like one cavern has 1 extra stalagmite than the other, and that's what makes it oh so precious.

I just see randomization done in this way as another version of 'Fight 100 different enemies!' only to find out that it's really at best 10 enemies, with 10 different pallette swaps. Making more pallette swaps probably won't do anything substantial in terms of impact. Making 10 memorable and distinct areas would probably do more than 100 'different' areas.


>Interestingly enough, most of my favorite (so far as I can extend the term to Diablo II) areas are off the beaten path, and utterly unnecessary.

I don't find that surprising, when things are made mandatory the chance of it being enjoyable usually drops. Eg: Khalims Quest.

[Merlinios]

Most players that gives up looking at merchants window do so for a very good reason. Probably for exactly the reason you just stated. That isn't to say it's totally useless, I sometimes shop at merchants to get some crafting materials, or just to look for mostly the humour value.

Under the current standard d2 patch system (read: runewords), I'd say if anyone wants to make merchants more attractive turn the clock back to the before time, in the long long ago. Make them sell normal quality items again. That includes exceptional\elite respective of the difficulty modes. I'm not saying ethereal\superior grade. Just plain white grade gear. (Obviously the chance of this happening in the next official patch is probably nil to less than zero.)

That's an effect of the hyperinflated economy. The days are not long gone when I (and other folks I knew) were buying Cruel exceptionals and elites from Charsi to get by in Nightmare/Hell (playing untwinked). Still makes for good stuff in the beginning of the ladder. Since these two situations share the factor of not really being able to trade, I'd say that item saturation is at fault, not the quality of the gear the merchants offer. The armor is admittedly sub-par, though.

Yeah, to some degree the 1.10 cube recipes addresses this, but it still ignores the bigger problem. Usability is not the only point, being useful is another. Not to mention imo there are too many affixes (and affix range) in D2 that are simply worse than negative, they're boring and doesn't really do anything meaningful. +1 mana??

Think more customizable. What if you could reroll individual mods, or power them up (though it would have to be VERY expensive, considering the current economy, at least for the higher-end stuff). So you could make that +1 mana to ten, to twenty, to thirty, and so on until you have a nice ring.

They're usable in the sense that sure you can re-roll them, but with those kind of affix the ingredients needed to re-roll can be more valuable than the charm itself. (What are you giving up really by re-rolling a +1 mana charm?) It might be more interesting if that charm was useful like say it provides a substantial fire resistance, but by re-rolling you might get lightning resistance. It's not a jump of bad to good outright, rather it depends on the context. If you faced a large group of fire using enemy that previously useful res-fire charm is no longer so. But if you survived the inferno it's still useful against lightning using critters. I'm not saying it should be done like this literally, but you get the general idea.

I'm not sure I understand this one. You want more controllable rerolls? Potentially abusive if they're cheap enough (IE, I'll just keep one charm and cube it with some Els until I get the resistance mod I want, and will thus save inventory (but not lockbox) space).

A potential side effect that I see is a spiral*. You know, kind of like D2 sometimes.;) I need powerful items to defeat monsters to get to higher areas, so I can obtain more powerful items to defeat stronger monsters in order to get to....zzzzzzzz.

Though done right, it would be close to the perfect never-ending game. Done not so right, it's just something else I do to cure my insomnia.

Yep. I've often said it needs another, harder, difficulty level, preferably without anything more powerful than the stuff in Hell. Even better, no drops at all, so you won't get the whiny item-hunters there.

I don't doubt it's difficulty, (and in the larger picture I actually think D2 came somewhat close, or at least good enough for what it is.) But I don't point the fault at the programming side. Many of the things discussed here to me falls under the design side of things. Many of the things here don't even need computers to be worked out on. It would definitely help, but not immediately necessary.

They did make Diablo II somewhat close. Then they released Lord of Destruction and threw it all out the window. Someone in the Blizzard marketing department realized something; the majority of the public wants, or at least thinks it wants, a relatively easy game that has an obvious internal reward system (IE, high-powered items). Back in the days of yore, before runes existed, and when uniques were gambleable on something like a one in thirty rate, there was balance. And yea, it was good. oskills did away with anything remaining after 1.09. Not that the old days were perfect (although the absence of the Lance helped a good deal, whether intentional or not). But now it's almost like a competition to see who can stack the most aurae. The paladin is no longer needed (but is played because Holy Shield, Blessed Hammer, and Smite are rather...good). The barbarian has been relegated to little more than a jukebox. The Sorceress no longer needs to have a backup element to solo. The list goes on, and at the core, oskills and Aurae-on-equip are at fault.

My my...I get a little ranty when you get me started on balance. Anyway, suffice to say it's not really there...anymore. But it was. Blizzard either screwed up and stopped caring, or made a conscious choice to not care.

Let's take randomization of some maps. It's not totally random, since D2 does use a pattern in their level generation. But I'd hazard a guess that even by just looking at say, a map list, some grid paper, and some conceptual sketches the things Thecla mentioned would start to pop up. You don't need D2 to be fully programmed to realize that hmmm, maybe after a player goes through numerous grass fields in Act 1 all grass fields may start to look alike. And the Catacomb and Jail level looks so similar they start to blur into one after a while.

...

I just see randomization done in this way as another version of 'Fight 100 different enemies!' only to find out that it's really at best 10 enemies, with 10 different pallette swaps. Making more pallette swaps probably won't do anything substantial in terms of impact. Making 10 memorable and distinct areas would probably do more than 100 'different' areas.

Agreed, but would you have waited another year and payed an extra fifty bucks for these (Gogo hyperbole!)?

--me

[Hammerskjold]

>That's an effect of the hyperinflated economy. The days are not long gone when I (and other folks I knew) were buying Cruel exceptionals and elites from Charsi to get by in Nightmare/Hell (playing untwinked).

I also play almost all of my chars (D2 classic & LoD) un-twinked. And maybe it's just my luck, but including LoD, I've only found one cruel elite once from a shopkeeper in all the time I've played. And I've played roughly since D2 classic first came out. Some players cubed a cruel weapon on their first tens of rolls. Let's just say that while there are parts of D2 classic I like, LoD at least gave some flexibility with runewords. Though I think the LoD rare upgrade recipe was a great addition and something that was much needed.

So while the 'economy' is a factor, drop factor \ luck imo plays a bigger part for something like solo\sp play.


>Still makes for good stuff in the beginning of the ladder. Since these two situations share the factor of not really being able to trade, I'd say that item saturation is at fault, not the quality of the gear the merchants offer.

So to say something like item saturation is a factor, I don't quite agree. I mean yes saturation is of course a factor online, but more important to me is it a saturation of real or counterfeit items? In online public D1 games I remembered there was quite a lot of players sporting triple Obsidian Zodiac jewelry. But it's not really true to say that D1 drops a glut of obs-zod.


>You want more controllable rerolls? Potentially abusive if they're cheap enough (IE, I'll just keep one charm and cube it with some Els until I get the resistance mod I want, and will thus save inventory (but not lockbox) space).

No, don't read it too literally. Something like a +1mana charm is close to meaningless. (I'm not sure what you mean by the Els rune, am I forgetting a charm re-roll recipe that uses EL in the standard game?. Unless you meant theoratically. Theoratically anything can be abused if the recipe is cheap and result is narrow enough.) Using it in a re-roll will probably turn out better results, because you might get something better for essentially nothing. The 3 perfect gems needed for the re-roll is imo the real price of the recipe.

But, it might be more interesting if that charm affix actually holds something of value. Maybe not in the immediate situation, but it does have its uses. Then the player might have to consider is it worth doing the re-roll. Don't think of it as a roll to get good<better< best. More like rolling to get either rock, paper, or scissor. (And there's no guarantee that you will get what you actually want, a rock charm might just re-roll into another rock.) Choosing whether or not to roll a junk charm into a useful one isn't really meaningful. Seriously, who would turn that down in a regular standard game?

Though really, if I wanted to really flesh it out I'd just say that I'd ease up on the durability issue on things like weapons and instead transfer it over to charms. It will be indestructible of course when you're just carrying it around. But the process of re-rolling will take it's toll, and will eventually break if too many re-rolls are done on the charm.

But here is where the idea might get hate mail. In the long run, (in my own hypothetical parallel universe where I own a gajillion dollar game company and also the world's strongest gajillionaire) this type of re-rolling is treated as more like a bonus and optional mini-game. Those who want to pursue the activity can do so. But it will never be absolutely required because the average player will nearly always have access to usable and useful gear.

But by this point, I think we're going into a wish list type of discussion or mod ideas.



>Agreed, but would you have waited another year and payed an extra fifty bucks for these (Gogo hyperbole!)?

For better and worse I think D2\LoD was always a work in progress until v 1.10. But what I'm talking about is things that should've been worked out in the design\in house testing stage. Yes we have the benefit of hindsight, but it's funny looking at bliz usual creed of 'it's done when it's done, and we make games that we want to play' compared to the patch txt. Yes bliz is a company and not some video game charity. It's always a level of compromise between getting things competently done and delivering it to the paying client who wants it done by yesterday. It's always a compromise between making the games they want to play and you the paying customer wants to play.

Looking at the bigger picture it's actually commendable that 1.10 even came out (and done by mostly one person iirc) at all. But would I wait another year for a better designed (read: not necessarily more content, but better.) yes. Would I pay an extra 50 for the effort? If it means better replay yes. If it means more meaningless filler hell no. Obviously I'm not advocating something like D3 to go into DukeNukem4ever mode, and bliz is a business after all. But personally no, I don't mind waiting a bit longer if it means they have more time devoted to quality.

[--Pete]

Hi,

. . . but it's funny looking at bliz usual creed of 'it's done when it's done, and we make games that we want to play' compared to the patch txt.

Classic D2 shows a significant decrease in quality from act 1 through act 4. And calling it 'act 4' is a big concession -- it has neither the size nor the detail to rate much more than act 3.5. So, the oft quoted 'it'll be done when it's done' is more of a marketing ploy and an excuse for schedule slips. It sounds good, but really just means that when they have a minimally shippable product, they'll ship it. Even if it means that the customer has to download a huge patch immediately after installation (and, yes, I know that was WoW, not D2 -- but it was still Blizzard). Considering the crap that ships under the guise of games, Blizzard does an excellent job by comparison. But, it's the dancing bear story -- it's not that the bear dances well that's amazing; it's that the bear dances at all.

Looking at the bigger picture it's actually commendable that 1.10 even came out . . .

Yes, it is. And it is to Blizzard's credit that they continued to support a game so long after the revenue stream had mostly dried up.

But would I wait another year for a better designed (read: not necessarily more content, but better.) yes. Would I pay an extra 50 for the effort? If it means better replay yes.

Some time ago I introduced the concept of being 'pre-bored' with a game. By that I meant that a new game was sufficiently like an older game which one had played till all the pleasure had been sucked out that the player became bored with the new game after only a few sessions. I think, to a large extent, that is what has happened to Diablo like games. Better balance, better content, etc. will not not restore the feeling you had the first time you heard 'Fresh meat!'. I don't think there is anything that can be done to D2 (or D1) that amounts to more than a fresh coat of paint. It may look shiny, but it'll be the same old 'kill things to get more powerful so that you can kill higher level things' merry-go-round.

I think Blizzard knows this, which is why I suspect that D3 may never be one of their projects.

--Pete

[Hammerskjold]

> And calling it 'act 4' is a big concession -- it has neither the size nor the detail to rate much more than act 3.5.

Yep. While I don't mind the shift from some of the jungle, it did feel a bit jarring.



> I don't think there is anything that can be done to D2 (or D1) that amounts to more than a fresh coat of paint. It may look shiny, but it'll be the same old 'kill things to get more powerful so that you can kill higher level things' merry-go-round.

That's true to a large degree. I wouldn't hesitate to put D1 and Hellfire:Fixed in my personal permanent hall of fame, but there's definitely elements in D1 (D2\LoD) that shows their age, and not in a good way.

I think any game that wants to ape something like Diablo is destined to fail. Not because it's Diablo, but because aping anything without understanding and without significantly contributing your own take is usually doomed to failure.

Having said that I think there's nothing wrong with being inspired by something like Diablo (or anything else). Obviously the hard trick is taking the sometimes intangible magic that is applicable, and making it work in something new that still feels familiar in a good way. (I know if -I- can do that reliably, I'd most likely be sipping champagne in a private tropical island fanned by a cadre of female bodyguards whose beauty is matched only by their deadliness.)


>I think Blizzard knows this, which is why I suspect that D3 may never be one of their projects.

If it becomes a 'More Of The Same Ol' Stuff', in the worst sense of the expression, then yes it's probably better to just leave it as is. Bliz did cancel this :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warcraft_Adve...rd_of_the_Clans

after all. I personally admire that decision if it was based on a long term vision of the product. On the other hand the lure of a 'franchise' is pretty strong. It's really hard to turn down a license to practically print money. Someone like George Lucas probably wrestles with that very dilemma every night before falling asleep on his ruby encrusted Jar Jar Binks pillow.

[Fragbait]

Better balance, better content, etc. will not not restore the feeling you had the first time you heard 'Fresh meat!'. I don't think there is anything that can be done to D2 (or D1) that amounts to more than a fresh coat of paint. It may look shiny, but it'll be the same old 'kill things to get more powerful so that you can kill higher level things' merry-go-round.

I think Blizzard knows this, which is why I suspect that D3 may never be one of their projects.

Hi,

I think that's one of the great truths that apply not only to gaming, but to almost every experience in life. But that doesn't necessarily mean that you are going to get bored of the activity, perfect example would be the most famous adult activity...

While I have to admit that DII lacked the innovation factor a bit, it still was (is) a very good and entertaining game. It has aged (mostly graphically), and has been discarded by folks who have played it excessively, but that's about it. It still is good, even if the shiny coat is coming off now.

I think that Blizzard doesn't want to make a sequel to what was a sequel, too. If they fail to integrate a new major feature into DIII, it won't spoil their initial selling figures (let's face it: everybody will buy DIII), but it will hurt the company in the long term if DIII isn't as good as its predecessors , and I think they want to be able to be proud of their work.

So my guess is that

• there will be a DIII<>
  
• it will be very similar to DI and DII<>
  
• but it will have at least one major innovation<>
  [st]I have no clue at the moment what this major innovation could be. I remember well that the fact that you "can actually see in-game what your character is wearing!!!" was one of the big teasers before DII came out, besides the four huge acts.
  Maybe they will expand the trap section a bit. I'm thinking of a third method of applying damage to the enemies for more than just one character class:
  
  1. physical attack (melee or ranged)<>
     
  2. magical attack (melee or ranged)<>
     
  3. trap attack (ranged, melee?)<>
     [st]I also would like to see only a few characters that have been thought out well. Graphics would have to be a bit more shiny, and a deep going story is a must.
     
     But I'm already turning this into a DIII wishlist.
     Greetings, Fragbait

[Ashock]

[*]there will be a DIII

I hope you're right. However, I think that now that Blizzard has gotten into MMOs, I think it will never go back to non-pay per/play games... at all. Maybe D3 will come out one day, but if it does, the major innovation will be the monthly fee for a Diablo game. The Dark Side is very difficult to get away from.

Of course now that I've broken my own self-imposed no "monthly fee" rule, I'd be all over D3.

-A

[--Pete]

Hi,

Maybe D3 will come out one day, but if it does, the major innovation will be the monthly fee for a Diablo game.

I think you're right. And I'd definitely get it, if only to explore the world that Blizzard builds.

--Pete

[Merlinios]

So to say something like item saturation is a factor, I don't quite agree. I mean yes saturation is of course a factor online, but more important to me is it a saturation of real or counterfeit items? In online public D1 games I remembered there was quite a lot of players sporting triple Obsidian Zodiac jewelry. But it's not really true to say that D1 drops a glut of obs-zod.

Indeed, the uber-rare items should never be saturated, but that doesn't really pertain to Cruel merchant elites (in my experience). These will ALWAYS be either saturated, or made irrelevant by saturation of better items online. Even factoring in that some, even a majority of players have bad luck here, what if they mouse over the items in the merchant every time they go up to town to heal? And if they always buy the high-end cruels? Of course this never happens except on characters isolated from the online economy, or in a virgin economy, because everyone has their eight Breaths of the Dying.

Slightly different point: if you have a mace barbarian, and you buy a Cruel Thunder Maul of Alacrity, you will no longer be looking for said beatstick. So even if you saw one, you probably wouldn't buy it. But in an unsaturated economy, you'd grab that sucker (assuming you intend to trade at all, I suppose), which would start the saturation process.

Diablo two has no real outs for items (except for Ladder dumping into non-Ladder when Blizzard feels like it). Non ladder just grows more and more saturated. Nothing breaks. Nothing is even left on the ground after a point. Does it matter if the items are real or counterfeit? Not really. Ethically, maybe, but in practice, that duplicated Zod rune will cost you just as much as the one you KNOW is legitimate.

On an unrelated note, I think my accounts died sometime this month since I haven't gotten my hard drive fixed yet. G'bye Zod Rune. I hardly knew ye.

But, it might be more interesting if that charm affix actually holds something of value. Maybe not in the immediate situation, but it does have its uses. Then the player might have to consider is it worth doing the re-roll. Don't think of it as a roll to get good<better< best. More like rolling to get either rock, paper, or scissor. (And there's no guarantee that you will get what you actually want, a rock charm might just re-roll into another rock.) Choosing whether or not to roll a junk charm into a useful one isn't really meaningful. Seriously, who would turn that down in a regular standard game?

Grand idea, but the problem is you're no longer in Diablo II. Diablo II was marketed on the basis (*I* believe, anyway) that people enjoyed the treasure-hunt aspect of Diablo I. Good<Better<Best is EXACTLY what the game was trying to accomplish, not balance, or paper, rock, scissors, which is my major beef with it. Blizzard abandoned what I would consider "good" qualities in a game in exchange for giving people what they *think* makes a good game (but does not). Endless treadmill WILL keep you playing, and accomplish one of the two goals of games (wasting time), but it will also leave you with a kind of hollow feeling. Ever log off after nine thousand Mephisto runs and say to yourself "All in a good day's work!"? No. You always feel like garbage after that, no matter what you found, because you didn't find a ____. And even if you did find a ____, you still need that XXXX to make it optimal. And once you get XXXX, you either need a better one or have a new character to outfit. There is no gratification. There is no sense of accomplishment, because the only goals that one can actually achieve are ridiculously easy (IE, beating the game) or self-imposed (winning the ladder, beating Hardcore with a stupid variant, collecting all unique items, etc.). And while this endless item hunt does add some measure of replayability, I don't think of it as "good" replayability. Yeah, it keeps you coming back, but it's almost never an enjoyable comeback. Here is what is still enjoyable in Diablo II.

Playing a new character, from scratch, especially with restrictions.
Playing with friends.

Note that item hunting is not on that list, and judging by the number of bots and duplicates on the realms, I'd say it's not really high on anyone's list. Yeah, people do it, but it's either to show off, or to associate with other people who do it (kind of like twisted church).

Got a wee bit off topic again. *cough*

>Agreed, but would you have waited another year and payed an extra fifty bucks for these (Gogo hyperbole!)?

Looking at the bigger picture it's actually commendable that 1.10 even came out (and done by mostly one person iirc) at all. But would I wait another year for a better designed (read: not necessarily more content, but better.) yes. Would I pay an extra 50 for the effort? If it means better replay yes. If it means more meaningless filler hell no. Obviously I'm not advocating something like D3 to go into DukeNukem4ever mode, and bliz is a business after all. But personally no, I don't mind waiting a bit longer if it means they have more time devoted to quality.

I'd love to get quality. I'd gladly wait longer. I don't know how high the price tag will be though, with all of those paychecks going to the guys working overtime. Yes, it is commendable that 1.10 came out. But as I've frequently ranted, I'd really have loved if they'd had small balance changes and bug fixes instead of discarding balance entirely in order to temporarily ingratiate themselves with the public. Although I suppose I shouldn't say temporarily, since the majority of people seem to be in disagreement with me. I don't know. I've always been a huge fan of balance, perhaps because I'm (the soul of modesty) more intelligent than most people I come across, which means that given balance, I win.

The mark of a good PvP game is one that I (or rather, someone who is good at it), can grab any character, race, weapon, or other variable you want to name, and consistently beat all comers. Maybe not 100%, but it should be at least three quarters of the time.

This is a bit harder to translate into anything cooperative, because if you can beat the game with all variables, it may just mean the game is too easy (IE, Diablo II). I think part of it is that you have to work for the end-goal, and not in an "I can do this in my sleep." way, as Diablo II. If you can't pass an area, you basically go back to one you can, and click on things until you're high enough level to progress, or you find some ridiculous equipment. I can play Diablo II while eating and talking on the phone simultaneously. Where, Blizzard, is the challenge? Perhaps this is why I harken back to the days of 56k, unstable servers, and video lag around every bend as the golden age of Diablo II. Yeah, they were annoying as heck sometimes, but they were challenges to be overcome, more deadly than any monster, and only with careful progression, equipment selection, and character building could I actually complete the game.

--me

[--Pete]

Hi,

Diablo II was marketed on the basis (*I* believe, anyway) that people enjoyed the treasure-hunt aspect of Diablo I. Good<Better<Best is EXACTLY what the game was trying to accomplish, not balance, or paper, rock, scissors, which is my major beef with it. Blizzard abandoned what I would consider "good" qualities in a game in exchange for giving people what they *think* makes a good game (but does not).

All too true. However, for each person looking for a challenging game there appears to be hundreds looking for a way to waste time through instant gratification. Those time wasters are the true market of the game companies, since they are the only audience big enough to fund the cost of developing a modern game. And so, for those of us looking for an interesting game the choices are to look at mods; to look at independent games (e.g., Angband); or to play varients. To complain that mass produced games are produced for the masses is a tad bit naive.

Item glut in D2? Try hard core, using only items you find or buy and never repairing them (just toss or sell when they wear out). It does take some of the 'easy' out of the game and the vendors do become your best friends:) Combine that with some non-optimal builds, and the game can stay interesting for a long time.

As for me, I've long since given up all hope that any major game company will build games for hard core gamers. I've even quit posting to suggestion fora for games in development, since the ideas I suggest (equipment that wears out, limited number of resurrects, harsh penalties for dieing, games with real dificulty levels that the vast majority cannot 'beat' at the highest level, etc.) will never be implemented and only draw flames from the vast sea of game groupies who are terrified of thinking or facing a challenge.

Minesweeper is a better game than most now sold. It takes some thought, it takes some skill, and it can actually be lost. And that is indeed a sad commentary on the modern computer game.

--Pete

[Assur]

I hope you're right. However, I think that now that Blizzard has gotten into MMOs, I think it will never go back to non-pay per/play games... at all. Maybe D3 will come out one day, but if it does, the major innovation will be the monthly fee for a Diablo game. The Dark Side is very difficult to get away from.

If there is a D3 it probably will be feebased, though I wonder if it will be some kind of Diablo-goes-WoW or if they offer up a different kind of gameplay:blink:

I still think that SC2 will be a stand alone game. There is still a bid demand for strategy games. especially if you can play it on an older computer.

[Munkay]

Minesweeper is a better game than most now sold. It takes some thought, it takes some skill, and it can actually be lost. And that is indeed a sad commentary on the modern computer game.

Quoted for truth, sadly enough.

Cheers,

Munk

[Hammerskjold]

>Non ladder just grows more and more saturated. Nothing breaks. Nothing is even left on the ground after a point. Does it matter if the items are real or counterfeit? Not really. Ethically, maybe, but in practice, that duplicated Zod rune will cost you just as much as the one you KNOW is legitimate.

Here is where I just agree to disagree. The ethics is a side point for me, what's the larger issue for me is the benchmark used is skewed. Because there are many cheaters running around on b.net, someone that plays solo\sp\no-trade should also get hammered by nerfings? That's like saying D1 has too many cheaters wielding a KsoH, so let's severely reduce the drop\vendor rate of KsoHs across the board to punish cheating.

So yes, for me it does matter whether or not those itamz are real or not. Especially in the context of how to measure the drop\quality rate.


>Grand idea, but the problem is you're no longer in Diablo II.

Which is the reason why I said we're getting into a wish list or mod territories.


>Here is what is still enjoyable in Diablo II.

No offense, but that's what -you- find to be enjoyable. Everyone's idea of enjoyment will not likely be identical to yours, or mine for that matter.


>I don't know. I've always been a huge fan of balance, perhaps because I'm (the soul of modesty) more intelligent than most people I come across, which means that given balance, I win.

Look at some of those PvP arcade fighting game, something like Virtua Fighter\Tekken etc. They're striving for some sort of dynamic balance, but that's not all they're striving for. They also have a bit of a random factor, some players dismiss them as desperation button mashing moves, but they're not there by accident.

I think the makers and players do want some measure of uncertainty, call it the underdog factor. Too much of 'balance' would make it boring, almost no one really wants a permanent champion. (Whether or not that champ is a character or a player.) Too much randomness, then anyone that has even a thimble of potential would see it as a game that requires no skill, and has little meaning.

Though I don't know what you're point is with the intelligence thing. Intelligence can be a great factor, but not the only factor. I've remembered more than one matches of various games in arcades (ah mispent youth) that should've went to the smarter guy, but instead went to the player who either practiced a hell lot more, or by doing something unexpected. Something that might not be considered 'intelligent', but certainly would qualify as cunning. (though still clearly outside of cheating.)

>The mark of a good PvP game is one that I (or rather, someone who is good at it), can grab any character, race, weapon, or other variable you want to name, and consistently beat all comers. Maybe not 100%, but it should be at least three quarters of the time.

Well if we're agreeing, why are we arguing about it? ;) On a more serious note though, D2 was a slightly better PvP affair than D1 imo, but not by a huge margin. It didn't really need to be, because it never claimed it was only about that one facet.

> but they were challenges to be overcome, more deadly than any monster, and only with careful progression, equipment selection, and character building could I actually complete the game.


There's another thing that made the Diablo series addictive imo, there is no actual 'completion'. Yeah there's max character level and what not, the highest difficulty mode and bonus areas, whatever personal goal\limitation you've set, and the cinematics and storyline.

But I think a large measure of completion is really up to the player. At it's best I call it a spiral (whether it's spiralling up or down is a matter of perspective), Pete is probably a bit more cynical but closer to the truth when he calls it a merry go round.

So the fun might not be in the challenge and careful planning and execution all the time, sometimes people just want to go for a fun ride and not care about whether or not they can steer the direction. As long as the sight is pretty and the ride moves along.


edited addition: It's a testament to Blizzard's polishing skill that they were able to shine a concept that is essentially this http://members.aol.com/warlordhaanz/SimpleRPG2.html

[Fragbait]

Ever log off after nine thousand Mephisto runs and say to yourself "All in a good day's work!"? No. You always feel like garbage after that, no matter what you found, because you didn't find a ____. And even if you did find a ____, you still need that XXXX to make it optimal. And once you get XXXX, you either need a better one or have a new character to outfit. There is no gratification. There is no sense of accomplishment, because the only goals that one can actually achieve are ridiculously easy (IE, beating the game) or self-imposed (winning the ladder, beating Hardcore with a stupid variant, collecting all unique items, etc.)

Hi,

• nobody forces you to run Mephisto or any other monster over and over again.<>
  
• If you feel that you didn't accomplish anything by beating the game, well, then don't do it.<>
  
• The game can be much harder than you think if you haven't got the knowledge which skills to develop with all of the seven character classes.<>
  [st]May I put forth as an example for my last point my girlfriend, who, even after being a quite experienced Diablo I player, had (and has) trouble to decide on skills and items in Diablo II because it is indeed not "pick highest damage and fastest weapon and max all skills and attributes" like it was back in Diablo I, and it is very well possible to completely foozle a char and get stuck somewhere between NM and Hell.
  
  (side note to Pete: many people can thus [with a badly skilled char without godly equipment] lose the game, which, apart from many other facts, makes DII equal if not superior to Minesweeper)
  
  Everybody imposes goals on themselves. If they don't, what do they play for?
  Ever thought "How nice would it be if I found Mavina's bow!" or "Damn it, I need that KSoH for my Warrior... These witches spank him every time!"?
  Ever resolved to bring your char through hell no-twink? Well, then you've set yourself some goals here.
  
  I think you, Merlinios, need to realize that there will always and in any field be people that have a higher motivation, stamina and perhaps even a higher will to cheat than you.
  And if that does bother you, Diablo II offers you the singleplayer mode, too.
  
  (side note to Pete: Multiplayer Minesweeper - where are you?)
  
  If you still feel hollow after a few years of playing that game, well that is understandable. Compare this play time to other games that give you this feeling after a week, and you will see what others mean when they write about its 'great re-playability'. If you didn't play continuously for years but rather took one build of each character class to hell and then paused for a few months (I know half a dozen players who play like that), this game can be fun for a long, long time.
  
  No harm intended.
  Greetings, Fragbait

[Brother Laz]

A couple of lessons I have learned from my mod:

<span style="color:#CCBBBB">1/ People equate 'hard' with 'bad', but don't see anything wrong with 'easy'. In fact, easy is apparently good in a mod because it allows you to 'play the game instead of fight the game'. No, I don't get it either.

<span style="color:#CCBBBB">2/ It is easy to implement rewards that are just a little bit better than your good intentions of balance would require. Then in order to give players more choice, you add some more like them. And before you know it, things spiral out of control and you end up with something like the 'Unity' runeword in Median 2008.

<span style="color:#CCBBBB">3/ People don't want random items, they want one specific item or one specific modifier to farm for. They want to know that they should look for life steal items, or for a Vampire Gaze, or that runewords are the best. Rares are generally seen as 'stupid'.

......

LoD may not have been the greatest step forward in terms of balance, but it is exactly what the players want.

[Hammerskjold]

>LoD may not have been the greatest step forward in terms of balance, but it is exactly what the players want.

Yep, and it's definitely not by accident.

http://www.gamasutra.com/features/200010...fer_01.htm

The above link is about D2 classic, but it's quite informative imo. (This isn't addressed to you specifically Laz, just people in general in this discussion. Good to see you around with your mod though.)

Bliz never claimed they were about a premium product that caters only to the elite few. The great success of their brand is catering to the many and the few, their goal imo seems to be whatever your level and experience as a player, you should walk away with the impression that bliz makes a polished, well crafted product with mass appeal.

And I think they reached that goal, I remember a buddy who worked at a game shop saying during the first few weeks of WoW release, there was quite a few returns. Not because they were not satisfied, but they didn't know it was an online only game. They bought it mostly because there was 2 things on the box:

- (world of) WARCRAFT
- The Blizzard logo

It's easy to feel smug and a bit superior, and call those n00bs stupid herd shoppers. But the bigger truth is there are people that would kill for the kind of brand recognition Blizzard has. One of my friends hated D1, he bought D2 and didn't like it. He now regularly plays WoW. Whatever dislike he has for D1&2, he readily says that to him that bliz logo says 'quality'. And from what I've seen, he's not a minority in this.

People like me and Merlinios (just using an example) can kvetch endlessly about what details should be what and what bliz did wrong, but let's get real. For every 1 thing they did wrong that we criticize, bliz probably did 10 things right. And many of those things aren't noticed or taken for granted -because- they were done right. Stepping back might gain a better perspective, sometimes the detailed view is great for focus but too narrow of a scope.

I'm not saying that Bliz is the greatest game creators of all time with no faults what so ever. But they are great at what they do, polish something to a high degree, and knowing who is the main audience to cater to. If we get too esoteric and narrow with our criticism, we might as well start complaining that Mcdonald's don't serve steak and fine wine.

[bigeyedbug]

Hi,
All too true. However, for each person looking for a challenging game there appears to be hundreds looking for a way to waste time through instant gratification. Those time wasters are the true market of the game companies, since they are the only audience big enough to fund the cost of developing a modern game. And so, for those of us looking for an interesting game the choices are to look at mods; to look at independent games (e.g., Angband); or to play varients. To complain that mass produced games are produced for the masses is a tad bit naive.

Item glut in D2? Try hard core, using only items you find or buy and never repairing them (just toss or sell when they wear out). It does take some of the 'easy' out of the game and the vendors do become your best friends:) Combine that with some non-optimal builds, and the game can stay interesting for a long time.

That's a great point.

I've always been one of the "D2 should be harder" ranters, but I've come to the conclusion that one of the reasons it still has a hold on me and what I'd call Challenge Players (As opposed to "Challenged Players" or "Challenging Players".) is partly because it is so easy. This lack of difficulty combined with its skill and item system is what makes the almost never-ending stream of variants and restricted builds possible.

Consequently it's very good as well at accomodating people of widely varying skill and attention levels, even in the same game.

[Aello]

...games with real dificulty levels that the vast majority cannot 'beat' at the highest level...

Minesweeper is a better game than most now sold. It takes some thought, it takes some skill, and it can actually be lost. And that is indeed a sad commentary on the modern computer game.

i heart minesweeper, but am perhaps even more fond of freecell, which can't be lost. do you actually enjoy the 50/50 guess that so often comes at the end of a minesweeper board? i never really liked that part, so was wondering if it was just me.

also, with respect to real difficulty levels, i liked that idea from the first time i ever saw you post it (i think it was during LOD beta). not sure yet how to make it work and still be reasonably "balanced" and interesting though. but it's something i've kept in my head since the beginning for hgl.

[--Pete]

Hi,

i heart minesweeper, but am perhaps even more fond of freecell, which can't be lost. do you actually enjoy the 50/50 guess that so often comes at the end of a minesweeper board? i never really liked that part, so was wondering if it was just me.

Probability says it should be 50/50. Murphy says it should be 100% against. Murphy usually wins:)

And, yeah, I hate that too;)

also, with respect to real difficulty levels, i liked that idea from the first time i ever saw you post it (i think it was during LOD beta). not sure yet how to make it work and still be reasonably "balanced" and interesting though. but it's something i've kept in my head since the beginning for hgl.

Many games had that kind of difficulty in the past. I remember trying to beat Master of Magic straight out of the box at the highest difficulty. What a slaughter that was. The balance issue, as always, is the developer's problem. But some of the things past games did were: give the computer more units; turn on advanced AI features; make individual units tougher; let the computer spawn/build faster. Each game would have to be treated according to its own play-style and goals, but I strongly suspect that there's some particular combination that would work for any given game.

--Pete

[Zingydex]

Item glut in D2? Try hard core, using only items you find or buy and never repairing them (just toss or sell when they wear out). It does take some of the 'easy' out of the game and the vendors do become your best friends:) Combine that with some non-optimal builds, and the game can stay interesting for a long time.

...

Minesweeper is a better game than most now sold. It takes some thought, it takes some skill, and it can actually be lost. And that is indeed a sad commentary on the modern computer game.

--Pete

There's a difference between "can lose" and "can't win". The stipulations you put out (sub-optimal build, losing key gear right when you need it) make it impossible for the vast majority of players to finish Nightmare unaided, let alone the whole game.

As for Minesweeper, there's an arguable case that it and games like it are genuinely rigged against the player - and that is the number one Bad Thing ™ in the world of video and computer games.