Diablo® III

Why is 'simplified' inherently bad?

90 Tauren Druid
9135
Posts: 225
I see a lot of people upset because the game is being 'dumbed down'. The removal of stat point allocation, the removal of skill points, the removal of runes as drops. Each of these things make choosing how you play your character easier. This means you spend less time choosing and more time playing.

I do understand some people wanting permanence, but I think I see a lot more people wanting the game to be 'hard'. To be unfriendly to 'noobs'. To punish noobs for the mistakes they make.

What's really at the heart of this? I think it's less about people wanting to be challenged, and more about people wanting to stroke their ego. They want to be 'that guy' (or girl) amongst their friends who is 'crazy' enough to do things like play a melee wizard, or play a stupid build through Inferno just to say they did it. Like it's some badge of honor.

Some people are assuming because the beta is easy, that the whole game will be easy. That the only 'challenging' thing about D2 was building your character. That without having to devote weeks just to farm enough runes to set the basis of your character's actions, that somehow the game has become "too casual friendly".

Why does the enjoyment of a casual have to be mutually exclusive with the enjoyment of a hardcore player? I'd really like someone to explain that to me.
Reply Quote
Posts: 59
It's the loss of challenge.
Reply Quote
The more complexity, the more that separates those "good" from "bad" and lets you "do better". There's also more ways to be better. Competition + winning is something many gamers definitely strive for/want.

I know for myself, I'm competitive at games and like having more than just "solved the puzzle" or "can click faster" to make me better or the same as another player.

And I don't know about you, but I like a challenge and working to overcome it. People complain about too dumbed down because it lacks a specific challenge ... might as well go play the sims or some other "non-game game" where you just do stuff.
Reply Quote
22 Tauren Warrior
0
Posts: 233
What's really at the heart of this? I think it's less about people wanting to be challenged, and more about people wanting to stroke their ego


DING DING DING DING DING We have a winner!

No, in all seriousness, I wouldn't be surprised at all if this is what motivates the "Diablo 2 Veterans" or the people who post on these forums. (In other words, the people who really care about the game, the 1% etc etc).

Sadly, I have no idea why the enjoyment of a casual would influence the enjoyment of a hardcore player. I think a lot of it is based around the unknown and simple fear. No body knows what the game as a whole has in store for us. They don't know how difficult the game will be at later levels, or how challenging the balancing act will be to survive hell / inferno. They cannot see how deep the skill / rune system will go, or how it will make the game experience much better. (according to blizzard)

However, they do know how easy the beta is, and they are getting a constant feed of information about "simplification" and making things more accessible for new players, which bothers them. Most people on this forum have been waiting for this game for 10+ years, and they do not want "their" game being reduced to a child's plaything.

I think alot of these complaints and outrages can be attributed to several things.

1) Far to long of a wait (From announcement to release.)

2) People Don't like change at all (Meaning they wish this game was more like D2)

3) Nothing better to do then to complain

The main thing is, don't let it get to you. Once this game is released, most of the pointless speculation will disappear, and we will be able to talk about the game itself, not what we think the game is / could / should be.
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,187
The more complexity, the more that separates those "good" from "bad" and lets you "do better". There's also more ways to be better. Competition + winning is something many gamers definitely strive for/want.

I know for myself, I'm competitive at games and like having more than just "solved the puzzle" or "can click faster" to make me better or the same as another player.

And I don't know about you, but I like a challenge and working to overcome it. People complain about too dumbed down because it lacks a specific challenge ... might as well go play the sims or some other "non-game game" where you just do stuff.


This is ENTIRELY wrong.

You are claiming that arbitrarily and confusingly complex stat/skill systems make the game more 'challenging'. It's just not true. It makes the meta-game more rigid, and caters to elitists, basically. It has NOTHING to do with the challenge of the game. Was it really so 'challenging' to succeed in D2? Making the most successful character possible mostly involved looking up a build, following it, and then spamming a couple spells.

Diablo 2 was an absolute faceroll. Especially when you were playing with 3 or more players. There was NO challenge to the game itself.

Diablo 3 is adding the possibility of challenge to the game that doesn't involve 'cheap tricks' like one-hit kills or iron maiden curses, or double/triple-immunes. Diablo 3 might actually require some SKILL to play in the higher difficulty levels. Say what you will, but Diablo 2 did not require much skill to play, unless you were SPECIFICALLY making ugly builds that you knew would be under-powered, for kicks.

You apparently want the challenge of the game to be in the meta-game, so that you can copy the builds of successful players and make the actual game easy. Personally, I would like the meta-game to be simple to understand and easy to experiment with, and the game itself to be VERY difficult (To the level of, say, Monster Hunter, or Dark Souls, two game I happen to like a lot).
Reply Quote
Posts: 312
You know what makes me sad? Really? Removal of the mystic. :(

Everything else is good. :)
Reply Quote
Simplifying isn't inherently bad.
Like most things in life too much of something can be bad though. At some point you might have simplified enough (Not saying D3 has done that).

Anyway, the problem most people have here probably isn't with simplifying in itself, just with simplifying done in bad ways - an example would be the new skill UI. When a lot of people got issues figuring out how it worked right after patch 13, and even now think it is annoying to use, then maybe the simplification didn't work so well.

Many people want a game that can keep them interested for a while, and that does require some complexity to the gameplay. It is a matter of finding the right balance between that complexity and simplicity.

Regarding the game being hard, that isn't really about simplifying.
A very simple game can be very difficult - just take Tetris on super-high speed. Simple, addictive and challenging.
Imagine if you took one step further in simplifying it, by making all the blocks have the same shape? That would have ruined the game - it would have taken that signle complex aspect out of the game (Again, not saying D3 has done that at all).

People want the game to be hard because they have fun with hard games I would assume. That doesn't mean everybody think Normal should be difficult or anything, but yeah sure, Inferno should be "difficult" otherwise people looking for a challenge wont find any in the game at all. And that would be as bad as the opposite.

While the enjoyment of a "hardcore" player certainly does not have to be mutually exclusive with a "casual" player (God I hate those words), the aspects which are challenging cant really be easy at the same time. You just have to make some areas of the game easy and other areas of the game hard - which seems to be what Blizzard is trying. It isn't exactly rocket science to do that.

To be honest I don't see a lot of people arguing the game should be so difficult that "casuals" cant handle it. If you are especially thinking about the "beta is too easy" crowd, I think it has to do with how people under-estimate the progress they have been through themselves.
Most people posting on these forums have played games for a long time, a lot have played Diablo 2. We already have learned this kind of game, so of course the first 30 min are easy for us. And it is perfectly fine.

Regarding "playing a melee wizard", people have fun doing stupid things, and in a game which sells itself on huge customization, it does feel a little weird that the atypical ways to build characters are being taken away.
Edited by D3BETA on 2/26/2012 8:04 PM PST
Reply Quote
It's not.

You see, angry little children love to make the argument that simplifying = dumbing down, when that is not the case to anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together. Intelligent people know that it is very easy to design games that are incredibly simple to learn and operate, but feature a rich, deep metagame.

People who are upset about the direction of D3 however aren't honest/intelligent enough to just come out and say that however, so instead they hide their argument behind the lie of "OMGZ DIABLO 3 ARE TEH DUMBED DOWN FOR TEH CASUALZ!!1!1!1!!!!1"

As mentioned earlier, the people complaining the loudest are the elitists who are sad that they might not be able to lord their mastery of arbitrarily difficult and cumbersome design over casuals. Poor elitists :(
Edited by D3BETA on 2/26/2012 8:07 PM PST
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,102
Like all games, no matter how simple, pros will still find ways to be better than others. And the irony is in Diablo 2 anyone could really make a hammerdin and cast hammers randomly in a pvp game and accidentally own some people. That's looking less likely to hammer in D3.
Reply Quote
Posts: 970
if you really would like to understand the view there is another thread that people broke it down an explained it very well

http://us.battle.net/d3/en/forum/topic/4081813071

no point having people try an explain the thing in different threads. really you guys should understand it is just that people have different taste in play styles. it isn't about elitism, it is just different taste on play styles
Reply Quote
Posts: 99
I just don't like having games reduced to the lowest common denominator. I like my games complex because complexity is sort of my thing, my "hat" if you will. I derive enjoyment from having to make spreadsheets in Microsoft Access for my characters, build orders, and just about everything else game related. I'm a data freak. I *like* to crunch numbers, and there just is no more of that in games anymore.

It has nothing to do with elitism. It just has to do with the fact that if I wanted simplicity, I'd spend all day playing Ninja Warz on Facebook.
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,187
if you really would like to understand the view there is another thread that people broke it down an explained it very well

http://us.battle.net/d3/en/forum/topic/4081813071

no point having people try an explain the thing in different threads. really you guys should understand it is just that people have different taste in play styles. it isn't about elitism, it is just different taste on play styles


I read most of that thread before. And I see that some people emphatically DO want a play style in which building a character is important, and that there are lasting consequences to decisions. However, I think systems along those lines really do favor 'elitism', whether they actually intend it or not.

If you have a system in which there are large consequences and differences in power that come with character decisions, and in which building the character is emphasized more than your skill in playing the character, you are emphasizing the meta-game, rather than skill in actually playing the game. This has the effect of making players who do not use theorycrafted builds, or do research about the game on the internet before building their character MUCH less successful. This is a big part of the kind of elitism we're talking about.

New players don't have all the information about the game when they start. Elitism is about excluding players who don't have the relevant information. Any way you cut it, putting more emphasis on character-building, and 'meaningful consequences' for customization decisions will ALWAYS have the effect of encouraging that sort of elitism.

The worst part about this kind of elitism is that it has NOTHING to do with how good you are at playing the game itself. It ONLY has to do with the meta-game. And meta-game decisions and knowledge should not be the biggest determinant of in-game success. The skill of the player ought to be.
Reply Quote
90 Tauren Druid
9135
Posts: 225
I just don't like having games reduced to the lowest common denominator. I like my games complex because complexity is sort of my thing, my "hat" if you will. I derive enjoyment from having to make spreadsheets in Microsoft Access for my characters, build orders, and just about everything else game related. I'm a data freak. I *like* to crunch numbers, and there just is no more of that in games anymore.

It has nothing to do with elitism. It just has to do with the fact that if I wanted simplicity, I'd spend all day playing Ninja Warz on Facebook.


And I can respect that. But I do think you're a tiny minority, and while you may not be screaming and crying for Diablo 3 to be suited precisely to your wants and needs, plenty of other people are doing just that.

I'd also like to suggest that there may actually be some theorycrafting involved in D3 at higher levels. There *will* be optimal build and gear combinations, though if Blizzard does their job those optimal builds are supposed to be only marginally better. Still, there will be plenty for the min/maxer to do. The beauty of D3 is that you won't have to roll a whole new character just to prove out your theory.

I also don't think you can lump all games into either the 'complex' or 'facebook' categories, but I'm guessing you were going for a bit of hyperbole.
Reply Quote
Posts: 970
if you really would like to understand the view there is another thread that people broke it down an explained it very well

http://us.battle.net/d3/en/forum/topic/4081813071

no point having people try an explain the thing in different threads. really you guys should understand it is just that people have different taste in play styles. it isn't about elitism, it is just different taste on play styles


I read most of that thread before. And I see that some people emphatically DO want a play style in which building a character is important, and that there are lasting consequences to decisions. However, I think systems along those lines really do favor 'elitism', whether they actually intend it or not.

If you have a system in which there are large consequences and differences in power that come with character decisions, and in which building the character is emphasized more than your skill in playing the character, you are emphasizing the meta-game, rather than skill in actually playing the game. This has the effect of making players who do not use theorycrafted builds, or do research about the game on the internet before building their character MUCH less successful. This is a big part of the kind of elitism we're talking about.

New players don't have all the information about the game when they start. Elitism is about excluding players who don't have the relevant information. Any way you cut it, putting more emphasis on character-building, and 'meaningful consequences' for customization decisions will ALWAYS have the effect of encouraging that sort of elitism.

The worst part about this kind of elitism is that it has NOTHING to do with how good you are at playing the game itself. It ONLY has to do with the meta-game. And meta-game decisions and knowledge should not be the biggest determinant of in-game success. The skill of the player ought to be.


no one had the info about the game before the start. they all had to learn it at some point. this isn't elitism this is what rpg are. they are based on the hero building. when you take out those parts it becomes a more pure action game. nothing wrong with action games but diablos has always been a arpg .

your view would be right if the game was not an rpg. but rpg's are based on the building of the toon. skills still comes into play. but this is a whole extra thing for people to figure out. sounds like your saying your don't like rpg's which is great an fine but that isn't elitist it just a different game type.

the harder something is the more rewarding it is when you finally beat it. for the people that don't like to figure out the builds they could search online they will be posted at some point by someones. but many people enjoy the trial an error of figuring it out. you act as if it has to be only skill or consequences, when it should be both. that is a large reason why diablo2 was so replayable for so long
Reply Quote
90 Night Elf Priest
6675
Posts: 1,895
02/26/2012 07:29 PMPosted by DarkGollumQC
What's really at the heart of this? I


One word. Elitism.
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,187


no one had the info about the game before the start. they all had to learn it at some point. this isn't elitism this is what rpg are. they are based on the hero building. when you take out those parts it becomes a more pure action game. nothing wrong with action games but diablos has always been a arpg .

your view would be right if the game was not an rpg. but rpg's are based on the building of the toon. skills still comes into play. but this is a whole extra thing for people to figure out. sounds like your saying your don't like rpg's which is great an fine but that isn't elitist it just a different game type.

the harder something is the more rewarding it is when you finally beat it. for the people that don't like to figure out the builds they could search online they will be posted at some point by someones. but many people enjoy the trial an error of figuring it out. you act as if it has to be only skill or consequences, when it should be both. that is a large reason why diablo2 was so replayable for so long


People keep saying this thing about "RPGs being about building characters", when it's emphatically NOT TRUE. Many RPGs have no character building or customization at all. Are you going to claim that Final Fantasy, or Dragon Warrior were not RPGs? How about Diablo 1 (Which had no character-building either). What about Diablo's spiritual ancestors, the rogue-likes? Are these not RPGs?

Some RPGs do have character-building and customization. But it's not a part of the definition of an RPG, by any means. You are redefining the term to suit your opinions, while ignoring the history of the term.

Anyway, that's a digression. I agree that there is a place for customization in RPGs, and that customization is a good thing. HOWEVER, I do not think that having long-term consequences for customization decisions creates a good game or a good environment for players.

You said yourself that many players enjoy the trial and error of figuring out a good build for themselves. And I agree. And Diablo 3 does that FAR better than Diablo 2 ever did. In Diablo 2, you needed to dedicate many hours to be able to experiment with builds, because of the restrictions on re-specs. This meant that the VAST majority of people never did any experimentation, and thus did one of two things: Either they had a bad, gimped character, or they went on the internet and looked for builds. The theorycrafting and experimentation was reserved ONLY for the elite, who spent many hours playing, and were willing to put up with the grind of levelling up character after character after character.

A system like Diablo 3 allows BOTH meta-game and player skill to have an influence on the game, while also putting the ability to experiment in the hands of EVERY PLAYER, casual AND elite and everyone in between. Yes, if you make a bad build, you will not be very effective, in Diablo 3. The ONLY difference is that in Diablo 3, you can easily change your build without grinding out another character. There is still consequence for a bad build; it just lasts only until you improve your build. A character with a bad build still sucks.

So yes, Drunkie. I agree that it should be BOTH player skill and meta-game knowledge that determine the effectiveness of a character. And Diablo 3 does that. You're just trying to claim that there's only a meta-game if the choices have more permanent consequences. And it just ain't true.
Reply Quote
Posts: 4,443
I see a lot of people upset because the game is being 'dumbed down'. The removal of stat point allocation, the removal of skill points, the removal of runes as drops. Each of these things make choosing how you play your character easier. This means you spend less time choosing and more time playing.

I do understand some people wanting permanence, but I think I see a lot more people wanting the game to be 'hard'. To be unfriendly to 'noobs'. To punish noobs for the mistakes they make.

What's really at the heart of this? I think it's less about people wanting to be challenged, and more about people wanting to stroke their ego. They want to be 'that guy' (or girl) amongst their friends who is 'crazy' enough to do things like play a melee wizard, or play a stupid build through Inferno just to say they did it. Like it's some badge of honor.

Some people are assuming because the beta is easy, that the whole game will be easy. That the only 'challenging' thing about D2 was building your character. That without having to devote weeks just to farm enough runes to set the basis of your character's actions, that somehow the game has become "too casual friendly".

Why does the enjoyment of a casual have to be mutually exclusive with the enjoyment of a hardcore player? I'd really like someone to explain that to me.


The loss of depth. Some people want a game that is something they can spend more time thinking about. Some people aren't looking for an Angry Birds type experience with every game they play.

When you remove things that add depth, people who enjoy the nuances of the depth will justifiably be upset.

Simplified CAN be good, in a lot of cases, but adding depth can also make for a more robust and often more interesting game for those willing to invest the time to enjoy it.

I think, the only thing about stoking ego is that people like you are just trying to verbally attack others for enjoying something you don't enjoy.

It's sort of like The Wire versus Law and Order. Both are cop dramas, but one has a lot more depth, and it's a better show for it. Of course, not everyone wants depth, and you might say that some people hate depth. But it isn't just about "elitism" or "ego stoking." It's about overall satisfaction. When you feel invested in anything, you generally tend to derive more satisfaction from it. Games (or shows) that lack depth generally don't require you, or even encourage you to "invest" anything in it (whether it be your time or close attention), which leaves people much more dissatisfied or ambivelant. Particularly people who appreciate depth.

And as you said, Diablo 2 wasn't particularly challenging. There's no evidence that Diablo 3 will be particularly challenging. And the "depth" in the game was, in large part, character planning whether you want to admit that or not. Sure, a lot of people just followed cookie cutters, but that was their perogative. A lot of people didn't, such as the people who developed the cookie cutters. So, you have Diablo 3, a game which will inherently have pretty basic gameplay, and you remove the depth from it, what's left?

Next time you feel the need to come on here and insult people, just because you feel you're better than them for not being an ego stoking blowhard, perhaps you should check and see if you don't have too high of an opinion of yourself.
Edited by Collateral on 2/26/2012 11:07 PM PST
Reply Quote

Please report any Code of Conduct violations, including:

Threats of violence. We take these seriously and will alert the proper authorities.

Posts containing personal information about other players. This includes physical addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers, and inappropriate photos and/or videos.

Harassing or discriminatory language. This will not be tolerated.

Forums Code of Conduct

Report Post # written by

Reason
Explain (256 characters max)

Reported!

[Close]