Diablo® III

I don't get multi-platform negativity

25 Blood Elf Priest
250
Posts: 7,970
02/22/2013 06:44 AMPosted by Blashyrkh
The real problem is pc gamers sometimes tend to have this holier than thou attitude towards console "peasants". This is of course, nothing more than absurd snobism. These people are just mad because the game didn't turn out to be a d2 clone with upgraded graphics, and are using this announcement to rationalize their unfunded assumptions, even though several of the explanations given to support some of the changes made a lot of sense, regardless if they took the best decisions or not.

I still submit that it was clear from before launch that Blizzard was going to do a console version and there's really no excuse for being all shocked and surprised about this. What the last couple of days have been for a lot of people is an opportunity to re-litigate old complaints with a new reason for them. Mostly it's faux-outrage. Whatever real outrage was there was out there--and I have no doubt that the outrage was real enough in the beginning--was used up months ago. It's a new chance to beat horses that were dead a long time ago.
[quote]
So you're honestly arguing that D3 gameplay isn't much more shallow and less complex than D2?


It is not, at all. Neither d1 nor d2 were as complex as people want to make believe. Why do you believe this would be the case, assuming you in fact believe it?

While we are at a point now where consoles have actually caught up with, and in some situations, surpassed, the average gaming PC


Console games havent caught up with pc games... The pc games are being downgraded to accommodate the consoles restriction and players. Because it's not practical to have many different version of the same game it cost a lot of money and time. Thats the whole reason for the pc/console war. Stop making my games for the lowest dominator to appeal to a broader audience ffs.
[quote]
So you're honestly arguing that D3 gameplay isn't much more shallow and less complex than D2?


It is not, at all. Neither d1 nor d2 were as complex as people want to make believe. Why do you believe this would be the case, assuming you in fact believe it?


If you are serious about this statement then I don't think you remember D2 as well as you think. I'm not saying the game had the most in depth rpg elements of any game. But D3 has little to none.


It is not, at all. Neither d1 nor d2 were as complex as people want to make believe. Why do you believe this would be the case, assuming you in fact believe it?


Skill trees, runes, runeswords, charms, jewels, elemental damages, the way resists worked, the way stats affect class, the number and purpose of gems, damage scaling, weapon selection, ad naseum. Meaningful choices means depth.

There is very little decision-making in D3. In fact, there's more thought process required for the AH than there is in the game. Sure, you could play D2 mindlessly if you wanted to since the PvE was tantamount to D3 MP0. But D2 had depth if you chose to explore it. You have no such option in D3.


Skill trees weren't deep at all. It was basically pick a few prereqs and maximize your core skill, period. Later on this feeling got mitigated with the addition of synergies, but it was still the same thing, in essence. Besides, people would just google the current cookie cutter builds and stick to them. That's why bone necros, hammerdins and trapsins became popular after 1.10 patch, for instance. Charms? More of the same stats at the cost of your inventory space. Weapon choices isn't that different to what it is now: Picking the best weapon to suit your needs, which directly relates to damage scaling. Instead of having a max dps weapon, you would have a hoto with insane caster properties, or a botd with massive melee damage. Meaningful choices mean depth indeed, when one doesn't just make up their existence to pretend they are there.

Jewels, runes and runewords are just more socketing options. Great stuff too. At most you can claim they made whites relevant, but deep? Hardly. You mention gems, what gems were actually relevant? Maybe a topaz in your armor/helm for added MF? The rest were barely used, if at all on equipment. They were just used to reroll stuff in the horadric cube, if i remember correctly.

The only thing you mentioned that actually added depth was elemental damage, which is something i would indeed welcome for D3, since it would directly diversify the rather linear gear progression present in D3.

Since you mentioned some sort of exploration for D3, how many non-cookie cutter builds have you tried to play with? I mean, forget about efficient farming and just focus on how the skills work and how they can be fun to spice up and break tye typocal efficient farming routine. There's a crapload of crazy builds you can come up with in D3, yet people still hold onto this "no build diversity" bandwagon like it was actually insightful, when all they mean to say is waah waaaah not all builds are efficeint baaaa waah waaaah!. Ever tried to check those random events most people tend to overlook in their obsession for efficient farming? Perhaps you've already listened to the textbooks and lore snippets spread across the world too? How about those usually unvisited random dungeons you can find around the world? All these things tend to be overlooked, because people are often too obsessed with efficiency. You choose not to explore it, deal with the perceived "lack of depth".

Could it use more? Most certainly, but a lot of people will always see the glass half empty, regardless of how many thing sthey add, precisely because the game didn't become the D2 clone they wanted it to be, and can't deal with the franchise simply going in a new direction they don't personally approve of.
02/22/2013 08:47 AMPosted by Moanshadow
I still submit that it was clear from before launch that Blizzard was going to do a console version and there's really no excuse for being all shocked and surprised about this. What the last couple of days have been for a lot of people is an opportunity to re-litigate old complaints with a new reason for them. Mostly it's faux-outrage. Whatever real outrage was there was out there--and I have no doubt that the outrage was real enough in the beginning--was used up months ago. It's a new chance to beat horses that were dead a long time ago.


The horse has been beaten to death over and over again. That said, attempting to take the "Ah Ha!" moment away from this announcement is also silly. We shouldn't be surprised, but many of us are (myself included). My "Ah Ha" moment has less to do with the console factor and more to do with the design itself. Many of us have thought they borrowed heavily from WoW (which they did), what I don't think most of us realized is how much they also borrowed from Call of Duty.

I have been making light that "skills" in this game are far closer to load outs in COD than they were to the traditional approach. I simply didn't realize just how right I was until now.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter much because the amount of time I have spent playing in the last 5 months is probably around 10-15 hours total. I even tried getting back into the game in the last week or so. It simply doesn't keep my interest the way that Borderlands 2 does (also a cross-platform game) which tells me that I am probably done with the game. The sad thing about my last statement though is that Borderlands 2 proves that you can make a console game work on a PC and have enough depth to keep interest.

Regardless, no outrage from me. Simply clarity. I would probably argue the same is true for the majority of the people on here.
1 Troll Druid
0
Posts: 76
02/22/2013 03:11 AMPosted by Japhasca
So...funny guys. No actual answer yet. Just useless meanderings.


if the idea was to make a port to consoles it would not be just on ps3.... also the "dumb down" game people cry about is something game companies learn to make games that more people can understand than the handful who already do. people just need something to rage and cry about. just about any windows base pc game can be easly ported to xbox and other consoles because microsoft made it that way when they released windows xp+ and xbox to help windows get more games. consoles have a lot more power than they used to most of the coding to convert would go into the graphic adjustment, controls and menus thats it and controls / menus dont need adjustment anymore since you can plug a usb keyboard into any system and play...

oh and i agree with the things you said ;D
Edited by raptor#1685 on 2/22/2013 10:19 AM PST
02/22/2013 02:50 AMPosted by Japhasca
While we are at a point now where consoles have actually caught up with, and in some situations, surpassed, the average gaming PC


Consoles have never passed or even been close to having the same torque or power as a gaming computer. The new ps4 has a merely 8core processor with only 8 gigahertz of ram. My computer !@#$s that. And an AMD 7670 graphics card, any computer designed for games for this generation can triple that easily. I don't know where you are getting these statement from but you are far from right
Posts: 211
PC gamers in general tend to sneer at console gamers, but that's not what this most recent clustercuss is about.

The reason people are so upset is because they've attached themselves to the absurd notion that Diablo 3 was designed for the PS4 from the start, and that the PC release last year was just a beta test. They believe that the game was "dumbed down" from the start to appeal more to console gamers. They then concoct flimsy arguments that loosely fit the facts.

They are right about one thing. Diablo 3 was "dumbed down". Not for the console crowd, but for the Blizzard crowd. Take a long look at WoW. Diablo 3 is much closer to WoW than it is to Diablo 2.
The spell synergies were one of the best points of D2 because it did allow you to make goofy builds that actually WORKED as in you could actually accomplish things without bis gear. You could make melee sorc with enchant and ES or a throw barb. You had !@#$%^- ww sins, an entire class build centered around using a cross class skill.

I don't understand how you can even compare d3 which you get to deviate a few skills here and there but everyone pretty much uses the same core abilities because they are just BETTER. All depth and interesting fun builds gutted. All cool and unique item affixes gutted. You can't have played D2 to say that D3 is on par with it.
02/22/2013 10:43 AMPosted by TonyBear
While we are at a point now where consoles have actually caught up with, and in some situations, surpassed, the average gaming PC


Consoles have never passed or even been close to having the same torque or power as a gaming computer. The new ps4 has a merely 8core processor with only 8 gigahertz of ram. My computer !@#$s that. And an AMD 7670 graphics card, any computer designed for games for this generation can triple that easily. I don't know where you are getting these statement from but you are far from right


8 gigahertz of ram? Gigabytes btw. And most PCs don't have anything more than an 8 core.

Consoles are weaker than the average gaming PC, you got that right at least. Consoles have a permanent set of hardware. This means developers can tweak it to the strengths of the hardware. So the gap can be narrowed if done properly. Though over time the gap grows due to newer hardware of course.
02/22/2013 10:57 AMPosted by Haldor


Consoles have never passed or even been close to having the same torque or power as a gaming computer. The new ps4 has a merely 8core processor with only 8 gigahertz of ram. My computer !@#$s that. And an AMD 7670 graphics card, any computer designed for games for this generation can triple that easily. I don't know where you are getting these statement from but you are far from right


8 gigahertz of ram? Gigabytes btw. And most PCs don't have anything more than an 8 core.

Consoles are weaker than the average gaming PC, you got that right at least. Consoles have a permanent set of hardware. This means developers can tweak it to the strengths of the hardware. So the gap can be narrowed if done properly. Though over time the gap grows due to newer hardware of course.


You're just agreeing to what i said. So what's your point? Are you giving me a Wikipedia lesson about hardware?
Posts: 12,930
View profile
*shrugs* After a couple of days of this I still dont care or see the issue. Opinions are opinions I guess.
The spell synergies were one of the best points of D2 because it did allow you to make goofy builds that actually WORKED as in you could actually accomplish things without bis gear. You could make melee sorc with enchant and ES or a throw barb. You had !@#$%^- ww sins, an entire class build centered around using a cross class skill.


That's cute, specially considering most of the time people would be leeching off that one hammerdin bot killing everything in a couple casts. You get exactly the same build diversity with added flexibility, simply because D2's difficulty could be equated to D3's Mp0-1. Under that environment anything you can come up with will work, even if they aren't the most efficient or popular builds around. Try it for a change, instead of focusing on efficiency all the time.

I don't understand how you can even compare d3 which you get to deviate a few skills here and there but everyone pretty much uses the same core abilities because they are just BETTER. All depth and interesting fun builds gutted. All cool and unique item affixes gutted. You can't have played D2 to say that D3 is on par with it.


Wanna know why? Because of the same reason why Hammerdins were more popular than FoH builds. There will always be cookie cutter builds, and those are the builds most people will want to stick to, specially when efficiency is pushed through raw hp/dmg scaling like the MP system does. This doesn't mean less efficient builds aren't viable, just that they are precisely that: less efficient. Perhaps some people should refresh their definition of the word viable for a change. In a way the obsessive focus on efficiency this game has is responsible for the false assumption that there's no build diversity.

I'll agree having builds around off class skills like zeal and WW through items was a very nice bonus for D2, though. We could have that if procs weren't so controlled with internal cooldowns and balancing nonsense this game doesn't need. Just picture something like the butcher's cleaver or windforce proccing like you first imagined it would the first time you saw the item. That would be fantastic, and is one of the reasons why D2 was so fun: overpowering procs and effects. Maybe eventually the devs will understand why these are so fun.
Edited by Blashyrkh#1824 on 2/22/2013 11:26 AM PST
Posts: 5,655
View profile
Starcraft was available on N64.
Diablo was available on PS1.

Both were shadows of their PC selves.


Bingo, and the fact that they were crap is because they were not designed for consoles.

But here is the key. They were designed for PC, FIRST. With PC controls in mind, FIRST. Its obvious now that D3 was designed to be more console friendly, which means the deeper PC elements were either dumbed down or removed.
This topic has reached its post limit. You may no longer post or reply to posts for this topic.

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)
Submit Cancel

Reported!

[Close]