Never played Diablo 3 , Please explain why it sucks WITHOUT PoE in mind

"

Rexeos wrote:

which in your opinion are above average and you finished them as well?

Doom. The game knows exactly what it is, what it isn’t, and uses this focus to perfection. ID outdid themselves (and everybody else) with the relaunch of this franchise.

ID’s work in Doom compared to Blizzard’s work in Diablo III is like comparing da Vinci to an undergrad who’s read a lot about painting, but hasn’t put enough time in behind the canvas yet.

Well, the game was made by Blizzard South, who injected it with a lot of the same DNA found in World of Warcraft. (Which is ironic, since Blizzard North reportedly left the company due to being forbidden from making D3 an MMO.) That, in a nutshell, is probably the single biggest reason the game didn't sit well with D2 fans. Here's what I think.

Why Diablo 3 sucks (though not completely):

1. It's called Diablo.

If I bought a sports car, and found out later that it had a non-performance class four-cylinder
engine under the hood, I would criticize the engine in a review. If I bought a Honda Civic and found the same exact engine inside it, I might not criticize the engine in a review. If this game had another name attached to it, and were marketed as just another dumbed down hack-and-slash game, I would not criticize it for its name alone. But because the name Diablo is slapped on the front, there comes with it an expectation of quality, especially in the endgame, which it does not deliver.



2. Finding items is not fun.

Lots of people say that the itemization in this game is horrible (especially in the endgame), but few explain why, so allow me to do so. (But first read Sarno's well-written review above, which gives a slightly different take on things.) The difference between itemization in most well-regarded ARPGs and itemization in MMOs is simple: In an ARPG, a unique item will often remain useful for the unusual bonuses it provides, even if the bonus to your stats becomes negligible compared to other same-slot items at higher levels. In other words, items are not merely quantitatively different; they are also qualitatively different. This makes choosing the best item for a particular slot much more difficult, and much more dependent on taste. It also creates a great deal more variety in ways to build your character.

Items in MMOs such as Blizzard's own World of Warcraft, on the other hand, tend merely to be bags of stats. This is more ideal for a casual gameplaying audience, as it requires very little thought to decide whether a particular item is better than the one you are already wearing. Blizzard unfortunately took its MMO itemization techniques and applied them to D3. Most players of ARPGs, where loot fiddling has so much appeal, find that this removes much of the fun.

In D3 it is even worse, as generally there are only two stats on an item that mean much of anything: your class stat and the life stat (vitality). This makes it feel even more dumbed down, and a lot less fun.


3. The story is phenomenally, insultingly, "I-want-to-dig-out-my-eardrums-with-a-fork-and-staple-my-eyelids-shut" bad. We're talking Star Wars Episodes 1-3 levels of bad plot, script, and acting here.

Ordinarily the story does not matter much in an ARPG. It certainly didn't in Diablo 2, which similarly has a plot full of holes and logical inconsistencies. But Blizzard South (Blizzard North, RIP, made D2), chose to start with the story this time around. They made a conscious decision to put it at the center of the game.

Therefore, plot elements, characterization, and voice acting are all a much more integral part of the experience in D3 than they were in D2. They are literally impossible to ignore. And they--all three--are every bit as bad as people say. The Lord of Lies is the worst liar in the game. The plot is, in turn, nonsensical, anticlimactic, and predictable. The actor playing the child monarch is both inept and has an irritating voice. And just about everyone overacts. Hayden Christensen sounds tame compared to many of them.

Again, unlike D2 and many other ARPGs, you can't ignore these and just go about your business. Blizzard has put them front and center, whether you like it or not.


Why Diablo 3 doesn't suck:

1. Local multiplayer is fun.

I've played this on both PC and console, and I still pick it up from time to time, but on console only. Against all odds, Blizzard has managed to make a quasi-isometric ARPG work on a console. It's local, so there's no always-online bullshit to deal with, and players who fall behind get automatically teleported forward, so you won't be nearly as frustrated playing with someone who sucks. Therefore it is a good couples game.


2. It is mechanically rich.

There is a wide variety of very fun skills spread across multiple characters. Whatever your preferred gameplay style, you will probably find it catered to by at least one build type. If nothing else, this game is worth at least a rental, so you can play through it once or twice and try out a lot of different skills.


Summary:

If you don't care about the endgame at all, and you are also an extremely casual video game player who is unbothered by bad voice acting or plotholes, and you are tired of Diablo, Diablo 2, Titan Quest, Grim Dawn, and Path of Exile (or find them too complicated for your liking), then to you I give this game my unqualified recommendation.

Edit: I forgot to mention Blizzard being swallowed whole by Activision or the questionable monetization practices of Activision's Bobby Kotick (one of gaming's biggest real-life villains), but that's a whole separate story, arguably peripheral to the above, especially if you are a newcomer to the series. That said, Kotick wiping his ass with the Diablo franchise certainly did not make D3 smell better to its fans, that's for sure.

If you like poe 2018 you will like D3 2018. Sad truth

diablo 3 is an awesome game, actually.

The grapgical engine is light years ahead of poe, so if you enjoy beautyful game D3 will be to your liking.

Overall its much more simplified, and easier to learn, but not to master.
The skills system is completely diffrent and there is high pressure of set items in D3, but that does not mean there are only few builds, as you can pick any skills you want and make it work to certain degree (like in POE).

Music is great, campain is really nice to play and D3 offers a lot of other ways to level and experiance the game, as well as various end game challanges and rewards.

If you haven't played D3 you should cause it worth it

If you can dump $48 to an MTX armor, you can instead use it to try D3. Be sure to pick up the expansion.

You can decide for yourself.

Have not played Diablo 3 myself, but I've got a friend who plays a great deal of D3 but not Path of Exile. We've had a few meaty conversations on this topic.

Essentially? Diablo 3 is part and parcel of the New Blizzard - the one that polishes its games to a shine, does extensive testing to file off every last single little rough edge, and create an experience its players can dive into and enjoy without hitch from start to finish. The game is visually interesting, skills have weight and impact, and it's also much easier to pick up and run than Path of Exile. If you suck at Diablo 3, it's your fault, not D3's - D3 makes every attempt to introduce you to the game properly, get you situated and playing and enjoying yourself. It's much more friendly for casual players, new players, or other folks not traditionally hooked on this type of game.

It is, in short, an ARPG built specifically for people who are not fans of ARPGs. Much like Overwatch, the game is polished to an absolute sheen and has been fixed and rounded off until it's so silky-smooth anyone can digest it, whether or not they're good at or otherwise enjoy this type of game. Hipsters look at it and sneer as they moan "it got maaiiiinstreeaaamed!"...but in this case they're right. Blizzard wanted to make a game that appealed to a wide audience and drew in fans of its other properties, leaving no potential customer behind if it could remotely help it.

Path of Exile, by comparison (I know you didn't want this, but it's helpful to understand), is a cinderblock. It's dense, heavy, rough, unpolished, kinda fugly (if in an endearing, clearly stylistic way, rather than being fugly because it's devs don't care a'la many other games), and only really useful or meaningful for a particular subset of people. Not everybody in the world is going to rush out and buy a cinderblock, and Blizzard's goal with every single new game they make is to sell a copy of that game to every single human being on Earth.

Blizzard does not make niche games for niche players. Those games aren't worth Blizzard's time and money anymore. Blizzard wants everyone to enjoy their games (and pay, profusely, for the privilege) - young, old, male, female, new player, veteran gamer, casual Suzie, no-life Neil, lifelong Blizzard fan, active Blizzard hater (i.e. me). They make games anyone can enjoy - which means that people looking for an experience that not everyone could enjoy, such as a crushingly deep and complex ARPG with nigh-infinite customization and which makes no allowances whatsoever for you sucking, won't find it in a Blizzard game.

"

CanHasPants wrote:

"

Rexeos wrote:

which in your opinion are above average and you finished them as well?

Doom. The game knows exactly what it is, what it isn’t, and uses this focus to perfection. ID outdid themselves (and everybody else) with the relaunch of this franchise.

ID’s work in Doom compared to Blizzard’s work in Diablo III is like comparing da Vinci to an undergrad who’s read a lot about painting, but hasn’t put enough time in behind the canvas yet.

Doom is great. I finished Doom 3 few times, superb game. Actually bought new computer in those days to play it at max :).

I dont think Blizzard put less or bad quality work into game than ID and both games are great and both know what they want to provide.

I find it quite funny when somebody finish D3, enjoy it and explore game and than say its 5/10 game only because he didnt find addiction in it, which was quite obvious in Diablo and Diablo 2; actually PoE put gamble addiction into another level as it is milking time, money and life without pardon; not mentioning psychological aspect of frustration this game has, which later provides "I made it" effect like somebody climbed Everest, while in fact only what player did is risen few stats on items, learned what one hit kills him and avoid that.. - and in that sense Diablo 3 is much transparent.

"

Rexeos wrote:

Doom is great. I finished Doom 3 few times, superb game. Actually bought new computer in those days to play it at max :).

I dont think Blizzard put less or bad quality work into game than ID and both games are great and both know what they want to provide.

I find it quite funny when somebody finish D3, enjoy it and explore game and than say its 5/10 game only because he didnt find addiction in it, which was quite obvious in Diablo and Diablo 2; actually PoE put gamble addiction into another level as it is milking time, money and life without pardon; not mentioning psychological aspect of frustration this game has, which later provides "I made it" effect like somebody climbed Everest, while in fact only what player did is risen few stats on items, learned what one hit kills him and avoid that.. - and in that sense Diablo 3 is much transparent.

The issue is that the individual finishes Diablo 3, then realizes they don't really feel any more incentive to play. Sure, that means they get their life back and can move onto the next game...but this is Path of Exile. If we wanted to move on to the next game we wouldn't be invested in this one.

I've recommended to people who ask me about Path of Exile, but who also have multiple children, a demanding job, a needy wife and very little free gaming time that they investigate D3 instead. D3 doesn't require the time investment Path of Exile does, and it does a better job than this game of ensuring that what time you do put into it feels good. It's a better game for that purpose than Path of Exile is.

That said? Whether you consider PoE an Evil Skinner Box or simply a faithful execution of a niche-y genre that is, itself, built on pillars many modern games wouldn't get away with, Path is still the strongest ARPG in the market today. Achieving new milestones in this game feels awesome, in large part because they're often so hard to get to. Diablo 3, for all that it's a smoother, creamier, more viscerally satisfying experience, just doesn't have the savory stickness that PoE does.

Plus all the usual hoo-ha with build diversity (which Diablo lacks), endgame (which Diablo also lacks, though many feel that PoE lacks one too), evil-corporate-giant Blizzard vs. scrappy-underdog-indie(*) Grinding Gear, and all that junk we've all heard a million times.

Frankly, I'm with Sarno on this one. Diablo 3 (and Mass Effect Andromeda, and a few other high-profile similar games) absolutely killed it. They murdered the market and parted out its corpse, printed money by the truckful. They were guaranteed market successes because of the nearly sacred reputations of their predecessor games.

Diablo 4? MEA 2? These games are not guaranteed market successes. They will have to work for their dollars, because D3 and MEA sabotaged the names that these companies were banking on. In some ways, we're back to square 1 on both properties.

"

Rexeos wrote:

Just curious, what other games are also mediocre and worth to finish and which in your opinion are above average and you finished them as well?

I've been having trouble understanding what you're trying to get at here.

"

Rexeos wrote:

I find it quite funny when somebody finish D3, enjoy it and explore game and than say its 5/10 game only because he didnt find addiction in it

How do you "finish" Diablo III?

Different genres will be judged in different ways. If you think about it, Overwatch has relatively little content - yet doesn't catch much criticism for it. I think it's tremendous fun and imo you can sink a lot of hours into it due to the inherent replayability of a successful competitive online game. This success doesn't happen accidentally - Blizzard did an excellent job - it's an example of offering relatively little but extremely high quality content and knowing how to manage the community.

I've played Telltale's The Walking Dead and I thought it was a cool game. It wasn't that long and I'll likely not play it again - but it was a different experience and I enjoyed playing it.

If you look at World of Warcraft, anyone who claimed the game lacked content would be laughed out of the building. Not only is it an MMORPG which has been actively developed for over a decade, but Blizzard made decisions they didn't have to - such as dividing the playerbase into the Horde and Alliance. Doing so necessitated basically doubling the number of towns and outposts, needing many more zones for people to level in - and they even went the extra mile and ensured that characters have an initial low level experience tailored to their race and its backstory. The amount of content is huge. The work ethic of that development team is beyond reproach.

I'd hope that when you talk about "finish[ing]" Diablo III you've something in mind other than playing through the campaign - I'd be extremely upset with Blizzard if there was no other content and / or reason to continue playing once you'd done that (as I imagine many others would be).

My second quote of you is quite dismissive. If I said I had only played Diablo III for 2 hours, you'd likely claim I lacked the experience necessary to offer an informed critique. So under which conditions can someone offer a critical opinion of a game you'd be willing to accept? I didn't say it was a "5/10" game. I said people expected better of Blizzard and the Diablo series. And we did.

I think the Diablo III team has consistently struggled to implement Legendary items in a way which gives them a purpose but doesn't render all other items irrelevant - this, in my opinion, is poor item design. I think that allowing players to level up through Nephalem Rifts means the campaign is set to one side and ignored - I think this is evidence of a poorly managed game. I think there should be more incentive to play outside of Rifts - for example, making Bounties and the Uber fights more rewarding - and this is poor system design. I think the decision to tie Legendary Gems to Greater Rifts was a bad judgement call as it reinforced the notion that Rifts should be the only content you interact with, instead of using them as a sorely needed reward for other areas of the game. I think Empowered Rifts were a farcical decision - again, a gold sink offering better loot could've been used to bolster other areas of the game, instead it helped to bury them. I think Challenge Rifts are proof that the team likely just doesn't care anymore - that they long ago decided the game would, for all intents and purposes, be limited to a single game mode - and once people tired of doing Rifts and the lack of variety, they'd probably stop playing altogether.

I compared Diablo III favourably to Path of Exile in a few areas in my previous post, but while I think the game can be fun for a while, there's no denying that it's a flawed game which failed to realise its potential. It's a forgettable experience and, in my opinion, mediocre.

"

1453R wrote:

...
Frankly, I'm with Sarno on this one. Diablo 3 (and Mass Effect Andromeda, and a few other high-profile similar games) absolutely killed it. They murdered the market and parted out its corpse, printed money by the truckful. They were guaranteed market successes because of the nearly sacred reputations of their predecessor games...

Sorry man, but how you can recommend D3 or be on pair with Sarno if you didnt play D3? ... "Absolutely killed it.."...

I played games from xt times, include consoles, and D3 in no way is average game. Lets say D3 would have different name, would that help to realize how great game that is?