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

"

Sarno wrote:

"

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.

I am curious what game you think are not mediocre (5/10), if D3 is in that value by your opinion.

If somebody played whatever game only two hours and say "I like it" or "I dont like it" I have no problem with it. But if somebody say its bad, mediocre, good, great etc. than such critics has no value and is manipulative as its seems he played whole game.

There are games that are 10 hours long and are good enough. Diablo 3 best part last much longer and as there are things not attractive to everywhere, it doest make whole game average.

"

Rexeos wrote:

"

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?

I really hate this argument.

"How can you say you didn't like [X] if you didn't personally sink tons of time and effort and sweat into playing it?!" With the unspoken insinuation, of course, that if I had 'given it a proper chance', I would've loved it the way everyone else does. Discounting the opinion of anyone who didn't play the game extensively (and thus 'naturally' come to the same conclusion you did) is disingenuous. Asking people why they didn't bother playing Diablo 3 in the first place is as important as asking the diehards why they continue to play it.

I hear about Diablo 3 on a near-daily basis from a very dedicated fan of the game who happens to be a buddy of mine in the next cube over at work. We've discussed the mechanics and differences between D3 and Path of Exile for hours at a time, I've heard what he does with his D3 play time, and have watched him run the game with a co-op buddy. That Diablo 3 is a better pick-up-and-go game, requires vastly less time investment and mental engagement than Path of Exile, and is significantly better for party play are not in doubt, and I said as much.

But I don't need to've sunk five hundred hours into a game myself to see where the community backlash for it went, to know in general what it's about and the basics of how it works, and thus decide for myself that it's not my cuppa tea and that it conforms very much to the Overwatch mold of "a game for everyone!' that seems to be BLizzard's big M.O. these days. I did play quite a bit of Overwatch, despite my bitter hatred of BLizzard in general, and it mostly conformed to the same paradigm I've seen/read of in Diablo 3 - an extremely polished, smooth, and enjoyable experience that tries as hard as possible to eliminate any roughness.

The Overwatch team has famously said that they focus-tested the game extensively, watching for any situation which caused a player to put down the controller. If something in the game caused the player to put down the controller, they fixed or removed it, no matter what purpose that thing had in the game in the first place. Diablo 3 is clearly operating on the same principles and that makes it a bit like really smooth vanilla ice cream - it goes down like a treat and you can enjoy it all day, never really get sick of it, but at some point you'll realize that you could really go for something with some spice to it. A flavor that you like, as opposed to a flavor that 'everybody' likes enough to buy but which a relative paucity of individuals would consider their absolute favorite.

Blizzard wants to sell a copy of Diablo 3 to every human being on the planet, and thus have endeavored to make a game that every human being on the planet could enjoy to some extent. Grinding Gear wants to market Path of Exile to ARPG fans, who they hope will buy supporter packs because Grinding Gear is giving them their favorite flavor of game. Notice which set of forums we're having this discussion on before telling folks that not playing D3 disqualifies them from having an opinion on D3.

"

Rexeos wrote:

I am curious what game you think are not mediocre (5/10), if D3 is in that value by your opinion.

I'm not entirely sure how this is relevant, but to pick a few on short notice...

• Freespace 2
• Guild Wars
• Left 4 Dead
• The Stanley Parable
• Dawn of War

The criteria for my list is simple - they knew what they set out to achieve, and they did it. In my opinion they did it wonderfully and I struggle to imagine how they could be improved.

"

Rexeos wrote:

There are games that are 10 hours long and are good enough.

Yes I know - I specifically praised The Walking Dead in my previous response to you. :)

D3 runs 200fps+, constantly. Like, if you got a 1080p/240hz monitor, and a decent enough PC, it'll run it.

PoE is plagued with performance/optimization issues, and D3 runs perfect.

There is something to be said for this.

"

MrSmiley21 wrote:

D3 runs 200fps+, constantly. Like, if you got a 1080p/240hz monitor, and a decent enough PC, it'll run it.

PoE is plagued with performance/optimization issues, and D3 runs perfect.

There is something to be said for this.

Yes, it says that Blizzard cares more (perhaps MUCH more) about polishing its products than GGG appears to.

Allow me to be specific: PoE 3.0 released with a great deal of mismatched and missing audio, some of which remains unfixed now, a full six months later. This is the kind of thing that you will not see in a modern Blizzard product, and it is just one example. GGG has, in my opinion, done an extraordinarily poor job of polishing its product prior to release.

That said, I've read a number of posts over the years about Blizzard releasing a "high-quality" product, and I think these posters are failing to distinguish between quality and polish. Quality includes design, direction, plot, voice acting, and a slew of other things which are difficult if not impossible to fix after the fact. And yes, the engine and netcode are also in that category, but there are many other markers of quality.

Diablo 3 has been polished to a high sheen, and as such gives a very positive first impression. Reviews by professional critics confirm this fact. But a highly polished product is not necessarily a high-quality one. Diablo 3 is a game of mediocre quality at best.

"

Rexeos wrote:

"

CanHasPants wrote:

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.

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.

Objectively, it doesn’t. That is not to say D3 is not a technically exceptional game, or that an undergrad can not produce technically exceptional artwork. They can, and it is; however, D3 was promised to be an aRPG of Diablo quality and fame, yet it lacks the very soul that makes an aRPG what it is.

ID approached the latest Doom with a vision of exactly what their game was, and every decision was made solely to turn that vision into a work of art. Zero waste, perfect focus. D3, while technically exceptional, lacked focus; it lost sight of what made Diablo, Diablo! If they marketed as anything else besides an aRPG, I’d have no complaints. They didn’t, and this is the only sequel to D2 that we’re going to get. That’s the rub.

Edit: Aside: I appreciate how much more mature this conversation has become since closed beta. I really do like D3. I just don’t love it.

Diablo 3 doesn't suck anymore, it's improved a lot once it got some people working on it who decided the direction they wanted and followed through with it. It's a fun couch game now, you go charge at monsters and destroy them all while getting incrementally better stuff. It doesn't want to be a hardcore game, and it doesn't want any decisions to be made, you just go wreck stuff with a bunch of skills that look different but are all so over balanced that they're the same.

"

1453R wrote:

"

Rexeos wrote:

"

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?

I really hate this argument.

"How can you say you didn't like [X] if you didn't personally sink tons of time and effort and sweat into playing it?!" With the unspoken insinuation, of course, that if I had 'given it a proper chance', I would've loved it the way everyone else does. Discounting the opinion of anyone who didn't play the game extensively (and thus 'naturally' come to the same conclusion you did) is disingenuous. Asking people why they didn't bother playing Diablo 3 in the first place is as important as asking the diehards why they continue to play it.

I hear about Diablo 3 on a near-daily basis from a very dedicated fan of the game who happens to be a buddy of mine in the next cube over at work. We've discussed the mechanics and differences between D3 and Path of Exile for hours at a time, I've heard what he does with his D3 play time, and have watched him run the game with a co-op buddy. That Diablo 3 is a better pick-up-and-go game, requires vastly less time investment and mental engagement than Path of Exile, and is significantly better for party play are not in doubt, and I said as much.

Your opinion of Diablo 3 is base on 3rd party account. Got it.

"

j33bus wrote:

Diablo 3 doesn't suck anymore, it's improved a lot once it got some people working on it who decided the direction they wanted and followed through with it. It's a fun couch game now, you go charge at monsters and destroy them all while getting incrementally better stuff. It doesn't want to be a hardcore game, and it doesn't want any decisions to be made, you just go wreck stuff with a bunch of skills that look different but are all so over balanced that they're the same.

Well said. In fact D3 did a lot of things better, things that matters, you know like, multiplayers. It also has a SSF that works. YOu know it works becuase you barely see anyone in D3 forum wanting Trading/AH back.

Alot of PoE players rage quit D3, so their perceptionof D3 was outdated. I raged quit D3, & friend told me to tried PoE, when it was in Beta, I made it to act 2 & level 17, & said, this game is shit, & quit.

Imagine I tell people what PoE base on my experience then.

I eventually gave D3 a 2nd chance when the expansion was release, & ot was a big improvement & the game continue to improved to this day. I gave PoE another chance as well when they announced Story expansion, & liked it. So I stayed.

I am as PC as you get, & I have no issue calling one game better than the other, but its simpley not the case.

I didn't like the lack of perm skill tree in D3, & I still wish there is, but the ability to swap skill allow alot of flexibility for the different end game contents, & allow you to take 1-2, 3 character as far as you wish in a season (league) without feeling of repetitivity. The nice thing about the paragon system is you can play multiple char in parallel. Its a matter of preference, but I think its reduce graindy & sameness feeling.

In PoE, you play chars in series. YOu level one char to end game, got bored, started a new char, repeat, bored, another char. VEry seldom will you play mulriple players same times, unless you ding dailies. There are charm to this as well.

Its good we have to different options.

I played as least 5 seasons of D3, & 3 seasons of PoE. There are certainly appeal to both.

I actually like D3 better because of friends & clans. D3 actually encourge party up to do some quests & challenge which would otherwise be tough solo.

In PoE, there is barely reason to party except for dailies & uber trials.

"

gibbousmoon wrote:

Yes, it says that Blizzard cares more (perhaps MUCH more) about polishing its products than GGG appears to.

Allow me to be specific: PoE 3.0 released with a great deal of mismatched and missing audio, some of which remains unfixed now, a full six months later. This is the kind of thing that you will not see in a modern Blizzard product, and it is just one example. GGG has, in my opinion, done an extraordinarily poor job of polishing its product prior to release.
...
Diablo 3 has been polished to a high sheen, and as such gives a very positive first impression. Reviews by professional critics confirm this fact. But a highly polished product is not necessarily a high-quality one. Diablo 3 is a game of mediocre quality at best.

There's a saying I'm going to horrible mangle here, I believe from Mark Twain. The essence of it is as follows: "If you desire a novel experience, do not expect a polished one. If you desire a polished experience, do not expect a novel one."

Essentially, 'new' and 'polished' are, to an extent, mutually exclusive. In development terms this is clearly true - you can spend your man hours making new stuff or fixing old stuff, but unless you get more man hours you can't do both. One man hour can only accomplish so much work. Path Of Exile clearly leans towards the 'new stuff' route, with constant challenge leagues, an update/expansion schedule almost no one else in the game industry matches, and a constant barrage of new side content. Blizzard (which also has effectively unlimited money and manpower, by the way - comparing Grinding Gear to ActiBlizzard straight up is decidedly unfair) clearly goes the other way. They don't do new - they release a new game once every geological epoch, and that new game isn't really new so much as frankensteined together from their older assets half the time. They polish to a blinding shine things they've been doing for literally decades. Blizzard doesn't want, doesn't like, and only ever grudgingly does new.

Personally? Once a minimum bar of polish has been achieved such that the game is moderately smooth and playable? I'd rather have New than Polish.

"

kiadaw wrote:

Your opinion of Diablo 3 is base on 3rd party account. Got it.

Okay. Now it's time to get a little impolite.

You don't get to dismiss an opinion because it's not built on the same set of assumptions and conclusions as yours. I didn't play Diablo 3. You know why? Because I didn't need to play Diablo 3 to know that it wasn't the sort of game that would hold my attention. I love building characters, mixing skills and abilities up to create novel and interesting playstyles, getting as close as I can to the Meta Folks' performance with my own offbeat ideas. I love learning how to navigate deep systems, how to manipulate the sort of head-crushing depth PoE, as one example, offers in order to produce exactly the results I'm looking for. Games without this deep, difficult-to-grasp customization just don't grab me the way games that do have it do.

I dig Armored Core, (super heavily modded) Minecraft, Path of Exile, (super heavily modded) Skyrim, Fallouts, other games with a shitload of stuff going on in them, with or without polish. I don't really care about polish so long as the meat is there.

And Diablo 3 does not have that meat. It is described by everyone I've ever seen who's giving it an honest opinion as a couch game. It's casual, easy, simplistic, streamlined, boiled down to the essentials and then refined to the nines, because that is what New Blizzard does. I know that's what new Blizzard does. I know what sorts of games they make. And I don't particularly care for them.

Someone looking for an informed opinion on a game is looking for opinions from three sets of people. Those are:
1.) people who bought the game and liked it. "D3 is great! It's awesome! Here's why I liked it!" That's you. We get it, you really like Diablo 3. Your reasons have been covered.
2.) People who bought the game and disliked it. "I tried to get into D3, really I did...but it just sucked. Here's why." This is important, because if you agree with the reasons why People 2 didn't like the game? That's a big tell that you won't, either.
3.) People who didn't buy the game, but whose preferences align with those who generally did. "I like ARPGs and had a ton of fun with Diablo 2, but 3...well, I'd rather save my money. Here's why." This is because we're in the same position as the person doing the buying - people interested in the genre or archetype of the game, but unsure if this particular example aligns with their desires. They want to hear from guys like me to see if my reasoning aligns with theirs, as part of their information-gathering efforts.

According to you, only the first set of people matter. That's highly dumb, because the first set of people all have the same opinion - "Go buy it, it's awesome, you won't regret it!"

How do you know they won't? I bought Dragon Age: Inquisition because a few of my friends swore to me it was the best game ever made by mankind and I'd love it. I played it for maybe seven hours, and to this day I wish I could get my sixty bucks back because that game was bad and I had no fun with it. So knock it off. because frankly?

"

kiadaw wrote:

Well said. In fact D3 did a lot of things better, things that matters, you know like, multiplayers.

I don't give a single shit about multiplayer. If I want to run a multiplayer game with my buddies I'll spend ten bucks on Lost Castle, go play some more Vermintide or Left 4 Dead, wait for SOul Calibur 6, or just shoot the shit over Discord while we all individually run Path of Exile. ARPGs are at their best for many, many ARPG fans as single-player games.

"

kiadaw wrote:

It also has a SSF that works. YOu know it works becuase you barely see anyone in D3 forum wanting Trading/AH back.

Fuck SSF. Diablo 3 has 'SSF that works' because it has no itemization, no unique builds, no interesting interactions. The game literally just mails you a set of BIS gear when you get to the level cap, which you do in twenty minutes by following around a friend while wearing reduced-requirements gear.

The lack of desire for any sort of player trading comes from D3 not having anything worth trading to do, not from the game being better than PoE at handling trading or encouraging SSF.

"

kiadaw wrote:

I actually like D3 better because of friends & clans. D3 actually encourge party up to do some quests & challenge which would otherwise be tough solo.

Ducky for you. I like a game that doesn't force me to drag other people who may or may not like my particular choice of game into my game in order to do stuff. If it's in my game I'd like to be able to do it my-own-damn-self, experience that content on my own, because not everybody in the world is a beautiful social butterfly with six hundred Facebook friends they can invite to gaggleswarm the next raid.

"

kiadaw wrote:

In PoE, there is barely reason to party except for dailies & uber trials.

Awesome! Just the way I like it! It is super nice to be able to ignore the social aspects of the game completely until I need to find someone willing to answer their poe.trade whispers or unless my brother's on and we want to do some shit! Not being actively forced by shitty game design to hunt up full parties all the time is great! Man, isn't it a good thing there's different games out there for people with different tastes?

It's almost like Diablo 3 and Path of Exile were, you know...made for two completely different audiences, and one of those audiences feels like Blizzard duplicitously bait-and-switched them by turning the sequal to the genre-defining, seminal ARPG into a Gauntlet-style hack-n-slash game instead of a proper ARPG.