Hermits go crazy over Diablo mobile game announcement

[Casual 726]

Meh, Blizzard has been headed in this direction for years now. SCII and D3 are the last two games they made that weren’t super dumbed down. D3 has since become really dumbed down but it’s the game that they’ve handled best. HotS? Hearthstone? Overwatch? Trash. WoW expansions post WotLK? Trash.  This is just the next step. 

 

 

Edited November 3, 2018 by Casual

[Hot Sauce 2,727]

2 minutes ago, Casual said:

D3 [is one of] the last two games they made that weren’t super dumbed down. D3 has since become really dumbed down but it’s the game that they’ve handled best. 

What in the fuck

[Casual 726]

46 minutes ago, Hot Sauce said:

What in the fuck

What’s the confusing part? D3 is still dumbed down relative to D2 but it’s done in a much less offensive way than the games they’ve made since. It rides the line much better. 

 

Its the only Blizzard game worth playing at the moment. 

Edited November 3, 2018 by Casual

[McWicked 825]

D3 was dumbed down as fuck compared to D2.  Th'fuck you smokin', Casual?

[Casual 726]

1 minute ago, McWickedSmawt85 said:

D3 was dumbed down as fuck compared to D2.  Th'fuck you smokin', Casual?

Absolutely. D2 is like a top 3 oat game for me. 

 

D3 wasn’t dumbed down to the point where it made the game bad though, I still got plenty enjoyment out of it. 

 

Overwatch, HotS, recent WoW and Hearthstone are way more dumbed down. And they’re flat out bad as a result. 

[McWicked 825]

Just now, Casual said:

Absolutely. D2 is like a top 3 oat game for me. 

 

D3 wasn’t dumbed down to the point where it made the game bad though, I still got plenty enjoyment out of it. 

 

Overwatch, HotS, recent WoW and Hearthstone are way more dumbed down. And they’re flat out bad as a result. 

Oh my bad, I read you wrong.  Thought you were saying D3 wasn't dumbed down and I was all like  

[James Skywalker 528]

Isn't dumbed-down mean intelligent? I mean, if it was dumbed-up then it would be more inane.

 

Down with the dumb, up with the guile.

Edited November 4, 2018 by Angel Jim

[Cooke 2,026]

4 hours ago, McWickedSmawt85 said:

Oh my bad, I read you wrong.  Thought you were saying D3 wasn't dumbed down and I was all like  

It's a hell of a lot better than it was when it came out 

[kaz 2,439]

54 minutes ago, Cookester15 said:

It's a hell of a lot better than it was when it came out 

still awful compared to path of exile, the REAL diablo 3  

[Cooke 2,026]

1 hour ago, kaz said:

still awful compared to path of exile, the REAL diablo 3  

Nah

[Hot Sauce 2,727]

21 hours ago, Casual said:

What’s the confusing part?

The inconsistency of the logic.

 

Early Diablo 3 was a tremendous dumbing down of Diablo 2. Diablo 3 still pales in comparison to Diablo 2, but Diablo 3 is orders of magnitude better now than it was when it first came out.

 

21 hours ago, Casual said:

D3 is still dumbed down relative to D2 but it’s done in a much less offensive way than the games they’ve made since. It rides the line much better. 

Certainly not early D3. Inferno was fucking rough, but the game wasn't complex. Diablo 2 was a playground of skills, stats, loot, and building your character into a diverse combination of the three. Diablo 3 had very little of that at launch and did it in probably the most egregious way possible for an ARPG: it made character progression feel non-existent.

 

- They went with the WoW style of unlocking abilities rather than stat and skill points on level up and that's a horrible trade off that takes choice and excitement away from the player. It was especially terrible in Diablo 3's case because so many abilities and runes were just terrible and the limited number of skill slots made for a lot of unlocks just going unused.

 

- You hard capped in the above progression at 60 in Diablo 3 relatively quickly, producing a hard cap that separated leveling from end game where as in Diablo 2 reaching 99 was a long term goal and was a big reason so many cows were slaughtered. There wasn't that breakpoint that made everything before it useless.

 

- Legendaries were generally awful. Legendaries were not only boring and generally lacked any quirky or gameplay altering characteristics like in Diablo 2, but they were severely underpowered with yellow and even some blue items outclassing them because the itemization was such a joke.

 

- No rune words.

 

- Fewer and less interesting stats on gear.

 

Diablo 3 was dumbed down in just the worst ways. Inferno was hard, but the torment levels in current Diablo 3 are harder and the infinitely scaling greater rifts means there's content you'll never out gear. The only thing early Diablo 3 has over current Diablo 3 in terms of not dumbing things down is gear acquisition. It was brutally difficult to get gear in early Diablo 3, but I think it went a little too far and I'll take paragon levels, a harder game, useful and cool legendaries, better skill/rune/class balance, and all the effects that has on adding complexity and diversity to a game over spending dozens of hours per piece of stat only gear.

[James Skywalker 528]

It's chilli, Hot Sauce. Maybe there's a ghost from Diablo here.

Edited November 5, 2018 by Angel Jim

[TLHBO 2,160]

This cunt

 

 

"Blame Trump" apparantly.

 

The fucking nerve. No fucker takes responsibility these days. The fact that they had their head so far in the fucking sand that they didn't see this coming is astounsing.

 

Diablo 3 was a boring pos anyway.

[Teh_Diplomat 2,054]

^

 

[Casual 726]

14 hours ago, Hot Sauce said:

The inconsistency of the logic.

 

Early Diablo 3 was a tremendous dumbing down of Diablo 2. Diablo 3 still pales in comparison to Diablo 2, but Diablo 3 is orders of magnitude better now than it was when it first came out.

 

Certainly not early D3. Inferno was fucking rough, but the game wasn't complex. Diablo 2 was a playground of skills, stats, loot, and building your character into a diverse combination of the three. Diablo 3 had very little of that at launch and did it in probably the most egregious way possible for an ARPG: it made character progression feel non-existent.

 

- They went with the WoW style of unlocking abilities rather than stat and skill points on level up and that's a horrible trade off that takes choice and excitement away from the player. It was especially terrible in Diablo 3's case because so many abilities and runes were just terrible and the limited number of skill slots made for a lot of unlocks just going unused.

 

- You hard capped in the above progression at 60 in Diablo 3 relatively quickly, producing a hard cap that separated leveling from end game where as in Diablo 2 reaching 99 was a long term goal and was a big reason so many cows were slaughtered. There wasn't that breakpoint that made everything before it useless.

 

- Legendaries were generally awful. Legendaries were not only boring and generally lacked any quirky or gameplay altering characteristics like in Diablo 2, but they were severely underpowered with yellow and even some blue items outclassing them because the itemization was such a joke.

 

- No rune words.

 

- Fewer and less interesting stats on gear.

 

Diablo 3 was dumbed down in just the worst ways. Inferno was hard, but the torment levels in current Diablo 3 are harder and the infinitely scaling greater rifts means there's content you'll never out gear. The only thing early Diablo 3 has over current Diablo 3 in terms of not dumbing things down is gear acquisition. It was brutally difficult to get gear in early Diablo 3, but I think it went a little too far and I'll take paragon levels, a harder game, useful and cool legendaries, better skill/rune/class balance, and all the effects that has on adding complexity and diversity to a game over spending dozens of hours per piece of stat only gear.

 

I agree for the most part but you're overstating the depth of D2 a bit. Yeah, you got to pick every stat and skill in D2 but Post Lord of Destruction I wouldn't exactly call it a diverse combination of the three...there were always only a handful of right ways to build any given class and even if you got ~90ish skill points to distribute on a character most builds still have you using 2-3 core skills.  Otherwise you're putting 1 point in prerequisites and then spending 20 levels straight boosting the same skill. Post 1.10 it got a bit more diverse with runewords adding a bit more in terms creative options. Gameplay wise you usually found yourself actively using a larger suite of abilities in D3 than in D2.  

 

The level cap isn't a big deal for me. Most builds in D2 were complete by 80-85 anyway and after that the levels were fairly meaningless outside of laddering. The end game line in D2 was just a bit more blurred but it was still very much there. Disagree that there wasn't a breakpoint, it was just a bit more dynamic depending on what build you were doing and how many skill points/stats you needed to make it work. Pre-1.10 you basically just got rushed and did cows until that point, post 1.10 it was a bit more varied but more or less sub out cows and sub in Baal runs. 

 

The biggest misstep they made was on gear, having rares be better than legendaries and it basically being entirely RNG statroll based.  

 

Anyway. Diablo II is still a superior game to Diablo III. But Diablo III is definitely Blizzards best game at the moment. It's the only one worth playing. 

[TLHBO 2,160]

 

Activision/Blizzard

[Teh_Diplomat 2,054]

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/activision-blizzard-stock-drops-following-diablo-d/1100-6463046/

 

 

Quote

The company's stock value dropped by close to 7 percent on Monday (via Sarah Needleman of WSJ). Shares closed at $64.34, which is down from the previous day's close at $68.99.

In a note to investors, research firm Cowen & Company said "Blizzard severely miscalculated how their fans would respond, which suggests they aren't in touch with their players as maybe they should be."