Diablo III

[Nylonathatep]

That's really not true. They got rid of spellpower because it was redundant. Every item except for weapons that had X int had 10X spell power on it. They got rid of MP5 because it does the same thing as Spirit, and so was also redundant. And then they added a new stat, mastery. Playing a caster/healer in wow is a 5 stat game, Int, Crit, Haste, Mastery, and Spirit/Hit depending on class. Comparatively, until ZA/Sunwell, TBC was SP, Spirit, Crit, Hit. There wasn't haste on much gear at all, and mastery didn't exist. It's never been more than a 5 stat game for casters, and that's what it still is.

Yah sorry I quit before Cataclysm came out. Mp5 is superior to spr for mages thou because the regen rate per spr really sucks for Mages.

There's nothing wrong with doing research/figuring stuff out making you perform better. What you want to avoid, and what blizzard has stated they want to avoid, is complication that doesn't add any depth. The interplay between haste and crit and int is interesting. The interplay between Int and SP was not. And when you have stats that are strictly inferior in every case, that's not a good stat. You shouldn't have a game where you get options where there is only one good choice, and that's really what D2 attributes were. Vit was so far superior to Str that doing anything besides the minimum amount of str for your gear was silly.

D3 has a number of interesting affixes. Let's just look at what you can get on an axe, purely for damage (source)
+Stats
+Damage (either physical or other)
+Damage %
+Attacks Per Second
+Attack Rate
+Crit Damage

6 ways to increase the damage output, and they could interact interestingly. Eg Slow weapons would benefit more from +Attacks per second, while fast weapons would benefit from +attack rate. Similarly +damage may outdo +damage% depending on the weapon and the skills you are using.

Then there's magic find, life leach, resource regen, resists, procs (knockback, stun, blind, freeze, snare), cc reduction, XP gain, goldfind, indestructible, movement speed, sockets, life regen, and thorns.

This all goes back to Gelsamel 's origional point: It doesn't matter how many possible of combination of skills there is, people will stick to a few optimized build. Thorn and goldfind would be pratically useless especially given the low damage and low gold drop there is. (Gold would also be worthless as more is flooded into the economy, think inflation) You would just want to stack MF on a character so they'll do MF runs for you. Movenement speed is great but you won't need more then 10%. In the end resource regen, xp gain, MF would be king for Pve and cc reduction, proc for cc, is for pvp.

[mfb]

Thorns can be interesting, if monster damage is comparable to player damage. In D2 the player damage was so far above monster damages that the concept was useless, but that is just a balancing issue.

Gold gets drained by artisans, the auction house and maybe item repair / merchants / other methods to spend gold. Gold has the potential to become the dominant currency (with the AH as big help, of course), and the best source for gold are gold drops. Therefore, I would expect that specialized goldfind-characters generate value in a rate equal to specialized magicfind-characters.

Movenement speed is great but you won't need more then 10%

If you fight weak monsters (or very hard monsters with hit and run), movement speed can be quite interesting.

According to blizzard, reaching level 60 should be quite easy, so I don't think that +xp will be an interesting stat in hell/inferno.

[Izawwlgood]

It doesn't matter how many possible of combination of skills there is, people will stick to a few optimized build.

I really disagree. It seems to me like Blizzard is spending a lot of effort to eliminate this school of thought; that there is no such thing as a pvp build or a pve build. There are abilities that will synergize well with one another, and almost certainly ability combos that aren't fantastic/are worse than others, but the thing they really seem to be pushing is that you will NOT suffer for awesomeness because you are rocking a different build than someone else.

[Gelsamel]

The "I get to feel differentiated and like a badass straight away in D2" point was just a point in D2's favour; an example of why, even though the 'useless skills' exist in D2, they actually werent useless from a gameplay experience point of view. Ever since I heard about D3 and Demon Hunter I wanted to play a melee DH... If it had a skill system like D2 I'd just throw on a sword and pick up whatever passives or few attacks that work with melee weapons and start swording stuff up from level 1, I get to play how I want to right from the start. In D3 however I have to wait to level 50 and pick up sharpshooting and even then I'm not sure how to get a normal swing on your attack bar and then maybe just maybe I could have a crit-and-run style build with the DH and be viable (but probably not).

The first real problem isn't that D3 doesn't do this little tiny point in D2's favour... it was just me defending D2's skill system as not being as bad as everyone thought it was (although it still needs fixing). The real problem is that D3 has customisation on the level of Counter Strike. The mechanics of customisation between CS and D3 are almost identical other than D3 has more options than Counter Strike.

CS isn't a game typically lauded for character customisation, for good reason, because the customisation you get is so unbelievably shallow it isn't funny. D3 is slightly less shallow for having many more options, but the mechanics are what matter from a customisation point of view, and especially from a gameplay experience point of view. Even if things end up identically, how people feel, emotionally and psychologically, putting lots of points in vs. choosing two guns is completely different.

The second real problem is the huge lack of choice, I don't mean what different sets of skills you can put on your bar... I mean choice in building ones character; think about every RPG out there with customisation that people lauded. Every single one of them presents you with CHOICE. "Do I want this, or this?" "I got the frost spell, but at the cost of the fire spell" "I'm speccing full meteor, so I won't have enough points to get orb". Yes you can sometimes respec in these games but if you respec you similarly have to make those choices. D3 has an illusionary choice... "Which skills do I want on my bar and what passives do I want to turn on?" but "if needed I can change it at any point in time, because my character actually knows all the attacks and passives, they don't have to 'relearn' anything or 'retcon' themselves they just have to choose to use something that they weren't using before. And it has exactly no cost so I don't really need to think about what I do or don't get because it can never truly matter".

The third real problem is the lack of thematic coherency. In WoW when you spec a rogue combat, you have a clear theme set apart from non-combat rogues. If you spec meteor as a sorc, the only non-fire moves you have are ice armor and teleport. In D3 there is no sense of your character growing to specialise themselves in a type of combat, it's just a mismash of random shit (the fact you can do this is related to the 'second real problem' which is that you don't have many choices, in this case the choice to sacrifice some skills/passives/etc for others).

And what about all those successful games with multiple classes and multiple specs that don't allow respeccing? The idea that having to play the game more is a punishment is absolutely ridiculous.

Playing another spec in D2 is just like playing an entirely different class. So why is it is punishment to have to play through again (which you don't, because you can respec easily in D2) when its not a punishment to change to an entirely different class? I can understand this logic in D3: Because every character is the same as another of the same class, it really would be 'going through the same shit'. If you wanted a differently build Demon Hunter in D3 without changing the skills on your bar... you'd have to go through the exact same unlocks and choices as you did last time. But in D2 that isn't the case, Martial Assassin plays completely differently to Trap assassin, has completely different unlocks and different choices and most importantly completely different gameplay right from level 2.

If in D2, having to play another character to get a new spec was 'punishment' then so is having to play another character to experience a different class. In which case I sincerely pity anyone who feels punished by that. Any game with depth and replayability must be incredibly unfun, I can't imagine what it would be like.

[Izawwlgood]

Gel, I think you're making some incorrect claims here still;

The "I get to feel differentiated and like a badass straight away in D2" point was just a point in D2's favour

Putting a point in the Fire/Ice/Lightening tree at lvl 1 does not really differentiate or induce feelings of badassery in D2. I wouldn't say a fully Fire mage is even really that different from a fully Ice mage or Lightening mage until about lvl 5-6 or so anyway. You are saying that putting 1-6 pts in a skill tree is somehow more significant than picking 2-3 different skills to define how you will be playing your character. It is EXACTLY the same breadth and depth of choice and EXACTLY the same outcome in terms of difference.

The mechanics of customisation between CS and D3 are almost identical other than D3 has more options than Counter Strike.

Agreed; this is a good thing. The permanence and difficulty respeccing in D2 meant I couldn't easily play test different play styles or builds. However;

CS isn't a game typically lauded for character customisation, for good reason, because the customisation you get is so unbelievably shallow it isn't funny. D3 is slightly less shallow for having many more options...

MANY, MANY more options. CS is the difference of a couple of stats (RoF, damage per bullet, Accuracy, Range, etc), while the difference between Poison Dart and Haunt is an entirely different skill. D3's customization is lightyears deeper than CS's customization.

The only similarity between the two is that both games have decided they want to make it easy for the player to select what guns/gear/skills/builds they'll have, and allow them to change it relatively on the fly.

I mean choice in building ones character

Why do you think this is the case at all? Looking at the range of skills, I fully anticipate there being an enormous breadth and depth of ways to handle things. There isn't going to be a 'pvp build' and a 'pve build'. If you like Zombie Charger, you can use it. If you don't, you don't have to.

The third real problem is the lack of thematic coherency.

Again, I'm not sure why you're claiming this, or really, HOW you're claiming this given that you've only played a character up to lvl 13.

If in D2, having to play another character to get a new spec was 'punishment' then so is having to play another character to experience a different class. In which case I sincerely pity anyone who feels punished by that. Any game with depth and replayability must be incredibly unfun, I can't imagine what it would be like.

Yes, an experience that requires you leveling a new character up; I'm sorry, but no matter how 'customized' you claim to be, level 1-20 or so is virtually identical for a Fire, Ice, or Lightening sorc. When playing these games, I don't want to redo the same thing over and over, I want to play through the story (at my pace!), try different character builds, and match up with my friends (again, experimenting with different builds). I have no desire to play Act 1 ten different times to try ten different builds.

You yourself stated that D2's respec option wasn't exactly easy. It's available, by retcon, but not easy. But, even the presence of that option means that there's no difference in the level of customization in D2 and D3 in terms of permanence. So it sounds like your real issue is based on the skills you've read, you don't think they're, what, diverse enough? Balanced enough?

You know, it really seems like ultimately, you want people to have to put in more time in order to experience all the different builds. It really reads like there's this sense of entitlement because in D2 you fully tested a bunch of different builds, and now, you think anyone else who wants to do so, must also put in that degree of time. Can you truthfully tell me that the time investment isn't the issue?

[Gelsamel]

Putting a point in the Fire/Ice/Lightening tree at lvl 1 does not really differentiate or induce feelings of badassery in D2. I wouldn't say a fully Fire mage is even really that different from a fully Ice mage or Lightening mage until about lvl 5-6 or so anyway. You are saying that putting 1-6 pts in a skill tree is somehow more significant than picking 2-3 different skills to define how you will be playing your character. It is EXACTLY the same breadth and depth of choice and EXACTLY the same outcome in terms of difference.

And how different is a trap sin from a martial sin? A Elemental druid from a weardruid? A summon necro from a bone necro? The ice/fire mage are much different to the lightning mage from level 2.

Agreed; this is a good thing. The permanence and difficulty respeccing in D2 meant I couldn't easily play test different play styles or builds.

I've already said it has nothing to do with permanence, please stop bringing it up. It has nothing to do with that, it has to do with the customisation mechanic.

I mean choice in building ones character

Why do you think this is the case at all? Looking at the range of skills, I fully anticipate there being an enormous breadth and depth of ways to handle things. There isn't going to be a 'pvp build' and a 'pve build'. If you like Zombie Charger, you can use it. If you don't, you don't have to.

...What? I don't even get what you're responding to here. Did you read the paragraph that half-line you quoted from me was from?

Again, I'm not sure why you're claiming this, or really, HOW you're claiming this given that you've only played a character up to lvl 13.

Because there is a lack of thematic coherency in your build options... they showed us all the skills. Being a trap assassin in Diablo means having all these different traps right from level 2. It's all coherent. Being a ice sorc means using ice from level 2. In D3 you just mash up a bunch of unrelated skill, there is no thematic coherency.

Yes, an experience that requires you leveling a new character up; I'm sorry, but no matter how 'customized' you claim to be, level 1-20 or so is virtually identical for a Fire, Ice, or Lightening sorc. When playing these games, I don't want to redo the same thing over and over, I want to play through the story (at my pace!), try different character builds, and match up with my friends (again, experimenting with different builds). I have no desire to play Act 1 ten different times to try ten different builds.

And trap sin vs martial sin? Weardruid vs Elemental Druid? Summon necro vs bone necro? Only the sorc has similar playstyles between trees and even then it's not -that- similar. Lightning is quite different from fire and ice. And while fire and ice have similar attacks, fire doesn't have the gameplay of freezing/slowing stuff. A melee sorc is infinitely different to any sorc spec.

Answer me this: Do you feel it's a punishment in D3 to not be able to 'respec' your leevl 60 into another class? If not why not? It's the same thing. Apparently you feel punished by having to play the game, I don't understand this at all.

You yourself stated that D2's respec option wasn't exactly easy. It's available, by retcon, but not easy. But, even the presence of that option means that there's no difference in the level of customization in D2 and D3 in terms of permanence. So it sounds like your real issue is based on the skills you've read, you don't think they're, what, diverse enough? Balanced enough?

Wat. D2's respec is SUPER EASY. It's just limited before it become a bit harder. I mention "retcon" in that it's like your character is changing the training they had done all their lives. Unlike D3 where it's just "I'll decide to use these other attacks now".

You know, it really seems like ultimately, you want people to have to put in more time in order to experience all the different builds. It really reads like there's this sense of entitlement because in D2 you fully tested a bunch of different builds, and now, you think anyone else who wants to do so, must also put in that degree of time. Can you truthfully tell me that the time investment isn't the issue?

Time investment isn't the issue because gettting to level 90 takes 3 hours in D2 online. It has never been an issue. It's the customisation mechanics, like I've said a thousand times. The sense of effort put into a character is just icing on the accomplishment cake. Same reason why people like games that are difficult because winning really means something.

[Telchar]

Because there is a lack of thematic coherency in your build options... they showed us all the skills. Being a trap assassin in Diablo means having all these different traps right from level 2. It's all coherent. Being a ice sorc means using ice from level 2. In D3 you just mash up a bunch of unrelated skill, there is no thematic coherency.

Your argument here boils down to "Characters aren't like they were in D2 and are instead much like characters in most other fantasy RPGs" which is apparently a bad thing...Talking about narrative coherency? Why wouldn't a mage learn both fire and ice spells for mobs that are immune/resistant to spells of your specialization?

And yes, your original argument on both the lack of specific stat alottment and customization mentions how you want your character to be unique which is directly related to the idea of permanence. You're not articulating why you think the customization is bad clearly which is resulting in, apparently, a misunderstanding.

If your argument boils down to "A Fire Sorc being able to cast lightning spells is bad" then you both have a fundamental disagreement and should move on because that's what feels like you're saying.

BTW: That's pretty consistent with a lot of other very successful RPGs, both PnP and PC.

[Izawwlgood]

I've already said it has nothing to do with permanence, please stop bringing it up. It has nothing to do with that, it has to do with the customisation mechanic.

Except you have on a few occasions now mentioned that D2 has respec's, which they added in significantly after release of the game itself. You have mentioned this, I can only assume, in an effort to assure us/me that respeccing is not the issue you are talking about, and then gone on to explain how this respec mechanic works; it doesn't sound very convenient at all.

And how different is a trap sin from a martial sin? A Elemental druid from a weardruid? A summon necro from a bone necro? The ice/fire mage are much different to the lightning mage from level 2.

You mean to tell me that a summon necro at lvl 1, plays different than a bone necro at lvl 1? That that feeling of badassery is already there, because that 1 pt of in Teeth completely customizes you differently than that 1 pt in Raise Skeleton? That the two have departed so thematically, so fundamentally, that were I to look at SummonNecroBob, lvl1, and BoneNecroJoe, lvl 1, I would be able to tell the two apart just by how they walked?

C'mon man. You're showering accolades on D2's customization while ignoring D3's, and then painting this utterly incorrect picture of how the two are different.

Because there is a lack of thematic coherency in your build options... they showed us all the skills. Being a trap assassin in Diablo means having all these different traps right from level 2. It's all coherent. Being a ice sorc means using ice from level 2. In D3 you just mash up a bunch of unrelated skill, there is no thematic coherency.

I'm not sure how you can be under this impression; D2 had three skill trees available to each class. D3 has three skill sets available to each class. D2 allows you to design a character to your liking by allocating stat and skill points into a variety of skills to improve their power. D3 allows you to design a character to your liking by selecting active and passive skills, and then modifying the active skills with runes. If you feel selecting a bunch of skills from Fire makes you thematically a Fire Sorc, and you like burninating things, then cool; pick a bunch of fire skills for your Wizard, or, rune a few non-fire skills to do fire damage. I'm simply at a loss for how at this point in looking at the skills, runes, and the discussion we're having, you can still be under the impression that there's no 'thematic coherency' to D3 character layouts.

Wat. D2's respec is SUPER EASY. It's just limited before it become a bit harder. I mention "retcon" in that it's like your character is changing the training they had done all their lives. Unlike D3 where it's just "I'll decide to use these other attacks now".

It doesn't sound super easy. It sounds like you've got a limited number of respecs available to you, or, you can grind for an item that allows you to respec once. I misinterpreted your use of the word 'retcon' to mean, 'added after the fact'. Which is what respeccing in D2 was. And not that I think it'll really change your mind about anything, but respeccing in D3 isn't something you can do mid-combat.

Time investment isn't the issue because gettting to level 90 takes 3 hours in D2 online. It has never been an issue. It's the customisation mechanics, like I've said a thousand times. The sense of effort put into a character is just icing on the accomplishment cake. Same reason why people like games that are difficult because winning really means something.

This just further muddies your point; if designing a character in D2 is something that can be completed in a quick afternoon, then what's the difference between allowing someone to only have to do it once, and then respec as they see fit on the fly (when not in combat of course), and making them dedicate another afternoon to being carried by a group of power gamers?

Answer me this: Do you feel it's a punishment in D3 to not be able to 'respec' your leevl 60 into another class? If not why not? It's the same thing. Apparently you feel punished by having to play the game, I don't understand this at all.

I don't feel punished for having to play the game, I feel punished for having to repeat the exact same game with the exact same class simply because I want to move some spec points around. You played WoW; did you find respeccing and dual-speccing to be something that HURT the game? If so, I think we simply disagree too fundamentally on what makes for entertaining game play to really continue this discussion.

[The Utilitarian]

Also people are STILL neglecting Nephalim Valor in their accusations of "no specs." Yes you CAN change your skills for every fight to have the "right" ones, but this is going to massively slow down the game and deprive you have a big bonus to magic item drops!

[Gelsamel]

Except you have on a few occasions now mentioned that D2 has respec's, which they added in significantly after release of the game itself. You have mentioned this, I can only assume, in an effort to assure us/me that respeccing is not the issue you are talking about, and then gone on to explain how this respec mechanic works; it doesn't sound very convenient at all.

You need to defeat the Den of Evil... so difficult.

You mean to tell me that a summon necro at lvl 1, plays different than a bone necro at lvl 1? That that feeling of badassery is already there, because that 1 pt of in Teeth completely customizes you differently than that 1 pt in Raise Skeleton? That the two have departed so thematically, so fundamentally, that were I to look at SummonNecroBob, lvl1, and BoneNecroJoe, lvl 1, I would be able to tell the two apart just by how they walked?

Uh, YES. At level 2 Bone Necro is shooting out waves of teeth like a long range dps class. At level 2 the Summon Necro summons skeletons and plays like a pet class. Is your problem that they both happen to be called 'necromancer'? If we split them into two different classes and called one "Bonemancer" and one "Summoner" would that solve the issue you have replaying a character with compeltely different gameplay? Are you honestly saying that playing a bone necro to high levels is the exact same experience as playing a summon necro to high levels?

C'mon man. You're showering accolades on D2's customization while ignoring D3's, and then painting this utterly incorrect picture of how the two are different.

Says the person who calls all the different specs of a class the same gameplay. Sorry but playing a Trap assassin is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT to playing a martial assassin, even at level 2. One throws bombs from far away, the other gets in their grill. Bonemancer is a long range DPS, Summoner is a pet class with a lot of pets.

It doesn't sound super easy. It sounds like you've got a limited number of respecs available to you, or, you can grind for an item that allows you to respec once. I misinterpreted your use of the word 'retcon' to mean, 'added after the fact'. Which is what respeccing in D2 was. And not that I think it'll really change your mind about anything, but respeccing in D3 isn't something you can do mid-combat.

If beating the Den of Evil isn't super easy for you, I honestly don't know what to say. You have limited respecs from the Den of Evil quest... because there are only three of those quests, but respecs through any other method unlimited.

This just further muddies your point; if designing a character in D2 is something that can be completed in a quick afternoon, then what's the difference between allowing someone to only have to do it once, and then respec as they see fit on the fly (when not in combat of course), and making them dedicate another afternoon to being carried by a group of power gamers?

It only muddies 'my point' because you think 'my point' is completely different to the one I'm making. I'm not talking about effort put in to build your character, nor am I talking about permenance. I'm talking about the actual mechanics of customisation. WoW and ME and Skyrim and D&D and virtually every RPG that focuses on character building, including D2, uses a similar character building mechanics. D3 uses a character building mechanics similar to CS (as you rightly admit). And you can't see how D3 has more shallow customisation?

You can't see the difference between having skill trees which you can't completely fill out, or thousands of feats you can only choose a few of, is completely different to D3 where your character gets absolutely everything and the only customisation you get is 'choose what you use'?

I don't feel punished for having to play the game, I feel punished for having to repeat the exact same game with the exact same class simply because I want to move some spec points around. You played WoW; did you find respeccing and dual-speccing to be something that HURT the game? If so, I think we simply disagree too fundamentally on what makes for entertaining game play to really continue this discussion.

So somehow the label of "class" that demarcates a gameplay styles is a magical label that changes whether having to play a new character is punishment or not? Like I said a Trap assassin has so far different gameplay to a martial assassin that they might as well be different classes. You might as well call one a monk and one an arcane trickster, does that make it okay that you have to play a new character to experience both? Again, not that that is true, because respeccing is possible and easy in D3, just not effortless. But it seems ridiculous that you consider having to play the game a 'punishment' since you feel entitled to experience everything about the game from playing it once.

You have to play D3 multiple times to play different classes, why is this okay? Because the gameplay is wildly different between classes? In D2 the game play is, for the most part, wildly different between character specs.

What about in ME3 where you have to replay for different classes... but also for different choices? Is that punishment? Is it a punishment because I have to play the exact same game again if I want to have different choices? What about in Skyrim? Is it punishment that I have to start a new character if I want to play a mage build after playing an archer build? Every character in skyrim has access to all skills, but they can only choose a few of them to max, does that make it 'inherent' to the class in a way that makes playing a new character 'punishment'? I can't believe we're still having this discussion.

The only possible reason playing the game is punishment because YOU DON'T LIKE THE GAME. So, do you like D2?

(Edit: About WoW's respeccing/dual-speccing. Again, I don't care for respecs. You can respec in D2, like I already said. Respeccing has nothing to do with it. I care for build mechanics. WoW uses similar build mechancs to D2 and Skyrim. They're completely different to the one in D3).

Also people are STILL neglecting Nephalim Valor in their accusations of "no specs." Yes you CAN change your skills for every fight to have the "right" ones, but this is going to massively slow down the game and deprive you have a big bonus to magic item drops!

No neglect here, I even mentioned it myself. I've said it 6 times, I'll say it again. I'm not talking about whether respeccing is available or easy or not, or permenance of 'effort' put into the character (although I do like the sense of accomplishment of when I put effort into a character, that isn't what I'm talking about in this specific comparison). I'm talking specifically about the mechanics of customisation.

If you can't see that D2 has completely different customisation mechanics to Counter Strike, while D3 has a similar customisation mechanics to Counter Strike, and why the D2 style is always more often used and more often lauded in RPGs and how being similar to Counter Strike customisation makes D3's customisation 'shallow' (but wide)... then I really don't know what I can say to make someone see such an obvious difference.

[Chen]

It only muddies 'my point' because you think 'my point' is completely different to the one I'm making. I'm not talking about effort put in to build your character, nor am I talking about permenance. I'm talking about the actual mechanics of customisation. WoW and ME and Skyrim and D&D and virtually every RPG that focuses on character building, including D2, uses a similar character building mechanics. D3 uses a character building mechanics similar to CS (as you rightly admit). And you can't see how D3 has more shallow customisation?

You can't see the difference between having skill trees which you can't completely fill out, or thousands of feats you can only choose a few of, is completely different to D3 where your character gets absolutely everything and the only customisation you get is 'choose what you use'?

So its the skill TREE aspect you're more keen on? WoW and Skyrim have pre-reqs to get to certain other abilities so I can see how they're different. D&D also has various skill trees though there's also a lot of feats you don't get locked into since you can retrain them. Now in all these games respecing has a cost to it. Otherwise I see no difference between Mass Effect's skill system and D3's (except of course ME has FAR fewer options for skill choices and you end up getting them all at high enough level anyway, except your bonus skill). You can change you build in ME3 whenever you're back on your ship. You can change your extra power whenever you want. The only difference is D3 is freely done whereas in ME you need to pay an increasing credit cost. So is it the inherent lack of cost of the D3 skill choice the problem? Or did you have the same problem that you're having with D3 in ME3?

I honestly don't know why customization is the word everyone complains about on the forums (talking Bnet and other forums, not just Gel's points here). Its clearly not the right one. In fact I'm not sure what the actual complaint can be boiled down to? Gel is saying its not permanence. Is it uniqueness? Because any uniqueness you had in D2 was basically an illusion since I bet there were hundreds, if not more, people with the same build out there. Is it the limitations that you shouldn't be able to use X and Y skill in the same "build"?

[mfb]

Uh, YES. At level 2 Bone Necro is shooting out waves of teeth like a long range dps class. At level 2 the Summon Necro summons skeletons and plays like a pet class. Is your problem that they both happen to be called 'necromancer'? If we split them into two different classes and called one "Bonemancer" and one "Summoner" would that solve the issue you have replaying a character with compeltely different gameplay? Are you honestly saying that playing a bone necro to high levels is the exact same experience as playing a summon necro to high levels?

You can play a wizard with different skills of your choice from level ~4 on in D3. Where is the difference?
Again, due to respecs you can begin a summoner with teeth and a bone-nec with summons in D2, too.

You can't see the difference between having skill trees which you can't completely fill out, or thousands of feats you can only choose a few of, is completely different to D3 where your character gets absolutely everything and the only customisation you get is 'choose what you use'?

Both D2 and D3 have "choose which skills you want to have". The difference is just quantitative: In D3, respecs are easier and quicker to do.

The only possible reason playing the game is punishment because YOU DON'T LIKE THE GAME. So, do you like D2?

Or because you don't like normal difficulty. D3 is even more focused on hell/inferno content than D2 was.

[Izawwlgood]

Uh, YES. At level 2 Bone Necro is shooting out waves of teeth like a long range dps class. At level 2 the Summon Necro summons skeletons and plays like a pet class.

At lvl 2 you're still rocking that intro-wand that gives you +1 to teeth. So no matter what, you're still shooting Teeth. If you place pts into Summon Skeleton, you've got another option compared to shooting an extra Tooth; I hardly call that badass diversification.

Says the person who calls all the different specs of a class the same gameplay. Sorry but playing a Trap assassin is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT to playing a martial assassin, even at level 2. One throws bombs from far away, the other gets in their grill. Bonemancer is a long range DPS, Summoner is a pet class with a lot of pets.

I think different builds are entirely different gameplay experiences; I just don't think that difference starts before lvl 6-10 or so. I also don't think that in order to 'fully experience' that difference in gameplay you should be required to do so from the introduction screen.

I'm talking about the actual mechanics of customisation. WoW and ME and Skyrim and D&D and virtually every RPG that focuses on character building, including D2, uses a similar character building mechanics. D3 uses a character building mechanics similar to CS (as you rightly admit). And you can't see how D3 has more shallow customisation?

But you don't seem to understand how 'skill tree' and 'skill selection' are the only mildly different mechanics that result in the exact same thing. I do NOT think D3 has shallower customization than D2 or WoW (I haven't played Skyrim to know, but I think D3 offers more choice over your character than Morrowind and Oblivion, for whatever that's worth), I think it offers significantly more.
D3's 'similar to CS building mechanic' as you state, is similar insofar as you can slot a variety of different 'things' into your character, and do it on the fly. The end result is strikingly more customization than D2 and those other games you listed.

You can't see the difference between having skill trees which you can't completely fill out, or thousands of feats you can only choose a few of, is completely different to D3 where your character gets absolutely everything and the only customisation you get is 'choose what you use'?

No, I don't. D2 provides you with x stat points and y skill points by level 90. D3 provides you with x skills, modified by y runes, and z passives at level 90. The end result in D2 is you have placed your points in such a way to create a character that has skills with some power, passives that give you some boost, and viola, you are a Whirlwinding Barbarian! The end result in D3 is that you have selected skills and runes and passives, and viola, you are a Whirlwinding Barbarian! Your complaint that it's less granular is fine; I don't see a striking difference between being able to place 10% more pts in stamina than my build normally requires, and selecting the passive 'Iron Skin' or whatever instead of something else normally slotted by 'my build'.

You have to play D3 multiple times to play different classes, why is this okay? Because the gameplay is wildly different between classes? In D2 the game play is, for the most part, wildly different between character specs.

This should be fairly apparent; playing a Wizard is a different gameplay experience, with different options, than playing a Barbarian. However, while playing a Wizard, having ALL the Wizard gameplay options available to me one a single run through, is preferable to having to play through the game again everytime I want to test a new build. Since you yourself pointed out that bringing a new character to near level cap and allocating points is something that should only take a few hours, there's no difference between 'hitting the character creation screen in D2 and getting carried to level for allocating points' and 'traveling back to town and slotting different skills/passives/runes to swap builds in D3'.

You keep comparing D3 to Counterstrike insofar as you slot different things from a pool of things, and think this justifies your claim that it has less customization. So I put forth this offer; lets today goto the D3 character skill calculator, and fiddle around with some different builds, and see if we can emulate and surpass the range of D2 builds. Obviously there will be differences, for example, the Witch Doctor (the pet class) will not be able to summon a screen full of critters. But I guarantee you we can recapitulate any build offered in D2, and when the game is released, that more of these designs will be functional.

The thing that really needs to be mentioned again and again, is that D3 is deviating from the concept of a rigid build. You don't NEED to have placed points/selected skills in a certain way to function.

What about in ME3 where you have to replay for different classes... but also for different choices?

I didn't really like the ME series, or feel that the choices really mattered or affected game play. But I do wish there had been a respec option, but mostly because I felt like I couldn't tell the difference between any ability I had maxed out. Did I want more damage, or quicker cooldowns? I dunno? It all feels the same.

But it seems ridiculous that you consider having to play the game a 'punishment' since you feel entitled to experience everything about the game from playing it once.

This is entirely your opinion; I personally feel that forcing player to replay the game each time they want to try a different build on the same character is a mistake. You do not.

(Edit: About WoW's respeccing/dual-speccing. Again, I don't care for respecs. You can respec in D2, like I already said. Respeccing has nothing to do with it. I care for build mechanics. WoW uses similar build mechancs to D2 and Skyrim. They're completely different to the one in D3).

But answer the question; did you feel respeccing and dual-slotting made WoW worse?

[mike-l]

What makes customization interesting is limitation. As Gel pointed out, what was good about D2 skill trees was that you couldn't fill them all out. D3 has the limitation of only being able to take 6 of your 22 skills and 3 of your 15 passives at any time. D2 certainly had more options for making subsets of your skills better, but these were 'fake' options, as really only a handful of skills for each class were worth ever casting past level 30. Giving you options to make you strictly inferior does not make for deep customization.

I really think that having 110 variants of 22 skills (presumably balanced) but only being able to take 6 at a time is actually very deep customization. On the other hand, I really don't think 'You can be a pure fire sorc, and here's the unique best build, or you can be a meteorb sorc, and here's the unique best build, or you can be a lightning sorc, and here's the unique best build, and anything else sucks' is really very shallow.

[Will]

Yeah, Gel, you seem to be under the impression that because the mechanics of D3's skill system are different from D2 that somehow there are fewer options than there were in D2. This is demonstrably not true, though you seem to somehow keep ignoring this fact. Yes, CS's build system is similar in its mechanics, but D3 has far more *options* than CS does; and it's not the mechanics of selecting skills that make a system deep or not, it's how many options you have (more importantly, as mike-l pointed out, it's how many VIABLE options you have, which D3 really seems like it will have a *lot* more of than D2 did).

[Gelsamel]

Yeah, Gel, you seem to be under the impression that because the mechanics of D3's skill system are different from D2 that somehow there are fewer options than there were in D2.

Nope, never said that.


Edit: And reading through the rest of your replies... it's all stuff I've already addressed. I'm not going to repeat myself yet again.

Izawwlgood you keep picking out tiny little things like "Oh well you get a wand with teeth on it" (actually it's a wand with raise skeleton on it) and then dismissing not only the necro but EVERY OTHER CLASS. Explain how ALL the trees of the druid play the same from level 2, do that for the assassin and a sorc and a amazon and the barb and the paladin and the necromancer. But do it properly, none of this copout shit like "Well, you -could- if you wanted to, play them the same way" well no shit.

For some reason, calling something a different class makes it okay to "punish" the player (as you say) with more gameplay (oh the horror). Yet even though differently specced classes are completely different from eachother, that should never required another playthrough? Of course this point has NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING since, for the 10th time already, D2 has respecs. No one forces you to play a second class with different gameplay and no one is forcing you to play the same class with different gameplay due to a different spec.

For some reason, having a shallow customisation system where you just 'choose your loadout' is exactly the same as building a character, with all that building entails (making choices to go for some things over other things, etc) simply because there is a lot of different loudouts. You keep talking about how many different loadouts you can have as though that makes the customisation 'deep'; no, it just makes it wide. All you have to choose is make 3 choices; skills, runes, passives. Done. In D2 you have to choose every point in your build and the foundations determine the house you ultimately create. Like building a house and designing it yourself vs choosing from a set of predesigned houses, but there is a lot of predesigned houses.

If I hear the phrase "less customisation" one more time; thats it, I'm out, because no one is arguing with me. You're arguing with an straw me who is really easy to rebutt because I'm arguing against something one can easily be observed to be false.

[Izawwlgood]

(more importantly, as mike-l pointed out, it's how many VIABLE options you have, which D3 really seems like it will have a *lot* more of than D2 did).

For my sanity, I really wish people would pay attention to this. VIABLE builds don't really seem like they'll be a thing in D3, because weapon damage, not 'number of pts funneled into a given skill + passives + synergies' determines ability damage. It's better because if you want to be a Bone Spirit Necromancer, and have 30 pts to allocate to murderizing things with Bone Spirit, there is actually factually an optimal and singular way to allocating those skill points to maximize synergies for Bone Spirit damage. This is stupid.

D3 on the other hand says 'You wanna use Bone Spirit? Do it. Here are six modifications to Bone Spirit to better fit your whimsy'.

Here, for what it's worth, this is what I'd do with my Witch Doctor. There are at least 4 changes I would happily make to this build based on mana and life recovery and whatnot.

[Chen]

Yeah, Gel, you seem to be under the impression that because the mechanics of D3's skill system are different from D2 that somehow there are fewer options than there were in D2.

Nope, never said that.

Then our definitions of shallow and deep, with regards to customization, are WAY different.

[Telchar]

Here, for what it's worth, this is what I'd do with my Witch Doctor. There are at least 4 changes I would happily make to this build based on mana and life recovery and whatnot.

Your first passive doesn't make a whole lot of sense as you only have 3 abilities with cooldowns unless I'm missing something.

[Izawwlgood]

Nope, sure doesn't. Maybe do thisinstead.

[Telchar]

Grave Injustice or Zombie Handler seem good too, would require playtesting to see how the mana works out.

I'd probably run this as a dps barb or this for a tank barb assuming the mechanics work similarly to the beta.

[The Utilitarian]

I call this build Event Horizon: http://us.battle.net/d3/en/calculator/b ... Scg!aYZYbc

notable features: lots of AE damage. Several skills to vacuum enemies towards me. Lots of CC. Doesn't spend rage at all, and has bonus damage when enemies are close, as well as when at full rage.Whee!

[Gelsamel]

Let me explain better the difference between deep customisation and shallow customisation, both of which can be equally 'wide'.

Imagine you have a game, lets say Oblivion, and you're building a character... you have all these sliders for their face and you want to slowly tinker with each slider so they look exactly how you want them. This is deep customisation.

Now imagine if someone made a mod for Oblivion that enumerated every single combination of slider setting (the billions of them) into billions of presets for you to scroll through. Now you can make your character look exactly the same, regardless of what settings you had before... but now there is only 1 choice to make. Only 1 tiny bit of gameplay involved in the customisation: Which preset do you want?

Thats the difference. In EVERY other game lauded for it's customisation you are constantly making choices all thoughout the game as to how to build your character, you're slowly building them up to what you want them to be... this is gameplay; the gameplay of customising your character. D3 does not have this gameplay, even if we ignore the different stat setups that are 'viable' in D2 and we ultimately come to the conclusion that there is the same, or even more setups in D3 than there is in D2... that doesn't change the fact that the customisation gameplay is shallow in D3.

Again, since you agree D3 is like CS in it's mechanics, I'll make the comparison. In CS, customising your character isn't a big part of the game, in fact the gameplay of that part of the game is mostly managing your money (a gameplay mechanics not present in D3's customisation) this shows very clearly that there isn't very much, if any, gameplay in the customisation you do. D3 is the same.

Lets list just a few games that I can think of off the top of my head with good customisation in them:
Skyrim: Has customisation gameplay in both the aesthetics and building of your character.
Oblivion: Has customisation gameplay in both the aesthetics and building of your character.
The Sims 3: Has customisation gameplay in both the aesthetics, building, lifestyle, and environment of your character.
Mass Effect: Has customisation gameplay in both the aesthetics and building of your character.
Diablo 2: Has customisation gameplay in the building of your character.
World of Warcraft: Has customisation gameplay in the building of your character.
Tactics Ogre, Let Us Cling Together: Has customisation gameplay in the building of your characters and your team.
Star Ocean: Has customisation gameplay in the building of your characters.
Dungeons and Dragons: Has customisation gameplay in the building of your characters.
Dragon Age: Has customisation gameplay in both the aesthetics and building of your character.
Saint's Row: Has customisation gameplay in both the aesthetics and building of your character.


Note how many don't have "skill trees" and many have no permanence (WoW/D2 have respecs). So it really has nothing to do with the explicit structure of 'trees' nor permanency (although those things could be aftereffects of certain customisation systems). What is common in all these games it that the customisation is actually an intrinsic part of the gameplay, you're constantly making choices about what to build your character in to and what to not build your character into. You're deciding what skills they'll learn and what jobs they'll do and what they look like and who they are.

In D3 you do none of that. You have no control over what your character learns and does and how they slowly build themselves up to being a badass. You don't get to choose "Well my character (and I) like to shoot from range, so they'll concentrate on their ranged combat training and invest their time and energy (and skill points/talents/feats/etc) there as they get better". There is no "Do I pick up an extra point in X, or should I advance on to Y?" there is no "If I put another point in this skill tree, I won't be able to get the special skill in that other skill tree, is that worth it? Do I like the gameplay if I do it this way? Does it suit my character if I do it this way?".

Instead you just have a bunch of different 'guns', with some addons (like scopes and laser targets and grenade launchers and larger mags, rapidfire, whatever) and you just choose which 'guns' you're going to use. Even if the number of 'guns' is comparible, or even more than, the number of skills, it isn't the AMOUNT that makes a customisation system deep... it's the MECHANICS. In D3 you just choose whatever. In D2 you have to make hard choices, sacrifices, you have to plan stuff out and have a goal and sometimes you have to persevere through hardships for a great bounty. All of that is gameplay you can't ever have in D3. I can't choose to do the weird build that is interesting in fun in D3, because D3 only allows me to have standard builds and anything weird is literally forbidden (Ex: 2handed Melee Demon Hunter. I can't use 2handers and the only real build that works with melee hitting which will almost certainly not be viable is anything similar to this)

The amount of customisation just makes the lake wide unfortunately you can't immerse yourself in a shallow lake. Only when you have both wide and deep lake can you fully immerse yourself in that world of customisation and building.

I drew up an image to show what I mean.

Spoiler:

Note that the 'skill tree' reprisentation used here is only for convenience, you don't need skill trees for depth. D&D while it does have prereqs for some feats and build options, generally doesn't follow the skill tree format. The Sims 3 doesn't either, but has deep customisation. We use the word "broad" to discuss the amount of customisation options. We use the word "deep" when we're talking about game mechanics. I thought everyone understood the use of these terms in this type of setting but I guess not. Anyway the point is depth is a mechanics thing, the more gameplay mechanics/choices etc. that are involved in customisation, the deeper that customisation is. The more you can do with the customisation the more "breadth of options" you have.





As for cookiecutter builds, and D3 supposedly not having them. I almost gaurentee they will, in fact I would go as far to say it will be much easier to figure out optimum builds for various situations in D3 because the system is so simple. This is coming from someone who min/maxes the hell out of any online game and not just on the advice of others' math... I've contributed quite a bit to theorycrafting myself.

In D2 there were lots of questions as to how much better putting points into one thing was over putting points into another thing, for instance the 1 point smiter was only a fairly 'recent' discovery in the history of D2, only around about when Ubers came out did people figure out that. Part of this is the, admittedly, terrible paperdoll that D2 had. But the major reason is that the interactions between all the skills, skill requirements, items and stats is a very difficult system to analyse (only made more difficult because of the bad paperdoll).

In D3, however, things are so straightfoward that it'll be easy to choose the highest DPS skill, with the passives that increase it's damage the most for situations like 'single targets' and for 'group targets' and maybe a few other types of targets (but probably not). PvP will probably be more complex due to metagame and mindgames and stuff, but not much more.

Which reminds me, I just remembered another build I did back in D2 that was really fun; my Fist of Heaven Paladin was awesome as hell.

[Vaniver]

So it really has nothing to do with the explicit structure of 'trees' nor permanency ... In D2 you have to make hard choices, sacrifices, you have to plan stuff out and have a goal and sometimes you have to persevere through hardships for a great bounty. All of that is gameplay you can't ever have in D3.

These don't seem consistent to me.

But to engage with your point: what you're describing isn't customization, it's micromanagement. Now, micromanagement is a key feature for a lot of games- and so you could say "I'm not interested in D3 because they streamlined the leveling process and there isn't the same degree of micromanagement," and I don't think people would disagree with that analysis (though they might disagree with the value judgment).

[Gelsamel]

So it really has nothing to do with the explicit structure of 'trees' nor permanency ... In D2 you have to make hard choices, sacrifices, you have to plan stuff out and have a goal and sometimes you have to persevere through hardships for a great bounty. All of that is gameplay you can't ever have in D3.

These don't seem consistent to me.

But to engage with your point: what you're describing isn't customization, it's micromanagement. Now, micromanagement is a key feature for a lot of games- and so you could say "I'm not interested in D3 because they streamlined the leveling process and there isn't the same degree of micromanagement," and I don't think people would disagree with that analysis (though they might disagree with the value judgment).

Micromanagement might be a feature of some customisation mechanics, but not all. Consider building houses in The Sims. It's not a feature shared by all the games I list... the feature which is shared by all the games I listed is 'customisation as gameplay'. D3 has avoided customisation as gameplay nigh completely.

[mfb]

@Gelsamel: You can choose freely from all "groups", if you activate the elective mode. Which means that you choose 6 skills out of ~25, plus 3 passive out of ~10.

In Diablo 2, most players choose 4-5 skills and put 20 points into it. Why? Because it is the most efficient way. Some skills were 1-point-wonders, but in that case every character had them (teleport, clay golem, ...) so this was not really a part of customization. Where is the difference?
Sure, you could put several points in all of your 30 skills. But that would give you ~20 useless skills due to the lack of damage or other stats, and maybe ~5 skills which have a low damage. It is not customization to give the player an option to do it wrong. And putting one point in enchant because you have to do so to put points in hydra is not customization, either. It is just a method to get your favourite skill.

[Gelsamel]

@Gelsamel: You can choose freely from all "groups", if you activate the elective mode. Which means that you choose 6 skills out of ~25, plus 3 passive out of ~10.

Did I say otherwise? In fact my example image shows exactly that (although I didn't count out "~25" squares, I just put a bunch in... now that I count there are 20 there). You have your 6 skill choices, your 6 rune choices (including no rune) for whatever skills you chose and your 3 passive choices (again, I didn't count boxes, just put a bunch in, I ended up drawing 12).

Edit: I suspect the vagueness of the categories made you think that the 'Choose 1 for each category' was me talking about the 'groups' of skills, but actually I meant the runes of the skills you chose (hence why the squares are below the red circles... although I guess it's still kind of vague).

[Izawwlgood]

The outcome of pt allocation (D2) and skill/passive/rune selection (D3) is still the same. The only thing that is missing is a degree of granularity, as you mentioned, which is somewhat irrelevant because D3 has a wider breadth of options to accommodate more options with character customization. In your diagram Gel, it appears as though you are objecting to the notion of 'at level 16, you have access to these skills and these passives', because that to you doesn't represent choice in designing your character. However, pt allocation does the exact same thing; at level 16, depending on how you allocate your points, you will have access to these skills and these passives'. The granularity argument is still somewhat incorrect, as the difference between a lvl 89 and lvl 90 character is only going to be 5 stat pts and 1 skillpt, hardly a difference that represents customization. This comes down to character milestones; you like feeling in control of what you unlock at each milestone with an illusion of control (skill pts in Ice, or Fire), and D3 takes away unlocks as something you can control, and instead gives you selection.

The difference between putting 10 pts in Holy and 5 pts in Discipline at 25th level to unlock Chakra and the +5% crit passive is exactly the same as being level 25 when Chakra unlocks and slotting it and the +5 crit passive.

As for cookiecutter builds, and D3 supposedly not having them. I almost gaurentee they will, in fact I would go as far to say it will be much easier to figure out optimum builds for various situations in D3 because the system is so simple. This is coming from someone who min/maxes the hell out of any online game and not just on the advice of others' math... I've contributed quite a bit to theorycrafting myself.

Obviously we can't really argue about this until the game comes out, but remember, ability damage tied to weapon, not 'pts dumped into a skill', so barring balance issues, all attack skills will do competitive damage per mana, and have situational utility that makes it 'better' than other skills. But, again, I posted a build I would use for my Witch Doctor, modified it, and then people posted builds they would tinker with for a barb. Why don't you post a build and start a dialog about it? Also, I challenged you to put forth a D2 build that we would recreate in D3 equivalencies, and am still waiting to hear you refute this challenge.

Lets list just a few games that I can think of off the top of my head with good customisation in them:

Of your list, I have played Oblivion, ME1 and 2, D2, WoW, and SO2.If you added respecs to ME, Oblivion, and SO2, I wouldn't consider the amount of 'customization' to be an iota different than the customization available in D3. Just sayin'. ME has unbearably shallow customization (4-5 skills per character, an ultimate choice of '+20% damage or +20% hp', and as we know, and end game that renders all your storyline choices to 'red, blue, or green ending')

[mike-l]

What is common in all these games it that the customisation is actually an intrinsic part of the gameplay, you're constantly making choices about what to build your character in to and what to not build your character into. You're deciding what skills they'll learn and what jobs they'll do and what they look like and who they are.

In D3 you do none of that. You have no control over what your character learns and does and how they slowly build themselves up to being a badass. You don't get to choose "Well my character (and I) like to shoot from range, so they'll concentrate on their ranged combat training and invest their time and energy (and skill points/talents/feats/etc) there as they get better". There is no "Do I pick up an extra point in X, or should I advance on to Y?" there is no "If I put another point in this skill tree, I won't be able to get the special skill in that other skill tree, is that worth it? Do I like the gameplay if I do it this way? Does it suit my character if I do it this way?".

But you are limited in how many skills you can use at a time, so in fact you DO have all those things. I just unlocked this new attack, do I put it on my bar? If I do, what do I get rid of. Do I take this utility spell at the expense of my AoE, or at the expense of my single target nuke? For example, in the beta I chose to forgo the WD's AoE snare to take extra damage abilities.

D3's system is similar to guild wars, which did have some attributes, but the real customization in that game was exactly as D3s. You have 50 spells to choose from but you can only bring 8 at a time. And it was really interesting, and there were plenty of times where I made hard choices about which skill to take when I really wanted 9-10 for my build.

[Coin]

Speaking of customisation: I'll be glad to trade in my old Ice Bolt, Ice Blast and Glacial Spike for some kind of general ice attack with runes. Talk about redundancy. "This one does damage and slows enemies, this one does damage and freezes the enemy and this last one does damage and freezes a group of enemies. The first one will deal to little damage to matter once you level up and you'll all but forget about all three once you get Frozen Orb"

[Izawwlgood]

That's another thing in D2 that I think is being CORRECTED in D3; there's no such thing as a capstone ability that replaces everything else. Each ability in D3 is being designed such that it has situational utility.

It's actually another funny point about D2's customization; you don't really have the ability to design a build wherein you use two overlapping abilities, at all. You either put points in Bone Spirit or Bone Javelin (or whatever it was called), and splitting your points between the two means you're shooting yourself in the foot. But wanna be a Wizard with both Fire ball and Ice Storm? You can do that in D3! Yet another way that D2's specialization actually led to a lack of choices/options, instead of an abundance of choices/options.

[Gelsamel]

The outcome of pt allocation (D2) and skill/passive/rune selection (D3) is still the same. The only thing that is missing is a degree of granularity, as you mentioned, which is somewhat irrelevant because D3 has a wider breadth of options to accommodate more options with character customization.

How does width make up for an almost complete lack of depth? And I mean other than "I don't care about the actual process and gameplay of customisation at all".

In your diagram Gel, it appears as though you are objecting to the notion of 'at level 16, you have access to these skills and these passives', because that to you doesn't represent choice in designing your character. However, pt allocation does the exact same thing; at level 16, depending on how you allocate your points, you will have access to these skills and these passives'. The granularity argument is still somewhat incorrect, as the difference between a lvl 89 and lvl 90 character is only going to be 5 stat pts and 1 skillpt, hardly a difference that represents customization. This comes down to character milestones; you like feeling in control of what you unlock at each milestone with an illusion of control (skill pts in Ice, or Fire), and D3 takes away unlocks as something you can control, and instead gives you selection.

The difference between putting 10 pts in Holy and 5 pts in Discipline at 25th level to unlock Chakra and the +5% crit passive is exactly the same as being level 25 when Chakra unlocks and slotting it and the +5 crit passive.

I explicitly explained everything about my diagram. In fact I didn't even need my diagram, I just put it there just in case it helped someone understand everything I ranted about above it. Yet you're all like "It appears like you're saying X and Y with that Diagram"... well, how about you just read what I said and then it won't 'appear' like anything, it 'will' be me saying something. The diagram isn't a stand-alone load-bearing pillar whose context you can ignore while you bowl it over. It's the victorian architrave along the corners of the room.

It has nothing to do with unlocks and milestones. I've already explained this. Building your house in The Sims 3 is 'customisation gameplay', thats why its fun. If all possible houses were enumerated into 'preset' numbers and the BUILDING (like building a character) was switched with 'select the house you want out of a list' then it would be a terrible game. Same goes for all the other games. It doesn't matter that the end result is identical, it's about how the customisation plays. In fact I specifically chose identical customisation breadth to show how depth is completely different and why it matters.

Obviously we can't really argue about this until the game comes out, but remember, ability damage tied to weapon, not 'pts dumped into a skill', so barring balance issues, all attack skills will do competitive damage per mana, and have situational utility that makes it 'better' than other skills. But, again, I posted a build I would use for my Witch Doctor, modified it, and then people posted builds they would tinker with for a barb. Why don't you post a build and start a dialog about it? Also, I challenged you to put forth a D2 build that we would recreate in D3 equivalencies, and am still waiting to hear you refute this challenge.

It doesn't matter what is competitive or not, it matters what is best. That is what cookiecutter builds are, the builds people go when they just want to do the best advantage, the highest dps, the best survivability, etc. By definition, there will be a best setup for well defined combat scenarios.

Of your list, I have played Oblivion, ME1 and 2, D2, WoW, and SO2.If you added respecs to ME, Oblivion, and SO2, I wouldn't consider the amount of 'customization' to be an iota different than the customization available in D3. Just sayin'.

Why '"Just sayin'"? Have I not said 10 times already that my objection to D3's customisation has exactly nothing to do with respeccing or the 'amount' of customisation? My whole last post was to point out this fact... that "wide" means "broad" as in "breadth of options" or like the phrase "a wide array of topics", etc. This is in contrast to "deep" which refers to gameplay mechanics as in "The game has very deep gameplay" or similar to "They got deep into the subject at hand" or "Wow! Thats, like, really deep man!". Please note that my criticism of D3 is that it's customisation is shallow... as in it's mechanics, it's customisation gameplay, not that it's customisation is narrow, which it, of course, isn't.

You can 'just say' a lot of things but the implication in your post, as it is a reply to mine, is that this is a point against my argument. It isn't.

ME has unbearably shallow customization (4-5 skills per character, an ultimate choice of '+20% damage or +20% hp', and as we know, and end game that renders all your storyline choices to 'red, blue, or green ending')

ME, not ME3.



I should also mention that pointing out problems with D2's skill system is not a defense of D3, this should be obvious. But I will make one little comment in all that was said about D2's skill system just recently:

You either put points in Bone Spirit or Bone Javelin (or whatever it was called), and splitting your points between the two means you're shooting yourself in the foot. But wanna be a Wizard with both Fire ball and Ice Storm? You can do that in D3! Yet another way that D2's specialization actually led to a lack of choices/options, instead of an abundance of choices/options.

Um... no, you absolutely do put points into both Spirit and Spear. And not just as synergies either, you need Spear for groups/lines of monsters and Spirit for PvP or single targets.

In D2, Trispec Sorc was extremely common for doing hell mode, as was dual speccing. I'm sure you can come up with other examples that express what you wanted to express, D2 wasn't perfect. But those specific examples you gave are just completely wrong, just a bad choice of examples.

[Vaniver]

I explicitly explained everything about my diagram.

The test of an explanation is whether the target understood it, not whether the source understood it.

If all possible houses were enumerated into 'preset' numbers and the BUILDING (like building a character) was switched with 'select the house you want out of a list' then it would be a terrible game.

The real reason why this is terrible is the combinatorics, right? Finding the house I want is way easier when I specify it wall by wall, rather than trying to pick one out of a massively large set. That would take a lot of scrolling past houses I don't want to get to the one I do want.

But, that isn't how things are done in D3- you pick your build skill by skill. Sure, it only takes 15 clicks rather than 100- but I don't think them increasing clicking efficiency is worth getting worked up about.

[Izawwlgood]

How does width make up for an almost complete lack of depth? And I mean other than "I don't care about the actual process and gameplay of customisation at all".

You can repeat this point all you want, and we can continue explaining to you why 'depth' doesn't appear to mean what you think it means by the definitions the rest of us are using to describe various aspects of game play, but frankly, I'm getting tired of going in circles about this.
The only thing you've managed to convey so far is you like clicking 500 stat pts and 100 skill pts instead of slotting skills. You haven't demonstrated why the former is 'deeper' than the latter.

Building your house in The Sims 3 is 'customisation gameplay', thats why its fun. If all possible houses were enumerated into 'preset' numbers and the BUILDING

I've never played The Sims, but don't you select things from an available list? Like, you design a room by putting up walls, and then selecting from a preset pool of wallpapers, and then place a chair which comes from a preset pool of chairs, and then a table from a preset pool of tables. And yes, I wager you can design your own items, be they hair styles or clothes or wallpapers, but doesn't most of your selection in the game come from picking from a pool of what's available? How is this 'deeper' or different from picking skills from a pool of what's available to your character at that level?

t doesn't matter what is competitive or not, it matters what is best. That is what cookiecutter builds are, the builds people go when they just want to do the best advantage, the highest dps, the best survivability, etc. By definition, there will be a best setup for well defined combat scenarios.

Until the game is out, neither you nor I can claim that there will or will not be a 'best' build. I have explicitly told you why I think there will not be, and you have repeated that there will be. I have also explicitly told you why the degree of flexibility that you have is actually wider and more nuanced than what is available in D2.

This is in contrast to "deep" which refers to gameplay mechanics as in "The game has very deep gameplay" or similar to "They got deep into the subject at hand" or "Wow! Thats, like, really deep man!". Please note that my criticism of D3 is that it's customisation is shallow... as in it's mechanics, it's customisation gameplay, not that it's customisation is narrow, which it, of course, isn't.

This whole time you've been solely objecting to the MECHANIC of how you design your character? Not the content, or available skills, or types of builds you'd like to see, but the physical MECHANIC of clicking 500 + 100 times vs moving abilities around slots?

Just... just confirm for me that I'm reading this correctly before I respond to that.

You can 'just say' a lot of things but the implication in your post, as it is a reply to mine, is that this is a point against my argument. It isn't.

Oh it most certainly is; you were claiming that those games had 'great degrees of customization in gameplay or character design'. They do not.

ME, not ME3.

Did you ever play Super Metroid? Remember how you could rescue the bird creature that taught you how to HyperDash, and the three little green dudes who taught you how to wall jump? And for your fun little effort, you are rewarded with this change to the final cut scene (skip to 9:10). Yes. See that little dot moving? That's their ship! You rescued them! If you fail to rescue them, that ship doesn't show up.

That's about the extent of impact your choices have in the ME universe. You can take actions to end up with different characters, and take actions to get different cut scenes. You can slot points to max out a skill you like, of 3-4, and then choose between more damage, or more hp when you specialize into your advanced class.

Um... no, you absolutely do put points into both Spirit and Spear. And not just as synergies either, you need Spear for groups/lines of monsters and Spirit for PvP or single targets.

In D2, Trispec Sorc was extremely common for doing hell mode, as was dual speccing. I'm sure you can come up with other examples that express what you wanted to express, D2 wasn't perfect. But those specific examples you gave are just completely wrong, just a bad choice of examples.

Perhaps they were. I was under the impression that splitting points between Spirit and Spear simply resulted in lackluster damage for either, situationally or otherwise. This was something I hated about D2; only my skill point allocation had any influence on my abilities damage. I suppose a better example would have been pumping points into a Barbarians, say, Sword Specialty, and then using a Spear.

You still haven't answered my question about WoW. Did dual speccing and respec make the game worse?

[Gelsamel]

The real reason why this is terrible is the combinatorics, right? Finding the house I want is way easier when I specify it wall by wall, rather than trying to pick one out of a massively large set. That would take a lot of scrolling past houses I don't want to get to the one I do want.

But, that isn't how things are done in D3- you pick your build skill by skill. Sure, it only takes 15 clicks rather than 100- but I don't think them increasing clicking efficiency is worth getting worked up about.

No, not right. Regardless of the effort taking place, it would be a terrible game. Even if one could peruse and decide which house they wanted out of the trillions and variations in the same amount of time and amount of effort it would take to build the house normally, it would still be terrible. Really, would anyone play a house building game where the house building gameplay/mechanics consist of choosing a house from a list? Even if you could ultimately have any sort of hourse?

The gameplay is what is at stake in this example. All other things equal: effort, breadth of customisation, time, monotonuousness, whatever; Which is more fun? Building a house bit by bit, laying the walls, choosing the wallpaper, taking part in all those "customisation choices" (a phrase I've used before, I'm sure you'll notice) is the whole point and the whole fun of the gameplay. Well, perhaps not the whole fun, some of the fun is admiring your work (or in the case of "choosing a preset" admiring your choice). But would you really play The Sims if it lacked the gameplay of building the custom stuff you want (custom character, custom house, custom job, custom life, etc) it would have never have been as successful. The Sims without customisation gameplay isn't The Sims... it's Progress Quest!

Of course, this is because in The Sims.... virtually the only gameplay there is IS customisation gameplay. So if you remove that gameplay there is nothing left, just Progress Quest. In D3 if you remove customisation gameplay there is still a bunch of combat stuff going on, so D3 isn't progress quest by any stretch... but it is absolutely lacking for anyone who really likes to build character, who loves the gameplay and process of customisation. Most other RPGs which offer ANY customisation at all, usually offer the customisation as actual gameplay itself, a process to be enjoyed in and of itself, rather than 'just choose whatever gun loadouts you want'. In some games this might result in micromanagement, sure. But many games with customisation gameplay don't. The only thing I'm specifically arguing for is deep customisation gameplay, not micromanagement.

If D3 changes to have deep customisation gameplay by using micromanagement, then perhaps I'll like it! But not because of micromanagement, but because of the customisation gameplay. If D3 changes to have deep customisation gameplay via some other method that isn't related to micromanagement, then perhaps I'll like it! It's the deep customisation gameplay I want, not any specific implementation of it.

And just in case, I'll once more point out, using this example, why effort, permenance and respeccing has nothing to do with why I dislike D3's customisation. Because The Sims 3 with infinite money cheat on, and 'level up your character instantly'/'change your character to whaterver, whenever' mod/cheat is still just as fun and still has just as much depth in the 'customisation gameplay'. Yet, if we changed The Sims, or any other game I listed, to having a character building system like D3, they would all be considered poor games for people who love to build and customise characters, especially in the RPG genre... although maybe people will still enjoy them as action games (or FPSes), or works of art, of parodies of EverQuest.



Ninja, just a sec....

[Izawwlgood]

As a quick aside, I think The Sims isn't a terribly pertinent example for you here; it's like saying PhotoShop offers a more open ended creative experience than Tetris.

[Vaniver]

No, not right. Regardless of the effort taking place, it would be a terrible game. Even if one could peruse and decide which house they wanted out of the trillions and variations in the same amount of time and amount of effort it would take to build the house normally, it would still be terrible. Really, would anyone play a house building game where the house building gameplay/mechanics consist of choosing a house from a list? Even if you could ultimately have any sort of hourse?

I really don't see why you think this is terrible. Is it a hatred of lists as a user interface?

Part of my problem is that I can't imagine an example where a list takes as much time as independent choices. Suppose I select 5 cards from a deck of playing cards, where order matters. Suppose I consider every possible card each time, and it takes me 1 second to consider a card. That's 52+51+50+49+48=250 seconds of consideration, but the number of possible resulting hands isn't the sum, it's the product- 312 million. Now I try to pick that hand from a list of all possible hands, and suppose it still took me a second to consider each hand. Now we're talking a decade to choose the hand, instead of four minutes. That's what 'time and effort' looks like to me- the number of potential hands I could end up with from making 5 sequential choices over 4 minutes is way higher than the number of hands I could end up with from making 1 choice over 4 minutes, because the first is 312 million choices and the second is 250 choices.

It looks like D3 is in the "independent choices leading to combinatoric possibilities" camp, not the "choose from a list" camp. So the reason this bothers you is opaque to me.

"customisation choices"

So, when I choose to play a (male) (wizard) named (Vaniv), whose build looks like this, it's true that the build isn't unique. It can be expressed with a single seventeen character string- ackjTm!cXT!YaYcbc. (There are only fifteen choices, so I imagine the ! are unnecessary.)

But I didn't select that from a list- I went, letter by letter, and customized it to be what I wanted it to be over the course of fifteen choices (eighteen if you count the class, sex, and name). That feels like customization choices to me.

[Gelsamel]

Well since I'm not double posting now I'll put this in a new post:

You can repeat this point all you want, and we can continue explaining to you why 'depth' doesn't appear to mean what you think it means by the definitions the rest of us are using to describe various aspects of game play, but frankly, I'm getting tired of going in circles about this.
The only thing you've managed to convey so far is you like clicking 500 stat pts and 100 skill pts instead of slotting skills. You haven't demonstrated why the former is 'deeper' than the latter.

I've already explained what I mean by the words I use, yet you insist to approach my own argument using the definitions I explicitly pointed out that I am not using... this is strawman in its purest form.

In any case, who is "we"? Have you really never heard the phrase "breadth of options" or "on wide array of topics". This is how these words are commonly used. 'Depth' and 'deep' are used to refer to things like profoundness. If I said D3 has a "wide array of customisation options" would you disgaree? Would you advocate I use the word 'deep' there instead? "D3 has a deep amount of customisation options"?

Of course, it doesn't matter anyway. I've explained myself to you and you continue to insist I am using words in ways I told you I wasn't using them. If you really want to continue that game, then I'm going to stop playing.

I've never played The Sims, but don't you select things from an available list? Like, you design a room by putting up walls, and then selecting from a preset pool of wallpapers, and then place a chair which comes from a preset pool of chairs, and then a table from a preset pool of tables. And yes, I wager you can design your own items, be they hair styles or clothes or wallpapers, but doesn't most of your selection in the game come from picking from a pool of what's available? How is this 'deeper' or different from picking skills from a pool of what's available to your character at that level?

You're picking out another single example from my list and nitpick one little fact about it while ignoring everything else about the example (not the first time). In The Sims you are limited by what choices you have, of course. Just like in D2 and Skyrim and WoW and D&D there are finite predefined talents/skills/feats/etc. But in all these games it's not 'pick from pools 1 2 and 3' that is the customisation gameplay.... in The Sims it's how you place your items and your walls and shit. In the other games it's how you build your character and how you decide how far you're going into one tree, or how many points you'll spend somewhere or elsewhere. Or in Sim City it's how and where you'll place roads and residential zones and other shit. SURE in Sim City there is only roads and 3 types of zones then special buildings to choose from... those a pools, right? Just the same as D3! False. Obviously every game is going to have predefined options to choose from but it isn't the options themselves that make the customisation gameplay.... it's the MECHANICS OF CUSTOMISATION (for the 50th time).

Yes, in D3 it's how you choose your loadout, D3 has customisation gameplay absolutely... but it's not deep customisation gameplay.

Until the game is out, neither you nor I can claim that there will or will not be a 'best' build. I have explicitly told you why I think there will not be, and you have repeated that there will be. I have also explicitly told you why the degree of flexibility that you have is actually wider and more nuanced than what is available in D2.

By definition there has to be a best build for well defined combat scenarios. You explicitly told me things I already know, don't contend, and have nothing to do with min/maxing.

As long as skills and passives and runes are different from eachother there will always be 'best builds' for various levels of 'definition' within a combat scenario. (High levels of definition being: "Against X boss with Y Follower with the goal of minimising kill time" and very low levels of definition being "Best at anything and everything"). The less balanced the system, the less well defined the scenario has to be to accurately declare a 'best build' (with a given goal).

D3 might be balanced enough that builds are very specific (like for running Mephisto Over and Over because you want drops specific to him) rather than generalised (Hammerdin beats everything) but there will ALWAYS be a best build for well enough defined combat scenarios... with the exception that ALL builds are exactly the same (in which case all builds are the best builds).

This whole time you've been solely objecting to the MECHANIC of how you design your character? Not the content, or available skills, or types of builds you'd like to see, but the physical MECHANIC of clicking 500 + 100 times vs moving abilities around slots?

Just... just confirm for me that I'm reading this correctly before I respond to that.

I'm talking about the mechanics as in gameplay mechanics, yes. Not as in physical mechanics of my finger. Your characterisation of me wanting people to click hundreds of times, however, is a complete and utter bullshit strawman you're projecting on my argument. Where have I once indicated that what I'm looking for in D3 is to click hundreds of times?

Oh it most certainly is; you were claiming that those games had 'great degrees of customization in gameplay or character design'. They do not.

... What? You said that ME/Oblivion and SO2 wouldn't be "an iota" different to the "amount of customisation" available in D3 if you added respeccing... I just pointed out that I have never been talking about respeccing or the amount of end builds one can have.

Did you ever play Super Metroid? Remember how you could rescue the bird creature that taught you how to HyperDash, and the three little green dudes who taught you how to wall jump? And for your fun little effort, you are rewarded with this change to the final cut scene (skip to 9:10). Yes. See that little dot moving? That's their ship! You rescued them! If you fail to rescue them, that ship doesn't show up.

That's about the extent of impact your choices have in the ME universe. You can take actions to end up with different characters, and take actions to get different cut scenes. You can slot points to max out a skill you like, of 3-4, and then choose between more damage, or more hp when you specialize into your advanced class.

In ME the first you have many more than 3 skills. Many more than a few guns with mods (like in ME2/3). And your effect on the universe is a lot more than the affect you have in ME3 (although I wasn't talking so much about the effect you have on the world, more the customisation gameplay you have in creating a pretty looking Shepard and choosing which skills and stats to build up over the course of the game).

Perhaps they were. I was under the impression that splitting points between Spirit and Spear simply resulted in lackluster damage for either, situationally or otherwise. This was something I hated about D2; only my skill point allocation had any influence on my abilities damage. I suppose a better example would have been pumping points into a Barbarians, say, Sword Specialty, and then using a Spear.

Spear is a Spirit synergy so you max it anyway... even if, for some reason, you never chose to use spear. But I think a better example would be that a trap assassin will essentially never ever use high end martial assassin skills.

You still haven't answered my question about WoW. Did dual speccing and respec make the game worse?

Why is this a question? Again, as a question and reply towards me it implies my answer has some effect on my argument. It doesn't. Respeccing has nothing to do with anything I've said so far.

As long as you understand that, I'll answer you:

Dual speccing made WoW better as a game, because it made raid and party setup much more flexible and allowed people to get into the action quicker without worrying about having the gold or the possibility that the run might be canceled and they might have to switch back or a thousand other little frustrations introduced by WoW using a role-based class/spec differentiating mechanic.

I can only speculate how WoW would be without respecs, as I don't remember a time when you couldn't respec in WoW... but I suspect it wouldn't be as enjoyable.




Ninja'd again, got damnit: Vaniver, it's a hypothetical to show why the mechanics themselves matter, and not just the breadth of options. Of course it's not physically possible for you to choose from the enumerated list with the same effort and time as otherwise... those constraints are controls for comparison.

[Vaniver]

Ninja'd again, got damnit: Vaniver, it's a hypothetical to show why the mechanics themselves matter, and not just the breadth of options. Of course it's not physically possible for you to choose from the enumerated list with the same effort and time as otherwise... those constraints are controls for comparison.

In my mind, the mechanics matter because they determine the number of possible combinations and choosing time. Is there another metric to measure them on?

To continue with my playing card example, what if I didn't pick cards, but instead picked suit and number separately? The exact same resulting hands are possible, but now it's ten choices, which takes me (4+13=17)*5=85 seconds (that's a slight overestimate, since I won't consider numbers I've already picked).

I have the same number of resulting hands, but it took me less time to choose. That sounds like an improvement on some axis- but I don't know if I would call it "customizability," or even "depth."

As far as I can tell, your argument boils down to "instead of choosing which guns to take out of my arsenal and use, I want to choose which guns to own and carry all of them all the time." That's a fine preference to have, but my preference is firmly the other way,* and I really don't see how that cashes out as D3's system being "shallow." Even "less constrained" is not true- they're just different kinds of constraints.

*I recently played through Bastion, which is marvelous, and explicitly uses an arsenal to limit you to 2 weapons out of ~12 at any particular time. I used, and got good with, many weapons that I simply would never have touched in a weapon tree system, because they didn't match my normal playstyle, but because of the weapon introduction system and weapon-specific challenges I tried them out and found them to be more fun than expected. I look forward to having something similar in a Diablo game- instead of having to spend hours getting a Druid up to 30 just to see what Hurricane does, I can just take my Druid that I leveled up to 30 as a werewolf and change his loadout. I'd much rather experiment with potential characters in the game than in my imagination.

[Izawwlgood]

've already explained what I mean by the words I use, yet you insist to approach my own argument using the definitions I explicitly pointed out that I am not using... this is strawman in its purest form.

Hardly, this is you continually declining to acknowledge the arguments being put forth and insisting that what you actually mean is something that no one else seems to understand, and making a very poor attempt to clarify. We're going in circles here because you are continually dismissing everyone's contentions to your complaints as 'not what I'm talking about'.

Have you really never heard the phrase "breadth of options" or "on wide array of topics". This is how these words are commonly used. 'Depth' and 'deep' are used to refer to things like profoundness. If I said D3 has a "wide array of customisation options" would you disgaree? Would you advocate I use the word 'deep' there instead? "D3 has a deep amount of customisation options"?

I have certainly heard this phrase, and I would certainly apply both 'depth of options' and breadth of options' to D3, and, as I've repeatedly stated now, I would go so far as to state that what I've seen of D3's skill layout/availabilities, that D3 customization is deeper and wider than D2.

You're picking out another single example from my list and nitpick one little fact about it while ignoring everything else about the example (not the first time).

You're getting quite rude here, so I'll address this first;
I'm contending an point you brought up in an effort to prove your position. You have done this very same thing to me, such as by pointing out how my point about spreading points between Spear and Spirit was a poor one. Kindly drop your attitude; I'll happily stop discussing this with you if you can't be decent in the exchange.

Just like in D2 and Skyrim and WoW and D&D there are finite predefined talents/skills/feats/etc. But in all these games it's not 'pick from pools 1 2 and 3' that is the customisation gameplay....[stuff about the sims] In the other games it's how you build your character and how you decide how far you're going into one tree, or how many points you'll spend somewhere or elsewhere.

This is really confusing to me; that is ABSOLUTELY how you pick your skills.

Or in Sim City it's how and where you'll place roads and residential zones and other shit. SURE in Sim City there is only roads and 3 types of zones then special buildings to choose from... those a pools, right? Just the same as D3! False.

Yes, my previous point about this was you are comparing, for example, Photoshop to Tetris. An open sand box creation game like Sim City should be compared to an open sand box creation game like Caesar. Saying Sim City or The Sims have more freedom in what you do, more customization of your city than your character in D1-3 or ME1-3 or whatever is a completely useless comparison.

it's the MECHANICS OF CUSTOMISATION (for the 50th time).

I'm still confused as to what you mean by this, and this is quite frustrating, because I asked you directly what you meant, and your only reply was;

I'm talking about the mechanics as in gameplay mechanics, yes. Not as in physical mechanics of my finger. Your characterisation of me wanting people to click hundreds of times, however, is a complete and utter bullshit strawman you're projecting on my argument. Where have I once indicated that what I'm looking for in D3 is to click hundreds of times?

So, understand; you are not being clear with what you mean by 'mechanics of customization as in gameplay mechanics'. So I will ask you again; do you mean to say that 'greater customization' comes at your ability to allocate 500 stat points and 100 skill points over 4 stats and ~30 skills?

As long as skills and passives and runes are different from eachother there will always be 'best builds' for various levels of 'definition' within a combat scenario.

If your definition of 'best' is 'most dps', then I think you'll find your enjoyment of the game is lessened. I wager there'll be multiple effective builds that do a variety of different things well, from CC, to high protection, to high mobility, etc. You can always go the Glass Cannon route if you want, but there's more to character builds than just that.

... What? You said that ME/Oblivion and SO2 wouldn't be "an iota" different to the "amount of customisation" available in D3 if you added respeccing... I just pointed out that I have never been talking about respeccing or the amount of end builds one can have.

Yes, I understood your position that respeccing isn't the issue about three exchanges ago, which is why I have dropped that line of discussion with you. I stand by the notion that ME/Oblivion and SO2 don't have significantly more or less customization than D2 or D3. SO2, for example, is a race to maximizing ALL the traits so you can have each character craft their optimal item; by lvl 80 or so, you haven't made any one character sizably different from the other in a way that reflects personal choice with their play style.

In ME the first you have many more than 3 skills. Many more than a few guns with mods (like in ME2/3). And your effect on the universe is a lot more than the affect you have in ME3 (although I wasn't talking so much about the effect you have on the world, more the customisation gameplay you have in creating a pretty looking Shepard and choosing which skills and stats to build up over the course of the game).

I'm going to argue this point as well. ME1 had something like 7 or 8 skills per class + 1 class specific skills (Krogan Warlord type things). Upon maxing the class specific skill, you could then choose between 'more damage' or 'more hp'. That is not deep customization, and is most certainly strikingly less than what is available in D3.
Furthermore, the guns and mods were simply a glut of slightly different junk items, the equivalent of turning the drop rate up in Diablo and making you decide between every item that comes along. Not indicative of 'customization'.
And finally, the story choices where nothing new and nothing terribly deep. Do you want to punch the orphan in the face, or help her find her kitty? +5 renegade or +5 paragon! Do you tell Ashley to sacrifice herself, or the other guy? That's who isn't in your team. These kinds of options are vaguely reminiscent actually of SO, but shallower and less in number.

Dual speccing made WoW better as a game, because it made raid and party setup much more flexible and allowed people to get into the action quicker without worrying about having the gold or the possibility that the run might be canceled and they might have to switch back or a thousand other little frustrations introduced by WoW using a role-based class/spec differentiating mechanic.

Ok, so we are on the same page that increasing play flexibility and improving upon the speed at which people get into the action is a good thing.

But I think a better example would be that a trap assassin will essentially never ever use high end martial assassin skills.

Ah, ok, thanks. Do you see/agree that that doesn't appear to be something that will happen in D3, and do you think that said trap assassin never using other assassin skills is a bad thing?

And what Vaniver said; the point about why D3's system is preferable completely boils down to this. More flexibility and control over my character is a good thing.